massacre at Windy City Core Supply might have been prevented

[WAGCEVP]

massacre at Windy City Core Supply might have been prevented

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sen03.html

Last week's massacre at Windy City Core Supply might have been prevented
had the employees been allowed to carry concealed weapons, the latest
declared Republican U.S. Senate candidate said Tuesday.?? "Would Chicago
have been averted? Possibly," said retired Air Force Maj. John Borling.
"If somebody had been able to take a gun from out from under the counter
and defend themselves, that might have made a big difference."

 

[dinosaur]

Is he kidding? Someone could have been seriously hurt! :banghead:

 

[Baba Louie]

In a city where dead people vote the democratic ticket?

Not bloody likely.

Adios

 

[Standing Wolf]

Lives are considerably more difficult to replace than jobs.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Had they been allowed to carry in the workplace? Correct that. Had they been allowed to carry by law is the first hurdle and then after that if they had been allowed to carry in the workplace if allowed by law. Businesses are not going to allow employees to break the law, although some do have unwritten rules of don't ask and don't tell and they helps keep them in good graces legally and with liability.

Yes, it might have been prevented had employees been allowed to carry firearms and did in fact carry firearms and did in fact know how to use the firearms. It might have been prevented if they had armed security on the property as well. Had the employees worn body armor, many of the injuries and deaths might have been prevented. Had the business had in place a low incidence high consequence dissaster plan in place, inclusive of violent attacks, more people would have done better. Had the business had an emergency panic alarm system, the police would have been summoned sooner and given their response, likely could have arrived before more were hurt.

From the article, "Borling favors a law allowing licensed gun owners to carry their weapons at restaurants, shopping malls and even the workplace." That is great so long as the proprietor of the workplace is willing to let guns be carried.

Had the gun been under the counter as Borling suggested, no doubt the disgruntled employee would have started where he knew the gun was staged.

You can play the 'what if' game all you want and to a certain extent, many of the 'what if' scenarios will show a definite higher rate or higher probability of critical incident survival. Unfortunately, few business not already involved in certain types of sensitive materials or extremely high value goods ever take the time to have developed such plans or go through dry run or simulation training. While there may be the occasional fire drill or some other specific sort of job-related crisis drill, how many businesses practice shooting rampage drills?

This goes for individuals as well. If I understand correctly, owning a pistol in Chicago may be tough and legally carrying conceal very tough. How many folks live in the Chicago area, or any other area where guns aren't legally allowed or allowed to be carried that actively engage in alternative forms defensive training? How many folks have a plan in mind for what they would do in the case of a critical incident such as this?

One of the unfortunately aspects of these events is that the nature of the incident often goes way beyond the comprehension skills of many people and they fail to react in a manner that is directed to slowing or stopping the shooter. Typically, they tend to run or they tend to hide. Some stare blankly in disbelief as the event unfolds. I don't the specifics of the event described, but I do know from many other similar events that the victims often have a large variety of improvisational weapons available to them and fail to use them. Few work in a concerted effort with others.

Of course there are some exceptions where intended victims did try to have some control over their destiny. The plane that crashed in the field on 9/11 was the result of the passengers mounting an organized effort to take back the plane. They did not manage to save themselves, but they did manage to prevent the plane from its probably high population target (some big building somewhere). In one of the school shootings a couple of years ago, it was several students and a faculty member that managed to stop the fellow student shooter.

The incident at Luby's here in Texas is an excellent example of how many folks may behave in such a crisis. As I recall, at least three guys attempted to rush the gunman, but the effort was not organized and he was able to repel them. Some people fled and some of those that attempted to flee did manage to get out alive. Many attempted to hide in place on the ground, under tables, behind tables, etc. Hiding was a poor plan for many as they just presented a motionless target to shoot. What is so terrible about this incident is that all of the diners had a variety of improvisation weapons at their immediate disposal. The gunman shot several from a distance just less than 5 feet. A handful of salt from the salt shaker on every table could have been thrown in the shooter's face. The would quickly blind or significantly slow the shooter. Any number of items could have been used as hand thrown projectiles such as the salt/pepper shakers, eating utensils, plates, drinking glasses, chairs, etc.

Our local PD places one or more officers in junior high and high schools. They have many duties as being a cop on campus but that most significant pertains directly to the low incidence high consequence events such as happened at places like Columbine. They receive 'active shooter' training and the training is refreshed fairly regularly. Active shooter training as pertains to their specific school beat is that they are trained and obligated to essentially engage in a rapid response search and neutralize action. They are not there to wait for backup or serve as the on scene information officer to be able to brief arriving officers on the situation. His job is to neutralize the shooter as quickly as possible in order to save additional lives that would be lost were he to wait for backup. The active shooter training seems contrary to normal tactics as it encourages going in without backup present and quite possibly as the sole tracker. This program is becoming more and more common. Obviously, if multiple officers are stationed at the school, then the response would not be a sole response. For the lone officers, however, the training is very critical. Many lone officers get killed trying to do exactly what this program advocates because they did not wait for backup and because they likely had no real training on this particular type of crisis.

This plan of action came as a direct of what happened at Columbine where LEOs worked at performing a variety of tasks that were by training, but that were not oriented in trying to stop the shooter immediately. They did a perimeter, guided students out to safety, recovered injured students, etc. In retrospect, it was not so much the fault of the officers for what they did or did not do, but the limits of their training the dictated they do what they did do.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Well, at least it won't affect any upcoming election. I think Standing Wolf is correct in that they'll still have their votes counted.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

It might have been prevented if they had armed security on the property as well.

Armed security is a deterrent at best. Likely the security company paying the poor schmoe is going to scrimp on training; he's likely the first target; "well I'm only making $10/hr with little/no benefits and I'm not trained for this so oh well they're on their own."

Side note, a CPD detective IGNORED a bank robbery which may have been in progress (2001)because she was buying bottled water (while parked, ahem, illegally with her unmarked car). The update made the paper in both the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times this week, and is on another thread.

Had the business had an emergency panic alarm system, the police would have been summoned sooner

Quite a few incidents lately involving CPD and response time, or lack of it. Wouldn't hurt, wouldn't necessarily help.

Had the business had in place a low incidence high consequence dissaster plan in place

the former employee would have been aware of it and practiced it. For whatever that is worth.

Had they been allowed to carry in the workplace? Correct that. Had they been allowed to carry by law is the first hurdle and then after that if they had been allowed to carry in the workplace if allowed by law.

No, no and no. No CCW in IL or Cook County or Chicago. No handguns allowed to be registered since 1984. A long gun owned by and stored at the workplace is sketchy at best.

In retrospect, it was not so much the fault of the officers for what they did or did not do, but the limits of their training

and it is impossible to train everyone for every possible event. What was the point of training again?

The employees were NOT allowed to carry so they all died.
If the employees were allowed to carry and chose not to, nothing changes.
If the employees were allowed to carry, did so, and they all died anyway, nothing changes.
If the employees were allowed to carry, did so, and stopped the shooter early, different outcome. But they were never offered the option to carry legally.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Cellar Dweller, the police did respond quickly in this case, but ONLY after the tied up employee got free and made the call. Much of the delay in getting police on scene was due to the inability to summon help.

I don't understand your comments concerning the legality of CCW in Chicago. I made the point clear that it was illegal already. There are two parts to legality in states with concealed carry, however. Borling said it might have been prevented had they been allowed to carry. Great. First hurdle is the state law. The second hurdle is whether or not the business would allow the practice. Borling's naive comments were that the incident might have been prevent if the workers were allowed to carry, but his statements were in relation to the law. He wants the law changed. Changing the law itself would not have changed this situation had the owner not also allowed carry on property. The right to carry firearms does not give the carrier the right to carry onto somebody else's property if the property owner does not wish them to carry there. This includes businesses.

Of course you can't train for every event. With that said, however, folks like you are quick to criticize the cops on a global basis such as with your water reference story. Because some cop did bad elsewhere, the cops would do bad everywhere. Great logic. Folks were quick to blame the cops at Columbine for not racing in and finding the shooters. They didn't race in because they were bad cops, but because they followed their training and so it was found that the training program needed to be changed and now a lot of departments have made that change.

You are SO right that you can't train for every possible event. No doubt about it. My concern is that most companies don't train their employees for any sort of human-based violent events with the exceptions of some retailers, businesses involved with money movement, and businesses involved in sensitive materials. For many retailers, the training is a brief lecture on complying and even then, the concept is that the violent event will be by an outsider, such as a robber, not by a fellow employee.

Unfortunately, it isn't just that the companies don't train employees on how to respond to human-based violence. A lot of companies lack training employees on how to respond to fires or various natural distasters. On the individual level, those same employees usually will not make any concerted efforts to learn to handle these issues themselves. There are some companies and some employees who take very active roles in crisis handling for a variety of situations such as workplace violence, fire, and medical emergencies and those should be saluted. Way too many don't.

No, you can't train for every possible event, but not being able to train for every event does not mean you don't need to train for any events. On top of that, the ludicrous argument that changing the law, as suggested by Borling, might have prevented this specific event is extremely naive. In every state where folks are legally allowed to conceal carry, we still get these sorts of events going on. Once in a while, a bad guy meets up with a concealed carry person in such an event and event less often does the concealed carry person respond with gunfire in a manner that changes the outcome of the event.

Should the law be changed. YES. No doubt about it. But changing the law does not mean that each individual is going to start looking out for their own destiny. Texas has over 21 million people and only 235,000 CHL holders. Of the population, 28% is under 18. I don't know the number, but let's say 33% is under 21. So we have about 14 million old enough for CHLs. The vast majority of the population that is of legal age to have a CHL does not have a CHL.

In short, even with gun friendly laws in place, it is an option for many people and the vast majority will choose NOT to exercise that option and most folks in non gun-friendly states don't attempt to learn any other form of self defense either.

Borling in right that had Ill. had legal concealed carry, thing MIGHT have been different. That is if the company owner allowed it and if the employees had bothered to go through the hoops to carry concealed and taken the time to be proficient. The folks in Chicago did not die because they didn't have concealed carry laws in place.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

folks like you are quick to criticize the cops on a global basis

the Walther used by the perp was previously owned by TWO CPD officers (both deceased), neither of which bothered to register the gun in Chicago, which is MANDATED by city ordinance. And Daley has finally shut up about the easy availability of guns in Chicago since that became public knowledge. At least they arrested the guy who sold it to the first cop in 1994 for not keeping a record of the sale (BTW he's homeless, I doubt he keeps ANY records)...that should make up for it, right? Trust the ones who can't follow the law themselves?

Look, CPD is (I think) the third-largest metro unit in the U.S. Of course there's going to be a few bad apples in any group that size...it's entirely possible to have only 1% out-and-out bad and still staff a district!

Former CPD officers as former gang members.
Former CPD officers selling guns and drugs.
Former CPD brass running street crews and theft rings.
CAGE running stings on gun shops and gun owners. (zero convictions)
CPD Detectives beating confessions out of suspects. (overturned)
IL Death Row overturned completely because so many CPD cases were bad, which gave the idea momentum in the first place.

"Would Chicago have been averted? Possibly," said retired Air Force Maj. John Borling. "If somebody had been able to take a gun from out from under the counter and defend themselves, that might have made a big difference."

Thanks to home-rule, the IL legislature could MANDATE CCW tomorrow (OK, they don't work on Sunday ) for all citizens and buy you the gun of your choice and send you to gunskul and provide you with lots of practice ammo, and CHICAGO's law still preempts.

"What if" the shooter had been killed with an unregistered handgun or shotgun before anyone died? The SD gun's owner would be in jail (fined, with the priviledge of firearms forever denied, but prison averted through a deal cut by the anti-gun County or State's Attorney), the gun confiscated (and ultimately resold on-the-street by a cop to his homiez), and Da Mayor and the Da News ranting about the easy availability of guns in Chicago and even MORE anti-gun legislation introduced. Almost forgot that the shooter's family would sue the auto parts store and the SD gun's owner.

 

[Teufelhunden]

I'm only making $10/hr with little/no benefits and I'm not trained for this so oh well they're on their own."

I'd like to know who's paying $10/hr! Aside from a federal ocntract where I was making $12.50/hr, which doesn't really count since most federal sites are serviced by the FPS (Federal Protective Services), the best I got was $8.50 when we were contracted out to a life insurance branch of GE. Aside, for $8.50, they were looking for people with college degrees and/or extensive military backgrounds. Of course, none of those people actually want a $8.50/hr job. As in all things in life, you get what you pay for.

I'd say pretty much no one wants to pay $10/hr for security--if you pay them that high, you start biting into the money you save on their insurance writeoff too much >:{

-Teuf