Umpqua College

[carracer]

Just heard Umpqua College in Roseburg shooting. Anyone else confirm this?

 

[Grapeshot]

ROSEBURG, Oregon — At least seven people were reportedly killed and more than 20 others injured in a shooting at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College on Thursday morning, Oregon State Police spokesman Bill Fugate told CNN.

http://q13fox.com/2015/10/01/report...ommunity-college-mutiple-fatalities-reported/

Expect knee jerk reactions and dancing.

Death toll upgraded to 10 + 20 injured, some critically.

 

[Grapeshot]

Really?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press-...tatement-on-umpqua-community-college-shooting

--snipped--
/QUOTE]
Educational sanctuary has become synonymous with fish in a barrel. No immediate means of self defense. :banghead:

 

[color of law]

All the talking head experts yapping about campus safety, but not one word about students should be allowed to carry.

One grandparent of a student who also use to work there said that it was a gun free zone and she couldn't understand how this could have happened...:uhoh:

 

[color of law]

The reports say that the police are seeking a warrant to search the shooters house.

My question is where is the warrant to search the students backpacks......

 

[solus]

nothing in the least confrontational of the wrists bent backwards of the young man on the right by the nice LE searching the young man's pockets.

yes, yes, yes...i know the nice LEs need to assure the one in custody doesn't or didn't or whatever the thought process being currently implemented have an accomplice ..but

out LEs have not mastered the psychological profiling employed by other LE entities in foreign lands...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

From the Armed Campuses website:

In an Oregon Court of Appeals case (2011), three judges concluded that Oregon public colleges and universities no longer have authority to ban weapons on the physical grounds of a campus. Each school does however, have discretion as to whether to permit concealed handguns inside buildings, dormitories, event centers, and classrooms. Private colleges and universities may still prohibit weapons throughout the entire campus including grounds.

On March, 2, 2012, the Oregon Higher Education Board voted unanimously to ban weapons in all seven state colleges and universities.

...

As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings. No private universities permit weapons on campus grounds.

So, while someone can technically carry a gun legally onto the campus of public colleges in Oregon, anyone attending classes is effectively disarmed from the last location they can store their firearms. At best, this would be inside their car in a parking lot somewhere on campus. Most likely, most often, I would expect that most everyone attending classes is going to be disarmed from the moment they leave home...assuming "home" is something private and off campus, rather than a dormitory.

In other words, for all intents and purposes, Oregon colleges are all defenseless victim zones.

But the problem is caused by where and how the murderer (notice how the media calls them a "shooter" when they use a gun, rarely are they called a "pugilist" if they use their fists, or a "stabber" if they use a knife) got his guns, not that his victims were all fish in a barrel.

Charles

 

[solus]

of things i find it interesting...
when i first heard about this event right after it was broadcast my ping on the local news report stated the perpetrator was in 'custody' yet when i turned the news on a few minutes ago...perpetrator was dead or as the sheriff stated at a news conference: male shooter had been "neutralized" and was dead after an exchange of gunfire with responding officers.

and the records will be sealed forever...

ipse

 

[Lord Sega]

Oregon public colleges are mostly gun-free zones. Courts ruled they cannot avoid state preemption law (ORS 166.170), but they can have contractual rules that apply to faculty staff, employees, students, and contracted companies.

A person that has no ties to the public college can carry a firearm on campus (public buildings require a CHL), but guaranteed that they would try to say you are "disrupting" the college learning experiance and go for a trespassing charge (shouldn't hold up in court, but who wants to go though the system... time & money).

Note: this community college has a higher average age (like 30ish) and you have to be 21 to get a CHL.
Sad that these rules keep CHL holding students / staff from carrying, they might have had someone (especially former military) who could have responded sooner and kept the body count lower.

Expect the Oregon legislature and anti-gunners to push for more restrictive laws no matter if they would have any effect on this or other shootings.

 

[Lord Sega]

Side question, under what authority can law enforcement require the backpack/bag search (and apparently person search) of everyone on the campus? Looks like a mass violation of the 4th amendment (unless the person voluntarily submits).

 

[utbagpiper]

Side question, under what authority can law enforcement require the backpack/bag search (and apparently person search) of everyone on the campus? Looks like a mass violation of the 4th amendment (unless the person voluntarily submits).

I am not a lawyer and please do not take my response as any kind of agreement with what the police are doing.

But, to answer your question as best I can, my guess would be that the police would appeal to the "exigent circumstance" doctrine. This is what allows them to kick in a door without a warrant when they hear someone screaming for help from inside.

Notice that the constitution prohibits "unreasonable" search and seizure. Warrants are issued pursuant to sworn testimony and other restrictions. But the courts have held (for better or worse) that certain searches and seizures are "reasonable" even in the absence of a warrant.

With several dead bodies in a confined area I expect the courts would uphold the power of police to do a quick search of persons and effects in the area in the interest of immediate public safety against a 2nd potential shooter (or even the 1st until he is in custody).

Again, I'm not saying I agree this is right, it is just my best understanding of the way it is.

Now, where it would get really interesting is if the search turned up something illegal (stolen property, drugs, or kiddie porn for example) that had no connection to immediate, exigent public safety. Do the courts allow that to be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution since the search itself was "reasonable"? Or do they toss the evidence since it was found only as a result of a search for something entirely different? I do not know.

Charles

 

[color of law]

Side question, under what authority can law enforcement require the backpack/bag search (and apparently person search) of everyone on the campus? Looks like a mass violation of the 4th amendment (unless the person voluntarily submits).

View attachment 12776View attachment 12777

Terry v. Ohio
Cops can only do a pat-down for weapons. For a search cops need a warrant.

 

[solus]

Terry v. Ohio
Cops can only do a pat-down for weapons. For a search cops need a warrant.

so color a query...based on your understanding, does terry permit the wrist twisting showing in the earlier foto or is that a officer safety mentality? especially since it seems the students are compliant...

ipse

 

[color of law]

so color a query...based on your understanding, does terry permit the wrist twisting showing in the earlier foto or is that a officer safety mentality? especially since it seems the students are compliant...

ipse

That falls into one of those exception categories that the USSC has not defined yet.

 

[Grapeshot]

so color a query...based on your understanding, does terry permit the wrist twisting showing in the earlier foto or is that a officer safety mentality? especially since it seems the students are compliant...

ipse

The debail is in the details.

 

[STLDaniel]

Now, where it would get really interesting is if the search turned up something illegal (stolen property, drugs, or kiddie porn for example) that had no connection to immediate, exigent public safety. Do the courts allow that to be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution since the search itself was "reasonable"? Or do they toss the evidence since it was found only as a result of a search for something entirely different? I do not know.

As long as the evidence of criminal activity is found through an otherwise lawful way, it can be used even if unrelated. For instance, if a drug dog alerts on a car, and they find kiddie porn, they will be charged. Evidence can only get thrown out if you can find it was found through an unlawful (not unrelated) means. The debate as to whether these backpack searches is legal would be their best defense, not the unrelated nature.

 

[utbagpiper]

As long as the evidence of criminal activity is found through an otherwise lawful way, it can be used even if unrelated. For instance, if a drug dog alerts on a car, and they find kiddie porn, they will be charged. Evidence can only get thrown out if you can find it was found through an unlawful (not unrelated) means. The debate as to whether these backpack searches is legal would be their best defense, not the unrelated nature.

Thank you for the information.

I guess the intent is to protect against unlawful searches, not to make it needlessly difficult to prosecute crimes, so this makes sense.

On the flip side, what good is the requirement for warrants to describe the particular place to be searched and items for which the search is conducted, if anything found can then be used? It would seem, based on what you've posted, that once a valid warrant is issued, any evidence, of any crime, discovered during the lawful search is fair game even if the item described in the warrant is never found. Seems kind of a big and dangerous loophole.

"We can't get enough PC for a warrant to search his books, but we found a joint on the guy and can get a warrant to search his home for weed, which could be hidden inside any of his file folders or ledgers......"

Or have I missed something.

Charles

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Looks like assault by LEO.

Could result in nerve damage.

I hope it results in a massive lawsuit.

 

[solus]

That falls into one of those exception categories that the USSC has not defined yet.

thanks...wondered about that...

ipse

 

[OC4me]

I just want to add some new information/understanding to what has been posted so far regarding the gun-free zone status of Umpqua Community College. Here goes (from another blogger replying to a post I made on another site):

"The 7 schools covered in that 2012 ban (on prohibiting concealed carry on campus) were all the public, 4-year universities in the state, which means UCC (Umpqua Community College) was not part of that ban since it's a 2-year community college. The community colleges in the state were able to make their own rules based on that 2011 (a previous Oregon Supreme Court) ruling and most (if not all) have gone with not allowing guns in any campus buildings." (my edits in parenthesis for clarity)

So if the above is true, then we have a TOTAL gun ban on the Umpqua campus, not just inside the buildings. This is consistent with the published Umpqua security policy that outlines their status as a weapons-free institution (screen grabs of this policy are available on the net - the relevant school web page was down/unavailable last time I checked).

Also, all Umpqua's security guards were unarmed (according to the college president).

Umpqua's gun-free zone status is important, because I've been to a lot of anti-gun leaning sites/blogs today and have noticed a great many misleadng posts stating that Umpqua was not a gun-free zone and therefore the pro-gun argument that guns save lives or at least deter these mass murders is false. They are misunderstanding Oregon law or deliberately fibbing. It is up to us to set the record straight!