Great story (just not true)

Bill,

"..but they help us make do 'til the professionals arrive."

I like that, especially since the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are really not there to protect you, only to follow up after a crime has been committed.

Kurt,
You're correct that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the responsibility of police officers to protect us. In light of this ruling, police agencies should come up with a new motto rather than the one many use, which is "To serve and protect". If it's not their duty to protect us, then why is it that many of them want to deny us the right to keep and bear arms? I realize that many police officers support a citizen's RKBA, but there are others who believe we should remain defenseless against criminals. These types of double standards should be challenged. Citizens should have had the right to protect themselves at the Omaha mall. Will the officials who wrote the no gun zone policy for the mall be taking responsibility for the lives lost?

The murderer is responsible for the lives lost.

That said, I think that those who would have otherwise have been armed and possibly in a position to do something about this would be able to offer testimony, such as, "Yes, Your Honor, I was about ten yards away and this is my most recent target from the range. You can see I don't have a problem with a clean shot at that distance." and yes, this would be a precedent-setting case. As for damages... perhaps the mall owners would be responsible for fixing the bullet holes as well as paying medical and funeral expenses. That's probably fair. More than likely, though, someone's going to try to pin this on the owner of the AK and say he didn't safely secure his weapon. Guarantee they'll continue erroneously (and intentionally) calling it an "assault rifle". (So if I put Jet A fuel in my car, does it make it an F-16?)

Morons.