Shootings in-near Frandor. Avoid area.

1 person shot inside Rite Aid and another on Coolidge Road less than a mile away.

http://www.wlns.com/story/25492288/breaking-news-shootings-in-lansing-east-lansing

Wow, prayers sent for the victims.

It is now a homicide as the victim inside Rite Aid has died.

Sparty2QP wrote:It is now a homicide as the victim inside Rite Aid has died.

That's sad.

Any more details? Is it a spree shooting? Robbery?

One person killed and all schools on lockdown.

The shootermwent into a consultation room with an employee and shot them. Shooter fled. Moments later a person was shot on Coolidge Road. Not confirmed they are related, but probably the same guy.

Police K9 are having a hard time getting scent due to the rain.

Sounds like they have a residence they are looking at. Found 4 22 caliber casings on the back porch. Have cleared the residences on each side.

Sparty2QP wrote:The shootermwent into a consultation room with an employee and shot them.  Shooter fled. Moments later a person was shot on Coolidge Road. Not confirmed they are related, but probably the same guy.

Police K9 are having a hard time getting scent due to the rain.

There definitely needs a operational change at Rite Aid. I have been in one of those consultation rooms for a flu shot. No checks at all, just let me in.

I went on to (don't want to write lecture) discuss this with pharmacist the obvious security issues.

This is the first though I have heard of this scenario, and it is very surprising this is not happening more often.

The specific facts of the crime are still not disclosed and I am not substituting theoretical issues for the facts of this particular case.

1800 Coolidge Road is where they believe the suspect is right now.

Green Note wrote:

There definitely needs a operational change at Rite Aid.  I have been in one of those consultation rooms for a flu shot. No checks at all, just let me in.

I went on to (don't want to write lecture) discuss this with pharmacist the obvious security issues.

This is the first though I have heard of this scenario, and it is very surprising this is not happening more often.

The specific facts of the crime are still not disclosed and I am not substituting theoretical issues for the facts of this particular case.

What the **** are you talking about? Why should there be an expectation of violence? Are people not allowed a reasonable supposition of safety?

Rocinante wrote:

What the **** are you talking about?  Why should there be an expectation of violence?  Are people not allowed a reasonable supposition of safety?

Don't forget these people are dealing with highly addictive controlled substances.

Rocinante wrote:

What the **** are you talking about?  Why should there be an expectation of violence?  Are people not allowed a reasonable supposition of safety?

The entire planet has an expectation of violence. Thus the security cameras everywhere, tapped cell phone conversations, security checkpoints at airports, at the border, etc. People can have a supposition of safety at their own risk.

TrueGreenSpartan wrote:

Don't forget these people are dealing with highly addictive controlled substances.

Aren't those rooms just for immunizations?

MasonGuy wrote:

The entire planet has an expectation of violence.  Thus the security cameras everywhere, tapped cell phone conversations, security checkpoints at airports, at the border, etc.  People can have a supposition of safety at their own risk.

That's a propaganda campaign by people who profit from violence to make us all feel unsafe. People are generally good, and no matter how these types of tragedies get glorified, they are still the exception to the rule. Large scale citizen armament is not the answer. Anyone who thinks so is swallowing the chickenshit that "they" are feeding him.

Attack the problem at the source. You know damn well who commits the majority of gun crimes in the US. And it isn't a race issue either. It's a gang, cultural and socioeconomic issue. You want to keep your guns? Fine, but these type of things will continue to happen unless you attack the issue.
Torture should be legal in this country And Death penalties should be reserved for the committed. An eye for an eye. Death meets death. Organized/gang crime gets you organized labor in Alaska. Stealing gets your hands cut off. Pain/assault meets torture. Sex crimes get your cock.
You want a solution to the problem? I just gave you it.
You can never truly rehabilitate the wicked.

Fear is mans kryptonite. In tribal/cavemen societies these things worked out for themselves. The guilty didn't receive a cozy jail cell with a bed, blanket, free food, water, friends, man poon, and free access to a library education. Hell, for some jail life is an improvement.

True justice always ends with an iron fist.

Bill Cain wrote:Attack the problem at the source. You know damn well who commits the majority of gun crimes in the US. And it isn't a race issue either. It's a gang, cultural and socioeconomic issue. You want to keep your guns? Fine, but these type of things will continue to happen unless you attack the issue.
Torture should be legal in this country And Death penalties should be reserved for the committed. An eye for an eye. Death meets death. Organized/gang crime gets you organized labor in Alaska. Stealing gets your hands cut off. Pain/assault meets torture. Sex crimes get your cock.
You want a solution to the problem? I just gave you it.
You can never truly rehabilitate the wicked.

Fear is mans kryptonite. In tribal/cavemen societies these things worked out for themselves. The guilty didn't receive a cozy jail cell with a bed, blanket, free food, water, friends, man poon, and free access to a library education. Hell, for some jail life is an improvement.

True justice always ends with an iron fist.

Nice try, but a bit over the top.

Rocinante wrote:

What the **** are you talking about?  Why should there be an expectation of violence?  Are people not allowed a reasonable supposition of safety?

The pharmacist has access to thousands of dollars worth of controlled substances, for starters.

Rocinante wrote:

That's a propaganda campaign by people who profit from violence to make us all feel unsafe.  People are generally good, and no matter how these types of tragedies get glorified, they are still the exception to the rule.  Large scale citizen armament is not the answer.  Anyone who thinks so is swallowing the chickenshit that "they" are feeding him.

Most banks are never robbed either. Should they not have security measures in place?

Phil McCrackin wrote:

The pharmacist has access to thousands of dollars worth of controlled substances, for starters.

Do you work in a pharmacy? Schedule 3 drugs are supposed to be controlled access... unless it's an organized robbery (which happens). It shouldn't be something that's feasible to just walk in, shoot somebody and get your fix.

Phil McCrackin wrote:

Most banks are never robbed either. Should they not have security measures in place?

Nice deflection idiot.

What have I done to be honored with the label of "pet troll"? Is it my past reputation that I have to defend? I only present you with the truths. Whether you accept it is your choice.

Sad day when these things are just another story in the news.

Listening to these cops it's almost as if they don't know what they're doing:

http://tunein.com/radio/Ingham-County-Public-Safety-s134423/

The second victim has now passed as well.

Per police scanner, it appears the second victim, who was previously reported as wounded, is now deceased. Prayers for the victim and their family.

I heard that. Just awful.

Rocinante wrote:

Do you work in a pharmacy?  Schedule 3 drugs are supposed to be controlled access... unless it's an organized robbery (which happens).  It shouldn't be something that's feasible to just walk in, shoot somebody and get your fix.

You really think the pharmacist should have to take a bullet in the head to protect the controlled substances? Guy comes in with a gun and points it, he's probably getting the cabinet unlocked. You seem to have answered your own question though: The safety measures in place in a pharmacy indicate an expectation that violence may occur or be threatened in a place like a pharmacy.

Rocinante wrote:

Nice deflection idiot.

What am I deflecting?

Phil McCrackin wrote:

You really think the pharmacist should have to take a bullet in the head to protect the controlled substances? Guy comes in with a gun and points it, he's probably getting the cabinet unlocked.  You seem to have answered your own question though: The safety measures in place in a pharmacy indicate an expectation that violence may occur or be threatened in a place like a pharmacy.

It is a rarity. Just as children being abducted and terrorism is. People are so hyper-vigilant. We have cops to investigate these types of things. Why do we all need a gun or a security system or a pocket stun gun? The measures put in place for schedule 3 drugs recognize the addictive qualities of the drugs and attempt to make it more difficult to acquire them without a prescription. There is no intrinsic expectation of "violence" built into that policy.

Rocinante wrote:

That's a propaganda campaign by people who profit from violence to make us all feel unsafe.  People are generally good, and no matter how these types of tragedies get glorified, they are still the exception to the rule.  Large scale citizen armament is not the answer.  Anyone who thinks so is swallowing the chickenshit that "they" are feeding him.

Phil McCrackin wrote:

Most banks are never robbed either. Should they not have security measures in place?

Phil McCrackin wrote:

What am I deflecting?

You're deflecting my point, which is that 1). people should have a reasonable expectation of safety without feeling the need to arm themselves, and 2). that there are propagandists who profit from the fear you describe and wish to perpetuate it. You are deflecting it by setting up a straw man argument whereby you equate my point of personal safety with a corporation protecting it's assets in whatever way it sees fit. Two different things. = deflection.

Phil McCrackin wrote:

Most banks are never robbed either. Should they not have security measures in place?

It would be pretty easy to go into a bank shoot a person... not sure what you're trying to say

Rocinante wrote:

It is a rarity. Just as children being abducted and terrorism is.  People are so hyper-vigilant.  We have cops to investigate these types of things.  Why do we all need a gun or a security system or a pocket stun gun?  The measures put in place for schedule 3 drugs recognize the addictive qualities of the drugs and attempt to make it more difficult to acquire them without a prescription.  There is no intrinsic expectation of "violence" built into that policy.

I missed the part where someone was suggesting arming the pharmacist or everyone else with a gun.

The pharmacy that I am familiar with had cameras, safes, a panic button and bullet proof glass. It was also robbed numerous times after hours. The security measures were in place to protect the employees, protect the inventory, and try to discourage attempts at robbery.

I'm sure there are some pharmacies that don't have these security measures and have never been robbed, much like banks that you don't want to discuss, but you are 100% wrong on the "expectation of violence" as it relates to pharmacies.

Rocinante wrote:





You're deflecting my point, which is that 1). people should have a reasonable expectation of safety without feeling the need to arm themselves, and 2). that there are propagandists who profit from the fear you describe and wish to perpetuate it. You are deflecting it by setting up a straw man argument whereby you equate my point of personal safety with a corporation protecting it's assets in whatever way it sees fit.  Two different things. = deflection.

1) I never said anything about anyone arming themselves, you did.
2) I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your propagandist statements.
3) Banks are an example of a place where there is an "expectation of violence", which you were questioning the existence and/or validity of.

Feel free to ignore the bank example and discuss only pharmacies as a place where there is an "expectation of violence" if you wish.

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

It would be pretty easy to go into a bank shoot a person... not sure what you're trying to say

I'm saying that there is an "expectation of violence" in a bank, even if it's never been robbed before.

No one would open a bank (or a pharmacy) without installing some form of security measures.

Phil McCrackin wrote:

I missed the part where someone was suggesting arming the pharmacist or everyone else with a gun.

You said "the entire planet has an expectation of violence" and proceeded to list of security measures. That's where my initial point about hyper-vigilance came from. Then you argued against my point, which admittedly is only marginally related to the incident, so I'll let it lie. My point is (and always has been) that the "expectation of violence" is a fallacy that is perpetuated by interests that profit from it. Our country is by and large a safe place (in spite of, not due to the interpretation of the second amendment).

Banks Pharmacies, hell Toy Stores have the right to put whatever measures in place they want to, but to say they "should" is ignorant in my opinion and a slippery slope of counterproductive hyper-vigilance that sets a bad precedent about what a functional society is. Is it "us and them" or is it just "us"?

Again, philosophical, but relevant to me, if not to you.

It sucks that this happened. pointless loss of life is never okay.