claimant denied, shoots up Vegas courthouse

[nonamouse]

www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/04/las.vegas.shooting/index.html

A man who shot it out with US marshals and armed security at the federal courthouse in Las Vegas on 1/4/2010 reportedly was angry at losing his Social Security case. The reports say that he made it into the building before whipping out a shotgun and opening up. Prior to heading off to the courthouse the man burned his own house down, so he obviously didn't plan on returning from this gunfight.

I pray for the family and coworkers of the marshals and guards who were killed or injured. I also hope that this triggers a genuine review of security at all hearing offices and remote sites. If this rampage had been directed at an office in leased premises or an unsecured remote site I can only imagine how much worse it would have been.

When I have raised concerns over our security in the past I've been pooh-poohed by some, but this is obviously not as far fetched as some would like us to believe. I'm in favor of ALJs being allowed to carry handguns and pepper spray if they get the appropriate training and a concealed carry permit for the gun. The blanket ban on weapons in our facilities serves only the criminals while we are threatened with termination if we try to protect ourselves with a weapon. My friends who are county judges are routinely armed when on the bench. I feel like work is a softer target than my home where I can decide on whatever security measures I feel are needed and the response time from my local law enforcement will be faster.

[wilddog]

Jan 5, 2010 8:09:31 GMT -5 wilddog said:

Jan 5, 2010 2:06:29 GMT -5 nonamouse said:

www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/04/las.vegas.shooting/index.html

A man who shot it out with US marshals and armed security at the federal courthouse in Las Vegas on 1/4/2010 reportedly was angry at losing his Social Security case. The reports say that he made it into the building before whipping out a shotgun and opening up. Prior to heading off to the courthouse the man burned his own house down, so he obviously didn't plan on returning from this gunfight.

I pray for the family and coworkers of the marshals and guards who were killed or injured. I also hope that this triggers a genuine review of security at all hearing offices and remote sites. If this rampage had been directed at an office in leased premises or an unsecured remote site I can only imagine how much worse it would have been.

When I have raised concerns over our security in the past I've been pooh-poohed by some, but this is obviously not as far fetched as some would like us to believe. I'm in favor of ALJs being allowed to carry handguns and pepper spray if they get the appropriate training and a concealed carry permit for the gun. The blanket ban on weapons in our facilities serves only the criminals while we are threatened with termination if we try to protect ourselves with a weapon. My friends who are county judges are routinely armed when on the bench. I feel like work is a softer target than my home where I can decide on whatever security measures I feel are needed and the response time from my local law enforcement will be faster.

=========

With all due respect to Nonamouse and recognizing that our security (and the security of all those for whom we're responsible) may not always be what it should be, I'm still not yet certain that having ALJs with handguns on the bench is necessarily the answer, but perhaps access to non-lethal weapons - with appropriate initial and ongoing training, of course - is an option that should be explored sooner rather than later given the apparent growing trend of violence towards federal and state officials.

Those affected by this tragedy are in my thoughts and prayers.

[Propmaster]

Judges with guns would have made no difference here - he did not even go through security before beginning shooting. Had he sought to actually kill the judge who ruled in his case, he would have been stopped by security before he could get to chambers; had he waited to catch the judge outside, the judge would be dead from the shotgun blast before he could use his own gun.

There is no way on Earth to protect yourself from being killed by a person who would rather kill you than live. In this case, the gunman chose a random individual to kill; in another case the gunman might achieve a more specific objective.

I don't mind gun ownership or carrying, but don't think you can prevent an assassination with a holstered gun of your own.

This case, by the way, was a failure of communication. The concept of a state supplement should have been explained to the shooter before he fixated on the "unfairness" of the situation. It sounds like he had all the information, but perhaps too late or in a form he could not process. It also sounds like the manager of his housing complex (according to his complaint) may have taken his side before gathering sufficient information to make a proper opinion.

However, some people are just plain crazy. This type of tragedy cannot be completely prevented (although if he didn't have a shotgun, the security guard might have had a better chance at surviving) because some people cannot conform to society and when they snap (often without warning) the damage is done.

[barkley]

I agree with the posts that having an armed ALJ in this case would not have mattered. I also agree with the statement that should someone decide to kill an ALJ, it would be fairly simple to just wait in the parking lot - whether the ALJ is armed would make little difference when surprised in that way. And maybe in the federal courthouses where you would find multiple security guards, arming ALJs is unnecessary. I don't think judges should carry into a hearing room (although I had one hearing where I was wishing for some pepper spray, just in case).

But maybe in some situations it would make a difference. My ODAR office takes up an upper floor of an office building. No security at the entrance to the building. One security guard at the entrance to our lobby. If some crazy person came up, it would be easy to take out the security guard. Then, the shooter would have access to a lobby full of claimants, families and reps, with no other exit. We have several on our staff who are prior military and had formal weapons training. It is a shame that we would be powerless to protect the people we serve.

My heart goes out to the folks in Vegas.

[tricia]

Patritos Fan said: "I disagree with NM that guns are the answer. Guns are never the answer. Better security is the answer. "
I agree.

[decadealj]

There are some of you out there that aren't going to believe me but the last "incident" we had in a hearing room, the response was for the security guard to call the regional office who called the local police. And I think that is still the solution!! Only SSA could come up with such a "security plan".

[nonamouse]

As Barkley points out, many of us are at offices that are no longer housed in federal buildings. We have one contract security guard in the lobby and none in the hearing rooms. We have no armed security outside of our building floor. We have nothing to/from the parking. Some of us are well-trained/experienced in "street survival" not merely marksmanship and living in states where citizens are allowed concealed carry permits. We are denied the right to try to protect ourselves to/from work because we cannot have a firearm in the federal "facility" which in many cases is nothing more than one floor of a civilian office building or part of a floor. I'm not advocating that ALJs need to pack heat on the bench, but having the option to exercise our right to carry to/from work would be great. Being armed and trained will not always keep one from getting shot or even killed, but it can make the difference in many situations where the first shot from the assailant is not a kill shot. I don't know what type of hearings PF does but we see see bangers, violent ex-cons who have killed before, mentally unstable people some still using drugs and the like on a regular basis. How well they are checked varies from location to location.

[jaime]

I think a minor point is being missed here as one of my offspring pointed out. From all messages above, even the ALJ's, the shooter has been deemed mentally deranged. Was that not the point of his claim for disability?
Perhaps if his claim had been granted on basis that he was was mentally unstable (as now everyone seems to post-hoc agree) then this whole matter would not have happened.
But put all that aside.
A notable point is that readers have tended to mistakenly equate this incident to an ALJ/SSA office security situation. That is a leap that not supportable by fact.
This was not in anyway connected to an ALJ/SSA office security situation other than this person, as does at any one time millions of other Americans, once had an underlying SSA claim that was denied.
His claim was on federal appeal. As such the claim was processed entirely via internet, where there are no hearings and no personal contact situations. (Go to any federal courthouse in the nation and once can literally walk the halls at any time of day firing a howitzer and not hit anyone as the federal courts went "virtual" years ago). As one poster has correctly pointed out the entirety of this incident was "outside" the sanctum of security provided by this or any federal courthouse.
In simplest and admittedly not uncommon event in America, this was another street shooting as occurs in any city anywhere, anytime; hyperreported by the news one day and soon to be forgotten the next.
To make a leap from this random murder in the streets to arming SSA ALJ's inside buildings is not logical.

[nonamouse]

Jaime, the man apparently communicated in a message that he was in fact upset over what he thought was discrimination by Social Security resulting in less benefits. He did not understand that when he moved from Cali to Nevada he lost the state supplement to the SSI that he was still receiving. We deal with claimants daily who don't or won't understand things that are explained to them about why they cannot have benefits to which they feel a sense of entitlement. For some, they never worked long enough to qualify for one program and they have too much other income for the other program, for others they refuse to see why a single broken ankle is not a permanent disability qualifying them for "their SSI" just like the neighbor or friend whom they don't believe is any worse off. I've had people who like the shooter did get benefits from Social Security and they were extremely angry because they didn't get more. It does not have to be logical or rational. If this man had decided to take out his anger at a hearing office instead of the federal building, explaining to him that it was now a federal case that has nothing to do with the people at his target would not have stopped him.

It is not an illogical leap to think about some changes to the "security" at our hearing sites when the shooter was clearly a client of SSA. Mentally unstable people don't always think in a logical manner as can be seen by the many people in recent years who have shot up innocent people not connected in any way to the grievance in their sick minds.

We have had security "incidents" in various offices that never made the news because they didn't result in a shoot out. If someone does not ever want to carry a weapon and they think that Rusty the Bailiff will be of some use if a claimant follows them to their car or home then that is definitely their right. However, we have plenty of ALJs and others in our hearing offices who are ex-military and law enforcement who already have concealed carry permits who can responsibly carry a weapon that no one will ever see in or around the office unless the unthinkable happens. Look at who foiled the attempted bombing at Christmas the passengers, not professional law enforcement or the crew.

[tricia]

I just want to say that I was a public defender for sixteen years, and it was open knowledge that certain judges were packing heat on the bench. This did not make me feel any better about spending the major portion of each day in courtrooms. The possibility of having two shooters shooting up the courtroom rather than one is not comforting.
And Patriots Fan, this was not a state which is "out west" or "pro-gun". It was midwest, liberal, pro-gun-control Minnesota. (It's a matter of perspective, I guess, but you'd have to live in Maine, I think, to consider Minnesota "out west".)

[thepenguin]

While in law school, I clerked for a judge who kept a gun in his office. He was a former police officer and had military service. It was there "just in case". I'm very "pro gun", but also agree guns are not the answer. Yet, I would feel much better having more than just one gun in the leased office at the front door of where I work, where the guard can be taken out quickly. Being retired military (not a JAG person either - I was Combat Aircrew in Specal Ops) I believe in defense in depth and that a second weapon can prevent loss of many other lives while wating for "back-up".

Unless you want to have PTSD, no one wanders around all the time looking for an ambush. Yes, you probably would not survive one - if it was well planed and not a sudden spur of the moment reaction. Still, I would expect that in many cases, we are rarely alone in the parking lot or building and again, a defense in depth will work. I'm for arming judges at least until they enter the building. Then, normal precautions on weapons in a building should be followed. Of course, we could also ask to be issued body armor.

Improved security does not work - where do you start checking people - a block from the courthouse? With the "budget" driving everything, that soon would become too "expensive" and be reduced or, worse, the "lowest bidder" gets it and hires people not well suited for this type of work.

In the long run, the only real solution is self defense - not everyone would or should op for this solution. Some who can "pull the triger" when needed would and this would vastly improve security.

My heart and prayers go out to the family of the deceased security guard. Over the years, I have become friends with those who gard us and I really appreciate their professional ethics and service. I am happy that the U.S. Marshal has survived and I hope his wound(s) are minor. This is a very underrated service that I have not worked closely with.

Bottom line - security is EVERYONES responsibility! We must be observent and not afraid to speak out when something does not look (or smell) right! Complacency kills!

[jaime]

As a former engineer tasked with safety/security systems design, in any "threat" situation, the first and No. 1 rule is to "remove the threat".
Applicable to this incident, and applicable to any ALJ/SSA security scenario, then initial threat removal will involve physical isolation/segregation. As with most county/city court houses, and as does the federal court systems, the removal of threat has been easily accomplished by implementation of virtuality; e.g., the simplest solution is a remote hearing. The "threat" is isolated from the system (i.e. the ALJ/SSA) by simple use of video hearings wherein the "threat" is never physically adjacent or in proximity to the protected system; i.e. the ALJ. Problem solved with minimal disruption, cost and personnel changes.
Failure of Rule 1 would result in immediate implementation of rule 2.
And only when the No 1 rule cannot be designed out does one then move to process rule no. 2: "protection from threat". In this scenario, all efforts to remove the threat have failed thus the system (i.e. ALJ/SSA) needs to be protected. Once again, the easiest and most cost-effective solution would appear to be physical isolation of the protected system (i.e., the ALJ/SSA). This can be accomplished by a myriad of means: some of which which include virtuality via remote hearings, physical barriers (e.g. plexiglass walls and implementation of screening systems, scanners, security checks and physical pat downs and profiling.)

Arming the protected system (i.e., the ALJ/SSA) would be the least efficient, most hazardous and most costly means of counter security. The arming of the system would thus entail "reverse" engineering of the scenario such that the protected system itself must be considered as having the "fault" option now built in of possible malfunction whether nonintentional (e.g. the armed system unintentionally misfires) or worse case scenario; intentional wherein the armed protected system now becomes the threat itself (e.g. the ALJ/SSA armament are used intentionally to harm either through hostage, theft or misuse failures). Thus by "arming" the protected system, tremendous additional costs and systems have to be implemented to protect others from what "could" happen when the armed protect system fails/faults and becomes "threat" itself. Wherein reverse engineering once again leads to rule no 1; "remove the threat" which in turn means remove the arms from the ALJ/SSA.

Applying simple logic, simple engineering principles and fail safe designs always leads to one result; rule no 1: remove the threat. If the ALJ/SSA system is armed then one is required to consider ALL scenarios and possibilities of system failure/fault as the protected system can become the threat, no matter how remote, which always loops by logical sequence back to rule no 1.

Thus the incurrence of the program's "looping" by making the protected "safe" ALJ system a probable "threat" ALJ system due to inclusion of self armament implies a non-logical process and guaranteed eventual systemic failure.

(The same logic principles are routinely being applied in daily national political events; e.g.; the US seeks to "remove" the threat of Iran's nuclear program (rule no. 1), if that fails then the US seeks to implements isolation/segregation Iran (rule no. 2). Worst case scenario of ignoring rule no. 1 and 2 and instead arming the US to the extreme was tried and failed as shown by 1950-1960s cold war and subsequent worldwide disarment talks of the 1970-1980's (the express purpose of which was to get out fo the self destructive "looping") with present day continuing destruction of nuclear stockpiles. With its remaining stockpiles, the US now is on constant guard at extreme cost of inner fault/failure should its own remaining stockpiles of weaponry be unintentionally or worse, intentionally detonated against its own self. The former Soviet Union did not follow systems logic, and became mired in the process "looping" of self-armament to the extreme such that eventual systemic failure occurred. China is not militarily looping but is economically looping with its environment.

There is no emotion or judgment in any of this, it is simple engineering and logic. One can make a choice to proceed either way, (to arm or disarm) the results or which can be easily plotted out and forecast. Looping by arming both sides is mathematically always going to result in eventual system failure.

[ruonthelist]

When I first heard this story yesterday and learned that the shooter was a disgruntled SS claimant I assumed, as a lot of us probably did, that the precipitating cause was a denial of disability benefits and that an ODAR office and/or personnel was the target. It turns out that was not the case, according to this followup AP story:

www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=29&sid=1854905

I don't know if the ODAR for Las Vegas is in the federal building that he attacked, but the Article 3 judges (district and magistrate) involved in the lawsuit do work there. The federal lawsuit that was dismissed was not an appeal of an ODAR decision, but a seperate lawsuit that he had filed pro se while he was receiving benefits:


"In a handwritten lawsuit filed in March 2008, Wicks complained that his Social Security benefits were cut following his move to Las Vegas, and he accused federal workers of discrimination because of his race.


Wicks claimed the problem began in California, after he had a stroke and was unable to go to government offices to protest an earlier benefits reduction."

It is exceedingly difficult for any security procedures to prevent the "run and gun" assailant, indifferent to his own survival, who charges into a public place and begins shooting. That was the m.o. of the Holocaust Museum shooting last year, the Fourth of July 2002 ticket counter shooting at LAX, and the Capitol shooting in the 90s. Those are the scenarios in which even trained and armed security officers die. In each of those situations (government building, airport) there is a security perimeter with metal detectors, but the shooting began outside that perimeter.

And moving the perimeter outward is no solution. There was some talk of that after the LAX shooting. The idea was to have the security checkpoints at the entrances to the building instead of the entrances to the gate area, so that the ticket counters would be inside the security perimeter. Anyone who has ever seen the sidewalks outside a busy airport terminal can see the flaw in that reasoning. There are just as many easy targets at the taxi stands and shuttle bus stops as inside the terminal.

At the Holocaust Museum the security perimeter is about as far outward as it can be without being outside the building. You go through the door and you are right there at the metal detector. Officer Stephen Johns was fatally shot near the doorway. Other officers returned fire. There is no telling how many tourists, school kids, and museum staff are alive today thanks to the quick action of those officers.

I haven't even mentioned horrors like Columbine or Virginia Tech, in which the situation was drastically different. I've been talking about murders like the one yesterday in Las Vegas, where there were armed security officers in the immediate vicinity when the shooting started.

If someone wants to set up an ambush to kill a particular person and escape there are all sorts of things that can happen that may prevent the killing, the escape, or both. But someone without a particular target in mind, who just wants to kill random people in a crowd and is willing to die doing it will almost always get off at least one round, and probably a lot more.

UPDATE: In an odd coincidence, the day after I originally posted this message discussing the 2008 Holocaust Museum shooting, the murderer died. If you want to read about the late Officer Johns, here is a link.

www.ushmm.org/memoriam/detail.php?content=johns

[privateatty]

Taurus Firearms makes a handgun called the "Judge" in response to entreaties by a Judge in Texas who allegedly routinely resisted defendants climbing and attempting to climb the bench. The pistol packs a .410 shotgun shell or a .45 cartridge. The shotgun shell seemed a bit more discretionary than a .45 slug.

I had my life threatened once by a litigant who had the ability to carry it out. I told his attorney to tell him to "come on down" after informing him that I kept a Colt .357 in my drawer. That was a long time ago in a jurisdiction where most knew details of my service record due to a gabby former boss.

One thing I know. Show fear to a crazy or even a reptilian-brained crap-kicker and as sure as God made little green apples he'll find a way to mess you up. When you're a Judge you need to do the NYC subway strut, with shoulders back and eyes forward and alert. Show no fear and think only positive thoughts.

Having said all this I still agree with pf. If someone wants to kill you with a gun, they will. As we used to say in the 'Nam, if a bullet has your name on it, it will find you.

PAX, ODAR. And my condolences to the Marshall's Office in Las Vegas.

[coloradoman]

I agree with PF. I can think of several ALJs in my office who I would not want to carry a concealed weapon. I just do not think they could safely handle a firearm. The risk of accidental discharge is too great, and SSA cannot expose federal employees to the risk of accidental discharge. Enhanced security by way of trained guards and good solid doors with locks to keep the public from entering employee work areas is the way to go.

I have served in the military, including combat zones, have plenty of training with firearms, and have a concealed weapon permit. However, I still believe firearms should be kept out of the non-law enforcement federal work place. Even the Army has very strict rules regarding circumstances where a soldier can carry a firearm and ammo.

[counsel]

I know that I am an ALJ who should not carry a gun (not trained and not likely to be willing to use it first). I do think that remote sites should have security as standard procedure -- I am always hesitant to ask without good reason as I do not want to be thought difficult (and do want to some day transfer). NM's point is well taken that security should be a higher priority.

[nothingventured]

I have worked in an ODAR office that rents a part of a floor in a private building. Although there is a guard inside the office and all the office doors are secured, the restrooms are entered from the public hallway. There is nothing to stop a disgruntled claimant from lying in wait in the restroom.

[jaime]

Patriotsfan; you have said the obvious; life is what you make of it, enjoy it without fear and move on.

It is interesting to note that as I explained above, mathematically, arming both parties will result in systemic failure. That is borne out in today's news. The shooter was armed with a single Mossberg which loads 3 shells at a time. He fired 3 times killing one guard a point blank range. He then, according to witness statements actually took the time to stand and reload his shotgun while six trained armed federal guards then fired from within the same lobby area and all missed. The shooter then went outside, crossed the public street and stood and fired twice again. The six guards pursued and continued hitting the shooter a grand total of two times. The six trained guards, with reloading themselves fired more than 80 rounds inside and outside the lobby area and were able hit the shooter only twice.

6 trained armed guards firing more than 80 rounds at literally point blank range at a single shooter, who actually took time to stand and reload a shotgun before retreating and finally being hit by two shots at another location. Even with the odds increased in favor of the security guard (by numbers, weapons and training for guards vs. preparation and motive for the shooter) each side suffered catastrophic loss.

Mathematically arming a single semi-or untrained ALJ to fend off a shooter will almost guarantee systemic failure (casualty loss) assuredly to the least trained, least armed, least prepared/motivated party and most probably to both sides.

[carjack]

Ironically, the federal courthouse/building in Las Vegas is new and was built to withstand bomb blasts and earthquakes despite having a glass front and the security checks start right inside the front door. And like an earlier poster said, you'd have to go looking once you're past the security point to really find a lot of people.

Unfortunately the shooter probably had no problem getting a gun through a legitimate source. Perhaps if guns were as difficult to secure as decongestants, or cigarettes, or booze, we might prevent a crazy or two. "Here's your UZI sir, but I'll have to see some ID before I can sell you those Marlboroughs." We take drivers' licenses away when someone can't drive any longer we should be able to limit the sale of firearms. I'm not anti-gun, I just don't trust people.

I don't know what kind of "training" the armed guards received, but I imagine that after spending many months trying to stay awake due to the general boredom of checking wallets and briefcases through a metal detector, that having someone walk in and just start shooting would be like having someone crash cymbols right over you while you're sleeping. They were probably shaking when they shot at the guy - that said, if you can't hit your target, you shouldn't be carrying a gun - it's not that hard if you've had any training.

Oh, and anything east of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana is "back east".

[chinook]

"if you can't hit your target, you shouldn't be carrying a gun - it's not that hard if you've had any training"

I beg to differ. Hitting paper targets on a range is easy with training. Hitting a live human being that is shooting back is very different. There is no real training for a live firefight. If you have never been shot at you have no idea of your physical and psychological reaction. Most firefights have a very low number of "hits." You are moving, ducking, hiding, your heart is racing and you can not take your nice stance to shoot back. Plus your "target" is moving so you can't aim at him. Jamie's point about the number of trained officers and the number of shots is well taken. This isn't TV where everybody hits someone on the first shot. Actually it is very hard to hit a target under real life circumstances.