Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowAmerica’s latest rampage unfolded like many before it: A gunman entered a bustling public space, armed with high-powered weapons and an abundance of ammunition, and he opened fire into a crowd, killing several people.
But this most recent episode—at Greenwood Park Mall on Sunday—did not end like the majority of mass shootings in this country, with the assailant’s arrest, suicide or death at the hands of police officers.
Instead, an armed bystander engaged the attacker and killed him in a shootout, firing 10 rounds as shoppers fled the scene, authorities said. Three other people were killed and two were injured, including a 12-year-old girl, during the latest spasm of violence in what has been an unrelenting string of high-profile public mass shootings in recent months.
The Greenwood incident is unique, however, because it became one of the rare instances of an armed civilian successfully intervening to end a mass shooting, adding more fuel to a national debate about the role of bystanders during an active shooter attack.
“Many more people would’ve died last night if not for a responsible armed citizen that took action very quickly, within the first two minutes of this shooting,” Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison said at a news conference Monday afternoon.
Investigators identified the gunman as Jonathan Douglas Sapirman, 20, and they said his motive remains unclear but that he planned the attack. Sapirman arrived at Greenwood Park Mall with two rifles, a handgun and more than 100 rounds of ammo, police said, firing two dozen shots before 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken killed him with a 9mm pistol. Dicken, who was shopping with his girlfriend, was “lawfully carrying” his weapon and is cooperating with the investigation, Ison said.
Advocates for expanding gun access frequently justify their positions by citing a scenario in which an armed civilian stops a shooter: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” the National Rifle Association tweeted on Monday. But in practice, this is an uncommon occurrence during mass shootings. In recent studies of more than 430 “active shooter incidents” dating back to 2000, the FBI found that civilians killed gunmen in just 10 cases.
Despite the data, Indiana this month lifted its permit requirement to carry a handgun in public over the objections of police officials, with the bill’s author arguing that the move allowed “Mr. and Mrs. Lawful Hoosier” to “defend themselves in public.”
“I think you might get more individuals carrying, sort of primed for something to happen, which is particularly dangerous,” said Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University Bloomington who researches the Second Amendment. “And I think also you’ll get this idea that these people are needed out there to help protect citizens, when in reality that’s the job of the police.”
Because Indiana law does not require training to carry a firearm, it’s more likely that bystanders will be underprepared to take on a shooter, Madeira said.
“I think there’s a lot of alternative scenarios which do not end as well, which are very, very likely to come about rather than that one individual becoming a hero,” she said.
Dicken does not have a police or military background, authorities said, but Ison called his movements “very tactically sound,” pointing to the way he engaged the gunman from a distance then closed in while motioning for people to exit behind him.
After Dicken shot at him, Sapirman tried to retreat into a restroom but failed, Ison said. Dicken then approached mall security to identify himself.
Dicken’s attorney, Guy Relford, said his client wouldn’t comment extensively until the investigation is complete
“He is a true American hero who saved countless lives during a horrific event that could have been so much worse if not for Eli’s courage, preparedness and willingness to protect others,” Relford said in a statement.
Officials in Greenwood, a city of 60,000, were still struggling to process its new place on the terrible list of cities and towns rocked by mass shootings. The Sunday incident follows those at a July Fourth parade in Highland Park, Ill., a doctor’s office in Tulsa, an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and a grocery store in Buffalo.
“This has shaken us to our core,” Ison said.
Authorities identified the victims as Victor Gomez, 30, and the husband and wife pair Pedro Pineda, 56, and Rosa Mirian Rivera de Pineda, 37.
In an interview, Isabel Pineda described coming home from work Sunday evening to find her home surrounded by police cars and the agony that followed when officers told her that her father and stepmother died in the shooting.
Isabel and her three children live in the same house as the couple, who had gone to the shopping mall that day to have dinner together alone.
“He was the best dad and the best grandfather in the world,” Isabel said through tears. “He didn’t deserve this!”
Her father arrived in the United States in 2007, she said, fleeing poverty in El Salvador to try to offer his six children a better life. After years of hard work, he was able to bring them all to the United States, Isabel said. He loved fishing and playing with his grandkids. Isabel said her stepmother was a “great, kind woman” who treated Isabel’s children “as if they were her own.”
An investigation into the incident is still ongoing, but authorities on Monday released more information about Sapirman, who lived alone at an apartment less than a mile from the mall. He had a juvenile record with minor offenses, such as fighting at school, Ison said, but he had no criminal history as an adult.
Sapirman purchased both rifles from gun stores in Greenwood over the last two years, Ison said, and he frequented a nearby shooting range. The police chief added that Sapirman had recently resigned from a warehouse job and may have received an eviction notice.
When SWAT officers raided his apartment, they found a laptop alongside a can of butane gas in the oven, which was on a high temperature, Ison said. Bomb technicians retrieved the device, which the FBI will analyze, along with Sapirman’s cellphone, which was dropped in a toilet at the mall, Ison said.
The shooting took place weeks after the state dropped its requirement for a permit to purchase and carry a handgun in public, joining 24 other states that allow permitless carry, according to an analysis by PolitiFact.
However, private businesses can still impose their own firearm restrictions. Simon Property Group, which owns Greenwood Park and other malls around the world, stipulates in its code of conduct that “no weapons” are allowed at its properties, though it notes that “exceptions to this code of conduct will be determined by local center management.” When asked whether Greenwood Park Mall allows guns, the mall directed The Washington Post to its code of conduct.
Greenwood Park Mall said in an email Monday that it was “grateful for the strong response” from authorities, and it praised the bystander who stopped the gunman.
The permitless-carry bill sparked divisions even among Republicans in the GOP-held statehouse before Gov. Eric Holcomb, R, signed it into law in March. Police officials, including the state police chief and the Fraternal Order of Police, spoke out against the measure, saying the lack of a permit requirement would put officers at risk and undermine their ability to quickly determine whether someone was legally allowed to possess a gun.
Indiana is also one of 19 states with a red-flag law in place, which allows a judge to take away a person’s gun if they are determined to be a threat to themselves or others.
Local leaders on Monday stressed the importance of unity in responding to their community’s pain. Pastor Ryan Bailey, of Resurrection Lutheran Church in Greenwood, said his congregation is hosting a vigil for the victims so loved ones and residents can grieve together.
“A main challenge we face when trying to resolve or respond to this problem of gun violence is that we spend so much time apart from one another and we speak about it through social media and screen,” Bailey said. “We are not coming together tonight to debate policies.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Predictable propaganda by the Washington Post … water that is carried by IBJ. QUOTED FROM THE ARTICLE … “But in practice, this is an uncommon occurrence during mass shootings. In recent studies of more than 430 “active shooter incidents” dating back to 2000, the FBI found that civilians killed gunmen in just 10 cases.” … followed by “I think you might get more individuals carrying, sort of primed for something to happen, which is particularly dangerous,” said Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University Bloomington who researches the Second Amendment. “And I think also you’ll get this idea that these people are needed out there to help protect citizens, when in reality that’s the job of the police.” … and “I think there’s a lot of alternative scenarios which do not end as well, which are very, very likely to come about rather than that one individual becoming a hero,” she said.” The law professor quoted betrays her liberal bias when she expresses what she “thinks” in the above quotes. Actual reality contradicts what she “thinks”. Lives were saved because an armed citizen took courageous action to save those lives. Period. This is not an opinion but actual fact based on observations of this incident. How many of the recent 430 active shooter incidents studied by the FBI (cited in the article) took place in states or communities that restrict the Second Amendment rights of citizens to arm themselves? It is probable that more victims would be alive today if more citizen “bystanders” were armed. While I have great respect for law enforcement, they failed to do their job at Uvalde and the body count was horrific. Thank you Elisjsha Dicken and thank you Indiana legislators and Governor Holcomb for weighing this issue carefully and determining the upside outweighs the downside. The IU law professor should take a class in risk management. There is no such thing as zero risk or perfection. A fact of reality that leftists cannot come to terms with.
I agree with the items you quote, Mark H., and we are generally on the same page. My comment was based on the fact that I expected WaPo to be far worse!
There have been 7 shootings in Indianapolis since this occurred…
I think perhaps you only consider risk management to apply to certain communities?
Mark H +1
This is an unusually-fair and balanced piece from The Washington Post.
Great summary Mark H. … and very well said.
Typical WaPo garbage brought to you by the IBJ.
“I think you might get more individuals carrying, sort of primed for something to happen, which is particularly dangerous,” said Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University Bloomington who researches the Second Amendment. “And I think also you’ll get this idea that these people are needed out there to help protect citizens, when in reality that’s the job of the police.”
You’d think a law professor would be capable of something better than sophomoric reasoning, but standards in academia are abysmal these days, as we all know.
If more people are armed and “primed for something to happen” we’re assuming they’re all trigger happy…even while rural America (much of it filled with people armed and primed) rarely sees the sort of violent crime that our inner cities face each day. What would she prefer–a situation where it is 100% certain that everyone is unarmed–and that this will somehow be less dangerous? The people are sitting ducks…one of the main reasons mass shooters love choosing spaces
Besides this, the police are NOT there primarily “to help protect citizens”, especially in an era of police defunding and police chief orders for the cops to stand down except the most violent of crimes. The person most equipped to defending himself/herself in a situation you. Chances are the police won’t arrive until long after the violent threat is diffused. After all, this is why we call them “Law Enforcement Officers”–their primary job is to execute the law, which includes but is not equivalent to protecting citizens. They’ll be there first to intervene in the law being broken and second to protect the innocent. And, these days, if the law being broken merely involves breaking into a Walgreens, don’t count on anything happening…including if the thief pushes over an elderly person while making the getaway.
We can’t rely on police. More people are learning this. Which is probably why gun ownership has increased astronomically these last few years.
Sometimes the police are too cowardly to resist, only to finally engage and shoot the “good guy with the gun” who just killed a cop killer, then decide they can’t learn anything from the situation.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/06/22/johnny-hurley-arvada-police-lawsuit/
I hope the family ends up owning the entire town.
Joe B: I largely agree. Though police remain the best the strongest bulwark we have against barbarism (as many in big cities are learning), they aren’t fallible.
You’ve described an appropriate situation that actually deters the “good guy with a gun” from stepping up and doing the right thing. What if he (or she) gets caught in crossfire? Or, what if you have an ideologically minded DA who still punishes the person who was defending himself against criminal scum, as is the case with Jose Alba in NYC. Finally got the charges dropped, but it took overwhelming public outcry (and condemnation from the Mayor) before a judge threw it out. It should have never gotten to that point.
And no amount of Uvalde-level incompetence is going to convince most people they should give up their own personal firearms.
I don’t want those people to give up their guns, nor do I think the government should be asking them why they want the guns.
I do think you should be able to demonstrate competence with the weapon, both at purchase and on an ongoing basis. I’d just like them to be qualified for the weapons they’re carrying and to be trained on not just the weapon, but also how not to use it. Basically, the skills that the gentleman in Greenwood exhibited Sunday. I mean, sure, you have a constitutional right to bear arms. If you can’t go to a range and hit the broad side of a barn, you’re a menace to me if you choose to use that weapon in an active shooter situation and I’m anywhere close to you.
And if you’ve got a history of threatening people, being arrested for being in fights? That should factor into your background check for owning a weapon.
And, let’s say you leave your gun in public in a sofa in Ikea and a kid finds it and discharges the weapon. Regardless of outcome, you need additional training. Sure, you made a mistake. But if you want the right to carry a weapon, I think that comes with responsibilities. I don’t think required firearms safety courses are too much of an infringement upon 2nd Amendment rights.
Very curious that the IBJ carries the water for the “No Good Guy With A Gun” Klan. They are trying very hard, to the point of stating the mall policy (maybe ex-policy soon) of no firearms is the “LAW” and a crime was committed and the Good Shot citizen should be prosecuted. Of course Simon Mall has no ability to proclaim such a law.
Property owners do, in fact, have the right to regulate conduct on their property.
Chris pay attention. Their policy is not LAW. There is a good episode that used to play on Saturday morning showing how a bill is passed into law. Shows a young bill as he goes through the process of becoming a law. Highly recommend it.
Maybe you should watch that show.
Here’s a document prepared by everyone’s favorite Attorney General, Todd Rokita, as it refers to Indiana’s gun laws:
Q: Can a private business prohibit me from carrying a firearm?
A: Private businesses and property owners may restrict you from carrying a weapon on their property. Be mindful of signage when entering a private business. While it is generally not against the law to ignore a “no firearms” sign at a private business, you may commit criminal trespass for entering a business after you have been denied entry or have been asked to leave.
https://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/files/Gun-Owners-Bill-of-Rights.pdf