Bulldog PI (540) 922-3896

Update  5:00 PM:

The alleged shooter taken into custody  is  one Neil MacInnis (age 18), from Christiansburg Virginia.  Click the thumbnails of the attached images to view them.  (Warning:  Contains Graphic Language)

and his apparent Resume:

Neil MacInnis Resume

A source wishing to be anonymous has confirmed to me that the shooting does involve the New River Valley Community College satellite branch which is contained within the mall.   Another source just called to let me know that all the store managers are being called in to an emergency meeting to discuss the situation and that ‘the mall will be closed until further notice.’

Story is still unfolding, here’s what we know:

1. Police have a young white male between the ages of 18 and 25 in custody.  This individual was reportedly observed handcuffed and shackled by mall employees while the mall was evacuated.

2. There are multiple victims, including two women.  One woman was apparently airlifted to Roanoke Memorial Hospital.  A hearse was also reportedly on the scene

3. Mall property is under lockdown.  Mall employees are being interviewed and being allowed to leave the property.

4. According to witnesses, the response by law enforcement was “massive.”    Possibly the largest response by local law enforcement to any incident since the Virginia Tech shooting back in 2007.   Police entered the stores within the mall itself with AR15 assault rifles at the ready and instructed the employees to lock the doors and take cover in back rooms.

Additional information:

The mall has no security cameras in the main hallways or outside the entrances.  Allied Barton Security services  provides unarmed security to the New River Valley Mall, currently owned by Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust (PREIT).  Security at the mall is strictly unarmed (observe and report) security.

There has been a number of complaints in the past regarding mall security and their inability to respond to incidents and shoplifting.   Out of fairness , I should mention the Christiansburg mall security officers are quite limited in their ability to respond per the terms of Allied Barton’s contract with PREIT mall management.  As ‘observe and report’ security they lack the legal capacity to arrest, and in the past have even been instructed by mall management not to follow suspected shoplifters into the parking lots or attempt to obtain license plate information.

Thankfully during this particular incident, one of the mall’s security officer’s had the presence of mind to take action and subdue the shooter, a very gutsy move.  The mainstream media has released no detail regarding to which officer took action.  I have a very strong suspicion but will respect his desires for privacy.  He remains an anonymous hero at the present time.

A confidential source at the mall has informed me that in addition to Christiansburg police, multiple law enforcement agencies throughout the New River Valley rushed to assist.   Police responders included officers from Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia State Police, and the Montgomery County Sheriff’s department.  A lone while male suspect, between the ages of 18 and 25 was observed under arrest and in shackles.

Police Officers have been observed entering stores carrying AR15 assault rifles.  The mall property and parking lots are currently being evacuated.

As one would expect, numerous situations have happened on mall property over the years where security cameras would be beneficial to both mall security as well as responding law enforcement.   A number of store managers have made formal requests of PREIT  for increasing mall security as well as security cameras on the premises for the past few years.   Their pleas have apparently fallen on deaf ears as no such cameras or improvements to security have occurred.

I distinctly remember Christiansburg Police department installing a small satellite office in the malls food court a couple of years ago.  That satellite office has since been removed from the food court (Why?).  If nothing else, the presence of the satellite office in the mall was a great deterrent to tragedies such as what occurred today.

—————–

An email  I recently sent to a  fellow AUVSI member:

I believe that AUVSI needs to make a much stronger effort to stave off the public’s negative impression of ‘drones’ by supporting humanitarian forts (such as search and rescue organizations).  Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t that also skirt around the FAA’s restriction on commercial purposes?   I’m not seeking sponsorship through your company specifically, but through  AUVSI the association.  Releasing these ‘codes of conduct’ where AUVSI makes an effort to reassure the public that their members respect the public’s rights to privacy strikes me as rather hypocritical.

After all, the primary target market for unmanned aerial vehicles has to this point been for law enforcement surveillance purposes.  I’d leave the loss of privacy issue alone, and instead SHOW the public how ‘drones’ can be beneficial in humanitarian efforts, rather then to make reassuring press releases.
I recently was approached by a  support of a volunteer organization seeking the assistance of private investigators to assist in locating missing children.  We discussed’ the potential benefits of  ‘an eye in the sky’ at length, especially in rural area/wilderness area scenarios.  Quick response is crucial in dealing with these scenarios.  Expense, availability issues, and red tape can delay deployment of a police helicopter approach right when it would prove the most valuable.
In addition to being such a worthy cause, the rescue of lost or abducted children, the public relations aspect has such tremendous potential!    The Virginia moratorium was as a result of pressure on the Virginia legislature by their constituents to prevent ‘big brother’ from stealing away their privacy.  The only way to fight this PR war is to develop a more positive image of these technologies with John Q. Public.
Just a bit of brainstorming.  What are your thoughts?
I respect your opinions.  Please just level with me.

James Pollock Bulldog Investigations www.bulldogpi.net (540)922-3896

As posted in the AUVSI Linkedin forum

Subject: UAS in Search and Rescue: Let’s change the tide
Message:
As of late Unmanned Aerial Systems (aka ‘Drones’) have fallen under a great deal of scrutiny from both the media and privacy advocate groups. I would like to make what I believe may be a very worthwhile suggestion. Recently I was contacted via email on behalf of the Center for Search and Investigations: “a group of devoted licensed investigators and many dedicated volunteers that donate their time pro bono for the sole purpose to successfully and safely locate missing children.” This organization is apparently seeking private investigators willing to contribute to their efforts in rural Virginia and West Virginia.
As I found this a worthy and intriguing cause, I contacted their CEO , Chuck Foreman. During the course of our conversation, the topic of UAS and their potential benefits for search and rescue efforts came into play.  As a private investigator, I survive (and sometimes thrive) by ‘thinking outside the box.’ PI’s often seek out new approaches to tackle perplexing problems. As of late, the concern of most AUVSI member companies is the public’s perception on just how these technologies will be used. I believe that the donation of resources in a direction such as this would speak VOLUMES to the general public, and help relieve some of the political pressures that have begun to fall upon our blossoming industry. With all due respect, I believe this approach would yield far greater benefits then the recent release of the newly released ‘code of conduct.’ The members of AUVSI need to educate the public as to how ‘drones’ will contribute to the public welfare, and actions speak louder then words.
Consider this an invitation. for open and candid dialogue. Here is a real world need which we could not only help address, but which could really help stem the tides of current criticism, if addressed correctly. I also predict a public relations opportunity beyond measure for a UAS manufacturer willing to contribute towards this aim.
James Pollock

Bulldog Investigations Bulldog Investigations & Security, LLC

While browsing my group selections on Linkedin I came across the discussion of this article:

Senator Floyd Prozanski wants to ban privately owned UAV’s.

I don’t have a lot of tolerance of morons in political office.  Not so not surprisingly, I will now share my reaction to Senator Prozanski’s proposed legislation:

As a private investigator this is something I’m keeping a close eye on.    The ‘drones will invade privacy’ sentiment runs pretty strong among the American public based on everything Ive read, and politicans (looking for re-election) are following suit.

Images obtained by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles [UAV] aren’t somehow more revealing simply because no one’s on board.   Unless the thing is flying in your yard, it’s camera aimed stealthly through your bedroom window, the observations and recordings obtained by the ‘drone’ can already be legally obtained  by a manned aircraft.

The primary motivation in using a UAV or ‘drone’ is one of reduced cost, all other factors being equal.  I have no problem with Federal or State legislators deciding that airborne gathering evidence without permission of the land owner below is illegal without a warrant… if those rules apply ACROSS THE BOARD.    What does whether a person is physically present on the aircraft have to do with anything?

The United State Supreme court has ruled (and upheld their initial decision)  that evidence of criminal activity obtained by law enforcement from the air is admissible.  The court’s ruling stated  that images obtained in this matter, or related  eye witness accounts   occurred in “public view” to the passengers/pilot of the aircraft.

So how can legislators/law makers/judges decide that images or video obtained from a UAV are somehow a terrible infringement on personal privacy simply because a person is not aboard the aircraft?  Security cameras record parking lots, city streets, etc constantly without someone physically handling the camera… and as I already stated, aerial photography and evidence gathering from an airborne manned vehicle has already been ruled fair game.

To try to pass laws and regulations that state UAV’s are somehow violating people’s rights to privacy requires some sort of justifiable argument and “because no one is sitting on the aircraft” doesn’t cut it.  Neither does “well, because I just don’t like it.”

James Pollock

Bulldog Investigations