ex-postal worker kills 7
 

When I heard the story, I shrugged - another workplace shooting, this time the stereotypical postal worker.

Today I read a litte more, and I was very surprised to see the shooter was a woman. She sounds quite deranged, but I've never heard of a female mass murderer killing so many in such a workplace rampage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11128315/

Long before former postal employee Jennifer Sanmarco went on a suicidal rampage inside a mail processing plant in Santa Barbara, acquaintances and others took note of her odd behavior, a spiral of bizarre acts that began at least two years ago.

Interviews with officials and others in New Mexico, Sanmarco's home state, to which she returned in 2004 after she lost her job at the mail facility, paint a picture of an unpredictable woman.

“We weren’t sure what she was going to do next,” said Terri Gallegos, deputy clerk for the city of Milan, N.M., where Sanmarco applied for a business license in 2004 for a publication called “The Racist Press” that she said she planned to launch. Another time she said she wanted to register a cat food business, Gallegos said.

During one meeting, Gallegos said, Sanmarco carried on a conversation with herself “like she was arguing with someone, but there was no one there.”

Last March, office workers called authorities after the 44-year-old woman made what Gallegos described as a rude allegation. Other times, Gallegos said, Sanmarco would come in and simply stare at one employee in particular.

In June, police in nearby Grants, N.M., talked to her after someone at a gas station called to complain of nudity, police Chief Marty Vigil said. Sanmarco was dressed when officers arrived.

Sanmarco's behavior turned violent on Monday night, when she returned to her old workplace, the sprawling Processing and Distribution Center in Santa Barbara, Calif. She drove through the gate behind another car and gained entry to the building by taking an employee’s identification badge at gunpoint.

That worker was not hurt, but Sanmarco fatally shot six postal employees before committing suicide in what is believed to be the deadliest workplace shooting by a woman.

“According to witnesses from the scene, she had a 9 mm pistol and reloaded at least once during her rampage,” Santa Barbara County Sheriff James Anderson said Tuesday.

It's believed Sanmarco may also have killed a former neighbor a few hours before the Monday attack, sheriff’s officials said Wednesday.

The possible seventh victim was found dead Tuesday from a gunshot wound to the head at a Santa Barbara condominium complex where Sanmarco once lived, said Jeff Klapakis with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department.

“Evidence and circumstances of both crimes show distinct correlations between the two,” Klapakis said Wednesday.

Klapakis said the woman, identified by her brother as Beverly Graham, 54, died Monday.

Authorities said it was unclear whether Sanmarco targeted specific employees at the postal center, but U.S. Postal Inspector Randy DeGasperin said “chances are” she knew the people she was shooting.

DeGasperin told reporters Tuesday that Sanmarco had left the mail facility on a medical leave in 2003 after her co-workers expressed concerns she might hurt herself. He said police removed her from the building one time.

“She was not making any threats or anything of that nature,” DeGasperin said. “It was more for her safety.”

Beverly Graham had also noticed unusual behavior, her brother Les Graham told The Associated Press. He said his sister had complained about a woman who “used to come out and rant and rave in front of her building.” The family suspects that Sanmarco was the neighbor and his sister’s killer, he said.

Talk about going postal

One ticket please

Poor woman, poor victims.

Guns lead to tragedy more ofen than I like to contemplate.

imagine if one or two of the people who'd been killed had not been denied their constitutional right to bear arms, lives could have been saved.

I'm more surprised a woman could shoot straight.

People's lives arent jokes.

Yeah...that's what caused all of this. :rolleyes:
Ok...why are you inviting an ass beating?

How in the world was anyone denied their rights in this situation? Are you seriously advocating that everyone should be allowed to go to work armed and that businesses should have no right to deny access to armed individuals? Anyone in a customer service job would probably disagree with you pretty vehemintly.

Because the only type of woman who would take umbrage at this is the type who can't shoot straight, so I'm safe :lol:

Though this is one of those aspects of evoultion where men seem to have an edge on the whole.

the law abiding peaceful employees weren't armed because of policy, but that didn't seem to matter to the person that comitted the crime, did it? Had these people been allowed to practice their rights to bear arms, maybe the only person dead would be the one that had the intent on holding a massacre.


Are those companies that prohibit an employee from carrying a weapon responsible for the employees life in the event that an armed individual with intent to maim or murder enters the premises? My guess is that they would not be held liable and any individual that dies as a result of the criminal not caring if they obeyed law/policy/whatever died because they were prevented from providing for their own self defense.

You don't see any problems with allowing armed individuals into banks, hospitals, department stores, schools, etc? No possibility that a momentary lapse in judgement might hurt or injure someone accidentally? Should we arm all of our middle school and high school students because another one of them might go off the deep end? Don't I have the right not to have to worry that I might accidentally jostle someone in an elevator and have their weapon discharge because they neglected to put the safety on? I think if you think through what you're advocating, you might see that no one's rights are absolute.

And in with that guess, you are wrong. Pretty much every state requires employers to provide a "safe place to work", including protection from fellow employees and outsiders. Basically what you're saying is that your right to be armed as an employee trumps my duty as employer to protect you and other employees from harm through accidental or purposeful actions. The post office works under slightly different rules because it is a semi-public entity, but if this had happened at UPS or really any other private firm, there would be significant amounts paid as damages to the survivors and the families of the deceased through a variety of insurance policies (life, workers comp, general liability, employment practices liability). Employers can and have been held liable by the estates of people killed during violent events.

Just to clarify my position, I don't have any problem at all with responsible adults owning guns. However, I do not want to live in a society where everyone is armed, nor do I want to raise my children to live in fear of the remote possibility that they might be victims of violence.

going out on a limb here hoping this wasn't a private transaction and thinking this was totally preventable...

http://www.instapunk.com/images/BATF_Form_4473a.png

line "f" asks if the applicant has been adjudicated as mentally deficient or commited to a mental facility which was not the case... she was taken to a mental facility but not ordered to one by a court...

further, while in new mexico she was observed by neighbors and authority alike to be in la - la land but nothing was done about it...

linkage

had she been, evidence would have been available to the gun dealer that would have stopped the sale of the gun (assuming the gun was purchased after the looniness started)...

all the gun dealer does with this form is keep it on file for inspection by authorities in case something like this does happen...

the batfe keeps a database of millions of these forms in hopes of stopping the purchase by felons, illegals, and others as well as solving crimes comitted with firearms...

that's after the fact...

i own guns and have owned guns since i was 10... i advocate the right to own them and will do so till the outlaw them...

but, as shown in this case the government failed it's own system, she wrote "no" in the box and it wasn't checked out if she lied... how would the gun dealer know if she's being truthful or not... the locals knew she was wacko but did nothing about it when they had the opportunity to...

and now 7 people are dead...

i don't care if her motive is racist or not - that's not the issue here...

you don't put the leash on the dog after he bites someone

In a word, no!

anything is possible, but proper responsibility and common sense will make it the minimum so you should be safe. you stand a greater chance of being hit by a car.

:rolleyes:

do you jostle people in elevators like linebackers jostle quarterbacks? again, you have a more likely chance of being hit by a vehicle.

the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness sound vaguely familiar to me.....



you left out a keyword in that argument....'reasonably' safe place to work. cameras, unarmed security at the doors, and fire exits are generally all that is required.

No, what i'm saying is that my right to defend my life and your duty to provide a 'reasonably' safe work place do not mean the same thing.

please cite some examples because, to date, I've not heard of any company having to pay for the death of an employee via liability claims. insurance and comp benefits are not in the same category.

you've been brainwashed with this idea that guns make people violent. that is completely wrong. people are violent already and those that are violent will use whatever is handy at the time. A gun in responsible hands can be the difference between life and death at the hands of that violent person. If you are not teaching your children that there is a remote possibility that they might be a victim of violence, then you are failing as a parent in that area. all one needs to do is read the paper and listen to the news to know that there will ALWAYS be the possibility of being a victim of violence.

Workers Compensation is insurance in every state except North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia and couple of others (can't remember off the top of my head) where the state provides the coverage (called a monopolistic state). Who do you think pays the benefits? Your employer may have a $250,000 deductible, but the insurance carrier is the one who pays you the money and reimburses the employer (except for your paycheck, where the employer submits a copy of you paystub and is reimbursed). Let me know if you need a list of carriers that write workers comp in your state, and I can give you just about as long a list as you want. There are generally about 100 writing in any state, with a few notable exceptions.

As far as examples, the companies in the Twin Towers on 9/11, or more accurately their insurance carriers, paid well over $1B in workers comp, general liability and life benefits because of the event. Speaking solely on financial terms, that number is obviously dwarfed by loss that the property carriers paid out, but it still managed to bring on an early onset of a hard market for the casualty (liability) markets. If you check my profile, you'll see that I do this for a living, so I'm pretty confident on how this all works. If you'd like any other examples, I'd be copy articles from Business Insurance into a response.

As with anything, the more that you increase the number of potential causes, the greater chance of something occurring. For instance if I walk in areas with more cars driving, I have a greater chance of being hit by a car. If I walk down 16th street in Grinnell, IA east of town (gravel road with very light traffic), I stand a much smaller chance of being hit than if I am crossing the intersection of State and Monroe in Chicago. If fewer people are carrying guns around me, I stand a much smaller chance of being shot on purpose or accidentally.

As for my elevator riding skills, I am not always the most coordinated individual, and I work in a very busy building. It's been known to happen. I've also bumped into people on the street because I lost my balance. What if I slip on the pavement on a wet day and you've neglected to notice that the safety on your Walther PPK slipped into the off position the last time that you put in the holster? That's a live round going who knows where. Sure, it's not an everyday accident, but as soon as you make anything idiot proof someone comes along and builds a better idiot.

Actually, none of these are required by employers. Fire exits are required of building owners, but neither cameras nor security is required of any employer. It may be prudent for reasons other than worker safety, but it is certainly not required. Are there cameras or security guards at your doctors office? How about the guy that puts new siding on your house - does he have cameras and security? What about the local golf course? Book store? Bar? A "safe place to work" generally means free from dangers that pose an iminent threat to the health or safety of the employee, like no asbestos laying around, no piles of broken glass and no uncontained open flames.

[QUOTE=dksuddeth]you've been brainwashed with this idea that guns make people violent. that is completely wrong. people are violent already and those that are violent will use whatever is handy at the time. A gun in responsible hands can be the difference between life and death at the hands of that violent person. If you are not teaching your children that there is a remote possibility that they might be a victim of violence, then you are failing as a parent in that area. all one needs to do is read the paper and listen to the news to know that there will ALWAYS be the possibility of being a victim of violence.[/QUOTE[

The operative term here is "remote". You can't remove that possibility, but by your own admission, I'm more likely to be hit by a car than shot. I will teach my kids to be careful crossing the street and not to antagonize violent people. I have lot more experience in that area than you might think, and I've never been shot at once. I think that you've been brainwashed to expect armed muggers and rapists are lurking around every corner. A gun in the home in more likely to be kill someone accidentially or as a suicide than it is to kill someone purposfully (either as a murder or in self defense). See the 2002 CDC study. It runs about 40% murder/self defense and 60% suicide/accidental shooting. Guns are not inherently evil, being inanimant objects, but arming our society will not do anything to reduce the amount of violence. Quite the opposite - if every one is armed, then an armed response (which is inherently violent in its very nature) by anyone who feels provoked will become the norm.

The USA post office used to have employes waive (sp?) any workman's compensation or they would not be hired. Has this changed?

I see people spout these CDC stats and I can't help but think that they are being obtuse. Makes me want to go 'blah blah blah'. Why people play the odds with their families lives is beyond me. Nothing is more precious to me than my family and I wouldn't hesitate to take the life of someone that threatens them. Why people wouldn't use the most effective and efficient means for the protection of their family is something that needs to be explained to me.

For your family's sake, I hope that you keep your gun locked at all times. Leaving unsecured handguns around the house (unless you live alone or only with adults) is irresponsible in the best of lights. If you do that, then your gun could end up being in the 40% of being used as intended.

Personally, I don't like the odds, but that's me. And I play the odds all day every day for a living, so it's hard for me not to think about that when I'm at home. All I ask is that you don't bring your gun into my house.

Why do i get a mental image of the crazy cat lady from the Simpsons when I read this article?

It's usually carried at all times. home invasions are on the rise and even though the odds of my home being invaded are (insert odd statistic here) small comparitively, I'd rather have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

There is certainly no disrespect on my part towards anyone that does not want a gun in their home. It is their home and their choice. I'll probably never understand the reasons for that choice, but there you have it. stay safe.