Employee Kills Coworkers At New Jersey Pathmark

The Newark Star-Ledger is reporting that two workers are dead after an employee of the Old Bridge Pathmark supermarket in New Jersey entered the store with two guns and began shooting. The worker then took his own life.

From the Newark Star-Ledger:

The gunman, an ex-Marine, had been working at the store for about two weeks, [Old Bridge's Mayor] said. The man, whom he did not identify, had been working at the store Thursday night but left and came back a short time later. He was armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and an automatic pistol.

Gunman kills 2 workers before committing suicide at Old Bridge Pathmark [Newark Star-Ledger]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Velifer says:

    Clearly a consumerism issue. Grocery store shrink ray on the magazines again?

  2. bnceo says:

    Yeah, this is a little bit off base for the site . Though it does deal with someone who is a disgruntled worker.

  3. zigziggityzoo says:

    I know you probably just took the words verbatim from the linked article (yay plagiarism!), but at least fact check.

    The pistol was not automatic. It was semi-automatic.

    Fully automatic pistols are quite rare and even more expensive to get your hands on, and require an extensive 4-6 month background check.

    • Velifer says:

      “AK-47″ is journalist and Hollywood-speak for “black rifle with banana mag, used to shoot at Americans”

      “automatic pistol” is anything short, black, and not a revolver.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Does it kill you less?

    • Pre-Existing Condition says:

      When talking about pistols, an “automatic” is a self-loading, magazine or clip fed handgun, that isn’t a revolver. The author’s wording is strange but it is technically correct.

      The term “assault weapon” is just a word that describes cosmetic features on a rifle and is designed to get people into a tizzy, like “partial birth”.

    • bigroblee says:

      @zigziggityzoo I’m a gun owner, so please understand this comes from the heart; STFU. It’s well known that “automatic pistol” is a term used synonymously for a semi-auto in both popular culture and among gun enthusiasts. If I went into any of the five gun shops around me and said I’m looking for an auto they’d show me the semi-automatic pistols. Don’t believe me? Go try it yourself, and report back.

      Source
      Definition of AUTOMATIC PISTOL
      : a pistol capable of automatic OR semiautomatic fire
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/automatic%20pistol

      Source
      >Additional terms sometimes used as synonyms for a semi-automatic pistol are automatic pistol, self-loading pistol, autopistol, and autoloading pistol.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol

      Source
      Automatic pistol may refer to:
      Machine pistol, a handgun-style, magazine-fed and self-loading firearm, capable of fully automatic or burst fire, and chambered for pistol cartridges
      Semi-automatic pistol, a type of handgun that can be fired in semi-automatic mode, firing one cartridge for each pull of the trigger. It is a self-loading firearm.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_pistol

      Source
      Ruger Automatic Pistols For Sale
      http://www.gunsinternational.com/Ruger-Automatic-Pistols.cfm?cat_id=95

      • zigziggityzoo says:

        The problem, of course, is that an uninformed joe citizen thinks an automatic gun is a machine gun.

        Don’t believe me? Go ask someone at random, and report back.

        While an FFL will hear “Automatic” and naturally translate that to semi-auto, the audience at large will not.

        • wombats lives in [redacted] says:

          As he approached the victim, their final thoughts began racing through their heads:
          “Oh shit, he has an automatic pistol and an AK-47.”
          “Oh wait I best clarify, so the people out there don’t get angered or confused, by automatic I mean semi-automatic.”
          “Now that I’ve addressed the key issue of my ass being shot to death, I’m glad it wasn’t for nothing.”

        • bigroblee says:

          Again, you are wrong.

  4. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    A) Why is this on Consumerist, because
    B) You’re ruining my Friday!

  5. howie_in_az says:

    Clearly we should outlaw Marines.

  6. shepd says:

    And, my friends, this is a very good reason to find another job the moment the place starts to turn unpleasant.

  7. lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

    How sad. I hate to hear about workplace shootings, as it could happen anywhere, at any time, and there’s just no place to hide.

    • deathbecomesme says:

      So sad. Pretty soon we’ll probably start hearing how he was a “marksman” in the service and had PTSD symptoms but no one listened.

      • lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

        I wondered about that. Our military personnel can go through some pretty awful stuff, and then we expect them to come home and just deal with it. We really need to focus more on what happens after they get home.

        • Pre-Existing Condition says:

          Unless, it’s changed from my last deployment (which was a long time ago), all of the medical and psych screenings are at the de-mob center. If you’re red flagged for any reason, it means you’re separated from your unit and stuck at the center until you’re cleared.

          If you want to stay with your platoon and company, and have a chance to see your family, you pretty much have to check “no” on all of the boxes. Otherwise, you’ll be stuck in de-mob limbo for weeks or months.

          On my last deployment, we de-mob’d at Ft. Dix. NJ for three weeks and weren’t allowed off post at all and this was after a 15 month deployment. I felt really bad for the guys who were stuck there even longer. At a certain point, you just want to go home.

    • GitEmSteveDaveHatesChange says:

      Video I watched during my SORA training. http://www.les.sc.edu/CPCR/Shots_fired.asp

  8. Starrion says:

    Did the NYPD respond and shoot another seven customers?

  9. Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

    I’ve been having an argument with people on Facebook about this topic.

    (puts on helmet and flameproof suit)

    There are two things I’d like to accomplish:

    1) Stopping this kind of mass shooting where people die.
    2) Preserve everyone’s Second Amendment rights.

    I think most people would agree that those are two worthwhile goals. But, during the course of the argument, I was told that it was impossible to achieve both; we can’t have our cake (guns) and eat it too. So that leaves us with three possibilities:

    1) Stop the shootings, but lose the Second Amendment,
    2) Protect the Second Amendment, but the shootings continue, and
    3) Accomplish neither.

    3) is depressing, as everyone loses, so let’s disregard that for now.

    If we can’t have both, then either we stop the shootings and lose everyone’s Second Amendment rights in the process, or we preserve the Second Amendment, but people keep dying in this sort of shooting.

    It’s horrible, but that’s what we’re looking at if we can’t have both. Preserving the Second Amendment… kills people.

    Some would argue that you can’t stop these shootings from happening. OK, so that leaves two possibilities. We preserve the Second Amendment, or we don’t. Effectively, it doesn’t matter whether you can carry a gun or not at that point, the deaths keep piling up. (So if, as people have argued, it wasn’t a “gun free zone”, people would still have been killed. It would not matter if someone was armed in the vicinity to shoot the perpetrator.. people would still have died.)

    If you want to be able to carry a gun any place at any time, as a lot of people would like (and even demand), there are two possibilities. Either the shootings stop, or they don’t. And since you can’t have both, according to the person I was talking with, the shootings continue. People die if you don’t compromise your Second Amendment rights.

    Do you really want people to die so you can carry a gun?

    And I’m not talking about those in the armed services; they have sworn an oath to protect your rights, including your right to bear arms. They have done so voluntarily, with full knowledge of the possible consequences. The people dying in these shootings have not been asked whether or not they’d like to die so you can carry a gun. They’d probably have liked to have had some input on that decision.

    So, the only conclusion I can draw, if having both things is impossible, is that asserting your (full and unconditional) Second Amendment rights kills people. You are taking an action that leads to the death of another person.

    So, just because you CAN do something, you have the RIGHT to do it, doesn’t make it a good idea.

    • lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

      The problem with your logic is this: criminals will get guns, and shoot people, whether or not there are laws in place or not. They will smuggle them in, hide them, and then use them. Law abiding people, by definition, won’t.

      Yes, I have guns. I have a conceal carry permit.

      No, I don’t go around shooting people. I’m more worried about bears when I’m out and about than my fellow humans.

      • HogwartsProfessor says:

        Holy shit, me too. Not the gun thing, but I’m scared to death of bears!

        • chizu says:

          I think your problem can be resolved by getting a cat. (Or this particular cat, I guess.)

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5067912.stm

          • lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

            OMG I love this! I have 2 inside cats, big striped hulking things that are 13 1/2 years old, so they’re retired. The 2 outside cats that I take care of are tiny little things, like 5 lbs and maybe 8 lbs. I can’t imagine any of them doing anything unless they’re hiding behind me.

            As an aside, I went out to go to work one morning, and found muddy bear footprints on the side of my Ford Escape. At my eye level. Plus, Mr. or Mrs. Bear has stolen bird feeders from my porch. So I am careful when I go outside at night.

      • valued_customer says:

        Right, criminals could get guns.
        But there would be far fewer guns. In a better world, they would be rare and extremely expensive, so no two-bit hoodlum is going to be able to get one to murder the 7-11 clerk for forty bucks in cash.
        Most of these people who go on shooting sprees were not criminals. They were ordinary joes who snapped. We share too much of the blame for a society where ANYBODY can easily buy guns. We regulate the responsibility of car ownership (poorly), but don’t do the same with a device DESIGNED TO KILL. And when I ask a gun owner why, all they say is “BUT…Second amendment!”. The constitution is not the word of god, it has flaws that need to be fixed.

        • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

          All of that complicates the issue. I’m not talking about gun control as we know it. Indeed, when I refer to your right to a gun, I’m talking about your ABSOLUTE right to a gun; you can carry where you choose whenever you choose. Anything less infringes on your rights. So, you either have the right, or you don’t.

          Similarly, either there’s another mass shooting where someone dies, or there isn’t.

          These are black and white choices, there is no gray. Each one is yes or no. You can’t have someone partially die in a shooting, nor can you regulate what gun or where you carry it without infringing on the Second Amendment.

          If you can’t have both, you can have one or the other, or neither. Simple as that. Gun control means you don’t have an absolute right. So if you don’t have that absolute right, two possibilities: they stop, or they don’t. So, you’ve either lost the right and prevented the shooting, or lost the right AND someone dies in a new shooting. In the first, the gun owners lose, and in the second, EVERYONE loses.

      • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

        I agree. Gun control laws are essentially useless, as implemented now.

        But I’m not talking about gun control specifically here. You’ll notice that I make zero reference to gun control. I am talking about your losing your absolute right to own a gun, that is all. Not how it happens, or how to implement it; those are tough problems, but irrelevant to the conversation.

        I AM saying that if you cannot both stop the shootings and have an absolute right to carry a gun, then you can have one, the other, or neither. It’s simple logic.

        Think about this: Let’s say you’re at the range, and you are looking at two targets, one to your left, and one to your right. You have exactly one round. You have three choices: shoot the one on the left, shoot the one on the right, or to put the gun down and not shoot either of them. Shooting the one on the left preserves your absolute right to a gun. Shooting the one on the right prevents anyone from dying in a mass shooting incident. Which one do you pick, since you can’t shoot both?

    • PunditGuy says:

      I disagree with many of my fellow liberals when it comes to the second amendment. I have my problems with it, but the false dichotomy you’ve set up — keep it or save us from mass shootings — isn’t one of them. Even if getting rid of the second amendment could stop mass shootings (it wouldn’t), would you even vaguely consider that for other Constitutional provisions? For example, we can either be secure from unreasonable searches of us, our homes and our stuff — or we can win the war on drugs. In that example, the trampling of the Constitutional provision is even more efficacious than in yours: if the police could just pat you down for any reason, or toss your car or house whenever they felt like it, you’d be less likely to be able to hold on to illegal stuff. (Prisoners, though, do provide a counter example.)

      • lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

        My theory is the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be armed, not so they could hunt and shoot clay pigeons, but in case the government turned against the people, they’d at least have a chance to defend themselves. Look what happens in Africa when warring factions go after each other. The poor citizens are caught in the middle, unarmed and unable to run or defend themselves, so they’re raped, machete’d to death, or have their limbs hacked off, etc. Dictators and totalitarians love an unarmed populace.

        • Pre-Existing Condition says:

          That definitely goes along with the founding fathers massive distrust of a large, standing Army.

        • valued_customer says:

          That is not a theory, it’s fact. Read some history. But the idea no longer works.

          There is no way in hell you are going to defend yourself from the military. Either we issue them BB guns, or you get a tank for a daily driver. Neither will happen.

          This is not Africa. We have a mostly civilized society, with public law enforcement agencies, and systems of communication. Let me know if some crazy militant successfully takes over my town, okay?

      • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

        I think you might have missed the point I made early in the post. I WANT to have both. I WANT the shootings to stop without infringing on peoples’ gun rights. To use your example, I WANT protection from unreasonable search and seizure AND to win the war on drugs. I want to have it ALL. I am NOT saying that I think we have to trash the second amendment to stop these shootings. That is what I am hoping for, and would like to see us work towards.

        I was told that it was impossible to have both. If that is the case, three possibilities remain. In one, you retain your gun rights, but the shootings continue. In another, you lose your gun rights, but the shootings stop. In the third, everyone loses.

        Black or white, yes or no. The compass can point north, or it can point south, it can’t point both ways simultaneously. (Or, the needle can fall off.) If you reduce the argument down to two yes or no questions, and you can only answer “yes” once, you have to choose one or the other.

        I would like to be able to say “yes” twice. But, someone told me that that was impossible. And if it’s impossible, then logically we have what we have here.

        • PunditGuy says:

          I think you’ve had more than one person point out that you’re not going to get a “yes” to both because there is no way to stop the mass shootings. Period. So we’re down to your #2 (protect the Second Amendment, but the shootings continue), which is the only one that makes sense — and that was my point. It’s ridiculous to suggest sacrificing Constitutional principles because of some potential and highly unlikely or impossible theoretical benefit.

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      Here’s an idea.

      QUIT IDENTIFYING, PICTURING AND OVERANALYZING SHOOTERS IN THE NEWS.

      It’s well known that after a highly-publicized incident like the Aurora shootings, others who might be on the verge of doing the same thing will tip over into actually doing it. Doesn’t matter whether they’re attention seekers like the guy who killed Lennon (I refuse to use their names), or suicidal like this guy. The mindset is “He did it; I can do it.”

      As far as the gun issue, there’s nothing you can do to stop criminals from getting guns. But most shooters like this have weapons they obtained legally. If they can’t do that, and they’re determined to follow through, outlawing guns isn’t going to stop them.

      • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

        Again, I don’t want to outlaw guns, or even tell you that you can’t do ANYTHING that you want with a gun. I want you to have that right. I also want people to stop dying in mass shootings. If I am told I can’t have both, then we have to choose one or the other.

        What ‘losing gun rights’ means is open for interpretation. It could involve imposing a waiting period on purchasing a gun (I want the gun NOW, I have a right to the gun NOW.) It could require you to register your handgun (thus placing a condition on the legal ownership of the gun, so the right isn’t ‘absolute’.) I am referring to losing your right to carry whatever gun wherever you want it without fear of reprisal.

    • valued_customer says:

      Well said.
      IMO, the second amendment is the only one that doesn’t contribute to a civilized society. It is hopelessly out of date, and no longer serves its original purpose, which was to create a level playing field between government military and private militia. Since there is no earthly way of preserving that idea, short of giving every township its own strike team, why don’t we work to bring its intention into the 21st century?
      And to those who still cry “but bad guys will still get guns!”, well, duh. Yes this still happens in other countries, but gun killings (esp. mass killings) will remain an accomplishment of Americans almost exclusively until we can evolve. I would much prefer to take my chances in a movie theater against a psycho with a knife as opposed to a cache of paramilitary equipment.
      I feel sorry for the CCW people. I can’t imagine leaving my house every morning with the mindset “don’t forget your gun, may need it today”. What a depressing thought.

      • Pre-Existing Condition says:

        “I feel sorry for the CCW people. I can’t imagine leaving my house every morning with the mindset “don’t forget your gun, may need it today”. What a depressing thought.”

        It’s tough but you get used to it. In my situation, carrying a sidearm is pretty much a prerequisite to working on foot (or ATV) in the coal fields.

        • valued_customer says:

          So you have a job that requires a firearm to protect against either wildlife or criminals, okay. That’s just not true for most citizens in this country. Forest rangers and police should have guns for different reasons. I don’t get the same sense of danger when I walk through a mall…but because every moron can get guns, I have cause to worry. I choose not to worry that much.

          • acw123 says:

            If you ever find yourself in the minority of citizens who actually does NEED a gun at some point to defend your family, the fact that guns are never needed by MOST citizens will not make you feel much better about the prospect of a gun ban.

    • acw123 says:

      Psycho killer who is unable to get a gun:
      A) Whatever wires are crossed making him want to kill as many people as possible just go away and he becomes a nice, normal, productive guy.

      B) He goes on a killing spree using fire, poison, bombs, crashing vehicles into crouds, etc..etc..etc

      Picking A is like saying that if you need to go some place a couple miles away, but can’t use your car, you will just give up and never think of using a bike,bus,cab etc.

  10. Vegetius says:

    I’ll make this easy for you to understand: I’ll give up the Second Amendment when you give up the First. I’m as willing to give up my guns as you are to sit down and shut your mouth. Don’t like hearing that sort of thing? NEITHER DO I. Any questions?

    • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

      I’ve looked through the comments on this threat twice, and I see no reference to anyone saying that you SHOULD lose your right. The wall of text you see from me above conveys a desire to PROTECT your second amendment rights.

      Oh, and TL;DR for above: Sadly, it looks like it’s possible that we cannot stop these shootings without infringing on people’s Second Amendment rights. I wish it weren’t.

    • valued_customer says:

      Sure, cause constitutional rights are all equal in value and affect everyone identically.
      Here’s something to ponder: Who *exactly* gave you the right to own a gun. A.) Buddha B.) Jesus C.)Guys in funny wigs.
      A small group of people many years ago decided something that today allows you to own a gun. Since our world has changed drastically since then, we sometimes need to reevaluate these things. One day you may need a much better argument to win the debate.

      • Starrion says:

        I understand your arguement.

        If guns are illegal, they will be rarer and thus hard to get. Mass shootings would decline as a consequence.

        Marijuana is illegal. Is it hard to get?

        Demand creates supply. Many of the people who commit mass shootings plan them meticulously, so I very much doubt that making it somewhat harder to get a gun would have any effect at all.
        On the other hand, the attention given to mass shooters and our cultures mindset that disputes are best settled violently (which seem to be at root for a lot of these events) bear more review.
        Our nations completely ineffective mental health system could also use significant attention.

        • valued_customer says:

          I never said there’d be no guns.

          Marijuana grows all by itself in the right conditions, it takes very little skill to grow, and it’s relatively cheap. Not many people can manufacture their own weapons.
          Someone has to MAKE the guns. And we freely allow (and encourage) the production of many, many guns.

          I would like a Ferrari. Since very few are made, I cannot afford one or get one from CarMax down the street. They are also dangerous in the hands of most drivers and I am happy knowing that everyone does not drive one.

          • Starrion says:

            Up until recently you would be correct that people can’t make their own guns. That has changed with the advent of 3-d printers. Proof of concept weapons have already been made.

            But that is moot, as it will be a while before 3D printers are common.

            Regardless, if we have learned anything from prohibition, banning something does not remove it from circulation. It simply drives it underground. If you required all legal gunowners to turn in all their weapons and accessories, many people would comply. But you would create an enormous black market of weapons, and create many more criminals of people who want to be able to defend themselves.

            And don’t forget, many countries make guns. If it couldn’t be obtained here, it can be obtained somewhere else, because making guns isn’t hard.

            • VeiledThreats says:

              Like Mexico where a citizen is not allowed to own a gun and yet thousands of them are smuggled across the border anyway into the arms of drug lords and run-of-the-mill street criminals.

              How’s that weapon ban working in Mexico? What about Dunblane, Scotland? Street thugs will get them on the black market like they do now, cheaply and illegally. Crazy mass murders who want to take out a schoolyard full of children or a movie theater will plan their attack and obtain a weapon. Personally, I’d like a sliver of a chance against the people committing armed robbery on the streets of my city. Yes, it is depressing that some of us have to pack a gun when we leave the house, but it’s a sad reality of our current world. I don’t know how to fix it, but I’m pretty sure Mr. Rapist doesn’t care to debate the philosophical merits of a less armed society.

          • acw123 says:

            Anyone with a triple digit IQ and an internet connection who paid attention in a HS metal shop course could EASILY build a bolt action rifle and eventually build a fully auto rifle. Guns are pricey because they have to be made from materials that can stand up to the pressure released when firing. Not because the process of creating the parts and putting them together is complex or difficult. You could learn to disassemble and reassemble a fully auto rifle in an afternoon. If you did this you would see how the rifle works and understand how easy it would be to make the parts to build one in a metal shop. An average person couldn’t begin to build a (modern) car from completed parts let alone raw materials – there are computers and electronic sensors and complex parts that you simply couldn’t get working without special equipment and tons of expert level knowledge in multiple fields. This is why there are few ferraris on the market – because “some guy” can’t just make on. This is not true when it comes to firearms. People were building firearms more than 400 years ago without complex machinery. Just because YOU can’t do it does not mean it is difficult. YOU could easily learn how if sufficiently motivated – like by being a psycho and wanting to kill a bunch of people – if you decided that you really had to use a gun rather than just driving your car into a crowd..

  11. Press1forDialTone says:

    NOW do you think we need to control the availability of assault weapons???
    How many more will have to die?
    5, 100, 2000, 50,000?

    • Pre-Existing Condition says:

      An “assault weapon” is just a rifle that has certain cosmetic features. It really has nothing to do with actual function.

      Now, if you wanted to ban semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles, while I wouldn’t agree with it, I could understand the argument. But banning rifles because they look scary (pistol grip, magazine lug, etc.) makes absolutely no sense.

    • NurseTimLPN says:

      Legal definition of assault weapon: a weapon capable of fully automatic fire, i.e. a machine gun. These have been illegal to own since the 1930’s. You are using the Diane Feinstein definition of an assault weapon, which is a scary looking rifle.

      • GitEmSteveDaveHatesChange says:

        They have not been “illegal to own”. You can own one with the proper federal paperwork.

    • acw123 says:

      I could take out more people by driving my car full speed into a crowd than I could with an assult rifle. Do you think a psycho wanting to kill as many people as possible just gives up on the whole psycho killer thing and becomes a nice guy when he can’t get a gun?

  12. chiieddy says:

    Yay for the town next to my hometown. I’m guessing this is the one off Rt 34?

    • chizu says:

      This is actually the one off Route 9, close to Route 18, I think. This is also the town over from where I live. (Like 10-15 minutes away.)

  13. Sian says:

    what the hell, Consumerist.
    Just trying to spike page hits or what?

  14. Cacao says:

    My alt weekly posted this after a recent shooting. Sad how I can’t remember which shooting it was. Colorado maybe? The Colorado copycat? Anyway, it’s a police video on what to do to survive a shooting event. Caveat: do not watch if you have PTSD.

  15. pythonspam says:

    Can we all at least agree that the Second Amendment is outdated?
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    There is nothing in there specifying what types of “Arms” may be kept and born. But as technology progressed, we have accepted that normal people do not need rocket launchers, APC’s with .50 Cal M2 Browning machine guns, or A-10 with working gatlin gun to defend themselves or their homes.

  16. MarkFL says:

    Waiting for Dave Mustaine to check in…