Cover Up In VA Beach: Victim Feared Mass Shooting by Coworker, Wanted To Be Armed

Bloody Hand Glass Window Shooting
Cover Up In VA Beach: Victim Feared Mass Shooting by Coworker, Wanted To Be Armed

Virginia – -(AmmoLand.com)- Imagine this happening to you. Your spouse is extremely frightened that either a just-fired co-worker who made threats as he was escorted from the property or another co-worker who had shown past violent tendencies, was going to come to work and start killing people.

You tell your spouse to take a gun to work just in case. Your spouse has a gun and has had training, but ends up making the fateful decision not to break their employment agreement by bringing the gun to work.

The next day, the co-worker with violent tendencies comes to work. He has a key to secure access areas of the building, where police have no access, and ends up murdering your spouse and eleven other people.

That's what happened to Jason Nixon, whose wife, Katherine, was murdered in cold blood. Katherine was made defenseless by the City of Virginia Beach's employment agreement.

If the above scenario is accurate, Virginia Beach is in the middle of a coverup, as the City claims that the murderer showed no signs of being dangerous, was in good standing, and not about to be fired. And the City also apparently made no effort to increase security after the verbal threats by the fired co-worker.

(BTW, a trusted source with an inside track told me shortly before this article came out that the murderer had indeed been fired the day before and had made loud, threatening remarks as he left the property. Based on the article, I now believe the source's inside track was not talking about the murderer, but the other employee in question.)

A litany of “what if's” surely haunt Mr. Nixon. What if Katherine had taken that gun in her purse and defied workplace rules? What if she had called in sick that day? What if she had left work early?

All we can do is pray for Mr. Nixon and work to fix the wrong that stripped his wife of her right to protect herself. We need to outlaw “gun-free zones” once and for all. No law-abiding Virginian should be required to die helplessly at the hands of a workplace killer in order to have a job. And the government, of all employers, should be upholding the Constitution and the protections in the Bill of Rights.

Here's an article by Kerry Dougherty on the alleged coverup by Virginia Beach:

More articles, including a call to release the employment records of the murderer:


Virginia Citizens Defense LeagueAbout Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):

Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

For more information, visit: www.vcdl.org.

  • 33 thoughts on “Cover Up In VA Beach: Victim Feared Mass Shooting by Coworker, Wanted To Be Armed

    1. I work for an employer who’s policy disarms it’s employees. I does not, however, disarm it’s customers in what is often times, a crowded and busy retail environment. I have the distinct pleasure of working in the department with the highest rate of theft and l’m mandated to provide “customer service” to these individuals. I often wonder how desperate they are and if they carry weapons, would they use them. I know of verbal threats made indirectly while they’re on their cell phones. Of course all employees have to view the “Run, Hide, Fight” video on active shooter situations. Like a fire extinguisher to the head is going to save lives! Could you stop shooting and hold still a second? I don’t worry about my open carry customers. I’m happy to engage them!
      It would not surprise me if details about the murderer in this latest rampage were hushed up just to avoid wrongful death lawsuits.

      1. Even if it did disarm customers you would be less safe as law abiding customers would not be armed and able to assist employees and unlawfully customers would be armed anyway.

    2. This may be slightly off topic, but HAS ANYONE….ANYONE …. SEEN A PHOTO OF EITHER WEAPON AND THE SO CALLED SILENCER ????? I’ve heard numerous reports on radio that one of the guns was a MAC-10 SEMI-AUTO equipped with one of those iconic FAKE SILENCERS from the 1980’s that acted as merely something the shooter could hang on to with the weak hand while pulling the trigger with the strong hand???? THESE FAUX SILENCERS WERE A COSMETIC ACCESSORY that did nothing to reduce the sound in any way. NOTHING ! ! ! They were not SILENCERS!!!! They were just a cosmetic like hanging coon tails off your bicycle.
      PLEASE…..HAS ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY SEEN PHOTOS OF THE PISTOLS AND THE SILENCER ??????

    3. Any government official ( congress, judges, lawyers and enforcement) who has anything to do with stripping people of their GOD given mandate to be armed and their constitutionally protected RIGHT to keep and bare arms is just as culpable and guilty of murder as the shooter is. Somehow, someway some really smart and rattlesnake mean lawyer is going to prosecute government officials and enforcement personnel for treason and being accomplice to murder. The penalty for treason is the same as for murder, last I checked it was death. You might want to mention this the next time you happen to see your congress man or police. Until people in government and enforcement come to their senses and recognize the 2A is the RIGHT it is and not a privilege to be taken away “for our own good”, we will just have to be civilly disobedient and carry anyway. Gun free zones invite mass murder. This should be so obvious to everyone by now. So, what is the real reason for disarming the public? It’s not for public safety. It’s not for our own good. How many times has carrying/using a gun saved lives? How come it almost never makes the news? Propaganda. To what end? How many high ranking government officials have you seen WITHOUT AN ARMED ESCORT? How about WALLS AROUND THEIR HOUSES? Government’s main job is the protection and defense of the rights and freedoms that are layed out in the constitution, amendments, bill of rights etc…When any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is in the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and create new government. That last sentence should be very familiar to everyone. It is a part of the reasoning the United States of America exists in the first place. The very tipping point for the war for freedom and independence happened when the British marched on Concord in an attempt to deprive their “subjects” of our firearms. Just as then, we have many times petitioned the government in all humility and just as then their answer is repeated injury and insult, common sense being pushed aside by tyranny.

      Had someone in the building been armed, ready to use it and done so effectively there is little doubt things would have turned out differently. I don’t know what the response time was for the cops to arrive on site, access the situation and stop the bad guy but I can bet there are twelve people and twelve families who would say it was too long. That is NOT the fault of the cops. They can’t be everywhere, nor do I want them to be. I don’t want to live in a police state—like Venezuela for instance. That leaves just us. WE are the first responders. WE are responsible for the lives and welfare of our spouse, children, friends and neighbors, co workers, the innocent person on the street and ourselves.

      If you are not armed 24/7 you are kidding yourself. If you are not trained as to how, when and when not to deploy a firearm and engage a threat, get trained. If you can’t hit an A-zone sized target @ 25 yds. @ 1 sec. per shot–practice. Ammo is a lot cheaper than a funeral. Try competitive shooting. Pistol, three gun, even cowboy matches will sure show you where your strengths are along with your weaknesses. When you see and realize just how little time it takes for a situation to go sideways, there will be no doubt as to why to be armed 24/7. Just common sense. Arm up, carry on.

    4. Jury nullification:
      The tradition of jury nullification in the United States has its roots in the British legal system, specifically in a 1670 English case where Quakers were acquitted by a jury of violating a law which only permitted religious assemblies under the Church of England. In 1735 a journalist in the colony of New York was acquitted by a jury who nullified a law making it a crime to criticize public officials.
      In the 1794 case of Georgia v. Brailsford
      Chief Justice John Jay’s nuanced instructions to the jury have been cited frequently in discussions of jury nullification:
      It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
      The late Chief Justice of the Washington State Supreme Court William C. Goodloe was an advocate of jury nullification and suggested that the following instruction be given by judges to all juries in criminal cases.
      You are instructed that this being a criminal case you are the exclusive judges of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and you have a right also to determine the law in the case. The court does not intend to express any opinion concerning the weight of the evidence, but it is the duty of the court to advise you as to the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; yet in your decision upon the merits of the case you have a right to determine for yourselves the law as well as the facts by which your verdict shall be governed.
      Of course now:
      In 2017, the Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury’s instruction and overruled the second half. The jury instructions were: “You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.” However, they deemed this a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.

    5. Lies are always reported first, then the truth comes out later.
      The anti-gun movement is counting on people to remember the headlines and down play the facts. Apparently the eventual truth reveals how ineffective guns laws are at stopping killers intent on ignoring them. Disarming people who follow the laws doesn’t make murderers less dangerous.

      1. Yup. Lies to get the headlines on page A1. The truth comes out months later and is relegated to the B section.
        Can’t muddy the anti-gun message of the Left.

    6. Had that sweet woman carried her pistol to work that day, she might have saved a lot of lives, including her own. Of course, then she would’ve probably been brought up on charges for violating the policy.
      It’s time for all the nonsense about those nasty inanimate objects (read: “guns”) to stop. People kill people, it’s been going on for long before the invention of a gun. Nobody’s screaming for the outlawing of cars, frying pans or baseball bats, are they? People are killed by them too. No, they only want guns gone, so “they” can have total control over the people. It’s all about controlling the masses. That’s why our founding fathers put in the 2nd Amendment.

    7. Imagine that, someone covering the TRUTH to protect themselves. Funny how the facts ALWAYS appear after the lies and cover up have been used. Makes things MUCH worse. Sue these lying P.O.S. into nonexistence ! They KNEW he was a viable/possible/probable threat and did NOTHING. One AGAIN the “no firearms on company property” management rule has cost many lives AND prohibited someone who COULD have stopped it from arming themselves. These companies and areas MUST be held liable for their decision to disarm all on the property, thus making a gun free SHOOTING GALLERY for anyone who gets the urge to do a LIVE VIDEO GAME. The law abiding citizen that obeys the NO FIREARM rule has become the victim of choice. Better safe than sorry folks, ARM YOURSELF !

      1. You are absolutely right! Politicians and bureaucrats who impose these restrictions on society are an accessory to the shooting and must be called out.

    8. Don’t know if you can legally make them accountable,but you ought to be able to have a civil wrongful death suit against them. Maybe enough of winning them would break these gun free zones up by getting millions from them.

      1. I was thinking the same thing. When local ordinances are used to violate Constitutional rights, and it results in death or bodily harm, then the authors of the ordinalce, enforcers and anyone else culpable should be held accountable in Civil court for the maximum allowed. We are seeing more and more local and state entities passing laws that violate the Constitution and getting away with it. It needs to be stopped at ALL government levels.

          1. Municipalities are legally responsible for their policies. Your comment about differentiating “policy” which is directed at employees from “ordinance” which as a law affects the general public , is objectively “true”, but it absolutely irrelevant to a discussion about injured employees.

    9. Whenever there is a shooting in a school where there is a “Gun Free Zone”, the school board and superintendent should be immediately be sued for dereliction of duty and failing to protect the students, by refusing to allow concealed carry by teachers and admin people. The misguided decision to deny people the right to defend themselves against wackos and idiots with grudges is helping get innocent people killed. Until these low-information bureaucrats are held accountable in court for their actions, nothing will change. Sue them!

      1. Same as the “So called bump stock in Vegas”
        I-phones have cause thousands of car accident deaths.
        Ban those first. Or only receive data when not moving for more than a minute. We must stop this nonsense now!

        1. Exactly. Still waiting for actual official confirmation from the Gov alphabet letter agencies that the bump stock “found” in the alleged shooter’s room was actually used. There were about two dozen guns brought in to that room, and most were never fired. All I’ve read is that a bump stock was found among the accessories.

    10. Find whoever created the requirement she be disarmed and throw every single workplace safety violation charge possible at them. Make an example of the tyrant.

    11. I hope Mr Nixon successfully sues the City of Virginia Beach into bankruptcy. It is no secret that close to 100% of mass shootings occur in Gun Free Zones in the USA. This is nothing but negligence on the part of Virginia Beach.

      1. Yes and amen brother the US Constitution is violated when anyone is made to sign the agreements and when the people who own the no gun policies have to pay out the yin yang then it will hit where it hurts and our rights can have some more teeth to them. It is a shame what our country has come to in this respect. Way to go Ammoland.

      1. I have always advocated for full accountability for ‘gun free zones’. Anyone involved in the establishment of these farcial entities, be they government officials or private business owners or what have you, should bear full responsibility (legal, financial, even criminal if it applies) when anything occurs involving bodily harm or death,

    Leave a Comment 33 Comments