Recent Shootings in North Carolina Highlight Need for Better Security Measures and Accountability
By Adam J. Langino, Esq.
Recent Shootings in North Carolina Highlight Need for Better Security Measures and Accountability
In mid-October 2025, North Carolina suffered several tragic shootings that underscored ongoing concerns about violent crime and safety in public places. In Charlotte, a person was shot and killed late on a Saturday afternoon in a north Charlotte neighborhood. Just around that same time on the other side of the city, another deadly shooting occurred in a parking area off Freedom Drive in west Charlotte, where a victim was fatally shot around 5 p.m.. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police noted that this was already the third homicide within about a 14-hour span in the city, an alarming cluster of violence in such a short period. Meanwhile in the Triangle area, Raleigh police responded to chaos at a sports bar on New Bern Avenue in east Raleigh. Officers were called to a shooting around 4:45 a.m. early Saturday, where multiple people had been injured amid the gunfire. Police were on scene securing the bar’s parking lot as daylight broke, though details on the number of victims were still being determined as the investigation unfolded. 1 2 3
Each of these incidents took place at locations and times where members of the public might reasonably expect to be safe – a residential block on a Saturday afternoon, a parking area outside a bar, an early morning gathering spot. The pattern is painfully clear: violent acts are erupting in public venues that should be secure, leaving families and communities reeling. City officials lament the senselessness of the violence and the heartbreak it inflicts on innocent people. This rash of shootings forces an urgent question to the forefront: Could better security measures at these locations have reduced the risk of such incidents? And when businesses or property owners fail to provide a safe environment, how can they be held accountable under the law?
Reasonable Security Measures That Could Reduce the Risk of Shootings
Security experts and crime prevention research point to a number of practical measures that property owners can implement to deter crime and protect patrons. In reviewing the circumstances of the recent North Carolina shootings, it’s important to consider how some of these reasonable security measures might have made a difference:
Adequate Lighting: Proper lighting is one of the simplest, most effective crime deterrents. Darkness provides cover for criminals, whereas a well-lit environment makes it harder to commit crimes without being seen. A study of parking facilities in Charlotte found that theft risks were significantly higher in unfenced surface lots with poor lighting and no attendants, compared to well-lit parking decks. In other words, criminals are more likely to strike in areas where they can hide in shadows. By installing and maintaining bright lighting in parking lots, alleyways, and building exteriors, property owners increase natural surveillance and reduce hiding spots. Good lighting not only deters would-be offenders but also helps law-abiding patrons stay vigilant. For example, a parking lot or bar entrance that is brightly illuminated makes it more likely that someone will spot suspicious activity in time to prevent an attack. Property owners should replace burnt-out bulbs promptly, use lighting that covers all walkways and corners, and consider motion-activated lights in low-traffic areas. 4 5 6 7
Security Cameras (CCTV Surveillance): Video surveillance systems serve both as a deterrent and an investigative tool after the fact. Visible security cameras signal to potential offenders that they are being watched, which can discourage criminal behavior. If a crime does occur, recorded footage provides critical evidence that can help identify and prosecute the perpetrator. Research has shown that installing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in parking facilities and other high-risk locations can be effective in reducing crime in those areas. For instance, after a series of car break-ins in Charlotte, the introduction of surveillance cameras (along with better lighting and patrols) helped bring down the number of incidents. In the context of the recent shootings, one can imagine how surveillance video might assist: a camera covering the outside of a Raleigh sports bar could capture the assailant or the license plate of a getaway car, and the knowledge of that camera’s presence might have deterred the shooting in the first place. Modern security cameras can also be monitored in real time, so security staff might have been alerted the moment an armed individual pulled out a weapon, allowing faster intervention. In short, camera systems are a reasonable, increasingly affordable security upgrade that property owners should employ in any area with public foot traffic or a history of trouble. 4 5 6 7
On-Site Security Personnel: The presence of trained security guards or off-duty police officers can dramatically improve safety at venues that attract crowds or stay open late. Would-be attackers or troublemakers are far less likely to initiate violence when they know there are security personnel on the premises who can respond immediately. Even in less active settings like parking lots, having an attendant or security patrol can make a big difference. In the Charlotte parking study, lots that had attendants on duty experienced far fewer incidents of theft than unmanned lots. There is a two-fold benefit here: guards and attendants serve as eyes and ears to spot suspicious behavior and can also directly intervene or call police at the first sign of danger. For places like bars, nightclubs, or busy shopping centers, hiring security staff (or stationing off-duty law enforcement) during peak hours is a reasonable precaution. In one of the Raleigh incidents, by the time police arrived, they took over securing the parking lot – but had the sports bar employed its own security guard to patrol the lot at closing time, that proactive presence might have deterred the shooting or at least shortened the chaos. Reasonable security for a late-night business often includes posting bouncers at the door, checking IDs (and temperament) of patrons, and having staff roam the parking areas to break up disputes and escort patrons to their cars safely. These measures can de-escalate conflicts before they turn violent. Importantly, security personnel should be well-trained – for example, knowing how to spot someone concealing a weapon or how to safely break up a fight – so that their presence is truly effective. 4 5 6 7
Controlled Access and Screening: Controlling who can enter a property and what they can bring in is another key aspect of security. Many businesses that serve alcohol or host large crowds use measures like ID checks, bag checks, or even metal detectors at their entrances. While such steps can sometimes inconvenience customers, they are often warranted when the establishment has a history of altercations or is located in a high-crime area. For example, club and bar owners might use wand metal detectors to screen for firearms or knives on busy nights. In the case of a shopping center parking lot or an apartment complex, controlled access might mean gates, security keypads, or fencing that directs entry through a monitored point. (The Charlotte parking study noted that inadequate fencing was a factor in higher crime rates at certain lots – essentially, if people can wander in and out freely at all hours, it’s harder to keep trouble out.) Principles of environmental design known as CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) come into play here. CPTED strategies suggest using physical design to reinforce safety – for instance, low fences or landscaping that clearly delineate private property, trimmed shrubs that eliminate hiding places, and pathways that naturally lead visitors past visible security posts. In practice, a Raleigh sports bar might enforce a rule that all patrons enter through a main door where they pass an ID check, rather than allowing side doors or back gates to be propped open. A residential complex in a crime-prone area could install gating around parking areas so that only residents and their guests have vehicle access. These kinds of access controls make it more difficult for a random shooter to just stroll onto the property unchecked. 4 5 6 7
Emergency Systems and Training: When a violent incident does occur, every second counts. Property owners can reduce harm by having systems in place to immediately respond to emergencies. This includes alarm systems or panic buttons that staff can trigger to instantly notify law enforcement of a crisis, as well as modern technologies like gunfire detection sensors that automatically alert police when shots are fired. Equally important is having an emergency action plan and training staff how to carry it out: for example, a nightclub might train its bouncers on how to quickly shepherd patrons to safe areas or exits if a shooting breaks out, and a shopping mall might conduct drills on locking down the facility during an active shooter situation. In Charlotte’s violent weekend, multiple crime scenes were unfolding in quick succession, taxing the available police resources. In such scenarios, well-trained on-site personnel can at least secure the immediate area and administer basic first aid until first responders arrive on the scene. Regular businesses can also coordinate with local police on safety audits or “active shooter” response training, which many police departments offer. The bottom line is that while we hope never to need these emergency responses, being prepared for worst-case scenarios is itself a reasonable component of security planning. Owners who take safety seriously will have considered these possibilities and trained their employees accordingly. 4 5 6 7
By examining each of these measures – lighting, cameras, personnel, access control, and emergency preparedness – a common theme emerges: proactivity. Owners of businesses and properties open to the public must think ahead about the potential for violent crime before it happens, not after tragedy strikes. As one Langino Law article put it, property owners have a duty not to “invite visitors into danger” and must exercise reasonable care for the safety of their patrons. In settings like those involved in the recent shootings (a bar’s parking lot, an open shopping plaza, etc.), reasonable security steps such as bright lighting, surveillance coverage, and visible security patrols are not excessive – they are prudent and potentially life-saving. While no set of precautions can guarantee to stop every act of violence, lax security makes a location an easy target, whereas layered safety measures significantly reduce the risk. When owners choose to cut corners on security and someone is hurt as a result, those owners can and should be held accountable for the consequences. 4 5 6 7
Holding Property Owners Accountable Under North Carolina Law
When violent crimes like shootings occur on someone’s property, victims and their families often ask whether the property owner should have done more to prevent it. North Carolina law does provide a mechanism to hold owners responsible in certain circumstances – this falls under the realm of premises liability and “negligent security” cases. The fundamental idea is that if a property owner knew or should have known about a risk of violent crime on the premises, and failed to take reasonable steps to address it, then that owner may be legally liable for injuries to victims. Several key legal principles shape these cases:
Duty of Care and Foreseeability: North Carolina businesses and landlords have a legal duty to protect lawful visitors from foreseeable criminal harm. The concept of “foreseeability” is central – a property owner isn’t an absolute guarantor of safety for every random act, but if past incidents or warnings would lead a reasonable person to anticipate the danger of a shooting or assault, then the owner must take precautions. The North Carolina Supreme Court, in a case called Aaser v. City of Charlotte, emphasized that property owners must ensure they are not “inviting visitors into danger” and must exercise reasonable care for visitor safety. In practice, this means if a particular bar or apartment complex had previous problems with fights, robberies, or gunfire, its management is on notice that more violence is possible and is expected to ramp up security accordingly. On the other hand, if a violent crime truly comes out of the blue in a location with no history of trouble, the law might deem it unforeseeable, and the owner might not be held liable. Determining foreseeability often requires examining the record: for example, were there prior assaults or shots fired on the property or nearby? A single isolated incident years ago might not establish foreseeability, whereas a pattern of violence clearly would. (In one case, Sawyer v. Carter, a North Carolina court found that evidence of only a single robbery five years earlier was not sufficient to make a later shooting foreseeable.)
Adequacy of Security Measures: If an incident was foreseeable, the next question is whether the property owner’s security measures were adequate given the risk. Owners who recognized a potential danger must implement reasonable security measures (like those discussed above). In lawsuits, courts and juries will look at everything the owner did or didn’t do: Were there lights? Cameras? Security guards? Did door locks or gates work properly? Were there any warnings to visitors about past crimes? If security was clearly lacking for the level of risk, a jury may conclude the owner was negligent. For instance, in Vera v. Five Crow Promotions, Inc., a case involving a nightclub patron shot during a robbery in the parking area, the court pointed out that inadequate exterior lighting and minimal security presence contributed to the conditions that allowed the crime to occur. That bolstered the injured plaintiff’s claim that the nightclub owner’s negligence in providing security made the attack more likely. Conversely, if a business can show that it did take a number of reasonable precautions – perhaps hiring professional security guards, installing a monitored camera system, and enforcing a strict no-weapons policy – that can be a strong defense, indicating that the incident happened despite prudent efforts rather than due to a lack of care. The legal standard is one of reasonableness, not perfection: a property owner doesn’t have to turn a store or apartment complex into Fort Knox, but they do have to do what a reasonably careful owner would do under similar circumstances. 4 5 6 7
Evidence of Prior Crime and Notice: A crucial part of negligent security cases is showing what the owner knew or should have known about the risk. This often comes down to evidence of prior crimes in the area. Courts in North Carolina typically require such evidence to establish that a crime was foreseeable. If a particular shopping center or bar has been a magnet for trouble, that history puts the owner on notice that stronger security is needed. Evidence might include police reports of earlier shootings, 911 call logs, or testimony about frequent fights or vandalism. In evaluating a case, one of the first things we do is gather any records of past incidents on or near the property – it paints a picture of whether the violent risk was obvious or not. As noted, a single prior event might not be enough, but a pattern of similar violent incidents creates a duty for the owner to act. In the Charlotte scenarios we discussed, if it turns out that the west Charlotte bar (near where the Park Fairfax Drive shooting occurred) had seen previous assaults or armed encounters, those would be strong evidence that the bar owner should have foreseen the possibility of a shooting and should have implemented better safeguards (security cameras, lighting in the parking area, perhaps an outdoor bouncer). If the owner failed to do so, that history of violence would make a compelling case for negligence. On the flip side, in a truly one-off incident with no warning signs, victims face a tougher legal challenge since the owner will argue “we had no reason to suspect this would happen here.” 4 5 6 7
Victims’ Rights and Legal Recourse: When a property owner is found negligent in providing security, the victims of the crime (or their surviving families, in fatal cases) have the right to pursue a civil claim for compensation. This is separate from any criminal proceedings against the perpetrator – it’s about holding the property owner accountable for their share of responsibility in allowing the crime to occur. Victims in North Carolina can file a lawsuit to recover damages for medical bills, rehabilitation costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other losses resulting from the injury. In essence, the law recognizes that while the criminal may be directly at fault, the property owner’s negligence is also a proximate cause of the harm, and thus the owner should financially compensate the innocent victim. Beyond individual compensation, there is a broader public safety benefit to these civil cases: they send a message to all business owners and landlords that skimping on basic security will have consequences. The prospect of liability (and substantial monetary judgments) motivates other property owners to proactively improve their security measures, which means a safer environment for everyone in the community. North Carolina courts have affirmed that victims “have the opportunity to hold property owners and business owners accountable” when a lack of security contributes to a violent crime. By exercising their rights, victims not only seek relief for themselves but also help drive changes in safety practices. Importantly, these cases are complex and fact-intensive, so victims greatly benefit from working with experienced attorneys who understand premises liability law and can navigate the intricate tasks of gathering evidence, hiring the right experts (such as security consultants or former police officers), and persuasively presenting the case in court. 4 5 6 7
North Carolina’s approach to negligent security essentially balances fairness to owners with protection for the public. The law does not punish a property owner for random, truly unforeseeable acts of violence, but it does hold owners accountable when they ignore foreseeable dangers and people get hurt as a result. For victims and their families, this legal accountability can be a pathway to both financial recovery and a sense of closure – knowing that the negligent party is being called to answer for their inaction. While no lawsuit outcome can erase the trauma of a shooting, a successful claim can provide resources for medical care and rebuild lives, and it can compel changes that prevent future tragedies at the same location. This is how civil law leverages accountability to promote safer conditions for everyone.
Why I Am a Strong Choice to Help Shooting Victims Seek Accountability
If you or a loved one has been the victim of a shooting or violent assault on someone else’s property, it’s crucial to have the right attorney advocating for you. These cases require a specific blend of legal knowledge, investigative skill, and tenacity. I have dedicated a significant portion of my law practice to representing victims of violent crimes in exactly these kinds of negligent security cases. Over my career, I have handled many negligent security claims, fighting on behalf of clients who were hurt due to someone else’s failure to provide a safe environment. My firm, Langino Law, focuses on helping victims in North Carolina and Florida, and we pride ourselves on holding negligent businesses and property owners accountable for the harm caused by their lax security.
There are a few reasons why I believe I’m a strong choice to help victims pursue accountability in these situations:
Proven Experience and Results: I have a track record of success in complex injury and security cases. For example, our firm secured a $15 million judgment in a catastrophic injury case where a young woman was struck by a stray bullet in a dangerous parking lot – a case that exemplified how a property owner’s negligence (inadequate security in a high-crime area) led to someone’s grievous injury. In another case, we obtained a significant settlement for an elderly client who was attacked in a parking lot that had virtually no security measures in place. These outcomes were not easy wins; they required meticulous investigation, building a strong evidence-based narrative, and directed advocacy against property owners and their insurance companies. Not every lawyer has experience with negligent security cases – they involve nuances of premises liability law and often hinge on detailed crime data and expert testimony about security standards. I have spent years honing this expertise. I know how to gather the crucial evidence (like prior incident reports and surveillance records), how to demonstrate what adequate security would have looked like, and how to link the dots between the lack of security and the incident that caused my client’s suffering. 4 5 6 7
Knowledge and Legal Insight: I am licensed to practice law in North Carolina and Florida, and I stay up-to-date on the case law and statutes in this evolving area of law. The legal landscape for negligent security claims has been shaped by cases like Aaser, Sawyer, Vera, and others that I discussed earlier, and being deeply familiar with these precedents allows me to anticipate defense arguments and strategically build my clients’ cases. For instance, I know that a common defense tactic is for a property owner to claim that a crime was not foreseeable – so from day one, I work to collect every bit of evidence that might show a history of crime at the location, undermining that defense. I also understand the importance of demonstrating “causation” – meaning we have to show that specific security failures (like a burned-out light or the lack of a security guard) were likely factors that enabled the criminal act. This often requires expert witnesses. Over the years, I’ve developed relationships with experienced security consultants, former police officials, and others who can evaluate a property’s security and testify about how proper measures would have prevented the incident. In short, I know how to navigate the legal hurdles that these cases involve, and I have the skills to clearly explain to a judge or jury exactly why the property owner should be held liable for what happened. 4 5 6 7
Courage to Stand Up to Powerful Opponents: Too often, the law has historically bent in favor of powerful corporations or insurance companies who have the resources to fight claims and avoid responsibility. My mission as an attorney is to help ordinary people find recourse against these powerful entities and balance the scales when they would otherwise tip in the big companies’ favor. I have the knowledge, experience, and courage to stand up to insurance companies and large corporations on behalf of my clients. Many negligent security cases pit an individual (or grieving family) against a well-funded defendant such as a shopping mall owner, a national hotel chain, or a big apartment management company. These defendants often try to overwhelm plaintiffs with aggressive litigation tactics. I am not intimidated by these tactics. I prepare every case as if it may go to trial, and I am fully ready to take it to a jury if that’s what it takes to achieve a fair outcome. My background includes working at a prestigious national law firm and handling high-stakes cases, which means I’m comfortable in high-pressure legal battles. When I take on a negligent security case, my clients’ cause becomes my cause – I am driven to make sure that the truth comes out and that the responsible parties cannot shrug off their duty. This commitment to accountability is at the heart of what I do. 4 5 6 7
Personal Commitment to Public Safety: Finally, I care deeply about public safety and accountability for victims. I started my career as an Assistant Public Defender, standing up for individuals’ rights, and that instilled in me a strong sense of responsibility to use the law to protect people. In my current practice, every negligent security case is an opportunity not just to compensate a victim, but also to push for safer conditions in our community. When I hold a negligent property owner accountable, it often results in that owner making improvements – installing cameras, hiring security, fixing lighting – that will protect future would-be victims. I see this as a win-win: we get a measure of accountability for my client, and we make it less likely that another person will suffer the same fate in the future. I also approach my clients with compassion and understanding. I recognize that if you’re coming to me, you or your family have likely been through a life-altering, traumatic event. I take the time to listen, to truly understand what you’ve gone through, and then I channel that into building a case that tells your story and demands accountability from those who failed you. My goal is not only to win cases, but also to support my clients through one of the toughest times in their lives. You will find that I am accessible and forthright – I explain the legal process in plain language, keep you informed at every step, and stand by your side from start to finish.
Property owners who invite the public in must also shoulder the responsibility of keeping those people reasonably safe. When they fall short of that duty and tragedy results, I am prepared to step in on behalf of the victims. By pursuing these cases, we not only help individual victims recover, but we also send a clear message that our community will not tolerate indifference to safety.
Conclusion
The spate of shootings in Charlotte and Raleigh is a sobering reminder that violence can strike anywhere – but it’s also a reminder that prevention is possible when the right security measures are in place. Improved lighting, surveillance cameras, attentive security personnel, and other precautions can literally save lives by deterring criminals or stopping an incident before it escalates. North Carolina law reflects this reality: it requires property owners to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable crimes, and it empowers victims to act when owners neglect that responsibility.
As a lawyer who has long advocated for victims of violent crimes, I am dedicated to holding negligent property owners accountable and helping those harmed rebuild their lives. Every case I pursue is about more than just compensation – it’s about demanding safer practices and shining a light on what went wrong so it doesn’t happen again. By highlighting these recent incidents and discussing commonsense security solutions, I hope to encourage all businesses and property owners to review their own safety measures. Community safety is a shared responsibility, and everyone benefits when we insist on higher standards.
If you or someone you know has been a victim of a shooting that might have been prevented with better security, please know that you have legal options. You shouldn’t have to bear the weight of what happened alone. There are avenues available to seek accountability from those who failed to protect you. By taking action, you not only pursue your own recovery, but you also play a part in making our communities safer. The goal is a future where tragedies like these are far less frequent because property owners take security seriously – and through each case and each client I represent, I’ll continue working to make that goal a reality.
If you would like a free consultation, you can contact me by clicking here.
Matthew Ablon, “Person killed after shooting in north Charlotte,” WCNC Charlotte, Oct. 18, 2025.
Caryn Little, “Police investigating deadly shooting in west Charlotte,” WCCB Charlotte, Oct. 18, 2025.
Starletta Watson, “Shooting at Raleigh sports bar on New Bern Avenue prompts police investigation,” CBS17 News, Oct. 18, 2025.
Adam J. Langino, “Crime in North Carolina: Challenges and Solutions – How to Protect Victims of Violent Crime,” Langino Law (April 21, 2025).
Adam J. Langino, “Security Cameras Reduce Crime – The Significance of Surveillance,” Langino Law (2025).
Adam J. Langino, “How North Carolina Courts Protect Victims of Violent Crimes,” Langino Law (2025).
Adam J. Langino, “The Importance of Parking Lot Lighting,” Langino Law (2025).