PDA

View Full Version : Gang Attack on Transit Train


BarryLee
April 20, 2011, 01:27 PM
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/horde-of-teens-attack-917772.html

In Atlanta the mass transit system is named MARTA. Recently a very scary thing happened where about two dozen gang members rushed on to the train at a stop and began to intimidate all the passengers. They then beat and robbed two individuals as the other passengers tried to get away, but there was nowhere to run.

So, if you were on this train and you were carrying how would you have responded? What if they were attacking you? What if they were not attacking you would you intervene?

Either way it seems like a very scary and tactically difficult situation.

Mello2u
April 20, 2011, 02:02 PM
I live about an hour northwest of Atlanta. I have avoided riding MARTA. This news report made me think about what I might have done in that situation. All I can think of is that it would have ended badly. I carry concealed whenever I can. In GA I can legally carry on MARTA.

I would like to think that I would have somehow managed to keep my firearm concealed, given up my wallet and not responded with deadly force. But if I was one of the people who was being beaten by a dozen men, I just don't know whether I would have been able to keep the weapon concealed.

Drawing a weapon as they entered would have been premature.
Waiting until they began beating me would have been too late. This seems like a no-win situation.

What if they had discovered my weapon? I imagine that I would have had little chance to draw and fire in a responsible manner.

The last report I heard on the morning news put the number of attackers at about thirty. This is a mob situation where one armed person has no chance against over-whelming numbers.

I'm not riding MARTA.

mnero
April 20, 2011, 02:28 PM
I would have run. As was already posted, one man against a mob of 24 or more can not hope to survive.

440SAW
April 20, 2011, 02:28 PM
That has to be the most scary situation one could encounter. It is certain you don't want to introduce a weapon that can be taken from you. And, you can't tell what you would do until you are there.
Certainly, not feed the beast of an uncontrolled mob looking to squash anything in its way.
My vote would be to give it up and play down hoping that they would move on: with one hand on the CCW.

Hiker 1
April 20, 2011, 04:18 PM
That's a tough one. It depends on whether or not you're in reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Multiple attackers can justify the use of deadly force in most states, but the headlines are going to read "MARTA Vigilante Shoots Unarmed 15-year Old". Victim's aunt quoted saying "He was a good boy who never did nothing to no one! He was turning his life around" etc etc.

skifast
April 20, 2011, 04:40 PM
Regardless, there would be plenty of witnesses to testify that her little angel was not an angel.

Today, getting hit with soda cans, tomorrow blades and guns. 2 British tourists were killed in Florida as part of a gang initiation. If I could draw and shoot, I think I would.

Jim March
April 20, 2011, 05:15 PM
The last report I heard on the morning news put the number of attackers at about thirty. This is a mob situation where one armed person has no chance against over-whelming numbers.

Actually, you're in very good shape. You turn the head of the first goblin that pulls a weapon into abstract art all over the ceiling. A full-house 125gr 357 loaded to the gills will do.

Look, with a gang this size, you ought to be DEEP into condition orange. This is the kind of trouble that you can spot coming - pretty dang hard to miss. You should have your arms crossed, hand on grip under your jacket if you carry crossdraw concealed like I do.

Ronbert
April 20, 2011, 07:15 PM
This changes the argument for high-capacity for CCW from "you shouldn't need more than 5 shots" to "It has now been proven that 15 shots and a reload may not be enough for an ordinary guy"

It's the stuff of nightmares.

threegun
April 20, 2011, 07:36 PM
Bang!


Followed by many more bangs if needed. I suspect one would be enough.

threegun
April 20, 2011, 07:40 PM
This changes the argument for high-capacity for CCW from "you shouldn't need more than 5 shots" to "It has now been proven that 15 shots and a reload may not be enough for an ordinary guy"



Ronbert, This type attack is rare. As rare as the 19 unshot gang bangers climbing over the bodies of their buddies to continue the attack. Five is plenty for most everything a civilian faces. I suspect a snub nose would have ended this attack instantly.

Don H
April 20, 2011, 08:36 PM
I would have run. As was already posted, one man against a mob of 24 or more can not hope to survive.

How far can one run in a moving train? 1 car, 2 cars?

youngunz4life
April 20, 2011, 08:49 PM
of course I don't think you were trying to be funny. It is good to know that at least some of these lowlifes would have one last thought going thru their head something like: damn, I think I just messed with the wrong dude

mnero
April 20, 2011, 09:03 PM
When it's a mob driven by mob mentality one 'bang' aint gonna do it. One .357 ain't gonna do it. Ask any police officer or trained military and they will tell you; one man can not turn back a mob and doubtless some of those in the mob were carrying too! To suggest that the person facing this mob was in 'good shape' is totally incorrect. If one shot could really turn back a mob then the riots of the 60's would never have happened; in baltimore in '68 there was terrible riot, which got completely out of control when a squad of armed riot police opened fire on them. The police where forced to retreat and this mob was largely unarmed, at least not with firearms. Goggle it and you will see. If a squad of trained police in riot gear cannot turn back a mob how the heck is one guy with a revolver gonna fair? Trained police, both civilian and military WOULD NEVER TRY TO TAKE ON A ANGRY MOB ALONE

BGutzman
April 20, 2011, 09:04 PM
Whats why a carry the Judge in 500 Magnum with 2 ga shotgun shell capability and 6 sets of ammo in moon clips.

I figure the 2ga, zero shot buck will spread out at 6 foot and I should be able to clear the car within 2 shots. lol :D

this may be the only instance when the Judge and the 410 shells may be of some limited use....

For me the Judge is just not me and in general I dont recommend it for use in public situations unless you stict strictly with 45 LC or 454 ammo.

Dwight55
April 20, 2011, 09:14 PM
Ain't no gang gonna beat me as long as I have anything with which to resist.

Most days lately, . . . it has been an XD45 and one spare mag, . . . might start carrying both spare mags, . . . especially if I get stuck in Atlanta.

As for those thugs, . . . I'd have been in condition orange when I first laid eyes on the bunch, . . . would have covertly drawn, . . . and if I went down, . . . you can bet your last bippy there would have been a pile of MT .45 brass nearby, . . .

Knowing gang mentality, . . . there is most likely less than a 50/50 that I would have survived, . . . but if you gotta go, . . . take some of the opposition with you.

May God bless,
Dwight

BGutzman
April 20, 2011, 09:33 PM
Actually this may have been an occasion when the 460 Rowland in the Springfield XD Tactical would have been a great choice... (I wasnt there I havent seen the circumstances nor do I know the tilt of the angle of the earth or the particular moon phase for that day, nor the cross sectional density of the bullet)

13 + 1 and 2 spare clips would certainly made an impression...

Most certainly innocents might be hit unless this was some ideal situation where no innocents are present.

The other down fall is this is likely a confrontation you will not walk away from, that said if your done anyway I dont see to many choices.

Still the 44 Magnum class power in so many rounds would certainly make an impression they wouldnt forget anytime soon.

RickE
April 20, 2011, 09:36 PM
IMHO, this is a tough one. I went through four years of "what if" in College (police science), blew a disc in my lower back (23 yrs old), passed all the exams, never got to join a force. I have a degree in criminology, but no street experience. I have a good knowledge of the law, and am proficient with weapons. My mindset has always been about right and wrong many years after I was unable to serve. I am almost 60, and I still carry on a need basis. I (luckily) have never had to draw a weapon. I never want to deal with the legal crap related to even a justifiable defense. This situation, calls for a very cool head. If one were to intervene short of saving your own life, you would most likely die doing so. The numbers are stacked against you to handle what would arise at your defense attempt. Do you really think you can overcome a large number of thugs like that? You better shoot early and have a "banana" clip. This problem is more about the city you live in, and the degree to which your city addresses this scum. element. And as you all know, all cities have a "scum factor". I just hope anyone that is pressed into a situation (fractional) like this does not become one more victim by wading into a "swamp" too deep to survive.

Glenn Dee
April 20, 2011, 09:53 PM
A very similar incident did happen to me. In brooklyn NY while on my way to work,,, I was wearing a shearling jacket. Very fashionable, very popular @ the time. A group of about 5 or 6 got on and at one stop... two each entering by each car door. One spots my jacket and motions to the others... and the start meandering my way. At the time I was armed with a S&W model 10 with a 3" bbl, and a S&W model 36, also with a 3"bbl. As they apprached I loosed the 10 and let them have a good look, then just sat there. It seems that suddenly there was something much more interesting in the car behind us, and they all just had to go see before it dissapeared.

Of course I notified the transit district with descriptions, and the station they got on. I was told that they were a robbery pattern on that particular line.

Glenn Dee
April 20, 2011, 09:54 PM
A very similar incident did happen to me. In brooklyn NY while on my way to work,,, I was wearing a shearling jacket. Very fashionable, very popular @ the time. A group of about 5 or 6 got on and at one stop... two each entering by each car door. One spots my jacket and motions to the others... and they start meandering my way. At the time I was armed with a S&W model 10 with a 3" bbl, and a S&W model 36, also with a 3"bbl. As they approached I loosed the 10 and let them have a good look, then just sat there. It seems that suddenly there was something much more interesting in the car behind us, and they all just had to go see before it dissapeared.

Of course I notified the transit district with descriptions, and the station they got on. I was told that they were a robbery pattern on that particular line.

kraigwy
April 20, 2011, 10:04 PM
Hard to phantom, we don't even have a taxi cab hear, let alone mass transit. I guess they could hop a coal train, but its a little nippy for that.

Alaska444
April 20, 2011, 10:14 PM
Unfortunately, gang attacks are fairly common, even when it is not the typical "gang" that we usually associate with that word. A couple of years ago up in Idaho, there was a case of a local businessman attacked by 8 out of town punks there to go to the outdoor bars. He was initially charged with attempted murder for shooting two of them, but released two weeks later with no charges by the grand jury. They believed he did act in self defense when attacked by 8 men threatening him. In this case, he shot two but was overpowered by the others.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/dec/29/suspect-says-he-felt-threatened/

That was "only" 8 people, two of whom were disabled by his shots. You really have little chance of defense against 8 let alone 30 attackers. You would need something beyond a single hand gun. Lucky that no one was killed in the GA attack. Sad to see where this country is headed.

youngunz4life
April 20, 2011, 10:25 PM
good luck w/the aftermath if you exterminate a whole subway car full of perps like you do on your nintendo. my revolver and the other hand in an empty pocket like its holding a BUG should do. I'm either getting taken down by the mob or finding a loophole real quick - extra mags & more firepower aren't going to be the deciding factors. of course really having the BUG is preferable, and the less communication+time needed to exit the situation the better(because a mob can be an immovable force).

Ringolevio
April 20, 2011, 10:31 PM
A popular bumpersticker in NYC, circa 1984, said:
Every subway mugger deserves what he GOETZ!

For those who may not remember the case, Bernhard Goetz shot four young men armed with screwdrivers, whom he said were threatening him and attempting to rob him in a Manhattan subway car.

At Goetz's trial (which I attended) one of them, James Ramseur, while on the witness stand, took off his shoe and tried to hit Barry Slotnick, Goetz's defense attorney, with it!

Ramseur caught a 25 year sentence for the aggravated rape, sodomy and robbery of a pregnant 18 yr. old on a Bronx rooftop, after he recovered from his wounds from the Goetz incident!

In fact, of the four men Goetz shot, the only one who didn't return to a life of crime was one Darrell Cabey, whose wounds left him paralyzed.

Of course, it would be highly irresponsible and insensitive for anyone to suggest that ending the careers of thugs like these should be considered a public service.

But feel free to draw your own conclusions...

P.S. I've spent enough time in and around Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb & Gwinnett counties to know what folks there say "MARTA" actually stands for!

Hiker 1
April 20, 2011, 10:41 PM
These kinds of punks are cowards that's why they attack in mobs. They're not rioting after a verdict they didn't like or after the cops beat down a minority.

I agree with Jim March - You turn the head of the first goblin that pulls a weapon into abstract art all over the ceiling. That WILL get the attention of the others.

I will say this - when dealing with multiple attackers, 5 or 6 rounds can go real quick, especially if it doesn't turn the tide.

BarryLee
April 20, 2011, 11:05 PM
Watched the news tonight and regrettably they haven’t caught anyone yet. Generally these guys end up posting something on Facebook or bragging around the neighborhood. They did mention on the news that they were all chanting B.F.P.L. which may be the name of their gang.

mnero
April 20, 2011, 11:25 PM
In the 30's La started to have a problem with hispanic gangs, who where associated with 'zoot suits'. The Navy had a large base in La at the time and organized what it called a 'dungaree liberty' For those of you not familiar with the Navy, dungarees are the working uniform worn only on ship and on the base, but never in public. Well on this liberty they went around and beat anyone of hispanic appearence wearing one of these 'zoot suits'. It did stop the problem, for a short time and it was, at least, tacitly condoned by the city authorities. I can't say I agree with the indicriminant nature of the assaults, since clearly not every young, hispanic male, wearing a zoot zuit in the 30's in La was a gang member. I can say I understand why the military took this unconstitutional measure.

Crazy88Fingers
April 20, 2011, 11:56 PM
From what I read in the article it doesn't seem like the physical violence in this particular case merited a response with lethal force. It's nice to see that two bystanders stepped in to help the one man that was being attacked.

Ringolevio
April 21, 2011, 12:20 AM
BarryLee: "Watched the news tonight and regrettably they haven’t caught anyone yet. Generally these guys end up posting something on Facebook or bragging around the neighborhood. They did mention on the news that they were all chanting B.F.P.L. which may be the name of their gang."

Yup, I just heard that these numbnuts are all over Facebook. BFPL means "Bank First, Play Later".

Two thoughts on engaging a numerically superior force:

1) Military science teaches that twenty-five disciplined, highly-motivated troops can defend a position better than a hundred troops of whom seventy-five are not disciplined nor motivated.
2) Motto of the Texas Rangers: "One riot, one Ranger".

Mobuck
April 21, 2011, 07:49 AM
"one armed person against 30 thugs?"
Actually, I carry that many rounds most of the time. I seriously doubt that all of the worthless snots would have stood in line to get shot and there wasn't room for all of them to get in the game at once. Just my opinion but, after the first 2 or 3 went down, the rest would have been looking for any way out they could find. In that confined area, as long as you didn't let any of them get behind you, it would have been a turkey shoot or a standoff if they used the other riders as shields, in which case a couple of headshots would have made that less useful for them also.
I don't live in an urban area, don't use mass transit, and prefer to take care of my own problems but my Mother expected me to look after those less able to take care of themselves so I can't truthfully say how I would react. In the past I have put myself in hazardous positions to help others and likely will again so I guess it would depend on the immediate situation. If deadly weapons were not used, I'm not sure deadly force would be appropriate but I would not allow myself to be beaten, either. This is coming from a 60ish guy who's never pulled the trigger on a human outside of military service.

Seaman
April 21, 2011, 08:28 AM
Was once attacked by 5 and on another occasion by 7.

But 20...or more. Not to panic, never panic. Well basic principles apply, don't get flanked and stop the leader (or leaders) first. In a subway/train car that shouldn't be too hard to manage.

And weapons? well.... a couple of 45s, big slow moving bullets that hit hard, stay in the target, and limit collateral damage.

When you must fight, fight hard.

Tommy Vercetti
April 21, 2011, 08:53 AM
I'm not riding MARTA.

I rode MARTA almost everyday for over a decade, it isn't as dangerous as you think it is, just keep your head up, be alert and pay attention (I'd have felt completely safe with a Browning Hi Power or even my Airweight Bodyguard)

I actually miss riding MARTA, great place to peoplewatch

skifast
April 21, 2011, 08:53 AM
The problem with making decisions is that there is uncertainty.

In this case, if I draw and engage, 18 rounds plus a 17 round extra mag FNX-9, the uncertainty is whether it is enough to stop the attack. Will the gang move through the gun fire, or will they retreat as a few fall.

On the other hand, if I do nothing, the uncertainty is whether I will be seriously harmed. They may have knives or they may decide to kick me in the head, if I go down. In addition, if the battle is prolonged, they may grab my gun. Added to the uncertainty is that in general the thugs do not have respect for the lives of others.

On balance, I think I am going to try and engage them. The CAR high position is excellent for gun retention and close quarter shooting. Sitting here at my keyboard, I don't think I am going to count on the mercy of the thugs.

gearhounds
April 21, 2011, 09:05 AM
After reading the news article, I have to agree that this group of rabble would have mostly broken ranks when the real **** started to go down. I am doubtful that any were carrying anything since a mere 2 adults were able to intervene and create a standoff without being assaulted unto their death themselves. I'm of the mind that (having contacted several large groups on the job over the years for a variety of violations) that an authoratative presence could have carried the day; that and the additional presentation of a Sig P228 strong hand, and a Benchmade folder weak hand for any close quarters activity.

45Gunner
April 21, 2011, 09:08 AM
I seriously doubt that all of the worthless snots would have stood in line to get shot and there wasn't room for all of them to get in the game at once. Just my opinion but, after the first 2 or 3 went down, the rest would have been looking for any way out they could find. In that confined area, as long as you didn't let any of them get behind you, it would have been a turkey shoot or a standoff if they used the other riders as shields, in which case a couple of headshots would have made that less useful for them also.

I would think a gang of young punks were probably riding on a high of weed or speed, or some other type of junk. I agree that if the apparent leader or one of the more aggressive ones were taken out, the rest would scatter like the cowards that they are. While it easy to Monday morning quarterback and discuss the legal ramifications of shooting an unarmed punk, a reasonable jury would certainly understand how one may fear for their life when confronted with such a large number of ameba's. And, I would think everyone else on that train would have to be in agreement that the shooting was completely justified as most thought they were going to be robbed, caused great bodily harm, or killed...especially if the ameba's were chanting a gang ID.

Slamfire
April 21, 2011, 09:15 AM
Just are not a lot of places to hide on a Marta car until you get to the station.

Tough call. Benhard Goetz had the right solution, but he had five shots for four goblins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

Unless you have way to top up, when the snubbie goes dry, you still have fourteen goblins left.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Misc/DSCN0017.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Misc/DSCN0015.jpg

justjim75
April 21, 2011, 09:35 AM
i gotta say i dont know what the hell i would do. if i had been there i would have had at least 13 rounds of 230 grn +P hollowpoints loaded up and ready. i carry my gun over my right kidney so if asked for my wallet, my draw wouldnt be an alarming movement to a would be BG. that said there is nothing in the article about them brandishing any weapons other than a soda can. so what we do know is that a large # of punks with a soda can were strong arming people on the subway and when things got bad they were slowed down or stopped by a couple of unarmed adults. what we dont know is what and how many deadly weapons they had that they didnt display. sounds like the best thing that could happen did. dont get me wrong, i hate it that those 2 people got hurt but noone got shot and none of us good guys went to jail for an unjustified shooting. that siad, nobody is going to lay a hand (or coke) on me or my loved ones without at least looking down the barrel of my .45. i think an overzealous, armed citizen could have ended up causing more injury or even death of the innocent bystanders and him/herself

mnero
April 21, 2011, 09:40 AM
Some of you guys need to stop watching so many rambo movies. 25 to one armed or not, good luck with that; oh and it won't be like in the movies. It is hard to shoot with a face full of some fools blood and meat.

Ringolevio
April 21, 2011, 10:43 AM
justjim75: "...so what we do know is that a large # of punks with a soda can were strong arming people on the subway and when things got bad they were slowed down or stopped by a couple of unarmed adults."

How do we know the folks who intervened were not armed? In Atlanta, there's a good chance there were armed citizens on that subway car. Perhaps they were prudent enough (and by the grace of God) that merely threatening to shoot was enough to turn back the mob.

We seem to be accepting the media account, when we know that the media have a history and an agenda of not mentioning all those times when a gun stops crime without even being fired.

If those who intervened were armed, they showed great restraint. But they were also committed to engage if necessary, and to go down fighting. So what if the odds are overwhelming? Let your attackers know you won't go down without a fight. Even in the wild, predators select the weakest prey, because they don't want to risk injury to themselves.

threegun
April 21, 2011, 10:45 AM
To suggest that the person facing this mob was in 'good shape' is totally incorrect.

The shortest book in the world is filled with the names of "young gang bangers" who climbed over the bodies of their dead buddies to overwhelm the source of fire.

Now I certainly have seen many many video's of folks running away at the mere sound of gunfire.

Some of you guys need to stop watching so many rambo movies. 25 to one armed or not, good luck with that; oh and it won't be like in the movies. It is hard to shoot with a face full of some fools blood and meat.

Mnero, Again another thread with you making presumptions of us.

So you call us Rambo's for having a bit of understanding of what we are facing. Perhaps you should watch some "actual footage" of similar events so that you can make a better decision on whether to resist or comply.

I wouldn't expect our soldiers to retreat in the face of death just as I don't expect our cowardly gang members to attack in the face of death.

In most cases simply having a gun increases your odds of success. A 5 shot 38 special would be sufficient in most cases. I submit that the available evidence tends to support my position.

justjim75
April 21, 2011, 11:54 AM
my point is that the attacks were stopped without a gunfight, which is good.

freenokia
April 21, 2011, 12:34 PM
A video of them rapping


http://cofcc.org/2011/04/massive-organized-race-attack-on-marta-train/

Alaska444
April 21, 2011, 12:36 PM
I can't speak from my own experience fortunately, but these kids are faced with guns pointed at them all the time in these gangs. One of the points my CCW instructor who is also an LEO, (expert firearms witness, owner of the number one rated gun range in America at the last shot show, 20 years in military police, author of tactical firearms books, etc, you get the picture) stated that he has witnessed the reactions of many criminals with guns pointed at them and most often it doesn't phase them.

Criminals know in fact that most folks will not shoot even when pointing the gun, they just don't want to hurt anyone. His point was that if you pull your gun thinking that will scare most criminals, good luck. You have to be willing to shoot. The case I posted above in CDA had 8 thugs, two were shot, the other 6 pummeled the man being attacked. I wouldn't bet on these creeps freaking out because you have a little gun pointed at them. Most care little for their life or yours for that matter and could care less if they are shot or not. It is a way of life to show no fear in these gangs. 30 kids rioting on a train, bad situation plain and simple.

spacecoast
April 21, 2011, 12:41 PM
I wouldn't expect our soldiers to retreat in the face of death just as I don't expect our cowardly gang members to attack in the face of death.


Agreed, these guys aren't a bunch of mindless bloodthirsty zombies who keep advancing until their heads are removed. I suspect that most of them would scatter at the sound of gunfire, especially if a comrade went down.

garryc
April 21, 2011, 01:21 PM
As a general rule I believe if I have to go down I'd rather do so with my slide locked.

Silent Titan
April 21, 2011, 01:31 PM
I agree with the idea that would probably scatter if you shot one or two of them on the street, but just like everyone else on the train they have nowhere to run. I would worry about it becoming a fight or flight situation, with no way out there is a very real chance they will decide to come at you with full force and now insted of a beating they will be looking for revenge. That being said it might have been a good situation to pull out the 4oz of fox pepper spray and only use the ccw for if there are any very determined punks. would have ruined the day for every person on the train but im sure there would be gang members to arrest when the police got there. just my $0.02, im no expert.

chadstrickland
April 21, 2011, 02:03 PM
I agree to a extent that the gang bangers wouldn't feel afraid if a gun was simply pointed at them but if I was forced to draw my weapon then the most threating hard core one of them is going down first..I mean one shot in the head if I could get a clean one..and then..its a cluster. if they had guns I would probably get killed pretty quick if they had knives and melee weapons then im sure after there leader head popped open then they rest would disperse quickly..if they insisted then I would try to take the other leaders..if there was any..but with a mouse gun...I would still get killed :(

Jim March
April 21, 2011, 02:30 PM
I've seen what my ammo out of my gun can do to a bowling ball. Yes, I was sorta writing in humor mode but seriously, I'm NOT kidding about the "abstract art on the ceiling" part. 125gr doing 1,600+ is no joke. Neither is the noise factor...I guarantee you, those punks won't have ever heard anything like that.

I really believe that both factors would make a 357 sixgun a better choice than a high-cap 9. That one first shot is going to go beyond merely "get their attention". It's going to horrify 'em. Not to mention make most of the rest of the train want to puke :(.

Alaska444
April 21, 2011, 03:15 PM
Fair enough, let's blow them all away like zombies. How far away do we draw and shoot? What actions will jolt us into shooting? I am a bit puzzled by the fact that people really believe just pointing a pistol is going to scare people who grow up with violence in their homes and streets. I know the first time someone pulled knife on me freaked me out to no end, this is a very common occurrence with these folks.

I have preached at a maximum security prison with murderers and rapists locked away for life without parole. One in particular described his state of mind before he went to jail that he didn't care if he lived or died, nor did he care if his victims lived or died. Have any of you folks actually spoken to these gang bangers and heard how they live and how they think? Being threatened and dealing with that threat before them is a routine occurrence in these gang bangers lives and is how that they make their reputation on the street.

I would not over estimate their reaction to the presence of a gun, nor would I underestimate the ability of a gang of thugs to overcome you. I have seen the scars of gun shots and knife wounds on these folks. I don't think a single white boy with a gun is going to put a whole lot of fear into these creeps myself from the hardened creeps that I have met and preached to personally. Showing fear is the last thing these creeps will do, it is just not the way that they live on the streets, nor in the prisons where they spend considerable time. That is just not their culture. My vote is you lose either way whether you do nothing or whether you draw and shoot. Even if you drive them away, get ready to deal with the DA that will lock you and put you in jail. Even if you win, you will lose.

For myself, I will never ride on MARTA or any subway system for that matter. Why expose yourself to that kind of threat in the first place. Your options are limited and poor no matter what the scenario in such a situation. Don't go there in the first place.

robmkivseries70
April 21, 2011, 03:35 PM
I have seen the notion of going after the leader several times here. This is a good strategy. When you are out in public watch the groups of young people, even the benign groups. Almost all will have some sort of 'leader', usually referred to as the "Alpha male". Female gangs will have an "Alpha Female" as well. It's not as common, but it happens. Picking out the leader is a good skill to have.:cool: Be a 'people watcher'!
Best,
Rob

chadstrickland
April 21, 2011, 03:51 PM
And to answer the preacher post I for one have yet to meet a hardcore gang where everyone in there are blood thirsty killers...if u see a group of a 100 gang bangers..probably half of them are soldiers the other half cannon fodder..and of the 50 soldiers..probably 2 or 3 know what there doing...now I do live in alabama not that many gangs like there is in texas or california but still...most of them join the gang for protection and to make a lil money...there are only a few that do the real work..and normally unless there very good u can spot them by the way the others treat them....its not hard

Alaska444
April 21, 2011, 04:36 PM
Folks, take a look at the "mentors" of these young thugs:

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/rampage-pelican-bay-prison-riot.html

The riots continued for 30 minutes despite tear gas and live ammo with 16 prisoners shot. These thugs have serious recriminations if they don't fight, in fact, cowardice in the face of confrontation will likely get that person beat up or worse by their own gang.

Here, take a look at a real gang riot. It took three hours to clean up the streets. Feel good about your one man crusade on a crowed subway? Not me. A mob is a frightening force indeed.

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/rampage-mardi-gras-mayhem.html

mnero
April 21, 2011, 04:55 PM
Threegun I am a combat vet and I can tell you from personal experience, it aint like the movies, as some of you seem to think. Frankly I am a little dismayed by how 'tough' some of you seem to think you are. Weapons don't make you tough, training, experience and a clear head are your best allies, not bravado.

threegun
April 21, 2011, 05:13 PM
Here, take a look at a real gang riot. It took three hours to clean up the streets. Feel good about your one man crusade on a crowed subway? Not me. A mob is a frightening force indeed.


Riots and 25 youth gang members like apples and oranges......they aren't the same. I was once threatened by 10 or so unfriendly youths. As they tried to surround me I was forced to pull my firearm. Back then (don't laugh) I was toting an intratec category 9 pistol. Not enough rounds to give everybody a single hit. Thankfully the air left their sails just at the sight of the gun. Had they continued I am convinced that the brakes would have been put on after the first friend fell.

I'm not suggesting that a determined mob isn't frightening but again not many folks like rushing a machinegun nest. Only the most determined will even try or perhaps some that think they can get to you before you can shoot them.

mnero
April 21, 2011, 05:24 PM
a machine gun nest is a fortified position, you will find nothing like that on a subway; a plastic seat maybe but not much more. I understand how difficult it is to admit that some situations are beyond our control, but there are times when we must accept that. That doesnt mean surrender; it just means do only that which will not make things worse for you and the others with you(everyone cept the perps).

Don H
April 21, 2011, 05:41 PM
I carry a pistol (and other tools) for my protection and that of my family. If the situation has deteriorated to the point that I am in fear for my life or fearful of serious bodily injury, and my options are to quietly acquiesce to being maimed, crippled or killed, or to gather up an honor guard to accompany me to Valhalla, I know what my choice will be. It doesn't matter if it's a gang rampaging in a train or a robbery in a convenience store, I will not submit and go down quietly. I have given this careful consideration over a period of time and made my decision: I will not be herded to slaughter.

Whether this would have been an appropriate action on this train, I don't know; I wasn't there. Neither was anybody who is commenting in this thread. But I do know where my line in the sand is. No false bravado, just fact.

threegun
April 21, 2011, 05:56 PM
Threegun I am a combat vet and I can tell you from personal experience, it aint like the movies, as some of you seem to think. Frankly I am a little dismayed by how 'tough' some of you seem to think you are. Weapons don't make you tough, training, experience and a clear head are your best allies, not bravado.

My god man why are you insisting that some of us are locked in movie fantasy? Who said anything about bravado? Who said weapons make them tough? You continue to make assumptions. We disagree here again. I submit that a 5 shot snub nose would be sufficient to survive this event (I am of course assuming that the carrier is properly trained). I base my opinion on my personal expierience in a similar event plus many other video's plus the human beings natural desire to self preservation. You opinion is based on combat and riots neither of which is relevant in this case.

You are fixated on the numbers, one vs 25. How can one man defeat 25? I don't pretend to be able to defeat such odds. I can however defeat the closest most immediate bad guys to me until my gun runs dry. I believe in this case even 5 shots would be enough.

I thank you for your service.

threegun
April 21, 2011, 06:05 PM
a machine gun nest is a fortified position, you will find nothing like that on a subway;

It was an example I used to prove my point that advancing in the face of mortal danger is difficult. Nobody wants to rush the machinegun nest. As a combat vet you should understand this more than the rest of us. It takes an extremely brave and determined man to do so.

It is exactely the same in civilization. Just plain hard to advance on death.

mnero
April 21, 2011, 06:28 PM
5 shots might be enough for you to survive the event, but I doubt it would deescalate the event. My point is that shooting it out with the perps is a bad idea as it is likely to result in alot of colateral damage and may well get you killed. Once the shooting starts it will be fight or flight for the perps just as it is for everyone else, as soon as they showed up. Many of the perps may well fight, these kids are used to violence and even using violence, not always lethal violence, but violence. It is hard to imagine how a single person or several uncoordinated armed citizens could do anything but make the situation worse then it was.

Nnobby45
April 21, 2011, 07:20 PM
Drawing a weapon as they entered would have been premature.
Waiting until they began beating me would have been too late. This seems like a no-win situation.



Unless you consider the the third option--- which would be drawing your weapon in between the first two. Drawing a weapon when a violent attack looks imminent sounds like a good tactic to me. Imminent would include other people being assaulted.

Don't know the specifics on that train, but I remember a fellow named Reginald Denny who surrendered like a meek little lamb and suffered brain damage to the extent that he "just doesn't have any animosity" toward those who crushed his skull and laughed about it while blood poured out of his head.

Denny wasn't armed, but even among folks who carry, there seems to be those looking for a way to justify surrendering. Then there are those looking for a way to fight back:).

Don't know how things are layed out on the transportation system, but BASIC alertness and planning taught to those who carry would put you at one end or the other so you don't end up between two groups of thugs.


I'd rather envision a bunch of punks coming toward me down a narrow aisle thru gun fire slowed by having to step over the bodies of their friends fast piling up on the floor.

Been more than one mob of thugs back off after a couple of 'em hit the deck. They might even hurt each other fighting to be the first out the door when the train stopped.:D



NO, I don't know that it would happen that way, but that's a better scenario to envision than looking for a way to give up and surrender. Isn't it? It's called mindset.




Just my thoughts on the matter.:cool:

Jim March
April 21, 2011, 07:58 PM
You know what's really interesting to me about the pics of the exterior and interior of those trains?

They're *exactly* the same as BART - Bay Area Rapid Transit (San Francisco/Oakland/etc.). I mean right down to the seating positions, door width, the works. Cars probably come from the same place.

So I *have* been there. I backed down four lunatics who were kicking and stomping somebody in the head. Two had claw hammers. I had a visible knife and unknown to everybody else present (and the cops afterwards!), a four-shot .22Mag minirevolver. I came out of that physically and legally intact and got the downed party out with no more than a concussion.

I don't have to guess. I *know* for a fact I'll stand up to a wolfpack of thugs. With one big difference. Instead of this:

http://precisionarmaments.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/naa_mini_qtr.219142729_std.jpg

I'll have this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5106/5620542471_5a622db37a_b.jpg

...which, in another month or two, is going to have a tube-magazine-based feed system for 12+ round capacity and the ability to stick new 8rd feed tubes in as fast as most people can swap 1911 mags.

:D

(For those that don't know, I'm in Tucson AZ these days...)

threegun
April 21, 2011, 08:05 PM
Mnero, You may be right. We cannot know an outcome in advance. What I do know is that I will not take a beating from anyone especially a group. When my turn to be beaten comes up so does my firearm. If the bad guys comply and retreat it over. If not its on.

If we are playing odds I would bet that the mere sight of a firearm would end the attack.

A practice game I play once in a while would definitely benefit this scenario. Set up 4 to 6 targets in a semi circle. Open fire one shot each only as you fire move horizontally toward the first target. In theory this buys you a fraction or two seconds to complete the swing before the last couple guys can reach you. I developed this because of my encounter with the 10 plus teens.

Would be tough in a subway car but its the closest thing I've got to dealing with alot of targets at close range while trying to prevent getting over run.

gearhounds
April 21, 2011, 08:42 PM
Couple of points here; first, merely bringing a gun into the picture may not be enough by itself to stop the act. But adding a formidable command presence will go miles over someone brandishing that does not sound like they mean business.

As far as the 2 adults stopping the action, someone stated it was never indicated whether or not they were armed. In this scenario, I think it proves that a determined action trumped the toads higher numbers. If they were armed, the 24 or so obviously didn't want to tangle with them, even though they outnumbered them 12 to 1. If they were not armed, it proves it even more.

I don't think any of the posters advocating action here are taking on a "Rambo" persona by doing so. Mind set, training, and command presence work on larger groups; it has for me, and that never involved rushing headlong into the fray.

And if the thinkable happens (I don't like the term unthinkable, as it implies one cannot keep their head and tactically act), looking at the interior pic on the train, you could pick a choke point to limit the toads ability to use numbers to their advantage, such as just a step this side of the 2 upright poles next to the seated guy on the left. Not a great funnel, I admit, but start filling it with thugs, and it becomes harder to press an attack.

Lastly, this is not a riot by hardened lifer's that will operate as a mob. This is a largely a pack of cowards, led by a couple of stronger willed cowards. I agree, if deadly force is called for and you drop the leaders, the rest of the pack will do whatever you tell them to do to stay alive. My .02.

mnero
April 21, 2011, 08:56 PM
It seems a mistake to me to assume that these 'gangbangers' are cowards. My old man used to say to me 'everyone always says stand up to bullies cause they are cowards at heart, but I am telling you to beware of bullies and take them down first and fast cause they usually are dangerous' course he was assuming a one on one situation at a school.

Tom Servo
April 21, 2011, 09:19 PM
Bernard Goetz had the right solution, but he had five shots for four goblins.
No, he didn't. The Goetz case teaches us several salient lessons, but effective self-defense is not one of them.

Honestly, if I were caught in that situation, I don't think I'd be able to do much. As others have mentioned, one shot might spook the gang. It might.

So, what are we left with after that? A mob animal that's spooked and has nowhere to go. All I've done is a) made it more aggressive, and b) focused that on myself.

Frankly, in that situation, I'd simply play the part of the ineffectual urban yuppie and give them my wallet. There's nothing in there that can't be replaced, and I wouldn't be placing lives (both innocent and criminal) in danger.

youngunz4life
April 21, 2011, 11:06 PM
I can't speak from my own experience fortunately, but these kids are faced with guns pointed at them all the time in these gangs. One of the points my CCW instructor who is also an LEO, (expert firearms witness, owner of the number one rated gun range in America at the last shot show, 20 years in military police, author of tactical firearms books, etc, you get the picture) stated that he has witnessed the reactions of many criminals with guns pointed at them and most often it doesn't phase them.

Criminals know in fact that most folks will not shoot even when pointing the gun, they just don't want to hurt anyone. His point was that if you pull your gun thinking that will scare most criminals, good luck. You have to be willing to shoot. The case I posted above in CDA had 8 thugs, two were shot, the other 6 pummeled the man being attacked. I wouldn't bet on these creeps freaking out because you have a little gun pointed at them. Most care little for their life or yours for that matter and could care less if they are shot or not. It is a way of life to show no fear in these gangs. 30 kids rioting on a train, bad situation plain and simple.

I agree or possibly that is the wrong terminology: in this situation one would need to shoot if drawing. that would always depend on the specific situation at hand and also would have a final decision made by the innocent pulling his firearm. taking control of the situation quickly would be very important & the less time for the whole event to play out the better. giving the mob time to think can be a fatal mistake. I hope I'm not the test case for this one, but I'm not surrendering unless I have no choice in the matter. I would draw(and shoot) in a heartbeat on MARTA if I had to.

BarryLee
April 21, 2011, 11:24 PM
So, far still no arrest, but the news reported that they are apparently closing in on someone.

MARTA had all the PR Team out today explaining how safe the system was and that this was an isolated incident. There is a big vote coming up concerning increasing taxes so they can expand the system into other municipalities, so I am sure they want to make this go away fast. Guess how I’ll vote…

Ryder
April 22, 2011, 04:16 AM
125gr doing 1,600+ is no joke. Neither is the noise factor...I guarantee you, those punks won't have ever heard anything like that.



No different than having an ice pick jabbed in your ear.

Evil doesn't impress me. Could I impress them if the situation called for it? Imagine something like this could impress the whole planet.

Nnobby45
April 22, 2011, 05:57 AM
Frankly, in that situation, I'd simply play the part of the ineffectual urban yuppie and give them my wallet. There's nothing in there that can't be replaced, and I wouldn't be placing lives (both innocent and criminal) in danger.


Urban yuppie,

Did you miss the part about passengers being smashed in the face, beaten and robbed of their wallets while they lay injured on the floor?

MLeake
April 22, 2011, 06:09 AM
Nnobby45... did you miss the part where most of the passengers did not get beaten, or where the beating of the flight attendants stopped when two adult males who apparently did NOT produce weapons intervened?

There isn't a clear-cut answer to a situation like this. There are far too many variables.

For instance, let's say we had the best defensive case. That's the one where I'm at the far end of the car from where these teens enter, and can maximize the defensive funnel effect of the center aisle. Best odds to hold them at bay with a firearm.

But where are the other passengers? Can I safely or ethically open fire?

Then again, if I were seated at the near end to where they enter, I have a potential to be immediately enveloped if I do something to draw attention, such as drawing a weapon. BG's all around; bad to begin with, but now I might have to fire in all directions while under immediate physical attack. Once again, can I really avoid putting other passengers at high degree of risk?

Now, am I going to submit to a beating? Probably not. No telling where that would go...

Would I want to try to intervene if other passengers were under attack? Of course. (But as noted, the two people who successfully intervened do not seem to have used guns.)

My point is that trying to de-escalate or at least non-escalate would probably be the best initial strategy, due in large part to the presence of innocent parties in a confined space.

And, as Tom Servo has pointed out on more than one occasion, nothing in his wallet is irreplaceable.

So I'd give them Tom Servo's wallet, and hope they left relatively peaceably. :D

chadstrickland
April 22, 2011, 07:29 AM
This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread..but jim march..that is a sweet looking pistol man..lol..and im sure if u had to pull it out on the subway the thugs may not run off at first because they would be trying to figure out what the heck that thing is...and I know u ain't gona say..( neither would I )...but what in the world do u keep bloting out on top of that pic lol

Seaman
April 22, 2011, 08:30 AM
Flamethrower/grenade launcher. Not approved for CCW use.

Custer could have used it at the Little Big Horn. His carry on that day were a pair of ivory handled 3-inch barreled Webley 45s. He knew he was heading for CQ trouble.

Jim March
April 22, 2011, 11:40 AM
chadstrickland: here's the video of it in operation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZAGpJr5RsU

It's the world's only self-unloading revolver working on gas pressure :).

Like I said: next step, add clip-in spring-loaded feed tubes through the other side's recoil shield. 12+ round capacity. Oh yeah. "Creature from the SASS Lagoon" :).

440SAW
April 22, 2011, 12:26 PM
"Fair enough, let's blow them all away like zombies. How far away do we draw and shoot? What actions will jolt us into shooting? I am a bit puzzled by the fact that people really believe just pointing a pistol is going to scare people who grow up with violence in their homes and streets. I know the first time someone pulled knife on me freaked me out to no end, this is a very common occurrence with these folks."

Me Too: You do not draw your weapon unless you intend to fire it after a short warning. If you don't intend to fire, leave it in the holster until you do, period. In fact, that can be said for most weapons.
The only exception I can think of is in an enforcement action, on a sweep. Then one would need to be prepared. Now really, how many here would be in that situation?
The subway situation is a LOSE; if you are in it you lose. A cool head reacting to the situation is called for, moment by moment. I do hope I never find myself in a situaion with more than 6 thugs with the potential to explode on me. G*D bless us all in even that circumstance.
Let's hope none of us ever experiences anything like that.

markj
April 22, 2011, 02:45 PM
I'll have this:

Jim, that gun will give you a few moments as they try to figure out *** is that? :) the mother of invention and all that :)


Worst case here is some idiot hijacking the hay ride wagon..... only to find all are armed as this is Iowa :) and we all have a permit to carry it seems

WANT A LCR 22LR
April 22, 2011, 06:07 PM
" Frankly, in that situation, I'd simply play the part of the ineffectual urban yuppie and give them my wallet. There's nothing in there that can't be replaced, and I wouldn't be placing lives (both innocent and criminal) in danger. "


And now they know where you live making a second stop likely. ( Gee, he gave up his wallet so easily, might as well take stuff from his home since he won't fight back. )

If no one fights back while being robbed, what prevents the thieves from striking again. . ( and again ) ?

Jim March
April 22, 2011, 06:16 PM
I lost a good freind to an armed robber years ago. He "gave up" too. Took a 22 right behind the ear at contact range for it.

No. Sorry, "your money or your life" is not a new social contract. I will do my absolute best to put very serious bullets into anybody who says that to me, until they stop saying it or forever can't.

MLeake
April 22, 2011, 06:19 PM
Well, they could probably kill, cripple, or maim you now, or they might come by your house later.... In military terms, deal with the 5 meter threat before engaging the 15 meter threat.

However, this does bring up the possible tactic of carrying a throwdown wallet, that doesn't have a real ID, credit cards, or anything linking to your home or person. Some cash and a fake credit card... I'd say fake ID, but that might not be legally kosher.

Throwdown wallets or money-clips have been recommended in various overseas travel security briefings as things people might want in higher crime areas.

I don't have one myself, but it's not a bad idea.

chadstrickland
April 22, 2011, 06:28 PM
my youth really shows in times like this...and I know im green to..but I have to say neat:cool: to the above post...never thought of that...pretty smart idea..I also dnt know about the fake idea...I bet it would probably be up to the cop..I mean u could have your name on there as john doe or something obvious that a hasty criminal might now catch but a gun store checkin a back ground or a cop would see in a second

Ringolevio
April 22, 2011, 09:18 PM
MLeake: "Throwdown wallets or money-clips have been recommended in various overseas travel security briefings as things people might want in higher crime areas."

Massad Ayoob, in "In the Gravest Extreme" (anybody here who has not yet read it, go get a copy right now!) advocated having a $5 dollar bill wrapped around a matchbook (to give it heft so you can toss it to someone still several feet away). He says:
If I encounter a bunch of punks I can't avoid by crossing the street, and if they give me a lot of jive, I'll toss the fiver to the ringleader...I'll tell him I don't want any trouble, and suggest he buy the boys a round of beers on me.
Maybe it won't work. Maybe it'll just whet his appetite to go for my wallet. I'm betting that it will satisfy the ego need that drove him to confront me. You may think it's a [Charlie Sierra] approach. Maybe it is. I only know that it's easily worth 5 or 10 bucks to me not to have to shoot somebody.

That book was copyrighted in 1980. Allowing for inflation, the minimum today would be $20, and even that might not do it. But the idea of a throwaway wallet, with some cash and "credit cards", might still be sound, if only to give credence to your claim (should you survive!) that you tried to comply rather than escalate the situation.

Tom Servo
April 22, 2011, 09:33 PM
So I'd give them Tom Servo's wallet, and hope they left relatively peaceably.
Yep, in fact...hey, wait a minute! Let's not be so hasty...;)

I only know that it's easily worth 5 or 10 bucks to me not to have to shoot somebody.
Precisely. If I draw, I may be escalating the situation from a strong-arm flash mob to an outright massacre. The plain fact is, there are far too many variables. Presentation of a weapon might stop or mitigate the violence, or it may make things worse. Firing might work, or it might exacerbate things. My actions could end up getting people hurt who otherwise wouldn't have been.

I'm going to do everything I can before I decide for myself. I'm certainly going to do it before I arbitrarily decide it for everyone else on the car.

I worry that some of the more cavalier attitudes about violence betray a lack of training and experience. Some of us have done brain detail. Trust me, it's no fun to see, and I imagine less fun to inflict.

stoney64
April 22, 2011, 10:06 PM
As a greying white male I never take mass transit and I avoid gangs/groups of young minorities.

If I were in the big city, there's no way I'm getting myself on or in something I can't extricate myself from, that being said, I would have; retreated to put space between me and them, drawn, brandished, then fired on the first one that advanced (and as many rounds as it took to stop the advance), after the smoke cleared, if I'm still alive, I would call an attorney, then 911.

I would end up broke and maybe incarcerated (sad we've come to that) but I would be alive.

Alaska444
April 22, 2011, 10:21 PM
Great post Tom Servo. The bravado I am sure is simply that. Push comes to shove, in a life and death situation, you would be forced to pull at some point, but the urge to resist and seek alternative choices is paramount. As several have stated, it would be a no-win situation at best.

Best way is to avoid it in the first place. If you have no choice but to ride MARTA, then all bets are off.

JohnKSa
April 22, 2011, 10:29 PM
If no one fights back while being robbed, what prevents the thieves from striking again. . ( and again ) ?The legal use of deadly force is there to allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from violent criminals. It was not instituted to stop repeat offenses nor as punishment for criminals nor as a means for the law-abiding to take their revenge on criminals.

Unless the defender reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately needed to prevent a violent crime that is likely to result in serious injury or death then it's almost certainly not legal to use deadly force.You do not draw your weapon unless you intend to fire it after a short warning. If you don't intend to fire, leave it in the holster until you do, period.I've seen this statement made several times and I would modify it as follows.

You do not draw your weapon unless you either immediately need to fire it or unless it appears that you will very soon need to fire it AND you are willing to fire it should the need arise. If you do not believe that you need to fire or that you will likely need to fire it very soon, then leave it in the holster until you do.

In at least some areas (e.g. TX) it is legal to draw and display your firearm as a deterrent before the full criteria for the use of deadly force has been met. Obviously firearms do not always serve as deterrents, but they frequently do. And if they don't, they offer the ability to immediately transition to a deadly force response if things don't de-escalate.

Obviously one should never draw a firearm unless the situation is dire and it appears that deadly force is either immediately necessary or very likely will be necessary imminently. And if they are not willing to use it should it become necessary to do so they would be much better off leaving it at home.

I would let this pass but I'm starting to get worried that people will begin to think that they can't draw until they absolutely have to fire or that if they draw they have to fire. Most self-defense encounters involving a defender with a firearm are resolved because the firearm's deterrent value ends the encounter without a shot being fired. We shouldn't DEPEND on that for safety nor should we display a firearm if we aren't willing and able to use it, but it would be sad for gun-owners to think that they aren't allowed to take advantage of such a valuable tool given its obviously impressive track record.

therewolf
April 22, 2011, 10:38 PM
As well as fearing for my life, I would be afraid this gang would

get access to my SD weapon, which would endanger MORE lives...

.. as Sgt. York put it, "I figure I was saving lives by killing those (must have

been White Anglo Saxon Protestants,right?) guys."

Nnobby45
April 23, 2011, 12:10 AM
But where are the other passengers? Can I safely or ethically open fire?

..........Then again, if I were seated at the near end to where they enter, I have a potential to be immediately enveloped if I do something to draw attention, such as drawing a weapon. BG's all around; bad to begin with, but now I might have to fire in all directions while under immediate physical attack. Once again, can I really avoid putting other passengers at high degree of risk?

Now, am I going to submit to a beating? Probably not. No telling where that would go...............



OK, you're shining light on the subject from different angles and considering different possibilities. I guess my lack of understanding is with those for whom the only angle under consideration is best how to surrender.

There's no telling where that would go for me in that situation, either, but surrendering my wallet along with my weapon would be way down on the priority list. And, yes, being passive can be the best option, also----depending on the situtation.


:cool:


:cool:

justjim75
April 23, 2011, 01:59 AM
i already have too much stuff in my pockets to carry a whole extra wallet but separating some bills from my wallet into a $$ clip for my convenience (sp?) and to have a "treat" for the BG's isnt a bad idea at all. maybe small frequently used bills with a larger one on the outside? if ya'll think about it for a sec, giving away $20 would cost less than a full clip of your best self defense ammo and the gas money to drive back to the place you bought it from!!

justjim75
April 23, 2011, 02:02 AM
is it legal for us to carry and use flashbang grenades?

GregInAtl
April 23, 2011, 08:02 AM
Sounds like a Charles Bronson moment to me. For those of you too young to remember, I am referring to the Death Wish series of movies starring the aforementioned

MLeake
April 23, 2011, 08:04 AM
For those too young to remember the movies, the Bronson character also was constantly under police scrutiny, and in reality would have been incarcerated.

GregInAtl
April 23, 2011, 08:27 AM
I rode MARTA almost everyday for over a decade, it isn't as dangerous as you think it is, just keep your head up, be alert and pay attention (I'd have felt completely safe with a Browning Hi Power or even my Airweight Bodyguard)

I actually miss riding MARTA, great place to peoplewatch

Marta is not too unsafe if you don't ride it at odd hours, like really late at night or really early. I ride it occasionally and have never had any run in's but I usually ride it during peak hours, never later at night

Ringolevio
April 23, 2011, 09:36 AM
If we're invoking Charles Bronson movies, how 'bout a little something about real subway vigilantes (before that term was given a negative spin)?

As I recall, the Guardian Angels were started by Curtis Sliwa, who was a McDonald's night mgr. and a martial arts enthusiast. He first organized some fellow workers to pick up all the trash around the restaurant, and in the process they were able to intervene in some attempted muggings.

Curtis worked in The Bronx and lived in Brooklyn (opposite ends of the city). One of the trains he rode between work and home was known as "the muggers' express".

Originally calling themselves "The Magnificent 13", Curtis & Co. rode that train, and really dished out some "instant Karma" to anybody who dared to try to rob or harass innocent passengers.

That was the genesis of the Guardian Angels Safety Patrol, formed in 1979 and still operating in cities around the U.S. and the world, focusing chiefly on public transit (although their presence is not what it once was, and I don't know if they have a chapter in Atlanta).

Besides deterring crime and protecting citizens, the group gave structure and direction to a lot of youngsters who otherwise might have joined criminal gangs. The group follows strict rules which includes never being armed. Unfortunately, a number of Guardian Angels have been killed while fighting crime.

Even more unfortunate, the positive values of the Guardian Angels can't compete today with the media-glamorized allure of the thug life.

I'm thinking about Curtis because he announced on Thursday that he has prostate cancer and is going under the knife today.
While we're all thinking about subway crime, let's try to keep this true subway vigilante, crimefighter and positive role model in our thoughts and prayers.

Thanks!

GregInAtl
April 23, 2011, 09:43 AM
I would let this pass but I'm starting to get worried that people will begin to think that they can't draw until they absolutely have to fire or that if they draw they have to fire. Most self-defense encounters involving a defender with a firearm are resolved because the firearm's deterrent value ends the encounter without a shot being fired. We shouldn't DEPEND on that for safety nor should we display a firearm if we aren't willing and able to use it, but it would be sad for gun-owners to think that they aren't allowed to take advantage of such a valuable tool given its obviously impressive track record.

Thanks for clearing that up

8shot357
April 23, 2011, 01:53 PM
For those too young to remember the movies, the Bronson character also was constantly under police scrutiny, and in reality would have been incarcerated.

You said it, so it's true.:rolleyes:

MLeake
April 23, 2011, 03:19 PM
8shot357, thanks for the sarcasm.

What was the body count in the Death Wish movies? (Note: it's over 100.)

How many times do you expect a citizen could expect to get away with claiming SD before prosecutors and juries said, "enough?"

Do you recommend a .475 Wildey Magnum as an SD gun?

Offer up your defense of Paul Kersey.

JohnKSa
April 23, 2011, 03:49 PM
I have to go with MLeake on this one.

For comparison, Lance Thomas shot 6 attackers, killing 5 of them in four very clearcut self-defense shootings resulting from armed robberies at his watch store. He was shot several times himself in the process so there was no question that his life was in jeopardy.

After the last shooting, according to Kirchner*, the authorities let him know that: "political pressures being what they were...he would be indicted after another shooting, whatever the circumstances; he apparently wasn't trying hard enough to avoid confrontation."

It's a HUGE mistake for a citizen to assume that he's going to be hailed as a hero after shooting a bad guy (or bad guys). There will certainly be some who will respond that way, but there will be many more who view any killing--even killing in self-defense--as "uncivilized" or otherwise undesirable. The same folks who advocate that women carry lemon juice around to throw in the face of a criminal who attempts to rape them. The current mentality of Great Britain.

Circumstances eventually forced Thomas to close his shop. Now he does business primarily over the internet.

* The Deadliest Men, The World's Deadliest Combatants throughout the Ages by Paul Kirchner

ripnbst
April 23, 2011, 04:47 PM
If these guys are as close in proximity to me as I think they would be given the described situation and I made the decision to use deadly force I would create upward angles. Dealing with most immediate threat first I would guess the guy is at arms lenght or close to it. Angle gun upwards before firing kind of from the hip/quick post draw first shot. Engaging any targets further down the tram car you could kneel to try and keep projected bullet path away from other innocent passengers.

There was no mention of if this gang had guns themselves. If they only had knives/clubs/pipes etc punching holes in the first one or two guys may make the others stop what they are doing.

MLeake
April 23, 2011, 04:51 PM
Upward angles aren't a bad idea.

Only question I will ask is how is your mobility from a kneeling or deeply crouching position?

Because if the group does attack, you might need to be able to maneuver.

And if you do have to maneuver, can you still find upward or otherwise safe angles?

Sorry, that was a second question.

Alaska444
April 23, 2011, 05:27 PM
Folks, what are you going to do when the gang bangers use a hostage as a shield against you and then press the attack? Think about it, 30 thugs on a small train car with NO WHERE TO RUN.

I am amazed at how people conjure up methods of attack to overtake 30 thugs with one SA pistol and one reload. All I can say is good luck. The only way to win that battle is to avoid it all together. Making the assumption that you will scare them away is not a winnning strategy. You might just get the opposite effect especially with a caged mob of 30 with no where to go but right through you. Once again, good luck.

youngunz4life
April 23, 2011, 06:56 PM
Sounds like a Charles Bronson moment to me. For those of you too young to remember, I am referring to the Death Wish series of movies starring the aforementioned

dont forget the dude from revenge of the nerds once he ended up on "ER" for years. he packed a pistol on the subway and stuck it in some thugs' face after being bullied on there more than once. This stuff does happen in some forms or others.

All I can say is good luck. The only way to win that battle is to avoid it all together.


alaska, only problem is sometimes it cant be avoided. sometimes doing something is better than nothing.

mnero
April 23, 2011, 08:42 PM
Sometimes, youngguns, but not this time. No one can be sure how they would react, since we were not there, but it sounds like a no win situation.
Another point to consider is that, for every one Audie Murphy, there are ten guys who got their CMH posthumously.

MLeake
April 23, 2011, 08:49 PM
I'm just happy I wasn't there. I'd have wanted to help the guys who were getting beaten up, and like to think I'd have stepped in as did the two Samaritans, but I would have been doing my best to intervene without escalating things.

For those who say, "Just don't take the train late at night," I agree. But I don't currently work for an airline, and don't have to work around their schedule. Not sure about Delta's flight attendant payscale, or the seniority of the flight attendants who were attacked, or if they were Delta mainline or with a Delta feeder like ASA.

Thing is, if they were relatively junior, and working for a feeder, those guys probably only make $15-20K, and can't afford to take a cab. (I was a regional pilot for a brief period, and trust me the pay is horrible.) They're kind of stuck with MARTA.

Alaska444
April 23, 2011, 09:19 PM
Sometimes, youngguns, but not this time. No one can be sure how they would react, since we were not there, but it sounds like a no win situation.
Another point to consider is that, for every one Audie Murphy, there are ten guys who got their CMH posthumously.
__________________
"Hero, I was hung over, that's all; too mad to be scared and too sick to give a damn." Robert Mitchum; 'El Dorado'
Last edited by mnero; Today at 06:48 PM.
+1 Agreed. :):):)

Hiker 1
April 23, 2011, 11:28 PM
Alaska444 - you can't always avoid a battle. Sometimes it comes your way no matter what you do. Then you make decisions based on the circumstances.

mnero
April 23, 2011, 11:45 PM
I don't think Alaska is saying he would cower in a corner, no matter what; I think he was saying it was gonna go bad, no matter what.

Alaska444
April 24, 2011, 12:11 AM
I don't think Alaska is saying he would cower in a corner, no matter what; I think he was saying it was gonna go bad, no matter what.
__________________
"Hero, I was hung over, that's all; too mad to be scared and too sick to give a damn." Robert Mitchum; 'El Dorado'

+1 Agreed once again. Several folks have correctly stated that this is a situation that you will be hard placed to control, period. Cower?? Sorry, not my point that I don't see a winning outcome in this situation. Can I avoid subway systems? You bet. Can all folks, no, but there are things that you can do mitigate that such as the time of day as some have already pointed out. The speculations on how these creeps will react is laughable to anyone that has spent time with them as I have for several years.

You must remember that many of these creeps are more frightened by members of their own gang more so than by anyone else. In addition, many of these gangs have incredible military style discipline especially in the prison system. Stating you can pull a gun and scare a crowd of 30 on a train car with no where to go may not be the way it goes down at all. I have seen the scars on these folks and that gives a bit of the story of how they live, day in and day out. Once again, look at the Pelican Bay riots where 16 inmates were shot, one killed and it took over 30 minutes to settle things down. We are simply talking about a total foreign civilization to the majority of law abiding Americans.

I would definitely back down if someone has a gun pointed at me, but I don't see any of these creeps backing down even one inch when I was with them in prison. They simply don't think the same way normal folks think and many of them have little to live for and depend on bravado for their reputations. I used to preach to 30 or 40 in one room where I had no absurd preconceptions that they couldn't overcome me at any time that they wanted to. Ask a prison guard who is in control of the prison, you might find an interesting answer to that question. Simply put, they are a different animal than the ordinary dog so to speak.

Lastly, I go back to the gang attack from 2009 in Idaho I posted before where the person shot two and then was beaten severely by the remaining 6. Why didn't they back down? Why didn't they run away? Why didn't he blast away and zombie them all into submission. Get real folks, a gang of 30!! and we hear of strategies to subdue all 30. Wow. All I can say once again, is good luck.

FORKLIFT352
April 24, 2011, 12:36 AM
Some how 10 + 1 .45 with another 10 on stand by I would think the
rest would run.
When I first started CC I would be ready to help in this scenario...
However now a days with the risk of law suit or a bad ruling,
My gun is just for me and my fam.I would think if you are riding
public transit every one I see should be armed.

But to answer the question.....I see the mob I turn around draw the weapon
put it behind my back.If approached I talk like I'm deaf and tell them that I am
deaf.
And if strong armed.....shoot to kill.

Ringolevio
April 24, 2011, 08:50 AM
I'd think that, much as one should try to avoid gunplay [what a strange word, eh?], riding the subway late at night (or any other potentially perilous situation) might be a good excuse to employ the "Kojak carry".

Although this is a case of "life imitating art" (like the "Kojak light" used on otherwise unmarked cars), it's a very real tactic that happened to be best illustrated by a TV cop.

The Kojak carry consists of having the gun already in your hand, usually in a coat pocket. It's best employed with a snubby revolver so you can shoot right through the pocket if necessary (a semi-auto's slide will likely be impeded by the pocket and it won't cycle fully).

Kojak (who was said to be based on real-life legendary NYPD Chief of Detectives Albert Seedman) always had his revolver already in his hand in his coat pocket when going into a situation.

Similarly, Massad Ayoob tells that, as a cop making a traffic stop, he would have his duty weapon holstered and a snubby in his weak hand, inside a pocket.

I think if I had to ride public transit late at night I'd have my hand in my pocket for the entire ride.

mnero
April 24, 2011, 10:06 AM
Alaska, I advice that we refrain from posting in this thread. We are wasting our time, this thread has turned into an opportunity for the 'kids' to stroke their guns and tell us how tough they are:D

Mello2u
April 24, 2011, 10:10 AM
To the several posters who wrote that once some of the gang had been shot, the rest would run.

I ask: where would they run?

The physical limitations that existed prevented anyone running away. Everyone was on a moving train. The doors could not be opened. Even at the next stop after the start of the violence, the doors would not open. So everyone was trapped on the train until the second stop when the doors opened.

Consider the mindset of the gang members. They would rather die than back down. There you are, trapped in a train car with 25 or 30 violent gang members. You have a gun. If you shoot are you drawing attention to yourself to the exclusion of all others. Attention that demands the gang kill you? Even if you had 30 rounds, fired those and disabled 15 or 20 gang members; that would leave you with an empty gun, and 5 or 10 gang members duty bound to kill you and plenty of time to do so.

Can you say "dinner bell"?

therewolf
April 24, 2011, 11:17 AM
Isn't it funny, IF all law abiding citizens carried guns on the train,

those guys wouldn't have the marbles to pull this crap.

But the law regulates away citizen's guns, and now

Aunt Marge can't even take a subway in peace.

Jim March
April 24, 2011, 11:21 AM
These clowns were shouting their "war cry" as they charged onto the train. Had they been stopped right then and there, as they should have been, they'd have had their exit path no problem.

fawcettlee
April 24, 2011, 12:30 PM
Let's say you're cc and you're on that subway car. However, the gang is focused on someone else who has drawn his weapon and is proceeding to overwhelm that person even though he has fired and taken down several BGs. What do you do? Do you draw too and back up the poor guy as he's about to be taken down? What's the law on that? Not only is there a life in balance but once he's overpowered, there is now a weapon to account for in the subway car. Is there such a thing as an anticipatory response to prevent a bad situation from getting worse? Or is the law written in such a way that even if you're in that situation, you have to be the focus of the attack before you can deploy? In which case, instead of...say 4-5 people presenting a united front, even people who are armed get taken down piecemeal.
I'm not saying go Bronson at the drop of a hat. I'm just wondering what happens when you're in an enclosed space like that and such a situation but that threat just hasn't reached you.....yet.

Tom Servo
April 24, 2011, 12:45 PM
Isn't it funny, IF all law abiding citizens carried guns on the train, those guys wouldn't have the marbles to pull this crap.
There's actually very little causal evidence to show that civilian carry discourages crime.

Had they been stopped right then and there, as they should have been, they'd have had their exit path no problem.
That assumes I've got the world's most acute situational awareness and incredibly cat-like reflexes. It also assumes that they'll be deterred by the gunshots.

Or is the law written in such a way that even if you're in that situation, you have to be the focus of the attack before you can deploy?
Many states now have statues that allow for shooting in defense of others, particularly when the threat is as clear as you've described. Even if they didn't, a prosecutor would have a hard time in all but the most Blue of states finding a jury that'd convict.

WANT A LCR 22LR
April 24, 2011, 01:32 PM
<<my Quote from a prior post:
If no one fights back while being robbed, what prevents the thieves from striking again. . ( and again ) ? >>

( the reply )
"" The legal use of deadly force is there to allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from violent criminals. It was not instituted to stop repeat offenses nor as punishment for criminals nor as a means for the law-abiding to take their revenge on criminals.

Unless the defender reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately needed to prevent a violent crime that is likely to result in serious injury or death then it's almost certainly not legal to use deadly force. ""


I should of have worded this differently. " If no one fights back while being robbed, what DETERS the thieves from striking again. . ( and again ) ? "

If a mugger knows the target will give up willingly, is there any reason for them not to attack? It sure isn't the fear of being caught.

On this and other boards there is talk of how anti PD countries suffer from a high crime rate. Apparently this is due to the lack of citizens being able to defend themselves with a hand gun or other means.

Another post in this thread spoke of dealing with the near term threat ( having a wallet taken ) before dealing with a long term somewhat uncertain threat ( the mugger using the info to come to your home ) . Sure, one must survive the day but, at some point one must draw a line in the sand.

Alaska444
April 24, 2011, 02:17 PM
I suspect that all that carry have mentally already drawn lines in the sand so to speak for different scenarios. That is not the question in this case. The question is how to best SURVIVE in this situation and sometimes using your tongue and fast talking is better than a fast draw. Other options are avoidance. I find the most useful information on this thread that a gang of 30 thugs did this. To me, that takes MARTA or other similar types of transit off the list.

For those that must use these forms of travel, mitigate the risk as much as possible by traveling with more than one person, 3-4 is better than one in such a situation, especially if all are armed. 4 men pulling weapons on 30 thugs makes it a more fair fight and one that is possibly winnable.

One lone gunman standing up against 30 men that may or may not be armed is probably not a matter of courage, it may instead be a matter of foolishness. Even the example someone posted on earlier of Massad Ayoob throwing a fiver to keep from going further and escalating into a deadly force situation is just one example of using the tongue instead of using deadly force.

In addition, who is going to be in your line of fire? Can you identify who are gang bangers and who are just kids on the subway with you? All bravado aside, this is not the situation that one gun on your hip is designed to deliver you. Protecting your gun from the creeps and keeping it out of view is your first and best option in this situation. If the creeps evolve into a deadly force against you or someone else, what is there to lose, but do so knowing that your motive now is to take as many with you as you can, and not hope that you will walk away unharmed.

Tom Servo
April 24, 2011, 03:09 PM
I suspect that all that carry have mentally already drawn lines in the sand so to speak for different scenarios.
Yep, and that worries me. We can't predict how things will unfold in real life. It's usually far messier and quicker than any of the academic scenarios we discuss.

This was a sudden, unpredictable situation, and I don't see how I alone could have solved it if I was there. I've seen fatal gunshot wounds. I'm really in no hurry to do that to anybody, even if I'm "right" or "justified." It may stink, but there are times when appeasement is better than escalation.

ojibweindian
April 24, 2011, 03:42 PM
This was a sudden, unpredictable situation, and I don't see how I alone could have solved it if I was there. I've seen fatal gunshot wounds. I'm really in no hurry to do that to anybody, even if I'm "right" or "justified." It may stink, but there are times when appeasement is better than escalation.


Yep. Sometimes, life just sucks.

Alaska444
April 24, 2011, 03:54 PM
Quote:
I suspect that all that carry have mentally already drawn lines in the sand so to speak for different scenarios.
Yep, and that worries me. We can't predict how things will unfold in real life. It's usually far messier and quicker than any of the academic scenarios we discuss.

This was a sudden, unpredictable situation, and I don't see how I alone could have solved it if I was there. I've seen fatal gunshot wounds. I'm really in no hurry to do that to anybody, even if I'm "right" or "justified." It may stink, but there are times when appeasement is better than escalation.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus

Great comment. I am glad that my life isn't going to be judged alone by what I had "accomplished" by the time I was 20. You can only pray that the creeps that did this in the opening post get a whole lot smarter before it is too late for them. Taking human life is no easy matter, but those of us that carry already must have the mindset that we would use it in the "gravest extreme."

In this case, keeping the gun to yourself and looking for ways to de-escalate the situation is the first order. Pulling a gun could end in a complete disaster for many not the least of which is the person pulling the pistol in the first place. Having a Rambo mindset is just in the movies, in real life it just doesn't go down like that.

I believe that this thread is one of the better scenarios to consider in the presence of overwhelming numbers. I wonder if there have been expert opinions on what to do in this situation. I would certainly like to hear what someone like Massad Ayoob would do in a like situation. I suspect the last resort would be to pull his weapon.

MLeake
April 24, 2011, 03:55 PM
Jim March, the problem with your suggestion, IMO, is this:

These were 13-18 year old kids. Not saying they weren't all POS's, but my first thought with a group of teenagers yelling something I'd never heard would have been that it was a school or team thing. I'd have no idea what "BFPL!" meant if the newspaper hadn't told me.

Last time I saw a group of teenagers acting weird, they were a bunch of middle eastern kids who came into a restaurant, all dressed up in black costumes. They were late teen/young adult age. Worried the staff a bit. One of the waitstaff asked me if I had a gun, because she was a bit scared of them. (I was a regular, she was a friend.)

Turned out to be a dance group of some sort. But they looked kind of ninja'ed out in what they were wearing.

So my point is, it might not have been clear that these kids on MARTA were a true threat, until they were already on the train.

And I'd have felt really bad if I'd preemptively shot, or even drawn down on, a middle eastern dancer just to be on the safe side...

threegun
April 24, 2011, 04:16 PM
It seems a mistake to me to assume that these 'gangbangers' are cowards. My old man used to say to me 'everyone always says stand up to bullies cause they are cowards at heart, but I am telling you to beware of bullies and take them down first and fast cause they usually are dangerous' course he was assuming a one on one situation at a school.


Nobody said to assume cowardice. I was just pointing out what all the video's of similar scenarios suggest not to mention my own event. Very few humans are willing to advance on someone dishing death. This include many a man who would separate your head from your shoulders bare handed. This is why I believe any repeating firearm would have been sufficient to overcome the odds and survive the event.

Jim March
April 24, 2011, 04:49 PM
The moment a group that size actions violently, I'm going to start unloading my gun for real. They very, VERY likely started the assault part early on, as they were boarding the train. That's the usual style of a "wolfpack attack".

In that event, based on what I've seen and studied regarding that sort of attack, yes, I'm prepared to kill minors. That's a pre-set decision: mass attack, serious counter-attack.

Alaska444
April 24, 2011, 05:02 PM
This guy has the answer. Listen to his last comment: "Run for your life." LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79FT8bpL2pc

threegun
April 24, 2011, 05:03 PM
There's actually very little causal evidence to show that civilian carry discourages crime.

Check out what happens to violent crime in states that approve concealed carry. It goes down. When convicted burglars are asked what they fear most its an armed home owner followed by a big dog.

There isn't plenty of evidence but what evidence there is its pretty obvious.

http://www.concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf

C0untZer0
April 24, 2011, 06:07 PM
This has me wondering, my understanding is that GA is a licensed open carry and licensed CCW state with airport carry restricted, so I'm not sure how this plays out - is it less likely for people to carrying on this particular route? I don't know. I know this is only one story and statistically insignificant, but it does have me wondering. Georgia being a carry state, it didn't seem to deter these thugs.

Well maybe more people will start carrying...

mnero
April 24, 2011, 06:19 PM
Dishing death, that's a goodin there threegun, LOLOLOLOLOLOL> :rolleyes:

WANT A LCR 22LR
April 24, 2011, 06:52 PM
Somewhere there has to be a reliable source for gang / mob state of mind, I think most of are speculating otherwise. Having a source for info would be a great help. Does Atlanta have a gang task force? If so, what do they have to say about surviving such a attack?

I find it interesting many say not to show fear ( but not escalate by making eye contact ) when engaging a aggressive dog but some here are advising just to give up and comply with a gang. While giving up may work with a gang whose sole purpose is to rob, it isn't going to work with one that is intent on a general beat down as they are going to go for the softest targets.

I'll speculate gangs rely on primal levels of behavior since apparently civilized behavior has not been taught.

Tom Servo
April 24, 2011, 07:07 PM
Check out what happens to violent crime in states that approve concealed carry.
I won't for a second deny that there is very thought-provoking circumstantial evidence, but statistics can be interpreted in many ways.

For example, Metrotown enacts a concealed-carry law. They also beef up community policing initiatives. Crime drops. Can we claim with 100% accuracy that the drop was due to the concealed-carry law? Our opponents will claim the opposite, and either side can claim that the numbers prove them right.

I believe that there's a correlation. But if I'm going to use it in a debate, I need to be sure I can prove it.

my understanding is that GA is a licensed open carry and licensed CCW state with airport carry restricted, so I'm not sure how this plays out - is it less likely for people to carrying on this particular route?
The current opinion of the current mayor (and that's just as tenuous as it sounds) is that airport carry is legal, at least in non-secure areas. That said, I'm not sure how aware the average person is of that situation.

In any case, MARTA tends to have stations in some pretty colorful areas, and it attracts some colorful folks. While I've seen and heard some pretty weird stuff, violence is relatively uncommon considering the surrounding areas. To be honest, this could have happened anywhere. These guys just happened to pick a MARTA train that night.

Hiker 1
April 24, 2011, 07:57 PM
Having a Rambo mindset is just in the movies, in real life it just doesn't go down like that.

This is interesting because I haven't seen any responses on this thread to be wannabe Rambo, Charles Bronson, Dirty Harry or whatever other cliche might come up. What I do see are people willing to protect themselves from what a reasonable person would assume to be threat of serious bodily injury or death.

Sometimes submission can work, sometimes it will embolden attackers. If a criminal with 29 friend wants my wallet, he can have it. If he wants my wife, well, submission is not an option.

We've all been in "real life" situations. It's not a one-size-fits-all world.

youngunz4life
April 24, 2011, 09:03 PM
Get real folks, a gang of 30!! and we hear of strategies to subdue all 30. Wow. All I can say once again, is good luck.

alaska, 2 guys subdued these bumz without firearms so it can and was done. I know that just proves a firearm wasn't needed? wrong - some of us are just saying we aren't ruling out a firearm. post 126 is a good post(about 2-3 posts ago). these guys are going to sniff fear like a wild dog. while the next passenger who "understands" them if I may be so bold can just "calm" them down. this testosterone isn't about robbing//maybe somewhat but also sometimes as an example a cellphone capturing a beatdown for youtube and their buddies. If I have a choice of saying, "Yes Sir I just don't want any issues" or drawing my ccw I'll take the latter. It would probably be quicker than that anyways. They might just start swinging and ask questions later. I don't buy the argument: if I escalate it I stepped in it and I'm a deadman. the escalation might save my butt. I'll step off the train at that 2nd stop as pointed out already. If not we can meet our maker together. I'll take my chances on another citizen getting my back after I have done my part. I know if you or you or you on this forum drew because you had to in this same exact situation I would be on your side.

all the best

ps- someone mentioned clint:

"The hell with them fellas. Buzzards got to eat, same as the worms." Some people are just not willing to be a victim. That doesn't mean we're going to draw when its not a good idea. I'll trust my gut with the odds in my head+roll the dice. that's all I can do in this exact situation.

pps-the movie thing is just a 'play' on the movie saga going on in this thread...

Alaska444
April 24, 2011, 09:14 PM
alaska, 2 guys subdued these bumz without firearms so it can and was done. I know that just proves a firearm wasn't needed? wrong - some of us are just saying we aren't ruling out a firearm. post 126 is a good post(about 2-3 posts ago). these guys are going to sniff fear like a wild dog. while the next passenger who "understands" them if I may be so bold can just "calm" them down. this testosterone isn't about robbing//maybe somewhat but also sometimes as an example a cellphone capturing a beatdown for youtube and their buddies. If I have a choice of saying, "Yes Sir I just don't want any issues" or drawing my ccw I'll take the latter. It would probably be quicker than that anyways. They might just start swinging and ask questions later. I don't buy the argument: if I escalate it I stepped in it and I'm a deadman. the escalation might save my butt. I'll step off the train at that 2nd stop as pointed out already. If not we can meet our maker together. I'll take my chances on another citizen getting my back after I have done my part. I know if you or you or you on this forum drew because you had to in this same exact situation I would be on your side.

Likewise, so would I be at your side as well. Holding onto your trump card until the last possible moment of avoidance is the real issue which may have actually happened in this case. Yes, by all means, stand your ground if needed, just recognize you are on vary shaky ground no matter what your response.

God bless, Alaska

Alaska444
April 24, 2011, 09:32 PM
alaska, 2 guys subdued these bumz without firearms so it can and was done. I know that just proves a firearm wasn't needed? wrong - some of us are just saying we aren't ruling out a firearm.

These kids were wilding, acting as bullies and they hesitated when confronted. Now the case that I keep referring to in an all out attack by 8 thugs in Idaho where the man shot two and then was overtaken by the rest. So much for being able to take out the first 5 and then the next ten as many have commented. In an all out attack where physical harm is meant, not just a bunch of creepy kids acting tough, I don't see the gun doing you any better than it did the person in Idaho.

In addition, he was arrested and initially charged with attempted murder which was later dropped after the grand jury failed to indict him. Not sure why everyone keeps over looking this real example of serious intent to do harm and men actually continuing to press the attack even after he backed up, warned them twice and then started shooting away. Multiply the 8 to 30 and now we are talking Rambo type of tactics to overcome that mob. My vote is that you will fail if you try in such a no win situation. Probably better to run and seek refuge if possible. Might help you avoid a whole lot of legal problems, both civil and criminal. Take a look at the follow up to where he stands now.

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_636987a6-47dc-5ffa-a42c-29a4d03a1ebb.html

Hiker 1
April 24, 2011, 10:53 PM
From the repeatedly posted article above, this is the guy attacked by things outside a bar at 12:30 am:

Johnson was located in a bedroom, where police also found a syringe loaded with a brown liquid that police believe was heroin

A 27-year-old North Idaho man, who was involved in a downtown Coeur d'Alene shooting incident in December 2009, has now been arrested for suspected drug activities.

A few months ago, Johnson was charged with carrying a concealed weapon while under the influence, which is a misdemeanor. That charge is connected to the shooting incident.

May not have been he most level-headed person to begin with. Doesn't really help your argument.

Alaska444
April 24, 2011, 10:59 PM
Fair enough folks, I will relent. I post a real life situation where the attackers advanced on a retreating and warning and firing CCW holder. Yeah, he wasn't the smartest animal we have in the CCW ranks, but this is a real life event of advancing AGAINST gunfire, something I have been told on this thread a dozen times over won't happen. Well, it did, plain and simple no matter how you wish to argue with the facts.

In any case, I join the others that have no argument to win here folks, I mean why argue with the facts. Just posting a real life incident to counter the fantasies presented by quite a few on how people will simply stop their attack because you have a gun and actually using it. I part this thread only to say, good luck if you feel secure in that situation with one gun against 30 thugs wishing to do you harm, yes, good luck.

God bless,

Alaska444

threegun
April 25, 2011, 08:22 AM
Dishing death, that's a goodin there threegun, LOLOLOLOLOLOL>

You gonna advance on someone shooting at you? I know I'm not unless my kids or wife would benefit.

Are you convinced yet that the overwhelming majority of gang or group attacks retreat when shots are fired?

MLeake
April 25, 2011, 08:27 AM
threegun, people have been known to do it.

You do realize Alaska444 did prison ministry, and has firsthand experience with the types of people being discussed, right?

I think we've all read about BG's advancing on guns.

I think we've all seen COPS or America's Wildest etc where BG's have engaged and advanced on multiple cops, with shots fired.

And that's dealing with a single BG vs multiple good guys, not 30 BG's vs 1.

I suspect Alaska444 is closer to the mark about what would happen than you are. As others have noted, it's a moving train. Where are the kids going to go?

Not to say, don't defend yourself if actually attacked. Just saying, I wouldn't initiate anything unless I was convinced it had come down to that.

The only situation where I would, involves Al Qaeda or Taliban types, since I'd rather not end up on video getting my head cut off. I think you'll find most of us who work in areas where those guys are have that mindset over there, since we're pretty sure we wouldn't survive capture for long.

But in the US, or most other places? De-escalate where possible.

threegun
April 25, 2011, 08:59 AM
Tom,
I won't for a second deny that there is very thought-provoking circumstantial evidence, but statistics can be interpreted in many ways.

For example, Metrotown enacts a concealed-carry law. They also beef up community policing initiatives. Crime drops. Can we claim with 100% accuracy that the drop was due to the concealed-carry law? Our opponents will claim the opposite, and either side can claim that the numbers prove them right.



The entire State of Florida saw its murder rate drop by 40 percent following their passing our concealed law. Now unless the entire State increased enforcement (which they didn't BTW) the only thing that changed was more armed civilians.

In Texas murder rates dropped 50 percent faster than the national average. Rape fell 93 percent faster than the national average. Better policing? Coincidence? To you perhaps.

To contrast crime is significantly higher in states without right to carry laws. Using your logic these areas never "beef up" community policing. If I recall Clinton funded more police for some of these anti gun states. So it didn't help them as you suggest.

threegun
April 25, 2011, 09:50 AM
Mleake,

I think we've all read about BG's advancing on guns.


Sure and I have a home invasion attack on one of the owners of the shop that I work as proof of it. In this case he shot and killed one of the three bad guys before the other two overwhelmed him and disarmed him. He was shot in the leg and beaten terribly but survived.

Video evidence does however overwhelmingly show that most multi person attackers flee when armed resistance is brought to bear.

In some cases (my boss's case is one) the close proximity of the bad guys to the victim gives them a good chance at surviving if they pounce. This isn't the same as running across the length of a train while climbing over the bodies of your buddies to get to the guys shooting.

I'm not trying to suggest that 1 guy armed with a handgun would survive an attack by 30 determined attackers. You guys keep mixing the two. Most attackers are not determined they are simply opportunists.

In the fort hood shooting the bad guy was able to fend off hundreds of young soon to be soldiers confined in a small area. Why? Because no one wants to advance on death. I takes a special motivation or brain defect to do so.

BarryLee
April 25, 2011, 05:54 PM
Well, the police have arrested two adults and one juvenile in these attacks. They are also looking for one additional adult and another juvenile.

MARTA is disputing many of the facts previously reported in this case including eye witness reports. As I mentioned in another post there is an upcoming vote to increase taxes to fund an expansion of MARTA into other communities around Atlanta. So, it appears a little damage control is in play.


http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/marta-arrests-three-in-924351.html

Jim March
April 25, 2011, 07:24 PM
Why is it that a bear would never attack a badger?

A bear CAN kill a badger, if it wants to. But it's going to take some damage in the process. A torn-up paw is not at all a good exchange for a slightly oversize weasel for lunch.

Human predators are usually no different. Note the "usually". Drugs or booze can change the rules in a hurry.

Anyways. I know I *did* back down four under similar circumstances. Thirty might be another matter but they'll have to wade through the gore of the first six to get to me.

oneounceload
April 25, 2011, 09:16 PM
P.S. I've spent enough time in and around Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb & Gwinnett counties to know what folks there say "MARTA" actually stands for!

:D (I went to Ga. Tech - that's been around for quite some time)

I would suspect that when shots started the noise would be deafening and scary that some of the misguided youths would be trying to vacate the area

Ringolevio
April 25, 2011, 10:21 PM
threegun wrote:
In the fort hood shooting the bad guy was able to fend off hundreds of young soon to be soldiers confined in a small area. Why? Because no one wants to advance on death. It takes a special motivation or brain defect to do so.

Well, I thank God that there do exist those who have that "special motivation". They are those who run toward the sound of guns, or into a burning building. That's why they're described with words like finest and bravest.

And I'm thinking of one particular group whose creed compels them to advance on death; they've often been accused of having a "brain defect" that causes them to act that way; perhaps that's why they're sometimes called [I]"Uncle Sam's Misguided Children"!

8shot357
April 26, 2011, 12:38 AM
Because no one wants to advance on death. I takes a special motivation or brain defect to do so.

In some cases, a fire cracker and pointing your finger might do the job. Once they hear what they think is shot's fired, they are not going to take a second look to see what gun your holding if any.

threegun
April 26, 2011, 01:29 PM
Well, I thank God that there do exist those who have that "special motivation". They are those who run toward the sound of guns, or into a burning building. That's why they're described with words like finest and bravest.

And I'm thinking of one particular group whose creed compels them to advance on death; they've often been accused of having a "brain defect" that causes them to act that way; perhaps that's why they're sometimes called "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children"!

Agreed, Thank God for those brave men and women who have that special motivation be it for love of country or love of fellow citizens.

My brain defect comment was pointed at folks with actual defective brains or folks under the influence of narcotics or alcohol.

Stevie-Ray
April 26, 2011, 01:51 PM
As for those thugs, . . . I'd have been in condition orange when I first laid eyes on the bunch, . . . would have covertly drawn, . . . and if I went down, . . . you can bet your last bippy there would have been a pile of MT .45 brass nearby, . . .
Knowing gang mentality, . . . there is most likely less than a 50/50 that I would have survived, . . . but if you gotta go, . . . take some of the opposition with you.Gotta go with Dwight on this one. With a 50/50 or so chance of survival as they approach me, especially if the wife's with me, it's game on, and Lord help me.

oneounceload
April 26, 2011, 02:52 PM
One thing most folks who do not ride subways seems to miss, your ability to get up and move to another car quickly; your ability to activate an emergency stop which can cause enough discombobulation to allow you to exit stage right quickly; most transit systems typically have a roving cop on board - activating an emergency stop gets his attention and that of the conductor immediately.

Soooooooooooo, there MIGHT be alternative strategies that can be employed besides looking at it as a banzai mission

Seaman
April 26, 2011, 03:02 PM
Talked to a police officer (Detroit area) today about gangs. His comments:

"Gang members do not fear handguns, if I have to deal with them, I take the AR, the AR15 they respect."

Briefed him on the subway/train incident and asked him what he would have done had he been in plain clothes (off-duty) on the MARTA train.

"Don't know, can't say till I've lived thru it."

Glenn E. Meyer
April 26, 2011, 03:28 PM
Want to cool it on the chest pounding, death cult, blah, blah - stay with the tactical issue.

Glenn

mnero
April 26, 2011, 04:52 PM
It's the language Threegun "dishing death" no buddy that has ever actually been there would talk like that:rolleyes:

threegun
April 26, 2011, 06:42 PM
It's the language Threegun "dishing death" no buddy that has ever actually been there would talk like that

It was an adjective Mnero. One I used to attempt to explain my point that few desire to advance on potential life ending danger. Especially while it is actively doing so. I used machine gun nest and you missed the point and focused on actual machine gun nests. So call it what you wish to call it just understand the point which is FEW PEOPLE RUN TOWARD MORTAL DANGER. That means MOST PEOPLE RUN FROM THAT DANGER. That means almost any gun will do for the situation in this thread.


BTW Most folks I know who have been there don't tell everybody every three seconds either

mnero
April 26, 2011, 07:26 PM
I haven't NO ONE EVER TOOK A SHOT AT ME or anything else military anyway, but I have seen the results and dishing out death aint no adjative; it is just a bunch of braggin from someone who has deluded himself into thinking he can handle any situation.

threegun
April 26, 2011, 07:49 PM
I haven't NO ONE EVER TOOK A SHOT AT ME or anything else military anyway, but I have seen the results and dishing out death aint no adjative; it is just a bunch of braggin from someone who has deluded himself into thinking he can handle any situation.


I have made no such claims Mnero. I have however spent alot of time on tactical training and part of this training includes understanding the odds you are facing to make better decisions. You should try it.

mnero
April 26, 2011, 07:54 PM
I have, of course. I apologize for jumping on your expression, I disagree with your assesment, but I wasn't on that train.

threegun
April 27, 2011, 05:20 PM
Neither of us were on the train. Neither of us can predict the outcome of an event. We simply cannot predict how different reactions on our part would have changed the outcome. We can however make educated guesses on how an action will be reacted to.

In this example if I thought the badguys would make a determined assault on me even after I opened fire, I would have complied and suffered the beating. Beating being better than death.

You disagree with my assessment. So I assume you believe these guys would not have retreated?

mnero
April 27, 2011, 05:23 PM
Oh no, they may well have; I know I would! However; my primary concern is that many civilians may be hurt(it is hard to avoid collateral damage even when you can identify your target, here that could get difficult as civilians may panic and head towards you) and that the kids(the gang members) here may not be beyond redemption.

threegun
April 27, 2011, 05:54 PM
Oh no, they may well have; I know I would! However; my primary concern is that many civilians may be hurt(it is hard to avoid collateral damage even when you can identify your target, here that could get difficult as civilians may panic and head towards you) and that the kids(the gang members) here may not be beyond redemption.

Our priorities are different I believe. My primary concern IN A LIFE OR DEATH STRUGGLE is for the safety and well being of my family at any and all costs including my death. My second concern is for my safety and well being. My third concern is for my fellow civilians and this only from collateral damage from my firearm.

I know that sounds selfish so be it. Its the truth. Sometimes the truth is hard to stomach.

example.......If your son and my son were swimming together and both began to drown. I could only save one. It would be mine.

Likewise if the choice was shoot and risk potential collateral damage or die.....I must shoot.

Lenord Smalls
April 29, 2011, 01:17 AM
A riot is one thing but a group of gang members are cowards that’s why the are in a group. One shot and everyone is running away.
If you keep your head, can get to your pistol and have good shot placement under stress, the resulting mess will demoralize these cowards, they will break and run.
You have to have the right gun. The willingness to spend the energy to train properly, constantly, to develop the mussel memory necessary to perform instantly under surprise and have the proper mental attitude to do what is necessary.
Being an instructor for some time now and studying countless after action reports, “gun fighter” vs. bad guy. And I use the term gun fighter as a joke. Most freeze and wet there pants.
I’m so tired of this bluster about “I would do this or that” be the hero, 99% of these, “going to be the hero“ types, don’t have the willingness to spend the energy to train properly, constantly, to develop the mussel memory necessary to perform instantly under stress.
I guarantee one correctly placed shot, (and I don’t mean hitting the innocent) in a timely manner will have these cowards tripping over each other to get the hell out of the way.

justjim75
April 29, 2011, 01:27 AM
i have great mussel memory. i had clams last month at an italian place, oh, and oysters and beer a couple of weeks ago. seriously, doesn't anybody see that this occured on a moving subway with no place for anybody to go, good or bad? you're killing me smalls.

Biff Tannen
April 29, 2011, 03:27 AM
I have known of two such attacks where people I know were involved.
In both instances, the victim pulled his gun on the attackers and frightened no one. Attackers in groups are usually trying to prove themselves to one another, and if they feel fear they are many times unlikely to show it.
In the one instance, the victim shot one of his attackers and the attacker still persisted.
In the second instance, the victim was met with yells from the attackers to "Pull that s---!"
Luckily, in both cases, the victims got away, barely.
I urge you all to research the case of Gerald Ung, who, while wolf-packed by several bullies, showed his gun, and was forced to unload into one of the assailant's torso.
Had it not been for a security camera that captured the events leading up to the shooting, he would be in jail to this day, because it was the attackers' word against his.
I know... you'd rather be tried by a jury of 12 instead of carried by six, but what way is it to live 20 years in jail for defending yourself?
Just be careful and use good judgement.

Alaska444
April 29, 2011, 04:04 AM
Thank you Biff for the great illustration of the concept that people WILL advance upon a drawn gun. Not a smart move by any means, but who called some of these folks smart in the first place. Sorry to venture back again against my own word, but geez, how many cases do we need in REAL life to counter the fantasies of folks talking about blowing away 30 at a time that will some how magically run away at the mere sight of a gun. Take a look at the video for real dumb person just walking into a gun to do harm to the shooter. Cowards? No just dumb. The only defense is to avoid the situation in the first place if possible.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/Old_City_Shooting_01_17_10

mnero
April 29, 2011, 07:14 AM
Anyone who thinks, they could have made a positive contribution to this situation, with an armed confrontation is wasting his talents writing here! The police have openings in their swat teams, and if they don't the military is always looking for a 'few good men' quite a few these days. Stop telling us how well trained and tough you are and go prove it! To those who already are serving either in the police or the military; I admire you for your service and sacrivice, to the rest GET REAL!

markj
April 29, 2011, 04:13 PM
Anyone who thinks, they could have made a positive contribution to this situation, with an armed confrontation is wasting his talents writing here

But I know a guy has a friend thats dad knows a guy did this twice with a 22 revolver and no reloads so there :) I read it on the internets.....

PanBaccha
April 29, 2011, 04:32 PM
Hard question to answer. Only because of the quantity (30 vs 1). But knowing myself I would prepare to open fire if I felt my life threatened. Chances are the first hit might just cause the mob to ebb in sudden fear. Maybe some might run, then again maybe some might rush you. If I were to die that day then I have no choice. I am taking several to the Other Side with me. :mad:

Lenord Smalls
April 29, 2011, 04:40 PM
So, if you were on this train and you were carrying how would you have responded?

I’m going to make the assumption that I am alone, no loved ones or people I am responsible for. If I can keep my head. I will move to get as much space as practicable between myself and the assailants. This will better allow me to scan, have to keep my head on a swivel, can’t become mesmerized.
The more space, the more time I have to try to get my head around the situation. Making space hopefully will give me adequate time to safely and effectively accesses my pistol as a last resort.
Distance makes gun retention more manageable and is a prime responsibility.

What if they were attacking you?

This question would indicate that I have been taken completely by surprise, I’m being beaten and under the physical control be several able body men. Let me see now…. 24 against one.
I will do some bleeding, lose conciseness shortly. My gun will be taken from me and possibly used to kill me and several in the car.

What if they were not attacking you would you intervene?

Well there’s terror, at which point I will freeze up and be completely useless. If I can keep my head and this event is a strong arm robbery without to much mayhem than I hope I could be the best witness I could be.
Worst case scenario, with such a great disparity of force and in being in fear of great bodily harm or death than I have no choice.

If I make the decision to carry than I have a reasonability to hit only the threat, and that’s under stress, when nothing is going my way.

Correct, repetitive training and a proper mindset is what will give one a reasonable chance stopping the threat.

With most shooters, the “gun experts” the Hollywood heroes and worst of all the ones that carry, the safest place to be when they start shooting is right in front of them.

It has been my experience that the vast majority of those that carry cant shoot their way out of a wet paper bag and they never train in gun retention.

As I have already said.

Do you have the willingness to spend the energy to train properly, constantly, to develop the mussel memory necessary to perform instantly under surprise, stress and have the proper mental attitude to do what is necessary?
The answer is best summed up by

justjim75
“i have great mussel memory. i had clams last month at an italian place, oh, and oysters and beer a couple of weeks ago.”

Baba Louie
April 29, 2011, 06:38 PM
I might want to reconsider my meager little J frame if I go to Atlanta and ride the MARTA I reckon... and switch to my PLR-16. (I joke... kinda)

Gang of 30, drugs in their system (possibly, you never know but expect the worst), bravado/courage (from their POV), monkey dance = more power than a solo 2A citizen can muster, that's for sure. They win.

Pondering mode on...
How could or does one alter the odds (besides not being there or gaining serious distance)?

Body armor?

OC bomb and a gas mask? (again, I kid... kinda)

Travel in a well armed group of your friends with your own attitude showing? (w/ body armor, gas masks and several OC bombs?) Seems to be the best but 'tis an impractical solution. Maybe. Maybe not.

No matter how you look at it, a hurtin' is involved. Or submission. Or both. And lawsuits to face should I actually, you know, hurt anyone other than myself, be they BGs or innocent bystanders.

A no win. (note to self: avoid MARTA and wilding crowds when possible)

Rembart
April 29, 2011, 10:35 PM
Amen Baba Louie! This kind of conversation does kind of make me wonder why I even bother to carry. I don't have a clue what I would have done or would do. The only reason I obtained my CC was because I have been in several situations where I felt very uncomfortable. I would not have been nearly as worried except I had my wife and two little girls on an occasion or two. BTW, this sort of rules out ever going to pro ball games or concerts if we are going to fully avoid public transit or strange crowds. Which, by the way, I have basically stopped going to these events for this type of reason. I carry now because I couldn't bear seeing my girls hurt or killed and at least want to be able to fight if that is in question. But, if I won't pull and shoot I would be better off with no gun....

I have even been a bit uncomfortable returning extremely late on the Disney buses and trains. Strange folks keep these late hours. :rolleyes:

So, what is a fella to do?:mad:

NoirFan
April 30, 2011, 03:54 AM
Here's an instance of another train invasion where a passenger did fight back:

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=27100

To sum up, a Gurkha soldier armed with a kukri knife fought back against a gang of about 40 robbers invading a passenger train, killing 3 and wounding 8 before the rest fled. I think the story justifies the more levelheaded comments here:

1) He did not draw his weapon until passengers were threatened with serious physical harm. In the MARTA case passengers were beaten, but the article does not make it clear whether or not lives were in danger. It is impossible to tell without actually having been there.

2) Once the fight started, the robbers did NOT back down at the sight of a weapon. They kept fighting for 20 minutes even after some of their own were killed. It's dangerous and arrogant to assume that 'just because they're criminals, they must be cowards'. A defender on the MARTA car may have faced a similar situation at least until the train reached the next stop.

3) The soldier did not even have a gun, but once he made the decision to fight he had a win-or-die mindset. There's been a lot of talk in this thread about capacity and ammo performance, but it seems those things are unimportant next to the mindset: if you have to fight, don't stop until you win.

4) A kukri cannot cause innocent casualties by way of missed shots or ricochet, so the soldier did not have to worry about something that a CCW on the MARTA would DEFINITELY have had to take into consideration. I personally would rather take a beating and lose my wallet than accidentally kill a bystander, or cause one to be killed through my actions.

jreXD9
April 30, 2011, 07:10 AM
7 punks have been arrested so far in the MARTA attack.

mnero
April 30, 2011, 10:06 AM
Wow! That dude was clearly a 'badass' good training and a good knife can go along way it seems!

gearhounds
April 30, 2011, 10:23 AM
Training, aggressive defense, and mindset in equal parts. A properly motivated individual with the right weapon can and obviously will succeed against superior numbers. A good blade like a kukri may actually be better than any pistol, as it never jams, or runs out of ammo as long as the bearer has the strength to wield it. Any knife, when weilded with intent will be extremely hard to take away. As I suggested earlier, a good knife/pistol combo would make for a formidable threat that most will shy away from attacking.

mnero
April 30, 2011, 10:30 AM
I like the idea of a pistol/knife combo, that would certainly be a great close quarters weapon!

gearhounds
April 30, 2011, 10:48 AM
For some reason, probably historically ingrained, knives are truly frightening at an instinctive level. Hell, if the gun runs dry, you have an effective blunt instrument to boot!

JohnKSa
April 30, 2011, 07:04 PM
...knives are truly frightening at an instinctive level.Everybody knows what it feels like to get cut. Knives are scary in a very practical, concrete way--you can imagine just what getting stabbed or cut would feel if you close your eyes.

Very few people know what it feels like to get shot. Guns are scary in a philosophical way. You KNOW it can seriously injure or kill you, but in your gut you don't really have any idea what that would feel like. And the method by which guns create injuries (little bits of metal propelled at invisible velocities) is too much like magic for people to completely grasp what's going on.

mnero
April 30, 2011, 07:16 PM
That makes a lot of sense John. Before I ever shot a firearm I used to have violent dreams occasionally, but the firearms were always squirt guns or cap guns when i fired them; while the knives were always very real.

Baba Louie
April 30, 2011, 10:59 PM
I like the idea of a pistol/knife combo, that would certainly be a great close quarters weapon!Or stick/knife... WITH good training, either combo is better than passive nada. Used in the OP topic tho... and maybe with the added courage and action of one or two other riders who are fed up... and seeing you/me being a stupid/brave/decisive "vigilante" (did I spell that right?). When in doubt, attack. right? Well hmmmmm. More than one? Vigilanti?

Which is really the answer. More than one. When the good citizens (plural) get totally fed up, they will and do act. And it ain't pretty from what I read.

You see the young hooligans about to get on, verbally alert "Trouble Coming!" or something then try to get one or two or more other 'refuse to be a victim' riders eyes, quickly determine to back each other with a quick nod... or is everyone looking down and away knowing whats coming? Dunno. Never been there. How fast can you sell an idea to strangers? ;)

Pack or clan/tribe mentality behavior is important for survival. Sometimes you might have to join in or form one of your own for safe travel or even day to day... nothing really new about it, if you think about history at all.

Sometime, the good GUYS (plural) do win. But I'd really really try to avoid that whole situation alone or with vulnerable family nearby if ever I could.

Gun, knife stick and my rugby team all carrying same... (disclaimer... no rugby team) O.K. change that; Cricket or softball team better than rugby in one regard equipment-wise.

But it begins with the mindset.

jimbob86
April 30, 2011, 11:24 PM
7 punks have been arrested so far in the MARTA attack.


For all the good that will do ..... IF the prosecutor decides it is worth his time, AND IF the perps don't plea out of it, AND IF a non-sympathetic jury can be found, AND IF the judge sees fit to max them out ...... THEN they'll get a full ride scholarship to Street Criminal Finishing School.

Fight Recidivism: STBDRT.

30 of them? They'd definitely get me, if the first dozen or so are suicidal. I'm going to pick a leader, and pour les encouragements des autres....... If they are suicidally brave, they'll also have to avoid slipping on the couple dozen empties rolling around on the floor.

threegun
May 1, 2011, 10:44 AM
It's dangerous and arrogant to assume that 'just because they're criminals, they must be cowards'. A defender on the MARTA car may have faced a similar situation at least until the train reached the next stop.

Just because the facts indicate that most attackers will likely flee upon shots being fired doesn't mean that those of us touting them are assuming such will happen.

If I'm caught on that train with a 5 shot snub nose revolver and this attack happens I will (hopefully) react the same as if I was armed with 50 shots. I will not take a beating. I have decided to fight in this situation.

I fully understand the risks should these 30 gang youths decide to make a determined attack. I also understand the odds. Odds are they run. So if I do nothing I will surely sustain a beating which could leave me dead or brain damaged. If I act I will likely repel the threat and survive unscathed.

Doc Intrepid
May 1, 2011, 10:52 AM
"Odds are they run."The problem with assuming they run, my friend, is that in an enclosed subway car there is no exit to run out - until the train arrives at the next station.

They cannot run.

threegun
May 1, 2011, 10:54 AM
Sorry to venture back again against my own word, but geez, how many cases do we need in REAL life to counter the fantasies of folks talking about blowing away 30 at a time that will some how magically run away at the mere sight of a gun.

Alaska444, There are dozens for every one you produce that show the bad guys running away at sight of the gun or after shots are fired.

Its not magic its instinctive. Most creatures have a self preservation instinct. They flee at the sight of mortal danger. Humans are included.

Just as most civilians run from an armed attacker......like Virginia tech or ft hood, most bad guys are inclined to do the same.

threegun
May 1, 2011, 10:57 AM
The problem with assuming they run, my friend, is that in an enclosed subway car there is no exit to run out - until the train arrives at the next station.

They cannot run.


Then cross your fingers and take the beating.

Doc Intrepid
May 1, 2011, 01:42 PM
This is just one option, and clearly only useful when things have arrived at a legally defined imminent threat to your life or that of others, etc. IOW given the alternatives of death or a beating that may leave you in a wheelchair, you have little to lose at that point.

(I wasn't there, and have never been in such a situation...so what the hell do I know?)

A handgun pointed generally at a crowd of gangbangers is only an indirect threat to any one of them.

It needs to be made a very specific threat to at least one of the crowd.

Select the loudest mouth, or the biggest threat; point the pistol at that individual, and make sure he understands that - if activities do not cease - he himself will be in the morgue before sundown. ('They may eventually get you, etc., but regardless of what his other homies do, he himself will be the first meat to hit the deck'.) Make it personal. See if he can't control the rest of the crowd until the train arrives at the next station.

An imperfect response, sure, but in some way you need to define terms down to 2 individuals - you and one other. (You may need to do this repetitively until your ammunition runs out, but regardless of bravado, I suspect that few gangbangers individually would choose to be shot down like Jihad Martyrs. So you give them - individually - a choice...)

Just my humble opinion. Your mileage may most certainly vary...

threegun
May 1, 2011, 01:45 PM
Anyone who thinks, they could have made a positive contribution to this situation, with an armed confrontation is wasting his talents writing here! The police have openings in their swat teams, and if they don't the military is always looking for a 'few good men' quite a few these days. Stop telling us how well trained and tough you are and go prove it! To those who already are serving either in the police or the military; I admire you for your service and sacrivice, to the rest GET REAL!

How about you stop with the assumptions. Stop speaking as if you know positively what the outcome would have been for different scenarios. Finally stop bad mouthing those of us who are attempting to better ourselves with our firearms through training.

In a discussion such as this training very well could be a factor in the outcome. It is therefore relevant to the discussion to explain how ones training or lack thereof might effect the outcome. This is not boasting as you assume yet again. Nor is it a display of bravado.

If you haven't trained thats not our problem as you should be. If you haven't covered some statistics again your problem not ours. If you come to a different conclusion than others as to what your actions will be in this scenario that is again your problem.

My choice has different problems to be risked and possibly suffered. Hopefully through good training, understanding of the threat, and a willingness to do what is necessary to survive, I will come out safe. If I don't I am prepared to suffer the consequences of my actions or inactions.

threegun
May 1, 2011, 02:14 PM
There are many people in this forum with a lot of different experiences. My question to those experienced individuals is what do you believe to be a way out of the situation where injury is minimized to healable bumps, bruises and contusions?

I think Doc Intrepid gave a very good option. To avoid the beating by large numbers of gang bangers (disparity of force in Florida and equals justification to use lethal force) draw, explain options, use as necessary.

I would just add to be willing to fire if you pull. If you hesitate you could be disarmed or have the bad guys gain confidence.

gearhounds
May 1, 2011, 02:39 PM
Obviously, the responses to this incident are going to run the gamut from rolling up into a ball to an aggressive response. I think some of the negative responses come from folks that either can't see themselves taking the action others espouse because they are not built that way, or don't have the training and mindset/presence to effective do more than self preservation.

I am a cop, and I have been in many situations where I was vastly outnumbered. I have on several occasions had drug/drunk contacts with multiple violators where one or two leaders got emboldened by numbers and talked smack. Decisive action always makes the difference; did the uniform help? Probably, but command presence plays a big part as well.

Humans are still animals, no matter what the religious folks want to believe, and I believe in this scenario, very few of them would be willing to die for a wallet or two, pride, or other commodity; that 2 determined individuals were able to diffuse the situation is proof positive, weapons or not.

To the nay sayers, I won't begrudge your opinions, but this was no prison riot, after championship mob, or planned heist. It was tentative, and evolved to what it did from obvious fear on the part of the victims. As a cop, I know what my response would have been, and I'm confident of the groups response as well in this scenario. To those that would back into a corner, ready to fight, I won't say it's the wrong choice. It would just be the wrong choice for me.

threegun
May 1, 2011, 02:49 PM
Excellent post.:rolleyes:

mnero
May 1, 2011, 08:31 PM
They did not diffuse the situation, they rescued one person; it was a brave and selfless act; if they had attempted to intervene by 'filling the ilses with dead goblins' then their efforts would have been far less productive. I don't doubt the ability of a trained, experienced LEO or even a soldier(though we are not generally trained to deal with law enforcement situations like this) to possibly diffuse the situation with violence. I doubt very much an ineperienced civilian could, no matter how much they talk about it. Talk and detailed planning are NOT training. They do not produce the mental instincts and muscle memory required to respond to this kind of situation. I would hope that discussions like this would leave those of us who are not LEO, to the conclusion that police work is best left to the police. They have a difficult enough job already without us civilians trying to do things we are not trained for.

Threegun what should I be trained for? G*d gave me enough sense, I admit not alot, but enough to know my limitations, The military gave me enough training to know when to fight and when to run. Surrendering a wallet is not surrendering to an enemy, it is not giving into fear, it is not the act of a coward or someone who lacks training so has no choice but to cower in the corner and pray. It may not be what I would do, but if we are just gonna talk about what we would do, then I am forced to make a rational choice rather then an instinctive reaction. So again I ask what else should I be training for?

Tom Servo
May 1, 2011, 08:58 PM
There are many people in this forum with a lot of different experiences. My question to those experienced individuals is what do you believe to be a way out of the situation where injury is minimized to healable bumps, bruises and contusions?
The whole situation was a tactical nightmare, and really a worst-case scenario.

Any use of force would carry a real likelihood of causing collateral damage and failing to serve its intent. I suppose there might have been a point in the situation in which I was willing to put the lives of the other passengers in peril, directly and indirectly, but it would have to be far worse than this one.

Honestly? I'd do my best to avoid attracting attention and hope folks can get off with some minor bruises. It stinks, and it's humiliating, but I can't believe one guy with a gun, no matter how good, could have improved the situation.

TenRing
May 1, 2011, 10:07 PM
This was probably a gang initiation type of thing where they have to prove that they are capable of outrageous acts of violence against innocent people. This is supposed to earn them some criminal stripes.

Trying to defend against a bum rush by two dozen youths is not an easy thing. I have to think that these young thugs wanted to live despite their antisocial actions. Seems like if one of their victims had pulled a snubby and fired a .38 hollow point into one of their chests, the other young thugs would have valued their own lives enough to high tail it out of there before they would be next.

I know most people can't go armed to their jobs but seems like at least one person on that train should have been armed and at least one of those thugs should have been nailed. I learned the hard way that victimhood can only go so far.

Tom Servo
May 1, 2011, 11:25 PM
I have to think that these young thugs wanted to live despite their antisocial actions. Seems like if one of their victims had pulled a snubby and fired a .38 hollow point into one of their chests, the other young thugs would have valued their own lives enough to high tail it out of there before they would be next.
"High tail it" where? It was a closed subway car in transit. I thought we covered that.

Furthermore, that view assumes that they'd recognize the sound of a gunshot, that they'd see who got shot, that they'd process the fact it was one of their own, and that they'd make the decision to run.

It doesn't work that way in real life. People who haven't seen a mob at work don't realize how quickly and messily these things really happen.

TenRing
May 1, 2011, 11:49 PM
Unfortunately I have seen a mob at work more than once. That's why I think it's better to take my chances at self defense rather than leave everything up to them. Having your life in the hands of a sociopath is not a good feeling.

Where would they high tail it? Maybe to the back of the rail car, to the floor, anywhere out of my face. The point is to make some of them beg for mercy instead of me begging them not to hurt me.

Madball6
May 2, 2011, 01:17 AM
I can't honestly say i would have left the gun in the holster. To me, a group of agressive individuals in a confined space beating up a person for their wallet constitutes a grave and serious threat to my life and liberty. Given the situation, I would draw and confront anyone I could identify as "a leader" among the group. Force him to back down and exit at the next stop, or else depending on the level of hostility, eliminate him and deal with the next "highest ranking" member of the gang. Real or imagined, gang mentality requires leadership. Decapitating that leadership will quickly and obviously deflate the gang mentality to an "every man for himself" mentality. Obviously any threats that advance on my prepared position will be met decisively, but once a gang is beheaded (so to speak) I believe the obvious threat of force (which my resolve has already been tested by someone braver then them) would control the situation at an acceptable level until the next stop which most likely would see the remaining aggressors well on their way (assuming LEO's arent already there waiting for them.

MLeake
May 2, 2011, 09:10 AM
While lethal force should always be a last resort, this situation just emphasizes that. A lot would depend on the other passengers, and their locations relative to the gang. If the innocent bystanders are all behind you, that's different than if they are arrayed forward, along potential lines of fire.

Assuming you can tell the bystanders from the gang members...

For those who think you could just stop them from entering the train, how would you be able to determine they were a threat if they hadn't done anything yet? Shouting and acting rowdy is not exactly unusual behavior in mid-late teenagers, and one would have a very hard time proving adequate reason for suspicion to a reasonable person's standard that would justify pre-emptive display of a weapon.

By the time one would see the behavior, the gang members are probably embarked.

Reasonably, if you saw a bunch of rowdy, possibly dangerous kids about to board a train, the best option would be to disembark.

While we all agree on the benefits of discussing such scenarios, there are some people who seem to already have absolute answers in their minds. You have to be careful about absolutes. Very few stand up under scrutiny, though some will (I will always try to prevent harm to those under my care, for example). But even in that example, if I elevate tensions in this kind of scenario, have I increased or reduced risk of harm to the people with me? So that absolute can sometimes fall into grey areas, too...

Sometimes, there really are no good answers.

Would I have drawn? Maybe.... but I tend to think, no, not unless things were getting really bad. Give up some cash, keep a hand on the weapon, out of view but ready... that's more likely plan A in my case, but again it depends on a bunch of variable factors.

gearhounds
May 2, 2011, 09:24 AM
"They did not diffuse the situation"

Obviously they did. What is your defination of diffuse? 24 or so to 2, and they managed to rescue the victim, and convince the horde to just leave it at that? Maybe they appealed to their softer "screet" side.

I agree, the untrained don't need to charge in and force the issue. As I said before, humans are just a higher form of animal (sometimes) and will sniff out fear or lack of resolve and challenge someone that exhibits signs of such. And again, to me, someone standing back prepared for action is not the same as cowering in the corner. Who's to say there wasn't an armed civvie on that train doing just that? Thankfully, we didn't have to find out.

mnero
May 2, 2011, 09:34 AM
Oh, I thought they had only resuced the victim, was unaware they were able to turn back the crowd. Either way their actions are impressive, but I would not use them as a reason to encourage others to act similarily, I am not suggesting you have done this Gear, but some seem to.

gearhounds
May 2, 2011, 09:41 AM
Agreed. Love the signature line, by the way. Long time Futurama fan here!

mnero
May 2, 2011, 09:47 AM
:D

threegun
May 2, 2011, 11:07 AM
I doubt very much an ineperienced civilian could, no matter how much they talk about it. Talk and detailed planning are NOT training. They do not produce the mental instincts and muscle memory required to respond to this kind of situation. I would hope that discussions like this would leave those of us who are not LEO, to the conclusion that police work is best left to the police. They have a difficult enough job already without us civilians trying to do things we are not trained for.



Speak for yourself. My training has produced muscle memory. Hopefully all the time spent running different tactics at home and at the range will produce the proper automatic or instinctive response to a threat as it does during practice.

Why are you so fixated by LE or Military training? Most LE that I have competed against are average at the range. Tactics taught at Front Site and other schools are far more detailed than what is taught to Tampa Police and HCSO. I have two family members who are HCSO and they have nothing new to offer me. Neither have beaten me in competition and neither have ever been in a gunfight. So why should they fair any better than I in a gunfight?

Military training is designed to meet the challenges a military force would face. Most training is with long guns and most tactics are group oriented. Why would this training make them more likely to survive and armed confrontation than my training?

Why are you even carrying if you feel defending yourself should be left to police?

What kind of training do you have that you cannot defend yourself with your firearm?

And finallyWhy do you project your abilities to the rest of us?

I have friends who have paid a heap of dough to be formally trained to use their firearms. We share knowledge and help each other train. Not only is it fun but it should help us survive situations like this. No guarantees of course.

If you practiced half as much time as you spend surrendering for all civilians you would be good to go.

threegun
May 2, 2011, 11:13 AM
It stinks, and it's humiliating, but I can't believe one guy with a gun, no matter how good, could have improved the situation.

Tom, Personally, I'm not looking to improve the situation. Hard to do in a train and all. My job is to protect myself. If it became apparent that I was next to be beaten.....well I have decided not to be beaten.

mnero
May 2, 2011, 12:59 PM
Gun fight? Why do I carry? I DON'T. I don't need one to feel safe. I have two hands and a head and two feet and if that won't do, I am insured:D

threegun
May 2, 2011, 05:34 PM
Gun fight? Range shootin ain't a good measure of your fighting skills.

Perhaps you should ask what type of shooting we do at the range. Most LE that I know practice on a range BTW.

Why do I carry? I DON'T not no pistol anyway. I don't need one to feel safe. I have two hands and a head and two feet and if that won't do, I am insured

Then why do you even post in a firearms tactics and training thread?

I am beginning to understand you though. Seems you just don't know what you are talking about yet you continue to post as if you do. I don't mean this in a nasty way BTW. You tout LE training yet brush off those of us who have equal or better skills and tactics. This must be because you just don't know how some folks train. That or you don't know how LE officers train. Either way you are wrong and should probably limit your responses to subjects you are familiar with.

Maybe a hand to hand fighting forum would be more up your alley.

mnero
May 2, 2011, 07:01 PM
You ain't a cop and never have been? You ain't military and never have been? If the answer is yes, to each of these questions and you still claim to be as well trained or better then a street LEO who does this sort of thing for a living, then all I can say is wow, you are a most impressive civilian. If the answer is no then "why did'nt you say so?":D

MLeake
May 2, 2011, 07:01 PM
This is kind of a thread veer, and I apologize in advance.

But with regard to having hands and feet available, as well as one's head... I've noticed that the people I train with in dojos (many of whom are quite good with hands and feet, and some even with their heads) tend to have carry permits, and also tend to actually carry most of the time.

I'd estimate between 2/3 and 3/4 of the brown and black belt equivalents I know, also carry firearms.

A lot of the guys also carry knives, but the majority carry a gun of some kind wherever doing so is legal.

Edit: mnero, I've trained with a lot of cops in various dojos over the years. I've also trained at some LE shooting ranges, where they had agreements with local base security or reserve units. The majority of LEO's are less well trained than you seem to think; there are some very well trained LEO's, who maintain their skills because they want to. But there are very many who only train for minimum standard, both with firearms and at hand-to-hand.

There are many civilians out there who are better at one or both skillsets than the majority of LEO's are.

LEO's, in my experience, tend to be better trained at observing people than the vast majority of civilians; they tend to be better trained at taking charge of a situation, quickly, as far as verbal and non-verbal interaction go. But citing typical LEO training, or even typical military training (I've been through training courses of fire run by all four services, at this point, due to joint and LNO duties when I was on AD) as the ne plus ultra as far as shooting or unarmed combatives go is silly.

mnero
May 2, 2011, 07:04 PM
M in MD it is very hard to get a cc permit. I do know a couple of guys I train with who do carry, but not many. I have never carried outside the service and have never felt a need to. I do carry a pocket knive, but in MD it better be a short bladed one;)

WANT A LCR 22LR
May 2, 2011, 07:11 PM
Something that has not been investigated: Is there a way to stop the train? ( Fire alarm , emergency button )

Is there a powder fire extinguisher on board? This may be a good way to hose the gang down.

Is there a way to get to the operator cabin?

threegun
May 2, 2011, 07:59 PM
You ain't a cop and never have been? You ain't military and never have been? If the answer is yes, to each of these questions and you still claim to be as well trained or better then a street LEO who does this sort of thing for a living, then all I can say is wow, you are a most impressive civilian. If the answer is no then "why did'nt you say so?"


To answer your questions never been a cop or in the military.

And yes my friends and I are better prepared for an armed encounter than most LE officers. I know this because officer training is minimal. I know this because (as I said earlier) I have family in LE.

The variable is how we will react to a life and death struggle. Nobody knows this until it happens to them. What we can control however is the amount and quality of our training. We can develop skill sets that *if used as trained* will increase our chances of survival while decreasing our opponents chances. Things as simple as shooting on the move, using cover, shooting to that cover, creating distance, maintaining separation, weak hand shooting, one armed reloading, tactical reloading, TRB malfunction clearing drill, gun retention shooting, and much much more. Learning the theory behind each to get the full understanding of why they are so important.

Shooting on the move..........to allow your body to give in to the desire to flee. To provide a moving target to your opponent as apposed to a still easy to hit one. To facilitate your trip to cover...etc.

Creating distance........distance equals safety. The greater the distance between you and your adversary the greater the chance for aiming errors by the bad guy to miss your vitals and or body totally.

Tap Rack Bang TRB.........to facilitate a seamless malfunction clearing. To get the gun working again without thought.

Try it some time.

threegun
May 2, 2011, 08:32 PM
I might also add a question for you Mnero. Maybe you will answer one finally.

On what information or evidence are you formulating your assumption that LE are better trained than all civilians?

mnero
May 2, 2011, 09:45 PM
I put my faith in professionals over amatures anytime. They do it for a living. Street LEOs, after a short time, have the kind of experience, most civilians will never have or want. I haven't been in the service since 2000, haven't been over-seas since '91. I still study jujitsu and have since I was a kid, but not so much anymore, I am old and very busy and just had back surgery. Heck I would probably just get someone killed. As for TRB I haven't so much as handled a semi-auto pistol since I was in the service; hate the things. They look like sawed-off T-squares to me; I'm a wheel gun man:D

KC AutoBob
May 2, 2011, 10:57 PM
I hate crowds, hate subways, metro trains.... not at all fond of malls, etc.
So what do I do for a living--hey, I'm a correctional Officer! In a state prison...
where you're ordinarily surrounded by dozens or hundred of sweet, kind, thoughtful souls and you gotta deal with that because you're locked in there with them. WTSHTF, keep your head. The normally placid prisoner can flip any time, especially when they can gain courage in a crowd.
My experience leads me to agree with Doc Intrepid, three gun, or gearhounds in this situation. Command presence is good, surprise is supreme, and a steady handful of auto-loader is excellent! Whatever you can do to be prepared, if it becomes necessary, to TAKE CONTROL and focus the individual troll's attention on the threat of himself being a real victim--do it and do it with sincerity and without hesitation. Timing is critical, like in comedy. These products of the lower end of the gene pool are subject to fear and terror the same as any one--and if not, that first one will make an excellent object lesson to those that are. Remember they run in gangs for a reason. Keep your head! Look for the opportunity to take control. If you can't take control, then take the high ground, and defend yourself! There-- now you can have the soapbox back!
P.S: I like a hi-cap pistol. I'm old school--my favorite's a Hi-Power. Sweet!

DAS9mm
May 3, 2011, 12:50 AM
In the 30's La started to have a problem with hispanic gangs, who where associated with 'zoot suits'. The Navy had a large base in La at the time and organized what it called a 'dungaree liberty' For those of you not familiar with the Navy, dungarees are the working uniform worn only on ship and on the base, but never in public. Well on this liberty they went around and beat anyone of hispanic appearence wearing one of these 'zoot suits'. It did stop the problem, for a short time and it was, at least, tacitly condoned by the city authorities. I can't say I agree with the indicriminant nature of the assaults, since clearly not every young, hispanic male, wearing a zoot suit in the 30's in La was a gang member. I can say I understand why the military took this unconstitutional measure.

The Zoot Suit riots were a case of white service men attacking brown people because they wore fancy clothes and didn't blend in. The race riot was actively condoned by the CO of the Navy Barracks, the police, and the City. The service men attacked people because of the clothes they wore. It was racism that the authorities attempted to justify by calling teenagers "thugs" because they had big shoulders in their jackets. What happened in Atlanta has no relevance.

"The local press lauded the attacks by the servicemen, describing the assaults as having a "cleansing effect" that were ridding Los Angeles of "miscreants" and "hoodlums"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_Suit_Riots

Glenn Dee
May 3, 2011, 03:58 AM
WOW!

To begin to assume that non police civilians have better training than the police is a bit of a stretch.

First off military training is just that. Military. And we all know that the US Military has absoloutly no authority, or control over the U.S. population other than under martial law. Military training other than riot training is geard for combat outside the U.S. MOUT may appear to be applicable to some situations within the US, but would be highly illegal.

For anyone to assume they are better trained than the average police officer is folly. An individual may shoot better than the average police officer at some point, or may practice more often than the average police officer, or may even attend some tactical seminar, or training facility or even be a black belt. There is more to being a police officer than shooting, hut-hut-hut tactics, fighting, and facing down gangs of marauders.

IMO When a Cop gets into a hand to hand situation, the average shooting, must face down a gang, .... or all the above. Ususlly indicates that he/she screwed up somewhere. The primary intent in policing is to deal with a situation so to prevent any or all the above. 99% of the time... Thats what the police do. On the rare occasion an officer must resort to violence there is a lot more going on than his/her annual range/qualification trip. Also in effect is the years of experience as an officer, and civilian life. The benifit of years of experience of the officers who he/she worked with over his/her career. Also the individual officers own innovations and learned problem solving skills.

Contrary to popular belief. Police Officers spend far more time looking for missing children than they do shooting it out or fighting hand to hand. Police spend far more time helping people with domestic problems than they do chasing bad guys through back alley's.

To keep the thread firearms related... Many a cop has faced down all kind of danger with a six shot .38 revolver, and maybe a five shot back-up. A good example is what used to be the NY Transit police. They patrolled alone, from 6pm to 2am in uniform on the NYC Transit system. Carrying 6 shot revolvers, a night stick, and an attitude. Their radio's often didnt work in certain areas, but they did it all the same.

Glenn D.

mnero
May 3, 2011, 06:23 AM
Good post Glen!~

mnero
May 3, 2011, 06:25 AM
Da the CO is the one who sent those, boys! After the event he lied! The rest of what you wrote is about the same as I remember reading about it. In history class of course:cool:

MLeake
May 3, 2011, 07:29 AM
Glen Dee, I think you may have missed my point that the actual advantages most officers have over most civilians are in observation, interaction, and command presence. I do not find that most officers have an advantage in shooting or hand to hand over most serious civilian practitioners.

It seems your last post, for all practical purposes, agreed almost entirely.

threegun
May 3, 2011, 08:27 AM
Glen Dee, I think you may have missed my point that the actual advantages most officers have over most civilians are in observation, interaction, and command presence. I do not find that most officers have an advantage in shooting or hand to hand over most serious civilian practitioners.



Ditto :rolleyes:

As a "serious civilian practitioner" my needs are different. I simply have to use Situational Awareness to identify the threat, some reasoning to escape or evade the threat, and if left no option, the appropriate tactics and skill to deliver a threat ending blow.

LE have many other more necessary needs. Most neglect handgun fighting skills and tactics IMO. This has been my experience with LEO friends and family members as well as those LEO's I have knowingly competed against.

threegun
May 3, 2011, 08:38 AM
To begin to assume that non police civilians have better training than the police is a bit of a stretch.



Who assumed this? The training my shooting buddies and I conduct is vastly superior to what the overwhelming majority of LEO's get. That said my friends and I are statistical anomalies compared to other civilians.

I submit to you that LEO's are terribly unprepared for an armed confrontation especially considering the greater likelihood that they need the skill compared to a civilian.

To assume that they are prepared for an armed confrontation simply because they are LE is the stretch IMO.

threegun
May 3, 2011, 09:02 AM
I put my faith in professionals over amatures anytime. They do it for a living. Street LEOs, after a short time, have the kind of experience, most civilians will never have or want.

Anytime? So your faith would go to the LE officer who gets but a very basic firearm training over say a Clint Smith?

You are half way correct though LE get a kind of experience most civilians will never have or want or need. That on the job experience they get rarely includes how to survive a gunfight however.

mnero
May 3, 2011, 09:43 AM
In this situation there was no gun fight! There would only have been a gun fun if someone was foolish enough to start shooting. Threegun IMO you are right about one thing; Police rarely have to use their weapons. My uncle Ernst is 78, still a part time policemen in Eagle river Wis in the summer(resort town) he was afull time cop for many years and never had to shoot at anyone. You know why? Because he was a DAMN GOOD COP! This situation could have benefited from a good cop, but not a civilian who was a good shot! Threegun I don't doubt your skills with a pistol and I don't doubt your skills in a gunfight, at least a mock one. This, however; does not make you better prepared then a street LEO to handle such an unlikely event IMO.

MLeake
May 3, 2011, 09:48 AM
mnero, now I can agree with you. I also don't think a gun would have improved this particular situation, and I do think a street cop's other-than-violent skill set would probably have been more useful.

But, we still have some disagreement. I don't really see how military training would be of particular benefit in this case. Any training that enhanced self-discipline, and taught how to stay cool under pressure, is almost always useful - but that is hardly unique to the military.

The only way I'd see military training as a particular asset in a case like this would be if there were several military guys, who were well-trained in coordinated group action.

mnero
May 3, 2011, 09:52 AM
M I agree, I can't imagine how any military training I received would have helped, except of course to 'be cool'. This situation is something the police might have handled better then the two guys who already stepped in, but certainly not the rest of us.

threegun
May 3, 2011, 01:29 PM
Mnero, At some point the argument became whether or not 1 man armed with a handgun (38 snub nose I think) could fend off a group of 25ish gang youth.

Now that we have explained that cops aren't that good with their firearms or necessary tactics you switch the argument back to non firearm related methods for surviving this situation.

I whole heartedly agree that LE would handle most non lethal situations better.

In this situation there was no gun fight! There would only have been a gun fun if someone was foolish enough to start shooting.

There wouldn't have been a gunfight had I been on the train either provided the thugs didn't try to beat on me. Its sad that you believe self defense to be foolish.

My uncle Ernst is 78, still a part time policemen in Eagle river Wis in the summer(resort town) he was afull time cop for many years and never had to shoot at anyone. You know why? Because he was a DAMN GOOD COP!

A lot of "damn good cops" have been forced to shoot. Seems like luck plays a part as well. A cop forced to shoot is not indicative of bad police work.

This, however; does not make you better prepared then a street LEO to handle such an unlikely event IMO.

The facts suggest that your opinion is wrong. Better training almost always trumps lesser training. Precisely why our Navy Seals win most fights they face.....simply the best training in the world.

While great training doesn't always equal guaranteed performance because of the stress factors of a deadly encounter it does improve success for those who are able to overcome the stress to fight. It helps folks fight through the stress. To function on auto pilot.

penugine
May 3, 2011, 01:36 PM
Not sure if this has been said earlier....

But all these people were on their way to a gun free zone at the airport....how ironic.

BarryLee
May 3, 2011, 02:13 PM
But all these people were on their way to a gun free zone at the airport....how ironic.

Hard to say if that really played into the thinking of this group. Also, just for the record it is legal for a permit holder to carry a firearm in the Atlanta Airport, but obviously not past the secure checkpoints.

markj
May 3, 2011, 02:52 PM
The training my shooting buddies and I conduct is vastly superior to what the overwhelming majority of LEO's get.

That may be true but what about the other training LEO get? at the acadamy..... it is a lot more brain work than just learn how to shoot a gun :)

I wouldnt make these claims in front of my cousin ret LEO is my age, he would ask you specific questions you would not be able to answer :) about police work. He was an accident investigator. Not much gun play there...

2damnold4this
May 3, 2011, 03:26 PM
I'm not sure how relevant skill at investigating accidents would be in a situation like the people on the Marta bus faced. It could be that a police officer might or might not have been better at handling the situation on the bus than a citizen but one does not have to be a police officer to defend themselves. It seems like long odds for anyone facing thirty gang members and unable to flee.

mnero
May 3, 2011, 04:50 PM
Threegun, you and your range buddies; ain't up to police work, you sure as heck ain't up to spec war duty; I would put more trust in a mall cop. At least they are actually professional security:rolleyes:

threegun
May 3, 2011, 05:49 PM
That may be true but what about the other training LEO get? at the acadamy..... it is a lot more brain work than just learn how to shoot a gun

I'm not LEO. The other training they get is suited to police work needs. My only obligation is to keep my family and self safe. My training is tailored for that.

threegun
May 3, 2011, 06:01 PM
Threegun, you and your range buddies; ain't up to police work, you sure as heck ain't up to spec war duty; I would put more trust in a mall cop. At least they are actually professional security

You need to put your trust in someone since you obviously can't defend yourself.

The best decision you have made to date is not trusting me to defend you. You make your unarmed untrained bed, you sleep in it.

Never said I was up to police work or military duty but you knew this already. Kinda your style to evade and deflect. Still don't make you right.

BTW for you to say that a mall cop is professional just proves how little you know about this subject matter. You make a fun punching bag however and I have enjoyed it, thanks.

mnero
May 3, 2011, 06:38 PM
You have already stated more than once that you are 'better trained' then the police. AS for the poor, much maligned mall cop; they most certainly are professional, as it is their task to secure the mall. As for my 'untrained bed' a life time of training in jujitsu and 11 years of military training and service should do; of course I have enough sense to avoid trouble, on the street anyway :D

Glenn Dee
May 3, 2011, 07:11 PM
ThreeGun,

I'm sure that you and friends are recieving competent training, and have honed your skills to a fine point. I dont dispute this. I'm glad you understand that you are the exception... not the rule. I have personal respect for any individual who accepts the responsibility of not only arming him/herself, but going the extra mile with training, and practice.

Of course there are Police Officers who are not ready for a violent confrontation. They are the exception... not the rule. Most Police Officers are better prepared for violent confrontation than 99 9/10% of all non police(civilians). The police engage in organized training in the police academy, and yearly or semi-yearly firearms training and qualification. For the most part this is not what qualifies them better. Police Officers first go through a field training period. Thats not it either. A police Officers most serious training begins the night they have to fend for themself. The company of more experienced officers, and the individual Officers own sense of survival, and experiences is what makes the difference. These experiences can be had at the range... cant be gotten in any amount of training... cant be tought in a classroom. In my experience Officers go through several phase during their career. I'm talking strictly about street cops... Not pouge's

A probie is someone who is in training, and not ready to fend for himself.

A rookie is an officer who is inexperienced, but has been thrown to the wolves.

A Cop is a rookie who's made it.

A pecock is an officer usually with around 7 years in who believes he's at the top of his game. And in fact is a legend in his own mind.

A senior man is an officer with 10 years or more who may be trying to live down his Pecock reputation, but is truely at the top of his game. These officers tend to mentor the rookies.

An old timer/hairbag is usually an officer who's over 20 years in, or a senior man who's given up and is working for the pension.

THE SENIOR MAN.. the cock of the walk. _ Command Sgt Major.

I know this has little or nothing to do with firearms. Sorry bout that. I just want folks to understand... It aint just organized training.

Glenn Dee
May 3, 2011, 07:13 PM
The biggest difference being... Civilians can avoid trouble. The Police cant.

threegun
May 3, 2011, 07:35 PM
You have already stated more than once that you are 'better trained' then the police

I'll pay another toll.......Better trained than MOST police. Please get it right.

mnero
May 3, 2011, 07:41 PM
If only the definition of most was zero; then at least one thing you have posted in this thread would have made sense:rolleyes:

threegun
May 3, 2011, 07:55 PM
Most Police Officers are better prepared for violent confrontation than 99 9/10% of all non police(civilians).

I would agree 99 9/10 with that statement LOL.

The police engage in organized training in the police academy, and yearly or semi-yearly firearms training and qualification.

Very basic and focused of hitting the target. Little or even nothing on tactics after the academy and few there. So while better than most civilians, who practice zero tactics and even less shooting, it is still lacking IMO compared to say a SWAT team member.

Police Officers first go through a field training period. Thats not it either. A police Officers most serious training begins the night they have to fend for themself.

Again we agree but to a point. I believe that this on the job training hones skills needed to deal with the more common situations like traffic stops, pat downs, room clearing, etc. and not a full out shoot out.

Example......As the alarm response employee for the shops that I work, I have had dozens of opportunities to enter the shops at night with LE under suspected burglary conditions. I can tell you that not a single man or woman used good tactics in 20 years.

I asked my cousins who are LEO's how to reload with one hand.....a very basic skill, neither was taught how. Same for shooting on the move and others.

Mr Dish
May 3, 2011, 08:21 PM
Wow,
This has been quite a thread. It all boils down to rock-solid proof that I have been right all along (I love saying that whenever I can). If you live in the woods you will never have to worry about the gangs....they are afraid of the skeeters.

As for the subject of the thread, I hope none of us have to experience that type of situation...there is no way to win with any certainty.

threegun
May 3, 2011, 09:02 PM
If only the definition of most was zero; then at least one thing you have posted in this thread would have made sense

Thanks buddy. Having you as a polar opposite is extremely reassuring. You must be correct after all you know my firearms training and that of MOST LEO's right? Oh wait no you don't LOL.

One thing is clear to me, you sir would have been at the mercy of the gang. Your jujitsu would be quickly over powered by just a handful of gang youth.

Can you post some of the firearms curriculum run at your choice of police academy?

How about the curriculum from say Front Sight or Thunder Ranch?

Might be fun to compare the two. I suspect you won't however.

Ever hear of the Fluid threat response?

You know my money is on you right LOL.

I didn't intend to make this about me. You attacked and in my own defense I was forced to compare firearms training. I really don't care if you believe. Just folks should know that they don't have to take a beating because some none gun carrying member who hates gun talk says that they cannot survive this encounter if they had to shoot. You are obviously biased against guns in the hands of civilians. You don't even carry yet you post in a tactics and training FIREARMS thread.

Friend please ignore my future posts as strongly as you have ignored the facts in my past posts. We should simply agree to disagree for the sake of TFL and the MODS.

mnero
May 3, 2011, 09:20 PM
Jujitsu against a mob? yeah it would be problematic, it would be fool hardy. AS for non-gun carrying, yes to carry a gun in MD would mean committing a serious felony, it's the law. It is very hard to get permit to cc in MD> I has to be related to your job or they just won't give you one. As for at their mercy, no I would have gotten out of their way and I assure they would have moved on. I have been workin on the streets since I left the service, I'm older now but I am still kind of a big dude. As long as I don't bother them; they don't bother me.

Alaska444
May 3, 2011, 09:23 PM
Wow, how we have digressed to my **** is bigger than your **** sort of "evidence" on how to tactically control a crowd of 30 gang bangers. Great. I am impressed, but nevertheless, if 30 thugs want to get you, it won't be them going home in the body bags. Have at it and good luck to anyone that thinks that they could "control" that sort of event. Yup, good luck.

Cascade1911
May 3, 2011, 09:35 PM
You have made the choice to carry a deadly weapon. You may have made it only to protect your life and that of your family or maybe your friends. Or maybe you take responsibility of protecting your fellow citizens. Of course the problem those who defend themselves let alone others always face is being incarcerated for our troubles.
What would I do if a bunch of gang-bangers were advancing on me? I would retreat ,draw, and if the BG's continued to advance I believe I would open fire. Of course, as I'm an engineer, there is plenty of opportunity to over-think so I could very well fail.
The real question is what I would do if I thought a fellow citizen was in danger of grave injury or death. We are lucky if we don't go to jail for defending our own life, I would seriously be weighing my odds of staying out of jail for defending another. THAT is the real issue.
By all means let's watch fellow citizens get beaten , I'm sure it looked like they might survive it.
Could this possibly be why we are in the situation we are in? Everyone thinks the security of our society is the responsibility of others?

Just a thought.

mnero
May 3, 2011, 09:42 PM
Alaska is right; if a gang of 'thugs' is bent on kickin your butt, then your are screwed. Avoid them; give them no reason to focuse on you; pray if you gotem' but the real key to survival is don't f... with them.

JohnKSa
May 3, 2011, 09:51 PM
Wow, how we have digressed to my **** is bigger than your ****...Sadly this is right on target and that's going to wrap things up for this one.