Gang Attack on Transit Train

[threegun]

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]

Originally Posted by threegun

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Excellent post.

[mnero]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

Agreed. Love the signature line, by the way. Long time Futurama fan here!

[mnero]

[threegun]

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]

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]

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

[threegun]

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]

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?"