Crowded areas

[briandg]

There's one thing to remember from my previous post. There's an absolute certainty of close quarters combat here, it sounds like that to me.

Probably fifty feet by eight, a hallway in an ordinary building. Fully occupied you have people hanging from the ceiling like beef, otherwise, you have a few feet between seats. Go back to my remarks about reaction time. You've probably been seeing this building up for a few minutes, known that the guy was unstable but didn't know yet that he was a potential killer.

Now what?

Ethics say that you can't just whomp a guy on the head because he's scary.

So, do you walk up to him, pat him on the back and ask him to use his inside voice? I hope not. Do you get behind him, draw, and order the loud nutcase to the floor? This guy can turn from nutcase into murderer in half a second, your brain won't even see that knife as it swings up at your face.

Expect it, p prepare for it, and when that situation that calls for violence comes, go all out.

Assault is legally defined as a non-physical attack that makes a person legitimately fear for his safety. By this definition, a person could make the decision to use non deadly force to protect others. I think that the situation called for a taser or hand to hand. It would have saved lives.

Unfortunately, the people on that train postponed all lifesaving efforts, depending on "I got this" and from the very second it started, the killer had the upper hand.

All they had was confusion, and hope, and about a three second lag time.

[ShootistPRS]

Still, if you use physical force to stop someone from ranting you could be the initial aggressor in the eyes of all those witnesses. Most aren't paying attention to the ravings of a madman but when you tackle him. What they see is aggressive action against a poor deluded soul.
Congratulations, you have become the bad guy.
Until the knife comes out you can't prove that he was going to be violent and the people around him just see another guy ranting - it happens all the time. They rant for a while and walk away talking to themselves. You have no way to articulate any threat until the knife appears. You say, "There's an absolute certainty of close quarters combat here, it sounds like that to me." but would a reasonable person see it that way?

[Mainah]

Yes, that can certainly happen. Supporting evidence from a recent event in Maine: http://www.pressherald.com/2017/06/0...tuation-worse/

[HiBC]

First,There are personal choices to be made. I have NO argument with the folks who reserve deadly force for themselves or their family.
A legitimate case can be made for Fate. Everyone has one. No one is obligated to be a Hero.
Was it from "The Magnificent Seven?" "A Hero is someone they sing songs about ,after they are dead?"

Prosecutors,lawyers,civil actions...I have absolutely NO ENTHUSIASM for "getting involved".
Its OK to leave it for law enforcement.
But...not long ago there was an incident where a LEO was in the process of being killed in the middle of the street when an armed citizen stopped and killed the bad guy.
I celebrate and respect the "good guy".

Now,think of the advice of many,including LEO's on this thread.

If I'm armed,and I see an LEO on the ground being killed,should I FOLLOW YOUR ADVICE,not get involved,just leave and call 911?

I have this silly relationship with the guy I see when I look in the mirror.It is important to me I can look him in the eyes .

[briandg]

You misunderstood. I'm not referring to the guy yelling causing an absolute certainty of close quarter combat. What you just said implies that anyone who sees a crazy guy yelling on a train should tackle him and beat him senseless, and that's not even remotely what that sentence meant.

As this situation has been laid out in reports, it took place in a train car, 50X8 feet, with passengers. Any fight that takes place will almost certainly take place in an are no bigger than a handicapped stall

I didn't suggest attacking a person who is ranting, either. That statement clearly said that you can't attack a yelling nutcase, but if that nutcase pushes past yelling and moves into aggressive, threatening behavior or speaking, exhibits violent thoughts, that person may have crossed the line from public nuisance into a threat to the safety of everyone present.

You know that this guy was armed and killed two people, and the two guys who decide that he was dangerous are dead. That's a fact, right?

I'm not telling anyone what they should do, figure it out for yourselves when the situation arises. The thread was in general about using weapons in crowded areas. Being trapped in a crowded area with a dangerous attacker brings a slew of new problems.

[briandg]

Hibc, well said. I don't go around wanting to be bat man. Being a hero is an after the fact thing. If you jump into the water to save a life, that's heroic no matter what, right? If you die, we put up a cardboard sign with some plastic flowers and post it on Facebook. If you Bust someone's head who's engaging in armed robbery, no matter what you did, you will be tarred as a villain by millions of people who know nothing about what happened.

I live in Missouri, where the flooding happened. Two things happened. A police officer drowned while attempting a rescue. Hero. No disputing that.

A group of absolute morons purportedly went out in the floodwaters one night riding inner tubes, and one slammed into a bridge. Genuine, honest to God, dyed in the wool heroes went out looking for her corpse.

The other kind of person who risks their life is hated and second guessed at every step.

[HiBC]

I support the LEO's who take risks and do the thankless job of maintaining our civil society. I'm not an anti-cop guy. ( I believe in holding the occasional bad cop accountable,and I do not believe we should be abused)

I get from these threads a predominance of the idea that the "Armed Citizen" is a Barney Fife who should keep his bullet in his pocket.

Fact is,most of the rank and file cops get very little range time.Many have never been firearms people.They got a gun with a civil service job.They just are not that competent. One of my gunsmith mentors was an LEO armorer.He had multiple gunshot holes in his shop provided by LEO's.
I just do not understand where the idea comes from that the majority of LEO's are "Trained firearms experts" and all civilians are incompetent rednecks and crackheads,or Gadsen Flag Right Wing Extreme.

I suspect it would be no worse to be on the bus with two SASS Cowboy Action shooters than 80% of LEO's

Northern Colorado,maybe 1980's? Restaurant hostage situation. Server's ex boyfriend and a .357.
One innocent old man hid in the restroom. SWAT Team. Through the glass sniper shot. Fail. Girlfriend killed.
Old man decides to exit the restroom window. He died of about 40 hits of SWAT 9mm.
Occasionally,our finest military has friendly fire tragedy or kills innocent civilians .

I am NOT suggesting criticism of the LEO's or military. They are put in chaos and crisis looking through the fog of war.

I'm suggesting we trash can the disrespect and double standard for the armed citizen that takes a role in the notion that we all look out for each other.
Often an 80% effective "something" beats the heck out of a perfect "nothing"

And while I greatly respect the LEO's ,some seem to take an attitude somewhere between condescending and outright narcissism .

Sunday,I'm invited to a family and friend dinner at a restaurant.I will be dining with a 1968 era VN Special Forces A-Team Medic,who shoots regularly. And another former S-3 of the 5th SFG,a long time SFG A team commander,and a lifelong 3-gunner..who,as an old fat guy,has for many years shot in to top half of the Ft Benning shoot.
Then there is another gentleman,I believe he was an officer in the 82nd ABN,and his wife. They have recently become 3 gun competitors. She shoots a Caspian double stack 1911 9mm.
There will be one other 3 gunner at the table.
Along with myself .
I'll let you speculate if any of us are armed.

Now, I don't know how you would feel,but I'm thinking this restaurant will be a pretty safe environment.

There are over 8000 concealed carry permits in my county.I'd guess one or two in every grocery store or WalMart.

I think its past time for a community like us to quit sneering down our noses at the responsible armed citizen who may be riding the bus with us when something bad happens.
One more thing: Lets not forget the fourth plane on 9-11. The Man who said "Lets Roll!"
The Civilian Heroes who gave their lives to stop terrorists in a field in Pennsylvania that day.
Some days,doing the best you can is all you have

[briandg]

Again, pretty well said. This country is chock full of worthless people,everywhere, and shamefully, a few are unavoidably cops, but that's just a simple lack of perfection in this world. A few bad cops? Pshaw. Have any of those "cops are evil" wankers ever taken an honest look inside a maximum security prison and seen a REALLY dangerous guy? I think that we can assume that for every violent, dangerous cop, there are probably hundreds of civilians that are far worse.

When I went into orientation at police academy, there were the usual things like "explain why you're here." One guy said that he knew a lot about guns and he liked to drive, a couple others said essentially the same thing. I was in a few classes with them. It was embarrassing. Of course they never got certification. It was doubly embarrassing that they weren't corrected for their faults. One class involved scenarios. This group of morons created a scenario in which a pair of gays got in a brawl, and the "responding officer" killed one who had a knife. The rest of the scenario was covering it up.

I transferred the credits and stopped taking the classes.

I gotta shut up. I'm dragging this off base.

[briandg]

There are plenty of civilians that are capable of being licensed peace officers, in the past it took very little to become a deputy or volunteer. My grandfather was justice of the peace, a judge, he had no license.

There are comparatively very few people who could become good professional police officers, but I know many people who have the skills and intelligence to be carriers. I believe that most of these people have the good common sense and judgment and I would trust them.

Come on, one guy was a ranger, he carried a rifle and shot at bad guys. He came home and now he carries a pistol.

This is why I support stand your ground laws. There will be errors made by civilians. I don't fully agree on total amnesty, but I support the principle.

[briandg]

Btw, my state just took another step. We now have legalized permitless concealed carry, open carry, extensive castle laws.

[DaleA]

Briandg---what's your state? Post #56 said it's Missouri, did they actually go 'permitless carry'? Our state (MN) tried it and it didn't fly here.

[briandg]

Yes, we did. I believe that it went into effect in January. We have had open carry for as long S I can remember. Carry in the front is legal, there used to be restrictions on loaded weapons that are easily accessible.

This state has liberal castle laws. The last change, if I'm remembering correctly, is that it applies pretty much wherever you are legally present, for example, in a hotel, your car, outside your car, visiting another person's home, etc, but it does not carry over to general public places. Only a home-like situation, or your "temporary castle."

The definition of the castle here is pretty liberal, in some places, it must be an actual invasion of the home, here it applies to everything out to the street, but that leaves a vague definition for people on land or in multiple units.

I believe that our legislative body will eventually adopt a stand your ground law.

This isn't legal advice and it's not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of my state's legal environment. There are a lot of parts in place to protect a person who has been involved in a shooting that meets the legal terms.

In a side note, there used to be an open bottle law forbidding having an unsealed bottle in the passenger compartment, just having it there, even empty, would result in a fine. Of course, it is legal to drive after drinking as long as you're bac is legal.

As it stands now, the open bottle law was removed. In fact, a passenger can even drink, as long as the driver isn't. I never expected that I could trade seats with my wife on a long trip, have a beer and sandwich while she drove, then trade seats again. We have put out some very odd laws.

Again, not intended as advice and these are only to be taken as how I understood and remember these laws as posted on state legal information sites.

[Ton]

HiBC,

I'm not suggesting that a CHL holder should not take action under any circumstances. On the contrary, you may be forced to take action or the only person reasonably capable of stopping deadly behavior in time, as we saw in the case of the Arizona DPS trooper whose life was saved by an armed passerby.

That being said, when I am off duty I'm not running toward the sound of gunfire. I've been to many shootings in many different venues (parking lots, apartment complexes, trailer parks, movie theaters, etc) in situations in which we located as many as nearly half a dozen gunshot victims. In my experience the VAST majority of these incidents were drug or gang related, sometimes both. My morals may be warped these days, but I value my life more than that of a few criminals whose heroin deal just went bad.

I'd be willing to bet the average gun enthusiast is a better marksman than the average LEO. But uniformed patrol have several advantages that CHL holders, off duty LEOs, and even undercover LEOs don't have when responding to situations like this. #1 They are uniformed, and don't have to worry about being shot in a case of mistaken identity. #2 They at minimum will be equipped with a full size handgun and two extra magazines. #3 They will more than likely be wearing body armor. #4 They are in constant communication with the several other armed LEOs that are rapidly converging on the scene. #5 LEOs have extra resources at their disposal to include several less lethal force option, a helicopter overhead that can observe and relay critical information almost instantly upon arrival, police service dogs, and more information about the situation as a whole #6 LEOs are generally more accustomed to the physiological effects of critical stress and will be less crippled by it. #7 LEOs have legal protections through their agency and unions that will protect them in the event of civil or criminal liability.

Again, the possibilities in these situation are endless, but it really boils down to this: If I'm in the immediate vicinity of a violent crime as it evolves and am able to reasonably conclude that my intervention is practical and necessary for the preservation of life, I'll intervene. If I'm not, I'm going to put distance between myself and the perceived area of danger and allow on duty LEOs to handle it.

[HiBC]

Ton,I appreciate every thing you said.
And I agree.
I get it that the use of deadly force most likely will result in great legal jeopardy,giving my home and every shread of "wealth" to lawyers,a disrupted life,and maybe prison,along with civil action.
This all assumes I do not get shot myself.

I don't owe any of that to anyone. I'm not "Johnnie Sav-a Life or a Marvel Super hero.
I'm prone to saying "Things are looking like it's time for me to go"...as anyone else could.
I'm 65,fairly worn down,far from being a "warrior".I've never drawn a gun to change a situation with a human being.
I prefer I never do.
Sometimes the "Here and Now" shows up. I choose to not be helpless.

[ShootistPRS]

HiBC and Ton,
My personal morals are that my safety comes first. I have family that deserves to have me home at night. I have never had a desire, and I still have no desire, to use deadly force against another person. I don't want to be a killer even in defense of others. I made up my mind a long time ago that I would use deadly force to protect my family and myself rather than die needlessly at the hands of a crook. I have trained, gone over a lot of stuff in my head over and over and learned about the legalities of a self defense shooting. I've gone to classes, have books and DVDs that I study and intend to continue my training. This is just an agreement to your posts.

[briandg]

Ton, you are right, there will be situations that call for hunkering down behind the dumpster. A couple dozen shots down the streets? That's not a situation that should be blindly engaged in order to save hypothetical victims. In some situations you should save potential victims by shoving them back through a door. Death by hoodlum with twenty rifle rounds in the chest doesn't have to happen. It's almost suicide to race towards shots in some areas, knowing that the damage will probably be done already.

Every situation, every person, all different,whether it's London bridge, Portland, or the the Florida nightclub, armed citizens could help there, but if a half dozen Mexican gang members tear into a neighborhood, it's folly to do anything but try to stay alive. In this case, especially, you wouldn't make a difference.

And like hib, I'm going on sixty and not former swat. I have arthritis, and even though I'm trim, if I go to my knees, I won't be up again without a struggle. I might as well turn the gun on myself.

[Buzzcook]

There's one thing to remember from my previous post. There's an absolute certainty of close quarters combat here, it sounds like that to me.

Sorry that's just not something we can know for certain about the Portland attack.

There are claims that the men who intervened were trying to deescalate the situation and that the attacks happened only after one person "grabbed" the arm of the attacker.

It is possible that violence could have been avoided or delayed till the police could arrive. But that is also something we cannot "know".

One thing I guess at, is the men were far too close to their attacker and even if they had been armed the results very well might have been the same.

[briandg]

I covered that earlier. The meaning of that was that any combat would be close quarters. Trapped in the somewhat crowded area. Seriously.

I know how hard it was to fight on a school bus, I wouldn't want to deal with an armed crazy guy over my lunch money.

[Lohman446]

One thing I guess at, is the men were far too close to their attacker and even if they had been armed the results very well might have been the same.

If, for whatever reason, I am going to engage a knife wielding attacker in a crowded situation and my children are not present there is no such thing as "too close" IMO.

I still see this concept that the armed citizen should gain distance to draw his or her firearm to deal with an attack. The generally accepted distance needed to be gained to draw and engage a knife wielding attacker is seven yards and that is based on police duty style holsters. Add a yard or two to clear concealment. Subtract a yard or two if you intend to draw your weapon while your attacker is distracted. So lets say 10 feet between you and a knife wielding attacker.

I'm not certain how an armed citizen is going to succeed while using a firearm without potentially creating more danger to those around.

You want to intervene? Go ahead. I beg of you not to use your gun to do so.

[gshayd]

My guidelines would be the use of force laws for the state I reside in. Also keep in mind that in Texas you are responsible for where a bullet end up once you pull the trigger especially for crowded areas. An armed private citizen does not have the same immunities that a law enforcement officer has.

[Buzzcook]

If, for whatever reason, I am going to engage a knife wielding attacker in a crowded situation and my children are not present there is no such thing as "too close" IMO.

You're making an assumption that you would "know" that the man was going to attack you with a knife and that you would be better able to defend yourself if you were very close.
If you're very close you might not be able to watch your potential assailants hands. That might be a serious detriment.

I also think you may be overestimating how crowded the train was. According to the report I read the train was not as full as it would be at peak usage. All or most of the seats were full, but there were few people standing.

I wouldn't use a gun.

Given 20/20 hindsight I would try to evacuate the people to the connected train car. Hopefully fast enough so that the men engaging the assailant would be able to retreat before the attack started.
But that's just as much fantasy thinking as people claiming thay'd double tap the bad guy no problem.

To repeat my first post. People assume things about a scenario that they can't know.

[Lohman446]

Buzzcook you are right about the attacker having an element of surprise. I intended to convey a decision to engage rather then retreat made likely after the initial attack.

Obviously there are positions one is in where retreat is not an option and one must engage. However if I am making the choice between the two to engage for whatever reason retreat was an option and I chose to forgo it.

[A J]

I'm just gonna shoot like crazy until the attacker falls. Later... I will reflect and be forever haunted by any innocents that were struck by my pass-through bullets.

That said, I'd do it again in a heartbeat. You need to eliminate the threat first and foremost. Everything else is secondary. In the end, you'll save lives.

[briandg]

Just offhand, if a person opens fire on a crowded train and kills, unless there are solid protective ordinances in place, I believe that there is a huge range of charges that can be filed. I believe that some form of involuntary manslaughter might be considered. Unloading a weapon into a crowded train with intent to rescue doesn't entire fit into deliberate intent.

I killed the guy when I missed but I didn't mean to.

Not legal counsel but it seems right.

[Lohman446]

You need to eliminate the threat first and foremost.

Why? You already noted that everything else is secondary so I'm curious why one must violently stop the threat as a top priority

Everything else is secondary.

If stopping the threat is first and foremost priority it begs the question, again, as to why? If the protection of innocent life is not the primary priority it seems you are justifying violence for the sake of violence.

In the end, you'll save lives.

In Portland the casualty toll were two fatal stabbings. I am willing to bet a modern high capacity firearm fired... well let's use your words:

I'm just gonna shoot like crazy until the attacker falls

Again, two. A modern pistol is likely going to result in more than two injuries and likely many of them fatal.

The fact of the matter is if you did respond as you indicate and injured or killed one of my family members I would have no problem holding you morally and legally responsible for your actions. I would also argue that you were not seeking to save lives but that you were seeking to satisfy a blood lust. By your own words you have already made that fairly clear.