Crowded areas

Several factors come to mind

1. The very first indication there's a problem is when someone starts screaming. If one is extremely lucky, one will be close enough to the problem to ascertain the situation and far enough NOT to be the first victim.

2. The very first indication one is armed is when one's sidearm appears. My thought is to keep it hidden until the required moment. (Some woman may be screaming because her child is choking. This will require assistance but not a firearm.) One does not want to alert the villain prematurely.

3. Somewhat out of chronological order, but one must have developed more than a passing familiarity with the handgun utilized. More than simply making minimal standards on a repetitive qualification course at fixed intervals AND more than simply firing a silly number of shots within a limited period of time. In any case, without - as far as can be done - a three minute preparation time to make sure arm is loaded and chambered, mantra is chanted and death song is sung, as applicable.

Knowing how to shoot is the best antidote for panic shooting.

Connected to this is the foresight to ensure proper working condition for the sidearm and ammunition in question.

4. Be careful not to be trampled by the panicked 'by standers'. Obviously, a responder will move toward the problem rather than away. Swimming upstream, so to speak.

5. A shot fired in a confined area (like a light rail or subway car, or perhaps the connecting halls of a mall) is going to be loud. This will not calm an extant panic. Be aware.

6. Shots fired must be minimal. The six-shot burst - so familiar to standard qualification courses, or the thirty-shot burst, so beloved by game shooters and shooting game course designers - are contraindicated. Every shot carries with it the possibility of an inadvertent disaster. More shots fired are more chances of disaster.

7. The idea of 'they won't get me' carrying the assumption everyone else is expendable is both deplorable and ill-advised. It carries the stamp of moral emptiness and narcissism, AND engenders the very real possibility of legal charges of culpable negligence and civil actions for wrongful death or injury.
 
I have often considered crowded situations, and thought that going to a crouched or kneeling position would have at least some potential of giving me a shot with a safe background. I was kind of reassured to read in the first reply that a similar idea was part of DT Guy's training.
 
A partial correction. While the question was specifically about Portland, I had just seen a replay of Manchester, which was a different situation and that was on my mind when I replied. Still, it does go to show that there are many different situations and no absolute "correct" action to be taken for all of them.

In Portland, the bad guy was close enough that his knife was the dangerous weapon; in Manchester, the bag of explosives was an area weapon. The best response to one would not apply to the other.

I agree that in a one-on-one confrontation, a self defense firearm may be the best, probably the only, good response. But in a mass panic, with police carrying automatic weapons, a civilian hauling out his Glock and spraying the area will not be a good idea, no matter what some gung-ho gunslingers may believe.

Jim
 
I don't know any concealed carriers that would "pull out their Glock and start spraying the area". Most would take a carefully aimed shot - probably more so than a policeman.
 
Sorry, Joe, but if I had been one of the armed police in that situation, and I saw you draw your gun, I would have killed you without a second thought or regrets. I am not going to wait to psychoanalyze you and figure out your motives - you have a gun and you are not identifiable as an officer, so I will kill you. Think that over.
Click to expand...

This goes through my head constantly whenever I think of these types of situations. I'm a firm believer that my guns are for "self" defense (including me and mine). Any other action is secondary.

Here's what I would attempt to do if I was in such an unfortunate situation:

1. My primary responsibility is to myself and my family. Step one is make sure I and they are in a safe location (behind me, behind cover, running towards cover, etc).

2. Once that is done, I try to assess the threat and whether I can confidently stop the threat a significant amount of time before a LEO could do the same. I'd rather let an LEO do the job if one is present or soon to be present. But, if there's no LEO in sight and I think I can safely address the threat, maybe I would.

Hard to say for sure tho.
 
Lessons I learned from this.

JoeSixPack:
If I was one of the guys killed and I was armed, damn straight I'd have drawn my weapon.. further more I'd have no problem taking a shot.
Click to expand...

I saw the story and I've thought it over a bit. When something like this happens, I like to sync up with my wife about what I'd do.

I told her that I'd probably not have drawn until the BG either started beating the women or stabbing someone. I know: too late.

But I've seen this episode before in Portland. It seems every time I go downtown there on business, there's some guy walking down the street and screaming at the clouds. I always cross the street when I see that sort of person coming. So, if some guy is yelling on a train, even if he's yelling at a person, I'd probably not do anything--it's part of the social fabric of that warped town. Heck it might be part of the social fabric of any large city. This is probably why people in NYC don't make eye contact.

And part of this reticence to get involve involves human limitations: as pointed out by others here, one really doesn't know how this started. The other is legal. As judge Bean pointed out, my freedom to swing my fist ends at the other guy's nose. If he's just shouting, even crappy racist stuff... I'm not a police office and it's not my job to curtail his behavior SO LONG AS HE'S NOT HURTING ANYONE. Pulling a firearm on a person who's not doing anything life-threatening could be a ticket to jail, depending on the local DA's perspective (and I'm betting the Portland DA doesn't ride in crowded trains next to shouting maniacs).

Moreover, when people seem to be shouting generally abusive comments and then focusing on a victim while ranting, then back to the crowd, that behavior screams to me "looking for a fight." I agree that the virtuous behavior was to stand up for the victims of this racist bully, but I think that this guy was ready for a fight and the good samaritans really weren't.

The other lesson here which the samaritans learned too late might be good deeds and intentions and owning the moral high ground won't automatically carry the day.
 
In a panicked crowd the first thought should be 'never fall down ' ! to do so can mean your death !
There was a department that lost an unmarked officer ,killed by a uniformed officer .The uniformed officer saw a person with a gun and fired. After that the department rule was the first uniformed officer on scene takes charge.
 
This kind of situation evolves by the second,and there are infinite possibilities of situation and people involved. Even a square and perfect presentation with an almost guaranteed lethal hit to the bad guy presents a potential pass through that could kill an infant. Risks of killing innocents are huge, risk of innocents dying because of the attacker may be worse.

I'm not sure whether any discussion could prepare a person for that shot.
 
I'm going to elaborate one something here. If you are convinced that you must take action either because of a moral duty to those around you or because you feel you must to protect your own safety it is beneficial to have more than one "tool" in your toolbox. It is also necessary to know what risks you are willing to take ahead of time so you are not lost in thought should action be required.

I apologize to those around me. I carry my gun, keep myself in shape, and have practiced martial arts to protect me and mine. I have a moral obligation to provide a safe workplace for those I have offered it to. I have a moral obligation to those I have invited to a safe haven in my house or business. I have a moral obligation to my wife and children regardless of where we are. I have no moral obligation to the general public.

I am retreating should I be able to do so in a way that protects those I have an obligation to and myself. Otherwise times are desperate and direct action is going to be taken. Do I have any intent of opening fire in a crowded commuter train? No. The risk of damage is far too high. But I will attempt violence against my attacker in a manner that is hopefully effective and allows those who I am obligated to to retreat.

The problem I see is that sometimes those with a gun do not see that there are other tools available to them that they should be familiar with. Not all circumstances call for violence and not all violence calls for a gun.
 
Lohmann, do you believe in God? The ten commandments? Are you your brother's keeper? Do you love your neighbor as you do yourself?

You do have a moral obligation to assist and defend your brethren in humanity. Jumping into flood waters to save someone who is already beyond rescue is one thing.

Turning tail and running while people die, if you had a chance to save those lives, that is accounted for in the bible. The apostle Peter, in fear for his safety,turned hi back on Jesus and denied knowing him. He lied to p preserve his own safety.

You brought the morality of abandoning people to die into the discussion, and here are a number of answers. You don't have to throw your life away, but you do have a moral obligation to defend your fellow man.
 
I don't recall saying that shooting was part of that moral obligation. Does a person have an opportunity to save lives? Can it be done with acceptable risks?

This argument can be picked apart and possible scenarios can be created until the end of time, but there is one incontrovertible fact.

If you are a Christian, if you love your brother and sister, if you care about right and wrong, running without a concern for others isn't the right thing to do. I do the Christian thing.

When I see a single cop make a stop, I pull over as far back as I can and watch. I leave if backup comes. Out of many cops to whom I have spoken about Chris, not a single one has disagreed with this. Traffic stops are dangerous. I already owe my life to a cop. I have a moral duty.
 
If you wish to discuss the religious aspects I will do so in a private message. I reject the assertion that Christianity as modeled by the words and deeds of Christ can be used as a logical defense for a moral obligation to participate in violence.

One has to decide what his or her tactics and choices will be. My suggestion is that engaging such an aggressor in a crowd with a firearm creates a large chance of collateral damage. What risk of collateral damage are you, personally, willing to accept. I would also suggest if someone feels the need to chose to participate in such violence in the face of an attack he or she have tools available other than a firearm.

The why aside (such as a moral obligation) the how to engage becomes important and may be largely impacted by your acceptance of risk of collateral damage
 
I think the, "first, do no harm" quote that is often attributed​ to the Hippocratic Oath is interesting and relevant to this discussion. In the link from the Harvard Medical School website below we see that, "there is no clear priority given to the avoidance of harm over the goal of providing help."

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/first-do-no-harm-201510138421

It talks about the risks of surgery and some diagnostic test that do cause some harm in the process of healing. It concludes with a couple of thoughts that are relevant to this discussion:


Ultimately, it is also a reminder that doctors should neither overestimate their capacity to heal, nor underestimate their capacity to cause harm.

The fact is that when difficult, real-time decisions must be made, it’s hard to apply the “first, do no harm” dictum because estimates of risk and benefit are so uncertain and prone to error.

The decision to use deadly force to stop a lethal attack on others when retreat or avoidance is possible is both a moral and ethical one. I pray I never find myself in that spot.
 
And as I said, the situation is intense, fraught with literal life and death danger for numerous people, and evolving with every passing second.

Nobody, literally nobody, can make a truly careful decision in those first few seconds. it will be reflex.
 
Briandg I would assume that by "reflex" you mean that your decision has already been made that you will intervene immediately in any situation where you determine help is needed to stop an attack. I respect your decision and believe there are situations where this course of action is the right thing to do.

I also believe that there are situations where reflex action without understanding and knowledge is neither moral nor ethical. Just like a doctor who treats symptoms before assessing the underlying cause, reflexively joining a gunfight that doesn't threaten you or yours may make matters worse.
 
I'm not talking about myself at all. Not remotely.

Reflex? Nobody can be in the situation of a big, crowded park, dance floor, restaurant, and stop a threat by just yanking out a gun and shooting the threat.

If you hear an unexpected shot, it's going to burn about a second, maybe two, just to turn your head to the source of the sound and put eyes on it. Getting a solid look at the guy will take another, finding the gun, determining whether or not the guy is a hostile will take maybe two, maybe five, checking background for collateral and possibly moving to avoid it,and finally making the final determination of shoot/dont shoot.

Ten, maybe as long as twenty or thirty seconds before an "average"guy can be ready to fire. Unless, as I said, this average guy just caps the guy who's holding the gun without spending a lot of effort assessing the situation.

Let's say a guy hears shouting and shots, but it's muffled by train noise. Turns and sees the back end of a guy in a blue windbreaker.

Guy with a gun, shots fired, this hypothetical average guy shoots the attacker in the back to save everyone else in the place.

Wow, his reflexive instinctual actions just killed a transit cop who just shot another bad guy who average didn't see.

This isn't a situation like a mugging by a guy with a gun,it's a situation that even cool heads and professional training can and do let people down.

The only thing that I can suggest in good faith is that in the situation, I'd have a hard time pulling the trigger. People might die as I decide. Ill have to live with that.
 
I have been trained to first seek cover. The idea is that if you are dead you have let your family and everyone else down. There are a lot of real easy ways to make mistakes that can get you killed or in jail for an unjustified shooting. Any situation that you can imagine has one big fault - you already know who the bad guy is - he came from your mind. Real life is very different. Unless you have witnessed the whole event you have no idea who the good guys are or who the bad guys are. You don't even know how many bad guys there are and where they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top