Crowded areas

I'm not an LEO, but am a US Army combat vet. I'm not sure what the "correct" answer to this problem is, but my primary consideration would be to eliminate the threat. My secondary consideration would be collateral damage from pass-though bullets.

As someone else mentioned, every situation is different and there is not a "one size fits all" solution for this problem.
 
Ton's post number 19 is excellent and very well said. Thank you


-----

Being Armed Is A Mindset, Not A Physical Condition - Rob Pincus

NRA, GOA
 
You can discuss tactics and scenarios all day long and nothing will get decided.

The basic premise boils down to this. If you were in a situation such as the one being discussed, would you want a gun or not?
 
This is just a question, I'm looking for input and I don't have the solution. Would a knife have been a better tool than a gun in the Portland scenario?
 
I'll take a gun over a knife any day of the week, thank-you very much.

Knife fights tend to get real bloody and stuff.
 
I would want a gun, a knife, mace, taser, hand held stunner, expanding baton, hair spray, fish net, ANYTHING THAT COULD H AVE BEEN USED AGAINST THAT FOOL. Having a weapon doesn't mean anything, you don't have to use it, but not having one or having no skills limits your chances of staying safe.

What we are specifically talking about here, now, was a relatively open space, one belligerent, and plenty of people who could have helped.

Unless I'm mistaken, these men tried to talk him down and the torqued up nutcase used a knife to kill these unarmed men.

He was crazy, aggressive, out of control. That made him vulnerable to a brutal, no holds barred attack. All you had to do was out think him and get past his weapon.

In the exact scenario that I expect happened, there were people in front of him, behind him as well. A strong man who knew how to cause injury, with or without a weapon, would have been in a position to stop that threat as soon as it turned violent if he wasn't the immediate focus.

Now that we have specifically addressed one nut with a knife in a locked train car, does the run for cover and save yourself argument hold water? In that specific situation, everyone was vulnerable to dying. There was no cover. No escape.

I would love to carry a full compliment of weapons, even an old medieval flanged mace. Draw whatever you have, use whatever skills you have, stop that threat before you're the only one left alive.

I genuinely expect that the people on that train couldn't even toss a possum out of the outhouse.
 
I think having a less than lethal weapon, such as a good pepper spray, might have been helpful in this situation. I would also recommend some type of self-defense training if you are physically capable. A bad guy with a knife is going to reach you before you can hit him. Legs are longer than arms though and may create some distance. While I certainly would not like to go hand versus knife or even knife versus knife, having training and practice on these skills could prove useful.

It is easy to say what I might have done (while I sit behind the safety of my computer), but I don't believe I would sit idly by watching people around me get killed and wait my turn. If I had a clear idea of what was happening and who the threat was, I would "probably" pull my gun and order the guy to stop. Any hesitation on his part to drop the weapon or cease aggression would probably result in me pulling the trigger. I know that there is possible collateral damage, but inaction could also lead to more deaths, including my own.
 
The basic premise boils down to this. If you were in a situation such as the one being discussed, would you want a gun or not?
Click to expand...

I carry a gun because I would rather have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it. In the situation being discussed I would have done everything possible (controlled retreat) to avoid needing a gun.


Would a knife have been a better tool than a gun in the Portland scenario?
Click to expand...

This is a hard question. The first rule of unarmed combat: ARM YOURSELF. Personally I am not proficient with a knife but from what I am seeing the people who attempted to confront the aggressor were in reasonable physical condition. I would not have drawn my pocket knife in the situation at hand though if I had something to replicate a stick I would have been glad to have it.
 
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.
Click to expand...
That bears repeating.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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 .
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Btw, my state just took another step. We now have legalized permitless concealed carry, open carry, extensive castle laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top