Gang Attack on Transit Train

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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).
 
Hmmm...this reminds me...

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!
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
BFPL

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."
Click to expand...

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".
 
Last edited:
"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.
 
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.
 
I'm not riding MARTA.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.


DSCN0017.jpg

DSCN0015.jpg
 
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
 
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.
 
Why do we accept the media account?

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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
To suggest that the person facing this mob was in 'good shape' is totally incorrect.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top