Intervening in a 4 on 1 attack

[Strykervet]

Well, in WA it is so easy to get the permit... If you can buy a pistol you can get the permit, so why not? It also has advantage in that it preempts part or all of the background check and no waiting period.

In WA, it is also legal to draw to prevent a felony in progress. I also doubt you'd actually have to use it. They'd probably assume you are a cop. Speak firmly and loudly, and personally I'd hold it at the low ready. Then if anything DID come back my way, all I'm looking at is brandishing.

I doubt I'd shoot an unarmed teenage girl. Pretty sure of it. I can bonk 'em on the head if need be, but doubt I'd ever need to shoot.

You can also step in WITHOUT drawing. Remember, they are kids. Jerking them off and acting like a parent (it takes a village?) might just do it too. I guess if they turned on you like shi tzu's, you could draw, but I bet that once you take the upper hand without drawing, the rest of the public will step in.

Most people are sheeple. I heard that 80% of the population are followers, 10% are leaders, and 10% neither follow nor lead. I learned I was in the last 10% --I have no desire to lead or follow. However, it only requires one person stepping in and some of those people that were watching will be spurred into action. Maybe yell out, "Don't just stand there and watch!" Trust me, this works. The public is at your beckon call provided what you are summoning them for is morally correct (in general).

I guess I feel strongly about this because I am alive because a man stepped in when I was being beaten by ten guys. One came back to finish me off, I nearly beat some stranger's door down, and he answered with a double barrel. That kid didn't want any. I was a teenager too btw.

Now that guy could have sat in his house and NOT opened the door and shot me when I came through (I WAS going through it --I was hemmed in by a long fence and just this one house) or he could have answered the door like a man. I was lucky he did the latter.

I always carry now. That was the one time I would definitely have used it had I needed to. They weren't armed and they were teenagers but it doesn't matter. I can tell you I was in fear of my life, and I can tell you that little girl was too.

Man up. You carry, to some point you assume duty. Or perhaps not, there are a lot of people that live under rocks and won't lift a hand for a fellow man. I'm just not one of them. I seriously don't want to escalate a situation, but I also won't stand by and watch someone who is experiencing the same fear I did and just do nothing. That girl, she may grow up to carry too, but right now she just can't get away with it. Been there, done that too. I had the shirt, but it was torn and soaked in blood so I threw it away. A brand new Nirvana shirt too...

 

[Hanzo581]

This country has turned into everyone just looking out for themselves, and that's why these things happen. No one cares about anyone anymore. What I see in a lot of these situations (most posted on youtube) is all it takes is one person to step forward to help and others will follow suit, it seems as most people just don't want to be the first one to jump into the fire, which is understandable.

As for what I would do? Well I wouldn't be using public transportation in the first place.

 

[Shadez]

Yes. And you worry way too much! Good luck! You need it!

Being prepare is why you carry right? This is a byproduct of fear and worry.

Would you wonder into the woods without thinking through what could happen to you? No, you think about it and prepare. This is no different.

Interviening in a situation like this without thinking about it is how people make bad mistakes and get in trouble. It's the people who stop the car with a 5 year old in the back seat to draw down on a car jacker because it's the right thing to do. (true story). Doesn't hurt to think beyond this and what is in your best interest. (obviously not in the couples best interest).

I'm playing a bit of the devils advocate, but my main point is the same. The reason I carry is to go home at the end of the day. I will stop anyone or anything who tries to prevent this, and try to think carefully about putting myself in situations that decrease that probability.

At its core Burke's quote is true and one of my favorites, but the real world is far more complicated than that my friends.

 

[lemaymiami]

In this kind of problem (as presented) someone with my background has a leg up on most since I spent years on the street as a cop. I have actually gone into a bar late at night (one of those topless, bottomless, and tasteless kind of places...) where there was a big fight between two different biker gangs (Outlaws vs. Pagans, and the Pagans were losing badly...). It was inadvertant on my part since I thought the fight was over and my officers were still responding from a distance. It wasn't until I was well inside that I realized I'd stepped into a bad, bad situation. Not knowing what else to to do (and fortunately in uniform) I used a loud voice and told everyone to stop what they were doing "Right now". Much to my surprise - it worked (my only other choice would have been retreat....). The next thing I knew the bikers were apologizing and offering to pay for any damages (while picking up their fallen comrades...).

No, that's not what you'd see portrayed on screen but real life is rarely what you'd expect. Most times, even when confronted by a dangerous individual or situation it can be sorted out without resort to weapons... but not always.

The main reason that I spoke up regarding this topic was a firm belief that in many ways our modern civilization has pretty much bred the manhood out of "urban man". I doubt that most of our grandfathers would have hesitated before coming to an obvious victim's defense. -and to put it mildly, that's too bad.

By the way, in the sixteen years since I retired - I haven't carried a firearm even once, although I do have a valid carry permit. I made that choice and I haven't regretted it - and I'd still intervene.

 

[Shadez]

Very well said. I agree with you. My grandfather wouldn't have hesitated.

He also didn't have to worry about liberal prosecutors with an agenda, police officers having to strictly answer to every decison made and common sense being thrown out the window in the legal system of his time.

We are plagued with these and I agree, banding together to support each other to make a change in the world we live in should be our goal and maybe that starts with the guy who breaks up a teenage girl fight and is backed by people like us.

I really like the diversity of thought on this board. I have recently switched to it and learn a great deal from these exchanges.

 

[medalguy]

Hard to say what I would so in any given situation without actually being there. However as someone already stated, 4 against one is something I wouldn't tolerate even if the one started the fight.

I think I'd try to break up the fight by yelling at them to stop, and if that didn't work, I'd look to see if there were anyone else who might help me break it up. Even if not, I think I'd try to pull them apart and stop the fight. I wouldn't pull my weapon unless I were very clearly threatened by one of the girls with a knife attack, not merely with verbal threats. I believe if I were clearly attacked first, no DA would be able to prosecute me for protecting myself. Remember, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

 

[Shadez]

Hard to say what I would so in any given situation without actually being there. However as someone already stated, 4 against one is something I wouldn't tolerate even if the one started the fight.

I think I'd try to break up the fight by yelling at them to stop, and if that didn't work, I'd look to see if there were anyone else who might help me break it up. Even if not, I think I'd try to pull them apart and stop the fight. I wouldn't pull my weapon unless I were very clearly threatened by one of the girls with a knife attack, not merely with verbal threats. I believe if I were clearly attacked first, no DA would be able to prosecute me for protecting myself. Remember, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

That is the point. If you interject, you weren't attacked first. You, an armed citizen chose to involve yourself in the threat. I know plenty of liberal prosecutors who would love a case like that.

 

[Shadez]

As said,Shadez,you over think and over worry. It's a killer and a paralyzer. Change.. Life is short. Too short for your philosophy.

Looking at things through a legal magnifying glass does not represent my way of life, nor does it predict my actions.

But not to think at all about the legal side of acting with a firearm is (as stated before) like going into the wilderness not knowing or caring that there are dangers.

My last post (I know you are all annoyed with me

The reason I carry is to return to my family at the end of the day. Nothing more.

 

[snakeman]

I plan to have pepper spray on me usually. Let loose with pepper spray in that train and everyone eats it! That means that the attack most likely will stop and all those people doing nothing will get what's coming to them as will you and the person being attacked but if you stop the attack it would be worth it. I think it might even be a little funny. There's no such thing as an innocent bystander anyway.

 

[Shadez]

I am not annoyed with you.I respect you and your opinion. We simply have a different point of view. And with my military and EMT background, we simply are not going to be thinking alike on this issue.In all probability.

This is not your fault or my fault.This is life experience and personality.
There is no fault or shame in that. Ever.

Come back,Shadez.You are a fine contributor.

JD

Thanks man. I appreciate that and like i said before a great diversity of thought on this board. I just didn't want to keep driving at the point.

 

[Davek1977]

i can hypothisize all I want about only being a good witness and all that.....but the truth of the matter is, at the end of the day, I couldn't live with myself if I watched a 14 yr old girl get beaten to death, and did nothing. We all have our moral codes, and mine would haunt me forever if i allowed someone to death such a savage death when I had the means of preventing it. What if the tides were somehow turned, and it was your daughter who was viciously attacked and or killed? Would you actually be happy or even accept the fact there were armed individuals capable of saving her, but didn't, because it simply wasn't their problem personally? i'm not saying shots needed to be fired, but the idea that a group of otherwise presumeably decent people could watch such a savage beating and do nothing is appalling to me. I hope, if I'm ever in a situation like that, someone comes to my aid. As such, i believe I'd being willing to help them as well.

 

[chieftain]

Many folks allude to an earlier day in America where a man would do what a man felt he needed to do.

That was before you would wind up in court for using harsh language with minors. There is a difference. I have been pushed out of jobs because I talked about "guns" and "war". These where overheard conversations.

First understand there is no longer free speech in this country. A small minority still have it, but the majority do not. Say the wrong words during a fight, and it literally may become a Federal case. You can also assume that what ever you do will wind up on both the evening news or go viral.

Great care is necessary when intervening. Many of us who are NOT politically correct have learned to avoid exposing ourselves.

The very reason why many folks would physically step in to four girls beating up another girl, is why many would not. "Man attacks group of girls on light rail, video at eleven." Someone raised the question if you would do it if it was 4 seventeen year old boys?

There seems to be some confusion whether you could carry a gun on that particular light rail system in Oregon. In Phoenix you cannot. Every Light rail system I personally know of, granted not all that many or even a lot, one cannot legally carry a weapon. That may only be a secondary or Tertiary reason to be sure.

We see it often in NFL, the player who illegally "hit" a guy isn't caught, it is the player who retaliates, often appropriately, who is penalized. It happens that way in real life all to often too.

If you don't consider these things in response to a good Samaritan situation you may be very foolish. Many folks forget that 30-40 years ago we needed to pass good Samaritan laws to protect folks giving medical assistance to people during times of emergency. Because even back then folks would sue at the drop of a hat.

As to the retired LEO, thank you for your service, sounds like you were and are lucky and very effective at avoiding problems. I did my initial service in the Marine Corps with two tours with the 3rd Marine Division in Vietnam. The NVA did not stop when I used harsh language, even in a effective command manor. Different life experiences. I do CCW/EDC.

25 years later when I was with the Brevard county Sheriff Office (think Cape Canaveral) Harsh language didn't always work for me either. I later worked for Florida DOC, and sometimes it worked, and sometimes it did not. Just like racking a pump shot gun, sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Go figure.

There was NO BLOOD in the OP's article, "lumps and bruises". Parents did not call the Police. The victim did not contact Police either. Judgment is the most important skill when getting involved in any altercation, particularly one not involving you or yours. Actually in many cases Judgment is the most important skill in life. I wish I had been and was better at it myself.

I think I would have contacted 911, video it with my cell phone, as I approached and then take appropriate action. In this case as the "victim" wasn't seriously hurt, I probably would have just yelled. The problem is just that. If the attackers turned around and accused me of "attacking" them while they just "fooled" around, the headlines would have definitely read differently.

If there had been blood, and damage, (yes I am qualified to judge, by the way) and then take appropriate action. Not go blindly charging in, folks who do that are often called "defendant".

Things are not always what they seem. Care is necessary. Involvement MUST be considered with great care. Our culture only wants government to meddle, not us common peasant folks. See where that has got us though. (When your government considers you a revenue source, you are no longer a citizen. After all that is exactly what Serf's were.)

I don't think folks who help are dumb, bad, or criminal at all, I think that they are good folks that have had the good fortune to not run into the cultural war head on yet.

We see in the above example that the family is now suing the Rail line for lack of protection or something of that nature. Be glad you aren't named in the suit.

Regardless of your choice of action, it is yours to make. I don't like Monday morning quarterbacks. If you ain't there, you really don't know. What is your mission statement?

Good luck.

Fred

 

[Davek1977]

Taking what Chieftan said to heart, I'll admit that environment...both physical and political, can certainly influence one's decision. I'm from the relatively quiet, peaceful state of South Dakota. I DO NOT fear being unfairly targeted for prosecution here if i act at all reasonable. There's not an "out to get you" vibe concerning gun owners, becasue, well....we all have guns for the most part, and have one of the highest rates of concealed carry per capita. Maybe if I lived in NY or Chicago, I'd have more reservations, but here...no way....no one is going to be gang beaten in my presence if I have the means or ability to thwart it. I won't go out looking for ttrouble, but if it happens in front of me, I can't sit idley by. Maybe I have too much confidence in the prosecutors and law enforcement of this state, but I cannot fathom being charged here for intervening in this situation, or for putting an animal down out of compassion after striking it with a car(the topic of another thread where reactions were across the board). Where such activity may result in criminal charges elsewhere, by and large it would be deemed as a common sense thing to do here, by most people. Animals...or people...shouldn't suffer needlessly if there's something that can be done to prevent it. Maybe I DO allude to an "earlier time where a man would do what he feels needed to be done"....but thats still the reality some of us happen to live in. Common sense, while increasingly rare, still exists in some parts of the country, and I feel as though I'm fortunate enough to live in such a place

 

[ATLDave]

I know plenty of liberal prosecutors who would love a case like that.

Really? You personally know lots of prosecutors? And, of those, lots that are liberal?

Or do you mean that you imagine that there are lots of liberal prosecutors who would view the situation as you described, but you couldn't identify a single one if pressed?

 

[Shadez]

Really? You personally know lots of prosecutors? And, of those, lots that are liberal?

Or do you mean that you imagine that there are lots of liberal prosecutors who would view the situation as you described, but you couldn't identify a single one if pressed?

I live in Cleveland Ohio.
Joseph Martuccio
Bill Mason

Would you like more?

Don't understand the point of TRYING to call me out when im making a point about inserting yourself into a situation identifying that you take a risk.

If a shooting Happens, it can be difficult to claim self defense if you walk into it. Especially with a Liberal prosecutor.

 

[Shadez]

What if the tides were somehow turned, and it was your daughter

My comments are being cherry picked at this point an people aren't reading the entire discussion. My case is logical (not popular) if you read it in it entirety. I have also stated that I don't think I can sit and do nothing. I'm trying to bring up the other side of it.

I addressed if it was my daughter already and I would not hesitate because I'm prepared to go to jail for the rest of my life to protect her.

 

[ATLDave]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Shadez, I'm unaware of "walked into it" being a test for SD as a defense to a criminal or civil charge. You are wise, IMO, to be wary of the impulse to act as vigilante. But shouting "Hey, stop that, I'm calling 911," would not generate much legal risk!

I ask what prosecutors you know because people often describe prosecutors who sound very different as human beings than the ones that I have known and worked with personally. Sure, there are variances across the country, and variances across individuals, and there are a small number of prosecutors out there (of all ideological bents) who are so aggressive that they lose all touch with reason. But that's the exception.

If you blaze away and gun down an unarmed 14 year old girl, are you going to have some 'splaining to do? Yes. And that will be true whether you were yelling at them to stop beating someone or were "minding your own business" reading the WSJ on the train. As I pointed out, there are a lot of points on the continuum between ignoring a beating and drawing down on someone. You seem to be advocating the view that you can't take one step without being deemed to have gone all the way to the end.

BTW, if you "know" the individuals you named based solely on media reports, you don't actually know them. Even well-intentioned journalists (again, regardless of ideology) routinely butcher the facts, law, and procedural posture of legal proceedings* so badly that it's basically impossible to form accurate opinions based on their accounts.

* That's not surprising if you think about it. Lawyers train for years to learn to understand what's going on in court, and even then make mistakes. Journalists usually have little to no training in understanding legal proceedings. For the same reason, journalists are often pretty bad at describing military tactics or strategy, or medical research, or economics. Journalists are mostly generalists. If they work at it for many years, some of them can become pseudo-experts in a field, but those people generally aren't at local newspapers or tv stations.

 

[Shadez]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Shadez, I'm unaware of "walked into it" being a test for SD as a defense to a criminal or civil charge. You are wise, IMO, to be wary of the impulse to act as vigilante. But shouting "Hey, stop that, I'm calling 911," would not generate much legal risk!

I ask what prosecutors you know because people often describe prosecutors who sound very different as human beings than the ones that I have known and worked with personally. Sure, there are variances across the country, and variances across individuals, and there are a small number of prosecutors out there (of all ideological bents) who are so aggressive that they lose all touch with reason. But that's the exception.

If you blaze away and gun down an unarmed 14 year old girl, are you going to have some 'splaining to do? Yes. And that will be true whether you were yelling at them to stop beating someone or were "minding your own business" reading the WSJ on the train. As I pointed out, there are a lot of points on the continuum between ignoring a beating and drawing down on someone. You seem to be advocating the view that you can't take one step without being deemed to have gone all the way to the end.

BTW, if you "know" the individuals you named based solely on media reports, you don't actually know them. Even well-intentioned journalists (again, regardless of ideology) routinely butcher the facts, law, and procedural posture of legal proceedings* so badly that it's basically impossible to form accurate opinions based on their accounts.

* That's not surprising if you think about it. Lawyers train for years to learn to understand what's going on in court, and even then make mistakes. Journalists usually have little to no training in understanding legal proceedings. For the same reason, journalists are often pretty bad at describing military tactics or strategy, or medical research, or economics. Journalists are mostly generalists. If they work at it for many years, some of them can become pseudo-experts in a field, but those people generally aren't at local newspapers or tv stations.

"Walked into it" from a legal standpoint would be defined under instigation. Under this you cannot walk into dangerous situations, get attacked and then claim (successfully in most situations) self defense. Your intentions maybe good but it could also elevate the situation.

Going back through my logic I'm not saying that the act or attempt itself to break up a fight warrants legal concerns, my point from the beginning was and still is that when you walk into these situations as an armed citizen you re-define the purpose that you carry a firearm, which should be to return home at the end of the day not act as an LOE. You never know when you may have to draw and your intent may have been to never use it but If you insert yourself into a dangerous situation and it goes horribly wrong (albeit rare as are most attacks) you are now held to a much higher standard and although you may have been justified, it might be tough to win a self defense claim since you chose to involve yourself, meaning much worse things for you and your family.

I don't know the prosecutors personally but I don't know politicians personally either and can make my assessments by how they do their job.

Good discussion though.

 

[ATLDave]

I don't know the prosecutors personally but I don't know politicians personally either and can make my assessments by how they do their job.

Slightly off-topic, but consider the possibility that, no, in fact, you can't make very good assesments because you don't have all the information, and what you do have isn't reliable - and the possibility that this is true for essentially all citizens in a republic of more than 300 million people.

Agreed, good discussion. The voice that reminds folks that a CCW is not a cape or a badge is a valuable voice.

 

[19-3Ben]

Having been there and done that, I'm glad to say that I DO intervene in situations like this.
The one time I had to do something like this, I was armed, but never drew or even let on that I had a gun.

I am somewhat surprised by many of the replies here. Gun owning folks tend to have very conservative "Judeo-Christian" values that indicate that one should step up, protect the meek, etc...
I'm kind of surprised by the number of people who are of the attitude that "I'll be a good witness."
I don't make a value judgment or think any less of someone who takes that attitude. To each his own.

For me? When I saw a 16 year old boy and his grandmother getting beaten up one night by a group of four punks, I intervened. To this day I am glad that I did.

 

[Onward Allusion]

rbernard
Intervening in a 4 on 1 attack

Carry a big canister of pepper spray and spray 'em. If it happens to hit the victim, so what. It's pepper spray and its effects wear off relatively quickly. Hell of a lot better than letting someone else or yourself losing a kidney, an eye, or suffer brain damage, eh?

This is one of the reasons I carry pepper spray. Firing into a group is the last resort. Spray is much more effective against mobs.

BTW, maybe I'm just feeling agitated today, but I hope to G_D that some of you jokers get exactly what you preach from the other perspective. Sad, totally sad...

 

[19-3Ben]

BTW, maybe I'm just feeling agitated today, but I hope to G_D that some of you jokers get exactly what you preach from the other perspective. Sad, totally sad...

Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Actually wishing that harm come to fellow forum-members? C'mon. We're better than that.

 

[JCinAK]

Good discussion. I think it would be hard not to intervene on some level, but at the same time I know my first responsibility is to my family so I wouldn't want to do anything that would jeopardise their future. In this example, there is a good chance that the use of a gun would not be needed. Some states do allow the use of deadly force to stop a felony in progress, so self-defense may not be a person's only defense if they did have to draw.

 

[Cosmoline]

Are you going to kill unarmed girls on a crowded train because they're punching someone else? You'd go to prison for the rest of your life, without question.

Call 911 and do what you can to tend to any wounds. Any physical effort by you to knock down the attacking women is highly likely to escalate the situation assuming you are a man. Other males will also intervene against you, and you're off to the races until someone gets knifed or shot. There are plenty of bangers swinging around in the background waiting for some reason to start attacking. Approach with extreme caution.

There's actually some wisdom in letting the women go at it, briefly, and leaving it at that. It's harsh street wisdom but wisdom nonetheless. The girls are unlikely to have the strength to do serious damage, and in this case it was over fast. The video shows exactly why it's good NOT to intervene in girl-on-girl melees. Unless things really get out of hand or someone uses a weapon, it's likely to burn itself out fast.

Get testosterone into the mix, and everything changes. The blows come harder. MUCH harder. And the weapons get drawn. And blood flows. It's happened hundreds of thousands of times in this country alone.

Now if you are a woman, the analysis changes a bit. You can interject yourself without spurring attacks from the men. As I believe one woman did, towards the end. She comes in after the blows stop to help the victim. Put an aggressive, gun-carrying man in that place and things can get real ugly.

I plan to have pepper spray on me usually. Let loose with pepper spray in that train and everyone eats it! That means that the attack most likely will stop and all those people doing nothing will get what's coming to them as will you and the person being attacked but if you stop the attack it would be worth it.

No, it means you have now escalated the situation by spraying male hoods who had been holding back before. Now they'll go after you and you may actually have to use deadly force to survive. Yet you started it, so good luck with the defense.

Jerking them off and acting like a parent (it takes a village?) might just do it too

These aren't kid used to respecting authority. They will unite against you, male and female, and you'll have a real problem. Are you going to start killing them?

You cannot fix a lifetime of shoddy education and total lack of discipline by stern words on a Trimet bus. And if you are armed you have to err on the side of caution--ALWAYS. Intervening could mean someone's death.

 

[Onward Allusion]

19-3Ben

Quote:
BTW, maybe I'm just feeling agitated today, but I hope to G_D that some of you jokers get exactly what you preach from the other perspective. Sad, totally sad...

Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Actually wishing that harm come to fellow forum-members? C'mon. We're better than that.

Nope, not wishing 'em bad. I just hope Karma, the Universe, G_D...whoever and whatever would just nail 'em THEN maybe they'll see it from the other side. Just because you have a gun on you doesn't mean you have to use it. There are other options. But to say something akin to "hey, it's their fault for not protecting themselves"??? REALLY??? REALLY??? Let's put it this way, I wouldn't want guys like that next to me going into battle.

Look at my tag...