Nightmare scenario: Arkansas Auto Show

[Double Naught Spy]

The small town (<5000 people) of Dumas, AR was hosting an auto show in promotion of non-violence in Dumas when a gun battle broke out. Yes, the juxtaposition is staggering. Be that as it may, violence did break out and a gunfight apparently between two individuals resulted in one dead and 28 additional injuries with reports varying with upwards of 20 people actually shot. One suspect is in custody and they are apparently searching for the other. This thread is NOT about discussing those particular events. I am just offering it up as a unique scenario backdrop. I am sure there will be other threads on this topic elsewhere. Please don't debate this actual developing news story.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-arkansas-car-show-state-police-say-rcna20761
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rkansas-shooting-outside-car-show/7109558001/

This got me to thinking about the situation of the surrounding non-fighters. We have discussed several times the merits and lack of merits in intervening in somebody else's battle. You don't know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy and the legal ramifications can be staggering if you assist the wrong side and don't have a great attorney.

So there you are at a similar event in Hypothetical, USA and find yourself in the middle of a numerical mass shooting event (not arguing what is or is not a "mass shooting" except to note that there are many people being shot). You and the people around you are being shot up by one or both of the gunmen who aren't trying to shoot you as far as you know, but with their spraying and praying, that is exactly what is happening. You don't know who is good or who is bad, but you are definitely suffering incoming fire.

What is your move? Aside from seeking cover, are you returning fire to stop the fusillade coming in on you? This isn't an issue of whether or not you intervene in somebody else's battle. You ARE within the battle already. What is your decision tree leading up to you attempting to stop those injuring you or deciding not to stop those injuring you?

 

[Jeff White]

If I am behind cover and no rounds are directed at me I'm not getting involved. If someone shoots at me then I will return fire. I am no longer paid to intervene in other people's stupidity. Jumping into someone else's gunfight makes me responsible along with the other shooters for the collateral damage.

 

[MedWheeler]

Cover, and maintain until I can self-extract or the situation ends, even if hit. Shoot only when fire is directed at me or my position. Shooting before will only draw me into the intended line of fire. Unlike your typical mugger, these people don't flee from their opponents' gunfire.

 

[edwardware]

This sounds like one of those situations where the most important piece of equipment is good shoes. Set a heading for hard cover, hustle to it, repeat until you can't hear the shooting.

. . . hosting an auto show in promotion of non-violence. . .

Frankly speaking, if that wasn't a red flag then you're color blind.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If I am behind cover and no rounds are directed at me I'm not getting involved. If someone shoots at me then I will return fire. I am no longer paid to intervene in other people's stupidity. Jumping into someone else's gunfight makes me responsible along with the other shooters for the collateral damage.

Shoot only when fire is directed at me or my position.

Well, the scenario was that rounds ARE directed at you, even if you aren't the intended target. You and yours ARE getting shot up. You are in somebody else's gunfight whether you like it or not.

 

[Jeff White]

Well, the scenario was that rounds ARE directed at you, even if you aren't the intended target. You and yours ARE getting shot up. You are in somebody else's gunfight whether you like it or not.

First priority is to escape the situation. Returning fire in a crowd is going to depend on many other factors that you didn't specify, i.e. can you clearly identify who is shooting at you, do you have a clear shot in the crowd? You cannot make a decision on engaging until you know what you're dealing with. First priority is to get to cover so you can assess the situation.

 

[Blue Jays]

My bet is the people fighting mostly "had it out for each other" and likely not interested in bystanders.
My goal would be seeking the very best cover possible and keep moving away from the loud gunfire.

 

[film495]

exit/cover. the event should have armed security who are getting paid to figure out whatever is happening and act.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Most posts have covered this already but, get cover and get out of the area.

Only reaction with force should be to a direct action of force.

 

[TRX]

If I am not directly involved and not so close I'm in immediate danger, I'm bugging out.

Not my circus, not my monkeys.

Arkansas is a Constitutional Carry state. Anyone in immediate danger is welcome to defend themselves, providing they didn't make bad life choices that prohibit them from having guns at all, or deciding not to carry one.

 

[MedWheeler]

Double Naught Spy writes: (to me)

Well, the scenario was that rounds ARE directed at you, even if you aren't the intended target. You and yours ARE getting shot up. You are in somebody else's gunfight whether you like it or not.

..and I covered that with:

Shoot only when fire is directed at me or my position.

Incidentally, if I'm not the intended target, then rounds aren't being "directed at" me. They may be headed toward me by chance, but not by intent. Returning fire will either stop that, or make them "directed at" me, at which point I AM the intended target. Instant and constant assessment will be a priority.

 

[MedWheeler]

The small town (<5000 people) of Dumas, AR was hosting an auto show in promotion of non-violence in Dumas when a gun battle broke out.

A community organization ("Delta something-or-other") was hosting a bigger event, of which the car show was only a part. The event itself is known as "Hood-Nic", short for "neighborhood picnic", and, yes, its stated goal is promoting violence reduction. This might be the first year something like this has gone down at it.

 

[lemaymiami]

Go to hard cover - then E & E out of there at the first opportunity… No return fire unless you have NO OTHER CHOICE… One other item, if I’m carrying ( something I haven’t done even once since I retired from policing…) I’d keep that sidearm concealed until it was needed. Having a weapon in hand while a shooting is going on is a great way to get shot by some other citizen - trying to be the “good guy”…

Lord save me from young fools trying to act out what they’ve seen on TV or in the movies…. Just watch actual video of real stupid gunfights to see what I mean…

 

[alsaqr]

Seek cover and bug out when safe to do so. Will return fire only if there is no possibility of hitting a bystander.

 

[Blue Jays]

"…Seek cover and bug out when safe to do so.
Will return fire only if there is no possibility of hitting a bystander…"

This situation appears to be individuals who have a "beef" with each other.
Even if their dumb stray shots are heading towards innocents…they would still not be intended targets.

By jumping into fight with deliberate aimed shots it could invite return gunfire from other criminal associates.
I think you had it totally 100% correct in the very first sentence of the post!

 

[Speedo66]

Get out of there, you don’t want a gun in your hand when the police arrive.

 

[alsaqr]

One of the shooters has been arrested:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...hat-left-1-dead-26-injured/ar-AAVrAm4?ocid=ms

 

[Kleanbore]

This isn't an issue of whether or not you intervene in somebody else's battle. You ARE within the battle already.

"Within the battle [zone]" does not mean that I am in "battle" or under attack. Unless it was clear that deadly force was immediately necessary to defend myself, I would not consider shooting.

 

[Old Dog]

are you returning fire to stop the fusillade coming in on you?

No, no, and no. In a crowd situation, there's zero chance of a clear field of fire even in the unlikely chancet one can identify the shooter(s). Even in broad daylight, in which this incident was not. Spend some time in parking lots of stadiums, arenas and nightclubs right after events get out, after dark, and you will soon realize the futility of attempts at "stopping a fusillade coming in on you." Not to mention the other things that one (the non-combat veteran) will be experiencing upon the realization that incoming rounds are coming one's way... Absent any available cover, I'll be hugging the pavement until the gunfire ceases.

By the way, note that the OP wrote that this happened in a small town (less than 5K pop.). Just sayin' -- for those that think violence will never visit their little burg...

Next topic for ST&T: What body armor for car shows?

 

[DT Guy]

There are places and situations that seem to statistically offer a higher chance of violent crime than others. For a variety of reasons, I would not have been at that event-and that's probably the best way to handle the 'shoot them all and let God sort them out' events that occurred.

Larry

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Within the battle [zone]" does not mean that I am in "battle" or under attack. Unless it was clear that deadly force was immediately necessary to defend myself, I would not consider shooting.

Okay, so you don't consider yourself as "under attack" even though you are getting shot up. You have the new age focus on the shooter's feelings. Cool.

 

[Kleanbore]

Okay, so you don't consider yourself as "under attack" even though you are getting shot up.

How am I being "shot up"?

Someone is shooting. People are getting hit. That happens in downtown St. Louis and in Memphis on occasion, but it does not justify shooting at the shooters.

They would have to be shooting at people. Were they? To justify self defense, they would have to be shooting at me.

To justify shooting in the defense of others, the defender would have to have a basis for believing that the persons being shot at were in fact innocent, and would be justified in defending themselves, and were not involved in criminal activity.

 

[lightman]

If I am not directly involved and not so close I'm in immediate danger, I'm bugging out.

Not my circus, not my monkeys.

This is pretty much my thoughts. The best thing in my opinion is to seek cover and try to become "un-noticed". But if I was cornered up and attacked I would defend myself or my family.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

One story reported an authority did not consider it a mass shooter incident. Meaning that the crowd at the auto show was not the primary target.

So far it appears to have been an exchange of gunfire between two individuals with a lot of innocent people in their lines of fire.

 

[Terry G]

Violence at Car Shows was not by any means rare. when I attended way back when. Shoot out's at Car Shows are uncommon. I've been to several with my Brother who had 1940 Ford Coupe that he like to show off. Drinking is generally world class and deaths, not by shooting, were not rare. Usually from drunken exploits with cars. Fist fights for whatever reason were fairly common. I haven't been in decades but it sounds like not much has changed.