Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics and Training' started by philip964, Mar 27, 2010.
Not with ammo that you will be able to easily and legally obtain.
Who's betting thier $.02 that the AK-47 is an SKS or something? What's the proper term for a semi-auto AK?
This situation is likely the most difficult for a parent to defend against.
I have spent a good, long time thinking this scenario over, over the years, as a parent of two small children. There is no perfect, fool-proof solution, unless one never goes out with the kiddos.
Thing is, sometimes you park where you are lucky to find a spot. Maybe that spot just plain blows chunks, security-wise. Well, do we abort our plans (shopping, kids' athletic event, whatever) or take the risk? Unless things look really hinkey, I'm going to park and go on with my life.
I do my best to park where it is more difficult to sneak up on me as I am getting the kids strapped in. I pop my head back up and "prairie dog" periodically to scan the surroundings for folks. There have been times I reach under my cover garment and taken a grip. I am under no illusion that my situational awareness is NOT compromised while getting the kids strapped in. My SA is definitely compromised.
I have, on occasion, shoved the kids in the auto in a hurry (with vigor and no thought for bruising their feelings or selves) and then drove off like a scalded azz ape. Kids are crying, outraged at being hurried & pushed about, insisting that I wait for them to strap in, as we have ingrained in them that the auto doesn't move unless they are strapped in.
I am in general agreement that the best weapon for a parent in this situation would be a service-sized revolver or semi-auto that they know how to use with aplomb.
I recall a story by Jeff Cooper where he trained some tinpot dictator's bodyguards to use the 1911 with skill. Either Cooper or the dictator arranged for a shoot-off with other, subgun armed guards. It turned out that within the effective range of the 1911, the 1911-armed guards outshot the subgun armed guards, speed-wise. I think the 1911 or other service hand gun could be similarly applied in the OP's situation.
About the only way in which a long gun might be of use is if it is readily accessible standing at the driver's door and is loaded. But, drawing out a long gun is one seriously significant act. I suspect that it is likely not possible to do so after the threat is confirmed and to do so with just a possible perceived threat might be difficult to explain if the threat did not materialize.
I agree, you don't need to outGUN them, you simply need to bring adequate firepower with accuracy. Something about us gun nuts wants to outdo the BG with firepower. If they have .25's we want .45's. If they have AK's, we want a BAR. You could have a howitzer in your trunk, but if you can't bring it into use from whatever position you are in, it's useless. I agree, sometimes it's hard to maintain exactly what is going on around you. But some areas you are in require a heightened sense of security. There have been times that I mentally snapped back into war mode, just because when I got back to my car I didn't at all like the situation. I walke around the truck, scanned my sectors, and then stuffed my daughter in the truck while looking around, still watching sectors, avenues of approach, etc. If nothing else, it makes you look like a more difficult target to surprise and take advantage of.
Maybe if he had a car with less flash--he could afford an apt outside the hood---and definitely wouldn't be drawing attn to himself---as the father of 3 girls I have to say major fail.
That being said---hopefully this scum will go down shooting and save the taxpayers the trouble of going through the system.
This's the sort of thing I would have willingly sacrificed myself for when I raised a family. That leaves me wondering why this dad made no preparations and took no action to defend his family.
There are some posts here that are dangerously close to blaming the victim, and that's very not cool.
Let me put this in another light...
"Maybe if the woman hadn't been wearing such a short skirt she wouldn't have been raped."
Can a victim make poor decisions? Sure. But crime is NOT THE VICTIM'S FAULT.
big +1 on that, you beat me to it.
i was going to say many here would not have had a problem with somebody shooting a burglar in their home but would have been incensed if someone had said that if he had spent more cash to harden his house he would never have put himself and his family in that situation. maybe if he hadn't worked hard and bought a nice home their home wouldn't have been targeted for a burglary.
yes, you can take steps to not be a victim and i will advocate many of them, but i will not advocate a person not living the way they want to live to prevent an attack that may very well never come. you can get so deep in trying to protect yourself that you quit enjoying what it is your trying to protect.
if the man had been armed and decided to fight back, what do you think the outcome would have been? personally i think the outcome would have been a larger loss of life on the victims side. a single armed man with family exposed would not be able to mount an effective enough offense to prevent not one of his family members from being harmed when faced with three armed attackers one of which was carrying an ak47.
i'm sure the internet commandos who train hours upon hours everyday would have dropped all three with a single shot to the head, blew the smoke off the barrel and continued to load up the car determined not to let scum ruin his family's plans for the day.
If he wanted to blow $x on fancy wheels, that's his legal choice. I wouldn't, but that's me. The criminals are to blame. BTW, the link now states one of the other two surrendered. Real tough guy, guess life behind bars beats suicide by cop.
Now the victim tried to comply, but the rifle armed thug opened fire anyway, spraying the neighborhood and killing a helpless little girl? What happened next? Story is a little weak on follow through. If the BG is already shooting, (and, based on scanty details, possibly a very bad shot), I will attempt to defend myself and my family within the letter of the law. Sorry, no .45ACP here, I carry a 9mm and a .38.
I love you guys who always arm chair quarterback and always reply "situational awareness would have prevented this". What the ---- are you guys clairvoyant or something?
Please, do describe how "situational awareness" could have avoided this. I am all ears. What exactly are you going to do when a guy walks up to you with a Kalashnikov?
I would not even go so far as to say that a short skirt or fancy rims are a "poor decision". Rape is not about sex, but power and appearance is generally not a factor and robbery reports indicate that they are more crimes of opportunity than targeted against those with money. More robberies happen in poor sections of town than they do in rich sections. Besides, fancy rims can really make a car look nice and I like nice legs as much as the next guy.
Are you seriously looking for information, or casting aspersions?
We don't have a tremendous amount of information to go on, so perhaps it is a bit premature to say that situational awareness could have prevented this. HOWEVER, we do know that once the man and his kids were confronted at the car, his chances of prevailing against multiple armed assailants -- especially with carbines at the ready -- become practically null.
The most successful gun fight is the one you DON'T get into in the first place.
Situational awareness helps you to be ABSENT at your own gun fight.
There have been some good suggestions already put forth in this thread, but you seem to have missed them.
1) Where was this guy's car parked? Sounds like it was in front of his apartment. Might not have been much of a choice there. But we'd generally say to pick a parking spot in the open, without cover/hiding places close by.
2) Did he observe the area before approaching his car? A glance out the window or door before heading to his car might have shown him several guys loitering in the area, watching his door or his vehicle.
3) Was he scanning the locations, movements, hands, and faces of the people around him as he approached the vehicle? Were there "tells" -- little cues about the intentions and attention of some folks in the area? (Three guys moving suddenly towards your position from different sides might be a good one.)
And so on.
S.A. isn't a magical incantation that keeps you out of trouble. If the bad guys were really good at their work, it may have been impossible to pick up on what they were doing until their trap was sprung. On the other hand, he may have been so focused on getting the kids in the car that he didn't even notice that anyone was close until there was a rifle muzzle against his back.
"Armchair quarterbacking" the bad situations that other people find themselves in is one of the best ways we have of preparing to avoid, or survive, our own.
Unfortunately the vast majority of folks in society have no plans and no preparation for how to avoid a bad situation or how to react to one when it happens.
If you've never considered that you could be held up at rifle-point for your car parts -- and that your children might be involved and at grave risk -- your reaction to the event will only be as good as whatever you can think up in the split second you have to react. We all say, "never surrender, never give in," but if you are caught completely unaware (and unarmed, for what that would have been worth), your absent toolset, and questionable skillset, cannot possibly make up for the huge hole in your mindset. You are completely at the "mercy" of your assailants.
The odds are VERY bad in a situation like this. But being aware of the surroundings and prepared with the mindset, skillset, and -- yes -- toolset to react in some way can be the difference between "very bad" and "zero."
Not at all. But there's nothing particularly magic about an AK. There wasn't any mention of the other assailants being armed. If the defender had produced a firearm and started shooting, all three might have just run off. This could have ended in other ways. We don't know whether the rifle was pointed or hidden under a coat, or what chances the defender had to escape this outcome. But being unarmed, his only option was to surrender.
Therein lies the rub. Do you take preemptive lethal force action against greater numbers and risk your family being targeted by the return fire or do you give compliance in hopes that you and your family are left unharmed. If the former, you may not be able to stop all three before they have a chance to shoot you or your family, but you may not have to shoot all three to be victorious, or maybe they slaughter everybody out of anger for you injuring one or more of them. In the latter, maybe you comply and get away with your lives or maybe be left at the mercy of the bad guys who may or may not opt to kill you as a witness. There are a lot of directions in which the situation can go.
Of course, this statement indicates that the father wasn't actually complying fully.
Where the bad guys undoubtedly wanted total compliance, the father was only willing to give conditional compliance. Probably went something like, "You can take the care, but let me give my kids out first." No doubt it would be what most unarmed people would do, some armed people as well. The problem is, bad guys often don't want conditional compliance and act they on the implied or stated threat to do harm for anything other than full compliane.
One of the bad guys could have thought that the father was going for a gun but the father may have thought it would have been reasonable to remove his children prior to the bad guys driving off with his car.
Thinking you know what a criminal might be thinking or what their motivation might be or how they'll act or that you can control their use of violence is a mistake in my opinion. Anyone who has had the pleasure of meeting and talking with some criminals will tell you that they appear to have come from a different planet because their thought processes are so different than those of law abiding people. All you need to know if confronted by a criminal threatening violence is that he doesn't know if he will kill you in the next second for no particular reason.
Even with the best situational awareness that could be expected of an untrained person it could have been impossible for the father to prevent the start of the robbery. The area looks like it would have been full of people walking around, it doesn't take but a second for three guys walking by to draw down on a father putting his kids in a car.
Sometimes, no matter what precautions are taken, the good guys lose.
So its his fault his kid is dead, because he wanted nice rims?
Sad, really not a chance to win in a one vs three armed thugs.
This is a no win scenario, unarmed with kids in the car and multiple perpetrators armed with long arms/weapons. And even if he did what they wanted they may have gunned them down anyway.
Highlights my personal concerns in today's society and what I saw in New Orleans post Katrina (2005/6). What worries me today.
* 2 or more armed perpetrators
* My family in cross fire or taken hostage
* Language barrier or not understanding what they want
* Drugged assailant not acting rationally or in a rage
* Home invasion robbery by a team of gang members, taking family pictures and making threats if you report the crime.
* Looters, riots and fires that they liked to set.
* the Drug dealer down the street selling meth and the girl who was found overdosed in my Apartments parking lot 3 months ago. My neighborhood is deteriorating because of unemployment and the foreclosures.
* Abandoned houses attracting homeless people and the petty crimes they have been doing lately. My car has been broken into and a second night they slashed a tire of my Jeep.
Personally I think that you can not be 100% prepared for what happens to you, but you can train for what may happen in order to close the OODA loop a little. And knowing your limitations is key.
I think even with a handgun survival in this case is not too likely. Better to avoid it in the first place. As one person said
I think that's only with the LE only ammo.
that's just terrible for those 2 kids. the dad must be guilt-ridden and myself I have no clue as to how it could have been avoided or fight back unless a heightened sense of alertness was possible.
"For my part I'll say that a fast-shooting moderately powerful HANDGUN that I've practiced firing in and around a vehicle -- one-handed if necessary -- is MUCH more of what I'd want in that situation than any rifle, SBR, or shotgun. You don't have to outGUN them -- (assuming no body armor) you "simply" have to out maneuver and outshoot them."
I couldnt have said it better myself. You train with the gun you carry.
As far as SA goes, the best way out of a jam is to not get into one in the first place.
At public places , or even at home , if my car is parked too far .
My advise is : let your family wait at the door entrance or other main exits , until you are there with your car.
Of course no legal, or even perhaps moral, fault lies with the father for owning an expensive/showy item.
However, there are some points to ponder about that. Criminals do not have the right to act against you simply because you tempt them with attractive, expensive belongings. The law, and basic "morality" says you have a right to be secure in your possessions. But reality says that ostentatious displays of wealth (especially easily convertible wealth) do attract the attention of folks who have no qualms about committing violent crimes.
Part of situational awareness could be seen to concern proactive choices to not stand out and make a target of yourself. It should be perfectly safe to walk down the streets with $100 bills stapled to your clothing, but it just isn't so. If you live or routinely travel to/through a part of town where violent robbery is common, decorating your vehicle with abnormally flashy and expensive wheels isn't any more wise than hanging out at bus stops in $500 Italian loafers and a Rolex.
You have the right to sleep out under the stars on Kodiak Island, AK while using a honey-dipped porterhouse steak as a pillow. But you should know going into the situation that you're going to attract attention from creatures whose first priority isn't your continued health and well-being.
Yes, you have the right to do so, and anyone who tries to take them from you is wrong. But you can be VERY righteous and VERY dead all the same.
I do wonder if the original decision to buy (if the number is true) $2000 worth of wheels for his car has troubled his sleep as he mourns the loss of his daughter. It was his right, but it wasn't wise.
What a bunch of drivel.
Your forum "situational awareness" should be going off like mad because you're defending a bad position and doing so in a progressively worse manner.
Talking about ways in which one could avoid this poor guys predicament is one thing but you're way off base here.
Please explain what you mean. You seem troubled by what I wrote but didn't explain why.
"Talking about ways to avoid the poor guy's predicament" is the only reason this thread is still open, so explain how I am "way off base here."
And what "bad position" do you think that I'm defending? I never said anyone has a right to take your belongings. I said that some folks WILL, if they have means and opportunity. Is that an indefensible position in your opinion?
The last sentence of your original post was WAY out of line, especially for a moderator. How dare you suggest that this man should be torturing himself over the death of his daughter and assigning himself blame?!!!!
That's not even CLOSE to high road.
Separate names with a comma.