gang banger hit squad called in after mother is chastized

[knotquiteawake]

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/video-gunmen-open-fire-at-bus-in-philadelphia-20110804

The lady called her gangster friends after being chastised for spanking her child by another passenger on a bus. Then at the next stop her gang member friends pull out assault rifles and open fire on the bus, nearly killing an old lady but thankfully somehow missing all the other passengers.

The link above has video of the whole thing. Its pretty scary.

Do any of you think an armed passenger would have made a difference? I'm thinking no, since the BGs never stepped into the bus. An armed passenger would have had to of stepped out or shot through the window. Also it would have likely escalated it into a full blown shootout. Thankfully the driver got his wits about him and floored it out of there.

Seemed like a good lesson in MYOB for the guy who chastised the lady for spanking her child.

Also, the defense lawyers for those scumbags say

Defense lawyers argued that since no one was hit, no assault took place

Fantastic. Right, its not assault, its attempted murder on the guy who opened his mouth.

 

[JustinJ]

"Do any of you think an armed passenger would have made a difference? I'm thinking no, since the BGs never stepped into the bus. An armed passenger would have had to of stepped out or shot through the window. Also it would have likely escalated it into a full blown shootout."

The BGs were already shooting so how could it escalate into something already happening? Its hard to say if an armed passenger would have made a difference. It depends on his ability to make hits due to location and ability and how the BGs would have reacted to return fire.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm not seeing much of a chance to defend with force here. The attackers don't enter the bus, and don't appear to fire until they're well away from the bus. Until they actually shoot, it doesn't seem that most passengers would have even been aware of an incident or their presence.

If I was on the bus, and happened to be on the side where they were visible, and happened to notice their weapons, I might be presented with the option to draw, stand, and fire through the glass at them, but hitting them might be unlikely under those conditions, and there are A LOT of bystanders on all sides.

Also -- as it appears they don't fire until they are already retreating from the area -- might serve to draw fire in my direction that otherwise wouldn't have come my way.

There are terrible situations which don't really have "shooting solutions." This would probably be one. I wouldn't ever chastise someone for holding their fire given that scenario.

 

[bikerdoc]

CNN just ran a story that 3 men and the childs Momma were arrested for attempted murder.

 

[Mike1234567]

Probably not enough time to react and, even if one did, the cowards would probably have already been running away... a good opportunity for a moron DA to charge a sheepdog with deadly assault if a BG was hit in the back plus endangerment of innocent by-standers.

 

[mortablunt]

I don't think an armed passenger would have made a difference. It's not advisable to go out into gunfire. It's also not advisable to tell a mom how to raise her kids. The gangstas still ought to be charged with attempted murder, homicide, or whatever.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Road rage by proxy. Another milestone for the 21st Century - absolutely amazing.

If anyone can explain how it's tactically sound to engage multiple shooters armed with long guns who are already shooting in your general direction BUT NOT YET SPECIFICALLY AT YOU when all you have is a sidearm and a flimsy bus side for cover, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind such a decision. A friend of mine tried something similar during the Tet Offensive in Siagon (his BHP vs. one military AK-47) and discovered very quickly it was a Genuinely Bad Idea. Of course, it's been a long time since 1968, and things might have changed... but I doubt it.

lpl

 

[Walkalong]

Unbelievable, and no, not much chance to defend your self here, not without taking a serious chance.

 

[Onward Allusion]

knotquiteawake
gang banger hit squad called in after mother is chastize

NO, no way to fire in this situation without further endangering the other passengers. If the BGs came onto the bus, it would be different. If firing out the window, two things exist -

- The BGs are in retreat.
- The BGs are armed and will very likely return fire at you with other passengers around you.

 

[Mike1234567]

Also, if one returned fire, then the fools may have emptied their magazines at the bus inflicting great harm on other passengers.

 

[Al Thompson]

That bus was concealment, not cover. Bad idea to fire (and give your position away) if you are not behind cover and are in fact trapped on a large inviting target platform.

 

[Averageman]

It would be best to get as low as you can for as long as you can and face the door and prepare to repel borders.
Any other action would increase the possiblity of getting more round fired at the innocent people around you on the Bus.

 

[clutch]

If I was in the bus and it was legal to carry, I'd have to go with shooting back. They shot up a bus and didn't hit anyone. Seated, first shot taking out the glass, I think I could manage to hit both.

Outside of being under stress and my accuracy falling off 4x what am I missing?

As far as the other passengers, they should have brought their own arms, I'm defending me.

Clutch

 

[Jon_Snow]

Thankfully the driver got his wits about him and floored it out of there.

This ^. This is the best method of defense available.

 

[pikid89]

Seated, first shot taking out the glass, I think I could manage to hit both.

keep in mind that automotive glass is safety glass and/or laminated and might not fall away when shot
if the window were to behave the same way that they do when you pop them with a glass punch, then your visibility would drop to zero

EDIT: to add, also many municipal busses have vinyl wraps on their exteriors, including the windows...those windows probably would not fall away when shooting

 

[Deltaboy1984]

This is a case for duck and cover and pray your driver got a quick case of lead foot. I am glad the Police caught this bunch of thugs.

 

[Pfletch83]

The mother should be charged with causing this to go down,it was her phone call that got things to that point,she should have dealt with the situation herself and left the trigger happy morons out of it (the trigger happy morons should also be charged)

 

[Sam1911]

The mother should be charged with causing this to go down

Post 4:

CNN just ran a story that 3 men and the childs Momma were arrested for attempted murder.

 

[Sky]

Road rage by proxy. Another milestone for the 21st Century - absolutely amazing.

If anyone can explain how it's tactically sound to engage multiple shooters armed with long guns who are already shooting in your general direction BUT NOT YET SPECIFICALLY AT YOU when all you have is a sidearm and a flimsy bus side for cover, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind such a decision. A friend of mine tried something similar during the Tet Offensive in Siagon (his BHP vs. one military AK-47) and discovered very quickly it was a Genuinely Bad Idea. Of course, it's been a long time since 1968, and things might have changed... but I doubt it.

+10,000 Lee! wonder if their guns were registered?

 

[SDG]

Now, there is an interesting twist to this thread and story.

The kid was apparently running around the bus and mom felt the need to give him a spanking. I have no idea if that action was appropriate or not but, based on the way it was reported, it seems totally reasonable. I don't know if it is legal or not to spank over there.

Now, put yourself in this mothers shoes. This man has just threatened you with the power of the state. The state has the power to take your children away from you and also has the power to do so with force.

So, what would be the appropriate response? I don't pretend to think that her response was appropriate but really, if someone threatens to call someone else who will take your children away by force, what would you do?

Now, obviously the kind of mother who is willing to kill a busload of people (or at least make somewhat of an effort to do so) because of this little altercation does not lend a lot of credibility to her case. But, on the flip side, should there be no repercussions to those who make threats to take away someone's children?

According to the story (and I doubt that it is 100% accurate), that man went way over the line. His threat was not idle. If the state has all of the power, who is going to protect you from the state?

 

[Gordon]

I was in Saigon during Tet 68 and yes was armed only with a pistol. And I NEVER would ride a philly bus being the founding place of our freedom has turned into a mostly African 3rd world hell hole.
BUT if I would see those felons putting my or others lives at risk AND had a handgun at hand , there would be white shirts (stand out well against black sights BTW) with spreading red splotches . I don't CCW any handgun anymore without good sights and less than 9mm/.38- minimum. The reason such scum are allowed to walk the streets is people are afraid to fight back. I will never stop fighting back personally , and the difference between TET 68 and now is I spent my life in firearms training.

 

[Sam1911]

side, should there be no repercussions to those who make threats to take away someone's children?

I'm not sure what the complete implications of this line of inquiry are meant to be, but two points stand out:

1) A conversation is merely that. A conversation. The man can say anything he wishes to. Words are not actions, and are not actionable. You can't respond to words with assault or homicide. Anywhere in this country (or most others), ever. No one can say or threaten anything that is so egregious that violent action is justifiable in response.

2) What the man "threatened" is perfectly lawful. He can contact child services if he feels there is a need. That does not mean the woman will lose her children, or that CPS will even investigate. But if they do, that is a possibility that is lawful under the laws of this country and the state. CPS exists for a reason, and has duties that society has dictated are worth empowering with a certain amount of lawful authority. How could a violent reaction against a suggestion that they would be contacted ever be lawful? What if he'd said, "I'm going to call the police?" Or the EPA, the SEC, the ATF, or any other enforcement agency charged with oversight of a violation he believes he's witnessed? How could it ever be appropriate to enact revenge or retribution against him for threatening to involve a lawful government body?

This isn't like he said, "I'm going to contact my friends in the local mafia and they'll come kill you." He didn't say, "I'm going to kidnap your children." All he's threatened is having an agency charged with oversight of a particular matter, investigate whether something that has taken place violates the law. One could be quite concerned about that, especially if they feel they may indeed have broken the law, but one cannot lawfully punish someone else for asking a law-enforcement body (or social service agency) from investigating what they see as a violation.

The idea is absurd.

if someone threatens to call someone else who will take your children away by force, what would you do?

That's not exactly what is going on. Threatening someone with calling CPS is merely saying, "I see something I think violates the law, and I'm going to involve authorities lawfully charged with investigating such matters." That is all perfectly legal. All you CAN do is be confident that your actions are lawful and above reproach. If CPS decides to investigate, that is distressing, but it is within the bounds of the law and you must deal with them -- and the person "reporting" you -- in lawful ways.

This is little different, really, from someone calling the police because they think you're cooking meth in your house, or firing illegal machine guns, or building an addition that violates local ordinances. Those charges and the resulting investigations are unpleasant, but they are part of our society of laws and there are correct, legal, ways to respond.

 

[Sam1911]

BUT if I would see those felons putting my or others lives at risk AND had a handgun at hand , there would be white shirts (stand out well against black sights BTW) with spreading red splotches .

That's all wonderful as a general principle -- and just classic imagery! -- but did you watch the video? Can you explain in any kind of specific detail when and how you would consider it a wise idea to fire your own weapon?

Every single one of us here would plan to respond with force if that force was necessary to protect life (at least our own, possibly others') and there was an appropriate opportunity to do so. When did that opportunity arise in this situation? What position in the scenario would you have had to occupy in order to take these shots? Could you, and should you, have done so from within the bus? (We've already established that shooting through the glass -- and into the surrounding crowd -- probably won't produce the intended results.) The video footage of the two shooters standing at the base of the bus was not the view that any passenger would have had of those two. That was the vantage from a camera high in the passage at the top of the stairs -- no one would have seen them from there, or had that shot presented. It really doesn't appear that there is a clear shot at them from within the bus at any point.

Also, it appears to me that the two do not fire until the woman and child are off the bus and the entire group is leaving the scene. (Thus almost no one would have known that they were armed, or even present, until they were already several steps away and retreating.) Would you be firring at them as they leave? Would you leave your seat (and/or the bus) or try to get a window open in order to return fire? Would that increase anyone's chances of survival?

 

[armoredman]

However, the man did accomplish his goal. She will never spank her child again. She will never SEE her child again, except during visitation in 18 years, if the child wants to see her again, unless the foster parents/adoptive parents are supportive of the child going to visitation at prison before age 18.
I agree, shooting back would have been "problematic" at best.
During Tet '68 I was in diapers, thanks for being there for us.

 

[Sam1911]

The reason such scum are allowed to walk the streets is people are afraid to fight back.

I think the reason such scum walk the streets is that such scum always have and always will be present in every society. Fighting back doesn't eliminate them. Even a society of law and order can't eliminate them -- though their rather high degree of rarity in the US is a testament to the success of our social model. No society -- save perhaps a very small and highly unusual society made up only of heavily armed, trained, and disciplined soldiers -- will be entirely devoid of such violent and disaffected elements.

Thinking that we could ever be -- or as a society would ever want to be -- so "hard," focused, trained, and collectively-minded that such elements would find no harbor is just not realistic.