gang banger hit squad called in after mother is chastized

[TEAM101]

I would have been nice to see one of the passengers calmly open a violin case and let loose with a "Chicago typewriter."

 

[Sam1911]

I would have been nice to see one of the passengers calmly open a violin case and let loose with a "Chicago typewriter."

Really? That would have saved lives? That would have ended the situation (which resulted in no injuries or deaths anyway) in a more positive way?

Self defense and the use of deadly force are very serious subjects indeed, and we therefore strongly discourage attempts at humor, satire or sarcasm, because they do not come across well in the discussion of the kinds of subjects that come up here.

 

[Lubricant]

Sam,Very lucid and analiticle.Fine overview.

 

[Gordon]

OK here goes:
I totally disagree that if people WOULD fight back these scum would be swept away. Unfortunately Tameny Hall politics since the 1890s has gradually permitted more and more felons on the street until we have the millions of gansta insects infecting our country. I agree I am an idealist and voted for Goldwater so for us old folks ,Dats all folks!
Tactically if I was in the City of Brotherly love to show my grandchildren the historic sites for instance, and swaggering "people" like that pulled out guns , after my people are behind concrete if I was less than 25 yards away single action fire , carefully sighted is gonna put a round in the AK dude first, then onto the next armed one and back to the first if still holding a gun. I am gonna hit well for sure! Like I said the white shirt is gonna show a hit real nice! Just saying what I would do and been training 45 years to do it successfully. Others who be watching TV and thinking about rather than dedicated training need not apply. Just saying ........

 

[Sam1911]

Tactically..., and swaggering "people" like that pulled out guns , after my people are behind concrete if I was less than 25 yards away single action fire

After your people are behind concrete? What concrete? Where are you going to go to find concrete? You're on a BUS. You're sure as heck closer than 25 yds. But there's other people and ... THE BUS ... between you and them. As I said before, no-one on the bus was probably able to see them or their guns until they'd already moved away, and fired while breaking contact.

Of maybe 25-30 people on that bus, all but maybe 3-4 of them likely could have had no warning at all that anything unpleasant was happening until they heard "blam, blam, blam, blam..." and looked up to see a group of people backing off and leaving the scene quickly.

So, you're maybe going to see this or hear this and, what...you're going to have your people get off the bus (moving directly into/past the guys with the guns) and take cover behind some concrete, and THEN you're going to take careful aim... ?

Again, did you watch the video? You seem to be describing a response to a scenario that doesn't look like the one we're talking about.

Just saying what I would do and been training 45 years to do it successfully.

Really? So, play the video again, and tell us where do you have to be positioned to have an angle to see these guys -- especially to get a clear shot at them-- and at what point in the video you believe you'd notice these guys, and would you draw your gun right then, and when and in what direction you feel you'd be able to move your people to safety, and from what position of cover (or not) you would take your shots?

Others who be watching TV and thinking about rather than dedicated training need not apply. Just saying ........

Apply for what? Training is certainly crucial, but training that treats every violent encounter as only having a shooting solution is pretty ineffective training. (The old, "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" conundrum.)

This situation ended with no injuries or deaths. How do you step into this scene (not a generic "I see two guys with guns" scene, but THIS actual situation shown on film) with your gun and make it come out better?

 

[joeq]

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?

Well, it wouldn't be to call a bunch of thugs to come and attempt to kill everyone on the bus.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

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.

Actually, he did make a threat of violence against her by invoking the notion of involving the state. It means that someone with a gun (and a bunch of their buddies with guns) will come and take her kid at gunpoint because of your actions or verbalizations. The state will bring violence, so you're threatening her with violence.
And verbal disrespect is a reason to draw blood for a great number of people on this rock. It's ridiculous to hide behind one myopic and allegedly civilized segment of society and pretend that it's not a good enough reason, when clearly it is from the topic of this thread.

Do what you want and think what you want, but don't categorically imply that the rule of law is some kind of trump card when most people on the planet live by something entirely different because the legal system doesn't and won't give them a fair shake.

Some people understand a threat to involve the state for what it is.

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ No offense intended but where's the logic in this post? A threat to take legal action is not a threat pf physical violence. I can threaten to sue you for everything you've got or threaten to turn you in to CPS, APS, FBI, CIA or any other agency and I've committed no crime. This sounds more like retaliatory rage to me. Verbal disrespect? Where did you come up with that? Please explain your train of thought.

 

[SleazyRider]

What's equally telling is the way the attackers made no effort to conceal their weapons before the attack, as if they were perfectly justified in carrying them and using them in public. (And here many of us are concerned about "printing.") Have they become that bold? Has lawlessness become the order of the day in Philadelphia?

 

[Sam1911]

Actually, he did make a threat of violence against her by invoking the notion of involving the state.

So the LAWFUL exercise of authority granted to an agency chartered by the elected representatives of the people to enact the people's will in the matter of protection of children against violence and abuse is now, in itself a violent act? Well, that is a very unique way of looking at things.

It means that someone with a gun (and a bunch of their buddies with guns) will come and take her kid at gunpoint because of your actions or verbalizations.

No. It means that folks appointed by our own elected representatives, acting based on the laws of our state (or Commonwealth, as the case may be) will come and investigate whether laws have indeed been broken. No one's coming to take anyone's child away at gunpoint unless (in essence) society had determined that the actions witnessed and recorded constitute unlawful abuse of that child.

And verbal disrespect is a reason to draw blood for a great number of people on this rock. It's ridiculous to hide behind one myopic and allegedly civilized segment of society and pretend that it's not a good enough reason, when clearly it is from the topic of this thread.

Er...where are you from? This is Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America under discussion here. Drawing the blood of another is unlawful here, and will be prosecuted under the social contract we are all party to (or at least under the authority of which we will be incarcerated if we do not choose to be party).

If we were discussing tribal politics of Rwanda, or the system of honor and violence prevalent among the organized criminal syndicates of Hong Kong, or the enforcement of social status/mores among primates in the Serengeti, I'd completely agree with you. But we aren't. We live under law and we have to find answers/solutions to life's challenges based in what the law actually says.

Do what you want and think what you want, but don't categorically imply that the rule of law is some kind of trump card when most people on the planet live by something entirely different because the legal system doesn't and won't give them a fair shake.

Does this statement have anything to do with this woman and this man in this situation in Philadelphia?

Some people understand a threat to involve the state for what it is.

Are you saying that this woman understood this threat "for what it is(was)?" And she ... what? Did what she had to do? What is your take-home message with all of this?

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

is calling your own carload of thugs a bad idea?

 

[thorazine]

Do any of you think an armed passenger would have made a difference?

Yes.

I would have tossed a couple of CCW FLASHBANGS out the window while doing a flying triple somersault out the door firing a gun in each hand until there was no longer a threat.

 

[Sam1911]

Said another way... turning the scenario around to remove some of the emotional weight of the child involved:

Man sees woman swerving in her car. Man says, "I'm calling the cops -- I think you're drunk and should be arrested."

Is that a threat of violence? Is there some lawful -- forget lawful... is there some ethical, reasonable, realistic response the woman should make against the man? I mean, surely the police are going to come, and they're going to have guns, and if they check her BAC and it is over the limit, she's going to jail, could lose her car, could lose her job and a lot of other bad stuff.

How is that any different from this situation?

I'm sure that in Lower Escherichia it is perfectly reasonable to meet a suggestion of calling the cops on a drunk driver with beheading and subsequent drowning. ... but uh...so what?

 

[Fred Fuller]

Well, I think we've wrung everything useful out of this one by now.

lpl