Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics, and Training' started by .455_Hunter, Apr 13, 2020.
Anecdote, there won't be much, if any, data.
that is a meaningless statement.
This story doesn't help your espoused motivation because the guy only fired twice.
Another vote for mining John Correia's Active Self Protection and his ASP Channel on YouTube.
Try writing to John directly for data he may have.
I heard John speak in two sessions at the NRA Personal Protection Expo in Fort Worth, September 2019. He said that he is seeing more and more multi-bad guys attacks in his videos. As a result he recommended folks carry sufficient load to deal with more than one attacker (without need to reload). As a direct result of his talks I shifted my EDC from a 5-shot J-frame to double stack M&P 9. Five rounds in my pocket became eighteen on my waist.
Until there is some magical brain scan that shows an individuals intent, anytime two or more are gathered for ill intent we should expect them all to be in for the fight.
This means we fight with what we brought with us. What is the harm in speculation and preparing for the worst case? There is nothing I see in the OP that sounds the least bit unreasonable.
Do we live in fear of multiple attackers bent on carrying out their act or do you assume that the mere presence of a firearm will send them scattering?
For me the quest for documentation is of less value than simply acknowledging and weighing the potential and preparing as best I can.
I can think of one instance, captured on video although unfortunately my attempts to find the video are coming up short.
In the video, a security camera captures a man in a thawb or similar garment, in a country of unkown origin, facing off with three men with sticks/clubs. He wounds one or two of the attackers, but all three continue to advance. I believe the video ends with the revolver run dry and the man with the gun going to ground. Not good for him.
There's a lot of hesitation on the part of the gun-weilder, who repeatedly lets the attackers get within striking distance, pauses before firing his pistol, and does not exercise good combat marksmanship. While the video doesn't give us a full 360 of the environment, I also got the sense that he had bad tactics since he remained on the X the whole time.
Here's the only recent example of a group (three) attack on an armed citizen that I've seen lately:
I saw a video about him once. It included a clip from his security camera of one of the attacks. I was struck by his calm focus during the attack. He told his female employee where to position herself for cover, and was calmly speaking by phone to 911 WHILE ENGAGED IN THE GUNFIGHT. It was really remarkable.
This is a very recent incident, and there don't appear to be enough details to know whether "the remaining attackers CONTINUED to press the engagement versus quickly finding another place to occupy." At least not yet.
Curious to see how that one plays out though, and glad you posted it.
But if the shooing is ruled to have been justified, that well mean that all of the shootees did continue to press the attack.
After 20 years of following these kind of stories, it's not uncommon for initial reports to be light on information (as this one is). It's also not uncommon for the trials or additional reporting to bring to light new information or change what looked like a legitimate shoot on first reports to one where the shooter was in the wrong.
The latest Shooting Illustrated mag I got in the mail, had three reports of multiple assailants. Of course, that's anecdotal.
Separate names with a comma.