What would you do if a mob multiple teenagers attacked you on the street?

[NRApistol]

 

 

Michael Strickland and James Fields are 2 recent ones that

have absolutely nothing in common with the scenario in the OP.

They differ only in the OP was fantasy, James Fields and Michael Strickland were reality. Let that sink in, it's why I bring up force disparity and force equality. It's more then just strength, arms, and crimes.

 

There are certain social contracts that determine who is the victim and who is the victimizer before the violence even takes place. Can a teenager kill a full grown man? Sure. If you find yourself surrounded by a flash mob of "kids" and you yourself have not gotten robbed or punched, you shoot a "threat", you will be forever remembered as a child murderer. You wait until you have been punched and robbed (usually synonymous with mugging in Chicago), there is a good chance you will not be able to defend yourself.

 

It's a catch 22, but I can say with certainty a deadly object, be it a gun or a car, is not the right tool for the job while inside the mob. Situational awareness will help you avoid that.

 

You sure like to throw adjectives around. Teens change to kids. The OP`s opinion is a fantasy. You say I cannot protect myself from a gang of teens without being called a "child" killer? THAT`S your fantasy!

[soylentgreen]

I honestly don't like these hypothetical situation questions. Is it important if your attacker is a teenager? Does it matter if they have weapons? I say it doesn't. So why include that information in the scenario?

If you have a REASONABLE fear of death or "great bodily harm" (broken bones or injuries that may require stitches), you're justified in the use of deadly force. End of story.

[spanishjames]

This guy seems to have gone overboard when dealing with a teen mob. But to some, these things never happen.

https://nypost.com/2019/01/15/burly-man-arrested-for-punching-11-year-old-girl-in-the-face/

[chislinger]

They differ only in the OP was fantasy,

No they are completely different in every way possible. Neither of those people were innocently minding their own business when they were attacked by a mob trying to beat and rob them.

[chicagoresident]

 

They differ only in the OP was fantasy,

No they are completely different in every way possible. Neither of those people were innocently minding their own business when they were attacked by a mob trying to beat and rob them.

My point is these hypotheticals always present these black and white good guy VS bad guy scenarios where the singular aggressor is as static as a paper silhouette target. Real life has a lot of gray areas that don't always make aggressors and victims obvious. Actions and reactions are often driven by emotions, not logic. We live in an always dynamic and chaotic world that proves hypotheticals wrong every day.

 

Situational awareness relies on pattern recognition, if the patterns you recognize are based on fantasy and not reality you don't have situational awareness. I'm not denying these "flash mobs" happen, I'm stating facts of outcomes of real life crowd/mob scenarios.

 

Surviving the entire outcome requires sensemaking. Klein and Moon of Global Cognition do some interesting studies on crowd predictions and management.

Sensemaking is a motivated, continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively.

A big piece of this is understanding culture, both of certain groups and the current trajectories of media and pockets of our justice system.

 

Global Cognition did a study of Middle Eastern protestors, which is very much an honor culture. They found that when faced with armed authority pointing guns at them the protestors tendency was to confront rather then back down. When fired upon rather then disperse they only got more violent and confrontational.

 

You'll find the same parallels in US gang culture, casual or official. People here assume they shoot one guy and everyone runs away, because if you're getting shot at unarmed you would run away. There's a good chance you'll be getting disarmed even after firing.

 

 

Going back to the James Fields incident, the courts found him guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder.

 

 

The Michael Strickland incident is a little more ambiguous, but it begs the question when do you have a right to draw without getting charged? He was not a participant in the protest, although he is a far right reporter. He was charged with 22 counts, but didn't have to serve any jail time (activist judges swing both ways I guess).

https://youtu.be/D_0MQdpBIF0

https://youtu.be/b7xpS3xukOc

 

 

You know what people do when they see stuff going down? They pull their phones out and record it. Are they now an accessory to the mob?

 

If your clueless daughter started filming and forcibly had her phone slapped out of her hand is that a forceable felony or an act of protest? You were being surrounded and pushed around. The media is running a video showing only you shooting "a teenage political activist". You were at the wrong place at the wrong time (poor situational awareness). Now you're being portrayed as a blood thirsty right wing extremist vigilante because of a post you made on IC about not liking Antifa.

 

 

This is all part of sensemaking. It's easy to simplify logic, but watch what actually happens in real life. Watch videos of actual shootings or attacks where self defense was claimed. Watch how mobs bring out the worst of sometimes perfectly upstanding citizens. Watch/read about a prosecutions' perfectly orchestrated character assassination.

 

Did the jury get it right (removing bias against the person)? What would you have done in the same situation? What options did the attacked have. Part of sensemaking is creativity, a gun or a car is not always the best tool. Was there something the attacker or attacked did to stand out from his surroundings (not being the gray man)? What did the shooter do right VS wrong. How were they portrayed in media? Was the shooter and the dead members of a culture considered a victim or an aggressor? Internet debates often ignore that everyone perceives reality differently, it's important to understand that in real life.

[r4ndy]

Six Flags Gurnee has had at least two evenings in the last two years where multiple groups of kids where surrounding people, in some cases a family unit and beating up the father.

 

Gun free zone with almost zero inside the park security.

[NRApistol]

Some may call it fantasy or hypothetical and some of us call it preparedness. I believe the military calls it war games when practicing to defend against fantasy and hypothetical situations.

 

From the WANDTV archive the incident I mentioned earlier in this thread:

 

• Sep 15, 2009

Last month, 61-year-old Jerry Newingham was beaten so badly in broad daylight on West Sawyer Street in Decatur, that he later died from his injuries. Decatur Park Police say the group of teens continued to Garfield Park, where they beat another random victim, who survived the attack.

Jay Scott with the Macon County State's Attorney's Office says he met with Decatur Police and Park Police about the crimes. We're waiting to see if the State's Attorney Office will upgrade charges against the nine juveniles who were allegedly involved.

[chicagoresident]

Some may call it fantasy or hypothetical and some of us call it preparedness. I believe the military calls it war games when practicing to defend against fantasy and hypothetical situations.

 

Again, we know mobs can turn dangerous, that's not what we are debating. I want to hear of cases and news reports where someone SUCCESSFULLY defended themselves from a mob. This is actually useful data. Running fantasy scenarios in hypothetical worlds based on limited knowledge of how you think your aggressor/aggressors as well as the legal system will behave is not useful data.

 

The question was "what would you do"? I personally don't know the answer, I want to see the data before deciding.

 

Since we ruled out "take a beating" I actually want to see real world data on positive outcomes for defense against a mob. Until I see that any argument is a fantasy.

 

Military strategy is not based on hypotheticals, it's based on historical. They don't run training exercises on "what if Canada invaded us". They gather intelligence from all over the world (history) to see who might invade us and how. There's a reason instructors started teaching Mozambique, when before double tap was considered sufficient.

 

I'm not trying to prove myself right, I want someone to prove me wrong so we can learn something. I've looked pretty hard, but of all the instructors, veterans, law enforcement, etc. someone may have more real world experience then just the anecdotal.

 

Real world outcomes I've found so far are:

*Avoid a mob

*Get a beat down or killed and rely on the law

*teargas dispersal

*use deadly force but suffer the legal consequences

*physically fight your way out with your hands (tons of Krav Maga instructors run this drill based on real world experiences)

[spanishjames]

 

Some may call it fantasy or hypothetical and some of us call it preparedness. I believe the military calls it war games when practicing to defend against fantasy and hypothetical situations.

 

Again, we know mobs can turn dangerous, that's not what we are debating. I want to hear of cases and news reports where someone SUCCESSFULLY defended themselves from a mob. This is actually useful data. Running fantasy scenarios in hypothetical worlds based on limited knowledge of how you think your aggressor/aggressors as well as the legal system will behave is not useful data.

 

The question was "what would you do"? I personally don't know the answer, I want to see the data before deciding.

The OP didn't ask for a debate on the subject either. So either you have an idea of what you would do, or let everyone else speak without jumping in to counter, belittle, or make false accusations of racism when they do have an idea. If YOU need data before deciding, that's what you would do. Nothing.

[chicagoresident]

The OP didn't ask for a debate on the subject either. So either you have an idea of what you would do, or let everyone else speak without jumping in to counter, belittle, or make false accusations of racism when they do have an idea. If YOU need data before deciding, that's what you would do. Nothing.

Not trying to belittle or make false accusations, I'm just a data driven person. Sorry if I came off that way.

 

Admittedly my first post was belittling so I've gone back and edited because now my curiosity is stoked. I can and often do admit to being wrong, my goal in life is not to be right all the time. My goal in life is to learn.

 

I'm not trying to argue that mobs are innocent, when I use "" I'm paraphrasing how the media portrays things a certain way. I'm not arguing racism, I'm arguing how the media goes out of their way to associate racism with incidences of violence. Do you disagree?

 

The prosecution's job is to flip a victim into an aggressor and the defense's job is to flip an aggressor into a victim.

 

Again, I'm not trying to be smarter then other people, I'm throwing this out to IC because I know there are people with twice the lifetime of experience on IC then me.

 

Other people have stated they're interested in the same data, so I don't know that it's worth starting a new thread over.

 

If you ever met me in person you'd know that my actual beliefs are different then what I post online. They're often changing over time from strong debates.

 

I'm not trying to create a persona, but I do like challenging an agreed upon dialog to get a different perspective and encourage critical thinking.

[quackersmacker]

"If you ever met me in person you'd know that my actual beliefs are different than what I post online."

 

Really? Then why waste our time.

 

If I'm ever in a defensive situation against a mob, I'm going to worry about the mob, not the prosecutor.

[NRApistol]

 

I'm not trying to argue that mobs are innocent, when I use "" I'm paraphrasing how the media portrays things a certain way. I'm not arguing racism, I'm arguing how the media goes out of their way to associate racism with incidences of violence. Do you disagree?

Yes. The incident I referenced involved 9 black teens attacking 2 white older men. The local media never brought up race as a factor nor were they charged with a hate crime. Do yourself a favor and take a Personal Protection course. You will learn how to use "what if" to your advantage.

[soylentgreen]

 

If I'm ever in a defensive situation against a mob, I'm going to worry about the mob, not the prosecutor.

 

Agreed. If you die before the court date, it kinda defeats the point of self defense.

[spanishjames]

More info about that which never happens, and is only a figment of our imagination.

Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd) said the proposed summer expansion would go a long way toward discouraging what has become a perennial problem when school is out: marauding groups of young people harassing, intimidating, robbing and attacking Michigan Avenue shoppers. The new policy took effect Jan. 4.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/business/alderman-brian-hopkins-water-tower-place-expand-parental-guidance-summer-shoppers-harassed-teens-curfew/

[jim123]

 

Some may call it fantasy or hypothetical and some of us call it preparedness. I believe the military calls it war games when practicing to defend against fantasy and hypothetical situations.

 

Again, we know mobs can turn dangerous, that's not what we are debating. I want to hear of cases and news reports where someone SUCCESSFULLY defended themselves from a mob. This is actually useful data. Running fantasy scenarios in hypothetical worlds based on limited knowledge of how you think your aggressor/aggressors as well as the legal system will behave is not useful data.

 

The question was "what would you do"? I personally don't know the answer, I want to see the data before deciding.

 

Since we ruled out "take a beating" I actually want to see real world data on positive outcomes for defense against a mob. Until I see that any argument is a fantasy.

 

Military strategy is not based on hypotheticals, it's based on historical. They don't run training exercises on "what if Canada invaded us". They gather intelligence from all over the world (history) to see who might invade us and how. There's a reason instructors started teaching Mozambique, when before double tap was considered sufficient.

 

I'm not trying to prove myself right, I want someone to prove me wrong so we can learn something. I've looked pretty hard, but of all the instructors, veterans, law enforcement, etc. someone may have more real world experience then just the anecdotal.

 

Real world outcomes I've found so far are:

*Avoid a mob

*Get a beat down or killed and rely on the law

*teargas dispersal

*use deadly force but suffer the legal consequences

*physically fight your way out with your hands (tons of Krav Maga instructors run this drill based on real world experiences)

 

Surviving the antifa type mob is simple. Just agree with them. Shout "Free education/healthcare for all, universal basic income, living wage, save the environment, end corporate welfare, F Trump, etc" and the mob leaves you alone or lets your car get past.

 

Keew yt is completely different.

[chicagoresident]

Do yourself a favor and take a Personal Protection course. You will learn how to use "what if" to your advantage.

 

Being in the biz do you know if there are places in Illinois or the Midwest offering force on force training? It seems like this is the type of training most relevant to the scenario. I would actually like to learn the dynamics of combining hand to hand combat/evasion and firearm usage. Especially in situations where the attacker fires back or is attempting to disarm me(paint or simunition).

[NRApistol]

Learn to walk before you learn to run.

 

Pick a Personal Protection or Defensive Pistol Class: NRA Training

[chicagoresident]

I'm reading through some old Ayoob files on this subject where references the Warren Doctrine (which I believe is his own term). It's attributed to a section in Warren On Homicide, by Oscar Warren. It's from the 30s but is still cited in court cases frequently today.

 

In Ayoob's words paraphrasing Warren

a force of numbers creates a disparity of force so likely to kill or cripple that even when the mob yields no per say weapon, their force of numbers becomes a defacto weapon itself that authorizes the defenders use of a gun in lawful self defense.

The Hickey case came up briefly in a training I took under different context, but it came up again when I was searching for this "Warren Doctrine" defense as an expert witness. I'm definitely biased towards real world scenario training because I'm a huge Ayoob fan and so are the instructors I've worked with.

 

https://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey_Booklet.pdf

 

This disproves my argument about failure in using this defense, especially against weaker/victim class aggressors. But I'm still looking for a case that deals with an off property shoot, as that was what this trial wavered on.

 

 

On the subject of training, even that can be used against you in character assassination. Yes, even the most upstanding citizens who take their firearm responsibilities seriously by training can be turned into monsters by the media and prosecution in the real world.

 

Hickey trained and was a trainer.

The Prosecutors Theory

 

Material experts who testified on Hickeys behalf include several instructors, ranging from the man who taught an early Arizona concealed handgun licensing class Hickey took, to his mentor, James Yeager, from whom he took many classes and for whom he eventually went on to become an adjunct instructor. Initially, Nicolini grilled Hickey about the concepts and principles Yeager taught him, using notes and handouts from classes, and later he went over the same material with the instructor himself, discussing avoidance, de-escalation, gunfight tactics and many of Yeagers similes, acronyms and catchy phrases tools that the instructor used to help students remember important principles. Alarmingly, out of context advice from instructors to always cheat; always win, and the axiom that one should treat every one else in a polite manner while simultaneously having a plan to kill them painted an inaccurate picture about Hickeys outlook on life. Nicolini harvested these quotes from the training notes and handouts, and made much hay with them, especially during his closing arguments in which he described Hickey in highly inflammatory terms. The prosecutor told the jury not to consider the case from Hickeys viewpoint, from what was going on in his paranoid mind, but to apply the reasonable person standard. This is not a case of self defense, this is not a case of defending a third person, even if you accept his version of how it went down, urged Nicolini. He is lying about how it happened. And you know why he is lying? First of all, he has got the same motivation to lie about these facts that any criminal defendant has in this situation, he does not want to be convicted. But I think Larry Hickey has an additional motivation in this case, he wants to be vindicated, he wants somebody to say, yes, Larry, you exercised your Second Amendment rights to defend yourself and your family like a good American. And you know something else? The same reason why four of his gun instructors have come in here to testify, the people who taught him to use guns, and when to use guns and taught him that aggressive mindset, like Jim Yeager, they want to be vindicated, too. But there is no vindication for Mr. Hickey in this case. It didnt happen as he said it happened, the prosecutor alleged. Larry brought a gun to a fist f ight and used it to shoot two unarmed people, and even if you believed his version of facts, I submit that you must convict him of these charges, because the thing is, he was trigger happy. He was a gun-toting, trigger-happy guy, who pulled out his gun in a situation where it absolutely was not required, reads the transcript of parts of Nicolinis closing. Reading the transcripts later, I realized this trial was not just about Larry Hickey and his actions, explains Hayes. This was the Pima County Prosecutors Office putting the concept of the armed lifestyle on trial because Nicolini attacked the whole concept of taking training, carrying a gun 24/7. He tried to paint the picture that anybody who would do that is really out of whack with society. There was a lot of discussion in his closing about the type of training that Larry took. Nicolini called Larry a liar; he called him a wannabe cop, a wannabe soldier. Frankly, I think it was demeaning to jurisprudence to see a prosecutor go to those extremes to try to get a conviction when there was nothing in the evidence or record to support his allegations, Hayes notes. He went overboard.

[JTHunter]

If I'm ever in a defensive situation against a mob, I'm going to worry about the mob, not the prosecutor.

 

Agreed. People talk about the "disparity of force" but if you are surrounded by a group of teens who are throwing objects, or punches, at you, WHERE is the disparity of force? Shoot one or more of the troublemakers and hopefully, they will turn rabbit and run.

[borgranta]

What would you do if a mob of multiple teenagers attacked you on the street? Would you take the beating or pull out your gun and start shooting? They are punching and kicking you but you don't see a weapon on them. I ask this question because it is a common occurrence in Chicago and a lot of unarmed victims just take a severe beating because they out numbered and over powered and the perps get away many times.

Offering to share a bottle of whiskey with the members of the mob may be an option though not necessarily legal. If not legal at least sharing such a bottle would probably be covered under the doctrine of lesser evils since the harm caused by sharing bottle amongst so many members of the mob would be less than what would be caused by serious bodily injury.

[BigJim]

Got a warning from the office about a gang robbing and attacking women in the loop.

[chicagoresident]

Got a warning from the office about a gang robbing and attacking women in the loop.

I'm guessing your loop office is a GFZ as is the mode of transportation to the office? Applied to all those who aren't there to shoot their boss? https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-police-responding-to-shooting-in-loop-20140731-story.html

 

That's actually surprising, but it shows how the CPD continues to lose grip separating the functioning and dysfunctional parts of the city. Commuting hours never used to have any crime short of an aggressive panhandler or a mental patient occasionally punching someone.

[2A4Cook]

 

What would you do if a mob of multiple teenagers attacked you on the street? Would you take the beating or pull out your gun and start shooting? They are punching and kicking you but you don't see a weapon on them. I ask this question because it is a common occurrence in Chicago and a lot of unarmed victims just take a severe beating because they out numbered and over powered and the perps get away many times.

 

Offering to share a bottle of whiskey with the members of the mob may be an option though not necessarily legal. If not legal at least sharing such a bottle would probably be covered under the doctrine of lesser evils since the harm caused by sharing bottle amongst so many members of the mob would be less than what would be caused by serious bodily injury.

Yes, hand them a weapon to use against you. That bottle would one way or another find itself crashing into your head.

[BigJim]

 

Got a warning from the office about a gang robbing and attacking women in the loop.

I'm guessing your loop office is a GFZ as is the mode of transportation to the office?

Forget about the office, the building is a posted GFZ. I'm lucky, I work from home and my "office" is far from a GFZ.

[quackersmacker]

 

 

Got a warning from the office about a gang robbing and attacking women in the loop.

I'm guessing your loop office is a GFZ as is the mode of transportation to the office?

Forget about the office, the building is a posted GFZ. I'm lucky, I work from home and my "office" is far from a GFZ.

 

My office here in Tennessee is a GMZ. M=Mandatory

[tkroenlein]

Lots of overthinking and a little lack thereof in this thread.

 

Deal with the most immediate threat, assess, and deal with the next. This might be several times in a few seconds if you're dealing with a mob.

 

Side note-in the several years I've been a member here, the most disconcerting thing I've seen in the comments is folks lack of commitment to using the tool they're carrying *if needed.*

 

CCers are not by nature trigger happy, on the contrary, they're predisposed to talk themselves out of using a firearm unless "x" condition presents itself just so-so. Like any number of "performances," success happens long before the actual act. Don't put yourself in a box mentally. The bullet, knife, bottle, fist, etc., that has your name on it might (or very likely will) belong to someone that is someplace where you are not expecting it. Ergo, the ONLY condition you put on the use of force is the threat of force against yourself or another that you are obligated to protect. No other qualifiers.

[vito]

I agree there seems to be a lot of over thinking by many on this forum. Similar to those seeking answers which no one on this forum can provide regarding specific unusual circumstances that might or might not be considered illegal carrying. Almost as if some are looking for reasons to justify leaving their gun at home and then thinking that they really had no choice because they are such law abiding individuals.

 

As to the question that started this thread, for some of us it is really easy. For myself, as a older man with several significant health issues, ANY attack could well be life threatening (as well as the obvious truth that even a simple assault can become more deadly in a moment) and so it does not take too much decision making to react to what might end your life if you fail to act.