TexasCHLforum.com

I would like to think I would help in some way. It's the morality that was instilled in me at an early age.
The problem is, in watching this, there is really no good line of fire where others could be hit by either a miss or a through and through.
However, if a clear line of fire is there, I would probably help if family is not with me.
My wife and grandkids would sometimes ride the TRE from Irving to Dallas for a special event at the AAC, against my wishes. I think that after seeing this, she has changed her mind.

rotor wrote:Bernhard Goetz did the right thing but he was in the wrong state. I personally have been accosted by a group like this in the New York City subway system as a kid. Nobody helped and fortunately I wasn't hurt. At my age now though, I would be no match for those kids unarmed and if I did pull my gun I would have used it. My role though is to protect me and mine and I didn't get a LTC to protect you and yours. That's the job of the police.

The Supreme Court of the United States begs to differ: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of ... ._Gonzales

The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, reinstating the District Court's order of dismissal. The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

The general interpretation accepted by most legal scholars and law enforcement agencies is that police do not have a duty to protect. Since it is not part of their duty, it is also not part of their job. To the extent that an individual officer actually protects a victim from an assailant, that is on his/her own initiative. His job is to intervene in, disrupt, and stop (in so far as is possible) any illegal behavior he observes......the operant word being "observes". If he didn't see it, he has no duty to protect you from it. In the context of the above video, the officer is obliged to intervene in an illegal action he observes while on that train car, but he has NO obligation to prevent that illegal action from happening when he is not riding in that car where he can observe it taking place. The OBVIOUS inference is, "if there is no cop riding in the car, you're on your own".

Rotor, I actually do understand where you're coming from, but surely you have your own personal list of exceptions, do you not......those exceptions which let you look at yourself in the mirror every morning? For instance, you're taking a walk through a public park, and on a secluded part of the trail you came upon an adult man sexually abusing a little girl, you'd interfere, wouldn't you? OR.... would you call 911 and observe from a safe distance, while the molestor has another 10-15 minutes with the girl before the cops show up?

One of the hallmarks of any civilized society is that it protects its weaker members. A society that does not do that may still be a society, but it is not a civilized society, with all the benefits of civilization.

Like a lot of the older members of this forum, I am limited in what I can do physically today, compared to what I used to be capable of. That does up the stakes. The escalation continuum gets shortened when you have fewer options. OTH, I feel like I would be compelled to do more than just call 911 in the above video. Nightmare69's suggestion to use pepper spray seems like a good option, although I don't know if deploying it inside the confines of a train car would be the best idea or not. Maybe exiting the car at the same station where the gang exited and using it there might be an idea to investigate. I'll have to think on it longer. But what I do know is that maybe it is time for me to look into OC spray for EDC, to give me another option besides having to shoot someone. Because also like he said, if you draw the gun, you'd better be prepared to use it. Drawing the gun may have the desired effect with a single person who is older, and maybe a little more street wise. But with a gang of teenagers? Egging each other on? Not a prayer. You pull the gun on that crowd, and Nightmare69 is right......you'll probably have to shoot someone, and are you ready for the legal consequences over protecting a stranger? It's a difficult choice to make, if you're a person with a conscience. I don't have all the answers, and I'm honestly not sure what I would have done in this situation.

The one thing I would NOT have been doing would be riding a DART train through Oak Cliff at midnight. I realize that not everyone has that choice, but I do, and I choose to exercise it and avoid places/situations where the statistical probabilities of this kind of thing are higher than other places/situations.

What kept creeping into my mind was that calling 911 from the train would most likely draw them to you!! And then I had to admit to myself that I normally do not carry enough ammo to take on a crowd... if the first few shots don't scare them away.

For a few years, I rode Dart to work... I am glad I moved to the country.

I hope I never have to make the decision to jump in and help out in a scenario like that- because I think it's a no win situation.

TAM, I should've added that nobody wins when you spray OC in a confined area. You and everyone else will get a dose, I know I did everytime we had to use it. I've been exposed to it enough I can fight through it. Most people will hit the ground gasping for air when exposed to O.C. It's a great tool that's affordable and legal for all to carry. I carry that along with my firearm when I walk my dog.

flechero wrote:What kept creeping into my mind was that calling 911 from the train would most likely draw them to you!! And then I had to admit to myself that I normally do not carry enough ammo to take on a crowd... if the first few shots don't scare them away.

For a few years, I rode Dart to work... I am glad I moved to the country.

I hope I never have to make the decision to jump in and help out in a scenario like that- because I think it's a no win situation.

When I go to a city I carry a full size with spare mag just in case something happens like this. 16+1 loaded and another 16 spare.

nightmare69 wrote:TAM, I should've added that nobody wins when you spray OC in a confined area. You and everyone else will get a dose, I know I did everytime we had to use it.

Yeah, I mentioned that possibility above, about using it in the confines of a train car. I agree that it is not an ideal environment. Even so, it is an option I need to explore. Until now, I had avoided it, mostly because, between a gun and spare magazines, a knife, and various other crap, I didn't want to add another item to my belt or pockets. Maybe it's time to reconsider.

Obviously the video gives limited information on the situation, however I would believe the person being attacked was in danger of taking a fatal blow in that situation. That would justify using force possible deadly force. From the positions they were in in the video i feel like I would be on the far end of the car in the background away from the crowd with the wall at my back. At least I would feel secure that no one would come behind me, the person who videoed it probably was with the attackers. I would definitely call 911 and probably try to get them to back off.

While I know I would likely have to use a gun. I don't think I could live with myself if I watched someone die and could have prevented it.

flechero wrote:What kept creeping into my mind was that calling 911 from the train would most likely draw them to you!! And then I had to admit to myself that I normally do not carry enough ammo to take on a crowd... if the first few shots don't scare them away.

For a few years, I rode Dart to work... I am glad I moved to the country.

I hope I never have to make the decision to jump in and help out in a scenario like that- because I think it's a no win situation.

This is one of the reasons I switched from carrying a .45 to carrying a "wonder nine". Capacity to weight ratio. I ALWAYS have at least one spare magazine, and more often two. But when I was still EDCing my XDM45, that was a LOT of weight to lug around. My 9mm guns weigh less, even with slightly higher capacities. Assuming two spare mags, with my G19, that's 46 rounds. I added +2 round pinky extensions to all my G26 mags, so that's 37 rounds with that gun. I have a third spare mag for my G19, but I don't usually carry it.....but I could if I needed to. I understand that the likelihood of actually needing that much ammo on hand is very small, but as they say, the only times you can have too much ammo are when you're swimming or you're on fire. But with my physical condition, weight is big factor.....hence my switch to Glock 9mms.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

rotor wrote:Bernhard Goetz did the right thing but he was in the wrong state. I personally have been accosted by a group like this in the New York City subway system as a kid. Nobody helped and fortunately I wasn't hurt. At my age now though, I would be no match for those kids unarmed and if I did pull my gun I would have used it. My role though is to protect me and mine and I didn't get a LTC to protect you and yours. That's the job of the police.

The Supreme Court of the United States begs to differ: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of ... ._Gonzales

The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, reinstating the District Court's order of dismissal. The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

The general interpretation accepted by most legal scholars and law enforcement agencies is that police do not have a duty to protect. Since it is not part of their duty, it is also not part of their job. To the extent that an individual officer actually protects a victim from an assailant, that is on his/her own initiative. His job is to intervene in, disrupt, and stop (in so far as is possible) any illegal behavior he observes......the operant word being "observes". If he didn't see it, he has no duty to protect you from it. In the context of the above video, the officer is obliged to intervene in an illegal action he observes while on that train car, but he has NO obligation to prevent that illegal action from happening when he is not riding in that car where he can observe it taking place. The OBVIOUS inference is, "if there is no cop riding in the car, you're on your own".

Rotor, I actually do understand where you're coming from, but surely you have your own personal list of exceptions, do you not......those exceptions which let you look at yourself in the mirror every morning? For instance, you're taking a walk through a public park, and on a secluded part of the trail you came upon an adult man sexually abusing a little girl, you'd interfere, wouldn't you? OR.... would you call 911 and observe from a safe distance, while the molestor has another 10-15 minutes with the girl before the cops show up?

One of the hallmarks of any civilized society is that it protects its weaker members. A society that does not do that may still be a society, but it is not a civilized society, with all the benefits of civilization.

Like a lot of the older members of this forum, I am limited in what I can do physically today, compared to what I used to be capable of. That does up the stakes. The escalation continuum gets shortened when you have fewer options. OTH, I feel like I would be compelled to do more than just call 911 in the above video. Nightmare69's suggestion to use pepper spray seems like a good option, although I don't know if deploying it inside the confines of a train car would be the best idea or not. Maybe exiting the car at the same station where the gang exited and using it there might be an idea to investigate. I'll have to think on it longer. But what I do know is that maybe it is time for me to look into OC spray for EDC, to give me another option besides having to shoot someone. Because also like he said, if you draw the gun, you'd better be prepared to use it. Drawing the gun may have the desired effect with a single person who is older, and maybe a little more street wise. But with a gang of teenagers? Egging each other on? Not a prayer. You pull the gun on that crowd, and Nightmare69 is right......you'll probably have to shoot someone, and are you ready for the legal consequences over protecting a stranger? It's a difficult choice to make, if you're a person with a conscience. I don't have all the answers, and I'm honestly not sure what I would have done in this situation.

The one thing I would NOT have been doing would be riding a DART train through Oak Cliff at midnight. I realize that not everyone has that choice, but I do, and I choose to exercise it and avoid places/situations where the statistical probabilities of this kind of thing are higher than other places/situations.

TAM, at age 74 carrying a .380 with 6 in the mag if I pulled my gun I would have to use it and reload with as many as were involved. Not a situation I want to be in. I know the court decision that says police don't have to protect. They didn't say I have to protect someone else. I think of the 3 guys in Oregon I believe that tried to protect 2 Muslim girls on a train and one was stabbed to death for his effort. The girls ran. I am not the type that would not help another person. I pulled a guy out of a truck after an accident that was covered in diesel and could have gotten both of us killed. This particular situation with so many kids would have been tough to handle by me unless they just stopped and ran. I am just not a young man like I used to be. On the other hand, I have gotten to be an old man because I am no longer young and stupid. I had an unruly gang of kids do this to me as a kid in the NYC subway system and nobody intervened so I know what it is like first hand. Now I believe that NYC has cops on every train. The other issue is that one of these kids might have had a gun too and I could have ended up in the morgue. No easy answer here. Easy to be brave on a forum, tougher to be honest.

I would definitely intervene. Exactly how I would intervene depends on a number of factors that others have listed above.

Am I certain of who the GG and the BG are?

Do I have others with me or am I alone?

Is there a likelihood of imminent death or serious bodily injury to an innocent party?

What tools do I have available?

Depending on the circumstances, my involvement might be limited to calling 911 and being a good witness, or it might be verbal commands leading to a potential deadly force situation.

Medley86 wrote:Obviously the video gives limited information on the situation, however I would believe the person being attacked was in danger of taking a fatal blow in that situation. That would justify using force possible deadly force. From the positions they were in in the video i feel like I would be on the far end of the car in the background away from the crowd with the wall at my back. At least I would feel secure that no one would come behind me, the person who videoed it probably was with the attackers. I would definitely call 911 and probably try to get them to back off.

While I know I would likely have to use a gun. I don't think I could live with myself if I watched someone die and could have prevented it.

When they exited the train, the gangster girl in red or orange hit the victim IN THE HEAD with a skateboard and knocked him unconscious. Easily could have been fatal. In that case, "katy bar the door", I am going to secure the location by what ever means I have available and then render aid - but only to the victim.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

flechero wrote:What kept creeping into my mind was that calling 911 from the train would most likely draw them to you!! And then I had to admit to myself that I normally do not carry enough ammo to take on a crowd... if the first few shots don't scare them away.

For a few years, I rode Dart to work... I am glad I moved to the country.

I hope I never have to make the decision to jump in and help out in a scenario like that- because I think it's a no win situation.

This is one of the reasons I switched from carrying a .45 to carrying a "wonder nine". Capacity to weight ratio. I ALWAYS have at least one spare magazine, and more often two. But when I was still EDCing my XDM45, that was a LOT of weight to lug around. My 9mm guns weigh less, even with slightly higher capacities. Assuming two spare mags, with my G19, that's 46 rounds. I added +2 round pinky extensions to all my G26 mags, so that's 37 rounds with that gun. I have a third spare mag for my G19, but I don't usually carry it.....but I could if I needed to. I understand that the likelihood of actually needing that much ammo on hand is very small, but as they say, the only times you can have too much ammo are when you're swimming or you're on fire. But with my physical condition, weight is big factor.....hence my switch to Glock 9mms.

I hear ya, TAM... I bought Sig 320 because it was the only wonder 9 that didn't make my hand want to puke... but I have yet to find a holster for it that is comfy and discreet enough to carry while working. (no thanks to a recent "re-gain" of previously lost weight) So for the time being- I'm with single stacks and a single spare mag. Always carry the spare but that only puts me at 15 rounds, in either caliber.

Probably another thread at this point but wanted to respond directly.

rotor wrote:TAM, at age 74 carrying a .380 with 6 in the mag if I pulled my gun I would have to use it and reload with as many as were involved. Not a situation I want to be in. I know the court decision that says police don't have to protect. They didn't say I have to protect someone else. I think of the 3 guys in Oregon I believe that tried to protect 2 Muslim girls on a train and one was stabbed to death for his effort. The girls ran. I am not the type that would not help another person. I pulled a guy out of a truck after an accident that was covered in diesel and could have gotten both of us killed. This particular situation with so many kids would have been tough to handle by me unless they just stopped and ran. I am just not a young man like I used to be. On the other hand, I have gotten to be an old man because I am no longer young and stupid. I had an unruly gang of kids do this to me as a kid in the NYC subway system and nobody intervened so I know what it is like first hand. Now I believe that NYC has cops on every train. The other issue is that one of these kids might have had a gun too and I could have ended up in the morgue. No easy answer here. Easy to be brave on a forum, tougher to be honest.

Everything you say above is true, which is why I expressed some doubts of my own above. BTW, I've seen "unpleasantness" on a NYC subway car too, although I wasn't beaten senseless. But I did have to defend myself. Fortunately, it turned out OK other than some minor bumps and bruises. I was also jumped by a gang once while walking back to my apartment from the local grocery store. It happened on E 83rd St, between 2nd and 3rd Avenue....which was supposed to be a decent neighborhood. Again, I came out of it a little scuffed up but relatively unharmed. I also remember Bernhard Goetz, although by that time, I was back living in SoCal. I remember thinking at the time, "good for him.....too bad it happened in NYC though". But the reason I "challenged" you a little bit (for lack of a better word), was to say that surely you have your limits where you would intervene......for instance the hypothetical child molester I posed in my previous post. I don't think any of us are purists when it comes to our default position. There are always some exceptions where the moral imperative overrides the self-preservation imperative.

My observations and questions from watching this, for what they are worth...
1) Neither the victim nor any of the attackers appear to be particularly skilled empty-hand fighters. Someone with good training on either side might have changed the outcome quite a bit.
2) The only escalation via the use of tools, appeared to be the skateboard, and it was effective against the victim. Did no one have any other tools, or did they simply not use them? There is some presumed degree of safety in numbers, so maybe the assailants did not feel the need to resort to edged weapons and such.
3) Mob violence appears to be communicable -- note the way the orange shirts joined in.
4) Nobody seemed to come to the aid of the victim either on or off the train during the course of the video.
5) Alone and unarmed against a mob, the odds are unfavorable.
6) Why would the victim want to get back on the train with the assailants as he appeared to try to do?
7) Recognizing situations where dialog may resort in violence might be a handy skill to use to avoid potential violence.

As many others on the forum have said of themselves, I am not feeble, but I am also not as physically fit and capable as I was when younger. I hope to offset some of the declining physical capability with discernment, training, guile and tools. The victim seems to have not explored some of these areas, but then again I had not explored them very much when I was his age.

As for the question of intervention on behalf of the victim, I don't know what I would have done. The video only provides a portion of environmental data that would be helpful to inform a course of action. If there, I would have the benefit of much more sensory data to better make plans and execute them if/when I needed to. Since I wasn't there, I can only say that if by myself I would have wanted, and likely tried, to help in some way.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

rotor wrote:TAM, at age 74 carrying a .380 with 6 in the mag if I pulled my gun I would have to use it and reload with as many as were involved. Not a situation I want to be in. I know the court decision that says police don't have to protect. They didn't say I have to protect someone else. I think of the 3 guys in Oregon I believe that tried to protect 2 Muslim girls on a train and one was stabbed to death for his effort. The girls ran. I am not the type that would not help another person. I pulled a guy out of a truck after an accident that was covered in diesel and could have gotten both of us killed. This particular situation with so many kids would have been tough to handle by me unless they just stopped and ran. I am just not a young man like I used to be. On the other hand, I have gotten to be an old man because I am no longer young and stupid. I had an unruly gang of kids do this to me as a kid in the NYC subway system and nobody intervened so I know what it is like first hand. Now I believe that NYC has cops on every train. The other issue is that one of these kids might have had a gun too and I could have ended up in the morgue. No easy answer here. Easy to be brave on a forum, tougher to be honest.

Everything you say above is true, which is why I expressed some doubts of my own above. BTW, I've seen "unpleasantness" on a NYC subway car too, although I wasn't beaten senseless. But I did have to defend myself. Fortunately, it turned out OK other than some minor bumps and bruises. I was also jumped by a gang once while walking back to my apartment from the local grocery store. It happened on E 83rd St, between 2nd and 3rd Avenue....which was supposed to be a decent neighborhood. Again, I came out of it a little scuffed up but relatively unharmed. I also remember Bernhard Goetz, although by that time, I was back living in SoCal. I remember thinking at the time, "good for him.....too bad it happened in NYC though". But the reason I "challenged" you a little bit (for lack of a better word), was to say that surely you have your limits where you would intervene......for instance the hypothetical child molester I posed in my previous post. I don't think any of us are purists when it comes to our default position. There are always some exceptions where the moral imperative overrides the self-preservation imperative.

It's also important to ensure that you fully understand the situation. In your "child molester" scenario, what happens when it turns out that the teenage girl is really a very young looking 19 year old who is role playing with her much older boyfriend? Personal morality aside, this is a (mostly) legal situation aside from public indecency, but hardly a case that justifies deadly force.

There is a tendency by some (not you) to ask hypotheticals of "would be use deadly force in XYZ scenario". But whenever I envision these scenarios it always starts with verbal commands and/or questions like "Stop", "What are you doing?", "Are you OK?", and goes from there. In these types of cases, I would need to be prepared for the situation to escalate to deadly force but I have a hard time envisioning a shooting scenario in public that doesn't involve some type of escalation. At home in the middle of the night is a different story.