BART train invaded by dozens of teams robbing passengers

[bergmen]

So, in my studies of tactical psychology, that would be an extreme risk in the case of a containment event, such as if the assailants were attempting to hold the people in question hostage to make demands, or forcing them to stay in place while they were systematically being robbed.

The opponent in that scenario has expressed a mode of aggressive defense, to "hold their ground," until their objective has been completed to their satisfaction.

In the event described on the BART Train, the enemy appears to be operating in a, "Smash and Grab," modus, which contains a heightened flight aspiration. This accelerated flight response is fundamental to this method of attack.

Sudden noise and the shock of violence by defenders in this scenario typically has an extremely disruptive effect on the assault, as it merely triggers the already heightened flight response. Only the most hardened operators typically do not panic and abandon their attack in the face of such a response.

I think the hoodlums in question were probably not trained to that extent.

This is exactly how I see this as well, and how I've been describing the situation even though as an arm chair QB.

There seems to be a general misunderstanding here regarding CCW holders and the use of force. This is understandable considering the culture of the Bay Area in general. In the rural counties (and other states), the view is quite different.

Having a concealed weapon does not mean that the most likely response is a draw and fire situation, far from it. Being in possession of a concealed weapon changes the response perspective in that I have a variety of choices to respond if possible or necessary. I am also always in condition yellow (with or without a concealed weapon).

I can assume command without ever revealing that I am carrying (shifting to condition orange). There are several steps I can take during escalation that have a good change of stopping the threat before any lethal force is applied. This is well documented in response scenarios so I'm not going to go into it here.

The absolute last thing any CCW holder wants to do is fire at someone (condition red). Personally, I don't think I could ever do it unless my life (or someone's life close to me) is in absolute imminent deathly peril.

But having that choice to respond with force allows me to make the best attempt to manage the situation to the best of my abilities, and in my favor. Every scenario has it's own unique circumstances and nothing ever plays out in the manner that someone is trained (LEOs know this well).

But, the alternative is submission. I choose not to take that route if at all possible. These crimes are often committed because the targets are unarmed and vulnerable (as I have mentioned). They happen because they are tolerated and in my opinion it is time to be intolerant and push back.

In areas where CCWs are issued, the word gets around to the skanks pretty quickly and the chances of getting randomly attacked are reduced (also documented). I'm cool with that.

Dan

 

[bergmen]

Large caliber revolvers are loud AF. It would startle/scare the shit out of pretty much everyone in a train car... especially in a train car. I can't imagine what a .454 or somesuch would sound like going off in a BART car.

Even a .357 magnum is ear splitting. I have one listed on my license (just because) but I have never carried it mostly because of the muzzle blast. A .454 would have the potential of setting the perp on fire with the massive fireball that thing produces (I have two of them but both are single action and not good for defensive purposes).

Dan

 

[antidote]

Bigger boom, bigger effect. Therefore, .454 Cassull. A 9mm will not suffice.

Yall a bunch of weaklings. 155mm or GTFO. My howitzer woulda cleared em all out.

Brightside everyone: soon your job will be replaced by robots and Amazon will droneship your essentials. No more BART riding!

#EverydayTrailer #FireTeamBravo

 

[JesasaurusRex]

As pointed out above, their financial situation is often different than working non-seniors. In addition, many of them have stopped driving, and so public transportation is their only way to get around, this can add up if they are somewhat active.

I don't mind giving seniors a break, especially when it doesn't really amount to much extra cost for everybody else. Some day, if we live long enough, we'll be in their shoes.

Everyone's finamcial situtation is different, sounds like they should have saved more during their working years. If they're somewhat active then they can go back to work. I'm not against discounted rates for people that don't or didnt have the ability to work. Take the disabled, i think they should ride for free. However to discount seniors just because they passed a birthday is silly. Some still work, just like their non senior coworkers. Should those seniors still get subsidized transportation? How about the 20 year old that makes minimum wage. Less net worth/income than a lot of seniors. Why don't we as a society pay for his tickets too?

 

[NorCalAthlete]

Yall a bunch of weaklings. 155mm or GTFO. My howitzer woulda cleared em all out.

Brightside everyone: soon your job will be replaced by robots and Amazon will droneship your essentials. No more BART riding!

#EverydayTrailer #FireTeamBravo

Former Paladin mechanic here...155s are great - when they're not broken from 13B dipshits. Or aimed in the wrong direction by new ord corps butterbars.

"Targeting the mob robbing the BART car!"
<Best Buy in San Jose explodes>
"Round not observed, fire again!"
<Costco in Foster City explodes>
"Hmmmmm something's wrong here. Cease fire...I guess."

 

[aminalmutha]

Even a .357 magnum is ear splitting. I have one listed on my license (just because) but I have never carried it mostly because of the muzzle blast. A .454 would have the potential of setting the perp on fire with the massive fireball that thing produces (I have two of them but both are single action and not good for defensive purposes).

Dan

Shock and Awe, baby!

Fired a .50 DE at an indoor range one time and it sounded like a cannon against everything else in there. Pop! Pop! Pop! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! arty

 

[Climber]

This is exactly how I see this as well, and how I've been describing the situation even though as an arm chair QB.

There seems to be a general misunderstanding here regarding CCW holders and the use of force. This is understandable considering the culture of the Bay Area in general. In the rural counties (and other states), the view is quite different.

Having a concealed weapon does not mean that the most likely response is a draw and fire situation, far from it. Being in possession of a concealed weapon changes the response perspective in that I have a variety of choices to respond if possible or necessary. I am also always in condition yellow (with or without a concealed weapon).

I can assume command without ever revealing that I am carrying (shifting to condition orange). There are several steps I can take during escalation that have a good change of stopping the threat before any lethal force is applied. This is well documented in response scenarios so I'm not going to go into it here.

The absolute last thing any CCW holder wants to do is fire at someone (condition red). Personally, I don't think I could ever do it unless my life (or someone's life close to me) is in absolute imminent deathly peril.

But having that choice to respond with force allows me to make the best attempt to manage the situation to the best of my abilities, and in my favor. Every scenario has it's own unique circumstances and nothing ever plays out in the manner that someone is trained (LEOs know this well).

But, the alternative is submission. I choose not to take that route if at all possible. These crimes are often committed because the targets are unarmed and vulnerable (as I have mentioned). They happen because they are tolerated and in my opinion it is time to be intolerant and push back.

In areas where CCWs are issued, the word gets around to the skanks pretty quickly and the chances of getting randomly attacked are reduced (also documented). I'm cool with that.

Dan

While you seem to have the competency and training to assess and handle the situation well, what percentage of CCW holders would have that level of training and situation awareness?

On top of that, how many of them would react according to training instead of finding out that they didn't react to a life threatening situation in the manner that they imagined?

And how many of the people would make the situation considerably worse?

Now, on one side of the argument, showing that thugs can't do something like this has value but that 'effective' message could also include collateral damage to innocents.

On the other side, if technology was utilized effectively (we don't know yet if it was, in the form of actual video, and will be in the form of resources being used to make a strong effort to track down and prosecute a large number of the criminals in this action) then a less immediate but no less effective deterrent could result with less risk to the innocent victims and bystanders.

I'm not against violent criminals encountering forceful and even fatal responses to their actions, but I also don't want to see innocents subjected to a crap shoot response that could easily go very wrong either.

 

[antidote]

well shit..I'm sure some teenaged insurgents were at those locations

Great effect on target, boys!

<Target in Hayward explodes>

...fuck

 

[Climber]

Everyone's finamcial situtation is different, sounds like they should have saved more during their working years. If they're somewhat active then they can go back to work. I'm not against discounted rates for people that don't or didnt have the ability to work. Take the disabled, i think they should ride for free. However to discount seniors just because they passed a birthday is silly. Some still work, just like their non senior coworkers. Should those seniors still get subsidized transportation? How about the 20 year old that makes minimum wage. Less net worth/income than a lot of seniors. Why don't we as a society pay for his tickets too?

We'll just have to disagree on this.

40 years ago, at $25k salary was doing pretty well for folks, gas cost around $0.35.

Income has increased significantly along with costs since many seniors were in the middle of their earning years.

 

[aminalmutha]

Everyone's finamcial situtation is different, sounds like they should have saved more during their working years. If they're somewhat active then they can go back to work. I'm not against discounted rates for people that don't or didnt have the ability to work. Take the disabled, i think they should ride for free. However to discount seniors just because they passed a birthday is silly. Some still work, just like their non senior coworkers. Should those seniors still get subsidized transportation? How about the 20 year old that makes minimum wage. Less net worth/income than a lot of seniors. Why don't we as a society pay for his tickets too?

You can save all you want, make good money, invest, etc all you want. Especially later in life, it takes one medical event to wipe you out. Need assisted living? Bye, bye money. There is an entire industry to extract every last dollar from elderly people before they die. And then squeeze the very last bit out after they die. IDGAF if olde fartes get to ride t3h bus for free. It's such a minute amount of money in the grand scheme of things.

 

[bergmen]

Climber, you bring up very good points. For CCW holders, each of us are certainly different in our abilities and approaches that is for sure. This is one reason I am very much in favor of extensive training and demonstration of competency as a condition of issuance. I flatly disagree with the approaches other states take with easy issuance with little or no training. I don't think it is in the best interest of the safety of society to do so.

In our case, the 16 hour training course we took was very detailed and serious. Great importance was given to de-escalation of threats and escaping if at all possible. The point was made over and over again that the use of deadly force was only justified if there was no other choice to defend one's life. The DA (one of the instructors) and the County Sheriff seriously emphasized the moral responsibility of choosing to carry weapons and indicated that if we were not willing to take a life, to exit the course. Some did right there. The 45 minute 1-on-1 interview I had with a Deputy was also very focused and intense. If he had sensed that I was not suitable as a CCW candidate he could have recommended a denial.

Honestly, it took maybe six months before I was comfortable in carrying a weapon, I had to completely reorganize my thoughts on this. Another thing is that since I am adamant on gun safety (all of the rules all of the time), I would have to violate these to defend myself with a firearm. It took a while to wrap my head around this and I still struggle with this to some extent.

It is not an easy choice to hold a license and carry. Lots of gravity here and it is not for everyone. In reality, I seldom carry but am eternally grateful that I have the option to do so if I wish.

Dan

 

[NorCalAthlete]

While you seem to have the competency and training to assess and handle the situation well, what percentage of CCW holders would have that level of training and situation awareness?

Actually, in CA at least I think you'd be surprised. The rather draconian restrictions and heavy-handed approach to punishing the slightest gun-related incident (for non-LEOs at least) has had the side effect of forcing most gun owners to be amateur lawyers who know the laws and such better than most LEOs or even full time lawyers. Similarly, of those who are able to obtain a CCW, most have fairly solid situational awareness and training. Can't speak for everyone from either camp of course, but nearly everyone I've encountered has HAD to keep up on every minute detail just to try and stay out of jail.

On the other side, if technology was utilized effectively (we don't know yet if it was, in the form of actual video, and will be in the form of resources being used to make a strong effort to track down and prosecute a large number of the criminals in this action) then a less immediate but no less effective deterrent could result with less risk to the innocent victims and bystanders.

Supposedly there's video they're using, but I doubt it'll be much good in a crowded car especially if they covered their faces.

I would also argue that it is indeed a far less effective deterrent than the threat of violent resistance, as this isn't exactly the first group-theft in the bay area, just the first one on BART. Look at the Apple store hits - you think the Apple store didn't have quality cameras and such?

What we're really arguing is pro-active vs re-active approaches. I believe if we hadn't created a legislative minefield discouraging self defense, allowing attackers to sue their victims, etc, we wouldn't even be in this situation to begin with.

 

[JesasaurusRex]

We'll just have to disagree on this.

40 years ago, at $25k salary was doing pretty well for folks, gas cost around $0.35.

Income has increased significantly along with costs since many seniors were in the middle of their earning years.

And i cant buy a house for $200 anymore either

You can save all you want, make good money, invest, etc all you want. Especially later in life, it takes one medical event to wipe you out. Need assisted living? Bye, bye money. There is an entire industry to extract every last dollar from elderly people before they die. And then squeeze the very last bit out after they die. IDGAF if olde fartes get to ride t3h bus for free. It's such a minute amount of money in the grand scheme of things.

Everyone wants your money, no matter your age. I know there are those out there that prey on the elderly and ill be the first to say that's fucked. We don't , or we shouldn't rather, offset that as a society by giving them discounted rates on non essential items.

The article Roman posted lists a discount reduction for the elderly, disabled, and children. 62.5% to 50%, for an estimated savings of 3.3mil annually. Not sure how that ridership breaks down but i bet the elderly ride more often than kids and the disabled combined. Wouldnt it make more sense to get rid of the senior discount entirely and let kids and the disabled ride free from both a monetary standpoint and an ethical one?

 

[aminalmutha]

Society in general preys on the elderly, unfortunately. There are those who overtly cheat them, but there's also, what I consider to be government sanction screwing as well. Wait until you have to deal with an elderly relative and all that goes along with end of life care, estates, funerals, etc. It's a fucking nightmare.

 

[mototireguy]

Climber, you bring up very good points. For CCW holders, each of us are certainly different in our abilities and approaches that is for sure. This is one reason I am very much in favor of extensive training and demonstration of competency as a condition of issuance. I flatly disagree with the approaches other states take with easy issuance with little or no training. I don't think it is in the best interest of the safety of society to do so.

+1

In agreement with serious training being attached to ccw issuance.

Repercussions from a bad shoot are serious business.

 

[JesasaurusRex]

Society in general preys on the elderly, unfortunately. There are those who overtly cheat them, but there's also, what I consider to be government sanction screwing as well. Wait until you have to deal with an elderly relative and all that goes along with end of life care, estates, funerals, etc. It's a fucking nightmare.

How does any of that relate to bart ticket prices?

 

[aminalmutha]

How does any of that relate to bart ticket prices?

Give the mofo olde fartes a break is what!

People have a finite opportunity to make money and many people often live way past the point that they can make a decent living, so let 'em ride for free, I couldn't give a shit. arty

 

[Climber]

Climber, you bring up very good points. For CCW holders, each of us are certainly different in our abilities and approaches that is for sure. This is one reason I am very much in favor of extensive training and demonstration of competency as a condition of issuance. I flatly disagree with the approaches other states take with easy issuance with little or no training. I don't think it is in the best interest of the safety of society to do so.

In our case, the 16 hour training course we took was very detailed and serious. Great importance was given to de-escalation of threats and escaping if at all possible. The point was made over and over again that the use of deadly force was only justified if there was no other choice to defend one's life. The DA (one of the instructors) and the County Sheriff seriously emphasized the moral responsibility of choosing to carry weapons and indicated that if we were not willing to take a life, to exit the course. Some did right there. The 45 minute 1-on-1 interview I had with a Deputy was also very focused and intense. If he had sensed that I was not suitable as a CCW candidate he could have recommended a denial.

Honestly, it took maybe six months before I was comfortable in carrying a weapon, I had to completely reorganize my thoughts on this. Another thing is that since I am adamant on gun safety (all of the rules all of the time), I would have to violate these to defend myself with a firearm. It took a while to wrap my head around this and I still struggle with this to some extent.

It is not an easy choice to hold a license and carry. Lots of gravity here and it is not for everyone. In reality, I seldom carry but am eternally grateful that I have the option to do so if I wish.

Dan

Thanks for the full description on the training you went through and your perspective on things.

I would be comfortable with you dealing with a bad situation with your CCW knowing the level of training and thoughtfulness that you put into carrying a concealed weapon.

Your description of the decision making process of how to engage reminds me of my karate sensei who stressed many times that if you can walk or run away from a fight, to do so, and only in the case where there is absolutely no way to avoid a fight do you engage and to do so with full commitment.

On another note, some of the other comments in this thread make me glad that the CCW requirements aren't as loose in this state as they are in others.

 

[Roundboy]

Maybe the LEOs can chime in but I think if you beat up a minor or assault them it's on you as the adult? so it's a catch 22...unless maybe self defense comes into play?

 

[NorCalAthlete]

Disparity of force would come into play here. Minors or not doesn't matter - and I'd be willing to bet that these "minors" were still of considerable physical size, ie, comparable to average adults, so their age is irrelevant.