'Warning shot" / "Supressive Fire" in 'Mob' Atack

[gunsmith]

I really wish I didn't have to post this....but it fits in with the Ray Widstrand assault...can't ignore this. In fact 'Ignoring' the danger is what got Ray Widstrand beaten. And the link is not to a hysterical website, it's from a suburban NJ newspaper.

http://www.paramuspost.com/article.php/ ... 8114322287

The murder of the Australian man in Oklahoma was horrific, but not unique. Or even rare.

A similar episode of black mob violence happened just a few days ago in Memphis. And a few days before that in St. Paul. And before that in Burlington. And before that in Delaware, New Haven, Madison, Denver, Flint, Peoria, Springfield, Greensboro, Green Bay, and on and on and on.
This is a long list with more than 500 cases of recent black mob violence in more than 100 cities, big and small, many on video - and all unreported as being part of an epidemic of black mob violence throughout America.
"Beat Whitey Night," for example: Two summers ago, black mobs beat and robbed dozens of patrons at the Iowa State Fair for three nights in a row. They also attacked police.
Ever hear about it?
Didn't think so. That is because most editors are not comfortable with the words "black mob violence." No matter that black mob violence exists plainly and exponentially out of proportion.

Reevaluating Conventional wisdom concerning 'Warning shot" / "Suppressive Fire" in 'Mob' Attack

A) I do understand the 'Conventional Wisdom' on this subject.

B) I think 'Times have changed'

C) I have NEVER heard any instructor recommend a 'Warning shot' or 'Suppressive Fire' as a practical technique for self defense....It's all 'center-of-mass' no head shots.

D) This is disturbing and I do feel like I need to 'go back to the drawing board' and PRACTICE whatever 'revised' tactics I come up with.

E) I was in a defensive firearm use situation where I shot the bad guy....first hand experience...you will have NO OPPORTUNITY TO 'THINK' you will do what you practice....

F) Your thoughtful opinions welcome....I would hesitate to ask Massad Ayoob or other prominent expert as I think they would be concerned with promoting 'Heresy' and I think 'Warning Shot / Suppressive Fire' IS HERESY.......BUT WHISKEY, TANGO, FOXTROT....WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN FACED W/ 50 THUGS WHO WANT TO TURN YOU BRAIN INTO PEA SOUP?

G) Wish I didn't need to post this....the answer will be a year or more in coming....

Ignore this at your own peril. Meanwhile I'm seriously re-evaluating (this is unsettling) tactics.....including 'Warning Shot and 'Suppressive Fire' I know....danger ahead....

Colin Flaherty is an award-winning reporter and author of "White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence to America and how the media ignore it."

[darkwolf45]

When facing a large group of attackers, I would say you start with the basic premise of "shoot to stop the threat." Since we know that it can often take more than one bullet to stop just one attacker, and you will have a limited quantity of bullets with you, as well as limited time to discharge your rounds before you are overrun, you need to assess you abilities first and foremost. Based on that, you need to decide what shots you are capable of discharging that have a greater likelyhood of stopping the threat as quickly as possible.

If that means a head shot, then this may be the proper response in this situation. Remember, you have very limited time, and you are responsible for the firearm the mob will likely want to steal from you the instant they know it is there.

I am not keen on the idea of a taking a life, nor am I happy with the idea of taking a shot that is more likely to be lethal before emergency services can reach you to provide medical assistance. I sincerely hope those reading this also have similar ethical reservations about such an event. However, you also have to take into account that the likely hood of being overrun, beat severely, damaged permanently (if not killed in an excruciating and drawn out way) is a possibility, not to mention that you freshly stolen firearm will most likely be used to harm others still.

You are faced with a stark choice, and it is one that needs to be made almost instantaneously. Shoot ro stop the threat, and do it within your abilities.

[whiteox]

Pay close attention. The paper reprinted an article from WND which is pretty much the definition of a hysterical website.

As to the question posited: there isn't a solution to every problem. If there are more guys than you have rounds, you're probably hosed. Fight hard if you have to; run if you can, which reminds me, I need to start hitting the gym.

[PhilaBOR]

People go to jail for warning shots. If you are reasonably in fear of great bodily harm or death, you are justified to shoot the attacker. If not, don't shoot.
Mob violence is a good reason to carry a full size modern striker fired gun w 15+ rounds and a spare mag.
Lots of reports of actual incidents: as soon as bad guys realize victim has a gun, they can't go fast enough. Not sure what a mob would do, but at that point you're short on alternatives.

[Countryfried Frank]

Mob violence is a good reason to carry a full size modern striker fired gun w 15+ rounds and a spare mag.

Why is a striker fired handgun better than a hammer fired? I realize that I am picking nits but I am curious how a Glock or M&P would be better than a Sig or HK in that situation.

[gunsmith]

Update: From Ray Widstrands Caring Bridge page....he's making some progress at recovery / communicating but future is completely uncertain.

You need to give a wide berth in any criticism of his actions due to his injuries but...there was a fatal flaw in his mindset...what the author of the linked article Colin Flaherty refers to as 'infantile omnipotence' Harsh words. but the author is onto something.

This guy, Colin Flaherty is 'edgy' and to a casual observer will appear to be a 'racist' of some degree, but he's on to something.

Here is a link to his column on the Ray Widstrand gang beating....WARNING: you need to be in a good mood to read this....it's too depressing otherwise. I plan to 'avoid' the author's colums and other writings...too dark for me. My heart goes out to his mother ...her son is alive and dead at the same time. And sadly it appears his parents are 'Walter Mondale' Liberals and are hesitant to express their anger.

http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/black-mob ... n-st-paul/

Black mob violence and infantile omnipotence in St. Paul. Ray Widstrand.

A St. Paul man is in a coma today, fighting for his life after a black mob beat him, stripped his clothes off, and left him for dead. Even if he recovers, he will have permanent brain damage.

Ray Widstrand thought he had nothing to fear from moving into a black neighborhood on the East Side of St. Paul. This young white guy and aspiring film maker thought he had nothing to fear when decided to take a Sunday night stroll through his adopted part of town.

Nothing to fear from a crowd of 50 black people fighting outside a nearby party. So he stopped to check it out.

Soon the mob’s attention turned to him: “The first person who struck him had hit him with a can in a sock,” said one witness in a police report. “The man went down and a “whole bunch of little eastside boys” began to kick the man. She saw them strip him of his pants and go through the pockets.”

When police arrived, the black mob scattered, leaving only Ray behind, unconscious. “He had blood coming from his nose and mouth and was unresponsive,” said the police report. “As of August 8th, the prognosis for recovery is slight and should he live, he will suffer permanent and protracted loss of brain function.”

Four black people have been arrested so far.

At a press conference. Ray’s father said his son did not feel the neighborhood was dangerous. Ray was a good person, a gentle person, a sweet person, said his friends and family. He like comic books and posing in super hero outfits for gag photos. As an aspiring film-maker, Ray contributed the opening sequence of a local cable access news talk show that was about “Meeting Neighbors. Making Friends.”

This 26-year old free spirit took people as he found them. He hoped for the same. Others in St. Paul know better. At least in that neighborhood:

The most valuable part of the article outlines what he calls 'INFANTILE OMNIPOTENCE' and he states that THIS IS WHAT GOT RAY WIDSTRAND BEATEN.

There are dozens of examples in the book where some, like Ray, feel invulnerable to the danger of racial violence. Some died.

They were suffering from what psychologists called an inflated sense of safety in overtly dangerous situations: “Infantile omnipotence.”

“Some people think they can be safe in a dangerous neighborhood,” said Marlin Newburn, a former prison psychologist and author of the upcoming book: Send Your Kids to Jail. A Manual for the Mutant Parent. “They are like infants. Preadolescents truly feel themselves as 10 feet tall and bullet proof, and the infantalized teen or adult feels the same way: They do not believe what they have not personally experienced.”

Again the WARNING: this author and his subject matter are not for the faint of heart...it's only against the background of a young man turned into a vegetable that I can stomach this....

[xd ED]

I am reminded of the joke about the guy with the baseball bat and the big, ugly mugger. As it was advised- hit the bad guy once, if he doesn't fall over, just hand him the bat.
Similarly, if I was being accosted by a mob of 10, and after I shot 3 of them with my six shooter, the mob kept coming.... might be best for me just to hand them the gun.

[Mn01r6]

According to the FBI, there were 577 crimes motivated by anti-white bias in 2011, nationwide. There were 575 anti-white crimes in 2010, 545 in 2009 and 716 in 2008. There were more than 2,000 crimes motivated by anti-black bias in each one of those years (almost 2,500 in 2011). There are also far more anti-gay hate crimes than anti-white each year as well. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ha ... es/table-1

[Uffdaphil]

According to the FBI, there were 577 crimes motivated by anti-white bias in 2011, nationwide. There were 575 anti-white crimes in 2010, 545 in 2009 and 716 in 2008. There were more than 2,000 crimes motivated by anti-black bias in each one of those years (almost 2,500 in 2011). There are also far more anti-gay hate crimes than anti-white each year as well. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ha ... es/table-1

"Hate crime" statistics are so disingenuous. And such a handy tool for the agenda of Eric Holder and his fellow travelers. Let's see what demographic percentage of ALL homicides are black against white and vice versa. Just the opposite of what the politically correct FBI subset implies. That the identical degree of murder is judged more heinous based on thought is repugnant and corrupting of the equal protection principle.

[xd ED]

According to the FBI, there were 577 crimes motivated by anti-white bias in 2011, nationwide. There were 575 anti-white crimes in 2010, 545 in 2009 and 716 in 2008. There were more than 2,000 crimes motivated by anti-black bias in each one of those years (almost 2,500 in 2011). There are also far more anti-gay hate crimes than anti-white each year as well. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ha ... es/table-1

"Hate crime" statistics are so disingenuous. And such a handy tool for the agenda of Eric Holder and his fellow travelers. Let's see what demographic percentage of ALL homicides are black against white and vice versa. Just the opposite of what the politically correct FBI subset implies. That the identical degree of murder is judged more heinous based on thought is repugnant and corrupting of the equal protection principle.

Indeed.
To determine a crime to be a 'hate' crime, the state of mind of the perpetrator must me determined to be relevant. This can be as simple or complicated as the powers-that-be wish.
Practically speaking, it's almost assumed in white on black crimes against persons, and downplayed, if not ignored in most black on white crime; witness the local/ current case of Ray Widstrand: a white man set upon by a gang of black people, yet no evidence of a hate crime is the current prattle.

View the true statistics regarding the gender, and ethnicity of perpetrators and victims; it's not even close.

[Mn01r6]

According to the FBI, there were 577 crimes motivated by anti-white bias in 2011, nationwide. There were 575 anti-white crimes in 2010, 545 in 2009 and 716 in 2008. There were more than 2,000 crimes motivated by anti-black bias in each one of those years (almost 2,500 in 2011). There are also far more anti-gay hate crimes than anti-white each year as well. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ha ... es/table-1

"Hate crime" statistics are so disingenuous. And such a handy tool for the agenda of Eric Holder and his fellow travelers. Let's see what demographic percentage of ALL homicides are black against white and vice versa. Just the opposite of what the politically correct FBI subset implies. That the identical degree of murder is judged more heinous based on thought is repugnant and corrupting of the equal protection principle.

Indeed.
To determine a crime to be a 'hate' crime, the state of mind of the perpetrator must me determined to be relevant. This can be as simple or complicated as the powers-that-be wish.
Practically speaking, it's almost assumed in white on black crimes against persons, and downplayed, if not ignored in most black on white crime; witness the local/ current case of Ray Widstrand: a white man set upon by a gang of black people, yet no evidence of a hate crime is the current prattle.

View the true statistics regarding the gender, and ethnicity of perpetrators and victims; it's not even close.

Ok, please show me the data that back up your claims I am being targeted for murder by blacks. Black people only murdered a total of 448 white people in 2011. That's hardly Helter Skelter or they had a lot of friendly fire incidents since they also murdered nearly 2,500 of their same race in 2011.

[xd ED]

Where did I state anything about murder?
I do not currently have at my disposal the ability to reference the various statistics citing the breakdown of violent crime/ crimes against persons.
Nor do I wish to proceed in a manner that some on this board do as they trot out statistics to bolster and justify their bigotry.
But to ignore or suggest that an ethnic disparity of violent crime perpetrators doesn't exist is equally wrong and perhaps equally bigoted.

it's no hobby or interest of mine to study such things, but with a short bit of googling one can find that among the statistics that highlight the issue are the numbers regarding sexual assault:

Interracial Rape Statistics

When whites do violence -- rape, murder, assault -- how often do they choose black victims? Shouldn't a nation of bigots target blacks most of the time? At least half of the time? Of course, it does not. When whites commit violence, they to it to blacks 2.4 percent of the time. Blacks, on the other hand, choose white victims more than half the time. [317]
In those cases in which the race of the killer is known, blacks kill twice as many whites as whites kill blacks. Black-on-white robberies and gang assaults are twenty-one times more common than white on black. In the case of gang robbery, blacks victimize whites fifty-two times more often than whites do blacks. [318]

The contrasts are even more stark in the case of interracial rape. Studies from the late 1950s showed that the vast majority of rapes were same-race offenses. Research in Philadelphia carried out in 1958 and 1960 indicated that of all rapes, only 3.2 percent were black-on-white assaults and 3.6 percent were white-on-black. Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white rapes has soared. In a 1974 study in Denver, 40 percent of all rapes were of whites by blacks, and not one case of white-on-black rape was found. In general, through the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times more common that white-on-black rape. [319]

Because interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white, it has become difficult to do research on it or to find relevant statistics. The FBI keeps very detailed national records on crime, but the way it presents rape data obscures the racial element rather than clarifies it.

[CUZICAN]

Where did I state anything about murder?
I do not currently have at my disposal the ability to reference the various statistics citing the breakdown of violent crime/ crimes against persons.
Nor do I wish to proceed in a manner that some on this board do as they trot out statistics to bolster and justify their bigotry.
But to ignore or suggest that an ethnic disparity of violent crime perpetrators doesn't exist is equally wrong and perhaps equally bigoted.

it's no hobby or interest of mine to study such things, but with a short bit of googling one can find that among the statistics that highlight the issue are the numbers regarding sexual assault:

Interracial Rape Statistics

When whites do violence -- rape, murder, assault -- how often do they choose black victims? Shouldn't a nation of bigots target blacks most of the time? At least half of the time? Of course, it does not. When whites commit violence, they to it to blacks 2.4 percent of the time. Blacks, on the other hand, choose white victims more than half the time. [317]
In those cases in which the race of the killer is known, blacks kill twice as many whites as whites kill blacks. Black-on-white robberies and gang assaults are twenty-one times more common than white on black. In the case of gang robbery, blacks victimize whites fifty-two times more often than whites do blacks. [318]

The contrasts are even more stark in the case of interracial rape. Studies from the late 1950s showed that the vast majority of rapes were same-race offenses. Research in Philadelphia carried out in 1958 and 1960 indicated that of all rapes, only 3.2 percent were black-on-white assaults and 3.6 percent were white-on-black. Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white rapes has soared. In a 1974 study in Denver, 40 percent of all rapes were of whites by blacks, and not one case of white-on-black rape was found. In general, through the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times more common that white-on-black rape. [319]

Because interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white, it has become difficult to do research on it or to find relevant statistics. The FBI keeps very detailed national records on crime, but the way it presents rape data obscures the racial element rather than clarifies it.

I was excused from jury duty because i was aware of the black on white rape statistics. it was a black male that raped a white female -

[Pat Cannon]

I'm thinking, warning shots/'suppressive fire' is just a waste of ammo. The best deterrence will be assailants falling down. In my humble opinion, the training you have is still valid.

[Mn01r6]

Where did I state anything about murder?
I do not currently have at my disposal the ability to reference the various statistics citing the breakdown of violent crime/ crimes against persons.
Nor do I wish to proceed in a manner that some on this board do as they trot out statistics to bolster and justify their bigotry.
But to ignore or suggest that an ethnic disparity of violent crime perpetrators doesn't exist is equally wrong and perhaps equally bigoted.

it's no hobby or interest of mine to study such things, but with a short bit of googling one can find that among the statistics that highlight the issue are the numbers regarding sexual assault:

Interracial Rape Statistics

When whites do violence -- rape, murder, assault -- how often do they choose black victims? Shouldn't a nation of bigots target blacks most of the time? At least half of the time? Of course, it does not. When whites commit violence, they to it to blacks 2.4 percent of the time. Blacks, on the other hand, choose white victims more than half the time. [317]
In those cases in which the race of the killer is known, blacks kill twice as many whites as whites kill blacks. Black-on-white robberies and gang assaults are twenty-one times more common than white on black. In the case of gang robbery, blacks victimize whites fifty-two times more often than whites do blacks. [318]

The contrasts are even more stark in the case of interracial rape. Studies from the late 1950s showed that the vast majority of rapes were same-race offenses. Research in Philadelphia carried out in 1958 and 1960 indicated that of all rapes, only 3.2 percent were black-on-white assaults and 3.6 percent were white-on-black. Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white rapes has soared. In a 1974 study in Denver, 40 percent of all rapes were of whites by blacks, and not one case of white-on-black rape was found. In general, through the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times more common that white-on-black rape. [319]

Because interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white, it has become difficult to do research on it or to find relevant statistics. The FBI keeps very detailed national records on crime, but the way it presents rape data obscures the racial element rather than clarifies it.

I am going to politely excuse myself from this discussion, which is what I tend to do whenever someone cites a work that references material at least 20 years out of date, which goes against FBI statistics, and the author also says things like "I don't think there's anything wrong with the American Constitution that a racial definition of citizenship wouldn't cure."

Thank you and goodnight.