Dickson City: An alternate outcome

[TonyF]

To begin, this is not at all about the merits of OC vs. CC or the political issues at stake surrounding the events of 5/9. Neither is this specifically directed at the actual dinner party participants but let us use them for the purpose of this academic exercise if only because they likely represent a typical cross section of gun owners.

IIRC, a member of the dinner party responded to a remark from a patron or waitress that the OCB on that particular evening was “… the safest place around” or words to that effect due to the fact that the Dickson 12 were all armed. That is the notion I wish to challenge.

This is a question about a group of armed acquaintances suddenly faced with coordinating against a violent, unanticipated armed robbery by at least two “actors” during their dining experience. IOW, this thread is more an issue of tactics and teamwork.

There is precedence. IIRC, there was an armed robbery at a Pittsburgh area Eat N Park not too long ago in the middle of the afternoon.

I know at least some of the Dickson 12 have had some formal training (PA Patriot for one). I’m guessing that at least several have had no training at all. Perhaps a few of them have been in the military indicating they have had some exposure to firearms and marksmanship fundamentals and a few may even have combat experience. However, some of them had not even met prior to that evening and thus had no idea of each other’s respective skill level.

Could that “mix” of experience necessarily translate into an effective fighting force capable of dealing with an armed assault by several “actors”, in a crowded restaurant, with some of their family members present, and amidst frightened and panicked patrons and employees?

I think not as this is a scenario that would even be difficult to resolve if members of the same SWAT team happened to be dining together.

Details such as muzzle discipline, the potential for crossfire and “friendly fire”, your attention being divided between the “actors” and your family, the possibility of return fire directed at you and consequently putting your family members in the line of fire are just a few of the issues that need to be considered.

If I were in a similar situation attended by my usual circle of shooting buddies, all of whom have had a great deal of training, I’m confident that we could at least depend on each other exercising muzzle discipline and be able to take advantage of some measure of communication skills.

But IMO, a random group of people with disparate levels of training and some without any, finding themselves thrust into an extremely dangerous and volatile situation, the statement “… the safest place around” based solely on the fact that they were armed, is supremely overconfident and greatly oversimplifies the dynamics of such a scenario.

[nijwnfi]

On the other hand, a couple scumbags looking for a quick payday are hardly Delta Force.

[TonyF]

On the other hand, a couple scumbags looking for a quick payday are hardly Delta Force.

The skill level of the "actors" is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the potential for gunfire to erupt in a crowded environment and the possibility of twelve armed patrons responding individually, without any knowledge of each others relative skill level and as is often the case with these quickly unfolding events, no time to coordinate their efforts.

Two points:

1) This type of scenario has the potential to go "south" very quickly.

2) Simply being armed is not in and of itself a "tactical solution".

[nijwnfi]

In an ideal situation, the perps would see armed individuals and flee, but that's a bit much to wish for. Both sides could be equally dangerous, I see your point.

[TonyF]

In an ideal situation, the perps would see armed individuals and flee,

I agree.

but that's a bit much to wish for.

Ditto. The fact is in this day and age, the M.O. seems to be charging in like gang-busters a la home invasion as opposed to "casing" a place looking for easy pickin's.

[Ithaca1937]

One can also construe that the "Dickson City Dozen" were irrelevant. They were 12 acquaintances without the knowledge of each others skill, training or courage. They also were unaware of anyone else that may have been armed. We have seen on this forum and others that some feel that concealed carry is better. The problem of muzzle discipline and communication will always be there.

If a bad guy came into the Old Country Buffet with the intention of harming people and there were 12 people, unknown to each other, carrying concealed the same problem would occur. They are an unknown to each other, and I doubt they would be able to establish any communication. Seeing as nobody is perfect, being trained is still no guarantee the situation won't go south quickly. SWAT has the advantage of going into the place knowing their is a problem, unlike the 12 armed citizens that were for the most part ambushed.

[larrymeyer]

I was there and made that remark not to any one person but to the Officers in the vestibule and outside so I don't know where this made a comment to a lady came from.

As for the rest I agree to a point not all of us had family there. I don't believe 12 of us would have stood up and started blasting away at two or three bad guys. The managers were CC so they might but for me and the other 11 i believe caution would have been followed as there were kids there and money can be replaced. I'd have stopped anyone at my table from raising and firing. Just my $.02 nobody I meet that night was trying to be a hero or a political activists are talking like they would want to be.

The presentation your preposition will always exist with people who are meeting for dinner. Thats why the services stress the same training over and over again. In the civilian world each group has it's own way of training. So even with a well trained group each person will react differently depending on their stress levels. That will always be true even with LEO's

[TonyF]

I was there and made that remark not to any one person but to the Officers in the vestibule and outside so I don't know where this made a comment to a lady came from.

I stand corrected (to whom the remark was directed). I did try to search for it but that thread is so long I gave up.

It doesn't really matter who said it or to whom it was said. And it really has nothing to do with the DC incident.

The point is that allot of people have the mentality that merely having a firearm on their person will somehow in and of itself provide for a positive outcome. I'm not a mind reader so I certainly don't know why you said it.

The statement simply provided an opportunity to raise what I feel are some serious issues for people to consider when going out and about carrying a firearm. Ithaca1937's example of twelve armed people not dining together actually creates another far worse scenario. In that type of situation it would be difficult to determine the bad guys from the good guys.

[JayBell]

what, you guys dont offer a course we can pay for to train us into awesome diner assault operators?

better speak to your folks about that, I know that I want to make sure that when I go to breakfast, I want to be able to work with my couple of armed buddies like HRT on a dynamic entry op.

[DPB]

Interesting question. I am not acquainted with any of the "Dickson 12," nor am I familiar with the location where this incident took place. Because of this, my observations will be somewhat generalized.

Best possible solution involving weapon deployment/gunfire, the trained individual(s) are able to respond appropriately before the general melee/fracas/free-for-all begins.

Unfortunately, there are a great many assumptions with this outcome. Minimally: 1) Someone brought their A game (or got lucky) and was sufficiently alert (and lucky) to see the situation develop, 2) He/She was able to deploy a weapon in a timely manner, 3) He/She had a clean field of fire, 4) He/She was able to effectively engage the hostiles, 5) The hostiles quit or were made to quit before more confusion ensued.

The factor that makes all of this (or any other favorable outcome) unlikely is that the restaurant scenario is likely to contain a large number of persons who are neither with the criminal element nor with the responding party. These "noncombatants," for lack of a better term, provide camouflage, cover, concealment, distractions, and potential hostages for the criminal element while providing no advantage to the responding party. There are a lot of "no shoots" in this scenario.

Even if some of the armed citizens have training, what is the probability they have any "team" training? Will any of the unarmed family members know to get down and out of the way, or, alternately, will one of the armed citizens have the presence of mind to tell them to do so. Same questions regarding the other noncombatants present. The speed at which this scenario could develop could mean that only individual skills matter and that team skills are not relevant.

The individual reactions of all parties involved is another huge variable.

At a minimum, individual weapon skills would be critical. Possibly even more important, however, is weapon discipline, specifically, don't try to force a shot you don't have. Clearly, a trained individual should have both superior skills and superior discipline.