
BART takeover robbery: 40 to 60 teens swarm train, rob weekend riders - edward
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php
======
jraines
I wonder if commuting by BART constitutes a "good cause" w/r/t California's
concealed-carry law. I doubt it, but it'd be kind of funny to hear a court say
out loud that in Alameda County, "exposure to risk of coordinated gang train
robbery" doesn't constitute a "non-mainstream circumstance" placing one in
harm's way.

~~~
Apocryphon
Could a handgun really deter a crowd of _40 to 60 people_? Especially if some
might be packing heat themselves? Or could just overpower you regardless?

There's situations where concealed carry could help but I'm not sure if this
case is one of them.

~~~
AcerbicZero
A train is probably the optimal situation for deterring a large group with
only a handgun, assuming you have a chance to draw before they swarm you.

Long straight lines, plenty of bodies in a row, ~10-15 rounds, and you could
probably cut that 60 number down into the 40's surprisingly quickly. Depends
on how crowded the train is in general though.

~~~
jacquesm
And kill a couple of innocent commuters with your ricochets and misses. Or did
you think that your ability to tell the 16 year old that wasn't part of it
from the 16 year that was when you're in a hurry mowing people down was still
functioning? Life isn't a FPS.

I hope that if I'm ever in the subway and it's robbed that you are not in the
same car, same for any other dirty Harry wannabe's. Better to hand over my
wallet and cell phone than to end up with a bullet from a well meaning
bystander.

~~~
jimmyk
It's estimated that guns are used defensively (not necessarily fired) by
private individuals hundreds of thousands of times per year in the US, and yet
we don't see an epidemic of innocent bystanders being accidentally shot. Why
do you think that might be? Could it be that your characterization of
concealed carriers as "dirty Harry wannabe's" is wildly inaccurate?

~~~
jacquesm
Read that comment again: the guy is seriously considering going on a shooting
spree with a train full of commuters and robbers. What do you think the
chances are of that working out? Do you think this upstanding citizen and
class-A marksman will be able to place '10 to 15 rounds' (his words, not mine)
with the precision required not to injure anybody else?

[http://americablog.com/2013/02/vigilante-walmart-shopper-
ope...](http://americablog.com/2013/02/vigilante-walmart-shopper-opens-fire-
on-shoplifter-hits-three-cars.html)

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3252074/Police-
looki...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3252074/Police-looking-
vigilante-carjacking-witness-shot-thieves-accidentally-hit-victim-head-
fleeing-scene.html) (uk)

[http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/264755/carjacking-gone-
wrong...](http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/264755/carjacking-gone-wrong-
houston-texas/)

[http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/10/vigilantes...](http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/10/vigilantes_worry_even_gun_inst.html)

How many links do you want?

Those were much less complex situations.

And you think putting all that in a crowded subway car is going to improve
matters?

~~~
jimmyk
I don't think he was suggesting it would be a good idea to start unloading
into the mob, only that it would be very effective in reducing the mob's
numbers compared to other situations where the mob is more free to move
around.

>How many links do you want?

Just 1, but this time to statistics. I didn't suggest no one has ever been hit
accidentally in a defensive shooting, just that it's incredibly rare compared
to the amount of times guns are used in self defense, and not worth fear
mongering about by suggesting concealed carriers are dirty Harry wannabe's.

------
bdrool
An earlier version of this article said something like "BART did not
immediately report the incident" (can't recall exact wording). This statement
or any equivalent appears to be removed. It looks like newsdiff.org doesn't
track sfgate.com, so I can't find the exact change. Regardless, the article
originally indicated BART didn't report the incident to the public right away.

That leads me to say: sweeping this kind of crime under the rug will not help.
Instead, it will lead to a repeat of the Goetz vigilante incident in NYC in
the early 1980s:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting)

[http://nypost.com/2011/12/23/one-of-bernhard-goetzs-
victims-...](http://nypost.com/2011/12/23/one-of-bernhard-goetzs-victims-
kills-self-on-anniversary-of-subway-shoot-2/)

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-feldman/bernie-
goetz-t...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-feldman/bernie-goetz-the-
subway-g_b_6369128.html)

That last link in particular contains a stunning statement:

> The crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically — so much so
> the authorities even held back the numbers — the truth hurt too much.

The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that it works. Please note
I _hate_ the idea of vigilantism and hope with every fiber of my being that
things do _not_ come to that, but it at first glance appears that things are
headed in that direction, which I am immensely sad and scared to see.

~~~
glangdale
> The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that it works.

[ citation needed ]

~~~
bdrool
I already gave one, just a few sentences above.

~~~
WillyOnWheels
You're justifying writing "The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is
that it works" by including a link to an article written by a NRA spokesman
that basically says "The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that
it works", without backing it up.

I've actually spent the last hour looking for statistics to back or not back
you up. I've wasted my life.

~~~
bdrool
> that basically says "The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is
> that it works", without backing it up

That's a quote from me, not from the HuffPo article. The article says "The
crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically…", as I quoted
originally.

> I've actually spent the last hour looking for statistics to back or not back
> you up. I've wasted my life.

I replied to you here with a source that only took a few minutes to find:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189548](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189548)

You seem very emotional about this topic. I would urge you to look at it more
dispassionately. As I already stated (but it bears repeating), I absolutely do
not want vigilantism to be the result of crimes like this, but I fear unless
there is an open and honest conversation, things may end up there anyway. I
believe the best (and perhaps only) way to avoid such an outcome is to
consider the possibilities that may result from various actions (or
inactions), unpleasant as they may be.

------
randyrand
> The images cannot be shared publicly, she said, because the suspects appear
> to be minors.

Does anyone have info on the law here? Pictures that include minors in them
are shared all the time over the internet and media - many times without
having permission from all the people pictured - which I believe is still
legal. Why is sharing a picture of a minor illegal in this instance?

~~~
samtho
I am not a layer, but:

Innocent until proven guilty, and once the images get out, they are
automatically guilty in the eyes of the public. Should any minor get their
record sealed when they turn 18, they would still be known to have committed
those crimes.

As they have not been apprehended the suspects, it is unknown if they would be
tried as an adult. The new outlet is erring on the side of caution here
because if the case where a suspect is tried as a minor, gets their record
sealed at 18, and will be liable for slandering the adult's name with a crime
he or she committed as a juvenile.

~~~
schoen
> The new outlet is erring on the side of caution here because if the case
> where a suspect is tried as a minor, gets their record sealed at 18, and
> will be liable for slandering the adult's name with a crime he or she
> committed as a juvenile.

Wait, what? Are you saying that the Right to Be Forgotten already exists in
the U.S. with respect to criminal convictions of minors?

~~~
SamReidHughes
Yeah the parent's wrong, you can talk about crimes all you want.

------
lancefisher
>The images cannot be shared publicly, she said, because the suspects appear
to be minors.

Really? If you're old enough to rob a train, you should be old enough to have
a wanted poster.

~~~
jacquesm
That's because that wanted poster then stays around forever because of the
internet and their records can't be wiped when they reach the age of majority.

~~~
WillPostForFood
Police typically don't release booking photos of minors, because there is
nothing to gain, and there is the potential cost you mention. But surveillance
footage that might assist in the apprehension of the criminals, even kids, is
often released, and rightfully so.

~~~
jacquesm
In this case they write they have good hope that the department they are
working with will be able to ID the suspects so there is as far as I can see
no need to release the footage.

~~~
WillPostForFood
It just shows it is a low priority, and they don't want people to see the
footage because it makes BART look bad.

------
mrspeaker
Something similar to this happened on a train to Paris a few years back and at
the time I remember thinking that it seemed like the stupidest crime you could
commit. 40+ people to split the takings with, and you only need 1 of the 40+
people to get busted to lead to the rest (the french criminals weren't
minors). I know I shouldn't try to apply logic to it, but... it just doesn't
seem like a sound profit-making venture.

~~~
defen
> it just doesn't seem like a sound profit-making venture.

It makes more sense if you look at it as a territorial dominance display.
"They" are in "our" territory so we're going to assault and humiliate them.

------
headcanon
Looks like its time for SF to film a sequel to The Warriors. As if we needed
any more reminders of the state of dystopia we find ourselves in.

~~~
Neliquat
Lol, if you think modern sf is as bad as 80 nyc, you need a cold shower.

~~~
headcanon
Oh I'm sure it was way worse, just a joke :)

------
some-guy
Reminds me of the Warriors' slogan, "Strength in Numbers".

In all seriousness though, as a daily BART commuter, I hope this doesn't
become a trend. I don't think there's any reason to panic just yet -- I feel a
lot safer inside of a BART car than on the freeway.

------
eof
40 to 60 teens working in concert? that's the real news here

------
justboxing
No mention of Guns or Knives in any of the stories. Does anyone know how these
'teens' successfully committed their robbery?

If I don't see a gun or a knife and some kid walks up to me and says "Hand me
your wallet and iPhone", I'd simply tell the 'teen' "Yeah, let me see you take
it."

~~~
MagnumOpus
And maybe that makes you a slightly less desirable target than the elderly
lady in the next carriage over, but maybe it also means you get your ribs
kicked in and your skull smashed by a dozen yobs. One stray kick in the nuts
is all it takes.

------
youdontknowtho
This is bad, but these kinds of stories serve to convince people that crime is
up when, in fact, it is down.

~~~
Altay-
Crime went down becausr wr locked up all the Urban Youth scum. Now theres
chatter of letting em out and going soft on crime. If that happens, crime will
back up.

------
locust101
I thought Oakland was being gentrified?

~~~
shawn-butler
(One of?) the underlying interpretation is that this is a response to that
gentrification.

------
russellbeattie
What are you going to do, whip out your handgun and start taking down 16 year
olds? Your iPhone 7 is totally worth a teen's life - or hell, 4 or 5 of them -
especially if they're black, right?

One would think you Trump voters would have gotten a clue by now.

~~~
Mizza
To anybody outside of California who is baffled by this comment - yes, this is
actually how rich white liberals there actually think.

When you have such stark financial and class inequality in a dense urban
environment like the bay, being mugged of your iPhone occasionally is
literally seen as a kind of moral tax that you pay for your gentrifying
presence. To defend yourself from it would be politically incorrect, both
individually to the "victim" of your self-defense, and to your class as a
whole, as you should essentially accept the mugging as a tax on your
privileged position in the cultural landscape.

I know many tech workers who live/lived in Oakland who have been mugged
(including pistol-whippings), who essentially just accepted it. Some did not
even report it to the police, as in their world-view, to do so would be to
enlisting an inherently oppressive, violent and racist force.

~~~
russellbeattie
I'm quite sure that the only one baffled is you. An iPhone is not worth a
life. Robbery happens, and killing, or threatening to kill children to prevent
it is wrong. This the moral decision, not a PC one.

Seriously, how do selfish, cowardly, sociopaths like yourself continue to
operate in this world. The last people on Earth thst should be given weapons
are people like you.

~~~
Mizza
Again, this perfectly illustrates the attitude of white Californian liberals.

I didn't once advocate for, or even once mention, guns in this situation
(obviously shooting at a crowd of people on a busy train is an absolutely
terrible idea for a whopping number of reasons) - but now I - a person you
have never interacted with previously - am a "selfish, cowardly sociopath" for
simply explaining the attitude that accepts the fact that, as you put it,
"robbery happens", that it is better to let 50 teenage gang members assault
and rob a train full of passengers than to threaten a single one of them.

In fact, I never even actually disagreed with you! I'm just trying to explain
to any other Europeans reading this the context of how your comments could
possibly make sense, because outside of the Bay Area bubble, they seem quite
shockingly absurd.

