Citizens Arming Against Flash Mobs

[Q]

Posted: 8/15/11 at 10:04am

When I first heard the term 'flash mob', it was in connection with people gathering en masse to perform a musical number, or present some other kind of public display. Very quickly, its use seems to have morphed into describing groups of young people bent on destruction and/or mayhem. In recent days, we've seen and/or heard about incidents in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and now Missouri.

While the situation alone merits attention, especially when the world just watched what happened in England, I am a little taken aback at this TV stations apparent stance.

They've apparently discovered people who are making the choice to arm themselves for self-protection, and are stating that they would indeed use force if confronted with such a scenario. And these 'scenarios' aren't just fun and games - they have involved violence up to and including the use of guns. And this station seems to take the stance that those making the choice to prepare against violence are somehow treading a fine line because it's "kids" that are involved.

What am I missing? What is the point being made here? These are mass groups of people who are causing destruction and violent harm - and yes, THEY are not only carrying but using guns. But the response of the public is supposed to be 'oh they're just kids, so we need to be careful FOR THEIR SAKE?!?'

I think we've gone over an edge when even the concept of societal self-preservation isn't an option. But I also know that if anything like that were to occur around me, I would do anything and everything I felt necessary to protect myself or my loved ones - and yes, that means I would shoot any one of them, if that was the available option. I am SICK of appeasement to insanity.
Link to video.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/15/11 at 10:14am

Q, are you saying the flash mobs are armed? I hadn't heard that (and that's not what it says in the video you linked to, unless I missed it).

[Q]

Posted: 8/15/11 at 10:21am

Reg - guns are in use in this one.
Link to article.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/15/11 at 10:26am

I know it sounds as though I'm quibbling, but I'm just trying to understand.

Is this article talking about flash mobs? Or is that not really your larger point, anyway?

Either way, we're talking about citizens arming themselves when they go pretty much anywhere (as opposed to having a gun at home to protect their home), right? And, presumably, dealing with incidents themselves as they see fit.

[Q]

Posted: 8/15/11 at 10:39am

"Either way, we're talking about citizens arming themselves when they go pretty much anywhere (as opposed to having a gun at home to protect their home), right? And, presumably, dealing with incidents themselves as they see fit."

That's the issue, yes. And it seemed to me that what the TV report was saying was that the fact that it's teens doing this should be the mitigating circumstance. I don't buy that. A violent attack is a violent attack, no matter the age of the attacker - especially if they're using a gun.

And, this is from a freaking pacifist! BUT, if we're reaching a point where groups of people are going to go marauding, and people want to have some sort of protection against that occurance, I absolutely don't get the argument of 'they're just kids'. No, they're not. They're out of control people intent on doing harm, and I get wanting to protect against that.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/15/11 at 11:00am

I don't want to give a general response (not least because I don't have one), but in the TV report, I didn't hear a mention of the flash mob carrying guns. And didn't they say the youngest was 11?

So as awful as the flash-mob thing is (and I certainly would like them prosecuted to the fullest extent), we are talking about actual children as well as teens. And I'm not sure I feel better knowing that some random, scared shopper might pull out a gun and start firing.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/15/11 at 11:12am

I just don't understand the use of the term "flash mob." I thought that was a specific thing, like Q said, where obnoxious theatre people force unsuspecting bystanders to watch them do a musical in public.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/15/11 at 11:17am

That's certainly how I first came to hear the term.

I think the media have started using it to describe things like this (and the London riots) that are organized or exacerbated by using social media.

Posted: 8/15/11 at 11:25am

Well when one of these horrible "Flash mobs" ask an autistic child to leave their rioting, THAT'S when I draw the line!

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 8/15/11 at 11:30am

The term flash mob was being used here in Philadelphia at least five years ago when the first groups of teens were forming in parts of the city as a result of Facebook postings or email/tweets. A time and location was given to meet and then the bands of roving teens would take to the streets. The attacks on innocent bystanders didn't really begin to occur until this summer.

The now world famous "flash mob" by the Philadelphia Opera Company singing the Halallujah Chorus didn't happen until two years ago.

The city had a quiet weekend since curfews have been enforced.

Updated On: 8/15/11 at 11:30 AM

Posted: 8/15/11 at 11:55am

In Chicago we've had a few "coordinated attacks" on stores or pedestrians going back more than a year- it has been particularly bad this summer.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/15/11 at 2:53pm

Sci-fi writer Larry Niven wrote a story called Flash Crowd in the early '70's about crowds that would communicate with each other in order to converge on a specific area via teleportation for the purposes of rioting and mayhem. Minus the teleportation, of course, it's eerily similar to what's going on in England. Wonder if that's where it originated?