That is, a whole bunch of people who are armed hear a shot, someone tries to shoot back, someone else shoots at them, a third person shoots at the second person, and so forth. Has this ever actually happened anywhere? Cowboys, gang members, soldiers, police, anyone?
Third party involves themselves in a violent altercation between two others? Yup. Then the police show up…
I cant give you any specifics, but there are situations were an armed robber starts a gunfight with a shop proprietor, and customers also pull out weapons.
Then the inevitable and hopefully prompt police show up.
Possibly controversial example - Bloody Sunday. The paras were pumped up to expect trouble, civilians threw bricks at them, they claim to have heard shots, they did some shooting of their own, and at that point a few IRA men took up sniping positions and fired back at the soldiers (ineffectively). If the IRA had more armed men on the ground it might have turned into a day-long gun battle, but apparently the IRA had asked their men to stay clear of the area. Ultimately the opposing forces were too unequal in numbers and firepower for that to happen, and it became a massacre rather than a battle.
For the situation you describe, presumably civilians and perhaps the Royal Ulster Constabulary would have had to get involved in the shooting; you’d need several armed groups on the spot at once.
On a much wider scale, the First World War! Serbia versus Austria-Hungary plus Germany plus Turkey versus Russia and France plus Belgium plus Britain etc. A shot was heard; millions died.
Specifics requested please. Everyone’s certain this has happened somewhere, sometime but where’s a cite?
Article starts out by saying the whole incident is apocryphal and it’s historical accuracy is doubtful.
I think we can leave conventional battles and massacres out of this. I’m referring to “friendly fire” by a panicking crowd.
How is this not simply the concept of “escalating conflict”?
I would’ve assumed many gunfights and battles over the years started this way - from verbal, to physical, to armed, etc…
Sounds pretty much like WW1.
There was a story in the news this week, probably nytimes or washingtonpost about a snitch, CI, some such who gave the wrong address and an old woman and another policeman were shot in a situation where most say there should have been no shooting at all.
With no cite save my memory, I know of several cases.
- Some fool pulls a gun.
- Policeman A (in civilan clothes) pulls his gun.
- Policeman B shoots Policeman A.
I skimmed Wikipedia’s Shootout article. I may very well have missed something, but I could find only one example of an armed bystander being involved in a shootout with cops and crooks. Armed bystander shoots perp, but is defeated by body armor. Perp kills armed bystander, cops kill perp.
Tyler Courthouse shootout
February 24, 2005. David Hernandez Arroyo attacked his ex-wife, Maribel Estrada, and her son outside the courthouse in Tyler, Texas. Arroyo was armed with a semi-automatic MAK-90 (AK-47 clone with a semi-automatic receiver) rifle. Mrs. Estrada was shot in the head and died; her son was shot in the leg but recovered. The shots immediately brought a response from nearby sheriff’s deputies and Tyler Police. Arroyo began trading gunfire with the officers, who were armed only with pistols, and forced them to retreat, wounding several of them. A passing citizen, Mark Allen Wilson, drew his own pistol and attempted to aid the officers but Arroyo was wearing body armor and Wilson’s pistol failed to stop him; Wilson was shot and killed by Arroyo. Afterward, Arroyo jumped in his pickup and led police on a high-speed chase, exchanging gunfire along the way. Arroyo was eventually shot and killed by a responding officer armed with a CAR-15 rifle.
Deaths: 3 (Arroyo, Estrada and Wilson)
Three way gunfight last March: Shootout at Tempe rap venue injures 14
250 people wait in line for rap concert. 3 gunmen have argument: mayhem ensues: 14 injured, none killed thankfully.
More: Shooting at Nipsey Hussle Concert Injures 14 – Rolling Stone
Police friendly fire incidents:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6837950
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2011/12/16/news/mj5444896.txt
I’m curious about this as well. As with any spree shooting tragedy, there is always talk of gun control, and those who believe that more civilians carrying concealed would have stopped the spree before more people were killed.
One of the rebuttals to this argument is that of the supposed ‘contagious shooting’ phenomenon (I believe it was even featured in an episode of ‘CSI’) and some sort of chain-reaction occurring where multiple bystanders at a shooting all begin shooting each other, each of them wrongly believing their target to be ‘the bad guy’, but Googling hasn’t shown me a true-life incident of this actually happening:
Shooter A starts shooting in a public place; Conceal Carrying Shooter B responds by firing back at Shooter A; A third bystander, also with a CCW, enters the fray, and wrongly believes Shooter B to have initiated the shooting, and starts firing at Shooter B… and so forth. Increase the number of shooters depending on how many people are carrying firearms.
You would think with the prevalence of gun ownership in the United States, and of the states that allow CCW permits, that this sort of things would eventually be bound to happen more often, but I can’t find anything like that, and I can’t recall seeing anything like that on the news.
I really can’t weigh in on either side of the matter without knowing if this sort of thing is plausible: logically, it should be possible, and even likely, if you combine civilians with limited firearms training with increased gun ownership and concealed carry permits.
Currently comparatively few people carry; in my state only about 3% of the eligible population have carry permits, and presumably not all of those carry regularly. So armed citizens are sparse enough that except in large crowds (and most venues like stadiums ban carry*), you’re unlikely to have multiple armed citizens.
*with varying degrees of effectiveness.
Gunfight at the OK corral?
This is exactly what you’re looking for.. More or less. It almost happened. 
For the link-averse: Basically a man with a concealed-carry weapon almost shot someone who was already subduing the shooter.
I’ve wondered about this scenario too.
I’m not sure I’d want to be waving around a firearm when the police show up to deal with a shoot-out. If people are falling down all over the place, I don’t think there’s much in the way of questions being asked first.
IIRC, that battle was caused by a group of Open Carry enthusiasts (the Clanton Cowboy outlaw gang) who defied a town ordinance to check their weapons when coming to town.
It can be a matter of non-human feedback. Police can fire into a dim area and a rebound can come back at him or another officer, which may continue briefly, and all hell is breaking loose.
One of the first things emergency services ask a 911 caller in such an event is for a physical description of the shooter and what he’s armed with. Therefore, the police aren’t blind and know that they are looking for, such as a 6 ft tall white male with a red shirt, blonde hair, a mustache, and a shotgun. Unless a CC permit holder points his weapon at the police, he isn’t getting shot without gross incompetence on the part of law enforcement.
One rather large example might be the Battle of Karánsebes, if that battle actually did take place.
Surely there must be better-documented, smaller-scale incidents of mutual friendly fire in military history?
“Eligible population” means eligible because they already have some sort of license, or everybody over 18, clean record, etc.?