Thugs firing randomly into crowds. Was this ever done in the past or is it mainly a modern practice?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@usedtobe

The cited history looked (quick scan) to be the thugs in the employ of either the company owners or the Government.
The Pinkertons were hired guns who shot whoever they were paid to shoot.

Don’t forget Ford in 1938 or so.

The not-paid-for-it shootings are the ones under discussion.

Whites tend to shoot individuals - Colorado High School, Sandy Hook, a couple of theaters - they seem about due for another shooting by copycats.

Random into a crowd seems to be a black thing.

The new rolleyes smiley doesn’t even come close to being adequate for that bolded statement above, but here it is anyway: :rolleyes:

Hey, here’s another example of thugs who were fond of firing indiscriminately into crowds:[the UK’s Military Reaction Force:

They were armed with Browning pistols and Sterling sub-machine guns. Former MRF members admitted that the unit shot unarmed people without warning, both IRA members and civilians,[7] knowingly breaking the British Army’s Rules of Engagement.[6] Former MRF members claim they had a list of targets they were ordered to “shoot on sight”,[8][4] the aim being to “beat them at their own game”[8] and to “terrorise” the republican movement.[6] According to Cursey, the unit was told that these tactics had British Government backing, “as part of a deeper political game”.[8] He said his section shot at least 20 people: “We opened fire at any small group in hard areas […] armed or not – it didn’t matter. We targeted specific groups that were always up to no good. These types were sympathisers and supporters, assisting the IRA movement. As far as we were concerned they were guilty by association and party to terrorist activities, leaving themselves wide open to the ultimate punishment from us”.

They said they fired on groups of people manning defensive barricades, on the assumption that some might be armed.

](Military Reaction Force - Wikipedia)From my research, it seems that this tactic isn’t at all something that gangs do (regardless of their skin color), so much as something that governments and wealthy (and powerful) individuals use.

[stillownedbysetters]

I’ve heard it said that randomly shooting into a crowd or in a drive-by has arisen because of initation rituals in gangs, which require that the rookie shoot someone to attain full membership in the gang. Clearly it would be easier on the shooter (and of course, far more cowardly) to randomly shoot someone they can’t see, than to open fire face to face with someone standing in front of them. By keeping their distance from the victim, they are also more likely to get away with it, as they are often not seen by the victim and there is no apparent motive for the shooting to link the shooter to the victim.

[Trinopus]

@Mithras

. . . That’s an incredibly fine hair your trying to split. . . .

It’s a fine hair…but you’re the one trying to split it, if you claim that a theater audience is composed of individuals when they’re seated, but a crowd when they stand to work their way to the exits.

What about a bunch of people waiting to board a ferryboat? If they stand in a line, they’re individuals, but if they group up in a mass they’re a crowd? Does the geometric arrangement of a group of people change their group/individual association?

What if the lights are low in the theater, and the shooter can’t see people as individuals?

[Mithras]

@Trinopus

It’s a fine hair…but you’re the one trying to split it, if you claim that a theater audience is composed of individuals when they’re seated, but a crowd when they stand to work their way to the exits.

What about a bunch of people waiting to board a ferryboat? If they stand in a line, they’re individuals, but if they group up in a mass they’re a crowd? Does the geometric arrangement of a group of people change their group/individual association?

What if the lights are low in the theater, and the shooter can’t see people as individuals?

I think this post would be better addressed to the poster I was replying to than me. I do not believe there is much more than a contrived distinction and was replying to someone who does.

[Trinopus]

@Mithras

I think this post would be better addressed to the poster I was replying to than me. I do not believe there is much more than a contrived distinction and was replying to someone who does.

I apologize; I got confused in the give-and-take.

[usedtobe]

@Snowboarder_Bo

The new rolleyes smiley doesn’t even come close to being adequate for that bolded statement above, but here it is anyway: :rolleyes:

Hey, here’s another example of thugs who were fond of firing indiscriminately into crowds:the UK’s Military Reaction Force:From my research, it seems that this tactic isn’t at all something that gangs do (regardless of their skin color), so much as something that governments and wealthy (and powerful) individuals use.

Another case of firing at individuals - when you can see your target’s face.

a huge psychological difference between shooting specific individuals.
They were shot because of what they were actively doing.

Not because they were in a crowd and you didn’t care who you hit.

And the Boston Boston Massacre, when you find it was shooting into people who were actively engaged.

They didn’t walk down the street and shoot random people.

Targeting! It’s a Thing!

So far, all the ‘White’ shooting were at a selected group.
Very different than driving down a street and shooting random people.

[Lumpy]

I don’t think this qualifies as shooting “into a crowd”, but it was a case of a maniac indiscriminately shooting whoever he came across; 7 plus the shooter dead, 32 wounded to various degrees. With a shotgun. In 1915:
http://www.glynngen.com/history/bwkmassacre.htm

[Miller]

@usedtobe

People in a theater are sitting individually, not in mass. See the difference?

No, I can’t say as I do.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@usedtobe

And the Boston Boston Massacre, when you find it was shooting into people who were actively engaged.

As opposed to the Chicago Boston Massacre, which was all over the place.