This is one of those "What If's" that some people seem to hate so much while others don't mind. Please forgive me if you are from the former camp. I also apologize for its length. EDIT: I also just realized that with mention of MOA and Light Rail this 'could' be a MN Carry issue so please move if needed.

I thought back to a situation that happened to me and tried to spin it into a potential self defense scenario. Quite some time ago when Light Rail was new, I road it once or twice from downtown Minneapolis to MOA and back. It was more for the novelty of it, to see how it worked, how long it took, how many stops, etc. On one of the rides from Minneapolis down to MOA there were a group (maybe 4-5) of young girls who were perhaps 14-16 years old or so who got on, as I did, at the very first/last stop on the line which is at Hennepin avenue and 5th I believe. They were VERY loud and VERY obnoxious the entire ride using foul language and running back and forth up and down the train car. I don't think I've heard the F-Bomb dropped so many times in such a short period of time in my life. I'm not usually easily offended by language, etc but these young women seemed like they were in a contest to use the most profanity in a certain period of time. Coupled with the volume level and running back and forth it was obvious from the looks on the their faces that many if not most of the people onboard were as thoroughly disgusted, as was I. I kept hoping the girls would get off at the next stop. I soon resigned myself to the fact that, like I, they were going all the way to MOA. This became apparent when one of them (the loudest of the bunch) proclaimed to one of the others in the group how last time she was at MOA and got banned from there, she had used this other girls name (who was also on the train). This led to even further spirited conversation amongst the group and the suggestion that one or the other of them repeatedly try things that are anatomically impossible.

I had, at several points during the ride, thought of politely requesting that the group be a little more quiet, refrain from running up and down the train car or try to not use so much profanity as these things were bothering myself and others as well. I decided it was not a good idea at the time to say anything. I decided to stick it out and was never so glad to be at MOA in my life. In hindsight (which we know is always 20/20) I suppose I could have gotten off at the next stop while still in Minneapolis and waited 15 minutes or so for the next train to come by and rode that down to MOA. However, light rail was new and I didn't understand the concept of the endless loops the cars make over and over from Hennepin and 5th to MOA and back.

I can't help but wonder what may have happened if I had said something. I was carrying my S&W 340PD .357 in a OWB holster at 3:00 on my belt covered by a shirt. Here, finally, is the question. Had I politely asked them to quiet down, stop using profanity, running around and had one of them (perhaps the loudest of the group) decided she didn't like my request, pulled a weapon of some sort, would I lose the status of a reluctant participant having initiated the contact/conversation to begin with? Or, would my simple, polite request be considered something a normal person might do without fear of retribution? Any thoughts would be appreciated. I know I could have done any number of things such as getting off at the next stop, push the emergency button on the wall of the train which alerts the driver of trouble and he can either respond or simply let the call go through to 911. I'm more interested in finding out what people think about my status as a reluctant participant once I make initial contact with someone who could turn out very quickly to be someone I may have to use lethal force against. Thanks.

When this happens, call 911. They WANT to suck you in. Don't give them what they want.

911 would be the answer for this. That's what the Transit Police are for.

Personally, I avoid public transit for just this reason.

Agreed, in this day and age I doubt I would push my luck and say anything. I was just curious about the reluctant participant angle and what people's thoughts were on where I would stand if I chose to say something.

To me this is one of those "what ifs" that has a "depends" kind of answer.

Legally it seems to be on the bubble and should you have needed to defend yourself, you likely would have been at the mercy of a jury. Who is on that jury, how good your lawyer is, how good the prosecutor is, and who the judge is will all end up determining whether or not you did "right". (that's a serious flaw as far as I'm concerned - but then, that's reality)

The other thing here is that regardless of how the law sees it - how would you see it after the fact? would it be worth it?

I've been in similar situations with young kids around who I didn't feel should be exposed to the language - I said something and they shut up. I didn't have a handgun on me at the time - but if I had I'm sure I would have reacted the same way. Had the young kids not been there, I wouldn't have said anything.

Here in MN, I wouldn't be comfortable with my chances at the jury, in TX - you might have a better chance - however IMHO (regardless of state) your best option was what you did - keep quiet... FWIW.

Agreed with previous posters, call 911

However hypothetically if you don't do that and you do initiate the conversation, you'd probably be at the DA/juries mercy. Whether "you started it" probably depends on how the other people on the train describe the incident. You'd do yourself a big favor that if she pulled a weapon you then made a very vocal attempt to descalate and back away. Then even if the jury felt you initiated the initial confrontation, you regain your reluctant participant status.

But why go that far. You're going to spend a lot in legal fees. You'll end up having shot a kid. And it'll probably not improve your life in the long run.

As opposed to just dialling three numbers and letting someone else do their job.

As with most what-ifs, I disagree with the unspoken premises of the question.

1) Lecturing a bunch of mouthy kids probably isn't going to change their behavior

2) Key decision point is whether they pose a threat of GBH. As described, due to the age, behavior, number, and presence of numerous witnesses, it seems to me unlikely that they pose a threat.

3) If you decide up front that lecturing them is safe and effective, then keep your pistol in your holster

4) If you were wrong, then you fucked up and you have a serious problem. Having a pistol does not make this problem worse.

5) Calling 911 to complain about mouthy kids on the train probably isn't going to work any better than lecturing them, so don't bother. The practical choices are to put up with it or disengage. I recommend a portable music player and earphones, just sit with your back to a corner so you can maintain your situational awareness while listening to tunes.

Mostly,
I (mostly) agreed with your post up until the "listening to tunes" part. IMO, that is not an option if one is going to keep situational awareness.

Sheesh, guys, this is an easy one.

"Reluctant participant" doesn't mean craven coward; it means non-aggressor. Asking some children to watch their language is not, legally, an act of aggression.

Whether it is wise, or effective, is a seperate question.

Andrew is right, sort of. The fact you have a gun should not matter at all. But, the gun IS fairly part of the question here. If you would not normally speak up because you are afraid that you might be exposed to great bodily harm, obviously, you'd stay silent. It's just kids being intentionally obnoxious, and intentionally trying to intimidate or provoke a reaction.

The way I read the question is that having analyzed the plan this far, you then remember your gun, so you are emboldened; because, if the fear that they may threaten great bodily harm is realized, you can then use the gun to solve that potential threat.

That's the way cops do it, it's not what civilians, with no duty to police other people, should probably do.

It ain't illegal, the way it is presented, but that's the law school answer, so I agree with Andrew on an intellectual level. But life is not like a bar examination question, and the courts often get things wrong, as anyone with practical experience in court will tell you. (In law school we assume the courts get it right.)

The reason you have to pay taxes to hire police is so you don't have to do this stuff yourself. Most jurors in Minnesota will think people shold call the cops rather than insert themselve in a messy situation. Those of us that are willing to do this stuff ourselves, unfortunately, are unlikely to be on the bench or part of the the majority of a jury.

A good prosecutor will make sure of this....

Ah, but if you have your "headphones on" you don't always have to have it turned way up. I'll put them on, and have them loud enough to drown out background noise (vehicle noise) but low enough that I can hear people around me. Keep my hand near the volume button/knob so I can adjust it as the situation calls for, without having to reach for it and be obvious.

This is basically what I was thinking/getting at. Would, what I would consider a simple act of trying to get some unruly young people to be quiet and stop running up and down the train swearing at each other, be considered 'starting it' in the eyes of a court. I also realize there's 'the law' and then there's often 'reality' and they don't always agree.



I guess I'm not sure about this comment. I indicated this was a past event that I was just now thinking about from a self defense perspective and wondering about a simple act of asking someone to quiet down and stop disturbing the rest of the people on the train. I'm not sure where the "emboldened" part comes in? It certainly didn't come in at the time of the incident and it's got no place in the current thought process as I'm simply asking what others think about the 'reluctant participant' angle on this situation might be. I wasn't asking people what I should or shouldn't HAVE DONE in this situation (which some have answered anyway which is fine) but simply what they thought the ramifications might be if I did say something and that simple question escalated the situation into one where I had to use lethal force.

Thanks for the responses so far. It looks like there's a theme of it boiling down to what the judge, prosecutor and jury think your intentions were as well as what witnesses on the train say happened. In other words, it could go either way.

I hope I did the quotes correct as this is the first time I've tried to quote two different people in one post so I put the quote tags in manually.

What a truly great society we have created when we have to ask ourselves, for fear of being brought before the authorities, if we should repremand some idiot teenagers for being loud and disrespectful.

"It makes a sad statement when simply doing the right thing makes a person into a hero; it makes a sadder one still when it makes them into a criminal."

(Not sure who to attribute the quote to)