 |
| Day 7 of Ferguson Protests |
Even before Wednesday night's shooting of another black man in St. Louis by an off-duty police officer (see also here), the mobs in Ferguson were getting testy at the the thought that the police officer involved in the original shooting would be cleared of wrongdoing. The Guardian reported:
Organisers of demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri, promised to intensify their protests over the killing of Michael Brown if the officer who shot him does not face criminal charges, warning police that they are prepared to die on the streets for their cause.
Three prominent members of the protest movement that sprung up after the deadly police shooting of Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, told a rally in New York on Tuesday night that there would be a fierce backlash if a grand jury declined to indict officer Darren Wilson.
“If they can’t serve justice in this, the people have every right to go out and express their rage in a manner that is equal to what we have suffered,” said Ashley Yates, a co-founder of Millennial Activists United, who was arrested last week while protesting in Ferguson.
Yates spoke alongside Tef Poe and Tory Russell, activists for Hands Up United and the Organisation for Black Struggle, hours after it emerged that authorities in Missouri were making plans to deal with potential riots in the event of Wilson avoiding prosecution.
“We’re going to take our anger out on the people who have failed us, and if they are prepared to deal with that, then let them have at it,” said Yates. Poe said that while people in America often expected “casual revolution”, Ferguson may be “the moment when we can’t do that”.I read that as being a fairly clear threat of rioting and mob violence.
 |
| Jakarta Riots - May 14, 1998 |
Death Valley Magazine has an article on 5 things that preppers say they will do, but will never actually happen, and one of those is successfully defending against a mob. The article specifically references the 1998 riots in Indonesia as an example of how it would not be possible to defend a home or apartment block from a mob. Those mobs (apparently Muslim from the stories I've read) raped and/or killed thousands of ethnic Chinese living in Jakarta. The author writes:
During the Jakarta riots, thousands of Chinese tried to hunker down in their houses and apartments. No matter how well fortified or heavily armed they were eventually the human waves of rioters broke in and raped, robed and/or killed them. Secure US Embassy’s, Military bases in Afghanistan and drug lord Houses in Mexico have all been taken over in resent [sic] times, proving that all buildings can and will be taken over if the opposing force is overwhelming.I've thought about that article off and on since I first read it because I wondered if there were tactics or methods that could be successfully employed to protect against a mob.
No matter how well fortified you are you can not hold back hundreds of people, desperate people will crawl over body’s [sic] to get you.
Also – Have you watched the end of Young Guns 2 where the gang is held up in an old house? Now you know how to take a house filled with people who are superior warriors.
It’s called a match.
 |
| Buildings burning during Watts Riots |
In a sense, the author of the Death Valley Magazine article is correct. There are very few modern instances of a single individual or even a small group of people holding a building or compound (i.e., a static position) against an overwhelming military or paramilitary force. I am reminded of an incident from the beginning of WWI, which I read several years ago, where a French or Belgian doctor held off hundreds of German troops from his large stone house, until they got close enough to burn the structure down. More recently, there was the 2010 incident where a Mexican farmer killed 4 narcos that had attacked his house, but other attackers eventually killed him with automatic weapons fire and grenade launchers. At the Battle of Wanat, approximately 75 coalition troops (including 49 Americans) were attacked by over 200 insurgents, and only avoided being completely overrun because of air support (not only for delivery of ammunition but for providing fire).
 |
| Alphonse de Neuville - The defence of Rorke's Drift 1879 |
There are some notable points to be drawn from the foregoing. First, with the exception of the Mexican narcos, the foregoing examples dealt with motivated and disciplined troops. Second, the defender seemed more likely to succeed against a massed attack rather than modern fire and maneuver attacks. Third, the defenders fared better when they possessed an advantage, such as superior cover, superior weapons, or both.
However, the Jakarta riots, or similar riots, dealt with mobs, not organized attacks. And while the foregoing examples have some relevance (particularly Rorke's Drift), a mob is a different creature from a military force. Tamara Avant explains:
Social psychology does offer relevant explanations for group or mob mentality and violence. When people are part of a group, they often experience deindividuation, or a loss of self-awareness. When people deindividuate, they are less likely to follow normal restraints and inhibitions and more likely to lose their sense of individual identity. Groups can generate a sense of emotional excitement, which can lead to the provocation of behaviors that a person would not typically engage in if alone. Think about the last sporting event or concert you attended. It’s unlikely that you would have been yelling or singing the way you were if you were the only person doing it! The group seems to make some behaviors acceptable that would not be acceptable otherwise.
Deindividuation obviously does not occur every time people get together in a group, and there are some group characteristics that increase the likelihood of violence, such as group size and physical anonymity. First, many people believe they cannot be held responsible for violent behavior when part of a mob because they perceive the violent action as the group’s (e.g., “everyone was doing it”) rather than their own behavior. When in a large group, people tend to experience a diffusion of responsibility. Typically, the bigger a mob, the more its members lose self-awareness and become willing to engage in dangerous behavior. Second, physical anonymity also leads to a person experiencing fewer social inhibitions. When people feel that their behavior cannot be traced back to them, they are more likely to break social norms and engage in violence.I've noted before the importance of psychologically defeating any enemy--destroying their will to fight, as Bevin Alexander describes it in his writings. The foregoing passage from Ms. Avant suggests that a successful defense from a mob would require (a) reversing the deindividuation or loss of self-awareness--essentially, make the person feel isolated from his/her compatriots; and (b) raising the individual member's sense of responsibility or personal consequence. And, in fact, if we look at another counter-example, we see both of these elements in play.
If you remember from Genesis, Chapter 19, two angels of the Lord had traveled to Sodom to evacuate Lot and his family from the city prior to its destruction. After entering the city, a mob descended on Lot's house demanding the angels (presumably it was to sodomize the angels, probably in order to humiliate and degrade them--a practice which is not uncommon in the Middle-East even in modern times, as evidenced by the experience of T.A. Lawrence after he had been captured by Arabs). The Bible describes the incident:
1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and awash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 ¶But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.Now, it is not completely clear if the people of Sodom were "blinded" in the sense that they could not find the house, but otherwise could see (I've read a couple examples of this type of miracle, including an incident in Berlin after the city had fallen to the Soviets); or if they were blinded in the sense that they lost all vision. The latter is the typical interpretation. It is interesting, because by blinding the mob, the individual members are psychologically isolated from their fellows, and probably experienced a great feeling of vulnerability.
Obviously, we do not yet have the technology to simultaneously blind an entire mob; and even if it existed, it would probably be unavailable to the common person. (For instance, the common citizen could not purchase flash-bang grenades which might have the same effect). Turning to other counter-examples, however, even semi-organized force in resistance of a mob can often break the mob mentality, even if it merely diverts the mob elsewhere. That is, to heighten the fear of personal harm above the mob mentality.
One of the most obvious of these examples is that of the Korean shop owners during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. This article from Human Events summarizes the pertinent facts:
This year [2012] marked the 20th anniversary of the Los Angeles riots, sparked by the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers accused of beating the now-deceased Rodney King. During the five days, mobs around Los Angeles looted stores, burnt 3,767 buildings, caused more than $1 billion in property damage, and led to the deaths of more than 50 people and left another 4,000 injured. A story that has been forgotten since then is that of the brave storeowners in Koreatown who fended off mobs with handguns, rifles and assault weapons.
On the second day of the riots, the police had abandoned much of Koreatown. Jay Rhee, a storeowner in the area, stated to The Los Angeles Times, “we have lost faith in the police.”
With the cops nowhere to be found, hundreds of people marauded through the streets towards Koreatown. The neighborhood suffered 45 percent of all the property damage and five fatalities of storeowners during the riots. Having had enough of waiting for police, Korean storeowners assembled into militias to protect themselves, their families, and businesses.
According to the Los Angeles Times, “From the rooftops of their supermarkets, a group of Koreans armed with shotguns and automatic weapons peered onto the smoky streets…Koreans have turned their pastel-colored mini-malls into fortresses against looters tide.”
Rhee claimed that the storeowners shot off 500 rounds into the sky and ground in order to break up the masses of people. ...
By the end of the day storeowners had slain four looters and fended off the mob. It would be 24 more hours until the National Guard arrived and another two days before the riots were completely put down. ...The London riots in 2011 also provide some lessons. From the Guardian:
When the rioters came to attack the premises of Kurdish and Turkish businesses in Hackney's Stoke Newington High Street and Kingsland Road on Monday night, the owners were waiting for them.
"It was between about nine and 10 at night," said Yilmaz Karagoz, sitting in his coffee shop next to a jeweller's shop that has been shuttered since Sunday when the rioting began and a pharmacy that closed a day after.
"There were a lot of them. We came out of our shops but the police asked us to do nothing. But the police did not do anything so, as more came, we chased them off ourselves." The staff from a local kebab restaurant ran at the attackers, doner knives in their hands. "I don't think they will be coming back," Karagoz said.
On Green Street in East Ham a similar-sized group of rioters was chased away by several hundred Asian residents. And in Bethnal Green local shopkeepers came out to defend their property.
Tuesday night there were further reports of communities taking steps to defend themselves. Dozens of men were guarding the main Sikh temple in Southall, west London.
Around 200 people were walking around the centre of Eltham, south-east London, following rumours that the area was going to be the latest place to be hit by disturbances. The group, predominantly men, had been congregating in pubs since the rumours began to circulate in mid-afternoon.
"This is a white working-class area and we are here to protect our community," said one man. In Enfield, north London, about 70 men were seen chasing a group of youths.
Further anecdotal evidence also suggested that in other cities hit by Monday night's violence, communities were also remaining vigilant. On Amazon sales of baseball bats and truncheons rocketed overnight. Sales of one aluminium bat increased 65-fold in a day, albeit from low initial sales, while a truncheon jumped from a sales rank of 5,973 to 136.
(See also here).
Obviously, the LA and London riots were not as deadly as the Jakarta riots, but that is probably because the riots were mostly driven by a desire to loot (free stuff!) and to cause mayhem, rather than the hatred and animosity that drove the incident in Jakarta. Thus, in LA and London, the show of force, rather than the use of force, was mostly sufficient to dampen the enthusiasm of the rioters.
Obviously, the LA and London riots were not as deadly as the Jakarta riots, but that is probably because the riots were mostly driven by a desire to loot (free stuff!) and to cause mayhem, rather than the hatred and animosity that drove the incident in Jakarta. Thus, in LA and London, the show of force, rather than the use of force, was mostly sufficient to dampen the enthusiasm of the rioters.
However, what about larger and/or more violent mobs. I think even with such mobs, a verbal warning or even warning shots should be given. But if ignored, then what?
First of all, successful defense means working with neighbors or associates. The Korean shopowners in LA and the Sikhs in London worked together.
Second, you must be armed. The English Sikhs used cricket bats, baseball bats, and truncheons, but were facing looters that were, at best, similarly armed and not willing to suffer injuries for the most part. The Korean shopowners also faced looters that were lightly armed, although some probably had firearms. However, from the photos, many of the Korean shopowners were armed with shotgun and semi-automatic rifles. Firearms allow you to engage looters at longer distances, and should be available for use.
Third, as experience from WWI and other conflicts have shown, a mass attack is best dealt with by use of sustained machine gun fire in overlapping arcs. What? You don't have machine guns? Yeah, neither do I. That is why I emphasized the defense of Rorke's Drift earlier. Although British troops had Gatling guns available, use was limited, and as far as I'm aware, the troops at Rorke's Drift did not have a Gatling gun. Instead, the basic method of projecting mass firepower was through volley fire--the unified firing of large numbers of rifles.
Volley fire arose in the age of the muzzle-loading black powder muskets. While individual muskets were inaccurate, volley fire could project deadly masses of lead into enemy ranks. Soldiers would form up and maneuver into columns or squares, as the situation demanded, to be able to project masses of fire. The direction and timing of fire would be directed by officers. French tactics, at the time of the Napoleonic wars, used a single volley of fire. The British, on the other hand, would use two or more ranks, which would fire in turn, allowing one rank to reload while the other fired. This also discouraged bayonet charges from the enemy after a volley had been let off.
By the time of the Zulu war, the British were using single-shot, breach-loading rifles employing a brass-cartridge. Thus, at that time, the troops did not just level their rifles at an enemy force, but would actually be ordered to aim, then fire in unison. (They could also be freed to fire at will once the enemy closed or if the enemy formation broke apart). Again, because there was some delay while reloading, the British would generally fire by ranks.
Although I cannot assure you that this tactic would work against a violent mob, historical precedent suggests that intense volley fire would probably break a mob. (Obviously, this is not a tactic to be employed against an enemy using fire and maneuver). While there are advantages to being on a roof top, I would suggest that the tactic would be most effective on the same level as the mobs simply for the fact that the bullet that misses the intended target would be more likely to hit another member of the mob behind, and that bullets passing through one target may strike someone behind the target. For this reason, heavier caliber weapons (even bolt action) with greater penetration may be preferable to those using lighter rounds such as the 5.56. Where numbers allow, firing by ranks would be advisable, so that you do not have people running out of ammunition all at the same time.
Like the traditional British formations, fire should be directed by an "officer." The reason is that the sudden blast of multiple rifles, together with the simultaneous strike against the front of the mob, will have a much greater psychological impact. And remember, the psychological impact is the important factor. You want to break the mob mentality--you want the members of the mob to suddenly realize their personal peril, to see large numbers of their fellows fall upon the roar of the defending guns, to have to step over their dead and wounded to get to you.
Obviously you want your lines drawn up behind cover if possible. It would be a good idea to have armed marksmen (with radios and binoculars or using scoped weapons) on roofs, where possible, to provide intelligence and engage members of the mob that might have rifles or incendiary devices. Similarly, you will want people keeping an eye on other approaches in case the mob splits up and attempts to approach from a different direction.
Nothing in the foregoing is intended as legal advice, or encouraging violence. In fact, as the London riots showed, police are just as, or more likely to, prosecute those defending their homes and businesses than the actual looters and rioters. Also, I can't guarantee that this would work in a Jakarta type of mob/riot, but it makes more sense than trying to hold off a mob on your own.
First of all, successful defense means working with neighbors or associates. The Korean shopowners in LA and the Sikhs in London worked together.
Second, you must be armed. The English Sikhs used cricket bats, baseball bats, and truncheons, but were facing looters that were, at best, similarly armed and not willing to suffer injuries for the most part. The Korean shopowners also faced looters that were lightly armed, although some probably had firearms. However, from the photos, many of the Korean shopowners were armed with shotgun and semi-automatic rifles. Firearms allow you to engage looters at longer distances, and should be available for use.
Third, as experience from WWI and other conflicts have shown, a mass attack is best dealt with by use of sustained machine gun fire in overlapping arcs. What? You don't have machine guns? Yeah, neither do I. That is why I emphasized the defense of Rorke's Drift earlier. Although British troops had Gatling guns available, use was limited, and as far as I'm aware, the troops at Rorke's Drift did not have a Gatling gun. Instead, the basic method of projecting mass firepower was through volley fire--the unified firing of large numbers of rifles.
Volley fire arose in the age of the muzzle-loading black powder muskets. While individual muskets were inaccurate, volley fire could project deadly masses of lead into enemy ranks. Soldiers would form up and maneuver into columns or squares, as the situation demanded, to be able to project masses of fire. The direction and timing of fire would be directed by officers. French tactics, at the time of the Napoleonic wars, used a single volley of fire. The British, on the other hand, would use two or more ranks, which would fire in turn, allowing one rank to reload while the other fired. This also discouraged bayonet charges from the enemy after a volley had been let off.
By the time of the Zulu war, the British were using single-shot, breach-loading rifles employing a brass-cartridge. Thus, at that time, the troops did not just level their rifles at an enemy force, but would actually be ordered to aim, then fire in unison. (They could also be freed to fire at will once the enemy closed or if the enemy formation broke apart). Again, because there was some delay while reloading, the British would generally fire by ranks.
Although I cannot assure you that this tactic would work against a violent mob, historical precedent suggests that intense volley fire would probably break a mob. (Obviously, this is not a tactic to be employed against an enemy using fire and maneuver). While there are advantages to being on a roof top, I would suggest that the tactic would be most effective on the same level as the mobs simply for the fact that the bullet that misses the intended target would be more likely to hit another member of the mob behind, and that bullets passing through one target may strike someone behind the target. For this reason, heavier caliber weapons (even bolt action) with greater penetration may be preferable to those using lighter rounds such as the 5.56. Where numbers allow, firing by ranks would be advisable, so that you do not have people running out of ammunition all at the same time.
Like the traditional British formations, fire should be directed by an "officer." The reason is that the sudden blast of multiple rifles, together with the simultaneous strike against the front of the mob, will have a much greater psychological impact. And remember, the psychological impact is the important factor. You want to break the mob mentality--you want the members of the mob to suddenly realize their personal peril, to see large numbers of their fellows fall upon the roar of the defending guns, to have to step over their dead and wounded to get to you.
Obviously you want your lines drawn up behind cover if possible. It would be a good idea to have armed marksmen (with radios and binoculars or using scoped weapons) on roofs, where possible, to provide intelligence and engage members of the mob that might have rifles or incendiary devices. Similarly, you will want people keeping an eye on other approaches in case the mob splits up and attempts to approach from a different direction.
Nothing in the foregoing is intended as legal advice, or encouraging violence. In fact, as the London riots showed, police are just as, or more likely to, prosecute those defending their homes and businesses than the actual looters and rioters. Also, I can't guarantee that this would work in a Jakarta type of mob/riot, but it makes more sense than trying to hold off a mob on your own.
Two thoughts on mob defense: (1) Flame throwers. (2) Infrared lasers.
ReplyDeleteHeh! Flame throwers would definitely offer a strong psychological deterrent well in excess of their capabilities. Are you thinking infrared lasers for targeting mob leaders, or something else?
Delete