i like how the media is portraying the guy shot as some kind of a perfect guy who was “hanging out” with friends and was really trying to protect them. Yeah, city of brotherly love my ass.
Is the guy dead or not? It says he is alive in the article, but it’s not up to the minute to my knowledge, and a few people in the comments section say he is dead. I ask out of morbid curiosity, because I have no sympathy for him, and this entire situation reeks.
He’s alive.
Some links:
updates victim’s condition w/ pic of victim
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/02/update_philly_shooting_victim.php#comments
some info on charges w/ pic of shooter
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/01/gerald_ung_and_joseph_cho.php
EDIT:
docket sheet w/ list of charges against shooter
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.aspx?matterID=201683609
[quote]hedo wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well guys I wouldn’t rush to judgment here. I don’t have a position on this yet, as I, nor anyone else for that matter, has all the facts. The initial local accounts have been decidedly pro-“victim” and they even had the nerve to try to spin some “hero” angle claiming that he was putting himself between the shooter and his friends who wisely retreated. Yeah, bullshit. I know. I haven’t read the statute, but I have been lead to believe that in PA he may have had a duty to attempt retreat (if possible) before using deadly force on an unarmed threat.
I may ask one of our armed guys tonite how the statute reads. There is no evidence to date that he did so. If someone has something factual, please post the link. This incident occurred in “olde city”, an area of a few square blocks populated by dozens of bars, restaurants and nightclubs. I lived in the area long ago. It is the scene of rowdy behavior and past shootings. The area is fairly well patrolled by the PD. I’m not sure what establishment this kid could have been with a gun and not be subject to search. Probably a smaller bar/tavern or restaurant, but certainly not a club.
Frankly, knowing the locale, I have a problem believing he could not retreat for help. Moreover, I think this is yet another instance where someone with a gun was emboldened and instead of retreating, he didn’t and know his life hangs in the balance to be decided by the DA and a jury. He is well represented though.[/quote]
Bodyguard,
Interesting discussion.
As opposed to the media, the DA, and folks from NJ, (FI26 excepted) I presented the situation in a favorable light to the person who was the victim not the aggressor. My perspective does have the benefit of being far closer to the facts than the media and presented through an objective eye of a CCW holder of 20 years and NRA instructor in several disciplines.
I am an “armed guy” and well trained on my own dime in when and how to use my concealed carry weapon. A lot of info was presented on this shoot at the time, including the video. The shooting was clearly justified based on the public information. I stand by my opinion that in Bucks, Montgomery and Chester counties this guys isn’t charged or even arrested. In Philadelphia or the peoples Republic of NJ he is lynched for using a gun to defend himself.
Emoboldened with a gun…hardly. He had a group of 6 drunk individuals pursuing him. “running away” is a euphemism for retreating from the fight. the fact he shot only the lead aggressor leads me to believe he was in control and acting rationally. Many people would have been spraying and praying at that point. Perhaps the group felt emboldened by their numbers and felt the asian guy was simply an easy mark to prey upon for some fun. People have a right to walk the streets and the right to defend themselves when attacked…subtle nuances aside. Gangsters and thugs spray and pray 6 rounds into the crowd, probably holding the “gat” sideways. 6 controlled rounds, center of mass hits, is prudent use of a firearm in self defense.[/quote]
I don’t know if you realize it, but your opinion, informed or not by your experience, is transparently biased in the “pro gun” camp and is hardly unique and has been parroted all over the internet on the pro gun message boards. Your message is hardly personal…it’s become a chant among the pro gun group. I carry too, so you’re preaching to the choir and yet I still disagree with you, because first, we don’t have all the facts and, I’m not convinced based on what little is known that he retreated as required by statute. I know the area intimately, hell I used to live down there. I’ll be passing it tonite. It is highly populated during any part of the day or night. Are you familiar with the area? On a weekend night? The group followed him for SEVERAL BLOCKS as the reports go - this appears to be undisputed. How deadly an encounter could it be if you were followed for several blocks without violence? He’s on the corner of a major city street, in downtown philadelphia, in the nightclub district, with dozens of people milling about and a cop just about on every corner. And yes, he’s got his girl with him. Wouldn’t the prudent action be to stay put, walk to aid, dial 911? Did he dial 911 in the long minutes where he was being followed? No.
My personal opinion, righteousness of the shoot aside because we simply do NOT know the FACTS yet, is that he did not do all in his power to avoid this situation. He knew he had a gun and I feel, like too many others in his position, was emboldened to walk those several block with them following, instead of proceeding directly to the nearest business where he could have sought shelter. You can wang waive all you want about his rights, etc., - I get it. But the fact is, had he not had a gun, he likely does just what I say he should have done and, he’s not on trial, and some kid is not lying in the hospital or worse.
This is exactly like those violence threads, where everyone gets all emotional about what they’d do or not do. He shouldn’t have to suffer an attack by this “meathead”, etc… I get all that. I do. But at some point, two lives hung in the balance and again, the merits of the shoot aside, I don’t believe for one minute that Ung did everything he could do to avoid this situation. I know the area. I know the locale. I know how populated it is. If he feels danger, you don’t go walking off to the OK Corral and that is where he went wrong in my opinion. I’ve spent my fair share of time protecting people for a living…and the magic in that? A gun? My size? My fighting ability? No. AVOIDANCE. Ung in my opinion didn’t practice any avoidance…in my opinion, because he had a gun. And that’s where my criticism begins and ends in this case. You can debate me until you’re blue about the shooting itself, but neither of us have the facts, just 5th grade newspaper reports.
The foregoing is in no way anti-gun; it’s pro common sense and pro avoidance. He’s being charged because it’s damn unclear whether he attempted at any time to retreat and whether his actions were reasonable. Not because it’s philadelphia - that’s yet another transparent pro gun position and rant against philadelphia, which deserves a rant on gun rights issues, but not this one. He gets charged out in the counties too, because frankly sir, this scenario plays out NIGHTLY on any given weekend in any given county…and they don’t end in severe beatings or a shooting - and that’s a fact sir. We can’t shoot every drunk loudmouth every weekend, outnumbered or not.
Remove the gun, and believe me, this kid doesn’t walk for blocks with them following. He stays right where aid can be rendered. He dials 911 if he was so fearful, because the facts state he had plenty of time to do so. I’ll even make you a friendly little side bet. Ung does not get off. At the very least, he’s convicted of aggravated assault. That’s my early call on it. I looked at that video. If you see an earnest attempt at retreat, well then what more can I say?
I’ll try again to convey what I tried to do before and perhaps failed to do.
From the video, I can’t make out faces or gestures really.
I cannot tell from the video whether menace was to be seen or a bunch of drunks being moderately harrassing but posing utterly no threat to life or body.
I cannot tell from the gross movements that are seen whether there was any intent to harm or not or whether a person on the spot would have seen such as being at all indicated.
Does anyone want strangers to follow them like that? No.
That doesn’t mean you can brandish a gun to try to cause them to desist.
If you brandish a gun when NOT reasonably fearing for life or bodily safety, rape, etc you are breaking the law.
Given the population and lighting of the area and points raised in the above post, it does seem open to question as to whether threat to life or bodily safety was reasonably seen as occurring.
The video does not allow seeing whether, say, the person shot was clenching his fist and had an aggressive expression and posture prior to the gun being drawn, or whether he looked like a drunken fool with not the slightest sign of aggression being on its way, or of there being a weapon, or anything.
The law does not put it this way, but if one doesn’t want to be sitting in jail as this shooter now is, two good principles are:
-
Use the same good judgment when having a gun as you would employ when not having it. Or even moreso. With great power comes great responsibility, yadda yadda yadda.
-
When in public, do not draw the gun or threaten to do so unless the situation is one where you’d already be entitled to pull the trigger. Brandishing the gun before that point, out of a (sensible) theory that it’s best to threaten to avoid ever reaching the true danger point, is a crime, at least in most jurisdictions.
(There are possible marginal exceptions: for example if you are cornered and a man 30 feet away draws a knife and threatens you, you might well be found guilty if pulling the trigger at that distance, but drawing the gun and telling him to come no closer is a reasonable response to the threat that is faced. No rule is absolute. The above is general.)
Worse, if a shooting results after the threat posed by your brandishment, e.g. your threat on this person’s life by pointing a gun at him results in him trying to take the gun away and you shoot him, you may be facing some sort of homicide charge if he dies.
That may be exactly this shooter’s situation now, except that no death is involved so at least homicide apparently is not on the table.
Do I personally like that the law is set up this way? No, I’d rather that brandishing a firearm be legal when a person harasses you and you reasonably think you may be on the EDGE of the situation SOON becoming threatening to life or bodily safety.
But that’s not how it is.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
…This is exactly like those violence threads, where everyone gets all emotional about what they’d do or not do…
[/quote]
I considered the source…and got a real kick out of this.[/quote]
This is not SAMA; go troll somewhere else. We’re actually having a serious dialogue. When we discuss threesomes, wife swapping and other such debauchery - real or imagined, emphasis on the latter because after all, this is the internet, you sir will be the first we call.
My initial thought is 6 vs 1= good shoot but the evidence is pretty blurry so far. The video doesn’t really show much retreat however the shooter has to take a stand at some point, since we missed what lead up to the shooting I can’t really say. I’m still inclined to say good shoot.
As far as putting 6 in him, I’ve always been instructed if you feel you need to draw the weapon you’d better be prepared to kill no matter how many rounds it takes, pulling a weapon and not having the nerve to use it will get your ass killed when the aggressor takes it away from you.
[quote]dday wrote:
My initial thought is 6 vs 1= good shoot but the evidence is pretty blurry so far. The video doesn’t really show much retreat however the shooter has to take a stand at some point, since we missed what lead up to the shooting I can’t really say. I’m still inclined to say good shoot.
As far as putting 6 in him, I’ve always been instructed if you feel you need to draw the weapon you’d better be prepared to kill no matter how many rounds it takes, pulling a weapon and not having the nerve to use it will get your ass killed when the aggressor takes it away from you.[/quote]
What lead up to the shooting is that the group followed them for several blocks. A very common problem when someone carries is a sense of empowerment they do not usually enjoy, which can lead to trouble.
I ask this question. Does he do everything the same if he’s not carrying? That’s the problem I have with it.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]dday wrote:
My initial thought is 6 vs 1= good shoot but the evidence is pretty blurry so far. The video doesn’t really show much retreat however the shooter has to take a stand at some point, since we missed what lead up to the shooting I can’t really say. I’m still inclined to say good shoot.
As far as putting 6 in him, I’ve always been instructed if you feel you need to draw the weapon you’d better be prepared to kill no matter how many rounds it takes, pulling a weapon and not having the nerve to use it will get your ass killed when the aggressor takes it away from you.[/quote]
What lead up to the shooting is that the group followed them for several blocks. A very common problem when someone carries is a sense of empowerment they do not usually enjoy, which can lead to trouble.
I ask this question. Does he do everything the same if he’s not carrying? That’s the problem I have with it. [/quote]
Bodyguard
I know you think my position is biased. So be it.
You mention that you carry a weapon, but your profile states you live in NJ. Citizens aren’t allowed to carry weapons in NJ and NJ residents can’t get carry permits in PA. I’ll assume your law enforcement and live in NJ. I’ve seen a handful of non LEO carry permits from NJ and they are as rare as they come.
Most of the NJ LEO’s I shoot with are rabid anti-ccw folks and think the only people who should be armed are LEO’s. I don’t know if that’s your opinion but it certainly is the majority opinion of NJ LEO’s I’ve met and competed against. It has lot’s to do with what you are exposed to and NJ is hard core anti-gun and it is institutionalized in many of the PD’s.
It goes back to the prudent man theory. What would a prudent man do. Stand his ground against 6 thugs. Doubtful. Take a beating so one of the attackers doesn’t get shot…again not prudent. Carry a concealed weapon, with a permit, and use it when assaulted. That sounds prudent. After all he most likely carried it day in and day out without using it, as most permit holders do in PA. PA residents are allowed to carry a gun and use it to defend their lives. Many states don’t allow that…ours does.
One wonders of given the choice what you would have done? Go hands on against 6 guys in their early 20’s or draw your weapon, if you had one, and use it. My decision would be to defend myself, properly, and not depend or wait on someone else to do it for me. That is putting far too much faith in the benevolence of the attacker. It may be a position you’ve heard before, and feel it is parroted, but it is simply the opinion of someone with significant training and experience with firearms.
Are you really able to pick out from this video signs that a physical attack was imminent as opposed to a bunch of drunken fools being harassing?
While I certainly grant the video leaves OPEN the possibility that a reasonable person would have seen signs of this being physical aggression, it seems to me to leave open the possibility that a reasonable person would have seen no significant likelihood of physical assault prior to the drawing of the gun.
The resolution and frame rate of the video are too poor for me to be able to tell this, and the clear facts of the case don’t seem to rule out that there may have been no physical assault reasonably feared had one been able to really see the individuals and their body language, gestures, hear what they said, etc.
But from what I can make out, I don’t see raised hands or aggressive physical posture on the part of the drunks or for that matter anything more than milling around and milling towards until the gun is drawn. I absolutely leave open that a person on the scene may have scene evidence of imminent assault that the video cannot pick up.
For all I know, the following for all that distance may have been due to back-and-forth insults, and with nothing really ahead except more harassment and back and forth insults – till the shooter drew the gun and raised the situation to a threat on life.
How is it you’re sure or confident it’s different? Is there something in the video I’m not seeing?
If we just had the bare-bones written account of the encounter, I’d tend to think the shooting justified. The video has me finding it quite open to question whether a physical attack indeed was reasonably seen as being imminent.
As there appear to be witnesses who turned and looked (if I am interpreting the video correctly) it may come down to whether the witnesses testify that they thought the man was about to be physically attacked or the couple was about to be, or whether they had no such impression of violence about to ensue before the gun being drawn.
If the latter, I’d think he is toast.
I think it’s fair to assume that nearly every males worst nightmare would be walking with his wife/girlfriend when a group of males comes in and attacks, beating you down and kidnapping her for some rape later on and possibly killiing her.
This HAD to play into the shooters mindset, and I know I have been walking with my wife in a fucking mall and had some groups follow us while calling to her. I know if I had a gun, I would have likley felt tempted to turn around and stick it in someones mouth.
There is no greater disrespect one man can show another than the above scenario. Two guys walking getting thier balls busted, whatever. Group of men harassing a guy and his girl will absolutely make the worst fears come out in the guy. Weather or not the drunk guys would have actually done anything, thier behavior, in my mind, warrants the shooting.
The guys following were attempting to get between mother bear and her cub. Hopefully they all learn their lesson.
V
Bill
That’s more of a feeling question and it is tough to see from the video. Pre-assault indicators are all about perception.
- You must take into account the odds. 6 to 1 and the shooter is overwhelmed. From a purely victim/prey
standpoint he is going to severely overwhelmed in any confrontation. - Passing insults exchanged, perhaps. The pack follows you. That’s an indicator of an assault simply from the
standpoint they must be in proximity to attack and they are apparently exchanging words so it’s reasonable
to believe some posturing is going on and they’re not simply asking for directions. - The lead attacker initiated the assault as far as I can see. He moved towards the shooter in an aggressive
posture with hands up to assault, not to pat him on the back. The difference in size is apparent. If it was a
small boy the shooter may not have been concerned. This was a large muscled young guy, with 5 friends. - The attacker pressed the assault, despite the presence of a drawn weapon and one would assume a warning of
some sort. That part I don’t know but the gun is visible. The shooter was shooting from a retention position
which indicates some level of training or just blind luck on his part…I don’t know.
It took me a few minutes to answer this question and compose my thoughts at my desk, mid day. The shooter had to process it instantly, while being assaulted and defending his date. He should be judged through that lens imo.
Once the gun is drawn, but not fired, the aggressor driving the assault certainly had the chance to disengage or back away and avoid getting shot. The gun was drawn and then the attacker advanced. It seems to me the attacker in this situation created the situation for his injuries to occur. The shooter did not pursue the pack, threaten them, and then initiate an assault. The group of 6 men did.
When a group of people attempt to assault someone they shouldn’t complain if they get hurt in the process.
Guns are a good T nation subject. Always enjoy the debates.
I didn’t see point 3.
I’m not saying it’s not there in the video, but simply that my commentary was written with absence of seeing that.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]dday wrote:
My initial thought is 6 vs 1= good shoot but the evidence is pretty blurry so far. The video doesn’t really show much retreat however the shooter has to take a stand at some point, since we missed what lead up to the shooting I can’t really say. I’m still inclined to say good shoot.
As far as putting 6 in him, I’ve always been instructed if you feel you need to draw the weapon you’d better be prepared to kill no matter how many rounds it takes, pulling a weapon and not having the nerve to use it will get your ass killed when the aggressor takes it away from you.[/quote]
What lead up to the shooting is that the group followed them for several blocks. A very common problem when someone carries is a sense of empowerment they do not usually enjoy, which can lead to trouble.
I ask this question. Does he do everything the same if he’s not carrying? That’s the problem I have with it. [/quote]
I more meant did the shooter start it, did he try to defuse the situation, was he actually trying to flee prior to the video we saw. If the 6 started it, if they were relentless in their pursuit and were threating then I’m ok with it.
I wasn’t there and can’t comment on the verbal exchange so I don’t know if he actually felt threatened. If everything plays out like it sounds at this point, likely had he not been carrying he’d have taken a beating at best.
I am biased in that I carry everyday and pray I never have to be in this situation.
[quote]hedo wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]dday wrote:
My initial thought is 6 vs 1= good shoot but the evidence is pretty blurry so far. The video doesn’t really show much retreat however the shooter has to take a stand at some point, since we missed what lead up to the shooting I can’t really say. I’m still inclined to say good shoot.
As far as putting 6 in him, I’ve always been instructed if you feel you need to draw the weapon you’d better be prepared to kill no matter how many rounds it takes, pulling a weapon and not having the nerve to use it will get your ass killed when the aggressor takes it away from you.[/quote]
What lead up to the shooting is that the group followed them for several blocks. A very common problem when someone carries is a sense of empowerment they do not usually enjoy, which can lead to trouble.
I ask this question. Does he do everything the same if he’s not carrying? That’s the problem I have with it. [/quote]
Bodyguard
I know you think my position is biased. So be it.
You mention that you carry a weapon, but your profile states you live in NJ. Citizens aren’t allowed to carry weapons in NJ and NJ residents can’t get carry permits in PA. I’ll assume your law enforcement and live in NJ. I’ve seen a handful of non LEO carry permits from NJ and they are as rare as they come.
Most of the NJ LEO’s I shoot with are rabid anti-ccw folks and think the only people who should be armed are LEO’s. I don’t know if that’s your opinion but it certainly is the majority opinion of NJ LEO’s I’ve met and competed against. It has lot’s to do with what you are exposed to and NJ is hard core anti-gun and it is institutionalized in many of the PD’s.
It goes back to the prudent man theory. What would a prudent man do. Stand his ground against 6 thugs. Doubtful. Take a beating so one of the attackers doesn’t get shot…again not prudent. Carry a concealed weapon, with a permit, and use it when assaulted. That sounds prudent. After all he most likely carried it day in and day out without using it, as most permit holders do in PA. PA residents are allowed to carry a gun and use it to defend their lives. Many states don’t allow that…ours does.
One wonders of given the choice what you would have done? Go hands on against 6 guys in their early 20’s or draw your weapon, if you had one, and use it. My decision would be to defend myself, properly, and not depend or wait on someone else to do it for me. That is putting far too much faith in the benevolence of the attacker. It may be a position you’ve heard before, and feel it is parroted, but it is simply the opinion of someone with significant training and experience with firearms.[/quote]
Seriously, your bias is so large, you’re missing the point. I don’t take umbrage with anything you said, but you’re going right around my point. My question to you is what would he have done if he didn’t have a gun, was he emboldened and did he prudently retreat? You’re ignoring that he was followed for blocks in a heavily populated area. You are ignoring the issue because this case has (imprudently in my opinion) become a rallying point for pro gun folks in PA and elsewhere. In my opinion, you can pick a better case as a rallying cry. Are you telling me that he couldn’t avoid a beating given the blocks of pursuit, the open businesses, the police, his cell phone? Seriously? I’ll take a friendly wager on the outcome of this case. I am not LEO.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Bill
That’s more of a feeling question and it is tough to see from the video. Pre-assault indicators are all about perception.
- You must take into account the odds. 6 to 1 and the shooter is overwhelmed. From a purely victim/prey
standpoint he is going to severely overwhelmed in any confrontation. - Passing insults exchanged, perhaps. The pack follows you. That’s an indicator of an assault simply from the
standpoint they must be in proximity to attack and they are apparently exchanging words so it’s reasonable
to believe some posturing is going on and they’re not simply asking for directions. - The lead attacker initiated the assault as far as I can see. He moved towards the shooter in an aggressive
posture with hands up to assault, not to pat him on the back. The difference in size is apparent. If it was a
small boy the shooter may not have been concerned. This was a large muscled young guy, with 5 friends. - The attacker pressed the assault, despite the presence of a drawn weapon and one would assume a warning of
some sort. That part I don’t know but the gun is visible. The shooter was shooting from a retention position
which indicates some level of training or just blind luck on his part…I don’t know.
It took me a few minutes to answer this question and compose my thoughts at my desk, mid day. The shooter had to process it instantly, while being assaulted and defending his date. He should be judged through that lens imo.
Once the gun is drawn, but not fired, the aggressor driving the assault certainly had the chance to disengage or back away and avoid getting shot. The gun was drawn and then the attacker advanced. It seems to me the attacker in this situation created the situation for his injuries to occur. The shooter did not pursue the pack, threaten them, and then initiate an assault. The group of 6 men did.
When a group of people attempt to assault someone they shouldn’t complain if they get hurt in the process.
Guns are a good T nation subject. Always enjoy the debates.
[/quote]
Did you mention you’re in some instructor capacity? If so, I’m seriously alarmed at your viewpoint above. It lacks judgment in my opinion. I’ll defend our right to carry, but our actions have life/death consequences. I want to respond to some of your points above:
-
Outnumbered? Again, you’re doing a gross analysis of this thing and its biased. He was followed for BLOCKS in a highly populated area. There is no indication he sought refuge or aid. That my friend, is a sign he was emboldened by his gun. In my opinion, it is quite questionable whether he acted prudently;
-
Same point as above. This occurred over a number of city blocks, in a well populated, well traveled area. Bars/clubs/restaurants are all open. City cops everywhere. Cell phone in hand;
-
I do not disagree with point 3. However, see points 1 and 2. The prudent thing to do is seek refuge, call 911;
-
Why he did what he did is the subject of speculation. He could have been too committed to advancing to retreat in his mind. He may have thought his best chance at that point was try to get to the gun. Who knows? It’s really not relevant to my original problem with this shoot: false sense of empowerment. But in the final analysis, I concur, at that point, there is no going back - he has to shoot. It is what occurs up to that point that I question.
Your obvious bias will not even let you consider my clearly valid points. That is troubling. We should advocate for responsible gun ownership. We cannot shoot every group of rowdy drunks every weekend. We do not have to subject ourselves to an attack to be responsible, but we should do everything prudent to avoid it…as if you were not armed in my opinion.
I just viewed the video again and I want to make sure I’m clear on a few things. I have many mixed emotions about this incident/shooting. But first, let me say that none of us have the facts. We have 10 seconds or so of video right up to the shooting - everything else is speculation and the videa itself is open to interpretation.
I support the right for a citizen to carry a firearm although I’ll say I feel few are qualified. I strongly support the notion that one need not suffer an assault and has a right to use reasonable force to make certain that does not occur. As of Feb 2, the Villanova kid was still in critical condition and was about to undergo his 5th operation. Two lives are literally hanging in the balance and it’s just tragic that a night out had to end like this.
I have contempt for the Villanova student and his group. They were bullies that night and I despise bullies. And my “jury” is out on Ung until I have the facts. I know the area intimately, but I do not know the facts. I’ll make an informed opinion when I know the facts.
However, the above disclaimers aside, one very well known phenomena that occurs among those that are armed, is a sense of false empowerment. Because of the firearm, they do not avoid situations they would normally avoid. This is a fact, not my opinion and it’s well documented and it’s gotten more than one unsuspecting gun owner killed or thrown in jail.
Knowing the area as I do, I have a hard time accepting that Ung could not seek safe haven. That’s my problem thus far. The rest will be decided by the facts. I would have liked to see Ung make an attempt to seek refuge and to have dialed 911. If he attempted to do those things, I have no problem with the shoot.
I however vehemently disagree with Hedo’s position that if this happened in a PA county other than Philadelphia, Ung is not charged. That’s utter nonsense and just blind pro-gun rant. When an extraordinary shooting of an unarmaed man occurs in the middle of a highly trafficked and populated city block, well patrolled by police, open businesses, etc., the legal process must take its course.
I believe he’s scheduled for a preliminary hearing in May. Let’s see if a judge decides there is enough evidence to proceed. Simple.
Hedo, do you do the Act 235 course?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I just viewed the video again and I want to make sure I’m clear on a few things. I have many mixed emotions about this incident/shooting. But first, let me say that none of us have the facts. We have 10 seconds or so of video right up to the shooting - everything else is speculation and the videa itself is open to interpretation.
I support the right for a citizen to carry a firearm although I’ll say I feel few are qualified. I strongly support the notion that one need not suffer an assault and has a right to use reasonable force to make certain that does not occur. As of Feb 2, the Villanova kid was still in critical condition and was about to undergo his 5th operation. Two lives are literally hanging in the balance and it’s just tragic that a night out had to end like this.
I have contempt for the Villanova student and his group. They were bullies that night and I despise bullies. And my “jury” is out on Ung until I have the facts. I know the area intimately, but I do not know the facts. I’ll make an informed opinion when I know the facts.
However, the above disclaimers aside, one very well known phenomena that occurs among those that are armed, is a sense of false empowerment. Because of the firearm, they do not avoid situations they would normally avoid. This is a fact, not my opinion and it’s well documented and it’s gotten more than one unsuspecting gun owner killed or thrown in jail.
Knowing the area as I do, I have a hard time accepting that Ung could not seek safe haven. That’s my problem thus far. The rest will be decided by the facts. I would have liked to see Ung make an attempt to seek refuge and to have dialed 911. If he attempted to do those things, I have no problem with the shoot.
I however vehemently disagree with Hedo’s position that if this happened in a PA county other than Philadelphia, Ung is not charged. That’s utter nonsense and just blind pro-gun rant. When an extraordinary shooting of an unarmaed man occurs in the middle of a highly trafficked and populated city block, well patrolled by police, open businesses, etc., the legal process must take its course.
I believe he’s scheduled for a preliminary hearing in May. Let’s see if a judge decides there is enough evidence to proceed. Simple.
Hedo, do you do the Act 235 course?[/quote]
I do not teach the 235 course. My training is for pistol and rifle and a couple of other esoteric disciplines such as reloading. It’s not my primary way of making a living. Beyond that most of my instruction is in the CQ use of concealed firearms and practical defensive pistol techniques. I teach students to survive and prevail, not to take a beating or possibly be killed in a confrontation. That being said avoidance is the first thing I teach for a civilian. However avoidance to the point of absurdity isn’t wise or prudent and long checklists of what one should or shouldn’t do is training to be killed. The law doesn’t require someone to stay in their home or go over the top to avoid a confrontation. That’s a feeling you have and a bias that you claim you don’t have. Why would someone corner themselves in a store when being pursued by a gang. Tactically it’s a losing proposition. I’m sure if a cop was nearby,the cop would have been involved. I didn’t see or hear of a Philly PD officer coming forward to say he saw them and the police took a few minutes to arrive…they weren’t in the area.
Regarding a sense of empowerment by carrying a gun, that’s just wrong. Most folks feel a sense of responsibility and look for an opportunity not to use it. In NJ where handguns and permits are highly restricted to only the police and well connected individuals, that may be the case, but in PA the right to bear arms is guaranteed to all non felons. I’ve never met someone who felt emboldened by carrying a gun that I’m aware of. I know a lot who felt secure knowing they could defend themselves if attacked. A concealed weapon is an equalizer against six unarmed bullies with ass kicking on their minds.
As to my comments about Philly being absolutely over the top with regard to gun charges one only needs to look at the public statements by the politicians and police officers as well as the DA. It’s fairly common knowledge among those who carry a gun in PA and among those who teach them to do it properly. Even Philly has doubts about this case. The shooter is free on a $20K bond for crying out loud. If they thouhgt they could get him for murder the bail should be much higher. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be investigated or the shooter questioned but based on experience the more rural DA’s don’t arrest people for defending themselves BEFORE the investigation is completed. Philly does. So does NJ. The man has a permit from VA., it reciprocal with PA. Philly charges him with illegal carry of a weapon w/o a permit, yet the man has a permit on him and it’s easily verified by a call to the VA State PD. Why do that? Pure harassment nothing more. The DA in Bucks and Montgomery Co’s don’t do that, I’ve never seen it and I look at all of the CCW shootings in PA in passing. The NRA and some PA organizations publish summaries of them every month.
Sorry you think I’m biased but I’m not. I’m practical and I can’t base my safety on a feeling or a hope that my attacker is going to be benevolent to me and merely beat the crap out of me, instead of killing me because I chose to use a public street. Sometimes bad guys get shot for doing bad things to the wrong person. I’m OK with that too. As to me being a dangerous instructor, that’s a matter of opinion. I ,and those I know ,teach what works, not what might work, maybe, if your lucky. Not a choice for everyone and some aren’t capable of making it. Don’t carry a gun if you aren’t prepared to use it and do so properly. I’ve had wives and girlfriends of policeman and sheriff’s take classes with me. I’ve caught competition techniques to plenty of policeman. Nobody has accused me of being a gunslinger looking for a fight or a careless instructor. Some people are comfortable around guns, others have a fear of them.
Don’t know what remains to be said. Keep an eye on the case and I will too. Let’s see how it turns out.