I don’t even know why they would try to charge him with attempted murder. That was the wrong charge to begin with, so of course he gets off.
Negligence? Attempted manslaughter (is there such a thing) ? But not attempted murder, which to me implies intent (maybe even pre-meditation) to kill.
Meenhan is one of the more powerful politicians and leaders in Philly. His influence is enoromous. He managed to not have his nephew charged with assault and a host of other charges which is surprising in itself.
Ung not only tried to avoid the confrontation he retreated from it. That fact is what cleared him since the Philly DA tried him in strict accordance with the statute. He issued a warning after retreating and only fired when a further avenue of escape was denied to him by Didonato. Didonato created the situation and forced the outcome. In the end he has only himslef to blame.
The PA Castle Doctrine, which will be reintroduced this year and signed by a Republican Governor will offer additional protection to men like Ung who need to use a weapon to defend themselves.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I love the “good shoot” comments.
Get real. “Disrespecting” a guy and his girl merits six shots to the chest? Really? Disrespect deserves a potentially lethal response? That’s absurdly disproportionate to the “offense.”
Even charging the Ung does not merit a lethal response. Man up and fight or fucking walk inside a shop/store/bar. This isn’t the wild west.[/quote]
Some of the blind “good shoot” comments are indeed on the whacky side, however, your portrayal of the incident is just as whacky, just on the opposite side of the spectrum. Ung does not know these people and has no reason to suspect they would not have beat him to death and harmed his girlfriend.
The truth is, anyone who thinks this is a clear cut case in either direction needs to have their head examined. :)[/quote]
Beaten up is not what I am questioning. I am questioning the assumption that Ung would have been beaten TO DEATH, in a CROWDED AREA.
Drunk or not, you won’t just pick on a random guy and start to beat him with the intention of killing him when surrounded by so many people. Not saying it’s never happened, but it’s such a minority of instances where it goes that far that Ung and defenders of his actions can’t possibly use it as justification for actions (shooting).
This isn’t a Croatian soccer match and they aren’t soccer hooligans. Drunk or not, I am almost damn sure that nobody is going to pick on let alone beat TO DEATH someone else in such a crowded area, especially unprovoked. I have a hard time buying that at all.
And I believe what BG is referring to when he talks of “false empowerment” is the concept of moral hazard, i.e. “I wouldn’t NORMALLY do this, but I believe the repercussions won’t be as severe, so I’m less likely to hesitate.” This is often used (although, in a poor manner) to illustrate “flaws” with the concept of insurance.
BG, correct me if I’m wrong.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I love the “good shoot” comments.
Get real. “Disrespecting” a guy and his girl merits six shots to the chest? Really? Disrespect deserves a potentially lethal response? That’s absurdly disproportionate to the “offense.”
Even charging the Ung does not merit a lethal response. Man up and fight or fucking walk inside a shop/store/bar. This isn’t the wild west.[/quote]
Some of the blind “good shoot” comments are indeed on the whacky side, however, your portrayal of the incident is just as whacky, just on the opposite side of the spectrum. Ung does not know these people and has no reason to suspect they would not have beat him to death and harmed his girlfriend.
The truth is, anyone who thinks this is a clear cut case in either direction needs to have their head examined. :)[/quote]
Beaten up is not what I am questioning. I am questioning the assumption that Ung would have been beaten TO DEATH, in a CROWDED AREA.
Drunk or not, you won’t just pick on a random guy and start to beat him with the intention of killing him when surrounded by so many people. Not saying it’s never happened, but it’s such a minority of instances where it goes that far that Ung and defenders of his actions can’t possibly use it as justification for actions (shooting).
This isn’t a Croatian soccer match and they aren’t soccer hooligans. Drunk or not, I am almost damn sure that nobody is going to pick on let alone beat TO DEATH someone else in such a crowded area, especially unprovoked. I have a hard time buying that at all.
And I believe what BG is referring to when he talks of “false empowerment” is the concept of moral hazard, i.e. “I wouldn’t NORMALLY do this, but I believe the repercussions won’t be as severe, so I’m less likely to hesitate.” This is often used (although, in a poor manner) to illustrate “flaws” with the concept of insurance.
BG, correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
How many times must someone be beaten to death before people realize that it’s actually a possibility? How much risk should one expose himself to before he is granted the right to shoot? How many studies have been done that show crowded areas don’t help in a times of emergency? (Diffusion of responsibility)
Not a clear cut case at ALL.
Btw, I don’t believe premeditation has any bearing on whether or not someone is charged with murder. I believe that only comes into play with what type of murder charge is to be given (1st, 2nd, 3rd degree). Someone can correct me if I’m mistaken.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Beaten up is not what I am questioning. I am questioning the assumption that Ung would have been beaten TO DEATH, in a CROWDED AREA.
Drunk or not, you won’t just pick on a random guy and start to beat him with the intention of killing him when surrounded by so many people. Not saying it’s never happened, but it’s such a minority of instances where it goes that far that Ung and defenders of his actions can’t possibly use it as justification for actions (shooting).
This isn’t a Croatian soccer match and they aren’t soccer hooligans. Drunk or not, I am almost damn sure that nobody is going to pick on let alone beat TO DEATH someone else in such a crowded area, especially unprovoked. I have a hard time buying that at all.
And I believe what BG is referring to when he talks of “false empowerment” is the concept of moral hazard, i.e. “I wouldn’t NORMALLY do this, but I believe the repercussions won’t be as severe, so I’m less likely to hesitate.” This is often used (although, in a poor manner) to illustrate “flaws” with the concept of insurance.
BG, correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
So you expected Ung to go hand to hand with 6 people based on the assumption that they probably wouldn’t beat him to death and rape his girlfriend?
I’m sorry, but if I was with a girlfriend and being followed by six drunk men, I would do the same.
Walk away, if pursued draw a weapon if I had one, issue a verbal warning, if they don’t stop, they’ve clearly shown that either
A)they’re so drunk and uninhibited that they don’t fear a gun, and thus would be more likely to try to beat me to death, or
b) they recognize the threat and wish to harm me enough that the sight of a gun won’t stop them, leading me to believe they wish me great harm.
Either alternative would make me fire if they came on after I drew a weapon.
I wouldn’t be counting on others for help either, how many videos have we had posted on this forum of public beatings with people just watching?
Glad the kid got off. The moral of the story is don’t fuck with people and you won’t get shot.