Gerald Ung, Not Guilty in Philadelphia

[TexasRifleman]

Um no. What happens in most places is the DA screens it decides what to do. If it is clear cut case of self defense no charges are brought.

I think you will find it pretty evenly split. Many states require prosecution if someone is killed. What you describe, prosecutor option, certainly happens in many places but just as many have laws that require prosecutors to take homicides to a Grand Jury even if they appear clearly justified.

May not even be an arrest if it's a clear and obvious self defense shooting, but still has to go to Grand Jury in many states.

 

[Girodin]

where are the attempted murder charges against the white hat guy??
after all, in a felony, there is shared responsibility (hence 2nd degree murder if you accomplice dies)

Not all states have "felon murder statutes". There also is not felony attempted murder.

. . .many places but just as many have laws that require prosecutors to take homicides to a Grand Jury even if they appear clearly justified.

He said they would go to court which I interpreted to mean a full trial and not to a grand jury. Two very different things. I've included the comment to which I was responding below. I believe my interpretation was correct given that the poster also said this is why it would cost tens of thousands of dollars. Going to the grand jury in a clear cut case is typically is not going to cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Not necessarily. In most states, even if the shooting is a cut-and-dried "good shoot", charges will be filed and the case will be heard in court.

 

[gc70]

If the video would have shown him getting stomped on, kicked, and beat by the attacker or a group then I would have been all for it

Harsh words and a shove are not enough. Is a hit in the face? Two or three? Being knocked down and stomped or kicked? Having bones broken? Being beaten by one, or two, or more? How close do you have to come to sustaining serious bodily injury or death to be able to use lethal force in self defense?

 

[mbruce]

To me, people are taking this fight out of context.... group A and group B exchange words, exchange more words...talk some trash...throw some hands...Mr. Ung chooses to pull a gun.

This was not a mugging, not a gang beating, not a blind sided threat in a back alley, not a group of bullies picking on choir boys. It was a testosterone/alochol fueled collision that involved both groups of guys talking crap. Mr. Ung got into a physical exchange, was either going to lose or losing and decided to pull a gun.... You cannot place emphasis on the guy who charged Mr. Ung after Ung pulled a gun -- he was simply reacting to Mr. Ung using lethal force.

In this instance pulling a gun during the EARLY STAGES of a hand to hand fight that Ung had a part in is unacceptable.

 

[gc70]

It was a testosterone/alochol fueled collision that involved both groups of guys talking crap.

I can certainly agree that the accounts from court show that the incident started that way. However, the video of subsequent events shows one group trying to leave and disengage while the other group is pursuing. The act of retreating entirely changes the situation, both morally and legally.

 

[kingpin008]

To me, people are taking this fight out of context.... group A and group B exchange words, exchange more words...talk some trash...throw some hands...Mr. Ung chooses to pull a gun.

No, you're pretty much right, except for the fact that it wasn't "throwing hands" as in a mutual fight - it was an individual from Group B shoving an individual from Group A as he was trying to leave the scene. That's not a mutual combat situation, that's an attack. If you got into a heated argument with someone and then were followed and assaulted by the one of the people you were trying to escape you'd be a bit worried too.

Mr. Ung got into a physical exchange, was either going to lose or losing and decided to pull a gun.... You cannot place emphasis on the guy who charged Mr. Ung after Ung pulled a gun -- he was simply reacting to Mr. Ung using lethal force.

Let's get one thing straight - pulling a gun and aiming it at someone is NOT deadly force. Pulling the trigger is.

And we can put the emphasis on the guy who charged, because whether or not Mr. Ung was justified in pulling the gun at that particular moment, he chose to continue the confrontation and rush towards Mr. Ung. At that point, the ball is in HIS court in regards to how the event will unfold. He chose wrong. And I don't know about you, but someone who decides to come at me again with a pistol leveled at them is telling me through their actions that they are dead-set on doing me harm, and I need to do what I can to stop them.

However, the video of subsequent events shows one group trying to leave and disengage while the other group is pursuing. The act of retreating entirely changes the situation, both morally and legally.

Exactly.

 

[mbruce]

If someone pulls a gun on me I assume he's going to use it therefore I will do all I can to stop him.

 

[Girodin]

How close do you have to come to sustaining serious bodily injury or death to be able to use lethal force in self defense?

You have to be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury? At what point is the mythical reasonable man going to be in fear of that? Those who decide if charges should be brought and if it should go to trial will first ask if you had a objectively reasonable fear. Then the jury will ask that. It is not a fixed target.

Let's get one thing straight - pulling a gun and aiming it at someone is NOT deadly force. Pulling the trigger is.

It is a threat of lethal force but let's get a second thing straight, you cannot escalate a situation to the point deadly force is required and then claim self defense. If I tell you to F off, then I push you then you pull a knife then I pull a gun, in most places, I do not have a valid claim to self defense.

Pulling a gun when you shouldn't have and then claiming the person came out you and thus justified you using the gun is not likely to be a winning argument very often.

Was Ung justified in pulling the gun in first place? I don't have sufficient facts to say, IDK the PA laws or have a full credible account of the facts.

Again irrespective of how it turned out I'm not the least bit surprised this went to trial. It was very much so in the gray area.

 

[kingpin008]

If someone pulls a gun on me I assume he's going to use it therefore I will do all I can to stop him.

So if you're pulled over mistakenly one afternoon by a police officer and ordered out of the car at gunpoint, you're going to do all you can to stop him? That makes zero sense.

And even if that is your reaction, it doesn't correlate to the situation under discussion. Mr. Ung didn't pull the gun without first being provoked. He was reacting, the best way he knew how to at that particular moment to an immediate physical threat. So it would follow that all Mr. X has to do to avoid getting shot is to stop his assaultive actions and walk away. Ung wasn't chasing him, or approaching him in any way - in fact, he was still attempting to get away! Mr. X decided to push the matter and got shot for it.

 

[kingpin008]

It is a threat of lethal force but let's get a second thing straight, you cannot escalate a situation to the point deadly force is required and then claim self defense. If I tell you to F off, then I push you then you pull a knife then I pull a gun, in most places, I do not have a valid claim to self defense.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Mr. Ung was attempting to retreat from the situation with his friends, when Mr. X decided to take it from words to actions and shove him. There was in no way a "I call you a name and push you then you pull a knife, etc" situation. He got into a yelling match, then tried to leave. He was followed and assaulted. He reacted to a physical threat the best way he knew how, and attempted to keep retreating. Mr. X forced his hand by coming at him a second time. How is that not justified?

 

[mbruce]

Oh come on now let's not get carried away...as I said before there is a trust factor with LEM. There is zero trust factor with a guy who left a bar and is exchanging heated words with me.


I'll go ahead and throw this comment out there... I really don't know if pulling a gun was justified in this situation..may be, may not...I initially commented because the posts were so one sided blasting the prosecution when the video showed absolutely no credible threat....

 

[mbruce]

I saw what could be considered a slow retreat...surely didn't see a retreat from a life threatening situation...

And the video certainly does not show Ung disengaging...it shows ung and his crew walking down the street while facing the "threat" continuing to exchange words.

Girodin gonna get serious in a minute and post something that no one has a come back to.

 

[kingpin008]

There is zero trust factor with a guy who left a bar and is exchanging heated words with me.

Which is exactly why I won't trust a guy who is intent on forcing a physical confrontation to stop at just a few punches. Especially when I'm attempting to remove myself from the fight and he pursues me.

I saw what could be considered a slow retreat...surely didn't see a retreat from a life threatening situation...

Since when does a retreat need to be a certain speed to be valid? I have a chronic back injury and am incapable of more than a fast walk, even if I TRIED. If it had been me in the video, would your comment have been the same? The bottom line is that he was trying to leave.

it shows ung and his crew walking down the street while facing the "threat" continuing to exchange words.

And for all we know those words were "LEAVE US ALONE NOW!" But, regardless of the words exchanged - Mr. X chose to take it past words and into violent actions. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

 

[mbruce]

I accept that, and accepted that during my 1st post. I did not accept the "off with the prosecutor's head".... I will end with this...

I will write to you and wire funds via western union when your on trial for hosing down Gordon Ramsey because he came at you with a spatchala on Hell's Kitchen. :-D

In all seriousness I was not there and my opinion is purely ignorant and subjective. Its an unfortunate situation and bottom line is for all of us to minimize risks and mazimize odds.

 

[kingpin008]

Well, It's obvious that we don't agree. Let's leave it at that, and hope each other never has to personally test our differing theories.

 

[Girodin]

My example was an illustration of the general legal principle. My end point was that if he was not justified in pulling his gun, then claiming SD in relation to the gentleman rushing him becomes a hard sale. He escalated a push and allegedly some threats to a gun fight. The alleged threats, notably "I'll kill you" weigh in Ung's favor.

Mr. X chose to take it past words and into violent actions. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

That alone is not enough to justify using a gun. Typically the standard is not did someone do violence to you, nor is it even are you in fear of imminent future "violent actions". It is reasonable fear, in the circumstances, of imminent death or serious bodily harm (which has a particular meaning). In most cases someone pushing someone else would not cause an objectively reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Particularly when another person has already come between you and the pusher.

Almost any time an armed person shoots unarmed person there are going to be serious questions as to whether the purported fear of death or serious bodily harm was objectively reasonable. That is often a difficult determination this case is just one example of that.

I'll repeat my point so that it is not misunderstood. Based on the video alone, Ung's actions look very questionable. Depending on other circumstances things may alter that analysis. I do not have an ability to know those other circumstances or even make great judgments about them. One of the reasons appeals courts don't typical review findings of fact is because it is recognized that those in the courtroom hearing the testimony, seeing the people, etc, are in a better position to evaluate credibility etc than one reading a transcript.

As I have stated multiple times, if the guy was making threats to kill, etc that might make it all look more objectively reasonable.

What is objectively reasonable is by nature a debatable matter. A point worth remembering.

The take away from this case, and a number of cases that are roughly similar to it, is that a bunch of other people are going to be reviewing your actions and asking if they are reasonable in the circumstances. The more clear the threat is and the less culpable you are in that threat existing the better it is for you.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Small donation sent. This guy did the right thing.

 

[Owen Sparks]

"Where do you draw the line?"

Anytime a person initiate aggression through word or deed, it is a very serious threat and you can not afford to let them put their hands on you. that push could just as easily be a punch or a stab or a thumb in the eye. Make no mistake being punched can render you unable to defend yourself from the next punch and the next and the next then you are down and totaly at the mercy of your attacker who can stomp on your head and neck until you are DEAD! You do not owe a criminal assailant a fair fight! Assault is not a sporting event. NEVER let some stranger put his hands on you in mallace.

There is an old martial arts saying that applies: It is not the man who throws the first punch who is wrong, it is he who insisted on fighting who is in the wrong.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is a threat of lethal force but let's get a second thing straight, you cannot escalate a situation to the point deadly force is required and then claim self defense. If I tell you to F off, then I push you then you pull a knife then I pull a gun, in most places, I do not have a valid claim to self defense.

I'm not familiar with PA law; but see this example from Texas:

"(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
...(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unlessA) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or""

Many states have similar laws that say if you provoked the others use of force; but clearly attempt to disengage or retreat, you can once again claim self-defense if your attacker continues to pursue after you have disengaged.

So, in Texas, if I tell you to blank yourself and push you and you pull a knife and I say "Can't fight like a man?" and start walking away, you pursuing me could be all I need to claim self-defense - depending of course on how the jury sees it.

He escalated a push and allegedly some threats to a gun fight. The alleged threats, notably "I'll kill you" weigh in Ung's favor.

It is worth noting that Tom Kelly (the original aggressor in the white hat) reached behind his back (according to Kelly it was to "pull up his pants") as he approached Ung and Ung drew the pistol thinking he was going to produce a weapon. Kelly backed off at that point; but the other guy charged.

Depending on other circumstances things may alter that analysis. I do not have an ability to know those other circumstances or even make great judgments about them.

Actually, a lot of the trial testimony for this particular case is available online through various news articles. And while you are going from the video alone, the jury here did get to consider the totality of the evidence and apparently didn't find that Ung acted unreasonably.

Almost any time an armed person shoots unarmed person there are going to be serious questions as to whether the purported fear of death or serious bodily harm was objectively reasonable. That is often a difficult determination this case is just one example of that.

No argument here. If you shoot an unarmed person, even with a large disparity of force, you've got a real high probability of a trial in your future.

 

[627PCFan]

I would have thought the alcohol would have played a bigger part in the prosecutions case. What exactly are their bar/gun laws in PA?

 

[unloved]

What exactly are their bar/gun laws in PA?

There aren't any.

 

[Girodin]

a lot of the trial testimony for this particular case is available online through various news articles.

I've been closely involved in a number of things that I've read /watched the news reports on. I do not really trust the news to convey facts correctly. You'd be amazed at how many objectively knowable facts the media is able to simple get totally wrong.

And while you are going from the video alone, the jury here did get to consider the totality of the evidence and apparently didn't find that Ung acted unreasonably.

Which is why I highlighted that point and noted that the analysis might well change with other facts. My comments concerning the video alone were more to those that claimed the video clearly showed it was self defense. No one has yet cited PA law and then explained why that video clearly shows it was self defense.

 

[JR956678]

No one has yet cited PA law and then explained why that video clearly shows it was self defense.

PA law requires a reasonable belief that you and/or someone in your company is threatened with death or serious injury before you can use lethal force to defend yourself or them, and also states that you have a duty to retreat providing you can do so in complete safety.

There is no law in the state of PA prohibiting concealed or open carry in an establishment that serves alcohol, nor is there any law against consuming alcohol while you are carrying; you are responsible for all of your actions regardless. All of the participants had been drinking before the encounter but at trial the prosecution was never able to connect Mt. Ung's actions with impaired judgment.

During the trial, the defense repeatedly walked prosecution witnesses through the video to both show inconsistencies in their accounts of the events as well as introduce key defense contentions of the events even though not directly part of the witness's testimony.

As we here can only view the video outside of this context I think we probably need to be aware that it had more impact as the jury understood it than it does as we see it.