VA chp holder charged in philly shooting

Jonesy · Jan 17, 2010

imported post

Check out the video, the guy is rushed by 4 people while he is pointing the gun at one of them and he shoots one of them. On the news it said he has a Va permit, and that he has been arrested and charged. Might be self defense.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/Old_City_Shooting_01_17_10

simmonsjoe · Jan 17, 2010

imported post

The shoot itself looked clean. Whether the shooter was involved in escalation isn't determinable. I say Justified or Excusable. Notice the attacker (guy who got shot) was shot in the hand as he attempted a gun grab. (STUPID) I think even HankT will agree shooting someone who is taking your gun is reasonable. I would probably draw if I was outnumbered that much.

Jonesy · Jan 17, 2010

imported post

I saw on another site he is apparently a 3rd year law student.

JimMullinsWVCDL · Jan 17, 2010

imported post

Jonesy wrote:

I saw on another site he is apparently a 3rd year law student.

Hopefully this means he is fully exercising his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney. From what I can see on the video, this was justifiable. However, Philly is not Virginia and how well he avoids any missteps after the shooting stopped will influence the length and cost of this investigation (from which it will hopefully not become a case).

peter nap · Jan 17, 2010

imported post

I don't know about that one. It's hard to see exactly what was going on. I didn't see anything I would have drawn over but I wasn't there either.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

ChinChin · Jan 18, 2010

imported post

Was he in fear of grevious bodily injury and/or death?

I can see disparity of force as there was a mob around him and if one of those individuals made a move to overpower him and take his gun. . .it would equate to fear of death should that individual have secured it.

Him remaining on scene and (presumably) calling 911 would work towards his favor. As others have said the litmus test will be if he was part of the escalitation which brought on the dispute leading to the shooting.

Jonesy · Jan 18, 2010

imported post

They have an expanded video with more detail:

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/generic/news/Fox-29-Surveillance-Tape

Thay name him here, anyone know him? http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/81972992.html

eddyys · Jan 18, 2010

imported post

This looks like self defense to me. Even after he drew his firearm he was still attempting to retreat and get away from the situation but ended up having to discharge his weapon in order to protect himself.

Citizen · Jan 18, 2010

imported post

Too bad the video quality istoo jumpy and grainy to tell for sure. A deliberate degradation?

I haveta wonder if the gun-grab wasn't preceded by some tough-guy comment like, "I'm going to take that gun away from you and show you how to use it."

I do wonder, though, if the shooter was justified in pulling the gun. Can't tell at all from the video.

I'm thinking, as a non-lawyer, that a gun pulled without justification mightbe something that puts the shooter back into contributing to the difficulty. Maybe he was morally justified in shooting; but it might add up to one of thoseimperfectself-defense situations. Isn't there some case law that basically says that in order to be judged justifiable, the shooter must be free of even the tiniest degree of blame?

virginiatuck · Jan 18, 2010

imported post

Just for reference:

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 501. Definitions

Subject to additional definitions contained in subsequent provisions of this chapter which are applicable to specific provisions of this chapter, the following words and phrases, when used in this chapter shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section:

"Believes" or "belief." Means "reasonably believes" or "reasonable belief."

"Correctional institution." Any penal institution, penitentiary, State farm, reformatory, prison, jail, house of correction, or other institution for the incarceration or custody of persons under sentence for offenses or awaiting trial or sentence for offenses.

"Corrections officer.'' A full-time employee assigned to the Department of Corrections whose principal duty is the care, custody and control of inmates of a penal or correctional institution operated by the Department of Corrections.

"Deadly force." Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

"Dwelling." Any building or structure though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is for the time being the home or place of lodging of the actor.

"Peace officer." Any person who by virtue of his office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for offenses, whether that duty extends to all offenses or is limited to specific offenses, or any person on active State duty pursuant to section 311 of the act of May 27, 1949 (P.L. 1903, No. 568), known as "The Military Code of 1949." [FN1] The term "peace officer" shall also include any member of any park police department of any county of the third class.

"Unlawful force." Force, including confinement, which is employed without the consent of the person against whom it is directed and the employment of which constitutes an offense or actionable tort or would constitute such offense or tort except for a defense (such as the absence of intent, negligence, or mental capacity; duress; youth; or diplomatic status) not amounting to a privilege to use the force. Assent constitutes consent, within the meaning of this section, whether or not it otherwise is legally effective, except assent to the infliction of death or serious bodily injury.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 502. Justification a defense
In any prosecution based on conduct which is justifiable under this chapter, justification is a defense.

CREDIT(S)

1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, effective June 6, 1973.

OFFICIAL COMMENT--1972

1998 Main Volume

This section is derived from Section 3.01 of the Model Penal Code and is generally in accord with existing law.
Under existing law, justification is a defense. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 225 (1956). (Self-defense). The defense of justification generally arises in cases of homicide and assault. In Commonwealth v. Capalla, 322 Pa. 200 (1936), the court stated that a killing committed to protect one's life or limb, or to save one's self from great bodily harm, or under circumstances reasonably giving rise to fear of such injuries unless one kills his assailant, is justifiable.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 503. Justification generally
(a) General rule.--Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable if:

(1) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged;
(2) neither this title nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.

(b) Choice of evils.--When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils or in appraising the necessity for his conduct, the justification afforded by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability.

CREDIT(S)

1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, effective June 6, 1973.

OFFICIAL COMMENT--1972

1998 Main Volume

This section is derived from Section 3.02 of the Model Penal Code.
The Pennsylvania cases seem to hold that a person's conduct is justified if he acts on the basis of a reasonable belief and if he acts reasonably. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 181 Pa.Superior Ct. 225 (1956).
This section provides statutory authority for the defense and defines it more specifically than existing law. Generally speaking, this section adopts the principle that properly conceived necessity justifies conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense. The defense is not limited to the situation where the harm or evil to be avoided is death or bodily injury.
See Comment to Section 502.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 505. Use of force in self-protection
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or
(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:
(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;
(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for the protection of property); or
(C) the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
(B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.
(3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

(c) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

CREDIT(S)

1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, effective June 6, 1973.

OFFICIAL COMMENT--1972

1998 Main Volume

This section is derived from Section 3.04 of the Model Penal Code, and makes no substantial change in existing law. The intent of this section is to codify existing case law pertaining to "self-defense" and to cover in a single rule the law governing the use of defensive force against both attack and in crime prevention.
In Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 181 Pa.Superior Ct. 225 (1956), the court held that if a person has a reasonable and well-grounded belief that he is actually in danger of losing his life, or of receiving great bodily harm, he is justified in defending himself regardless of whether the danger was real or apparent. In defending himself, a person cannot use excessive force. Commonwealth v. Sacco, 98 Pa. Superior Ct. 347 (1930). If the force used in self-defense is not excessive, but results in death, the defendant is not guilty of criminal homicide. Before using force dangerous to life in order to defend himself, a person must have no probable means of escape; he must "retreat to the wall." Commonwealth v. Collazo, 407 Pa. 494 (1962). A person is not required to retreat if he is attacked in his own home. Commonwealth v. Fraser, 369 Pa. 273 (1952). But where the deceased and the defendant both had a right to be in the home where the killing occurred, the ordinary rules as to self-defense are applicable. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 213 Pa. 432 (1906). A policeman is not required to retreat when he is not exceeding his authority. Commonwealth v. Crowley, 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 124 (1904). In Commonwealth v. Sacco, supra, the court stated that an aggressor cannot avail himself of the defense of self-defense.
Under Subsection (b)(1)(i) the actor may use force if the arresting police officer unlawfully uses or threatens deadly force. In addition, the actor may use force to resist an illegal arrest by a person not known to be a police officer.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 507. Use of force for the protection of property
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:

(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:
(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and

(ii) (A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or
(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.

(b) Meaning of possession.--For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:

(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.
(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.
(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.

(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.--

(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:
(i) such request would be useless;
(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or
(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.
(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:
(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and
(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).
(4) (i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:
(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;
(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and
(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.
(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:
(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(d) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

(e) Use of device to protect property.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury;
(2) the use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be; and
(3) the device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.

(f) Use of force to pass wrongful obstructor.--The use of force to pass a person whom the actor believes to be intentionally or knowingly and unjustifiably obstructing the actor from going to a place to which he may lawfully go is justifiable, if:

(1) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to obstruct the actor;
(2) the actor is not being obstructed from entry or movement on land which he knows to be in the possession or custody of the person obstructing him, or in the possession or custody of another person by whose authority the obstructor acts, unless the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would not be reasonable to postpone the entry or movement on such land until a court order is obtained; and
(3) the force used is not greater than it would be justifiable if the person obstructing the actor were using force against him to prevent his passage.

CREDIT(S)

1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, effective June 6, 1973. Amended 1980, Dec. 19, P.L. 1310, No. 235, § 1, imd. effective.

OFFICIAL COMMENT--1972

1998 Main Volume

This section is derived from Section 3.06 of the Model Penal Code, and is intended to define more precisely the circumstances under which force may be used to protect property.
Under existing law a person may order a trespasser from his premises, but has no right to follow him until an attack is made upon himself so as to make it necessary to kill the trespasser in self-defense. Tiffany v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. 165 (1888). Apparently one may use as much force as may be necessary to eject a trespasser but is not justified in inflicting serious bodily harm. In Commonwealth v. Pipes, 158 Pa. 25 (1893), the court indicated that a person may use deadly force where a felony was being attempted on his property. Where the owner reasonably believes that the trespasser intended to commit a felony "by force and surprise," he may be justified in inflicting serious bodily harm. See Commonwealth v. Duerr, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 484 (1946). In Commonwealth v. Emmons, 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 495 (1945), which involved defense of personal property, the court stated that only in extreme cases may a person inflict great bodily harm or endanger human life in protecting personal property, and that while a person may use as much force as may be necessary in defense of his property, he may not inflict great bodily harm or endanger life unless the intruder uses force. Where two persons each claim the same personal property, the fact that one takes it into his possession does not justify the other in committing an assault to prevent the taking. Commonwealth v. Concordia, 42 Berks 119 (1949).
This section deals with the use of force against persons to protect property. See Section 510 which deals with the use of force against property.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301. Definitions
Subject to additional definitions contained in subsequent provisions of this article which are applicable to specific chapters or other provisions of this article, the following words and phrases, when used in this article shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section:

"Bodily injury." Impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

"Deadly weapon." Any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner in which it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.

"Serious bodily injury." Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

"Serious provocation." Conduct sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501. Criminal homicide
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being.

(b) Classification.--Criminal homicide shall be classified as murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter.

CREDIT(S)

1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, effective June 6, 1973.

OFFICIAL COMMENT--1972

1998 Main Volume

This section is derived from Section 210.1 of the Model Penal Code.
Under existing law homicide is classified as murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. The Penal Code of 1939, § 701, as amended (18 P.S. § 4701); § 703 (18 P.S. § 4703).

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502. Murder
(a) Murder of the first degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

(c) Murder of the third degree.--All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

(d) Definitions.--As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Fireman." Includes any employee or member of a municipal fire department or volunteer fire company.

"Hijacking." Any unlawful or unauthorized seizure or exercise of control, by force or violence or threat of force or violence.

"Intentional killing." Killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.

"Perpetration of a felony." The act of the defendant in engaging in or being an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary or kidnapping.

"Principal." A person who is the actor or perpetrator of the crime.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2503. Voluntary manslaughter
(a) General rule.--A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by:

(1) the individual killed; or
(2) another whom the actor endeavors to kill, but he negligently or accidentally causes the death of the individual killed.

(b) Unreasonable belief killing justifiable.--A person who intentionally or knowingly kills an individual commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify the killing under Chapter 5 of this title, but his belief is unreasonable.

(c) Grading.--Voluntary manslaughter is a felony of the first degree.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701. Simple assault
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of assault if he:

(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another;
(2) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon;
(3) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(4) conceals or attempts to conceal a hypodermic needle on his person and intentionally or knowingly penetrates a law enforcement officer or an officer or an employee of a correctional institution, county jail or prison, detention facility or mental hospital during the course of an arrest or any search of the person.

(b) Grading.--Simple assault is a misdemeanor of the second degree unless committed:

(1) in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a misdemeanor of the third degree; or
(2) against a child under 12 years of age by an adult 21 years of age or older, in which case it is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702. Aggravated assault
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he:

(1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life;
(2) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury to any of the officers, agents, employees or other persons enumerated in subsection (c) or to an employee of an agency, company or other entity engaged in public transportation, while in the performance of duty;
(3) attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to any of the officers, agents, employees or other persons enumerated in subsection (c), in the performance of duty;
(4) attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon;
(5) attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to a teaching staff member, school board member or other employee, including a student employee, of any elementary or secondary publicly-funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school while acting in the scope of his or her employment or because of his or her employment relationship to the school;
(6) attempts by physical menace to put any of the officers, agents, employees or other persons enumerated in subsection (c), while in the performance of duty, in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(7) uses tear or noxious gas as defined in section 2708(b) (relating to use of tear or noxious gas in labor disputes) or uses an electric or electronic incapacitation device against any officer, employee or other person enumerated in subsection (c) while acting in the scope of his employment.

(b) Grading.--Aggravated assault under subsection (a)(1) and (2) is a felony of the first degree. Aggravated assault under subsection (a)(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) is a felony of the second degree.

(c) Officers, employees, etc., enumerated.--The officers, agents, employees and other persons referred to in subsection (a) shall be as follows:
(1) Police officer.
(2) Firefighter.
(3) County adult probation or parole officer.
(4) County juvenile probation or parole officer.
(5) An agent of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
(6) Sheriff.
(7) Deputy sheriff.
(8) Liquor control enforcement agent.
(9) Officer or employee of a correctional institution, county jail or prison, juvenile detention center or any other facility to which the person has been ordered by the court pursuant to a petition alleging delinquency under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to juvenile matters).
(10) Judge of any court in the unified judicial system.
(11) The Attorney General.
(12) A deputy attorney general.
(13) A district attorney.
(14) An assistant district attorney.
(15) A public defender.
(16) An assistant public defender.
(17) A Federal law enforcement official.
(18) A State law enforcement official.
(19) A local law enforcement official.
(20) Any person employed to assist or who assists any Federal, State or local law enforcement official.
(21) Emergency medical services personnel.
(22) Parking enforcement officer.
(23) A district justice.
(24) A constable.
(25) A deputy constable.
(26) A psychiatric aide.
(27) A teaching staff member, a school board member or other employee, including a student employee, of any elementary or secondary publicly funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school while acting in the scope of his or her employment or because of his or her employment relationship to the school.
(28) Governor.
(29) Lieutenant Governor.
(30) Auditor General.
(31) State Treasurer.
(32) Member of the General Assembly.
(33) An employee of the Department of Environmental Protection.
(34) An individual engaged in the private detective business as defined in section 2(a) and (b) of the act of August 21, 1953 (P.L. 1273, No. 361), [FN1] known as The Private Detective Act of 1953.
(35) An employee or agent of a county children and youth social service agency or of the legal representative of such agency.
(36) A public utility employee or an employee of an electric cooperative.

(d) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
"Electric or electronic incapacitation device." A portable device which is designed or intended by the manufacturer to be used, offensively or defensively, to temporarily immobilize or incapacitate persons by means of electric pulse or current, including devices operated by means of carbon dioxide propellant. The term does not include cattle prods, electric fences or other electric devices when used in agricultural, animal husbandry or food production activities.

"Emergency medical services personnel." The term includes, but is not limited to, doctors, residents, interns, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, nurse aides, ambulance attendants and operators, paramedics, emergency medical technicians and members of a hospital security force while working within the scope of their employment.

edit: forgot 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2503. Voluntary manslaughter.

The rest of the code can be found here:
http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=pac-1000

Tomahawk · Jan 18, 2010

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Too bad the video quality istoo jumpy and grainy to tell for sure. A deliberate degradation?

I haveta wonder if the gun-grab wasn't preceded by some tough-guy comment like, "I'm going to take that gun away from you and show you how to use it."

I do wonder, though, if the shooter was justified in pulling the gun. Can't tell at all from the video.

I'm thinking, as a non-lawyer, that a gun pulled without justification mightbe something that puts the shooter back into contributing to the difficulty. Maybe he was morally justified in shooting; but it might add up to one of thoseimperfectself-defense situations. Isn't there some case law that basically says that in order to be judged justifiable, the shooter must be free of even the tiniest degree of blame?

I agree, especially with the part about the "tough guy comments". Can't really see enough to see if the shooter was smart or not, but we can see enough to see that the guy who got shot was not very bright.

And that is why hanging around with stupid people can get you into a lot of trouble.

TFred · Jan 18, 2010

imported post

Where's Mike Nifong these days?

This could turn out to be a circus. The alleged victim in this shooting was a well known Lacrosse player for Villanova. The reported "spark" that started the incident? He or one of his buddies was "bumped" while they were doing chin-ups on a scaffolding of some sort near the sidewalk.

Sister says “He does think he’s invincible.” “He is the type that would think he could take a gun from someone.”

I wonder if he lost blood, or testosterone?

http://www.google.com/news/search?q=Gerald+Ung&scoring=n

TFred

Grapeshot · Jan 19, 2010

imported post

TFred wrote:

Where's Mike Nifong these days?

This could turn out to be a circus. The alleged victim in this shooting was a well known Lacrosse player for Villanova. The reported "spark" that started the incident? He or one of his buddies was "bumped" while they were doing chin-ups on a scaffolding of some sort near the sidewalk.

Sister says “He does think he’s invincible.” “He is the type that would think he could take a gun from someone.”

I wonder if he lost blood, or testosterone?

http://www.google.com/news/search?q=Gerald+Ung&scoring=n

TFred

Hope that not as much theatrics are required (as in the Duke lacrosse case) to get to the bottom of this.

Yata hey

nuc65 · Jan 19, 2010

imported post

...

wylde007 · Jan 19, 2010

imported post

nuc65 wrote:

You all might never have been jumped before, or attacked but it isn't easy to not feel fear when it's 4 to one.

At two-to-one the odds are still stacked against you.

scarletwahoo · Jan 19, 2010

imported post

From the video it looks like justified self-defense, if he was allowed to leave without a fight he probably would have. It's amazing he is being charged with attempted murder and the 'victim' is not being charged with anything.

If convicted, this leads to the question, is it even worth it to carry in certain places? I much rather get beaten within inches of death than throw in jail for self-defense.

TFred · Jan 19, 2010

imported post

scarletwahoo wrote:

From the video it looks like justified self-defense, if he was allowed to leave without a fight he probably would have. It's amazing he is being charged with attempted murder and the 'victim' is not being charged with anything.

If convicted, this leads to the question, is it even worth it to carry in certain places? I much rather get beaten within inches of death than throw in jail for self-defense.

But how do you know they will stop "within inches"?

TFred

peter nap · Jan 19, 2010

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

nuc65 wrote:

You all might never have been jumped before, or attacked but it isn't easy to not feel fear when it's 4 to one.

Click to expand...

At two-to-one the odds are still stacked against you.

I guess I need to wait and see more of what happened, but so far I'm in the minority. To me it looked like boys, (especially yankee boys,) being boys.

I have to ask how badly he was likely to get hurt. I've been in that situation before and I've never won a fight against 4 people (or 3). Those odds always mean your gonna get an azz whuppin.

The worst I've ever been hurt though, is a couple of black eyes and a broken hand and nose.

That wasn't worth killing someone over in my book and I'll never change my mind about that.

This just reinforces the fact that once you draw your gun, a whole lot of options go down the drain if the other fellow isn't nice enough to be afraid.
Things were just too close there to go any other way.

nuc65 · Jan 19, 2010

imported post

This is all opinion, it will be very interesting to see how it all shakes out. The charges also might be because he refused to talk without a lawyer, and the charges could also be used to keep him in the state until the investigation is complete. I am also surprised (although I shouldn't be) that the obvious aggressors aren't in custody also.

marshaul · Jan 19, 2010

imported post

TFred wrote:

Where's Mike Nifong these days?

This could turn out to be a circus. The alleged victim in this shooting was a well known Lacrosse player for Villanova. The reported "spark" that started the incident? He or one of his buddies was "bumped" while they were doing chin-ups on a scaffolding of some sort near the sidewalk.

Sister says “He does think he’s invincible.” “He is the type that would think he could take a gun from someone.”

Man, what a compete dumbass. I probably shouldn't admit this on an open forum, but I don't exactly shed any tears when Darwin hands these types what they've got coming.

Civilization coddles genes which really have no business existing, and contribute negatively to the life expectancy of their bearer.

VA chp holder charged in philly shooting

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Activist Member

Campaign Veteran