• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gerald Ung

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

My initial reaction to watching the video is that Ung was in a bad bad situation. Two guys were advancing on him with apparent intent to attack/hit him. So, it may very well be a justified act of self-defense. Sloppy and possibly avoidable. But, still, self-defense.

How it turns out in court is anyone's guess. It's just uncertain.

One thing is certain, though. This is yet another (why are there soooo many?) corroborating case of the simple and powerful wisdom of HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[suP]©[/suP] which is:


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.

Ifonly Ung had included analysis of this unassailable concept in his university studies.... he might not be in the legal pickle he is in now.

Ung has now learned that HPCSD[suP]©[/suP]always applies. There has never been an exception to this vaunted concept. And there never will be.

Good luck, Mr. Ung.
 

ODA 226

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,603
Location
Etzenricht, Germany
imported post

HankT wrote:
One thing is certain, though. This is yet another (why are there soooo many?) corroborating case of the simple and powerful wisdom of HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[suP]©[/suP] which is:


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.

Ifonly Ung had included analysis of this unassailable concept in his university studies.... he might not be in the legal pickle he is in now.

Ung has now learned that HPCSD[suP]©[/suP]always applies. There has never been an exception to this vaunted concept. And there never will be.


I really hope you find yourself in Mr. Ung's situation some day.....and get beaten to death so we won't be subjected to your pompous drivel ever again.
 

driveramsII

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
89
Location
Richmond/VA Beach, Virginia, USA
imported post

And I think Mr. Ung when faced with his options of shoot the "poor, unarmed, KIDs" or be beat to death would rather be in a legal battle than in a battle to survive on a Philly sidewalk at 0230 by himself.

Just my .02
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

driveramsII wrote:
And I think Mr. Ung when faced with his options of shoot the "poor, unarmed, KIDs" or be beat to death would rather be in a legal battle than in a battle to survive on a Philly sidewalk at 0230 by himself.

Just my .02
My first thought when I saw the Video, was that it was a bad shooting. The more I read about the more I'm not sure.

I wasn't there so I can't say what their actions were.

I know two things for sure.

1. Once he drew the gun at that distance, he was committed.
2. I'd rather get dragged naked over cactus, than agree with Hanks reasoning.
 

driveramsII

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
89
Location
Richmond/VA Beach, Virginia, USA
imported post

Agreed. Thats why I asked earlier about Philly's duty to retreat status. If they do not have a duty to retreat then I don't think I would have waited that long/until he was that close to shoot him. Upon his first forward advancing, aggressive move I would have put him down, especially considering he was verbally warned. As you stated, I am on the outside looking in but my gut tells me that Mr. Ung waited too long to use force. It tends to be harder to hit your target effectively while being tackled.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Hank's postulate is a bucket with no bottom - it won't hold water as designed.

"It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person."

Too much is presumed via the definitions assumed for "strategy" and "unarmed."

Indeed, sometimes such might even be said to be good, proper or justified.

Consider a deranged hulk of a man sexually attacking and strangling or trying to break the neck of a preteen girl - what is the better strategy? Let him do what he wants, then call 911 after?

Now where are those cacti ?

Yata hey
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

ODA 226 wrote:
HankT wrote:
My initial reaction to watching the video is that Ung was in a bad bad situation. Two guys were advancing on him with apparent intent to attack/hit him. So, it may very well be a justified act of self-defense. Sloppy and possibly avoidable. But, still, self-defense.

How it turns out in court is anyone's guess. It's just uncertain.

One thing is certain, though. This is yet another (why are there soooo many?) corroborating case of the simple and powerful wisdom of HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[suP]©[/suP] which is:


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.

Ifonly Ung had included analysis of this unassailable concept in his university studies.... he might not be in the legal pickle he is in now.

Ung has now learned that HPCSD[suP]©[/suP]always applies. There has never been an exception to this vaunted concept. And there never will be.


I really hope you find yourself in Mr. Ung's situation some day.....and get beaten to death so we won't be subjected to your pompous drivel ever again.

Brother ODA, isn't that a bit, uhm, harsh?

You embarass yourself.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

HankT wrote:
ODA 226 wrote:
I really hope you find yourself in Mr. Ung's situation some day.....and get beaten to death so we won't be subjected to your pompous drivel ever again.
Brother ODA, isn't that a bit, uhm, harsh?

You embarass yourself.
I'm sure he meant that figuratively. To that regard it would hardly be the first time now would it? :uhoh: :p

Yata hey
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

I don't get the stubborn resistance to HPCSD[suP]©[/suP]. I'm sure it's mostly bad reading skillz and ideology.

But in an effort to show how some (probably many) OCDers do "get it," here are a couple of posts about HPCSD[suP]©[/suP]from the past that may help.




deepdiver wrote:
Going to have to agree with Hank here.

It's kind of like: Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy.

However, if you have 10 high value enemy combatants battened down in a house with 2 civilians blowing the heck out of you with heavy small arms fire, it may be a tactical necessity to call in an air strike and destroy the house, thereby killing everyone, including the 2 civilians.

Strategically we continue the policy of Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy, and recognize the tactical reality that sometimes it is necessary to violate that strategic tenet.

dvdaughtry wrote:
HankT wrote:
Agent 19 recently posted the link about the Harold Fish case. A tragic and disheartening case it is... and is explained here:

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/



After reading through it, I'm just sad that Fish wasn't aware of HankT's Postulateof Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD):


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



This conceptual wisdom might have helped Fish deal with his self defense in 2006.

Once again, HPCSD is found to be supported. It is amazing how accurate and robust this postulate has been throughout the years...
I do more reading than posting and have seen the postulate, although heisabit arrognant with his "revelation", for the most part he is right. It is bad strategy.

The most extreme cases have been used tocombate this maxim, but the facts are the law is not on the side of the gun owner.

Just like it is bad strategy to throw 50 yard passes, or shoot to many 3 pointers,or swing for the fences too often, so is shooting an unarmedperson. However, there are times when those three actions are the only option.

But useing them too much or too soon, is bad strategy.


It's really not that difficult. A little open-mindedness, a bit ofreflection,and a dollop of calm thought......and it will come, gentleman. That's what deepdiver and dvdaugherty used. Ya gotta think of the different levels, though--strategy and tactics. That definitely helps.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Here's another OCDOer who gets much of what HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] is about.

GuitarMan270 wrote:
I'm going to jump into the fray for a second and say that I think HankT is playing word games. He's a troll, but he's right.

Strategy is the "Big Picture" goal. One could argue that a person's "strategy" in life is to be happy. It doesn't define how to achieve that happiness. On a smaller scale, a person's "strategy" in self-defense should, in fact, never be to shoot an unarmed man. Your strategy in self-defense should be to survive with the least amount of harm to anyone involved.

If your strategy in self-defense is to survive, then you may have to use the tactic of shooting an unarmed man, but shooting the unarmed man should not be your strategy. If shooting an unarmed man is your "Big Picture" goal, then there is another word for it: premeditated murder.
Some folks here at OCDO do get HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] since all it takes is a little non impaired cognitive processing.

 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

peter nap wrote:
driveramsII wrote:
And I think Mr. Ung when faced with his options of shoot the "poor, unarmed, KIDs" or be beat to death would rather be in a legal battle than in a battle to survive on a Philly sidewalk at 0230 by himself.

Just my .02
My first thought when I saw the Video, was that it was a bad shooting. The more I read about the more I'm not sure.

I wasn't there so I can't say what their actions were.

I know two things for sure.

1. Once he drew the gun at that distance, he was committed.
2. I'd rather get dragged naked over cactus, than agree with Hanks reasoning.

Watched the video again. It sure looks like Ung was panicked. And that two guys decided to approach Ung even though he had a gun and was pointing it at them. They apparently thought he wouldn't shoot. The one guy with the white checkered shirtand dark jacket moved steadily toward Ung and he actually moved in front of the other approacher as everyone was moving in one direction (toward Ung's left). He sure seemed to not be disuaded by the gunin his approach toward Ung.

I don't think that Ung was committed to actually shooting when he pulled the ole pistola out. He probably thought that the displayed gun would be enough to convince his adversaries to not mess with him.

Really, it should have been enough. But Mr. checkered shirt thought he was invincible or something.

Given the situation he was in, Ung may have waited too long to shoot. By waiting, he subjected himself to a completed attack. But shooting earlier would have been just as bad....in terms of shooting an unarmed man.

Hmmm, it's clear that the gun approach in this little tiff these guys were having was simply not a good one. The gun escalated the situatoin and precipitated bad judgment by the adversaries. I mean, jimminy cricket, two guys kept walking TOWARD a guy with a gun with apparent intent to kick his azz!!

Take the gun out of the mix and it's completely different tale. Too late.

What a mess. The shootee's life, ruined. Ung's life, ruined. Sad.

Bad judgments all round.
 

ODA 226

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,603
Location
Etzenricht, Germany
imported post

HankT wrote:
ODA 226 wrote:
HankT wrote:
My initial reaction to watching the video is that Ung was in a bad bad situation. Two guys were advancing on him with apparent intent to attack/hit him. So, it may very well be a justified act of self-defense. Sloppy and possibly avoidable. But, still, self-defense.

How it turns out in court is anyone's guess. It's just uncertain.

One thing is certain, though. This is yet another (why are there soooo many?) corroborating case of the simple and powerful wisdom of HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[suP]©[/suP] which is:


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.

Ifonly Ung had included analysis of this unassailable concept in his university studies.... he might not be in the legal pickle he is in now.

Ung has now learned that HPCSD[suP]©[/suP]always applies. There has never been an exception to this vaunted concept. And there never will be.


I really hope you find yourself in Mr. Ung's situation some day.....and get beaten to death so we won't be subjected to your pompous drivel ever again.

Brother ODA, isn't that a bit, uhm, harsh?

You embarass yourself.
I call 'em the way I see 'em.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

bmartinxd45 wrote:
I personally am under the mantra of " I would rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6"

Just my thoughts on it.


I personally would rather do the right thing, handling the situation efficaciously in full and clearcompliance with the applicable law.

That would be better than either being judged by 12and carried by 6.

Much better.

That old"rather be judged by 12" line is sooooooooo obsolete. And lame. The proof is in the Gerald Ung case. He could have gotten out of/or avoidedhis situation without the results he got.

Smart and hard-workinglaw student ruins life.

Bet he wishes he could start that interaction over again...


P.S. One positive thing that Ung gives us: an exemplar of how not to handle an argument on the street at 2:30 AM. We all owe him for that.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

buster81 wrote:
How can one have so much stamina in their arm/shoulder to continue the self reach-around for solong?
stretch_armstrong.jpg
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

HankT wrote:
P.S. One positive thing that Ung gives us: an exemplar of how not to handle an argument on the street at 2:30 AM. We all owe him for that.
I don't think so. Were it not for the political connections, I doubt Ung would be facing trial.

This circumstance is a classic case where, while an alternative tool to the gun may have been ideal, Ung was driven to resort to the tool he did have by the actions of an aggressor, who is as a result wholly to blame, despite the arguably imperfect reaction by Ung.

Always, people may make mistakes when forced to defend themselves. But, the proper thing to do is blame the aggressor who created the situation, without which there would have been no perceived need to resort to the firearm.

This should be an example, not why a gun is not useful at 2:30 AM in Philly (I'd want one), but why we shouldn't raise our punk kids to think that acting like a lout is OK, and to think that physical assault is ever "not a big deal" if you "didn't mean to hurt anyone".

The simple fact is that ANY assault is a VERY big deal, precisely because you may find yourself getting shot (or may inadvertently kill the assaultee).

From that perspective, the fact that Ung may have been better of with a taser than a gun pales in comparison to the fact that he was assaulted at all.

While I pity Ung, I consider Eddie taking six bullets and managing to survive to be ideal.

Eddie would have learned a real lesson if it weren't for his parents calling him a "hero" and HankT bolstering the B.S. argument that Eddie shouldn't have fully expected to find himself full of holes as a result of his completely unacceptable behavior.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

marshaul wrote:
HankT wrote:
P.S. One positive thing that Ung gives us: an exemplar of how not to handle an argument on the street at 2:30 AM. We all owe him for that.
I don't think so. Were it not for the political connections, I doubt Ung would be facing trial.

This circumstance is a classic case where, while an alternative tool to the gun may have been ideal, Ung was driven to resort to the tool he did have by the actions of an aggressor, who is as a result wholly to blame, despite the arguably imperfect reaction by Ung.

Always, people may make mistakes when forced to defend themselves. But, the proper thing to do is blame the aggressor who created the situation, without which there would have been no perceived need to resort to the firearm.

This should be an example, not why a gun is not useful at 2:30 AM in Philly (I'd want one), but why we shouldn't raise our punk kids to think that acting like a lout is OK, and to think that physical assault is ever "not a big deal" if you "didn't mean to hurt anyone".

The simple fact is that ANY assault is a VERY big deal, precisely because you may find yourself getting shot (or may inadvertently kill the assaultee).

From that perspective, the fact that Ung may have been better of with a taser than a gun pales in comparison to the fact that he was assaulted at all.

While I pity Ung, I consider Eddie taking six bullets and managing to survive to be ideal.

Eddie would have learned a real lesson if it weren't for his parents calling him a "hero" and HankT bolstering the B.S. argument that Eddie shouldn't have fully expected to find himself full of holes as a result of his completely unacceptable behavior.
+8

Right on the money.
 
Top