Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

Do innocent victims need to use professional public relations help? Apparently:

Edward “Eddie” DiDonato Jr., 23, is still in critical condition at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, where he’s expected to undergo his fourth surgery today, said Gina Furia Rubel, a close friend of the DiDonato family who is acting as their spokeswoman.

“The fact that Eddie is alive is a true miracle,” she said at a news conference held outside the Criminal Justice Center in Center City yesterday.

Rubel, who is also president and chief executive officer of Furia Rubel Communications, a local public-relations and marketing firm, said that DiDonato’s feeding tube has been removed but he still has “a long road ahead.”

Don’t get me wrong, I hope the guy recovers. But Gerald Ung deserves to be tried in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.

The possible self-defense shooting that happened outside of the Fox29 studios I reported a few days ago has a new interesting twist to it. Apparently the shooting victim is related to the Meehan family, which is a prominent Philadelphia family, one of whom is considering a run for Congress in the 7th District in Pennsylvania. That’s not going to help this guy any, that’s for sure.

Some of you might remember the case of a guy who was assaulted by some kids on the Schuylkyll River Trail while on bicycle, and took a few shots at them after they began fleeing with the legally licensed pocket 380 he was carrying with him on the trail. I covered this case here, here and here.

It looks like a month or so ago, he was exceedingly lucky to plea down to two counts of reckless endangerment, which is a class two misdemeanor in Pennsylvania, meaning it does not rise to the level of a disabling offense for firearms purposes. That said, I find it very unlikely any Pennsylvania Sheriff is going to issue this guy another License to Carry Firearms, using the “character or reputation” escape clause found in our permitting law. As I said, the circumstances, as they were conveyed in my final post, justified him drawing the firearm, but as soon as the kids started fleeing, the danger was over, and he wasn’t justified in shooting at them as they fled. He was lucky, in this case.

Two states now are in the mix with this issue, the first is Virginia, where the push began after the Roanoke Times published a list of all the permit holders in the state. Now that the legislature and Governor’s office are more friendly, we can finally get this done. Indiana has been in the mix for the past two months, and also is now floating a bill that would close public access to carry permits. This has to be one of the lamest defenses I’ve seen of the databases.

And what about the employer who recently fired a disgruntled employee? Shouldn’t that employer be able to discover the former worker now has a permit to carry a gun?

Public access supporters point out that gun rights advocates might be working against their own interests by shutting down access to these records.

How, for example, will they be able to prove that law-abiding citizens are wrongly being denied these permits if they cut off access to the information?

Because we know the law? Look, this isn’t a discretionary process. If you meet the qualifications, you get the permit. It’s abundantly clear if people are being denied permits unjustly. Plus, if they are denied, they aren’t going to appear in the database now are they? And why does an employer need to know whether someone has a permit to carry? Do people routinely get permits before coming in and shooting up the workplace? I mean, we can’t be carrying illegally on the way to murder people, can we?

I may be skeptical of open carry’s effectiveness as a public relations strategy, but I do support it being legal. But I find this bill in Utah to be rather odd, because it was my understanding that you could legally carry openly under Utah law with a Utah permit. This doesn’t seem to outright legalize open carry, as you would still appear to need a permit by language. Here’s what it does:

(1) An individual who is not prohibited from doing so by federal or Utah state law

(a) openly carry a firearm; and

(b) communicate to another person the fact that the individual has a firearm.

(2) If an individual who is carrying a firearm reasonably believes that the individual or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the individual may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force against the aggressor, including drawing or exhibiting the firearm.

It could be that the law is clarifying open carry is legal because of some practices by law enforcement in Utah. That’s entirely possible, in which case subsection 1(a) of this bill is worthy of support. I’m a little troubled by subsection two, however. I’m assuming here that Utah law is similar to other states, in that you have to be in reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death in order to resort to deadly force. Utah, being a Western state, probably has no duty to retreat, but the standard for deadly force would still be that. Now the legislature wishes to create a situation where you can threaten, but not use deadly force. To me you’re either justified bringing deadly force into the encounter or you aren’t. What if you threaten, and then the guy charges you, like we saw here? Maybe your defense attorney can argue that once the guy charged you, the standard changed, and you were in fear of grave bodily injury or harm. But the law is often that if you create the circumstances by which you had to use deadly force, you can’t claim self-defense. It seems to me that if you’re going to introduce deadly force into a situation as a threat you should also be justified in using deadly force. I think if this passes, it’s going to get good people in trouble. Maybe I’m misunderstanding how self-defense works in Utah, but it seems to be they should sever the brandishing aspect of this bill and just push the clarification on open carry.

Looking at the video Fox provided, and based on the circumstances, it looks like it was multiple attackers. Lawful self-defense tends to be a very circumstantial thing, but based on what we see and have described here, this looks like self-defense to me. This guy needs to get a good lawyer, pronto.

I would also point out this is another reason to carry pepper spray. You want to have something between running and deadly force, and a defensive spray will put down your average drunk assholes who aren’t seriously committed to hurting you. Multiple attackers complicate things, and that’s the kind of situation it can be smart just to go straight to deadly force. But if you shoot someone who is unarmed, you’re going to end up having to answer in court, and that’s life-ruining expensive, as this guy is going to find out.

But based on the video, if I were on that jury, I’d acquit, unless there’s some other piece of evidence that demonstrates this wasn’t self-defense. Hopefully justice will prevail here.

UPDATE: On his docket sheet, looks like he’s being charged with carrying without a license, and carrying firearms on the streets of Philadelphia, even though he has a Virginia license which is valid in Pennsylvania. This is par for the course with Philadelphia. They will tend to pretend you don’t have a license until you prove it. His lawyer will get that charge thrown out, in all likelihood. Their hope will be that he pleads to one of the lesser charges, so he may learn his lesson that no one is permitted to defend themselves in the City of Philadelphia.

I wasn’t aware there was a problem there. Only three times have I been pulled over or in a traffic incident that involved police while armed, and one of those was in Wyoming (found out they aren’t as mellow about speeding as Montana). Since Wyoming isn’t a state that requires you to inform law enforcement, I did not notify the officer I was carrying. Actually, the only time of the tree I informed was Texas, because it was the law, and that meant waiting for 20 minutes while the licenses were verified. Needless to say, I am not one who believes in informing law enforcement. I’m not going to shoot a cop. He or she isn’t going to get hurt by what they don’t know.

Don Kates, civil rights attorney and Second Amendment litigator, has a useful addition to the tired of debate about stopping power. Mainly that it’s a tired old debate.