US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Seth]

Two people wounded in a gun fight. No other witnesses mentioned. There is every reason to doubt BOTH versions, till better evidence shows up. If the two have different versions, there is no reason to favour one over the other.

Sure there is. One of the participants is a law-abiding citizen who has gone through the not-inconsiderable trouble of obtaining a concealed carry permit, which includes, in Pennsylvania, a criminal background check.

The other is a 15-year old criminal. How do we know he's a criminal? Because he possessed a handgun and shot someone with it, both crimes. It's illegal under both federal and Pennsylvania state law for a 15-year old to be in possession of a handgun, much less shoot someone with it.

Therefore, absent evidence impeaching the reportage, which is based on police reports in part, the presumption of legitimacy lies with the law-abiding citizen who, according to police, lawfully discharged his weapon in self-defense and is not, therefore, going to be criminally charged.

That's why I wrote, don't believe everything you read.

Nor is there any justification for disbelieving everything you read.

Feel free to investigate further and get back to us. Until then, or until the story is corrected, I'll go with the existing reportage.

Why? There is no mention of independent witnesses. And it's FOX doing the reporting. I see no reason to believe or disbelieve any of it.

Actually, if you'd actually gone to the link and checked it out, you'd find that The Blaze (which has NO AFFILIATION with Fox News) linked directly to the local TV station, which is Fox affiliate. However, the story was also reported on by ABC, NBC, and CBS, and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Next I suppose you'll tell us that they are all lackeys of Fox News and Glenn Beck.

I suppose it's written, so you believe it, like any good christian.

Er, I'm not a Christian. I'm a non-theist Tolerist™

I find it interesting that you don't seem to have any problem accepting the news reports on things you favor, but you're skeptical of ones that disfavor your opinions.

I don't believe either version when two people have shot each other. I EXPECT people to lie in those circumstances.
Who is lying and who's telling the truth you sort out by evidence, not by website reporting.
Presumably the reporter wasn't there at the scene, yet he gives no account of how he knows what happened.

Yeah, well, whatever. Until I hear further, I'll go with the Philadelphia Police Department spokesperson Tanya Little, who said, ""As far as the investigation stands now, I don't believe so [re charging the student]. He was acting in self-defense... If you do have a permit, that would be the time to use your weapon, when someone tries to rob you and shoots you."

[mistermack]

More bollocks.
You weren't there. You don't know. Nor do the tv channels.
You come out with all this shit about self defence even though you weren't there, and there are no witness statements.
You are just believing what you want to believe.

It may be all true, it may be a pack of lies. That is the current status.
Nobody has been convicted of anything.

Philadelphia Police Department spokesperson Tanya Little, who said, ""As far as the investigation stands now, I don't believe so [re charging the student]. He was acting in self-defense... If you do have a permit, that would be the time to use your weapon, when someone tries to rob you and shoots you."

I can't believe they are allowed to prejudice a trial in that way. No English police spokesperson would come out with that shit. Was she there? Were there witnesses? Or is she just going on the word of one of the shooters?
Pretty dumb police work, whatever.
What if it turns out that the student pulled a gun first, and fired first? What if he's a bit of a loony and there was no mugging?
She has fucked up the trial before it's begun.

[Warren Dew]

Guns don't kill people, mid-terms kill people.

Guns certainly don't seem to have killed anyone in this case.

[FBM]

Guns don't kill people, mid-terms kill people.

Guns certainly don't seem to have killed anyone in this case.

Yep, and that's the most important thing. But if the attacker had been the only one armed, there victim would probably be laid out on a slab by now.

[Tyrannical]

Pauly caught a bullet
But it only hit his leg
Well it should have been a better shot
and got him in the head

[Audley Strange]

I did. Story is in essence... people with guns shoot each other.

Wrong. Story in essence: Innocent victim successfully defends himself and removes murderous robber from streets.

Successfully defends himself? Fuck right off. You had it right in your last post, he should have pulled his gun out prior to it escalating, he didn't, he got shot, in no way is that a successful defence. My statement stands.

[FBM]

In TN, where I took the class and the tests and got a carry permit, it's illegal to pull your weapon before the threat materializes. If you pull your weapon too soon, you can go to jail. If the guy's standing there yelling at you, but not attacking you, you have no legal basis to show your weapon as a threat against escalation. You gotta wait until the other guy makes it a physical threat. In this case, the attacker made it a threat by pulling his weapon and firing first. Not just showing it, but shooting. Not many options to choose from there. Lie down and passively accept getting shot or pulling your own weapon and returning fire. I'd go with Option B, too. It gives one's DNA a little more chance at replicating itself for a while longer.

[mozg]

I can't believe they are allowed to prejudice a trial in that way. No English police spokesperson would come out with that shit. Was she there? Were there witnesses? Or is she just going on the word of one of the shooters?
Pretty dumb police work, whatever.
What if it turns out that the student pulled a gun first, and fired first? What if he's a bit of a loony and there was no mugging?
She has fucked up the trial before it's begun.

What trial? Eells isn't going to be tried for anything because as has already been stated, he's not even going to be charged with anything.

I live in Pennsylvania, as I have for most of my life. I have a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms. Such a license is issued to those of clean criminal background who have never been involuntarily committed to a mental institution and who can provide two character references who are willing to tell the investigating authority (in this case, the Philadelphia Police Dept) that there is no reason to believe that the applicant would act in a dangerous manner. Eells had such a license.

To give you some background, Temple University is not in a great neighborhood, and the city of Philadelphia has recently experienced a rash of flash-mob type attacks where packs of teenagers have assaulted and robbed innocent people with little to no warning. In Pennsylvania, it is legal to use deadly force to defend yourself if you have reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. A change to this law recently took effect (on August 29th) which now makes that same standard applicable anywhere that you have a lawful right to be and so long as you are not engaged in a crime.

Since there is absolutely nothing criminal about a properly licensed person carrying a concealed firearm while smoking on their own porch, and being shot certainly confers reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, there is no criminal act, and therefore nothing with which to charge Eells. No arrest, no charges, no trial. So exactly what trial would they be fucking up? The one against the 15 year-old criminal who tried to murder Eells?

That the PPD is actually saying this amazes the hell out of me, but in this case it's because they usually go out of their way to find fault with anyone who lawfully owns and carries a firearm. This is the same police department that has threatened to shoot licensed people for legally carrying firearms in a holster on a public sidewalk, after all.

[Audley Strange]

In TN, where I took the class and the tests and got a carry permit, it's illegal to pull your weapon before the threat materializes. If you pull your weapon too soon, you can go to jail. If the guy's standing there yelling at you, but not attacking you, you have no legal basis to show your weapon as a threat against escalation. You gotta wait until the other guy makes it a physical threat. In this case, the attacker made it a threat by pulling his weapon and firing first. Not just showing it, but shooting. Not many options to choose from there. Lie down and passively accept getting shot or pulling your own weapon and returning fire. I'd go with Option B, too. It gives one's DNA a little more chance at replicating itself for a while longer.

Really? So if you had a gun in that situation where they were being clearly being threatening you would have waited until you had been shot first or would you have taken the risk that you might end up in jail? Personally I'd have went for the former. I'm not anti-gun, I just don't think this guy did anything heroic or worth laudation.

[FBM]

In TN, where I took the class and the tests and got a carry permit, it's illegal to pull your weapon before the threat materializes. If you pull your weapon too soon, you can go to jail. If the guy's standing there yelling at you, but not attacking you, you have no legal basis to show your weapon as a threat against escalation. You gotta wait until the other guy makes it a physical threat. In this case, the attacker made it a threat by pulling his weapon and firing first. Not just showing it, but shooting. Not many options to choose from there. Lie down and passively accept getting shot or pulling your own weapon and returning fire. I'd go with Option B, too. It gives one's DNA a little more chance at replicating itself for a while longer.

Really? So if you had a gun in that situation where they were being clearly being threatening you would have waited until you had been shot first or would you have taken the risk that you might end up in jail? Personally I'd have went for the former. I'm not anti-gun, I just don't think this guy did anything heroic or worth laudation.

I would have waited until the aggressor posed a demonstrable physical threat. The way I understand it, the aggressor demanded money, the victim refused, the aggressor pulled a gun and shot the victim, the victim returned fire. Maybe the aggressor waved the gun around a while first, maybe not. I wasn't there. But if guy A pulls a gun and guy B pulls a gun in response, guy A is already in the advantageous position to get the first shot off. Guy B doesn't have to wait to get shot before pulling his gun, but if he pulls it last, it's the more likely outcome. Either way, he's not culpable. Instead, he was wise to be in legal possession of an adequate defensive strategy, and he won't be prosecuted, because he didn't pull his weapon too early. Yes, I would wait until I saw an undeniable threat to my wellbeing that could only be defended against with a firearm. If dude attacks me with his fists, I would just fight. But if he pulls a knife or a gun, I'm not going to try to defend myself empty-handed. Would you?

[Robert_S]

If someone had demonstrably hostile intentions and they were within arms reach of any firearm, I'd consider that a threat.

[Audley Strange]

In TN, where I took the class and the tests and got a carry permit, it's illegal to pull your weapon before the threat materializes. If you pull your weapon too soon, you can go to jail. If the guy's standing there yelling at you, but not attacking you, you have no legal basis to show your weapon as a threat against escalation. You gotta wait until the other guy makes it a physical threat. In this case, the attacker made it a threat by pulling his weapon and firing first. Not just showing it, but shooting. Not many options to choose from there. Lie down and passively accept getting shot or pulling your own weapon and returning fire. I'd go with Option B, too. It gives one's DNA a little more chance at replicating itself for a while longer.

Really? So if you had a gun in that situation where they were being clearly being threatening you would have waited until you had been shot first or would you have taken the risk that you might end up in jail? Personally I'd have went for the former. I'm not anti-gun, I just don't think this guy did anything heroic or worth laudation.

I would have waited until the aggressor posed a demonstrable physical threat. The way I understand it, the aggressor demanded money, the victim refused, the aggressor pulled a gun and shot the victim, the victim returned fire. Maybe the aggressor waved the gun around a while first, maybe not. I wasn't there. But if guy A pulls a gun and guy B pulls a gun in response, guy A is already in the advantageous position to get the first shot off. Guy B doesn't have to wait to get shot before pulling his gun, but if he pulls it last, it's the more likely outcome. Either way, he's not culpable. Instead, he was wise to be in legal possession of an adequate defensive strategy, and he won't be prosecuted, because he didn't pull his weapon too early. Yes, I would wait until I saw an undeniable threat to my wellbeing that could only be defended against with a firearm. If dude attacks me with his fists, I would just fight. But if he pulls a knife or a gun, I'm not going to try to defend myself empty-handed. Would you?

A group of people approaching me at that time in the morning demanding money would be, to me, enough of a threat that, if I were permitted to, I'd have drawn the gun. In other words I'd rather be guy A than guy B. I'm not that convinced that person B would have ran straight to the police station.

Mind you, considering what is being said regarding the situation and considering he ended up in hospital and considering the nature of insurance companies, I wonder if it would not have been easier just to shell out a few bucks.

[FBM]

A group of people approaching me at that time in the morning demanding money would be, to me, enough of a threat that, if I were permitted to, I'd have drawn the gun.

And their lawyers would've chewed you a new poop chute for your fellow inmates to enjoy. I'm not joking. If you pull a weapon, you have to be prepared to prove in court, with physical evidence and/or credible witnesses, that you were in immediate physical danger. If, lacking physical evidence (which the attackers could easily dispose of before the cops arrive), it dissolves into "He said: she said" stuff, you're lost, because you're the one who threatened the lives of the others.

In other words I'd rather be guy A than guy B. I'm not that convinced that person B would have ran straight to the police station.

You'd rather be the mugger/attempted murderer? I wouldn't. I'd rather sit at home and whack off over porn. Person B wouldn't have run to the police station if Person A had been a good shot, anyway.

Mind you, considering what is being said regarding the situation and considering he ended up in hospital and considering the nature of insurance companies, I wonder if it would not have been easier just to shell out a few bucks.

That's really the wisest choice, in this case. Unfortunately, not every incident involves such a choice. Sometimes an armed whack-job just decides to start killing people. Virginia Tech, Arizona, etc, etc. Then what are ya gonna do? Stand there and get shot? Not me...

I've mentioned elsewhere that I have been involved with firearms from a very early age, starting with hunting and moving on to target practicing. I've had 3 experiences in which I had to pull a firearm to protect myself and/or family members against assault. In each of those 3 experiences, I waited until I had no other option, and when I pulled the weapon, the threat dissolved immediately. I've never shot or shot at anyone, but if I hadn't had a firearm, I don't know how those incidents could have ended without physical harm to myself or those family members.

If conventional morality/ethics says that I'm wrong for carrying a firearm to defend myself and those dear to me from unprovoked and potentially lethal assault (not simple robbery), then I'll just accept the label of being 'wrong.'

If the guy refused to give his money to the mugger, the mugger had a choice whether to escalate to armed violence or to go looking for another victim. He chose the former. He lost his gamble. I hope this happens more often. Sorry if I'm 'wrong' for that.

[Audley Strange]

No need to apologise to me FBM, I don't think you are wrong in wanting to defend yourself at all. Nor do I think convential morality (whatever that is) would suggest you are wrong in that regard. I think moralists might have a problem with the Dirty Harry attitudes that some gun owners seem to display and as usual it's these wankers that frame the debate.

The issue as I see it is, as you point out, deterrent and defence and I think that the victim in this case failed in both accounts and in by not being proactive or making the choice just to give the prick some cash, he endangered his own life unneccesarily and did risk himself being up on a murder charge.

Did the little cunt that mugged him derserve it? Certainly.

Shit man I'd be walking around Glasgow with a Katana if they let me, I'm a tall guy, little drunk fuckers with a chip on their shoulder have always gravitated towards me in an attempt to stoke their fragile egos.

[mozg]

The issue as I see it is, as you point out, deterrent and defence and I think that the victim in this case failed in both accounts and in by not being proactive or making the choice just to give the prick some cash, he endangered his own life unneccesarily and did risk himself being up on a murder charge.

I've not yet seen an indication that the criminal assailant in this case actually gave the armed victim a demand for money prior to shooting him, or that there was much warning before the attack.

The troubling thing about a lot of the attacks in my home state recently is that there is no warning - the attackers are often described as smiling and laughing right up to the exact second that they assault the innocent bystander.

I think it's easy to look back when you have all the time in the world and think what you'd have done differently. Eells did the best he could in the situation at hand, and he's still alive. I think that counts as successful.