Results 21 to 30 of 57
-
February 4th, 2011, 07:52 PM #21Active Member
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
-
Lakeville,
Pennsylvania
(Wayne County) - Age
- 51
- Posts
- 232
- Rep Power
- 1054
Re: Gerald Ung trial coming up on 2-7-11
Wow man relax.
I didn't know the stuff about not being able to transfer law school credits. But that said I would think that if Ung is found not guilty, Temple would have to let him back in to finish his degree or else they would be liable to a massive lawsuit. The exact amount of what he paid for tuition is irrelevant, whatever it was it was a lot because law school isn't cheap.
As for the sentence on any plea deal - IMO any deal would mean state time. No way is the DA going to offer a few months in county. If I'm looking at state time, no question I'm taking a jury trial.
ETA: IMO plea deals are for people who are either guilty or those can not afford a decent defense attorney.Last edited by PhillyAR; February 4th, 2011 at 08:03 PM.
-
February 4th, 2011, 08:05 PM #22
Re: Gerald Ung trial coming up on 2-7-11
Agreed. If I was looking at 2-5 years with a plea instead of 10 years for something that shouldn't even be going to trial, with video evidence to back me up, I think I'd be taking a jury trial as well. No way will they offer him 90 days and probation. If they did, the defense attorney would have to think that the prosecution knows they don't have a case, so he still might not advise taking the plea if it was offered.
I'll vote for Romney when he promises not to run in 2016.
-
February 5th, 2011, 01:45 AM #23Banned
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
-
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia County) - Posts
- 91
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Gerald Ung trial coming up on 2-7-11
I'm perfectly calm, dude.
But, please, don't start talking to me authoritatively about anyone who "has" to do anything otherwise they "would be liable to" a lawsuit until you yourself at least graduate law school. I don't mean that to sound condescending or anything, like I think lawyers are better or whatever, because I don't, but please know that there is absolutely no cause of action against a law school for kicking you out or suspending you under any contract theory whatsoever or if for any reason you do not get a degree after you pay them any amount of money. It has been tried and challenged over and over and the student always loses. And if pigs flew, that kind of lawsuit sure as hell would not be "massive."
And what he paid is relevant to the extent you brought it up to tell me why he would never plea: because he would go back to his investment in law school, which he won't for all the reasons I stated in a previous post.
Your opinion of the potential sentence for AA or AM doesn't matter. Only the judge's opinion matters. He or she has sole discretion in that matter and is not statutorily bound by anything except mandos. And that goes for Ironsight and Chuck Norris, too (and Chuck, don't start evaluating evidence now) because I of course didn't mean literally 90 days in county and probation as opposed to literally 10 years in state. It was an obviously exaggerated example to illustrate an easy point more clearly. Again, it's only up to the judge.
IYO plea deals are for sissies, but IYO a crime, its trial, evidence, and sentence are all black & white when in reality everything is arguable and a lot of things are discretionary. It may indeed be the case that this kid at least committed AA, even though no one here wants to believe he is "guilty" (in the non-legal sense) of that. Did you also believe James Joseph Cialella was guilty (in the legal sense) of AA? That's what he plead to.
But, again, like I've said all along: I could be wrong.
Ironsight- My point is there is no room in a trial for any argument about what one element of a criminal statute's legislative intent may have been for the purpose of suppressing a prosecution theory (or what he should argue or should know better than to argue or not argue, etc.). Prosecutors' theories are a valuable part of the justice system and it is their job to create them and use the evidence to prove them. The jury has to hear both sides because it doesn't matter if, for example, the defendant actually knew of an avenue of escape that actually could have been taken. It only matters what the jury decides the defendant knew based on the evidence they hear from both sides.Last edited by rjmst1; February 5th, 2011 at 02:15 AM.
-
February 5th, 2011, 02:18 AM #24
Re: Gerald Ung trial coming up on 2-7-11
You may be absolutely right. However, it is very sad that a system of 'justice' could come down to this, and still be called that. Some will try to defend it, but it it hard to believe that a Declaration of Independence was signed, our Commonwealth's Constitution was ratified, a war was fought, and eventually the United States Constitution was ratified, all to come down to this.
The People of the founding generation would probably never of tolerated a system as described. They complained about less. It is sickening to see it defended (not saying you are defending it, but some do defend it).Last edited by Mosinshooter762; February 5th, 2011 at 02:21 AM.
-
February 5th, 2011, 02:25 AM #25
Re: Gerald Ung trial coming up on 2-7-11
Actually, I suspect that the key issue will be whether Ung reasonably believed that three large, unarmed, athletic drunks posed an imminent risk of death or severe bodily injury, based on their unprovoked stalking and escalating physical violence, and DiDonato's failure to cease his assault when faced with the noisy end of a loaded handgun.
Personally, I think the DA has an uphill battle. A reasonable person who was "just out having fun" would have fled from the handgun. There was nothing there worth death; unless in DiDonato's mind, death was already on the table.
Imagine the Superbowl, the score is tied, the seconds are ticking away, and as a player waits to catch the ball, another player pulls a gun and aims it at him. Anybody think the big brawny football player will take steps to avoid the gun? Damn right he will. Sane people will stop any game when death rears its head.
If DiDonato was willing to kill Ung just for sport, then having a gun aimed at DiDonato would be an unsurprising part of that game. If DiDonato was just messing around, then the gun would shock him sober. And he would have backed away. Watch the video; he not only didn't back away, he didn't even try to grab the gun as he punched Ung in the face. This is a berserker attack, not limited by self-preservation, or honor, or civilization.
I think that a reasonable person, when finding an assailant undeterred by the prospect of being shot dead, would believe that his own life was in jeopardy unless he could stop the attack by any means available.
Note that PA law doesn't actually require you to be in jeopardy of imminent death or severe bodily injury before THREATENING the use of deadly force. That only applies before USING deadly force. Ung could draw that gun and threaten to kill his attackers under the standard rules of justification, basically if making them afraid of death was less harm than Ung actually being beaten in a drunken 3 on 1 attack.
I also hope that the DA or a prosecution witness fucks up and claims that "nobody ever died from just being punched and kicked", which would then allow introduction of the various news accounts of people killed by the bare hands of multiple thugs on the streets of Philadelphia in the last couple of years. Keep your fingers crossed....Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
Ce sac n'est pas un jouet.
-
February 5th, 2011, 02:33 AM #26
Re: Gerald Ung trial coming up on 2-7-11
You have confirmed what I was under the impression of in regards to drawing firearms in self-defense. Thank you for providing valuable information.
Does one have a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury, or death if say the person one has drawn on, in self-defense, keeps on coming at them in a one on one situation? How about if one reasonably believes the person they have drawn on will disarm them (say they are charging at them, or are very close already)?
If Ung was familiar with the deadly beatings that had occurred in Philadelphia prior to the incident, would that be admissible at the trial?
-
February 5th, 2011, 02:40 AM #27Banned
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
-
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia County) - Posts
- 91
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Gerald Ung trial coming up on 2-7-11
You definitely have a point and I think most people on this board would agree with you.
American justice has little basis in common sense and is a system that we have engineered to work itself out.
But the plea agreement is still consistent with (early?) American ideals in many respects.
-
February 5th, 2011, 02:45 AM #28Banned
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
-
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia County) - Posts
- 91
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Gerald Ung trial coming up on 2-7-11
Great question. Variation on a popular bar exam question, usually about hearsay. Depending on what kind of evidence it may be (testimony, newspaper article, etc.), if it is offered at the defense's initiative for the purpose of showing Ung's state of mind for arming himself with a deadly weapon when he went out with his girlfriend (offered to negate intent to kill and to prove that his subjective belief that his life was in imminent danger of ending was objectively reasonable), I would say yes, generally speaking. I don't agree that those stories would come in in the situation gunlawyer001 mentioned, unless we're each assuming different contexts around that "no one ever died..." quote / theory. The evidence would probably be helpful, but, of course, will not be conclusive of anything and it all depends what the jury makes of it (i.e. they could still decide that Ung had intent to kill and that his intent is still consistent with knowing of those articles--e.g. the mental state of "I'm going to kill anyone who tries that shit with me").
Last edited by rjmst1; February 7th, 2011 at 01:28 PM.
-
February 5th, 2011, 02:56 AM #29
-
February 5th, 2011, 01:25 PM #30Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
-
Near Ponce ( Oct to May ),
Puerto Rico
- Posts
- 435
- Rep Power
- 4357714
Re: Gerald Ung trial coming up on 2-7-11
Uh, returning to a lower plane of philosophical discourse, is anyone going to the hearing???
Similar Threads
-
Help support Gerald
By yawns in forum PhiladelphiaReplies: 1Last Post: February 9th, 2010, 01:11 AM -
Woman who pointed a .45 at Gerald Ford in Assassin Attempt is Released
By HiredGoon in forum GeneralReplies: 3Last Post: August 18th, 2009, 02:35 PM -
US v. Friesen Re-Trial
By SigForLife in forum GeneralReplies: 2Last Post: February 26th, 2009, 10:36 PM
Bookmarks