Concealed Handgun Licensee Stops Philadelphia Hospital Shooting

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/2...offended_by_hospital_s__gun-free__policy.html

The county DA's name is Whelan:
"As for Silverman, Whelan said that he believed it was the doctor's practice to carry a gun for self-protection and that he was in compliance with all state laws."

The hospital:
"A Mercy Fitzgerald Health Systems spokesman said Thursday it was against hospital policy for anyone other than "on-duty law enforcement" to carry weapons but a subsequent statement from a Mercy spokeswoman yesterday said, "We look forward to Dr. Silverman's return to serving patients at our hospital."

As has been stated by the forum staff, this is a pretty damned good example supporting much of what we argue about.
Criminal loon is banned from having firearms. He gets them and uses them anyways. He doesn't care about any laws.
A facility is a gun free zone for our "Safety". Criminal loon brings them in anyways. He doesn't care about any laws.
Gun free zones create killing fields. Gunman starts a potential killing spree in a wonderfully safe gun free zone.
Concealed Carry people have the potential to stop said killing spree. Doctor did and before it got far.
Lower capacity weapons and/or weapons without changeable magazines will make us safer. It was a revolver.
Doctor is publicly hailed as a hero in wide media coverage.

Don't kick the gift horse when you can ride it. This rivals the Washington DC navy yard shooting for real world situation data to support what we feel.
 
Good Morning America reported today that the shooter had 39 other bullets with him! (gasp!:eek:)

The Doc was apparently breaking hospital policy (and reportedly had been doing so for 5 years). Co-workers are calling him a hero, and looking forward to his return to work...

without any background on the Doc, I cannot say he is a good posterboy for our cause, but on the surface he seems a lot better than Zimmerman.

There has been no mention of a racial component, so this is not going to go down like the Zimmerman case, thankfully. Also no 17yr old 200+lb "child" involved, and many other differences.

The computer re-enactment on TV showed 3 people in a small office. Bad guy draws gun (the graphic had an SA revolver - but that is essentially meaningless at this point), shoots & kills woman, turn on Doc, who gets his gun and shoots it out with the bad guy.

On the surface, this looks like a good shoot, and hopefully future events will bear this out.

Also, once again, I am peeved with the media's improper use (position in context) of the word "allegedly". A woman was killed, there is nothing alleged about that.
 
It's not the media that is to blame for the "alleged" stuff. Cheesey lawyers are to blame. I'm sure crap media uses it to be evasive at times, but there is a sound legal reason it gets used the majority of the time.
 
I know the legal principle, innocent until proven guilty. SO, I'm fine with the media saying "alleged" shooter, etc.,

What gripes me is when they use alleged when describing, or referring to the shooting (or whatever incident). I don't think it is grammatically correct.

For instance, one can allege that a fire is arson, but one cannot allege there was a fire, either there was (fact) or there wasn't (also fact).

Also I am bothered by the use of "alleged" when talking about people caught (and sometimes gunned down) IN THE ACT! Seems pretty concrete to me, they did it, we have witnesses, they get shot while doing it. I don't see anything to allege there.

Allege their guilt, or innocence until after the trial, fine. But don't allege that something happened. ITs not only bad grammer, its not the truth.

Of course, that's just me. I'm a dinosaur that still believes words have actual meanings....
 
Glockstar..did you read the article? I fail to see any glorification of a mass shooting and here is a copy and paste from the article:
"They acted vigilantly. They acted bravely,"
Click to expand...

Andy I did not read the article. Thanks for clarifying. I was mainly speaking of every other time there is a shooting:rolleyes:

Nice too see the hero getting some praise finally.

Typically situations play out like so,

Boss to media- "They acted vigilantly. They acted bravely."

Boss to Hero- "Thank you for saving everyones life. However, this is a gun free workplace. We have to let you go."
 
Typically situations play out like so,

Boss to media- "They acted vigilantly. They acted bravely."

Boss to Hero- "Thank you for saving everyones life. However, this is a gun free workplace. We have to let you go."
Click to expand...
Glockstar, I'm curious -- can you cite any actual instances in which this happened?
 
I've heard of some store clerks and delivery folks who have been let go after thwarting a robbery or assault, can't cite a place or time, may be apocryphal.

Part of me says, "I hope the hospital fires him", thusly creating a national revulsion against stupid gun policies, but he should keep his job if he still wants it, says the other part of me.
 
If the doctor does get into any trouble with the hospital over this incident, he should preface every response he makes with this phrase:

"If I had followed the policy, I would be dead now, and most likely so would a lot of other innocent people."

He should reiterate that every time he answer one of their questions, and every time he answers a question from the media. Over and over.

Enough repetition, and it might get through some thick heads.
 
The hospital already released a statement saying they were happily awaiting his return to practice. So it looks like he will do OK there.

In addition, it appears he pulled off the whole thing with a Seecamp .32 that he pulled after the bad guy grazed the side of his head with a round. Some good nerves there.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
I hope the hospital changes its policy...and as noted, that other businesses do as well.
Click to expand...

OH, they will change something, that's a given. Odds are it will be just the opposite of what you hope for.

My guess is Metal detectors and increased security to start, then on to possible random searches of Office space and personal belongings.
 
H, they will change something, that's a given. Odds are it will be just the opposite of what you hope for.

My guess is Metal detectors and increased security to start, then on to possible random searches of Office space and personal belongings.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this probably will be the case:rolleyes:
 
OH, they will change something, that's a given. Odds are it will be just the opposite of what you hope for.
Click to expand...

They didn't fire the guy, so already things are better than I hoped. From a policy standpoint, they probably should have fired him. He did knowingly break the rules and did so for an extended period of time. That they didn't fire him is very positive.
 
I keep watching this thread for updates and every time I click on it, I remember the quote from the news report to the effect that the hospital was reviewing their security procedures and policies. It sounded almost as if they were going to revise their "no-guns" policy to "no guns unless you have a carry license" - but wishful thinking only works in children's stories...
 
Andy Blozinski said:
The county DA's name is Whelan:
"As for Silverman, Whelan said that he believed it was the doctor's practice to carry a gun for self-protection and that he was in compliance with all state laws."
Click to expand...

Was he?

According to PA law.

5122. Weapons or implements for escape.
(a) Offenses defined.--
(1) A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he unlawfully introduces within a detention facility, correctional institution or mental hospital, or unlawfully provides an inmate thereof with any weapon, tool, implement, or other thing which may be used for escape.

Was this Doctor in violation of State Law as well as Company Policy as he carried his firearm into a "mental Hospital"?

Is this case similar to the guy in Texas that just killed two bad guys in a Bar. Texas law states it is Illegal to carry in a bar, PA law says it's illegal to carry in a Mental Hospital, is there a difference?
 
steve4102 said:
Was this Doctor in violation of State Law as well as Company Policy ......as he carried his firearm into a "mental Hospital"?
Click to expand...

If you do a quick web search you will find a couple of dozen hospitals listed as mental hospitals in PA. The hospital he was in is not described as one of them.

Many hospitals may have a mental health or behavior health wards but are not "mental hospitals."

The definition of "mental" hospital is important.

So no, he was not in violation of state law.
 
Response to Vanya.

http://m.wmur.com/news/clerk-fired-after-pulling-gun-on-wouldbe-robber/22454840

http://www.today.com/id/44483817/ns/today-today_news/t/fired-pulling-gun-robbers-pharmacist-sues/

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/autozone-fires-worker-who-stopped-robbery.html

Happens more than you might think. I should ask: would the mods have issue with a corporate "calling out"?

I'll just start alphabetically. Hmm, this topic is thread worthy if it doesn't already exist...
Autozone
Shell
Walgreens

Please feel free to add to the list. It just may influence how some of us spend our money. Not that I'm calling for anything like that. Just good to be an educated consumer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top