Montco Shooting Underscores National Gun Debate

Is George Forgeng a hero or a vigilante?

Onlookers have come down on both sides of the debate over a councilman and high school teacher that shot an unarmed bank robber in Hatboro on Wednesday as he attempted to flee.

>>>>>>READ: Was Hatboro Councilman Justified In Shooting Bank Robber?

The ferocious argument over the local incident underscores one of the most divisive and virulent American debates in modern times: is an armed citizenry an effective deterrent of crime? And what role should guns play in public life?

Supporters of Forgeng - they are many, and they are impassioned - point to this incident as perfect proof of the necessity of the 2nd Amendment.

“Good for the councilman,” said local Jason Roynan. “If more citizens carried, there would be less criminals. The simple fear of getting shot by an upstanding citizen before the cops get to the scene would definitely deter crimes from happening. He should be applauded, not investigated.”

“If he witnessed him robbing the bank he had every right to do his civic duty to apprehend the robber,” said Susan Skow Weikel. “We need more people like him.”

That is precisely where the argument against Forgeng comes in, however.

Forgeng did not witness the robbery, he only guessed the man was a robber when he saw a colored dye packet explode as the suspect fled down Lehman Avenue.

“If it turns out that he wasn’t sure if it was the robber . . . he had no reason to believe the person was armed, and there were no movements that appeared that he was armed . . . then the question is, can he shoot somebody under those circumstances?” David Zellis, who is also a former Bucks County prosecutor, told The Intelligencer on Thursday.

On Friday, The Intelligencer issued an editorial saying there was “no justification” for Forgeng shoot the alleged bank robber in Hatboro on Wednesday morning.

The paper said that because Kevin Philip-Johnson Way, 30, was unarmed and posed no clear, immediate threat, Forgeng’s actions went beyond the law.

Some residents concurred.

“The police should be the only ones handling the situation,” said Terri Darreff. “(There are) too many children in that area. His (Forgeng’s) life was never threatened. The robber was not armed. Robbery is definitely wrong but chasing and shooting near children was unwarranted.”

The church across the street from the TD Bank on York Road frequently hosts children’s activities, and children often ride their bikes in the Lehman Avenue area.

“He should have stayed in his car and followed him and let the police handle it,” said Diane Shortall Rieco. “Why was he armed during the day in Hatboro anyway?”

Police are currently investigating the incident and Forgeng and have said that Forgeng is fully cooperating.

“I understand it’s his right to carry,” said John Klouser. “But the robber didn’t shoot at him first. Imagine if your son or daughter was at the preschool in the church and a stray bullet struck him and killed him. How would you feel then?”

For the most part though, public opinion seems to sway in Forgeng’s favor.

“Give the guy a medal,” said Jay Peterman.

“Legal weapon, legal carry, and a damn nice shot,” said Daryl Moore.

Similar debates have engulfed the United States in different forms in the wake of every gun tragedy or controversial shooting incident.

Incidents of borderline vigilantism such as the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin incident are called to mind. Although that case was about self-defense, the principle is the same: to what degree should citizens be allowed to use guns?

In the case of George Forgeng, the discourse, the debate - the public trial, even - is just beginning.