Incident Summary:
3/18/1986: Trahn Khan Van, a former South Vietnam government official, was shot and wounded outside of his real estate office in Westminster, California, United States. He was shot by Be Tu Van Tran, who was angered by Van's support for the communist government of Vietnam.
Overview
GTD ID:
198603180012
When:
1986-03-18
Country:
United States
Region:
North America
Province/administrative
region/u.s. state:
California
City:
Westminster
Location Details:
Orange County
What
Attack Information
| Type of Attack () |
Assassination |
| Successful Attack? () |
No |
Target Information ()
| Target Type: Private Citizens & Property |
|---|
| Name of Entity |
Vietnamese-American supporting Vietnam's communist government |
| Specific Description |
Tran Khan Van |
| Nationality of Target |
Vietnam |
Additional Information
| Hostages |
No |
| Ransom |
No |
| Property Damage |
No |
How
Weapon Information
| Type |
Sub-type |
| Firearms |
Unknown Gun Type |
Additional Information
| Suicide Attack? | No |
| Part of Multiple Incident? | No |
| Criterion 1 () |
Yes |
| Criterion 2 () |
Yes |
| Criterion 3 () |
Yes |
| Additional Information |
Tran Khan Van had recently declared his support for normalizing relations with Vietnam. He had received threatening letters. Cu Ngoc Duong drove Be Tu Van Tran to the scene of the shooting. Both were members of the United Front for the Liberation of Vietnam, an American based organization of Vietnamese refugees which sought to overthrow Vietnam's communist government. |
Who
Perpetrator Group Information
| Group Name |
Claimed Responsibility |
| Vietnamese Refugees |
No |
Perpetrator Statistics
| Number of Perpetrators |
2 |
| Number of Captured Perpetrators |
2 |
Casualty Information
| Total Number of Casualties |
0 Fatalities / 1 Injured |
| Total Number of Fatalities |
0 |
| Number of U.S. Fatalities |
0 |
| Number of Perpetrator Fatalities |
0 |
| Total Number of Injured |
1 |
| Number of U.S. Injured |
0 |
| Number of Perpetrators Injured |
0 |
Sources
Sources
| "Domestic News," United Press International, April 5, 1986. |
| Seth Mydans, "War Continues for Vietnam Refugees," New York Times, August 25, 1989. |
| Eric Lichtblau and David Reyes, "Vietnamese War Passions at Heart of Attack Trial," Los Angeles Times, May 14, 1989. |
Criteria
Criteria 1
The act must be aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal. In terms of economic goals, the exclusive pursuit of profit does not satisfy this criterion. It must involve the pursuit of more profound, systemic economic change.
Criterion 2
There must be evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) than the immediate victims. It is the act taken as a totality that is considered, irrespective if every individual involved in carrying out the act was aware of this intention. As long as any of the planners or decision-makers behind the attack intended to coerce, intimidate or publicize, the intentionality criterion is met.
Criterion 3
The action must be outside the context of legitimate warfare activities. That is, the act must be outside the parameters permitted by international humanitarian law (particularly the prohibition against deliberately targeting civilians or non-combatants.
Doubt Terrorism Proper
The existence of a "Yes" for "Doubt Terrorism Proper?" records reservation, in the eyes of GTD analysts, that the incident in question is truly terrorism. Such uncertainty, however, was not deemed to be sufficient to disqualify the incident from inclusion into the GTD. Furthermore, such a determination of doubt is subsequently coded by GTD analysts as conforming to one of four possible alternative designations: 1) Insurgency/Guerilla Action; 2) Internecine Conflict Action; 3) Mass Murder; or 4) Purely Criminal Act.
Alternate Designation
The determination of "yes" for "Doubt Terrorism Proper" by GTD analysts is coded as conforming to one of four possible alternative designations: 1) Insurgency/Guerilla Action; 2) Internecine Conflict Action; 3) Mass Murder; or 4) Purely Criminal Act.
Successful Attack
Success of a terrorist strike is defined according to the tangible effects of the attack. For example, in a typical successful bombing, the bomb detonates and destroys property and/or kills individuals, whereas an unsuccessful bombing is one in which the bomb is discovered and defused or detonates early and kills the perpetrators. Success is not judged in terms of the larger goals of the perpetrators. For example, a bomb that exploded in a building would be counted as a success even if it did not, for example, succeed in bringing the building down or inducing government repression.
Type of Attack
This field captures the general method of attack and often reflects the broad class of tactics used. It consists of the following nine categories:
- Assassination
- Armed Assault
- Unarmed Assault
- Bombing/Explosion
- Hijacking
- Hostage taking (Barricade Incident)
- Hostage taking (Kidnapping)
- Facility / Infrastructure Attack
- Unknown
Target Information
This field captures the general type of target. It consists of the following 22 categories:
- Abortion Related
- Airports & Airlines
- Business
- Government (General)
- Government (Diplomatic)
- Educational Institution
- Food or Water Supply
- Journalists & Media
- Maritime (includes Ports and Maritime facilities)
- Military
- NGO
- Other
- Police
- Private Citizens & Property
- Religious Figures/Institutions
- Telecommunication
- Terrorists
- Tourists
- Transportation (other than aviation)
- Unknown
- Utilities
- Violent Political Parties
Back to Search Results