Tulsa Man Pleads Guilty - Concealed Carry - What's the point?

[milemission]

If the gun was there and the guy didn't back off, then the dead guy either intended great bodily harm up to killing Gumm, or was insane.

[NavyLT]

Navy, Having read all the posted press on this I see that Gumm had already locked his car door and shut it when the dead guy pounced. Gumm was sure he could not out run the guy and his car was blocked in by the dead guy's. Thus he had little option.
Brent

I was just bringing up the point that if this is how he chose to attempt to evade the guy, he might have had a better choice. But it does sound like he went to that parking lot in the normal course of his day. He probably didn't even know who the guy behind him was until it was too late.

All that aside, I don't the guy should even have been prosecuted, let alone plead guilty.

[spacemanspiff]

He had no responsibility to attempt to deescalate the situation

If it means the difference between everyone going home safe, versus one guy in a bodybag, then by all means, one should try to de-escalate. Doesnt matter if the aggressor is in the wrong, Gumm went for the gun first, which in my understanding of this situation, was NOT the only solution.

[NavyLT]

Morally right or wrong, Oklahoma has a very clear "Stand Your Ground" law. It does not even say that Gumm had to be in fear of his life, it says in fear of
great bodily harm. He warned the guy more than once, the guy kept coming at him, the guy initiated the use of force against Gumm. To me it is absolutely clear Gumm would have been within the bounds of the following OK statute, I don't know why he would ever have pled guilty. The lawyers must know something that wasn't presented by the media.

OK §21-1289.25.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[HKCHEF]

Should have stayed in the car, castle statute extends to car. If the guy made a move into the car it would have been no different if the guy was coming in the front door.

I doubt he will spend much time in jail.

[Jason 9]

HKCHEF is right. Should have never exited the car. How could he have not known there was a car behind him.

If I ever get my 45 back from the shop, I'll make sure to have it in the passenger seat beside me from now on. My understanding is that the Concealed Carry license in OK allows me to have my firearm cocked-and-locked and accessible.

[TexasSeaRay]

If it means the difference between everyone going home safe, versus one guy in a bodybag, then by all means, one should try to de-escalate. Doesnt matter if the aggressor is in the wrong, Gumm went for the gun first, which in my understanding of this situation, was NOT the only solution.

No.

No, No, No, No.

You do NOT compromise with the evil, criminal element of our society. Period. There is a reason we passed laws like the Castle Doctrine down here in the lower 48.

And that piece of sewage, ex-member of the human race, Dale Turney is a perfect example of why we passed such laws.

Bottom line is that honest, decent Americans are sick and damned tired of fearing for their lives, their property and their loved ones at the expense of possibly violating such scumbag criminal's "rights" -- of which far too many LSD-induced liberal appointees to the bench have determined includes the right to rape our wives (hey, OUR life wasn't in danger), steal our property (sheesh, NO life is worth that of someone's mere property), or beat hell out of us BEFORE we're allowed to respond with like or greater force in any such manner.

Guess what, pal? Most of us are sick and damned tired of it.

I wore funny clothes and hats in the Navy, grew webbed feet and gills and earliest lesson I learned was "The only easy day was yesterday." In the course of my years in that role, I saw more travesties of justice perpetrated by the Dale Turneys of the world and in places I doubt you've ever heard of, or will ever hear of.

People got hurt and dead. People got abused. People got violated because of the Dale Turneys of the world because the conventional wisdom in most dunghole Third-World countries is "it's easier to get along with the thugs and bribe them, cottle them, than it is to stand up to them."

Our unit didn't cottle them. We killed them. Graveyard dead. And then we worked with the Army SF guys to teach the locals how to avoid having dungbags like the Dale Turneys take back over. The Air Force guys taught them how to build airports and bring commerce in and the Army Ranger types and a Few Good Men stuck around to make sure no Dale Turney types spawned out of the local septic tank sludge.

I saw countless Dale Turneys roaming countless streets when I was a federal agent. I saw countless wimp-ass politically motivated State's Attorneys and District Attorneys turn their back on the victims of the Dale Turneys--especially if the victims were white and the Dale Turneys were not.

Guess, what?

We--as in most of the lower 48--finally got sick and damn tired of it!

This 67-year-old man had exactly ZERO duty to retreat from this methed-up drunken habitual police-bait loser. ZERO!

Since when do honest citizens have to run from the criminals?

Don't like it? Then keep yourself up in Alaska and for damn sure, stay the hell away from Texas.

Jeff

[blume357]

the dead guy cut him off and HE then followed the guy and blocked him in when he parked.

If you start the confrontation in the first place and a bad thing happens you are in a world of trouble... He should have driven on... the guy deserves to be punished.

READ THE WHOLE STORY ... WORD FOR WORD.

In my opinion you don't follow and then block someone in that just 'cut you off' in traffic then when the other person gets out of their car and says something to you, you pull a gun? Of course they are going to at least say something to you... the other guy could have been in fear of his life and thought the best defense was a good offense....

[pax]

A police affidavit stated that Turney was driving north on Riverside Drive and that Gumm turned north onto Riverside from 26th Street, "apparently in front of Turney."

Gumm turned left into the parking lot at 19th Street and Riverside, and Turney "parked behind Gumm's car, blocking it in," that affidavit states.

Blume ~ I think you misread.

Gumm accidentally cut the guy off in traffic.

Turney followed him, parked behind him, and blocked him in.

Gumm got out of his car -- to defend himself? to fight? to run for help? because he didn't realize the guy was behind him at that point?

Turney threatened to kill Gumm.

Gumm got out his gun and ordered Turney to stop; by his own testimony, Gumm was expecting Turney to back off at that point so he wouldn't have to shoot him or fight with him.

Turney kept coming.

Turney chased Gumm around the car, twice, while Gumm retreated so he wouldn't have to shoot the guy.

Turney finally caught up with Gumm and pushed him, hard.

Gumm, out of options, fired one shot which killed Turney.

Tell me again who the aggressor was?

pax

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by the story

Gumm, 68, waived his right to a trial, which was scheduled for next week, on a charge in the death of Dale Turney of Sand Springs.

If the facts are as compelling as those presented here, why did Gumm decide not to place his fate in the hands of jurors?

[pax]

zukiphile,

That's why I said, "unless the facts are substantially different than presented in the article ..." -- because that plea makes no sense with the facts as given. Either there's a lot more to the story, or he's had incompetent counsel, or something else is going on behind the scenes. (IMO, of course -- I don't know nuthin' but what I read in the papers...)

pax

[bushidomosquito]

How angry/ crazy/ suicidal/ homicidal/ INTENT ON HARMING SOMEONE do you have to be to chase someone around a car threatening and shoving them when they have a gun pointed at you? If I ran up against someone that wacko I'd shoot him too.

[Derius_T]

I sincerely wish there was more info to go on in this case. Could the guy have gotten horrible legal advice, and thats why he plead guilty and waived the right to trial? Perhaps he is just scared and sick to death of what happened and is not thinking clearly? If so, could he lawyer up and change his plea? From the limited info we have, it appears to be a good shoot, but what is lacking?

Could the judge, reviewing the facts, refuse to accept a guilty plea? Not sure how this stuff works. Anyone know any better than I?

[spacemanspiff]

TexasSeaRay, Alaska also has Castle Doctrine laws in effect. Please note that I was not saying Gumm had to retreat, there was other things he could have done to try to de-escalate the situation. There is such as thing as TALKING your way out of it, isnt there?

Think about it. In just about every road rage scenario, at least one of the parties involved makes threats of bodily harm, right? I've seen it, experienced it, been there, done that. If everyone started pulling guns in those situations would that make you happy?

Heres how I see the situation in question. Gumm escalated the situation by presenting his weapon out, when no physical assault on him had occurred. Turney was faced with 'Fight or Flight', and chose to Fight. Since he didnt pose a deadly threat to Gumm, he was now in fear for his life.

I'm sorry TexasSeaRay, I don't even equate someone assualting me as justification for drawing down on someone. There are other options I can employ to escape the situation. That is where you and I will have to agree to disagree, alright?
Can you at least be civil to someone who doesnt agree with you?

[NavyLT]

Gumm escalated the situation by presenting his weapon out, when no physical assault on him had occurred. I don't even equate someone assualting me as justification for drawing down on someone.

At what point during an assualt do you decide to draw? Just before your hand or arm gets broke and you can't draw? Just before you draw in your last breath? How in the world are you going to know what the results of an assault will be? Maybe the first violent action by the criminal will render you unconscience or kill you.

For me, the purpose of carrying a gun is to PREVENT myself from being assaulted. If I was going to do something after the assault occurs, I might as carry only a cell phone vice a gun.

[spacemanspiff]

When my life is threatened, I will draw. An idiot with diarhea of the mouth is simply not enough of a threat for me to jump to deadly force.

[pax]

Spiff ~

I suspect that if you were (for example) 67 years old, and your life had been threatened by a man 20 years younger than you who did not stop when you ran from him and who had caught up to you and begun the process of physically assaulting you, you might feel a bit differently about that.

pax

[divemedic]

I'm sorry TexasSeaRay, I don't even equate someone assualting me as justification for drawing down on someone. There are other options I can employ to escape the situation. That is where you and I will have to agree to disagree, alright?

Wait until you are a 67 year old disabled man being assaulted by a 48 year old. Remember that self defense is judged according to the "reasonable man" standard. That means that you, as the shooter, are judged according to what any other reasonable person would do, given the same information.

So try to think as if you were a disabled elderly man, unable to escape because of your disability. A man who is 20 years younger than you chases you down. You produce a weapon, and he still keeps coming. Remember the 21 foot rule? How much damage do you think he could do to you?

[spacemanspiff]

Thats all well and good for that particular situation, Pax. However there are some encouraging the use of deadly force as the first choice no matter what age or size disparity there may or may not be between the attacker and the intended victim.
Is that the image we want of gunowners to be put out to everyone else? Someone makes a verbal threat or says bad things about them, and immediately the guns are supposed to come out?

Yes, I know that it is illegal for someone to say 'I'm going to kill you!', and that is a matter for the police to deal with. However it is my contention that verbal assaults do not require a response of deadly force, Castle Doctrine or not.

[spacemanspiff]

Divemedic, lets make sure we are on the same page here. Was the 67 yr old man in this situation disabled? No, he works as an armed security guard, or did anyways. He was CLEET trained.
This was NOT a feeble old man. It is someone who for all intents and purposes knew about the Force Continuum, but chose to ignore it and go straight to deadly force as a response.

[zukiphile]

However it is my contention that verbal assaults do not require a response of deadly force, Castle Doctrine or not.

"I'm going to kill you!" uttered by someone who has just followed you and blocked your escape and is now shoving you, together with the ready ability to follow through on the statement seems like the sort of threat to my health I would take seriously.

I agree that according to the facts in the story, it was reasonable to shoot the aggressor. This indicates that the story may not be complete.

[spacemanspiff]

Check out this thread:
http://www.okshooters.com/forums/sho...t=30509&page=3

One of the previous links indicated that 'obscene gestures' were made. I believe Gumm made obscene gestures at Turney which escalates the situation. In any case, When Gumm pulled into the parking lot, he knew trouble was coming. He exited the vehicle with his gun in hand, according to this article: http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/200...092807_A_3.pdf

If he knew trouble was coming his way, why didnt he stay in the vehicle?

[akr]

Oklahoma is overloaded with incompetent D.A. offices....doesn't surprise me a bit. If there is any chance for one of those "little twit" asst. D.A.'s to try to make a name for themselves, they're gonna do it. They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute Jesus Christ.

[Swoop]

I reside in the great state of Oklahoma and feel privileged to have the right to possess and carry firearms.

Well, actually, a right isn't supposed to be a priviledge.

[divemedic]

Divemedic, lets make sure we are on the same page here. Was the 67 yr old man in this situation disabled? No, he works as an armed security guard, or did anyways.

Actually, I read that he retired due to health reasons. Supported by this:

"How much of a beating do you have to take to defend yourself? As a man, 67-years-old, crippled, and in very poor physical condition?" Johnson said.

or from this article:

Gumm reportedly warned Turney that he had a gun and that, due to health problems, couldn't run away or fight the man.

and this

Witnesses told police that Turney continued to be aggressive even after Gumm told him that he had a gun and couldn't fight or run from him, Watkins said.