Tulsa District Attorney Abuse of Power:Charge filed in road-rage homicide - Page 2

Tulsa District Attorney Abuse of Power:Charge filed in road-rage homicide

This is a discussion on Tulsa District Attorney Abuse of Power:Charge filed in road-rage homicide within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Janq Agreed Ron. As well Gumm made a judgemental mistake in exiting his vehicle to confront Turney. It was obvious that Turney ...

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 100

Thread: Tulsa District Attorney Abuse of Power:Charge filed in road-rage homicide

  1. #16
    Member Array landelmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    Agreed Ron.

    As well Gumm made a judgemental mistake in exiting his vehicle to confront Turney.
    It was obvious that Turney was having a problem and as stated he yelled and made obscene gestures at him as he made his left turn into the parking lot. Normal clear thinking sane people don't do such things and then follow you into parking lots to block your car in to a spot.
    Stay in the car separated by glass and steel from the attacker who may or may not be armed, or worst completely out of his mind crazy. It was pretty predictable that this would go sour and Gumm's actions showed that he thought this prior as he exited his own vehicle to again confront Turney only with his firearm unholstered in hand at his side. Bad move.
    Turney seeing this and hearing as Gumm stated the warning for him to get back leaves him with two choices;

    1) Buy his bluff and flee;
    2) Call his bluff and attack betting he won't have the stones to pull the trigger as he has not yet done just that and is trying to talk his way out of trouble, which he (Turney) has already shown an interest and attitude to bring to bear. As well he's out of his mind and irrational, as per his actions prior so to expect a sudden flash of clarity and rational thought from Turney would be at best a 50/50 gamble.

    I can very much see where the DA is coming from.
    Turney obviously was wrong and the initial aggressor, but it was Gumm who engaged the aggressor (exiting his vehicle) and himself became the predator thanks to his being armed and from there per his own statements further engaged Turney going to meet him moving past his own front door toward Turney as opposed to away or at the least standing his ground by staying where had been previously.

    It'll be interesting to hear what happens with this case.
    I suspect Gumm will be found guilty.
    If he had fired on Turney from inside his car with Turney found wounded/dead at his door then I suspect his case would be seen in a different light, by the DA.

    - Janq
    Gumm arrived at the park to attend an outdoor concert, not to engage turney.( I remember when this happened I live in the area)


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by landelmer View Post
    Gumm arrived at the park to attend an outdoor concert, not to engage turney.( I remember when this happened I live in the area)
    Of course he didn't leave his home thinking today I want to engage a BG/Turney.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Tye_Defender View Post
    What's the lesson to learn from the attacker?
    I'd stated the lesson learned in the second sentence;

    "It was obvious that Turney was having a problem and as stated he yelled and made obscene gestures at him as he made his left turn into the parking lot. Normal clear thinking sane people don't do such things and then follow you..."

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    It Doesn't matter; Any good criminal defense lawyer will beat this easily. All he has to do is get a police officer who has had to subdue or deal with a violent individual that is high on meth and drunk to testify on just how irrational and dangerous these people can be. I can remember an LEO friend years back telling me about a 5'10" 165 pound man who very nearly got away from 4 police officers who were trying to subdue him. All of these officers weighed in at least around 180 pounds apiece; they wrestled him, struck him repeatedly with batons and saps, maced him in the face and eventually had to shoot him to stop the guy. later it was found by the medical examiner that he had suffered a separated shoulder, broken fibula, a fractured eye socket and a broken wrist, and they guy still kept fighting until a gunshot killed him....that story I was told just illustrates what someone high on dangerous drugs is capable of. I am sure there are plenty of LEO members here who can weigh in on this and relate their own experiences with these dangerously irresponsible people.

    I think Mr. Gumm will and should be found NOT GUILTY.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    Also don't like his statement that he "Cannot remember if he pulled the trigger or it just discharged". I think that statement sort of sounds fishy...
    I'd buy it.

    It happens all the time people holding firearms with finger on the trigger (as opposed to being indexed along the frame) and due to normal human fear reflex they without conscious thought grip and close their hand defensively into a fist then BANG!

    When interacting with a suspected BG/aggressor watch their hands.
    If their hands are closed into a fist or flexing open and close then well that is a sign of potential impending action, and for you to right now either create distance or close distance and shut them down.

    It's a normal human occurring reaction to fear.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    As well Gumm made a judgemental mistake in exiting his vehicle to confront Turney.
    Would it be different if Gumm had arrived at his actual destination with Turney still behind him? Would you say that Gumm did not have the right to exit his vehicle, even if he had arrived home, just because he knew the hothead was behind him? Then I don't see why he should have to be held captive in his car, even in a parking lot somewhere before arriving home.

    Stay in the car separated by glass and steel from the attacker who may or may not be armed, or worst completely out of his mind crazy.
    Are you sure about that?

    Just how much protection does the "glass and steel" of your car window and door provide you, if, say, your attacker gets out of his car with a gun or pipe or bat of his own? (How would you know what he's going to emerge with??) Haven't we already acknowledged that sitting in your car seat with very limited range of motion and aim is a tactically horrible place to be?? And you're advocating it as some sort of fortified position!

    I can very much see where the DA is coming from.
    I'm sick of people "seeing where the DA is coming from" in cases like this. All it amounts to is that the GOOD people have to limit themselves and their responses to threats to give all possible benefit of the doubt and protection to the BAD people.

    I'm sorry, if I'm abiding by the law and I'm not the one high on illegal drugs and driving that way, I should be the one whom the law protects. Not this dead loser.

    Turney obviously was wrong and the initial aggressor, but it was Gumm who engaged the aggressor (exiting his vehicle) and himself became the predator thanks to his being armed and from there per his own statements further engaged Turney going to meet him moving past his own front door toward Turney as opposed to away or at the least standing his ground by staying where had been previously.
    Let's say Turney had followed Gumm all the way home, and Gumm had not turned in to a parking lot. Now Gumm wants to be free to get out of his car and go into his house, but Turney is there behind him in the driveway. Are you saying that Gumm should have remained in his car (maybe he has no cellphone and isn't able to call Superma- I mean, the police) protected by all that mighty glass and steel? Or that if he got out of the car, he should not have turned his attention to Turney? I say that it's a distinction without a difference that he might have moved toward Turney, because if he'd stayed where he was beside his car, Turney might well have closed the distance himself regardless.

    If you're free to get out of your car at home when there is no threat, you should be considered to be just as free to get out of your car when there is a threat -- or else you're saying that criminal attackers have the power to limit where we're free to travel and emerge from our vehicles. The fact remains that it is the very stand-your-ground law that provides justification for getting out of your vehicle even when you know that the threat is out there possibly waiting for you. That's the whole point of not having to retreat from any place you have a legal right to be!!

    It was when we had a public duty to retreat that you would have been deemed legally wrong to get out knowing that you'd have to face a threat using lethal force rather than retreating.

    Remember? That's exactly what the stand-your-ground laws changed.

    If he had fired on Turney from inside his car with Turney found wounded/dead at his door then I suspect his case would be seen in a different light, by the DA.
    Why? You don't think that they'd still hang him for pulling into that parking lot and opening his door like you already criticized him for doing? Why don't you figure the DA would then be saying he should have just floored it and driven away and left the guy standing there.

    With an anti-gun, anti-self-defense idiot DA like this, there will ALWAYS be something else the defender should have done to avoid having to shoot the drug-crazed badguy. Because drug-crazed badguys, don'tchaknow, are a valuable commodity and we really have to discourage eliminating them from society 'cause we need 'em so bad...

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    Stay in the car separated by glass and steel from the attacker who may or may not be armed
    Not related to this particular case but staying in the car when all other options are out is the worst possible thing to do: You movements are restricted to a 180 degree field, maybe a tad more. Your field of view is restricted, the metal in modern vehicles is NOT thick enough to withstand bullets, Hollywood nonwhistanding (And I know painfully, the wife of a friend of mine was murdered 3 months ago during a carjacking attempt. The bullets that killed her went through the metal of the rear door of her van and through the seat). You are anchored to one place and cannot move away from the BG who knows EXACTLY where you are and can shoot at his leisure. If you have to shoot from inside the vehicle, your movements are restricted by the seatbelt, steering wheel, widow frames, etc and that is if you are alone. If you have a passenger, one side your 180 becomes a 110.
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  8. #23
    Senior Member Array Freedom Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    889
    Well, this is my state (Oklahoma) and I just find it hard to believe that an Oklahoma jury would convict in this case. I think the DA in Tulsa belongs more in a place like NJ or California; it isn't going to wash here.
    People here are going to rightly see the drunk had it coming.
    Anti-gunners seem to believe that if we just pass enough laws, we can have utopia. Unfortunately, utopia is NOT one of our choices.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Array DrLewall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Drakes Creek, AR
    Posts
    958
    As a person once stated to me, road rage is not worth the hassle..these people are only in your life for a minute or two..sure you are going to get mad, but stay calm and soon they will be gone..in Gumm situation, I agree he did not handle it well. Perhaps staying out of a parking lot and continuing driving to "get away" from Turney and maybe trying to get the attention of someone to call the cops, if he didnt have a cell, etc...a whole lotta "If onlys" here...Gumm I am afraid, will be made an example of...I guess what I am trying to convey here is guys, if in road rage mode, let it go, be calm, be alert..and stay in your vehicle, I think you'd be safer there.

  10. #25
    Member Array 40FIVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Central Texas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom Doc View Post
    Well, this is my state (Oklahoma) and I just find it hard to believe that an Oklahoma jury would convict in this case.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it in Oklahoma a few years ago that a large group of people were fired for having guns in their cars in the parking lot where they worked?

    What did the good people of Oklahoma do to remedy that injustice?

    This isn't a personal attack on you FD. Just don't think that good ol Oklahomans will make it right. There are only 2 things that will make this right. 1, No bill by the grand jury, and 2, unelect that moron next election day.

    I'm from Texas and we have some sorry, rotten DA's here, too. The sad thing is they were all elected by Texans.
    Charlie - 40FIVER

    Why I carry:
    "The heart is deceitul above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

  11. #26
    Senior Member Array Freedom Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    889
    What did the good people of Oklahoma do to remedy that injustice?


    Umm, they passed a law such that keeping guns in your car is OK. Of course, this has been fought over and is rather in limbo right now, if I recall correctly. However, that situation was an employer (a large one), rather different than a jury trial with a rabid DA. I think the main problem will be the type of folks who wind up on the jury -- they may identify more with the drunk. I really believe we need a great deal of work on the way juries are handled. To me, we select folks at random from the community -- and that's IT, you can't throw people off of it because they read too much or have a conservative outlook, etc.
    Anti-gunners seem to believe that if we just pass enough laws, we can have utopia. Unfortunately, utopia is NOT one of our choices.

  12. #27
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom Doc View Post
    To me, we select folks at random from the community -- and that's IT, you can't throw people off of it because they read too much or have a conservative outlook, etc.
    That is incorrect (at least in AZ.) The jury pool is assembled and there is a question and answer period allowing both attorneys and the judge to dismiss jurors for virtually any reason.

    I was recently on a jury for a drunk driving case. The judge asked specific questions concerning magazine subscriptions, bumper stickers, and organizations. He specifically queried potential jurors whether they were NRA members. He asked who had been victims and whether they had personal relationships with LEOs. At any time jurors were dismissed by the prosecution and the defense. Many simply announced they were prejudiced because of the subject matter and were immediately dismissed.

    So, yes, anyone can be dismissed for any reason.

  13. #28
    Senior Member Array Freedom Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    That is incorrect (at least in AZ.) The jury pool is assembled and there is a question and answer period allowing both attorneys and the judge to dismiss jurors for virtually any reason.

    I was recently on a jury for a drunk driving case. The judge asked specific questions concerning magazine subscriptions, bumper stickers, and organizations. He specifically queried potential jurors whether they were NRA members. He asked who had been victims and whether they had personal relationships with LEOs. At any time jurors were dismissed by the prosecution and the defense. Many simply announced they were prejudiced because of the subject matter and were immediately dismissed.

    So, yes, anyone can be dismissed for any reason.

    Oh, I understand that. What I am saying is I believe all that is totally wrong -- it just shouldn't be that way. Lawyers shouldn't be able to stack the deck like that.
    Anti-gunners seem to believe that if we just pass enough laws, we can have utopia. Unfortunately, utopia is NOT one of our choices.

  14. #29
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom Doc View Post
    Oh, I understand that. What I am saying is I believe all that is totally wrong -- it just shouldn't be that way. Lawyers shouldn't be able to stack the deck like that.
    I am a proponent of professional juries.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    PJ,

    I don't normally support these kind of long multi quote type posts.
    But for this exercise I will because there is a real lesson to learn here.

    As your query was long and detailed my response is same in kind...

    Quote Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey View Post
    Would it be different if Gumm had arrived at his actual destination with Turney still behind him?
    Nope, his destination location whether met or not is irrelevant.

    Would you say that Gumm did not have the right to exit his vehicle, even if he had arrived home, just because he knew the hothead was behind him? Then I don't see why he should have to be held captive in his car, even in a parking lot somewhere before arriving home.
    I said nothing about his rights. He obviously has the right to exit his vehicle and do whatever he pleases, up to capping people.
    What I d though speak to is that he as quoted recognized while in the street making his left turn that Turney was behind him cursing and making obscene gestures...and went on to follow him, Gumm, into the parking lot and blocked his rear upon selecting a parking space. That is a clear sign that this guy 1) Wants trouble 2) Is intending to bring it and 3) Is not acting rationally nor reasonably.
    Those combined are reasonable indicators for one to assess the other, Turney, as being both a threat as well as unhinged. Why would you leave cover to engage an unhinged threat? It's not the smart play. And he had no idea if Turney was armed and with what.
    Stay in the car, motor running and in gear, windows up (to prevent being snatched out of ones seat), and be ready to floor it in reverse to ram and escape if not crank the wheel and injure the attacker(s).

    Are you sure about that?

    Just how much protection does the "glass and steel" of your car window and door provide you, if, say, your attacker gets out of his car with a gun or pipe or bat of his own? (How would you know what he's going to emerge with??) Haven't we already acknowledged that sitting in your car seat with very limited range of motion and aim is a tactically horrible place to be?? And you're advocating it as some sort of fortified position!
    Yes, I am very sure of that.

    Glass and steel provides a great deal more and better protection than air, which is all he'd had around him upon exiting. Ia ddresed this in detail in my second post;
    "The car itself and it's outer skin provides/provided an obviously not impenetratable but a decent degree of immediate protection. Cover if you will. He exited his cover and engaged...
    Now this is Monday night QB'ing but instead of exiting the car he might have left his car running and let Turney approach and say his words. Even kick his door and damage his car. But do not roll down that window never mind get out. If Turney had a useful weapon in hand e.g. a gun or impact device capable of breaching Gumm's cover/defenses then at that time deploying his gun in fear of his life would have been appropriate and defensible. If not then the worst he had to fear was some relatively minor property damage by a dinged up door panel and globs of spittle on his window.
    As well one should remember that their 1.5+ ton vehicle is itself a pretty darn effective device. Use it as a disuader and/or weapon including to ram ones way out of tight spot such as this. Distance is ones best friend."

    As to being seated in ones car I don't know who established that or when, but when the options are to get out of your car and engage to known assailants with unknown if any weaponry alone with no over cover or concealment but air. That is not an optimal option.
    Move ones body around in the seat to unholster, weapon at the ready, observe directly with a turned head and watch the mirrors too for opposite side movers, and monitor. If either or both had weapons say a tire iron in hand or even a gun then from the better than air protection of ones steel & glass vehicle the odds of successfully engaging and surviving are greater. I'll take steel and glass cover any day over out n the open air.
    This is a street interaction with two goblins, not a pair of insurgents with automatic rifles. In fact in car defense from withing and use of ones vehicle as a weapon itself is a standard practice toward escape and evasion training.

    I'm sick of people "seeing where the DA is coming from" in cases like this. All it amounts to is that the GOOD people have to limit themselves and their responses to threats to give all possible benefit of the doubt and protection to the BAD people.
    I can understand how you're sick of as much and that's fine, there are no laws against that...yet.
    But the fact is GOOD people do in fact have to limit themselves and their responses to threats to give all possible benefit of the doubt and protection to the BAD people.
    That's the law in this country. We don't support pre-emptive attacking of a person because they looked scary, or questioned ones birth right, or spoke to us with their hands throwing up signs of displeasure.

    I'm sorry, if I'm abiding by the law and I'm not the one high on illegal drugs and driving that way, I should be the one whom the law protects. Not this dead loser.
    The law protects everyone be they good guys or bad, on paper.
    Even as Turney was a jerkoff instigator that obviously got himself setup for a pinch thinking he could roll Gumm only to take one to the chest.
    The law which you and I and everyone do and should abide are wide ranging. and specific. One action of bad by a jerkoff does not excuse a subsequent bad/illegal reaction by we the good guys.
    Otherwise we'd be Wild West again. You disrespect me, BOOM, I end you. Now days we have laws and civility and specific narrow allowances for civilian engagement of those who not just disrespect us (yelling, cursing, showing us fingers, and even parking behind us in lots) but cross that very fine line from being scary or even intimidating to okay this guy is assuredly without going to kill me. Imminent threat.

    Let's say Turney had followed Gumm all the way home, and Gumm had not turned in to a parking lot. Now Gumm wants to be free to get out of his car and go into his house, but Turney is there behind him in the driveway. Are you saying that Gumm should have remained in his car (maybe he has no cellphone and isn't able to call Superma- I mean, the police) protected by all that mighty glass and steel? Or that if he got out of the car, he should not have turned his attention to Turney? I say that it's a distinction without a difference that he might have moved toward Turney, because if he'd stayed where he was beside his car, Turney might well have closed the distance himself regardless.
    You already asked this above but I'll answer it again.
    The answer is simple, stay in the car...with the engine running...in parking brake off...in gear...alert...ready to bug out and/or use the vehicle as a weapon.
    Beating, kicking, punching, spitting, and even shooting with gun at steel and yes even automotive glass is far better protection albeit with glass against bullets or some hand held impromptu weapons a momentary but albeit better means of cover/protection than is air.
    As to getting out of the car, of course he should pay attention to Turney. Otherwise was never stated nor implied. (?)
    Once Turney got out of the car with his as stated health problems and known up front inability to flee; "Police had said after the shooting that Gumm said he warned Turney that he had a gun and that because of health problems, he couldn't run away or fight him", that again is a reason that it is most reasonable and a far better idea to stay put in ones vehicle as it provides much better and harder cover than air...even as it might be less than comfortable or even inconvenient toward drawing ones side arm of absolute last resort.

    If you're free to get out of your car at home when there is no threat, you should be considered to be just as free to get out of your car when there is a threat -- or else you're saying that criminal attackers have the power to limit where we're free to travel and emerge from our vehicles.
    Of course one is free to do largely whatever one might wish to do.
    You're free to get out of your car, talk smack in return, and get your *** beat or skull crushed in. Again this is America, land of the free and the brave.
    But as well we have laws and amongst those laws relatively narrow allowances toward the use of defensive arms period, even if deployed but not fired.
    And yes the criminals do have the power to limit where we travel and emerge from our vehicles. That is a practical fact.
    Thus some of us in many states carry arms. We have our homes behind fences and gates. We go to ATM's that are enclosed as opposed to being open to the air that Superman flies in.
    These are facts. I'm not saying I like it anymore than you do. But they are indeed facts of life and have been for some time, in America.

    The fact remains that it is the very stand-your-ground law that provides justification for getting out of your vehicle even when you know that the threat is out there possibly waiting for you. That's the whole point of not having to retreat from any place you have a legal right to be!!

    It was when we had a public duty to retreat that you would have been deemed legally wrong to get out knowing that you'd have to face a threat using lethal force rather than retreating.

    Remember? That's exactly what the stand-your-ground laws changed.
    No I disagree.
    Stand your ground is not an allowance to legally engage threats that you know are out there.
    It is allowing one to in the sense of a vehicle defend themselves when in a position where they are either unable to flee or to flee is unreasonable in the limited case of personal property defense (e.g. carjacking).

    In fact the as quoted law in the article states this;

    "Excerpts from Oklahoma’s Stand Your Ground Law

    The law applies if:

    “The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; . . .

    “(But) 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.”

    Oklahoma Statutes Title 21, Chapter 53, Section 1289.25"

    A person, even a drunk meth head goblin in the night, approaching ones car/window with expletives is not committing a forcible felony. Even parking his car behind another assumedly blocking him in where he'd gone to park, that is not a forcible felony.
    A forcible felony is defined in the law and there is no statement relvent to what Turney had done. Even as Gumm was in fear as he had stated.

    Why? You don't think that they'd still hang him for pulling into that parking lot and opening his door like you already criticized him for doing? Why don't you figure the DA would then be saying he should have just floored it and driven away and left the guy standing there.
    Nobody hangs people anymore.
    But speaking figuratively to that end, nope. Opening his door was not unlawful. He messed up when he exited the vehicle as per the letter of their law.
    I don't figure the DA wouldn't figure as much (?). In fact if I were the DA that is exactly what I'd figure. And if there were no where else to go but stay in the car I'd wonder why the heck did he exit cover to go to air than stay in cover and deploy his sidearm from within, and be completely legal per the letter of the law.

    With an anti-gun, anti-self-defense idiot DA like this, there will ALWAYS be something else the defender should have done to avoid having to shoot the drug-crazed badguy. Because drug-crazed bad guys, don't cha know, are a valuable commodity and we really have to discourage eliminating them from society 'cause we need 'em so bad...
    Bad guys are bad guys. They suck and everyone including DA's in general and very likely this one in specific knows it.
    The only people who like bad guys are other bad guys, their mothers, and maybe half of their baby mommas.
    But once more at the end of the day we are a land of laws. Within those laws it is stated that every man is seen as being equal and of equal value. Even drug crazed bad guys that most nobody likes.
    The actions of bad guys are accounted for by law. So are the actions of good guys and good intentioned guys too. That's you, me, and us.
    We have to be aware of this and keep as much in mind as we make our plays. It's not something we have to like but it is what we have to abide by, as per the law. Otherwise our actions would be unlawful and to ignore the law would result in us joining the same club as the bad guys we despise/fear so much.

    We have no idea if the DA is anti-gun or anti-self defense or if he's an idiot.
    What we do know for sure though is that he's an enforcer of the law toward all, bad guys and good guys, and we know that he's correct as per the letter of the law.

    We don't have to like it but until the letter of the law is in some way modified we do have to abide by it.
    As such lessons that can be learned from those of others before us should be embraced even as they might be distasteful and hard to swallow.

    I hope Gumm has a great attorney and gets off.
    He's just a citizen who wanted to go from A to B uninterrupted without drama and being cursed at.
    My gut though thinks that he might not be so fortunate unless he gets lucky with a jury.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. WI District Attorney declares most state gun laws unconstitutional
    By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: July 6th, 2010, 07:39 PM
  2. Good: Mobile Alabama District Attorney says...
    By ArmyCop in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2009, 06:51 AM
  3. Tulsa Man Pleads Guilty in Road Rage Case
    By Sig 210 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 30th, 2008, 12:55 PM
  4. Talk about abuse of power
    By CT-Mike in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: February 5th, 2008, 08:07 PM
  5. It's Road Rage! No, It's.............
    By Captain Crunch in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: June 10th, 2006, 08:34 AM

Search tags for this page

abuse of power by da
,
abuse of power kansas district attorney
,
dale turney toxicology report
,

district attorney abuse of power

,
district attorney, abuses of power
,
district attorneys abusing power
,
florida district attorney rin road rage homiside
,
oklahoma road rage law
,
power of district attorney oklahoma
,
road rage stay in your car shoot from inside
,
tim harris concealed carry
,
tulsa oklahoma shootings by concealed carry riverside drive
Click on a term to search for related topics.