Tulsa District Attorney Abuse of Power:Charge filed in road-rage homicide - Page 5

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; Jeff... I hope you didn't misunderstand my posts on this thread. I'm on your side on this one... I believe Mr. Gumm, in this case, ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 100

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

  1. #61
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Jeff... I hope you didn't misunderstand my posts on this thread.

    I'm on your side on this one... I believe Mr. Gumm, in this case, in this circumstance was justified in shooting the guy!

    I just play devils advocate a lot, because we have to from time to time in order to think of the possibilities of what can happen to us.

    I also feel, utilizing different tactics, Mr. Gumm could have possibly avoided having to kill the guy, but in my opinion, He Was Justified none the less!

    But, unfortunately now is facing 4 years to LIFE in prision. And at 67 years of age, even if he gets just 4 years, it could very well be life for him.

    I just think that knowing what the prosecutor knows about Turney (blood alcohol and meth toxicology) it's a travesty that he even brought charges against a 67 year old man in poor health for shooting the ******* in the first place!

    My outrage is on the prosecutor!
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."


  2. #62
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    Jeff... I hope you didn't misunderstand my posts on this thread.

    I'm on your side on this one... I believe Mr. Gumm, in this case, in this circumstance was justified in shooting the guy!

    I just play devils advocate a lot, because we have to from time to time in order to think of the possibilities of what can happen to us.

    I also feel, utilizing different tactics, Mr. Gumm could have possibly avoided having to kill the guy, but in my opinion, He Was Justified none the less!

    But, unfortunately now is facing 4 years to LIFE in prision. And at 67 years of age, even if he gets just 4 years, it could very well be life for him.

    I just think that knowing what the prosecutor knows about Turney (blood alcohol and meth toxicology) it's a travesty that he even brought charges against a 67 year old man in poor health for shooting the ******* in the first place!

    My outrage is on the prosecutor!
    Jeffrey,

    I "hear" your frustration, but think that many of the posters here do agree with you that Gumm was legally justified in shooting. However, even if we all agreed with that proposition, it would still be "cold comfort" to him because of the prosecutors improper postion, which seems, however, to be becoming all too common in CCW shootings.

    I believe that what many here are simply suggesting is that they think, rightly or wrongly, that he had an alternative to shooting, which he should have exercised.

    Ron
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

  3. #63
    Member Array Tye_Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    233
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tye_Defender
    ...Is there anyone reading this thread that does not believe Turney had expressed intent ("You're history!") and had the means to inflict death or great bodily injury to Gumm?...
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    I do not.
    Which do you not believe, that he had intent or means?

    Your post goes back to talking about what Gumm should have done, but I don't believe that makes any difference according to the SYG law. Under the old law Gumm had to do his best to avoid the conflict and must prove in court that he made every reasonable effort to do so. But I don't think that is required under the new law. (Now I still believe that people should do their best to avoid shooting. That's what makes us different then the BG, we don't want to kill anyone).

    Janq - I don't want this to seem confrontational, I am posting because I want to understand this better. I thought I did understand it, but as many conflicting comments as I have seen it is clear that it is not as clear-cut as I thought.

  4. #64
    Member Array cherokeetad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by ethereal View Post
    My son's asked about this exact situation - What if you're being followed/harrassed by a road rager?

    You need to know where the nearest police stations are to your office and our home. That's where you go to confront road rage drivers. If the idiot manages to have a moment of clarity, they'll realize you've just turned into the "wrong" parking lot.

    Turning into any other lot, or going home, and confronting them with weapon in hand can only end badly. [IMHO]
    You must not have that many road rage incidents in your area. Around Tulsa it's a daily occurance and usually amounts to nothing and the idiot goes on his way. They yell, honk, shoot the bird, tailgate and even try to run you off the road. If everyone in Tulsa went to a police station when a road rage incident occured, the place would be full 24 hours a day.

  5. #65
    Distinguished Member
    Array SleepingZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    ne
    Posts
    1,737
    Bottom line:

    1 Turn the guy loose. When we are cornered we default to surviving, and thats what he did.

    2 Another druggie off the street. Anyone STUPID enough to chase someone around a car twice that has a gun, got the education he was lacking

    If I am on the jury, unless the facts turn out different that what we have been told, he walks.

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,880
    Quote Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey View Post
    I am just not getting through to a couple people in this thread, so I'm just dropping out of this one. Maddening that some people are just flat-out refusing to "get it," and moreover, won't respond to citations of specific instances of where they are creating strawmen, or leaping to unfounded suppositions.

    Have fun, guys.
    No, you are the one that introducing scenarios into the mix which did not take place in this situation. The facts in this case are the facts. Not the hypothetical situations that your proposing.

    This case will be prosecuted based on the facts, not some hypothetical situation of what might have happened, so stop looking at what could have happened and look at what did actually take place.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  7. #67
    Member Array austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    37
    Gumm is basically an invalid. 67. He is accosted by a drunk high on meth who is 47 and stronger than he is. Gumm is chased 2x around the vehicle and verbal threats are made against him.

    The DA had to bring the case due to the law, but Gumm will not be convicted.

  8. #68
    Member Array OM44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Santa Teresa, NM, USA
    Posts
    54

    Court costs

    He may not be convicted, but he will have to pay lawyers fees,
    court costs and what ever else the DA throws at him. He'll probably
    be broke for the rest of his life.

    The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting!

  9. #69
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by austin View Post
    Gumm is basically an invalid. 67. He is accosted by a drunk high on meth who is 47 and stronger than he is. Gumm is chased 2x around the vehicle and verbal threats are made against him.

    The DA had to bring the case due to the law, but Gumm will not be convicted.

    Color me confused? Are you saying the DA has no descretion in what cases he chooses to file or not? That doesn't sound correct.

    Here in Missouri, prosecutors have the descretion to file a case or not.

    They also are fully aware of the typical out-of-contol, outrageous and often violent behavior of those who are high on Methamphetamine. They are very familiar with that because so many LEO's are injured trying to control or subdue such people.

    Having access to the toxicology report on the guy and being drunk and high on meth, I'd be surprised to see a prosecutor here file charges against a frail, sober, retired lawabiding senior citizen who was trapped in a deadly situation alone in a dark parking lot.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,103
    One thing I am not clear about here. I see in a lot of posts that Turney was drunk and high on meth. In the reports I saw a blood alcohol of .08 and that he had meth in his system. I know many drugs will be detectable in your system well after taking them and some aren't. Does anyone know the correct info on meth? Is it possible this guy tested positive but wasn't actually under the influence? Would any of our assessments on the situation be different if he was simply under the influence of alcohol and hadn't used meth in week? And also, lets not forget that not too long ago a .08 would have been legal to drive in many states.
    Last edited by mcp1810; October 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 AM.

  11. #71
    Member Array Protect's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    302
    Being from Tulsa, I'll weigh in on this.

    The DA is strongly Anti-Gun, he always has been.
    He referenced part of the law, but not all of it.
    http://www.osbi.state.ok.us/PublicSe...wbook_2006.pdf
    He quoted the home/carjacking, but not the Anywhere you are legally allowed to be part.
    He also does not feel Gumm's life was in danger. The law sates "death or great bodily harm."

    Gumm said way too much.

    Gumm Exited the vehicle not knowing they had followed him into the parking lot.

    1 Drunk guy picking up drunk Friends from the bar would likely not have stayed a 1 on 1 fight for long if the drunk friends in the car
    thought their Friend needed help.

    Attacker had the ability, 30 years younger, attacking a man with a heart condition.
    Attacker had stated his intent.
    Attacker had acted on his intent.
    "When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer himóby force.
    "... No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own." -John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

  12. #72
    Senior Member Array Kevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Protect View Post

    Gumm said way too much.

    +1


  13. #73
    VIP Member Array Tom G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,375
    The security guard should have stayed in his car or never pulled into the parking lot. It's easy to put your self in a position where you can be charged especially when you have an anti gun DA. I hope the security guard can turn this around and doe's not serve any jail time.

  14. #74
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Protect,

    Gumm did know they followed him into the parking lot.
    As per his own statements to the police they were directly behind him on the street and had been yelling out their window at him as he'd made the turn. Further it's not like he couldn't see them in his rear and side view mirrors...follow him in.
    As well Gumm stated that he deployed his CCW and then exited the car with his gun in hand. An otherwise normal and reasonable person who does not know or have reason to believe they have been followed in would not have exited the car with their firearm in hand.

    As to OK law I cited it, in full, several posts back direct from the state govt. website and the DA's stated position is lawful and applicable; http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...0&postcount=44

    Quote Originally Posted by Janq
    Okay now if you're still with me lets go to the Oklahoma state government website and look up manslaughter in the 'Second Degree' (which byy state definition is not murder as is manslaughter in the first degree)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions
    OUJI-CR 4-104

    MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE -

    CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE DEFINED

    The term "culpable negligence" refers to the omission to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the lack of the usual ordinary care and caution in the performance of an act usually and ordinarily exercised by a person under similar circumstances and conditions.

    Source - http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/ou...CR%204-104
    The DA is going to argue that a "reasonably careful person" and fit person would not step foot out of their car to engage an obviously unhinged seeming and irrational acting person. Muchless two as Turney did have a passenger, who in the article remains unadressed but was by extension also a potential threat. Gumm was also as noted of poor health which again lends one to consider reasonableness. As well it doesn't help that he is a CLEET certified professional ('Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training' - http://www.cleet.state.ok.us) as also stated in the article. The problem here is reasonableness.
    Once again it all comes down to reasonableness.
    Obviuosly Turney was not reasonable and acted unlawfully. There is no doubt there and if he had survived his shooting wound he too would be charged with crimes.
    But that does not give Gumm a free pass to also act, or rather react, unlawfully in kind. That is the position of the DA even as he might be otherwise an 'anti'.
    As well Gumm was not under imminent threat of "death or great bodily harm" as he was relatively safe (and armed) from within his car. Gumm engaged Turney and Turney had no weapon or other means to enter Gumm's vehicle muchless harm him.

    I scanned through your PDF document and was unable to locate specifically the citation of lawful application that you refer to.
    Would you mind copying and pasting the entirety of the citation for us all to read?

    BTW I very much agree with you though in that Gumm said waaayyyy too much.
    Being a CLEET trained person he should have known better to that end as well.

    - 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

  15. #75
    VIP Member Array BigEFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks for all of the thoughtful posts. This discussion has given me much to think about.
    Lex et Libertas ó Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!

    "Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement." -Thomas Sowell

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 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.