quote:
Area man is shot dead along Riverside Drive
By JEFF BILLINGTON World Staff Writer
6/11/2007
An area man was shot and killed Sunday afternoon after an apparent road rage incident in Tulsa's 30th homicide investigation this year, police said.
The incident occurred near an area of River Parks where dozens of people were dining in a restaurant or walking in the park.
It followed another, unrelated shooting earlier Sunday in which a man was shot at least 14 times. He remains hospitalized in critical condition.
Sunday's death put the city on pace with 56 killings in 2006.
In the fatal shooting near River Parks, Dale Allen Turney, 48, of Sand Springs, died Sunday afternoon after he was shot once in the chest, police said.
The man who reportedly fired a gun, Kenneth Ray Gumm, 67, of Tulsa, was questioned by police and released.
Police said the case will be turned over to the Tulsa County District Attorney's Office, which will determine what, if any, charges could be filed.
Capt. Steve Bayles said the two were driving on Riverside Drive in separate vehicles about 4 p.m. when an altercation between them apparently took place. The two men then drove into a parking lot at 1900 Riverside Drive and exited their vehicles, where the altercation continued, Bayles said.
Gumm reportedly pulled a gun and shot Turney once in the chest, police said. Turney was pronounced dead at the scene.
Johnny Nguyen, an employee at the River's Edge Restaurant, 1924 Riverside Drive, said he didn't see the altercation but heard the gunshot.
"I heard a gun go off, and then the park patrol (officer) came by. I told him where it came from and then I saw this guy laying on the ground facedown," Nguyen said.
After Turney was shot at point-blank range, Gumm surrendered the gun to park patrol officers, Bayles said. Gumm was then taken in for questioning by Tulsa police.
Bayles said the two men apparently didn't know each other, and police were investigating what caused the incident.
"A number of people were in the park at the time of the incident, and we're interviewing three to four people who witnessed the shooting," Bayles said. "As far as the road rage, we're still determining just what happened."
Linda Collier, a friend of Turney's who was at the scene, said he and another friend, Craig Geltz, had gone to a bar and Geltz asked Turney to be his designated driver. Turney pulled into the park area on Riverside Drive after Geltz had fallen asleep, and that's when the shooting occurred, she said.
"As far as we all know, it was not anyone that Craig knew or Dale ever knew," she said.
While police were attempting to interview witnesses and emergency personnel were administering CPR to Turney, another friend of Turney's, Donald James Vanorden, 48, became distraught and had to be pulled away from the scene.
Vanorden was subsequently arrested and booked into the Tulsa Jail on complaints of public intoxication and obstructing or resisting an officer.
Earlier shooting: In an unrelated incident, a 26-year-old man was shot several times early Sunday in northern Tulsa, police said.
Sgt. Butch Kennemer said Juan Davis was shot at least 14 times shortly after 3 a.m. Sunday in the 200 block of East 53rd Street North.
Kennemer said details were still sketchy, but police were searching for two men who left the scene in a late-model white sport utility vehicle, possibly a GMC.
Davis was taken to St. John Medical Center, where he was listed in critical condition, EMSA's spokeswoman Tina Wells said.
Kennemer said police were continuing to investigate a possible motive and description of the suspects.
At this time last year, Tulsa's homicide count was also at 30. Last year ended with 56 homicides, compared with 64 in 2005. The record for homicides in Tulsa is 69, set in 2003.
Am I missing something, or pulling a brain bone and can't remember, but don't we normally lock people up for shooting someone?
turns ken may not be all that nice a guy and a ****ty driver...
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=65611&db=Tulsa
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=560402&db=Tulsa
Could be a clear cut case of self-defense.....
According to witnesses on the scene thats exactly what happened....The deceased had blocked the shooter in his parking space and when he exited his vehicle began shoving him as the shooter walked backwards he was then shot......
I find it unlikely that Turney just randomly picked someone off the road to follow, block, and then get out of his car to threaten. Most likely Gumm did something to cause Turney to go into a rage.
Adding to it that Gumm has a record of not being the "best driver" etc. It could have been that Gumm "threatened" and confronted Turney first while on the road.
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=129207
I also think it unlikely that Gumm didn't know he was being followed.
However, if someone were to confront and threaten my life I would shoot them first and ask questions later. However... if someone were to threaten your life on the road with their vehicle,(a vehicle is just as much a deadly weapon as a gun is) is blocking them in and threatening them worse than shooting someone?
But one also has to ask what kind of society we will have if people who choose to be bullies or drive recklessly on the road, when confronted can shoot you and then say they were doing it in self-defense. Then go back to driving recklessly putting other peoples lives in danger. I have been bullied around on the road by people who drive like a-holes and have many a time wished I could give them a piece of my mind. Guess if I were to actually ever get into an altercation with them I should be the one to shoot and then all I would have to say is, it was self defense, they threatened my life.
Turney forced the issue....He could have kept driving or called the police.....
Getting out of your vehicle to fight a complete stranger is one of the dumbest moves anyone can make, as the victim in this shooting obviously learned the hard way.
Not to defend the shooter, but those two court records linked above are from '92 and '93. Hard to judge somebody on things that happened 14 - 15 years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I find it unlikely that Turney just randomly picked someone off the road to follow, block, and then get out of his car to threaten. Most likely Gumm did something to cause Turney to go into a rage.
Adding to it that Gumm has a record of not being the "best driver" etc. It could have been that Gumm "threatened" and confronted Turney first while on the road.
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=129207
I also think it unlikely that Gumm didn't know he was being followed.
However, if someone were to confront and threaten my life I would shoot them first and ask questions later. However... if someone were to threaten your life on the road with their vehicle,(a vehicle is just as much a deadly weapon as a gun is) is blocking them in and threatening them worse than shooting someone?
But one also has to ask what kind of society we will have if people who choose to be bullies or drive recklessly on the road, when confronted can shoot you and then say they were doing it in self-defense. Then go back to driving recklessly putting other peoples lives in danger. I have been bullied around on the road by people who drive like a-holes and have many a time wished I could give them a piece of my mind. Guess if I were to actually ever get into an altercation with them I should be the one to shoot and then all I would have to say is, it was self defense, they threatened my life.
You don't have to do anything wrong to set these people off.
Less than 30 minutes ago on 71st I'm driving to work in the middle lane of the three eastbound lanes near Riverside at or even below the speed limit. A black Hummer pick-up turns right onto 71st and just comes right over onto me in traffic, I have to swerve out of his way and I honk. He literally leans out of the window to flip me off and tries to stare ME down. He looked like he wanted to shoot me for the offense of being in his way and honking so he wouldn't run me into another car.
Gee whiz Swake, give the Hummer driver a break. He DID become the owner of the road when he bought that Hummer.
/sarc off
I was commuting home down Harvard where it goes under the BA and someone pulled up along side me and started shooting into my car (about 3 months ago I guess). I hadn't flipped anyone off or short braked or anything else that should have set someone off and I had never seen that person before (nor would I associate with someone with a hatch back with a 'make my car louder' tailpipe).
The cop asked me if I might have cut someone off... it was 5:30 in midtown and I was driving. There is a good chance that someone could have perceived that I cut them off, or that I did not let them in, or whatever.
Funny thing is, I had an 8mm Mauser Rifle in my trunk, I should have followed him onto the BA and got within 1000 meters and shot the little bastard in the back of the head. Given that it was immediately following the act I could claim I was in an altered state and plead to manslaughter - and society would be that much better off.
But in the really real world, there was nothing I could do (I am not in the habit of shooting at people) at the time nor to prevent such a thing in the future. I drive the same road every day and just have to hope no one else sees fit to try and shoot me to death.
What did they shoot your car with?
I'm beginning to see more merit to getting my CCP and start keeping a piece in my truck.
Traffic causes conflict.
Guns resolve conflict?
Apparently so. I can not believe they didn't arrest the shooter. It was broad daylight, tons of witnesses and he killed someone because he got shoved??? He was afraid he would have a heart attack trying to shove him back? Walk away dude.
This is crazy.
Can't we all just get along?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
What did they shoot your car with?
It was a silver automatic pistol with a black grip. Either a 9mm or .40 caliber. He even shot out the back window of a car heading north on Harvard - oops. At least "ganstas" never learn how to shoot.
---
I'm reserving judgment on this killing because I have not heard all sides of the story. If man A is a jerk (driving or otherwise) and pulls over with person B, then person A punches person B does that give rise to a self defense homicide?
I feel like I'm in law school again!
OK, I have a problem with this whole thing. What is the difference between this Kenneth Gumm shooting Dale Turney in self-defense and the case of Terry Badgwell killing Shawn Howard. Both clear cases of self-defense. Shooting someone in the chest is over the top IMO. Why not shot the guy in the leg or something that would have made him immobile and thus stop the attacker. Badgwell was charged because they thought he used excessive force. Shooting a person in the chest seems a little excessive to me. So where do we draw the line? Or will Gumm walk away because he is older and not homeless? Does not seem like fair justice to me.
i am not comfortable at all with the fact there are people out there with the 'right' to kill a person. its pretty easy to claim self defense when there's only one-side to a story.
i really think a dangerous precedent is being set.
Badgwell was homeless. Period. That is the bottom line.
The American justice system: It's not what you did, it's who you know.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Badgwell was homeless. Period. That is the bottom line.
The American justice system: It's not what you did, it's who you know.
Good point Nellie, but ultimately the law means something too. Oklahoma is asking for trouble with all these crazy gun laws. Ultimately the folks in Oklahoma are to blame for having a mind set that permits these laws to exist.
So killer walks and distraught friend is charged. Truly bizarre.
That's true. Under Oklahoma law, this 67 year old guy is going to have a heck of a defense. The DA has to make a decision on spending resources based on whether or not prosecuting this case to a successful conclusion is possible. Maybe the guy will be prosecuted, but I wouldn't count on it.
quote:
Originally posted by DM
OK, I have a problem with this whole thing. What is the difference between this Kenneth Gumm shooting Dale Turney in self-defense and the case of Terry Badgwell killing Shawn Howard. Both clear cases of self-defense. Shooting someone in the chest is over the top IMO. Why not shot the guy in the leg or something that would have made him immobile and thus stop the attacker. Badgwell was charged because they thought he used excessive force. Shooting a person in the chest seems a little excessive to me. So where do we draw the line? Or will Gumm walk away because he is older and not homeless? Does not seem like fair justice to me.
Spoken like someone who has watched a lot of movies. Do some research before you talk about shooting "the guy in the leg or something".
Research shows that kind of marksmanship is almost impossible during critical incidents. As a result, it is taught that if you are in fear for your life, you shoot center mass. It is the largest area and have the most chance of hitting your target.
This whole situation disturbs me. I wasn't a witness, and there are so many details left out of the reports....I can't know both sides of what really happened. So I'm not making a personal judgment on this particular case. So I wonder...what if?
Only once have I ever witnessed my husband become truly angry in public. We were at an event where a drunk man took possession of one of our items (we later learned he didn't intentionally steal, he thought he purchased it...someone fraudulently "sold" it to him). Anyway, my husband was in the right and the drunk guy thought he was in the right. Said drunk guy became very belligerent in attitude and words. My husband became very angry as a result. To my recollection no pushing was involved, fortunately I was able to diffuse the situation with calm words before it got to that point. But what if? What if I wasn't there and after my husband got tired of being called various obscenities he gave a push? Would that give the guy a right to shoot him in the chest and kill him? I think not.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Spoken like someone who has watched a lot of movies. Do some research before you talk about shooting "the guy in the leg or something".
Research shows that kind of marksmanship is almost impossible during critical incidents. As a result, it is taught that if you are in fear for your life, you shoot center mass. It is the largest area and have the most chance of hitting your target.
Where is this research? This is not GI Joe logic. You have a person coming up to you and if he is right in front of you, I doubt you are going to miss. I have heard that Gumm told him he was armed but did he show him first or just whip it out and shoot?
So anytime you yell at someone they can shoot and kill you? Like I said before, where do we draw the line? I have seen car accident before where people are upset and yelling at each other. Should they just shoot each other?
This was right near the jogging trail from what I understand. I normally run that trail when I'm in Tulsa but I run between 91st street and th I-44 Freeway area. It's pretty bad since alot of kids are in the area too.[:(!]
It is disturbing. If there were no witnesses, and the guy with the concealed carry simply executed the other guy and claimed self-defense, would he be prosecuted? Maybe, but prosecuted successfully would be another issue.
The guy is legally allowed to carry a weapon, and legally allowed to commit homocide if in self-defense. With little evidence, it'd be up to a jury to decide whether or not they believe the guy. Or course, you'd have better odds of successful prosecution if the shooter were a black teenager from North Tulsa or a homeless man, than some 67 year old white guy.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Or course, you'd have better odds of successful prosecution if the shooter were a black teenager from North Tulsa or a homeless man, than some 67 year old white guy.
Exactly. Its call equal justice. lol!
quote:
Originally posted by DM
Exactly. Its call equal justice. lol!
[:D]
If you're a certain ethnicity, certain age, or certain social stratum; concealed carry is a license to kill. As long as you don't do it very often.
"Come to Oklahoma where your first homocide is free." Some restrictions may apply, see in store ad for details.
Pretty hard to pass judgement without being an eyewitness and whether or not this Turney fellow showed a weapon while they were driving down Riverside or implied he had a weapon or said he was going to kill Gumm when he confronted him.
If Turney was amped up on something other than adrenaline and Gumm is not in great health, he may have felt his gun was the only way to defend himself. He parked and got hemmed in, he had no way to escape in his vehicle, he was the proverbial "sitting duck".
Everyone wants to say they would react a certain way but you will never know until you are actually in that situation. Adrenaline is a very, very powerful stimulant.
True dat, Conan. I understand that the victim had blocked the geezer's car in, but was the shooter prevented from jumping into his car? What craziness did the shooter exhibit on the road, and inasmuch as the victim was attempting to detain the shooter, did the victim threaten to call the police?
IMO the concealed weapon program needs an overhaul. After the SOBO shooting and now this, methinks that more attention needs to be paid during those classes on how to de-escalate a situation and how to avoid conflict.
With shooter's history of domestic violence and reckless driving, is there any doubt that shooter baited him into this conflict?
And as far as Badgewell goes, that homeless psychotic beat Shawn to death after Shawn clipped him with a pair of brass knuckles. Badgewell was a homocidal maniac whom DA Harris allowed to walk free.
Whatever happened to Badgewell anyway. Didn't he end up up being convicted on that deal?
The difference Badgewell and Gumm, is that Badgewell was homeless and had history. Juries will convict on history, they aren't supposed to, but they will. Juries will convict on social status or ethnicity too. It's a self defense case, which ultimately comes down to whether or not a jury believes the defendant.
The one attacker that survived that deal, his testimony wouldn't have been worth a damn if it were against some 67 year old white guy with a concealed carry. Put him against Badgewell, a homeless guy with history, it's a whole other ballgame.
Badgewell struck a plea deal. I think it was for ten years, he got credit for time served.
FWIW, past behavior on the part of Shawn and Josh at Deadtown led a lot of people to believe they were looking for someone to rough up and I believe Badgewell's defense attorney was aware as was the prosecutor. Flower pots used to "fall" on homeless people from the second story of the building, Deadtown T-shirts said "F*** the homeless", and there were other incidents of agression aimed at the homeless. Did Shawn have a right to keep vagrants out of his business? Yes. Did he have the jurisdiction to police the street and sidewalk around his place of business? I don't believe so.
I don't think you can come to a conclusion that our DA didn't use the same yardstick (we still don't know on Gumm as it is being reviewed) for both these cases considering that Tim Harris never filed charges on Badgewell, it was a grand jury indictment which finally brought it to court.
Looking through Mr. Turney's OSCN he wasn't perfect either: previous DUI and a pot possession charge (non-OCIS counties DB). Sounds like at least two of his companions were drunk. Just because he was the designated driver doesn't mean he hadn't been drinking, he might have just been the most sober of the bunch. Without knowing who started the whole melee on the road or how it got started, all our posts are nothing more than speculation from the peanut gallery.[;)]
Well here's my peanut gallery speculation. Gumm won't be tried, the case will be too weak. There won't be a Badgewell-type drunken uproar, so no grand jury. And virtually nothing will change on concealed carry laws, not on this incident.
The story is about the usual for Tulsa Whirled journalism, plenty of gaping holes for speculation to walk through. [B)]
Without fully knowing what the threat was to Gumm nor the physical capabilities of either of the combatants, I don't know that this case shows anything which could be construed as a flaw in the CCP. To the contrary, CC may have served the purpose of allowing someone to defend themself.
I can only assume Gumm was allowed to walk after questioning, and there's been no report of charges filed as of yet, so I'm assuming he's not being held on probable cause. (MH tell me if I'm talking out of my arse on procedure.)
Or Gumm might well be a bully and has been trying to provoke the right opportunity to bust a cap in someone. I'd like to see the media follow through on this one, I think it would be a good study in whether or not the law worked in this case or gave someone an unfair advantage in a fight.
Considering the shooting incident which happened to Cannon Fodder, I think that is a classic case where a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to defend himself. If someone starts shooting at me randomly, I'd want more than just my hands to fight back with. Gun control does nothing but keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. The criminally-minded are the ones we have problems with and they will always find a way to get guns.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
If there were no witnesses, and the guy with the concealed carry simply executed the other guy and claimed self-defense, would he be prosecuted?
Apparently the witness (a passenger) was whisked off for "public drunk" and "interfering with an officer".
Could the shooter (a retired guard) have called in a favor from a TPD chum?
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
If there were no witnesses, and the guy with the concealed carry simply executed the other guy and claimed self-defense, would he be prosecuted?
Apparently the witness (a passenger) was whisked off for "public drunk" and "interfering with an officer".
Could the shooter (a retired guard) have called in a favor from a TPD chum?
- Or the guy could have been drunk and interfering in the police investigation.
"Where is this research? This is not GI Joe logic. You have a person coming up to you and if he is right in front of you, I doubt you are going to miss."
-Well, studies show you would be wrong. I'm not going to do the research for you. You have the internet. Check it out. I know I'm right. What is G.I. Joe logic? I've never heard of that.
I can only assume Gumm was allowed to walk after questioning, and there's been no report of charges filed as of yet, so I'm assuming he's not being held on probable cause. (MH tell me if I'm talking out of my arse on procedure.)
- There were multiple witnesses to the incident. All were interviewed by the police. The suspect answered questions as well. The complete story was not told by the Tulsa World. Thru no fault of their own, there is no way they could know the entire story because it takes hours to sort thru the evidence. The Tulsa World has deadlines and they can only write whatever was released by the police immediately after the incident.
It is funny to see how people in the peanut gallery add things into the story or just assume things about the incident.
A member of the district attorney's office was consulted after the preliminary investigation and the decision was made to not arrest the guy at that time.
The D.A. will look at all the evidence and make the final decision to file charges or not.
quote:
Originally posted by DM
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Spoken like someone who has watched a lot of movies. Do some research before you talk about shooting "the guy in the leg or something".
Research shows that kind of marksmanship is almost impossible during critical incidents. As a result, it is taught that if you are in fear for your life, you shoot center mass. It is the largest area and have the most chance of hitting your target.
Where is this research? This is not GI Joe logic. You have a person coming up to you and if he is right in front of you, I doubt you are going to miss. I have heard that Gumm told him he was armed but did he show him first or just whip it out and shoot?
So anytime you yell at someone they can shoot and kill you? Like I said before, where do we draw the line? I have seen car accident before where people are upset and yelling at each other. Should they just shoot each other?
We have a stand your ground law in effect now, and it applies here.
If someone is crazy enough to get out of their car and confront you, then they are acting in a threatening manner, particularly if you are a 60-year-old man with a medical condition.
You are really showing your ignorance of concealed-carry laws and tactics, DM. In every concealed carry class, and in every magazine article or discussion in gun forum chat rooms, the consensus is unanimous: You either don't pull the gun, or you pull it with the intent to deliver deadly force.
You NEVER try to wound someone, as this could only cause your attacker to become more desperate and then you are in even more danger.
Police officers as well are trained that once the use of a gun is warranted, you shoot to kill and keep shooting until the threat is nuetralized.
Concealed weapon permits are not a license to kill, and given Gumm's history of lawless driving and domestic violence, the decision to release him on his own recognizance is deplorable. But then, this is from the DA who charged a woman with 2nd Degree Murder (read: 'Go kill someone, doesn't matter who') after her niece ran over a kid, but let a white-bread jock off with house time-out after he threatened the lives of dozens of motorists before losing control of his vehicle and ultimately killing his friend.
quote:
Originally posted by South_Tulsan
If someone is crazy enough to get out of their car and confront you, then they are acting in a threatening manner, particularly if you are a 60-year-old man with a medical condition.
You are really showing your ignorance of concealed-carry laws and tactics, DM. In every concealed carry class, and in every magazine article or discussion in gun forum chat rooms, the consensus is unanimous: You either don't pull the gun, or you pull it with the intent to deliver deadly force.
So the same could be said if you are a homeless unarmed man being attacked by two men one with brass knuckles and it is dark. Yet he still got charged and convicted of a crime.
As for the concealed gun course. Of course I have not taken the course. My answer to violence is not to become so paranoid that I feel like I have to arm myself with a gun just to go to a concert. I don't live my life in fear.
But like others have said. This is not going to change anything. Had this guy that been killed been someone with deep pockets then yeah. There would have been a huge outcry for something to change. Could you imagine if the shooter was black? I wonder if his self-defense story would have held up. Sad but true.
Interesting story out of South Carolina.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/13/85825/1468
quote:
Originally posted by DM
So the same could be said if you are a homeless unarmed man being attacked by two men one with brass knuckles and it is dark. Yet he still got charged and convicted of a crime.
A homeless man with such severe psychosis he was a resident at Parkside just two weeks earlier. The reason the DA charged himn was because an outraged family demanded justice. The DA was happy enough to let a mentally ill killer walk our streets without so much as an assault charge. It took a Grand Jury to get Harris off his arse.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Concealed weapon permits are not a license to kill, and given Gumm's history of lawless driving and domestic violence, the decision to release him on his own recognizance is deplorable. But then, this is from the DA who charged a woman with 2nd Degree Murder (read: 'Go kill someone, doesn't matter who') after her niece ran over a kid, but let a white-bread jock off with house time-out after he threatened the lives of dozens of motorists before losing control of his vehicle and ultimately killing his friend.
Again, all we can see are the charges which were brought via OSCN, both incidents on Mr. Gumm's record were some time back. For all we know "operating a vehicle in an unsafe or unreasonable manner" could be an illegal U-turn or turning right from the left-hand lane. A protective order could have been sought and issued for harassing phone calls, not necessarily physical violence. Since there's no assault and battery on his OSCN, there's no way to say this guy is prone to physical violence. He might just be a wind-bag who likes to talk tough.
Likewise, we can't say for sure that Mr. Turney was high or drunk since he had a previous DUI and pot bust and other moving violations which were more recent than Mr. Gumm's infractions.
One thing for certain, Turney's family can seek recourse via civil courts, regardless what happens in criminal court.
Without a prosecutor's training in the law, it's pretty hard to say what does and doesn't happen due to social standing and what decisions are made based on what the law says. Chances are there are different laws being applied between the two incidents you mentioned. One seems like it would have to do with child neglect and endangerment (allowing a 13 y/o to have the keys to the car) along with the death which resulted from it vs. a licensed driver who had a right to be on the road.
I get where you are coming from and agree it does sound like uneven justice on the surface, but without knowing what laws apply and what the laws say, it's hard for me to make judgement one way or the other. No, I don't believe Tim Harris has consistently been the most competent DA in our history, but no more than the job pays, it's hard to attract quality opposition at election time.
quote:
Originally posted by DM
So the same could be said if you are a homeless unarmed man being attacked by two men one with brass knuckles and it is dark. Yet he still got charged and convicted of a crime.
Charges were brought by a grand jury, not the DA's office, he wasn't convicted, he agreed to a plea bargain.
quote:
Originally posted by DM
As for the concealed gun course. Of course I have not taken the course. My answer to violence is not to become so paranoid that I feel like I have to arm myself with a gun just to go to a concert. I don't live my life in fear.
LOL, more like denial, I'd say. Throughout the entire history of mankind... even our hunter/gatherer days, its been a risky proposition to wander about unarmed.
Some may think we've evolved past that point, but I'm not seeing any evidence of that. Your personal safety and that of your family is ultimately your responsibility.
Some people consider this, while others prefer to behave like sheep in the pasture. Law enforcement, (our shepherd) with its communication and coordination abilities is the best its ever been in history, but that doesn't mean you are safe from any situation.
I do sincerely hope that you are able to live out your life as a sheep in a peaceful pasture, DM. As for me, I'll live in what you consider a state of fear, and what I call a state of awareness.
--
--
I believe I read recently that Badgewell was successful on appeal and was released back onto the streets. Anyone else remember seeing that?
Hawkins you pays your money, you takes your choice. No one in my family has ever carried a gun around with them or felt it neccessary to do so. I'm a 50+ resident of the planet and even though I have been in some close scrapes, have never found a gun would have increased my chances of survival. In fact guns were not available for thousands of years before we arrived. Badgewell didn't need one either.
Guns have their place but if you think you're safer with cc in OK, well we all have our little fantasies. Statistics argue against that. If we're sheep, maybe you're a chicken hawk.
I thought he was released and is living with family members in Oklmulgee or Muskogee.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Some people consider this, while others prefer to behave like sheep in the pasture. Law enforcement, (our shepherd) with its communication and coordination abilities is the best its ever been in history, but that doesn't mean you are safe from any situation.
By the same token gun ownership is not a panacea. In fact, are not residents of households with gun owners 7x more likely to die by that gun than the gen pop? Gun owners, do your loved ones a favor and fire a warning shot.
All I am saying is give Chance a piece.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
LOL, more like denial, I'd say. Throughout the entire history of mankind... even our hunter/gatherer days, its been a risky proposition to wander about unarmed.
Some may think we've evolved past that point, but I'm not seeing any evidence of that. Your personal safety and that of your family is ultimately your responsibility.
Some people consider this, while others prefer to behave like sheep in the pasture. Law enforcement, (our shepherd) with its communication and coordination abilities is the best its ever been in history, but that doesn't mean you are safe from any situation.
I do sincerely hope that you are able to live out your life as a sheep in a peaceful pasture, DM. As for me, I'll live in what you consider a state of fear, and what I call a state of awareness.
Well I think you are in denial about your fear. lol! We could go round and round about this issue. You may feel safer with a gun at your side. I don't. Never will. I know how to defend myself and those around me without a gun. If someone pulls a gun on me, what help will it have for me to have a gun? Well, I guess both of us dead is better right? My dad never carried a gun while I was growing up and guess what, we never found ourselves in a situation where we needed one. The fact is that you and I and many others will go on about our life and will most likely never end up in a situation where we will need a gun. How many murders are there in Tulsa for example? According to tulsapolice.org there was 56 murders in Tulsa last year. Population of Tulsa is approximately 393,907. Now, I am sure if we break those murders down some we will find that some were unfortunately kids and of course the useless gang killings. So I wonder what my chances of being murdered are since I do not hang around gangs and I am most certainly not a child that cannot defend myself. So as you see, I do not see that I should fear or deny myself that I NEED to carry a gun everywhere I go. It seems I more likely to get a car wreck and die then someone assault me. Maybe people should start putting cannons on their car to defend themselves.
Back to the issue. My whole point is that this guy is going to get off for killing someone in the name of self defense and yet Badgwell was prosecuted and ultimately pleaded no contest for doing the same thing. How is that fair justice? That is my issue with this. Again.
As far as I can remember, and Conan may know better, the DA didn't touch Badgewell. The DA determined the evidence wasn't strong enough to prosecute. Which means, essentially, IF all things are equal, if the DA doesn't touch Gumm he'd be using the same yardstick. Therefore, from the DA's perspective, it would be equal treatment.
The descrepancy would then be a "public uproar" in the Badgewell case which lead to a Grand Jury, which Gumm hasn't had so far. I don't think the DA had anything to do with the Grand Jury, don't know that for sure, all I remember about the Grand Jury is that Badgewell did get some version of time.
Pure speculation DM, and at this point apples and oranges.
If the DA refuses to prosecute, Turney's family can do the same thing the Howard family did, circulate a petition and get it before a grand jury. If they fail to indict, then you can blame your peers for a lack of justice.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Pure speculation DM, and at this point apples and oranges.
If the DA refuses to prosecute, Turney's family can do the same thing the Howard family did, circulate a petition and get it before a grand jury. If they fail to indict, then you can blame your peers for a lack of justice.
Rest easy everyone, I've never seen a grand jury who didn't indict somebody.
Badgewell did get indicted because the family got the case before a grand jury. He later plead out.
However, in my humble opinion, if he would have had any money to hire an attorney, he probably would have been acquitted.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
However, in my humble opinion, if he would have had any money to hire an attorney, he probably would have been acquitted.
Yup. And the DA knew that. Even with a public defender facing the DA in a jury trial, a conviction would have been a stretch under those circumstances.
When that Badgewell deal came up the first several times, I was about the only one on this board defending the DA. The DA shouldn't make decisions based on whether or not a family or a lynch mob likes it. And he didn't. The DA made the right decision in Badgewell, and I'm sure he'll make the right decision on this case too.
Lynch mob? Do not boggart that fatty, MC! By golly I wish there were a lynch mob that gave a crap, and I wish Shawn had gone in with a .357 instead of brass knuckles.
Harris made the immoral decision which placed more Tulsans at risk. Again, Badgewell was so mentally ill that he was in Parkside two weeks before Shawn's murder. He beat a helpless man in the head with a pipe after that man was on the ground.
Harris is more concerned with keeping the 'W' and 'L' columns in his favor than about pursuing justice. So if one is judging right and wrong about whether a conviction is likely he made the right decision. Either way Badgewell would have been found incompetent or in the right, but at least he would have been off the streets in the midst of his murderous psychosis.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
By the same token gun ownership is not a panacea. In fact, are not residents of households with gun owners 7x more likely to die by that gun than the gen pop? Gun owners, do your loved ones a favor and fire a warning shot.
Wish Shawn went in with a .357? What happened to gun ownership not being a panacea?
As I remember, Shawn and Josh were trying to "clear the area" for the Deadtown car show happening the next day an hour or so after the bar had closed for the night. They picked a two on one fight while in possession of an illegal weapon. Ostensibly, Badgewell found the piece of pipe after he was being attacked, IOW- he was unarmed when he was accosted.
They could have just gone back in the bar and locked up or gotten in a car and left. Instead, they chose to harass a mentally-ill homeless guy who likely wouldn't have even still been in the area the next day.
It's terrible what happened to Shawn, but he made a poor choice as do many people whose life is ended in a sudden and tragic manner.
Now does it bother me that a troubled person like Badgewell is walking free? Yes. But there are laws which give him that right. I can't say I agree with them, but they are what they are.
Yeah, your right. Shawn could have just walked out his door, shot Badgewell in the face just for fun, called it self defense, and who'd have known better? We are in Tulsa after all, and the only we people hate more than Mexicans are the homeless.
And maybe Badgewell, who was attacked by Shawn, should have taken care of the one survivor as well. Would have solved his problem.
quote:
Originally posted by DM
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
LOL, more like denial, I'd say. Throughout the entire history of mankind... even our hunter/gatherer days, its been a risky proposition to wander about unarmed.
Some may think we've evolved past that point, but I'm not seeing any evidence of that. Your personal safety and that of your family is ultimately your responsibility.
Some people consider this, while others prefer to behave like sheep in the pasture. Law enforcement, (our shepherd) with its communication and coordination abilities is the best its ever been in history, but that doesn't mean you are safe from any situation.
I do sincerely hope that you are able to live out your life as a sheep in a peaceful pasture, DM. As for me, I'll live in what you consider a state of fear, and what I call a state of awareness.
Well I think you are in denial about your fear. lol! We could go round and round about this issue. You may feel safer with a gun at your side. I don't. Never will. I know how to defend myself and those around me without a gun. If someone pulls a gun on me, what help will it have for me to have a gun? Well, I guess both of us dead is better right? My dad never carried a gun while I was growing up and guess what, we never found ourselves in a situation where we needed one. The fact is that you and I and many others will go on about our life and will most likely never end up in a situation where we will need a gun. How many murders are there in Tulsa for example? According to tulsapolice.org there was 56 murders in Tulsa last year. Population of Tulsa is approximately 393,907. Now, I am sure if we break those murders down some we will find that some were unfortunately kids and of course the useless gang killings. So I wonder what my chances of being murdered are since I do not hang around gangs and I am most certainly not a child that cannot defend myself. So as you see, I do not see that I should fear or deny myself that I NEED to carry a gun everywhere I go. It seems I more likely to get a car wreck and die then someone assault me. Maybe people should start putting cannons on their car to defend themselves.
Back to the issue. My whole point is that this guy is going to get off for killing someone in the name of self defense and yet Badgwell was prosecuted and ultimately pleaded no contest for doing the same thing. How is that fair justice? That is my issue with this. Again.
I think the other case cannot be compared to this one, it was an entirely different situation.
Once a fight starts, you are not supposed to hit someone after they've fallen to the ground. Is this what the homeless guy did to the bar owner?
I don't know the specifics, but if that is close to what happened, then it isn't self defense once you've won the fight if you continue to beat someone to death.
quote:
Originally posted by daddys little squirt
Guns have their place but if you think you're safer with cc in OK, well we all have our little fantasies. Statistics argue against that. If we're sheep, maybe you're a chicken hawk.
LOL, Perhaps I am!
I just don't want to be at a stranger's mercy. The recent case in Tennessee with the carjacked couple comes to mind. Its pretty gruesome, so I'll leave out the specifics.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Once a fight starts, you are not supposed to hit someone after they've fallen to the ground. Is this what the homeless guy did to the bar owner?
I don't know the specifics, but if that is close to what happened, then it isn't self defense once you've won the fight if you continue to beat someone to death.
Not supposed to, but adrenaline takes over. If you've ever been in a fist fight you know what I'm talking about.
He may have thought he was still subduing Shawn, but the description of the injuries would lead any reasonable person to realize they'd been successful in subduing their attacker.
Eh, Badgewell may have been crazy. But I'm sure Shawn and his buddy didn't take "crazy" into account when they started lurking around at night with their brass knuckles beating up on homeless people.
It's sad, but Scott and friend could have avoided it all together. Most reasonable would have, that's why this doesn't happen all the time.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Traffic causes conflict.
Guns resolve conflict?
UNEV (//%22http://www.commutercars.com/%22), a possible practical solution for traffic congestion? Any thoughts? I've seen more scooters and bikes on Tulsa's roadways now than I ever have.
From KOTV (//%22http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=129844%22)
quote:
If you ask him he knows exactly how long it's been. Nine days ago Kenneth Gumm shot and killed a man at the River Parks near 21st and Riverside in Tulsa. It's been called a case of road rage, but Gumm says that's only half right. The News On 6's Steve Berg spoke with Gumm who says there was no rage on his part. He reports Gumm says he was only defending himself from Dale Turney, but he says he still feels bad about what happened.
"I'm sorry for him and I'm sorry for his family, but I don't know what else I could have done," Kenneth Gumm said.
Kenneth Gumm says he's speaking out because he's concerned the public, and especially Dale Turney's family, has misconceptions about him and what happened that day in a River Parks parking lot. For one thing, he says he was turning into the parking lot to listen to a band playing at the River's Edge restaurant, not to initiate a confrontation with Turney. In fact, he says he wasn't aware Turney was mad at him until he was going into the lot, and he says Turney yelled at him and continued on down Riverside.
"Whatever I did, or he perceived that I did, to set him off I have no idea," Gumm said.
He says he got out of his car to head for the restaurant when Turney's car pulled in, blocking his. He says Turney got out and looked angry.
"And the first thing he said was 'You're history,' and I pulled my gun out and pointed it at him and I thought that would deescalate the situation, but it didn't. He just kept coming," said Gumm.
Gumm says Turney backed him around his car two or perhaps three times. He says Turney accused him of tailgating and said "You don't mess with me." He says Turney caught up to him and shoved him, and he says that's when he shot Turney in the chest.
"People have asked me was there anything else I could have done, I don't think there is," Gumm said. "My car was locked, he was right on me all the time, there's no way I could have gotten in my car. With my health issues, it was the best I could do just to keep away from him as long as I did."
Gumm hasn't changed his mind about carrying a gun, or what could have happened if he didn't have it.
"I think I could have been hurt very badly. He's 20 years younger than me, he was pretty big, I don't think he was especially tall, but he looked like he was pretty heavy, pretty stocky to me," said Gumm.
The District Attorney's office is still reviewing the case to see if any charges should be filed. Gumm says witnesses at the scene will back up his story.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Pretty hard to pass judgement without being an eyewitness and whether or not this Turney fellow showed a weapon while they were driving down Riverside or implied he had a weapon or said he was going to kill Gumm when he confronted him.
If Turney was amped up on something other than adrenaline and Gumm is not in great health, he may have felt his gun was the only way to defend himself. He parked and got hemmed in, he had no way to escape in his vehicle, he was the proverbial "sitting duck".
Everyone wants to say they would react a certain way but you will never know until you are actually in that situation. Adrenaline is a very, very powerful stimulant.
Hmmmm....
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Pretty hard to pass judgement without being an eyewitness and whether or not this Turney fellow showed a weapon while they were driving down Riverside or implied he had a weapon or said he was going to kill Gumm when he confronted him.
If Turney was amped up on something other than adrenaline and Gumm is not in great health, he may have felt his gun was the only way to defend himself. He parked and got hemmed in, he had no way to escape in his vehicle, he was the proverbial "sitting duck".
Everyone wants to say they would react a certain way but you will never know until you are actually in that situation. Adrenaline is a very, very powerful stimulant.
Hmmmm....
Well, lets hear from the witnesses. He paints a story that suits his defense. We have to take his word because no warning shots were fired and the man is dead. He says he pulled the gun to de-escalate but why have no witnesses come forward to defend him? He was able to walk around his truck "two or three times" but no witnesses came forward at the time to help him either. Perhaps they didn't think he was in too much danger? Or just chickens**t voyeurs. He perceived mortal danger from words and macho puffing not another gun or weapon. His perception caused the death of another human and is being sanctioned by law. All I can say is don't intimidate people smaller or older than you cause if they get scared, they can kill you if they choose.
I think an amendment should be added to the stand your ground law. The one who shoots a man point blank under such circumstances should have to clean up the blood, bone fragments, organs etc. that spill out onto the ground and dispose of them legally. Lets add some responsibility for his actions.
That's up to the DA to decide whether or not Gumm could have reasonably expected he was in mortal danger. Plenty of people have been beaten and kicked to death with nothing more than fists and feet used for weapons. Just because witnesses have not spoken to the media, doesn't mean the police haven't talked to them, nor the DA.
He may still be held accountable even if no charges are ever brought:
SFAIK, Turney's survivors can still file a wrongful death lawsuit, even if no criminal charges are filed. I'd be surprised if they aren't already talking to an attorney. Of course, if Mr. Gumm has no significant assets nor an income other than SSI, they are pretty much SOL even if they get a judgement.
We can 'monday morning quarterback' this to death (no pun intended) but none of us were in his shoes and felt the feelings and emotions he felt at this time..
Given what we know of this situation however..
I'd like to think I would have done the same thing this man did, except I'd not have used the gun as a means to deter my aggressor. I think that was a mistake. I'd think I'd have drawn and fired immediately. By drawing and not immediately firing he put himself and everyone else around in more danger. The alleged aggressor could have taken the gun and used it on him or a struggle for the gun could have began possibly resulting in accidental firing of the gun into the crowd, street, etc. Also, as far as I know "You're history" coming from someone who is obviously very angry and upset would generally classify as a thread on a life. When you die, you become history.
I'm glad my wife and I both have our CCLs and proper training so we can defend ourselves from a threat on our lives.
Shooter speaks to KOTV (//%22http://kotv.com/e-clips/?id=6812%22).
Gumm looks to be in pretty good shape for a 67 y/o. If I ran into him on the street I'd have guessed him no older than 55. At least I know what he looks like, I'll be sure not to back him into a corner. [;)]
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/imaogun600.jpg)
Shooter talks to FOX23 (//%22http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/default.aspx?videoId=20785%22)
Thanks for a mid-morning break to look at Chera Kimiko [:P]
I thought KOTV's story was better. Fox got scooped again.
You are a naughty NAUGHTAY boy 71!
Does it seem shooter's story shifts slightly between the two statments?
In one the 6 reporter says that shooter says he had no idea anything was up, on fox he says he saw the guy in his rear view mirror.
Niether story brings up brunoflip's discovery on oscn about his prev brushups with Johnny Law.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Does it seem shooter's story shifts slightly between the two statments?
In one the 6 reporter says that shooter says he had no idea anything was up, on fox he says he saw the guy in his rear view mirror.
I agree, I thought that was kinda odd too.
He is wearing the same clothes in both interviews, either his wardrobe is limited, or they likely shot both interviews the same day.
I agree it makes you wonder. I'm not making excuses, just various reasons his recollections are different in the two stories.
I could see where editing can make the story seem different, or nervousness from being on camera. Keep in mind, news stations often shoot 20 minutes of film and distill it into a 2 minute or less story.
I'm willing to bet the whole episode is a blur in his mind. I can think of high-adrenaline "fight-or-flight"-type moments in my past where I remember it slightly different from one time to another, and other times, the details seem real blurred.
Or he might be a rat and can't keep his story straight.
How long does a DA have to bring charges?