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

J

Jason 9

Inactive
I reside in the great state of Oklahoma and feel privileged to have the right to possess and carry firearms. However, after reading this I'm seriously questioning whether anyone in their right mind would take the risk of going to jail for something that I thought was a God given right such as defending myself.

Would any of you have acted any differently? In my case, I don't think that I would have and that's the reason that I purposely keep my guns in a locked case when in transit to and from the gun range now. This trial really made me question whether I want to face that option. It almost makes me feel like I'd sooner get shot, hopefully not fatally, than kill someone and risk going to jail.

Could I kill someone? I don't know. But in the confines of this forum I can state that I wouldn't have any reservations about taking someone's life who threatens mine or my family's. However, that statement is academic and who knows what I would really do.

The concealed carry law was a great step forward for citizens wanting to defend themselves and feel safe. It was not a response to a lack of police protection, in my opinion. Law enforcement officers in Oklahoma do a wonderful job of keeping the streets safe and do so while remaining cool under pressure. A lot of police in Oklahoma, like in other states, are ex-military and so have actually fired a weapon in a charged highly-excited state-of-mind and realize the significance of pulling the trigger. While I advocate the right of the average citizen to protect themselves, I'm not advocating that citizens replace or fill the role of trained law enforcement officers. But, in those crucial minutes or seconds prior to police involvement there must be an option.

Only Kenneth Gumm knows what really happened, because unlike in "CSI TV fantasy land", dead men don't speak. The consensus around here is that he was justified.

What do you think?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080530_14_A1_hTheRi146269

The link is for the article. If there is anything offensive on the newspaper's site, then apologies in advance.
 
Last edited:
Wow.

Unless the facts are substantially different than related in the news article, he should not have pled guilty.

Just wow.

(Hmmm. And this is why I'm all for the new Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network. If they can help prevent apparent travesties like this, more power to them!)

pax
 
Makes you wonder if there is some more to this story.... Oklahoma has the "Stand Your Ground" law, so I suspect there is more here than is reported.
 
It looks like a good shoot, from what I have read.

"People have asked me was there anything else I could have done. I don't think there is. My car was locked. He was right on me all the time. There's no way I could have gotten in my car," said Kenneth Gumm.

Witnesses say Turney shoved Gumm and threatened to kill him. Gumm last year told The News On 6 that he had no other choice. Turney's family doesn't buy it.

"He could have used a cell phone. He could have stayed in the car. He could have yelled for help," said Sharon Macintosh, Dale Turney's sister.

"Mr. Gumm had the authority. He had the gun, and Dale was unarmed," added James Macintosh, Turney's brother-in-law.
Click to expand...

Disparity of force. A 48 year old man attacks a 67 year old disabled man.
 
I agree that he should not have plead guilty. And I fail to see how people can be so blind to the fact that a human being does not need to be armed in any way to cause you serious harm or kill you. There is a real danger there when you are being assualted, and you should not have to assume that a person will stop beating you before causing you serious injury or death.
 
Should not have pleaded guilty, does not appear to have had top legal advice.
The person who was shot no doubt bought most of it upon himself, despite being the great person his family describes him as being.
 
Sounds like he's going to get a deferred judgement, which means he won't have a conviction on his record provided he doesnt violate the terms of his supervision.

I suspect he pled to avoid the "what if" factor of going to trial.
 
The more I think about this the more it disturbs me. The state passes a law and then the local DA goes after the people who exercise their rights under that LAW.

Are we suppose to call 911 and ask for permission before defending ourselves?

What if the man didn't fire in self-defense and was disarmed? Then what?

Frustrating.
 
Taking a guaranteed deferred and ultimately having no record might not be a bad idea.

Spare me the righteous indignation, being "right" doesn't mean anything, "winning" does...
 
True, but this doesn't seem like a win to me. It seems like a limited loss. He lost, but the side who beat him didn't get to run up the score in order to beat the spread.
 
If I was chosen to sit on this jury he would have been found not guilty.

I sure would not have taken a beat down by some 47 year old hot head. The DA is just trying to make himself look good...I wonder what he would have done if someone came at him with the intention of doing bodily harm, the hot head had blocked the guy in and had already pushed him, would he have turned the other cheek so it could be pounded on? I doubt it. These people need to consider what they would have done if they found themselves in a similar situation.
 
WOW is all I can come up with!:eek:
I don't care if the attacker is my age or even twice my age, I would have to meet force with force. Just what force is determined at a very distinct moment in time. Now that I do not have both upper limbs at the ready to fist fight or grapple my opponent I have limited options available. I think that Gumm gave the guy more than enough time to back off.
Brent
 
One feels privileged if one went to Riverdale or Collegiate or Horace Mann or some other awesome private school. One feels privileged (and honored) if the most beautiful, charismatic, faithful, and financially responsible girl in the world accepts one's marriage proposal, and the billionaire father-in-law agrees to finance the lavish wedding.

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

Not so related, but very important. Your right to keep and bear arms *is not* a privilege. Maybe you just chose the wrong words; to consider any of our rights as a "privilege" is extremely bad.

On topic: we obviously don't have all the facts, but from what I can pull out of the article, BAD LEGAL ADVICE.

"I thought my life was going to end, so I pulled the trigger to stop him, not kill him," according to Gumm's written version of events.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the correct training?
 
Doesn't matter what canned response one uses, when you point a firearm at somebody and pull the trigger, it's ALWAYS your intention to kill that person, unless you make some OBVIOUS attempt at wounding, such as kneecapping, shooting a foot, etc., etc.
 
1. Having lived in OKC and seen the news regarding several self-defense shootings where the outcome was "no charges filed", I think the castle doctrine and stand your ground law are both highly respected in OK, at least in OKC and there would have been plenty of case histories for an adequate defense.

2. I think the undoing of this man's case was this statement:
"I thought my life was going to end, so I pulled the trigger to stop him, not kill him," according to Gumm's written version of events. If I was the prosecution, I would have snatched that up and come back with, "So, you want us to believe that you honestly thought your life was in danger and yet your intended actions were to use less than deadly force?"

In the military I am trained that, when using a gun, there is no other intent other than to shoot to kill someone. There are no warning shots, there are no wounding shots, there are only shots fired to kill.

I think my response would have been, "I felt my life was in danger and I had no other choice but to respond with deadly force." But the best advice is still probably to never, ever make a statement to the police or to the public regarding self defense until the advise of a good lawyer with self defense case backgroung is obtained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top