spacemanspiff
New member
When my life is threatened, I will draw. An idiot with diarhea of the mouth is simply not enough of a threat for me to jump to deadly force.
Tulsa Man Pleads Guilty - Concealed Carry - What's the point?
- Thread starter Jason 9
- Start date
Spiff ~
I suspect that if you were (for example) 67 years old, and your life had been threatened by a man 20 years younger than you who did not stop when you ran from him and who had caught up to you and begun the process of physically assaulting you, you might feel a bit differently about that.
pax
I suspect that if you were (for example) 67 years old, and your life had been threatened by a man 20 years younger than you who did not stop when you ran from him and who had caught up to you and begun the process of physically assaulting you, you might feel a bit differently about that.
pax
Wait until you are a 67 year old disabled man being assaulted by a 48 year old. Remember that self defense is judged according to the "reasonable man" standard. That means that you, as the shooter, are judged according to what any other reasonable person would do, given the same information.
So try to think as if you were a disabled elderly man, unable to escape because of your disability. A man who is 20 years younger than you chases you down. You produce a weapon, and he still keeps coming. Remember the 21 foot rule? How much damage do you think he could do to you?
spacemanspiff
New member
Thats all well and good for that particular situation, Pax. However there are some encouraging the use of deadly force as the first choice no matter what age or size disparity there may or may not be between the attacker and the intended victim.
Is that the image we want of gunowners to be put out to everyone else? Someone makes a verbal threat or says bad things about them, and immediately the guns are supposed to come out?
Yes, I know that it is illegal for someone to say 'I'm going to kill you!', and that is a matter for the police to deal with. However it is my contention that verbal assaults do not require a response of deadly force, Castle Doctrine or not.
Is that the image we want of gunowners to be put out to everyone else? Someone makes a verbal threat or says bad things about them, and immediately the guns are supposed to come out?
Yes, I know that it is illegal for someone to say 'I'm going to kill you!', and that is a matter for the police to deal with. However it is my contention that verbal assaults do not require a response of deadly force, Castle Doctrine or not.
spacemanspiff
New member
Divemedic, lets make sure we are on the same page here. Was the 67 yr old man in this situation disabled? No, he works as an armed security guard, or did anyways. He was CLEET trained.
This was NOT a feeble old man. It is someone who for all intents and purposes knew about the Force Continuum, but chose to ignore it and go straight to deadly force as a response.
This was NOT a feeble old man. It is someone who for all intents and purposes knew about the Force Continuum, but chose to ignore it and go straight to deadly force as a response.
Attachments
"I'm going to kill you!" uttered by someone who has just followed you and blocked your escape and is now shoving you, together with the ready ability to follow through on the statement seems like the sort of threat to my health I would take seriously.
I agree that according to the facts in the story, it was reasonable to shoot the aggressor. This indicates that the story may not be complete.
spacemanspiff
New member
Check out this thread:
http://www.okshooters.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30509&page=3
One of the previous links indicated that 'obscene gestures' were made. I believe Gumm made obscene gestures at Turney which escalates the situation. In any case, When Gumm pulled into the parking lot, he knew trouble was coming. He exited the vehicle with his gun in hand, according to this article: http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2007/Final/W_092807_A_3.pdf
If he knew trouble was coming his way, why didnt he stay in the vehicle?
http://www.okshooters.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30509&page=3
One of the previous links indicated that 'obscene gestures' were made. I believe Gumm made obscene gestures at Turney which escalates the situation. In any case, When Gumm pulled into the parking lot, he knew trouble was coming. He exited the vehicle with his gun in hand, according to this article: http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2007/Final/W_092807_A_3.pdf
If he knew trouble was coming his way, why didnt he stay in the vehicle?
Actually, I read that he retired due to health reasons. Supported by this:
or from this article:
and this
TexasSeaRay
New member
Spiff, I don't want to sound patronizing, but had you either been in combat or served as a law enforcement type, you'd know the answer to your own question.
I've been and done both. Being trapped in your car is generally the least of your wisest choices--even if that car is a radio car.
Remember: Hindsight is every bit as accurate as Monday-morning quarterbacking.
WE KNOW what supposedly happened, and WE HAVE the luxury of dissecting this situation fifteen different ways to Sunday. WE HAVE the comfort of sitting in front of our laptops and reading the opinions of others while forming our own.
Too bad Mr. Grumm didn't have all the time that you and I have to decide what he needed to do. Too bad Mr. Grumm didn't choose to get himself severely assaulted and beaten simply so you could feel good about him not shooting the POS who escalated the situation.
When your ass is on the line, you've been BLOCKED IN by the guy who's threatening you (per the witnesses), being trapped like a rat in your car--as any and every experienced law enforcement type knows--is not a comfortable feeling. If your assailant starts shooting, you're in REAL trouble because you have limited space to maneuver, hide and avoid.
If your assailant has a pipe or baseball bat and begins bashing windows, he definitely has the upper hand--remember, he's on his feet and mobile while you're stuck on your ass and have little choice where to go.
Bottom line is that Turney escalated the situation and created the atmosphere of fear and the belief that Gumm was going to be hurt at the least, severely or irreparably injured at the most.
Turney is the criminal here, and Gumm is the victim. Gumm retreats around his car not once, but twice, which apparently only served to embolden Turney.
What a standup guy Mr. Turney was--chasing an elderly man around his car and then shoving him to the ground, over a simple traffic incident in which neither driver nor their property was hurt. What a real he-man! What a role model! What a fantastic contributor to decent society!
No wonder the testicle-challenged DA (which in this case, truly stands for dumbass) prosecuted. Why, Tulsa lost one of its most outstanding, productive and respected citizens to a bloodthirsty trained expert killer who obviously baited him into an ambush and then feigned fear and disability until he could get a clear, cold-blooded bead on this pillar-of-society and watch him bleed to death, laughing with glee over every drop of purified, selfless blood spilled.
The fact that anyone can even have an ounce of sympathy for an oxygen thief like Turney who got exactly what he deserved is beyond me.
Jeff
The law sees otherwise. Deadly force is appropriate in cases where you are in fear for your life or in fear of sustaining serious bodily injury. Thats why if some guy come at you with a baseball bat and tells you "I'm not going to kill you but I'm going to thump on you for a while" you are still justified in shooting.
While I agree that descalating the situation would be the best outcome, its not a viable alternative. If the perp doesn't stop at the sight of your gun it means 1) he has mental issues 2) he's operating on some chemical substance or 3) he has something of his own which he believes will counter your pistol. Rational people don't charge folks that have drawn on them. That means if he still keeps coming, there is something very wrong and my life is in danger.
So many unanswered questions ... my main ones ... WHY did Gumm turn into a parking lot when he was being pursued by a road-rage nut? WHY did he allow himself to be blocked in? If I was the DA, I'd suggest that he was looking for trouble. I'm sure most of us have been involved in road rage situations; the last thing I'm going to do is pull over and give the nut a crack at me ... sure, he was legally entitled to be where he was, but what's to be gained making that point? Not sticking up for the late Mr. Turney, who I think got just what he deserved ... but discretion is the better part of valor, as they say ... I would have kept driving, a moving car is your best defence ... Also wondering if Gumm's crack legal defence team used the Castle Doctrine in his defence; seems open-and-shut if they had ... I'd be surprised if Gumm spends a day in jail after his sentencing, tho that's not the point ...
bikerbill wrote:
Alot of self defense classes teach that if you are being followed like that, to quickly continue to drive to the busiest, most well lit populated area, like a mall or something, in the hopes that large crowds of witnesses may in fact deter the idiot that is chasing you from continuing their course of action.
And how can you know that the guy is mentally unstable enough to block you in and jump out in broad daylight in front of witnesses like that? Looks to me like the scumbag saw a "defenseless old man" and was gonna give him what for. People like that like to choose the most defensless people as victims.
This scumbag chased him down, blocked him in, removing his ability to flee or escape the confrontation, then stalked the man as he backed away multiple times, all the while threatening to kill him, then finally catching the old man and physically assaulting him.
Now a guy goes through all this, the last part knowing I have a gun....we is clearly crazy, and clearly intent on harming me at ANY cost.
In such a case, luckily the old guy prevailed over such a dangerous out of control psychopath.
Alot of self defense classes teach that if you are being followed like that, to quickly continue to drive to the busiest, most well lit populated area, like a mall or something, in the hopes that large crowds of witnesses may in fact deter the idiot that is chasing you from continuing their course of action.
And how can you know that the guy is mentally unstable enough to block you in and jump out in broad daylight in front of witnesses like that? Looks to me like the scumbag saw a "defenseless old man" and was gonna give him what for. People like that like to choose the most defensless people as victims.
This scumbag chased him down, blocked him in, removing his ability to flee or escape the confrontation, then stalked the man as he backed away multiple times, all the while threatening to kill him, then finally catching the old man and physically assaulting him.
Now a guy goes through all this, the last part knowing I have a gun....we is clearly crazy, and clearly intent on harming me at ANY cost.
In such a case, luckily the old guy prevailed over such a dangerous out of control psychopath.
20/20 'hindsight' : Better to stay in the car and use the cell phone. If the alleged assailant tries breaking into the car...then the self-defense shooting is much cleaner.
Did the defendant have a cell phone? I think if he did, then at trial the question would come up : Why did you pull in the parking lot? Why did you get out of the car with your gun? Why didn't you just use your phone or stay in your car? I'm not saying it's fair, but on a witness stand it might be easy to make the defendant look like a gun nut looking for a fight who willingly chose to fight instead of call the police or get away...
Lesson Learned? Stay in the Car. Getting out of the car is dangerous - sorta like taking one's helmet off in a football game and then throwing punches...
Staying in the car is like keeping on one's helmet. Looks like the defendant was part of the Road Rage experience - not some completely innocent gentleman who just turned into a parking lot to get away. Could be wrong...but I bet he wishes he'd stayed cooler and stayed in the car...
If he was in fear of his life, he's still going to have to answer why he didn't stay in the car and why he pulled out a gun when the man threatening him was unarmed. Not saying it's fair...but sounds like a tough place to be in court. Hmmmmm...and what do you do for a living? 'Oh, I'm a prison guard.'
I don't think the jury would be so sympathetic to him. They would hold him to a higher standard of conduct regarding firearms and knowing when to call the police...
Did the defendant have a cell phone? I think if he did, then at trial the question would come up : Why did you pull in the parking lot? Why did you get out of the car with your gun? Why didn't you just use your phone or stay in your car? I'm not saying it's fair, but on a witness stand it might be easy to make the defendant look like a gun nut looking for a fight who willingly chose to fight instead of call the police or get away...
Lesson Learned? Stay in the Car. Getting out of the car is dangerous - sorta like taking one's helmet off in a football game and then throwing punches...
Staying in the car is like keeping on one's helmet. Looks like the defendant was part of the Road Rage experience - not some completely innocent gentleman who just turned into a parking lot to get away. Could be wrong...but I bet he wishes he'd stayed cooler and stayed in the car...
If he was in fear of his life, he's still going to have to answer why he didn't stay in the car and why he pulled out a gun when the man threatening him was unarmed. Not saying it's fair...but sounds like a tough place to be in court. Hmmmmm...and what do you do for a living? 'Oh, I'm a prison guard.'
I don't think the jury would be so sympathetic to him. They would hold him to a higher standard of conduct regarding firearms and knowing when to call the police...