Riverside Shooting

[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.

[grahambino]

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.

[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.

[Hometown]

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.

[MichaelC]

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.

[MH2010]

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.

[rbryant]

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.

[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?

[sauerkraut]

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.[!]

[MichaelC]

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.

[DM]

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!

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by DM

Exactly. Its call equal justice. lol!

[]

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.

[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.

[tim huntzinger]

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.

[MichaelC]

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.