Riverside Shooting

[Conan71]

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.[]

[MichaelC]

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.

[Conan71]

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.

[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?

[MH2010]

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.  

[South_Tulsan]

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.

[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.

[DM]

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.

[NellieBly]

Interesting story out of South Carolina.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/13/85825/1468

[tim huntzinger]

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.

[Conan71]

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.

[Conan71]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

--






--

[daddys little squirt]

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.

[NellieBly]

I thought he was released and is living with family members in Oklmulgee or Muskogee.