The main point to emphasize here is the OP had opportunity to retreat, but rather 1) followed the other party to his destination, and 2) engaged said other party in a verbal agrument that escalated into a confrontation. In other words, he instigated the conflict in the first place.
It the OP shot and killed the person who opened his car door, he very well would be held civilly liable if not also criminally liable, despite the OK Stand Your Ground laws. The OP handled this situation very foolishly.
Perhaps we should review the story of this driver, who was actually followed into a parking lot by angry driver but was tried and pled guilty for shooting the other driver. The subtle difference was that the deceased did not try to enter Mr Gumm's vehicle, but he was charged on the basis that he had the opportunity to flee and elected not to, which is the common denominator in both scenarios.
Again, while it may be within the OP's right to draw (although that is debatable as he began the verbal altercation), he would almost certainly lose a civil trial as there was nothing to be gained by his confrontation other than to incite an arguement.
In point of fact, the OP (yours truly) was not involved in the incident; rather it was a C&P from a Kansas CCW forum. I agree that following the bad driver home was not the wisest course of action; in fact, it was a downright dumb thing to do, but I am not the one that did it.
Just wanted to clarify.
Re: Mr. Gumm
I though the whole point of "stand your ground" was that we had no duty to retreat, rather we're given legal permission to defend ourselves as necessary?
...after a little searching...
Seems like Tim Harris pushed things through, partly by pressuring an investigating detective to sign a second affidavit that reduced the number of pertinent facts from 13 to 6. That by itself pretty much wrecked Gumm's 'stand your ground' defense. That poor guy defended himself from a dangerous, drunk tweaker and the system rewarded him with a criminal record and revocation of his CCL.
I have to look into this a little more, but right now it looks like Tulsa's DA lost my vote.
-----
Among the google's other results, this lovely little gem popped up:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf
It asserts, among other things, that gun manufacturers lobbied our concealed carry laws into place to provide marketing opportunities for subcompact pistols. Yikes.
I though the whole point of "stand your ground" was that we had no duty to retreat, rather we're given legal permission to defend ourselves as necessary?
...after a little searching...
Seems like Tim Harris pushed things through, partly by pressuring an investigating detective to sign a second affidavit that reduced the number of pertinent facts from 13 to 6. That by itself pretty much wrecked Gumm's 'stand your ground' defense. That poor guy defended himself from a dangerous, drunk tweaker and the system rewarded him with a criminal record and revocation of his CCL.
I have to look into this a little more, but right now it looks like Tulsa's DA lost my vote.
-----
Among the google's other results, this lovely little gem popped up:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf
It asserts, among other things, that gun manufacturers lobbied our concealed carry laws into place to provide marketing opportunities for subcompact pistols. Yikes.
Tulsa's DA got a vote of "no confidence" from the entire FOP. He never should have been re-elected in the first place. But then again, the Tulsa citizenry have a record of not supporting effective crime prevention measures or supporting our LEO's, so they got what they deserve with Harris IMO.
gerhard1 said:
Since 1987, last amended 2006:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=69782
Problem with Mr. Gumm is he was not in a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. In order to use deadly force outside of a dwelling, residence, or occupised vehicle, one must "meet force with force" and have a reasonable belief that severe bodily harm or death exists, which is difficult to substantiate with a (presumably) unarmed assailant. Despite the threats, no tangible disparity of force exists; meaning Mr. Turney did not have a weapon and reportedly made no mention of having a weapon he would use to dispatch Mr. Gumm. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his actions, but this is my understanding as to where the cause of action against Mr. Gumm existed.
The problem with the KS poster as he was the instigator, and it is diffuclt to prove one is "standing his or ground" when he or she sought out the other party involved to instigate a conflict. The totality of facts and circumstance must be considered, not simply a right to draw or shoot exists because someone illegaly entered an occupied vehicle.
Re: Kansas Happening
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not found the part (attributed by you to me) that I highlighted anywhere in this thread. Could you please be kind enough to tell me where it came from?
ETA This is addressed to Cards81fan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not found the part (attributed by you to me) that I highlighted anywhere in this thread. Could you please be kind enough to tell me where it came from?
ETA This is addressed to Cards81fan
