Shootout detailed in $30 million lawsuit

Ogden defends police officers, urges judge to dismiss case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2008 3:56 p.m.

    If you haven't fired a gun in a stressful environment, you shouldn't give an opinion about how many rounds they fired. The army does say one shot, one kill. But even in the army, moving, scanning and shooting. Your going to miss your target. Try shooting when your stressed, you have tunnel vision. AT LEAST THE POLICE HIT THE TARGET 20 TIMES. NOT BADS SHOOTING, keep up the good work OPD.

  • Jose
    Nov. 12, 2008 12:37 a.m.

    it seems that officers try to get away with almost anything so they don't have to face an internal affairs board of review or a reprimand from the chief of police

  • John
    Nov. 9, 2008 11:41 p.m.

    Sounds like an ambulance chasing attorney, as stated what rights does the girlfriend have in suing the Ogden city police department????
    It was stated a few years back that 99% of attorneys give the other 1% a bad name

  • Matt
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:39 p.m.

    For everyone consumed with the officers ability to hit a target...You can take some of the best trained shooters and take them to a range and be amazed by their target hitting abilities. Add someone shooting at you, the thoughts of not seeing your family again, the worry of hitting an innocent bystander and a whole lot of adrenaline. What do you think is going to happen. If you think you can do better, then sign up for the job.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 9, 2008 5:56 p.m.

    How do they come up with 30 million, was this guy going to make that much and support a girlfriend.

  • Sorry, but
    Nov. 9, 2008 5:05 p.m.

    I'm very sorry for the loss of life, but if you have a gun and try to use it against the police, all bets are off. I support the police 100%.

  • truth for all
    Nov. 9, 2008 4:20 p.m.

    A true sawed-off shotgun would require a Federal permit and is not allowed by a concealed carry permit alone.
    If someone shoots at the cops, and they shoot back, they're completely within their rights.
    Utah needs a new law that makes it impossible to sue anyone in a civil court if no criminal charges are held to be applicable. It's not right to send officers out to do their jobs, protect us, then get sued personally in a civil action after they have been proven NOT to have committed a crime.
    Petition your lawmaker TODAY for such a law!

  • Sawed Off
    Nov. 9, 2008 3:13 p.m.

    Did the victim have a UT concealed weapons/carry permit for that weapon? With something of that magnitude, DOUBT IT! I agree that it was suicide by cop. Must have been some big "row" between the two "lovers" for the man to go bullistic and shoot at cops.

  • re: RE Robin
    Nov. 9, 2008 3:05 p.m.

    Red state, blue state, this has nothing to do with party affiliation. This is not a proper forum to disparage the views of another individual commenting about this tragedy by calling into disrepute political leanings which don't match your own. This has to do with persons using a tragedy to obtain compensation where none is deserved. When police officers place their lives on the line for us, to help keep our homes save, we should thank them, plain and simple. Any court that doesn't through this case out, based on the facts which have been released publicly, needs to have their motivation called into question. A gunman not obeying lawful police orders has written his own fate.

    Robin may have a misguided view, but the other attributes suggested by the other commentator appear unwarranted and groundless.

  • RBC
    Nov. 9, 2008 3:04 p.m.

    Why would anyone want to be a police officer. You'd frequently have to deal with the scum of society, get yelled at, spit on, sworn at, flipped off, kicked in the groin, shot at, and sometimes even killed. And at the end of the day you get sued for 30 million as thanks for protecting the city and it's people. And you do all this for what, maybe 40,000 a year???? Perhaps our cops really do need to be tested for mental problems, as a sane person would never submit themselves to this kind of abuse. The persons who ought to be sued are the idiot attorneys who bring these cases to trial. And the idiot judges who allow them to.

  • Jason
    Nov. 9, 2008 2:28 p.m.

    Gold digger!

  • Dear "RE:Robin"
    Nov. 9, 2008 2:04 p.m.

    What makes you believe that Obama voters are anti-law enforcement and anti-gun?

    The NRA and the gun dealers have the biggest advertising campaign of all time going on now, which is resulting in the tinfoil hat crowd spending millions of dollars every day on MORE guns.

    Like bin Laden laughing at old ladies having to take their shoes off at airports, the gun dealers and NRA are laughing at the success of their scare-tactics campaign.

    THIS Obama-voting household owns and uses guns, and supports law enforcement in this case.

  • This wouldn't be an issue...
    Nov. 9, 2008 1:26 p.m.

    if the police were better shots. Like they teach in the Army, "One Shot. One Kill!". That's all they needed and this wouldn't be news.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 9, 2008 1:14 p.m.

    lame...dude and sharpshooters...lol...

  • Love those lawyers
    Nov. 9, 2008 1:04 p.m.

    There are always plenty of no morals lawyers to go around when any money grubbing pieces of trash come knocking for "the damages" that happened to them. But can't the lawyers police themselves just a little and have consequences for the parasites in their ranks?

  • Put Me on the Jury
    Nov. 9, 2008 12:36 p.m.

    Verdict for the Defendands $30 Million. Thanks to the officers for their work.

  • RE: Robin
    Nov. 9, 2008 11:48 a.m.

    Just wait until some lunatic comes knocking at your Obama-stickered door in the middle of the night demanding money for drugs. I can only guess that you will just roll over and give it to him with an invitation to join you for some chanting and yoga in the hopes he will reform. Calling the police would seem to be such a contradiction to your cute little liberal utopia where we should all just get along.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 9, 2008 11:33 a.m.

    facts of the case: Someone called 911 because of a dangerous person. That person had a gun. That person fired the gun at the police. The police shot back and ended the threat.
    Give the police a much needed vacation for saving the lives of everyone in the area (and sue the plaintiff's lawyer for the money to pay for it)
    F*R*I*V*O*L*O*U*S

  • Law Student
    Nov. 9, 2008 11:19 a.m.

    I am currently a law student. Lawyers are necessary. I will be a prosecution attorney when I finish my training. The reason that lawyers are necessary in our country is so that both sides of the story can be presented before a verdict is given. If lawyers were not present a lot of wrongdoers would get away with crimes through a better knowledge of the law than those who they harmed.
    This case is not in court yet. It is at the preliminary stages of a trial which is where motions can be filed. The police have filed for summary judgment. This means that if the court finds that there is no evidence that the police officers acted wrongfully the case will be dismissed. If the police officers felt that the man was a threat, and he continued to use his gun as the depositions explain, then the case will be thrown out. If the court feels that there is evidence that could go either way, then the trial will go on so that a jury can decide.
    It would appear that summary judgment in behalf of the police officers will be granted, but I don't have all the evidence.

  • Brian
    Nov. 9, 2008 10:50 a.m.

    We need more medical schools and fewer law schools. An excess of doctors and a shortage of lawyers would be a delightful change for our society!

  • Richard
    Nov. 9, 2008 10:26 a.m.

    I am glad the criminal is dead. One less criminal to reak havoc on society. He got what he deserved and I am glad he is dead! My sympathy goes to the officers and the suffering they are having. They need to sue the family for putting the officers in that situation, like maybe, $1,000,000.00.
    It is obvious to the most casual observer that when you are out of ammo or low, you immediately reload. That is COMMON SENSE training given to all law enforcement. The lawyer and family are mad because another TERRORIST was removed from the terrorist picture the defense attorneys support. Ogden City and Weber county have some of the finest officers in the United States. Their professional in doing their jobs. The criminal wasn't worth the bullets fired at him. While the officers need to shoot more accurately to save the city money on bullets, I feel much safer knowing these and other officers are protecting us. I hope this law suit is thrown out and the family is force to pay the officers for their time and suffering.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 9, 2008 10:22 a.m.

    um, they were shooting at someone behind a tree...of course they had to shoot so many times. How good are you at shooting something behind a tree?

  • Jason
    Nov. 9, 2008 10:19 a.m.

    I think anyone who reads this article should have the right to sue Jacinda for wasting all of our time.

  • Robin
    Nov. 9, 2008 10:14 a.m.

    It follows that a Red State would employ Police State mentality. Utah has abdicated its safety to the robocops without regard to civil rights-and to do as we are ordained to do.

  • Give her $30......
    Nov. 9, 2008 10:10 a.m.

    ....dollars. HOW is her human stain boyfriend worth more than that, let alone $30 million?

    What kind of relationship did this attorney have with Turnbow or Scruggs before this incident?

  • Cops did right thing
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:56 a.m.

    After this guy fired at the police, so long as his gun was within reach, the police, and the public were at risk.

    It doesn't matter if he was reaching for his gun or not, it takes only a fraction of a second, if it is within reach to pick it up and pull the trigger.

    So long as he refused the order by police to set the gun aside and get down, he continued to be a risk to the police as well as the public.

  • consequence
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:54 a.m.

    Actually if someone merely points a gun at a police officer, they have sealed their fate. Officers are not paid to look down the barrel of a gun and gamble with their lives as to whether or not the person will fire. Also, when an officer pulls out his weapon, it is with the intent to fire.

  • Train Your Police Better
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:47 a.m.

    How about the Ogden police dept stop with the quota on traffic tickets, and instead get their officers to the range a little more often?, while these guys are heros, their shooting leaves something to be desired.

    While the city of Ogden it at it, they may want to invest in laser pointers for their guns.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:40 a.m.

    For me the cops have done their duty...end of story.

    It's their job and life on the line here, we should be grateful their doing their job and sacrificing their own.

  • cops put selves at great risk
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:40 a.m.

    There is no way a trial ought to be help with public money. If the girl friend and her experts are so certain they have right on their side, let them put up a bond, to be forfeited in the event they lose.

    This guy was obviously a threat. He was reaching for his shotgun, and even if he wasn't it was still within reach and still very much a threat to the officers and the neighborhood.

    This guy put a whole neighborhood at risk, not only with his own shooting, but he forced to cops shoot, and several of those round hit homes in the area.

    This cops should recieve a metal for puting this guy down at great risk to themselves. No doubt they love life and have loved ones they care about and need to take care of.

    This guy was wrong and had no right to do what he did, society is very ungrateful if it puts these cops through a trial.

  • Paul
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:39 a.m.

    I think $30 million sounds about right. I hope Ogden is able to collect that much from the estate and the girlfriend.

  • please transfer
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:33 a.m.

    I would love to have these police officers in my neighborhood.
    Stopping a man shooting at them with a shot gun.

    /Talk about your guarding angels.

  • This was suicide by Cop
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:25 a.m.

    If its true that this guy shot at cops first, or even aimed his gun at them, then this was obviously suicide by cop.

    I understand the girl friend is distraught,but she shouldn't be allowed to clog up the courts with frivolous lawsuits with impunity.

    If she looses, and it appears she will, she should be held accountable and made to pay for this frivolous lawsuit.

  • Rose Holladay - Lehi
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:22 a.m.

    Lawsuits like this make lawyers look like snakes.

  • Johnny
    Nov. 9, 2008 9:15 a.m.

    Lame, lame, lame.

    I agree, the case should never have even gotten to court.

    Shoot at police, keep shooting at police, get shot 20 times, and die. Then a girlfriend(??) would like to collect $30 million! Wouldn't it be great if life were so easy, and the world always revolved around us!

    The fact he was shot 20 times really says something. Maybe they should do like China and make his girlfriend pay ($1 million?) for every bullet the police had to waste on him...

  • Mary
    Nov. 9, 2008 8:56 a.m.

    My question: why does the girlfriend even have standing to sue? She is not his widow, the mother of his children, etc. She is just a gilfriend. Can all of his former girlfriends, his neighbors, his mailman, his teachers, his garbage collector, etc all sue as well? She has no standing and is just proving what everyone seems to already know. She is money hungry and she doesn't care about him, as this trial will prove that he was the instigator and only got what he repeatedly asked for. I pray that the officers and their families eventually find the peace that they deserve. Thank you officers for doing your job to protect my and my family's lives.

  • Dr. Booty
    Nov. 9, 2008 8:43 a.m.

    Hopefully the defendant's in this case, OPD will
    win this case by a dismissal. The question I have is this: "Since the plaintiff did not prevail, how much money will they be charged to pay the officers attorneys fees, along with court costs?"

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 9, 2008 8:40 a.m.

    50-90 shots? Let's get those cops on the shooting range a little more often. I wouldn't want 50-90 bullets flying around my neighborhood, even if they were from officers' guns.

  • Jacinda
    Nov. 9, 2008 8:37 a.m.

    Go get a job..Your not getting $30,000,000..not only did the officers have every right to defend themselves..Your not even related to the guy. As for your attroney he/she should be held in contempt for even incouraging you to file this joke of a legal action.

  • It's About Time
    Nov. 9, 2008 8:27 a.m.

    I'm thrilled Ogden is fighting this lawsuit. It has made me so angry in the past when agencies settle just to get the thing done. Frivilous lawsuits are getting out of hand. Mr. Turnbow had the gun, Mr. Turnbow shot at police. Mr. Turnbow continued firing at police and ignoring police commands. What more does any reasonable person expect from law enforcement than that they returned fire?

    I am not surprised that others have conflicting stories. It may be because they experienced a traumatic event and your memory goes haywire. It may be that perspectives are all different. It may be that they know the family of the victim. It may be that they have issues with police. It may be that the conflict is between them. Who knows.

    If the attorney has proof of excessive force, let him lay it out on the table instead of hinting around. It wouldn't be the first time a lawyer has bluffed.

    Get rid of the law suit and send these vultures home. Give the police officers a medal and a pay raise. We're done.

  • Reload
    Nov. 9, 2008 8:20 a.m.

    If the suspect is reloading his weapon after taking shots at officers, he's not using the weapon as a show of force. He's using it to injure, kill, or maim those around him in the situation. Hence Mr. Turnbow made himself a threat, and officers are entitled to use 'deadly force' to take him down. The injuries described in the story are in line with someone hiding behind a tree, or other obstruction. The question is how many bullets did he take before dying? If he took 10-15 minor wounds (bullet grazes skin on arm, side, leg, etc.) and the final five shots are what killed him, then the force is justified. The story is incomplete, it would be nice to hear the true story.

  • Dismissal
    Nov. 9, 2008 8:19 a.m.

    Any time someone decides to shoot at an officer, the officer has the right to defend himself. Officers cannot be expected to withold fire if someone fires at them. It is up to their discretion at that point. Their life is on the line at that point.

    When an officer directs a person to get on to the ground, to drop the gun, to not move--this is not the time to try to argue a point. Better to obey, let all the guns be removed and tensions drop before trying to argue.

    Shooting the police car was a fatal mistake.

  • Huh?
    Nov. 9, 2008 7:57 a.m.

    How can a case like this even get to the court stage?

    Unless there is something missing in the picture (that we can't see), why is taxpayers' money being used for this courtroom drama?

    People need to stop suing others just for the sake of it. Money will not make things any better.

  • California Reader
    Nov. 9, 2008 7:50 a.m.

    This is a ridiculous lawsuit! It reminds me of the Bank of America shootout in North Hollywood, CA about 11 or 12 years ago. The thugs shot hundreds if not thousands of rounds, injured police officers, kept people hostage at the bank, and then when thug was shot and eventually died in the street, the mother sued the city of Los Angeles! Thank goodness she did not win. I hope this lawsuit gets thrown out.

  • John
    Nov. 9, 2008 7:48 a.m.

    How much is the lawyer expecting to get if he wins? 45%?

  • The story they missed
    Nov. 9, 2008 7:45 a.m.

    Winslow is a good writer, but he missed a huge part of the story. Jacinda Scruggs wants money after Turnbow stuck a shotgun in Scrugg's father's gut and threatened him. Filial affection?

    What about the suffering of these officers and their families? No cop ever wants to shoot another person. Ever. No cop wants to kill. But every good cop recognizes this: "sometimes good people have to kill bad people so that the public can live in peace and safety." The trauma suffered by these officers and their families is being exacerbated by this groundless and cruel lawsuit. Jacinda Scruggs wants money. Michael Studebaker wants money, press coverage, and more clients. At what price to society?

    Jesse Turnbow didn't need to die, but he chose to die. Jesse Turnbow chose to fire wantonly into a neighborhood. Jesse Turnbow chose to try to kill a police officer called to duty. Jesse Turnbow dictated the time and manner of his death. The officer were accountable to a thorough review. Now let Jesse Turnbow be accountable to his Maker. And leave Michael Studebaker to the back pages of the phone book where he belongs.

  • Surprised?
    Nov. 9, 2008 7:29 a.m.

    The police union is already all over this one. Great solidarity comrads!

  • Laura
    Nov. 9, 2008 6:29 a.m.

    This makes me so mad. In cases like this, once the officer is cleared, the opposing lawyer and Turnbow's girlfriend should be sued for wasting our tax money. Better yet, they out to have to pay what they are asking.

    I'm not saying all officers make correct choices, but in this case........I hope a judge throws the case out!

  • kid
    Nov. 9, 2008 1:55 a.m.

    Give me a break, 30 million isn't going to bring her boyfriend back, he shouldn't of had the gun in the first place, officers should be thanked for getting another crazy man off the streets.

  • So let me get this straight
    Nov. 9, 2008 12:40 a.m.

    Guy shoots at cops. Cops return fire and neutralize threat.

    So... Cops should pay guy's girlfriend $30 million?

    Good luck getting a jury to side with you, lady.