Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ca Lawyer Shooting: And Nobody Had a Gun
Sierra Times ^ | 3 November 2003 | Carl F. Worden

Posted on 11/05/2003 9:52:26 AM PST by 45Auto

Nobody had a gun. This non-descript, middle-aged man confronted his attorney outside a California courthouse, pulled a gun and started shooting at him while the attorney bobbed & weaved behind a tree, and nobody else had a gun to stop the attack. It was a miracle the attorney survived with just face and shoulder wounds.

The whole thing was caught on camera and shown on national television from beginning to end, culminating with the tackle-arrest of the gunman by police officers, who finally made it to the scene long after the shooter ran out of ammunition and had walked away unscathed.

Most viewers were mesmerized by the attack itself, and stayed locked onto it. When I viewed the film, my attention went to the bystanders, who mostly held their hands to their faces, screaming in terror. Not one of them tried to stop the attack, and why none of them had a gun.

I left California with extreme prejudice 13 years ago, and relocated to Oregon. I saw all the signs of a state heading nowhere but left and liberal, where nobody is ever issued a concealed weapon permit unless they marry the county sheriff's daughter or have celebrity status. It is ironic that actor Robert Blake was in that same courthouse that day, charged with the murder of his wife. Robert Blake is one of the infinitesimal few California citizens who was granted a concealed gun permit only because of his celebrity status.

Here in Oregon, as in 31+ other states, we have 'Shall Issue' laws which require the county sheriff to issue a permit to carry a concealed gun to anyone who takes a required class, providing they are not convicted felons, convicted for misdemeanors involving domestic violence, or certified nuts qualifying for a straight jacket.

I carry a concealed handgun on my person everywhere I go here in Oregon, be it winter or summer, in town or in the boonies, in the grocery store, when I order a sandwich from Subway, and even when I have to stroll by the local courthouse. It is as familiar to me as my wallet, and had I witnessed a non-descript, middle aged man pull a gun and attempt to kill a totally unarmed man bobbing & weaving for his life behind a courthouse tree, I'd have stopped the attack immediately with one bullet to the assailant's ahead.

Notice on the film how the assailant doesn't even look around while he's shooting at his attorney? That's because he's just about certain nobody on the street has the ability or even the gumption to try to stop him. Why? He's just about certain nobody else but him has a gun, and he was right.

When states like California pass ridiculous, restrictive gun laws, they only disarm the law-abiding citizens. The criminal element, or those choosing to become part of the criminal element on a particular day, just pack a loaded gun and start shooting their attorney, or their choice du jour, with the certain confidence that nobody in the immediate vicinity will try to stop them. What's the chance a plain-clothed cop will be there' Not likely.

A violent criminal/drug addict can walk into a gas station and rob it at 2:00 AM, shoot the attendant, merely show the weapon, and watch the bystanders and witnesses all run for cover like cockroaches when the lights turn on. It's a criminal's dream, and most criminals think stringent gun laws are just about the nicest thing any state legislature can do for them. Those laws take almost all the risk of getting shot in return right out of the equation.

Career criminals regard arrest and prison time as just a part of the cost of doing business. It's a welcome bonus when they know restrictive gun laws also make it a relatively safe enterprise. Isn't that nice'

California sucks, and I'm glad I got out when I did.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; ccw; rkba; unarmed; victim
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 11/05/2003 9:52:26 AM PST by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: 45Auto
I carry a concealed handgun on my person everywhere I go

Me, too. And, YES. I am safer.

3 posted on 11/05/2003 9:58:52 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
That's a really crappy way to make a 2nd A point, and not something that helps the cause.
4 posted on 11/05/2003 10:00:13 AM PST by dirtboy (Now in theaters - Howard Dean as Buzz Lightweight - taking the Dems to Oblivion and Beyond in 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Has anyone asked the lawyer (who was shot) how he now feels about concealed carry?

I would love to hear his response.

5 posted on 11/05/2003 10:01:15 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
California sucks, and I'm glad I got out when I did.

To mr Worden's choice of CA, you can add IL, RI, NY, MA, CT, DE, NJ, DC, and MD.

6 posted on 11/05/2003 10:01:51 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
"...I'd have stopped the attack immediately with one bullet to the assailant's ahead. " which is much more effective than a shot to his behind. :)
7 posted on 11/05/2003 10:02:41 AM PST by NonValueAdded ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." GWB 9/20/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
No one came to the aid of the lawyer being shot at because the people witnessing the shooting knew the man be shot at was a LAWYER.

If all were known, there were probably some who left the scene of the shooting to go for more ammunition so the shooter could finish the job on the LAWYER instead of just getting started on his (the shooter's) good intentions.

8 posted on 11/05/2003 10:03:49 AM PST by harpu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
BTTT
9 posted on 11/05/2003 10:06:00 AM PST by Cagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list; 45Auto
Concealed Carry Bump!

This article makes a great point about what happens in so-called "gun free zones," which are an armed criminal's dream. Lliberals never get the point, which is that criminals LOVE GUN CONTROL LAWS!

But in Cali it goes even further. None of those sheeple bystanders was willing to tackle that shooter from behind, just smash him into that tree and break his arm in the process! Why? One of the cameramen could have smashed his head in with a camera, instead of filming it!

Bunch of cowards.


10 posted on 11/05/2003 10:07:58 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
No one came to the aid of the lawyer being shot at because the people witnessing the shooting knew the man be shot at was a LAWYER.

Sure, blame the lawyers. But it's not lawyers so much as judges who allow lawyers to get away with messing up our legal system, and not judges so much as the politicians who appoint the judges, and not politicians so much as the clueless voters who gave Clinton a 75% approval rating at the peak of Perjurygate, and gave Gore and Nader a majority of votes in 2000, and WANT THEIR MOOD-ALTERING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS RIGHT NOW DAMMIT!!!!

11 posted on 11/05/2003 10:15:00 AM PST by JoeSchem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: harpu
The lawyer was never in any danger because the shooter wasn't using silver bullets.
12 posted on 11/05/2003 10:16:05 AM PST by Tailback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
You want to know what is even more nuts? When I lived in CA, my boyfriend didn't have a conceal-carry license to carry a gun, but he had a license. He also carried mace. He got that mace from the police in Washington state. I got one, too. The police were giving away little tubes of mace from a booth at a fair; I think it was in Tacoma. Anyhow, we moved to CA in the 80's. One time, my husband was traveling to some training (he was in the Navy, a Chief) on his motorcycle, and he had gotten stopped for speeding by the police on I-5 and was searched. The police discovered the gun and the mace, and promptly hauled him off to jail. Guess what? He was charged with a misdemeanor for the concealed gun, and a FELONY for the mace! For mace! Having that little tube of mace was as criminal as someone who's committed a murder! a Can you believe that? He spent a week in jail. I asked a bunch of police and even some lawyers why, and all they could tell me was that it was the law. Unreal! California! I now live in Colorado!
13 posted on 11/05/2003 10:18:58 AM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
No one came to the aid of the lawyer being shot at because the people witnessing the shooting knew the man be shot at was a LAWYER.

If all were known, there were probably some who left the scene of the shooting to go for more ammunition so the shooter could finish the job on the LAWYER instead of just getting started on his (the shooter's) good intentions.


Perhaps you are trying to be cute, or maybe you have "issues" with certain professionals, but your comment is despicable, and makes me sick. Your blind hatred ignores that for every lawyer on the wrong side of an issue, there is one on the right side of the issue. You might think it nice when your political adversaries are summarily murdered (fan of Pol Pot and Stalin?) but you have no idea how many lawyers hold conservative, Constitutional views, and devote and donate their time to preserving our liberties. They spent years and lots of money developing their experience, and you want to seem them murdered in the streets.

Shame on you.

I hope some day you find your liberties infringed, and no lawyer willing to help you. Or perhaps a loved one of yours could take up the profession, then you can think about them being murdered on a sidewalk while doing their job to support their family.
14 posted on 11/05/2003 10:22:53 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Can I rephrase the question asked above?

What states prohibit the public carry of arms (handguns or long guns)?

The nation would be much safer if everyone what publicly stapped. Wouldn't you think?

15 posted on 11/05/2003 10:41:04 AM PST by joebellis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Remember, if you come to the defense of another, it has to be a reasonable belief you are saving a life.

Here, a lawyer, a non life form, was being hurried on to where he will reside in the afterlife, the lowest level of hell.

Coming to the aid of him may not be a reasonable act and you would do well to not intervene, as did the onlookers you decry.
16 posted on 11/05/2003 10:41:32 AM PST by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
I have heard, contrary to popular tv opinion, that most average citizens only average about 8% accuracy.
17 posted on 11/05/2003 10:42:12 AM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
When I viewed the film, my attention went to the bystanders, who mostly held their hands to their faces, screaming in terror.

Except for the gal in the red shorts gabbing on the pay phone on the sidewalk, I don't think she even noticed.

18 posted on 11/05/2003 10:44:06 AM PST by 1Old Pro (ESPN now has 4 little wimpy sissies left. I'm switching back to FOX.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
Each situation does, indeed, require a measured and rational response. In California, however, the commie-bastards in the state legislature have made CERTAIN that you won't have any option but to pray, run, hide, shudder, and/or cower in horror. I would like to be able to legally carry if I think it may be necessary. The good citizens should not be summarily denied their right to self protection, especially by a bunch of elitest clowns who have tax-sponsered armed guards 24/7.
19 posted on 11/05/2003 10:51:33 AM PST by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
The TV cameraman seen pointing at the shooter as he was strolling away from the attack said on Fox News that he was, in fact, carrying at the time.
20 posted on 11/05/2003 10:51:45 AM PST by Grim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joebellis
"The nation would be much safer if everyone what publicly stapped. Wouldn't you think?"

Or if everyone what privately stapped. Either way.

21 posted on 11/05/2003 10:56:10 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
When I viewed the film, my attention went to the bystanders, who mostly held their hands to their faces, screaming in terror. Not one of them tried to stop the attack, and why none of them had a gun.

I didn't see anyone screaming in terror. I saw people standing by doing nothing. Especially repugnant were the cameramen who kept on filming when they could have jumped the guy. Disgusting.

22 posted on 11/05/2003 10:58:43 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Have you read and understood the relationship between the shooter and the Lawyer?
23 posted on 11/05/2003 11:11:50 AM PST by Deguello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Deguello; Beelzebubba
Have you read and understood the relationship between the shooter and the Lawyer?

Yeah. The shooter lost in court, and was PO'd.

The adversarial nature of our legal system make it inevitable that 50% of the parties to civil litigation will be unhappy with the outcome.

24 posted on 11/05/2003 11:14:40 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: harpu
He made a good impression of a hunted squirrel. They always dodge behind a tree.
25 posted on 11/05/2003 11:19:35 AM PST by MJemison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Odd...Published and visual media have stated that the shooter was awarded a civil settlement for an injury. The Court turned the funds into a trust that was controlled by the lawyer in question. The lawyer would not pay any of his medical bills.
26 posted on 11/05/2003 11:24:19 AM PST by Deguello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
"nobody else had a gun to stop the attack."

I thought I had heard there were some cops there at the courthouse, and I'm sure they would have had guns. It also amazes me that, with the guy intent on shooting the attorney, someone didn't just sneak up on him from behind and tackle him. (Just like what eventually happened, although a heck of a lot sooner.)

27 posted on 11/05/2003 11:28:28 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Here's a question:

Let's say someone with a legal CCW (not likely in CA, but let's pretend) ran 50 yards to the aid of that lawyer and then put the attacker down. How much trouble would he be in?

28 posted on 11/05/2003 11:30:09 AM PST by AngryJawa ("The bang is great, but the shockwave is where itís at.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"Yeah. The shooter lost in court, and was PO'd. "

I had not heard this --- what are the details ?

29 posted on 11/05/2003 11:32:40 AM PST by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
I have heard, contrary to popular tv opinion, that most average citizens only average about 8% accuracy.

English as a second language?

30 posted on 11/05/2003 11:32:44 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Deguello
"The lawyer would not pay any of his medical bills."

Reporting him to the bar asso. would have been more effective in achieving the shooter's aims.

31 posted on 11/05/2003 11:33:09 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Deguello
Odd...Published and visual media have stated that the shooter was awarded a civil settlement for an injury.

True.

The Court turned the funds into a trust that was controlled by the lawyer in question.

Not true. the trustee was someone else. The attorney was representing the actual trustee. This person had requested to be removed from the trust (due, in part, to Strier threatening her).

The lawyer would not pay any of his medical bills.

Not true; the attorney didn't control the money.

32 posted on 11/05/2003 11:39:57 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Possibly he was hoping for a quicker change in trust administrators?

I have noted that lawyers tend to take in money, not pay it out.

33 posted on 11/05/2003 11:40:26 AM PST by Deguello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Is there any truth to what I was told => That the trustee would not release the money for this guy to have back surgery, but was sucking it up in the form of fees? Is there an FR post with the true story?
34 posted on 11/05/2003 11:43:26 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Is there any truth to what I was told => That the trustee would not release the money for this guy to have back surgery, but was sucking it up in the form of fees?

Nope. The attorney wasn't the trustee; the attorney's CLIENT was, and there was a dispute about the nature of the expenditures Strier wanted to make. Strier eventually threatened the trustee, and she petitioned to be removed from the trustee position.

Is there an FR post with the true story?

Here's the KTLA story that discusses the dispute.

35 posted on 11/05/2003 11:48:19 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Thanks, I appreciate that.
36 posted on 11/05/2003 11:49:54 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
"How much trouble would he be in?"

For coming to the aid of a lawyer? Plenty.

37 posted on 11/05/2003 12:00:00 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
and nobody else had a gun to stop the attack.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

They could have, but not wanted to.

38 posted on 11/05/2003 12:45:11 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (You realize, of course, this means war?" B Bunny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
Let's say someone with a legal CCW (not likely in CA, but let's pretend) ran 50 yards to the aid of that lawyer and then put the attacker down. How much trouble would he be in?

That is a good question. California law allows a third party to use deadly force to intervene in such a case as this; if the good Samaritan fired only once to stop the attacker, he would probably not be charged. If he hit the aattacker with more than one bullet, then he could be charged, but maybe not. That's why I like the .45 Auto; one round at close range in the right place will usually suffice.

39 posted on 11/05/2003 1:35:21 PM PST by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
For years I've been sitting here in Georgia hearing about those tree-hugging Californians. It was interesting to finally see one, at least.
40 posted on 11/05/2003 1:40:29 PM PST by Liberty Ship ("Lord, make me fast and accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
After seeing the video of this nutjob, I'm really considering an upgrade from 9mm.
41 posted on 11/05/2003 1:47:46 PM PST by AngryJawa ("The bang is great, but the shockwave is where itís at.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: joebellis
I'm for "shall issue" CCW, certainly. But it will be a cold day in hell before it passes in Cali.
42 posted on 11/05/2003 1:52:00 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
After seeing the video of this nutjob, I'm really considering an upgrade from 9mm.

Do. 9mm is nothing but .45 ACP set on "stun". ;-)

43 posted on 11/05/2003 1:52:01 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
Let's say someone with a legal CCW (not likely in CA, but let's pretend) ran 50 yards to the aid of that lawyer and then put the attacker down. How much trouble would he be in?


If you see someone gunning down a cowering person, there is no doubt that the gunner is the wrongdoer. (Contrast the case where a man holds another man at gunpoint, and could be an undercover cop making an arrest.)

If there is no moral doubt that you are witnessing an attempt at murder, then you have every right to use deadly force to stop the attack. And that means firing as many bullets as needed until the attacker lacks the capacity to continue his murderous attack.

But there is something to be said (by many self defense instructors) that if the victim isn't an innocent known to you, take cover, call 911, and be a good witness. Your instinct and conscience will probably take over at the time anyway.
44 posted on 11/05/2003 4:29:33 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
"Perhaps you are trying to be cute, or maybe you have "issues" with certain professionals, but your comment is despicable, and makes me sick.

Duhhh...if you don't realize that there are too many lawyers in the world, most if not all out to beat the system, or redefine the letter of the laws with their wisdom, then you're the sick one.

Lawyers today, in general, are a bunch of worthless assholes, period, end of statement.

45 posted on 11/05/2003 7:46:25 PM PST by harpu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: harpu
You seem not to know any honest hard working lawyers.

There are many.

Too bad for you.
46 posted on 11/05/2003 8:00:28 PM PST by moodyskeptic (weekend warrior in the culture war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: moodyskeptic
You seem not to know any honest hard working lawyers.

There are many.

Too bad for you.

Why should we have even the slightest pity or compassion for the shot-up shyster when the state government in which he was an officer of the court felt he was either so untrustworthy or inept as to not be trusted with such a basic civic responsibility as participating in his own personal defence and that of his fellow citizens.

In addition to the other evils that will befall you as a condition of being disarmed, it will cause you to be despised.

--Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

47 posted on 11/05/2003 9:20:36 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: harpu
Lawyers today, in general, are a bunch of worthless assholes, period, end of statement.

My daughter and son-in-law are lawyers, graduates of the U. Texas Law School. Would you like to rephrase, or would you like to talk to my daughter? I'd rephrase if I were you, she can get nasty, in two languages in fact.

48 posted on 11/05/2003 9:21:57 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
I hope some day you find your liberties infringed, and no lawyer willing to help you. Or perhaps a loved one of yours could take up the profession, then you can think about them being murdered on a sidewalk while doing their job to support their family.

And that is precisely why lawyers, and the venue in which they decide how much *equal justice under the law* citizens can purchase through their exclusive monopolies, are despised and there are those who would not only enjoy seeing those practicioners of law hanhing from utility poles, but will assist those doing so should that event come to pass in their locales.

-archy-/-

49 posted on 11/05/2003 9:25:22 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
My daughter and son-in-law are lawyers, graduates of the U. Texas Law School. Would you like to rephrase, or would you like to talk to my daughter?

I would far prefer to have a Texas lawyer, male or female, assist me in a defence, legal or personal, far mo so than a pathetic sheep creature who hides behind a tree while a dissatisfied customer shoots holes in him.

baaaaaa! Noooooo! please don't kill me, I'll be a good sheep! Baaaaaaaaa!

-archy-/-

50 posted on 11/05/2003 9:28:24 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson