Ca Lawyer Shooting: And Nobody Had a Gun

Sierra Times ^ | 3 November 2003 | Carl F. Worden

[robertpaulsen]

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

Or if everyone what privately stapped. Either way.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

[Deguello]

Have you read and understood the relationship between the shooter and the Lawyer?

[Poohbah]

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.

[MJemison]

He made a good impression of a hunted squirrel. They always dodge behind a tree.

[Deguello]

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.

[MEGoody]

"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.)

[AngryJawa]

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?

[gatex]

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

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

[hopespringseternal]

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

English as a second language?

[MEGoody]

"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.

[Poohbah]

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.

[Deguello]

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.

[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? Is there an FR post with the true story?

[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?

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.

[spunkets]

Thanks, I appreciate that.

[robertpaulsen]

"How much trouble would he be in?"

For coming to the aid of a lawyer? Plenty.

[Oztrich Boy]

and nobody else had a gun to stop the attack.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

They could have, but not wanted to.

[45Auto]

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.

[Liberty Ship]

For years I've been sitting here in Georgia hearing about those tree-hugging Californians. It was interesting to finally see one, at least.