Ca Lawyer Shooting: And Nobody Had a Gun

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

[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.

[Puppage]

I carry a concealed handgun on my person everywhere I go

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

[dirtboy]

That's a really crappy way to make a 2nd A point, and not something that helps the cause.

[robertpaulsen]

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

I would love to hear his response.

[from occupied ga]

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.

[NonValueAdded]

"...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. :)

[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.

[Cagey]

BTTT

[Travis McGee]

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.

[JoeSchem]

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!!!!

[Tailback]

The lawyer was never in any danger because the shooter wasn't using silver bullets.

[jackibutterfly]

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!

[Atlas Sneezed]

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.

[joebellis]

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?

[RicocheT]

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.

[freekitty]

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

[1Old Pro]

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.

[45Auto]

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.

[Grim]

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.