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.
Or if everyone what privately stapped. Either way.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
I had not heard this --- what are the details ?
English as a second language?
Reporting him to the bar asso. would have been more effective in achieving the shooter's aims.
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.
I have noted that lawyers tend to take in money, not pay it out.
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?
For coming to the aid of a lawyer? Plenty.
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.
They could have, but not wanted to.
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.
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.