Man Shot Outside L.A. Court Hearing in Blake Case

Washington Post ^ | 31 Oct 2003 | AP - Wash Post

[July 4th]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A man was shot on Friday outside a Los Angeles courthouse where a hearing was being held in the murder trial of actor Robert Blake, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Police Department said.

[ArneFufkin]

She was dialing 4-1-1 to get the number for 9-1-1.

[Scenic Sounds]

[Devil_Anse]

SHRIEK!!!!

[goldilucky]

Well I call it entrapment. What a person should do if they are concerned about being lured into a trap like that is to ask the person posing as a prostitute if they are a cop. By law they must reveal this or else they can be sued for fraud, deceit, entrapment, and misrepresentation. The LAPD can also be joined in this suit for allowing such customs and practices to go unchecked!

Now if you really want to get into discussion about "legal prostitution" you can start with the women marrying men for money. I have heard in cases where some women will marry a widow with money and children, and when the widow dies, she screws the children out of their lawful inheritance. That, to me, is what I call legal prostitution, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. Men do this too. The way I see it, if you have lots of money and are marrying a barricuda, get a pre-nup agreement, or you are screwed just like your children.

[1L]

According to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor case law does not supercede the law itself.

Dude, you don't seem to understand what case law is: in many instances, it IS the law. Most tort law is the result of case law, not statutes. There are also common law crimes that are enforced independent of state penal codes.

There lies the issue of Stare Decisis that has a sounder meaning of what the real law was intended to be.

What in the hell are you talking about? What is the "real law?"

Boilerplate case law has proven to be inconsistent to what the previous established statutory law was intended to be.

First of all, what is boilerplate case law? Second of all, how do you propose we interpret statutes when the statutory meaning is vague?

O’Connor wrote...

Has aboslutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. What the opinion said was following one line of previous cases was better than following another line of more recent cases. She was arguing for going back to established precedent that was apparantly displaced more recently to the decision in question. But in either case, she was using CASE LAW (whether recent or not) for authority. This isn't an example of what you are talking about.

Consumer Products Safety...

...says what every lawyer who's ever researched a statute already knows. What's your point? All statutory based authority results from the statute itself and then cases interpreting the statute. The statute is never ignored; it is the basis for the cases that interpret it.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. If you do, you aren't communicating it very well, as you points here make little sense.

[Walkingfeather]

Yeah the shooter had another loaded gun in his pocket and his hands were in his pockets....

[1L]

"Case" law is based on false impressions that judges and other intergovernmental agencies use rather than applying the statutory law that does apply.

This ignores common law independent of statutes, and also isn't the least bit true.

Case law, with the exception of Federal District Court cases, is written by appellate judges who have a dispute in front of them. The dispute could be over a statute, common law rule, etc. All the case law does is interpret that statute or common law rule around the specific facts of the present dispute. For example, classic negligence law has 4 elements: duty, breach of that duty, causation, and harm (or damages). Some state common law (like Texas) have merged the last two elements. But in order for there to be relief in a lawsuit alleging negligence, these elements must be met. There's nothing statutory about the elements, though there are often statutes that add additional law to the common law. For example, there are both common law and statutory duties that relate to whether the allegations meet the first element of negligence. The common law duties don't supercede the statutory duties; they work in harmony.

if the DOJ believes that filing a tax return is "mandatory" why don't they cite the statute section that says directly so? What has been happening is that the DOJ uses U.S. v Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, thus falsely forcing individuals to file returns under duress who do not meet the "requisite statutory definition" to file in the first place.

This has nothing to do with what you are speaking of. This, however, presents an issue for congress to remedy. The Supreme Court can only rule based on the written (and interpretations of) the statute in question. But it is up to Congress to remedy that interpretation through other statutory language that makes the ruling moot.

Your point here has nothing to do with lawyers using case law over statutory law. There is nothing magical about statutes; they only go as far as interpreted. I think if you went and set in on a law school class you would understand why you aren't making much sense. If your complaint is about judicial review, well, sorry, but you're 200 years too late.

[Catspaw]

Yeah the shooter had another loaded gun in his pocket and his hands were in his pockets....

His work wasn't done. The person he had actually threatened to kill--the trustee--wasn't dead yet. He had also indicated to one of the cameramen that the shooter was going in a different direction, back towards his victim. And we don't know what he'd do if, rather than being tackled, he was confronted by law enforcement with drawn weapons.

[ArneFufkin]

Legalize prostitution already. Why pay cops to act like whores.

I would have no objection if brothels were zoned into Industrial segments of the city. Keep it private, safe, disease free and regulated. S&M bondage rooms are ok ... as long as there is NO SMOKING.

Street walking and the cruising hepcats are a menace to neighborhoods and quality of life for local residents. Serial killers and murdered street walkers seem to share a troubling link. The element that includes these beautiful people on their Mystery Date may not have the community best interest in mind. Teenagers get propositioned, condoms litter sidewalks, cars get jacked and johns and hos holding out on Pimp Daddy get bitch slapped. 1979 Pontiac Catalinas circling the block give the neighborhood crack dealers a creepy feeling.

The people in the link above should not be allowed to have sex. Ever. Not even with Cher. Anywhere on the internet. Maybe LewRockwell.com.

[goldilucky]

The problem with case law is that every judge has been applying their own "intrepretation" of what they "think" the original statute language was meant to be. Judges are supposed to be observing and enforcing exisiting statutory laws, not dictating them from the bench.

If the judge "feels" the statute is "vague" then, it appears the judge is not abiding in spirit of the originally established law but instead is practicing a form of judicial activism by changing the originally established law and setting case law as "precedent" over existing law. Once this pattern of establishing "precedent" over existing law takes place, you no longer have a court system that enforces laws but instead believes that what comes out of their mouths is the law. And that's nuts!!!!! That's called a dictatorship. That has never been the function of any judge.

For example: look at our immigration laws. Why aren't the existing immigration laws being enforced in our courts? I'll tell you exactly why. It is because the judges and other inter-governmental agencies (INS, FBI) choose to ignore existing laws and/or replace them with new laws to suit their own political agendas. That is the problem. We are becoming a nation under anarchy.

And then look at how the Ninth Circus intreprets the Second Amendment and the Pledge of Allegiance under God. Absolutely nuts!!

[goldilucky]

Just because somebody has a law degree and carries a BAR membership card doesn't mean that they are competent as attorneys. No offense here but it has been said that 90% of judges and lawyers are incompetent in this Country.

As for me sitting in a law class, I've sat in many of them. However, I will not do business with any BAR Association because it is in conflict with the common man.

Finally, from experience, I know all about incompetent attorneys working from the state to federal level. They can't get their arguments straight, use defective process to spike cases, and tamper with witnesses.

You don't need to tell me about much about law, dude. I'm not trying to be arrogant or cocky I've already figured it out seven years ago in addressing tax laws to suing government employees in their personal capacities. And so far, I'm doing a pretty good job. BTW, I'm a dudette.

[ArneFufkin]

I figured that out seven years ago in addressing tax laws to suing government employees in their personal capacities

I remember that from "Animal Court". Judge Wopner heard your litigation right after he decided the "Case of the Puppy Stained Carpet."

[wheelgunguru]

An old preacher was dying. He sent a message for his banker and his lawyer, both church members, to come to his home. When they arrived, they were ushered up to his bedroom. As they entered the room, the preacher held out his hands and motioned for them to sit on each side of the bed. The preacher grasped their hands, sighed contentedly, smiled, and stared at the ceiling. For a time, no one said anything. Both the banker and lawyer were touched and flattered that the preacher would ask them to be with him during his final moments. They were also puzzled; the preacher had never given them any indication that he particularly liked either of them. They both remembered his many long, uncomfortable sermons about greed, covetousness, and avaricious behaviour that made them squirm in their seats. Finally, the banker said, "Preacher, why did you ask us to come?" The old preacher mustered up his strength and then said weakly, "Jesus died between two thieves, and that's how I want to go."

[wheelgunguru]

Sometimes the bullet doesn't penetrate the skull.

I remember reading a gun article about the ineffectiveness of a 25 caliber pistol. The author was quoting a news article about some guy who got shot point blank, in the head, with a 25. The bullet never penetrated the skull. It just zipped around the scalp.

(Ouch!)

[goldilucky]

That's amusing! Unbelievable of the kinds of cases that get on television. It's like watching smackin wax bubblegum court. I prefer to watch Columbo, Matlock, and Perry Mason. Great detective series and logical trial procedures.

[RipSawyer]

"Must've been a .22 revolver, which is not something one would use to kill someone"

There are a lot of corpses in graveyards who would be surprised to learn that a .22 revolver is not something one would use to kill someone.

[Mr. Mojo]

Did I say a .22 couldn't kill someone? No, I didn't. And thanks, but I'm quite aware of the large number of people who've met their end at the end of its barrel. I said (in effect) that it is not a caliber someone would use if one desired to kill someone. Iow, there are far more effective calibers available for that purpose, and many of them just as cheap and available (like a .38 Spl. snub, for instance).

[archy]

No one knows if she is a hooker untill she shows up on Greta's show being interviewed.

Her attire reminded me of what a hooker might wear to attrack clients.

Pretty close. She's a former employee of a Hooters Restaurant, who was wearing her old outfit for Halloween.

What I found funny about her taste in attire is that she looks so outdated like from the 70's right down to the leg warmers. She appeared to be young but from a different time in style.

Not leg warmers, hightop sneakers. See pic following text.

Who knows what she does as a living or does not do. Be interesting to see her interviewed out of curiousity from what all have been wondering around this thread.

Does anyone have pics to post of her?

*5-minute video*here*. She shoes up about 3 minutes into the clip.

-archy-/-

[oceanperch]

You are wonderful to take the time and get the facts.
An oringinal Freeper.
Thanks for the pics.

Now all the speculation on her story can end. :)

[ibbryn]

Okay, okay.

I commented before the full video was released, but after I, and other posters, had seen the truncated video where it appears the woman, who was dressed like a hooker, appeared to be ignoring or unaware of the shooting, just like the briefcase lawyer and two cops in the background appeared to be.

I'm shutting my piehole now.