Shooting outside of Robert Blake case.. (merged thread)

jimpeel

October 31, 2003, 06:13 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101855,00.html

Video available at webpage above.

Attorney Gunned Down Outside Calif. Courthouse

Friday, October 31, 2003

An attorney was gunned down Friday on a public walkway outside a courthouse in the Los Angeles suburb of Van Nuys as television crews gathered to cover a hearing for Robert Blake.

The victim has been identified as 53-year-old Jerry Curry. He was shot multiple times in the upper torso, but was conscious as paramedics transported him to a hospital. He remains in stable condition. Police said his injuries were not life-threatening.

Los Angeles Police spokesman James Chong says the shooter was a client of the victim.

Television footage of the shooting showed the attorney trying to duck shots from behind a tree as the shooter, an older man with graying hair and glasses, pointed a revolver at him and fired multiple times.

The attorney took a few steps after being shot then collapsed as the suspect walked calmly from the scene. Police said the shooter was tackled by an off-duty sheriff reserve officer and restrained by several officers and at least one cameraman.

Police said the suspect, identified as William Striler, was found to have two revolvers on him when he was taken into custody. He has been charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Inside the courthouse, a hearing was under way in the murder case against actor Robert Blake. The shooting incident apparently was unrelated. Upon getting word of the shooting, officials promptly locked down the courthouse.

The Associated Press and Fox News' Darragh Worland contributed to this report.Note the guy had two -- count 'em -- two revolvers. This story will die out tomorrow but if the guy had used a semi it would play for a week.

Ewok

October 31, 2003, 06:23 PM

Police said his injuries were not life-threatening.Of course, you gotta use silver bullets for lawyers. ;)

Standing Wolf

October 31, 2003, 06:27 PM

It's at least a gross misdemeanor to shoot lawyers out of season, if not a felony.

Hkmp5sd

October 31, 2003, 06:28 PM

Guy shouldn't have used one of those short barreled Saturday Night Specials. Everyone knows you can't hit a target at 2 feet with one. He should sue the gun manufacturer for providing him with a faulty gun.

greyhound

October 31, 2003, 06:30 PM

This story will die out tomorrow but if the guy had used a semi it would play for a week.

I dunno, revolvers are still an evil "handgun", so I think they still get the hysterical response from the leftists.

Now, on the other hand, if it were a hunting rifle....:rolleyes:

son of a gun

October 31, 2003, 06:42 PM

I can't believe the lawyer could walk away after being shot, adrenaline I guess.

50 Freak

October 31, 2003, 06:47 PM

Dude, shouldn't have used a silver bullets for that gun, or jeez at least a stake through the heart.

Sportcat

October 31, 2003, 06:52 PM

Why the lawyer bashing? If we didn't know this guys occupation, I've got a feeling there would be a lot more sympathy and compassion for this person.

We don't know the details, but it looks like an innocent person was attacked.

Keith

October 31, 2003, 06:58 PM

We don't know the details, but it looks like an innocent person was attacked.

No, he was definitely a lawyer...

Keith

Nightfall

October 31, 2003, 07:11 PM

Saw the footage on Fox... the thing that enrages me is all the people freaking standing around watching this guy get shot!! I believe I've heard the argument before that people don't need CCWs because others will see and come to their aid.

HA! :cuss:

TheeBadOne

October 31, 2003, 07:30 PM

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47590

TallPine

October 31, 2003, 07:39 PM

Los Angeles Police spokesman James Chong says the shooter was a client of the victim.
With emphasis on the word "was" ...

He have a little difficulty finding representation on this case.

spacemanspiff

October 31, 2003, 07:40 PM

Why the lawyer bashing? If we didn't know this guys occupation, I've got a feeling there would be a lot more sympathy and compassion for this person.
alright, i'll give the lawyer that much. but can we bash the "journalists'" who did nothing to apprehend the gunman, or who couldnt be bothered with attending to the lawyers injuries because they wanted to get some good camera shots?

"journalists" arent that much higher up the ladder over lawyers, least in my book.

Sportcat

October 31, 2003, 07:48 PM

Thanks Spaceman,

I got my M.A. in Journalism, but it sickens me how "journalists" scream that they may stay out of the story, but can't even assist an innocent person being shot, or tend to his wounds. That's why I decided not to go further into the field.

Those camera guys should be ashamed of themselves. I wonder how they would have reacted if it was a family member, or a hot babe being attacked?

Sounds like the lawyer is going to pull through - thankfully.

WonderNine

October 31, 2003, 08:01 PM

No, he was definitely a lawyer...

ROFL!

I wonder how they would have reacted if it was a family member, or a hot babe being attacked?

Well that would be different! :D

Sportcat

October 31, 2003, 08:03 PM

And these are the members of "the high road." :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Keith

October 31, 2003, 08:14 PM

Hey, it's perfectly consistent with the "high road" to be indifferent to the suffering of pedophiles, rapists, attorneys and other assorted thugs.

Keith

Kaylee

October 31, 2003, 08:23 PM

*ahem*

No, it's not compatible with The High Road.

Perhaps we've become so used to seeing fake shootings on TV that many of us aren't realizing that A MAN WAS ATTACKED WITH DEADLY FORCE HERE!!! You know, that event so many of us have trained to defend themselves against.

Lawyer jokes are okay, in their place. Making light of the fact THAT A MAN COULD HAVE DIED TODAY IS NOT!

Remember, we have attorneys as members.
Also, remember that some of said members have offered their services pro bono to Oleg when VPC ripped off his images for an anti-gun production. And we return that kindness by implying they all DESERVE to be shot at???

Really, I'm dissappointed here. Lighthearted jabbing is cool, in its place. Lord knows I've made enough smart aleck comments both at my profession and at others, including lawyers.

But CHEERING A CRIMINAL IN THE PROCESS OF COMMITTING ATTEMPTED MURDER is most certainly NOT The High Road. I would have hoped that was self evident.

really.

Kaylee

October 31, 2003, 08:25 PM

now, taking off the moderator hat for a moment, I'll just echo what Sportcat said.. the behavior of the bystanders was shameful, especially the camermen that just shadowed this guy. Seems to me the appropriate response in a CIVILIZED society would have been for one of the journalists to have brained the perp with their camera. They were certainly close enough. :(

-K

XLMiguel

October 31, 2003, 08:40 PM

We all make fun of lawyers until we need one. . . . .

But no one deserves to be treated like that (tho hard to say without knowing the details of the beef . . .)especially considering the guy's lack of follow thru . . .I see a 'non compos mentis' coming on). Still -

Another staggering case of he efficacy of 'gun control' laws.
:barf: :barf: :barf:

El Tejon

October 31, 2003, 09:04 PM

It was a probate case, not divorce?

Well, my Wills & Estates professor did call his class "Death and Greed.":D

jimpeel

October 31, 2003, 09:05 PM

You can download the video to your computer from the video link at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101855,00.html . The file is about 3.4 Megs.

Hardtarget

October 31, 2003, 09:50 PM

...on the street in front of multiple witnesses...and TV cameras! I didn't see this in another thread. I was amazed the lawyer not only survived, but he was only "grazed" one of six(? not sure of # of shots) from only FOUR feet!
Lawyer used a tree and he and shooter "danced" around...back and forth, untill the attacker ran out of ammo. The attacker just walked off...like it was nothing until a TV cameraman did a nice high tackle to bring him down as several joined to hold him down for police. GREAT video, from two angles. I thought it was a real eye-opener! How could ANY shooter miss from four feet!? I hope you get to see it! Note..tree was only 18 to 22 inches diameter...not much to hide behind while being shot at from ONLY FOUR FEET !
Mark.

P.S. That four feet thing really freaked me...did you notice? :D :what:

El Tejon

October 31, 2003, 10:01 PM

Hard, if you have ever taken a class with Jim "The Great" Cirillo then you know the story about the NYPD copper who blocked a BG from shooting him from even closer. He had no tree, only his hand!:eek:

Others have used parking meters, light poles, ticket books. Best to avoid but use cover if in a fight. As wise man in Tejas say, for incoming fire, the tree is NEVER big enough.

The FOUR FEET thing is freaking you out because you probably do not read many police reports. A LOT of bad shooting going on out there.

Remember, it's only a pistol. Not a death ray as the gun rags or Errornet would have one believe. Lots of people survive pistol shots. I have represented many persons with multiple pistol bullets still lodged in them.

I don't remember his name (Tony Eto???) but there was alleged Chicago mafia type that took 5 rounds to da haid from muzzle contact. Walked out of his shoppe and called the ambulance.

Bob F.

October 31, 2003, 10:05 PM

I have an advantage posting a little later, after having seen more news: to wit (as the lawyers say): we're talking a few seconds in Calif. most of those people probably had no clue!! Calif's been burning several days; woman said on the news "we grabbed a few pictures and got out!" Like the fire snuck up on them? They didn't know there was a fire? Had no idea THEIR house could burn? In fairness to the left coast, I gotta say most people here would probably stop and stare, at least a few seconds (before they drew and fired!).

The camera man said he was afraid the shooter might have another gun or reload and start shoot ing randomly, he wanted to stay close in case he needed to jump in, which he did as soon as the deputy jumped in. The camera man can also be seen pointing to the shooter for LE. He did in fact jump in and try to keep the shooter from getting his hand in his pocket while the deputy had a head lock. The cameraman went back to the victim and asked if he was OK before he started shooting more video. More LE was on the scene and rendering aid.

The reserve deputy was at least once reported to also be a lawyer. The victim was reportedly representing the shooter's sister in an estate case.

Hell, who really knows--it's just news!! I wana know caliber and what ammo??? .38 LRN's? .22solids? Heard a story (J. Cooper I think) J'brg, S. Africa, 9MM solids-ER full of victims awaiting their turn- antibiotic and bandaids mostly for through-&-throughs! I'm an ER nurse and former field medic- bullets do funny things. Have a .45 in case I can't get HP's some day.

I liked the red shorts, too.

Stay saffe!
Bob

TheeBadOne

October 31, 2003, 10:08 PM

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47620
Actually, the 3rd time it's showed.

Keith

October 31, 2003, 10:25 PM

Kaylee,

The mans sister told reporters that the shooter had been fleeced by the lawyer, and that the attorney had told him he was going to go after him again for complaining to the bar.

You can complain if you like, but I can't help being amused when somebody gets even with a lawyer, even if they resort to illegal means. The profession of law revolves around twisting the truth to suit their client or to fill their own pockets, or both. Occassionally, they'll be on the right side, but that is usually by accident. None of them choose to only take cases where they feel the client is in the right.
And of course there is no legal recourse when you are victimized by lawyers. You can complain to the bar run by other lawyers, or go to court, run by even more lawyers. None of them are going to side with anyone who wants to stop the wholesale theft and corruption of their profession.

So, sometimes somebody gets made enough to shoot one, and it makes me chuckle... Sorry if that offends you!

Keith

Bob F.

October 31, 2003, 10:29 PM

What's the difference between lawyers and prostitutes? don't the both go to the highest bidder without regard to morals? Crap, I know someday I'm gonna need a lawyer-again!

Jeff White

October 31, 2003, 10:56 PM

TBO,
I'm going to leave this tread open as long as we restrict our conversation to the tactics (or lack of them) involved in this gunfight. If everyone wants to talk about how great it is to shoot lawyers, or any of the other things going on in the other threads, I'll close it.

Jeff

outfieldjack

October 31, 2003, 11:07 PM

You can complain if you like, but I can't help being amused when somebody gets even with a lawyer, even if they resort to illegal means.

So, trying to murder a lawyer is ok with you? You don't even know what was going on with that case. Your comment makes me :barf: :barf: :barf:

zippy

October 31, 2003, 11:38 PM

Looked like the lawyer had some blood coming out his nose while he was lying on the ground. Must have taken one in the chest somewhere?

Looked like .38 to me, from the recoil and blast. I don't believe most .38 rounds expand from snubbies, so the ammo type doesn't really matter.

What can you say? I thought he did good to duck behind the tree so nibbly. I hope makes a full recovery.

I just wish he had read Gabe Suarez's latest book, and beaten the crap out of the shooter after he ran out of bullets.

Zippy

Hardtarget

October 31, 2003, 11:41 PM

I figured I would not be first to post this....sorry I didn't see the others. The thing about the four foot thing truly was that the lawyer was able to effectly use the only cover available so well. I was impressed. It also made me realize how hard it might be to defend your self from an attacker! I do understand some of the limits of handguns(I've shot/hunted 45 of my 53 yrs) its just the video of the event was such a graphic display of poor technique(from the shooter) and great survival effort (from the victim/lawyer) . When you consider we are all potiental victims it screams DON"T LAY DOWN! Stay in the fight and survive.! A lesson I hope I can keep close to the surface if ever in a survive or die situation.Kind of hard to train for.
Mark.

Matthew Temkin

October 31, 2003, 11:44 PM

As Rex Applegate wrote in his book KILL OR GET KILLED, police files are filled with situations where both cop and BG missed at very close range with an incredible # of shots.
And still it continues.
Consider that the avj NYPD gun fight happens within 7 feet, yet they only avj a 9-20% hit rate ( depending on the source)
Applegate believed that WW2 type point shooting training along with realistic ranges would improve this trend.

Keith

October 31, 2003, 11:45 PM

So, trying to murder a lawyer is ok with you?

No, not really. If we had a decent justice system most lawyers would be behind bars instead of running around on the street where their victims might shoot them.

Keith

Jeff White

October 31, 2003, 11:49 PM

I'm not sure that the immediate action drill for reacting to a near ambush wouldn't have been a better option. The victim made good use of cover and things apparently turned out allright, but what if you charged into the ambush with your best attack?

The victim certainly took some hits by running for cover, it's possible he would have disoriented his attacker with an immediate counter attack. Then again, he may have taken a fatal hit.

What's the consensus, dance around the tree or counter attack? Personally I would have counter attacked.

Jeff

hillbilly

October 31, 2003, 11:49 PM

I recorded this clip off the news to show it to my future CCW classes.

It shows quite a few things that CCW students could learn from.

1) The speed with which the situation happened. Suddenly the lawyer found one of his clients shooting at him. There is no "dramatic slow motion shot" in real life. Bad things happen instantaneously

2) Take some sort of action. The lawyer could have just stood still in shock and surprise and died. Instead, he effectively used a tree as a self-defense device. He did not quit, he did not give up, he acted and he lived.

3) Under stress, even "contact distance" shooting can result in misses.

4) Handguns are relatively puny weapons. The lawyer is shot at least once, maybe more, and shows no obvious outward signs of having been hit. He's able to walk away under his own power.

5) In a real bad situation, you can never, ever depend on the help of others. Only you can protect you.

Okay, what other lessons can be taken from this clp?

hillbilly

Matthew Temkin

November 1, 2003, 12:09 AM

I was thinking the same thing while watching the video.
It looked to me that he had no time to counteratttack without taking a fatal hit.
Mainly because the tree was in his way.
Then again, he did survive.
I'd be interrsted in learning if he had any self defense/firearms training.

November 1, 2003, 12:14 AM

hillbilly,
I was thinking along the same lines, great idea for your CCW class.

You touched on, and to give our CR Sam credit "you never know the when or where of next encounter".

Keep moving, use cover,and know the difference b/t cover and concealment.

Situational awareness ( couldn't tell what prededed incident).

Watch hands ( which I can't tell before hand, but perhaps this may have given him an edge to seek cover), coupled with SA.

Sven

November 1, 2003, 12:24 AM

http://courttv.com/graphics/photos/front/lede/blake-front-103103.jpg

Good use of cover.

November 1, 2003, 12:50 AM

Jeff White hit upon something.
Human response is flight or fight, this guy chose flight and used good cover.He didn't quit, he keep moving while using cover. This also reminds me of the rule of three's : 3feet,3secs, 3 shots, its over. Granted more shots and perhaps more time, the point being to NOT forget close/contact situations.
Yep, I'll admit sitting in my chair I would have given strong considerations to going inside and counter attacking...focus on that gun. I have been fortunate to have done so in real life, and it worked, perhaps the reason I feel this way...each situation is different, still another tool in the toolbox.
Nope not gonna crticize, I wasn't there. The lawyer did what he did and survived, I hope he continues to and things not go south for him.
I learned from this incident, tho' I wish it hadn't happened.

AUTIGER04

November 1, 2003, 01:01 AM

WOWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek: :confused:

NIGHTWATCH

November 1, 2003, 01:10 AM

"Lets Kill ALL the Lawyers, Lets Kill Em Tonight!"- Don Henley- Eagles/ song- Get over it :D

Gabe

November 1, 2003, 03:02 AM

To me this illustrates the need for more than 6 rounds in a handgun. You'd be amazed how hard it is to hit a moving target, and how quickly ammunition runs out. Even if you're not spraying.

And the victim was 100% functional (at least for a while) despite taking multiple hits. Had he been armed he could've killed his attacker.

Hot brass

November 1, 2003, 04:37 AM

I could not believe what I saw. Guy shoots lawyer as lawyer is ducking behind tree. Unbelievable.

mete

November 1, 2003, 05:50 AM

That lawyer did the best he could by dodging behind that tree, it saved him. I haven't heard yet what caliber was used. Of course the shooter didn't know what he was doing.

TheeBadOne

November 1, 2003, 05:56 AM

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47620

A. Partisan

November 1, 2003, 07:36 AM

To all the people that stood around with their mouths gaped open and eyes bugged out, to the people that stood there and took still pictures,to the people that stood there and shot video:Hang your heads in shame. I don't want any of you around me anytime, anywhere. One of the camerapersons(I'm not going to say man) that was present and had waited until someone had tackled the shooter before he jumped on the shooter was on T.V.. The host was calling him a hero,I call B.S. on that statement.

4570Rick

November 1, 2003, 07:41 AM

I guess I have a different take on the whole damn thing. I talked to my nephew and he said "Cool, I saw the whole thing. It was neat the way he (the lawyer) kept ducking and weaving. Did you see the hole in his head? That was cool." My nephew is 12. I'm fed up with the cavalier way the "If it bleeds it leads" news shoves violence down the throats of our youth, so I wrote to every local station and the FCC. This is the letter I wrote to the FCC.

=====================================================

In the early afternoon of Friday October 31 '03, tragically, one human being tried to take the life of another outside a Los Angeles Courthouse. The real tragedy was the fact that the incident was caught on tape. Within moments, the local stations, especially CBS, NBC, and ABC, were televising the attempted murder over and over during the early afternoon and throughout the evening. It's easy to say, "The parents should control their kids and what they watch" but the fact is children watch television. What is the difference in watching attempted murder, murder, or suicide on the afternoon news and watching a snuff movie? The answer is, snuff movies are illegal. Is it the FCC's opinion that children are not important enough to hold television to some sort of standards of decency. Children's psyches are continually damaged by the incessant acts of sex and violence aired on the TV day in and day out. Must we now expose them to real violence in the guise of news.

Richard McWold

Tamara

November 1, 2003, 07:48 AM

What TheeBadOne said...

El Tejon

November 1, 2003, 08:11 AM

That close, man, I don't know, but I would think the training would kick in and I'd attempt a disarm.

This incident is a very good incentive to continue disarm training.:eek:

SaintofKillers

November 1, 2003, 09:11 AM

I rarely post on this forum and the comments that are made here are the reasons why. SO WHAT IF HE WAS A LAWYER THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT HE SHOULD BE SHOT. I dont particularly care for lawyers either in most instances but some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You do know that some of these scumbag lawyers actually go to court to defend RKBA didnt you? I think that this whole situation is just another example how people (mostly the ones that say "I woulda done this") are the same ones who stand there in total shock and do nothing. These so called journalists and cameramen who are called heros should be the ones taken behind the woodshed for not doing anything, all this lawyer did as far as you all know is his damn job. No one knows what kind of person he was, but we all know what kind of people the bystanders were now dont we. The High Road my F:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: ng A:cuss: :cuss: s.

hillbilly

November 1, 2003, 09:20 AM

Like it or not, the lack of reaction by the bystanders is very, very natural.

Ever watch a nature documentary?

When the lion grabs hold of one wildebeest, the other wildebeests in the herd don't come help out. Only if the lion has a calf will the mother itself sometimes resist a little.

Same goes for lions, before someone makes the observation that wildebeests are prey animals.

If two lions are fighting each other, the other lions stand around and watch.

The shooter had one and only one target. The natural human reaction is to not become a target.

I am not condoning the lack of action, just saying that's what we should all expect if we ever find ourselves in a similar situation.

Only you can protect you. You can't depend on anyone else. The natural human rection will be to avoid a fight, especially when guns are involved.

Getting help in such a situation would be very nice, but is not something any of us should ever depend upon.

hillbilly

Binkster

November 1, 2003, 09:31 AM

I must say that I laughed out loud when I saw the video. It looked comical because it reminded me of a shoot-out scene in "The Naked Gun" or "Police Squad". I did not realize the guy was actually hit. Was I the only one who thought of that movie clip when they saw the shoot-out?

Another quick thought, sheriff's officers and LAPD were very quick to respond (10 to 15 seconds or so). Other than a police department, there was probably more law enforcement officers in that general area than any other place on earth. Still, the guy managed to shoot off a revolver full of ammo and start to walk away. Immagine if the guy had a semi-auto with a couple spare hi-caps. You would think that with all of the law enforcement in the area that you should be safe from that kind of threat. Again, this just proves that we can only be responsible for own self preservation.

Edward429451

November 1, 2003, 10:17 AM

SoK, I think that lawyer must have done something unethical. You can tell by the fact that a guy was shooting at him.:D

I respect good ethical lawyers. Bashing bad ones is to be expected and makes me feel good to hear about it. Some of you guys refer to the gunman as the perp, yet condone protecting yourself during a robbery. That the lawyer has a white collar means no defense is appropriate? More robberies take place with a pen at the courthouse than with a gun on the street, and the take is bigger. If the lawyer had his pants around his knees and a tatoo on his face, we'd all be unanimous in the good shoot, eh? Look past the suit and you may still see a gangsta.

I guess the lawyer thought that wolves can be fleeced just like sheep. Bet he tones it down from now on.:D

Tim Burke

November 1, 2003, 10:19 AM

It's time for a 3-day "cooling off" waiting period before one can buy the complete works of Shakespeare.

Waitone

November 1, 2003, 10:19 AM

Seems to me the episode is a picture of how absurd it is for laws to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns in courthouses.

We're talking California where I assume it is illegal to pack heat unless you are one the special people.

BG // nut case walks up and pulls a gun which he is illegally packing at the courthouse and attempts an illegal murder.

The law-abiding attorney // victim is alive only because he successfully used a tree as cover. Had the perp waited until the victim had moved 3 feet from the tree the victim would be no doubt dead. . . . .but he would have been legal in that he would have had no handgun on his person.

I'm sorry but I just don't catch the logic of prohibiting CCH at places like courthouses. Once again we see how laws influence the behavior of the law-abiding citizen and do nothing to influence those bent on action prohibited by laws.

Art Eatman

November 1, 2003, 10:53 AM

Waitone, this is just another anecdotal bit of proof that gun control laws, as are most police, are "janitorial" in nature. They help the system clean up behind a mess, but do nothing much to prevent.

Just as you can get T-boned in a street intersection where you have the right of way, you can get blindsided by trusting the efficacy of some sort of "No guns!" sign.

Which takes us back to the mind as a weapon when The System would have us defenseless. "Live in Condition White, die or get hurt in Condition Panic."

Art

444

November 1, 2003, 11:24 AM

Front sight, Press
Front sight, Press

Doesn't matter the range to the target, the fundamentals of shooting still apply. I have had this proven to me time and time again. Even after having it proven to me many times I got slapped in the face with it again the last time I was at Gunsite. I walked past a corner and there was a target right on the other side of the corner. Just beyond the reach of my outstretched arm. And, I missed. I tried to spray and pray. The ONLY thing that matters in a gunfight is hits. It doesn't matter how cool your gun looks, it doesn't matter how many rounds it holds, it doesn't matter how much noise you make. ALL that matters is HITS and there is only one way to ensure hits: Front sight, press

Almost every time I suffer a miss on a target in practice or in a match I reply the event in my mind and I realize that I wasn't on the front sight. I was looking at the target when I fired. Let alone the idea of firing without even trying to use the sights.

TheEgg

November 1, 2003, 12:05 PM

I guess I am strange -- I have admiration for the lawyer here. He was attacked and defended himself the best he could, even after being shot several times. By the only yardstick that counts he did good -- he is still alive.

As far as the lawyer jokes, I like them too -- but I think that this is a very good time to refrain from using them.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36

November 1, 2003, 12:40 PM

Edward:

SoK, I think that lawyer must have done something unethical. You can tell by the fact that a guy was shooting at him. I respect good ethical lawyers. Bashing bad ones is to be expected and makes me feel good to hear about it. Some of you guys refer to the gunman as the perp, yet condone protecting yourself during a robbery. That the lawyer has a white collar means no defense is appropriate? More robberies take place with a pen at the courthouse than with a gun on the street, and the take is bigger. If the lawyer had his pants around his knees and a tatoo on his face, we'd all be unanimous in the good shoot, eh? Look past the suit and you may still see a gangsta.

I guess the lawyer thought that wolves can be fleeced just like sheep. Bet he tones it down from now on.

If you and others who have posted in this thread have the idea that responsible private ownership of guns includes the right to take the law into your own hands and employ deadly force against another, when there is no corresponding threat in return, then God help us. Sarah Brady would then be right about it not being a good idea for private citizens to own guns.

This shooter was a coward involved in a vengence shooting against an unarmed victim. The fact that this lawyer may have "robbed" the shooter as some have alleged, with not much evidence at all, doesn't make this a justified shooting. Where's the self defense aspect? The last time I checked neither the US Code or the Code of California grants the right to a private citizen to take the law into their own hands and mete out a death penalty under any circumstance beyond self defense, let alone one for fraud.

How is it going to look when the VPC begins quoting some of the posts in this thread from people expressing approval of this vengence shooting. This shooter has made all gun owners look pretty bad and so do a number of posts in this thread. I'm guessing the cause of "shall issue" in CA was set back considerably by this shooting.

Lumping all lawyers together with the despised family law and personal injury lawyers is painting with too broad a brush. The law has as many subspecialities as medicine or engineering. Patent lawyers, cannon law specialists, contract attornys, and most others don't deserve a bad rap.

dave3006

November 1, 2003, 01:14 PM

This is not to bash lawyers. We can all learn from this unfortunate incident.

RUSH A GUN, RUN FROM A KNIFE.

The lawyer should have closed the distance and controled the firing arm of the shooter. Trying to hide behind the tree was futile. Since he was going to get shot, he might as well get shot taking the weapon out of the picture. Of course, if the assailant was far away, seek cover. He was too close.

If the lawyer does not die from his wounds, he is lucky.

Jeff White

November 1, 2003, 01:23 PM

Tony Snow just said that it looked like Bugs Bunny vs. Yosemite Sam...:banghead: It's obvious he hasn't a clue of what a life and death encounter is about.

The more I think about this, the more I think I would have exploded into a counterattack. Why, it's the way I've trained, and you are going to default to how you train....A member of a tactical team may encounter a similar situation where the threat presents itself at such close range use of a firearm is difficult if not impossible. We trained fairly extensively on close quarters techniques in EST/TRT school. There are many instances where you may have to use hands and feet before you can employ your weapon.

How many train for that? We train Tueller drills where we move away at an angle to give us time to employ our weapon. We train on speed rock and other techniques to employ a weapon at contact distances. But these techniques pretty much presume the threat is armed with an edged or impact weapon. So how do we train for the threat at contact distance who has a firearm?

Jeff

valnar

November 1, 2003, 02:31 PM

I too would like to learn something from this shooting, as terrible as it is.

What kind of gun? What ammo was it? Where was the lawyer hit?

It's these kind of real life facts that will reinforce, or change, the daily CCW we use.

Suffice to say that if it was a .38, all the talks of .380 and below should stop. It's clearly not enough.

-Robert

son of a gun

November 1, 2003, 02:34 PM

"The only tree in all of Southern California that didn't burn this week -- and some guy puts a bunch of bullets in it. "http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/lilly/hmm3grin2orange.gif

pittspilot

November 1, 2003, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Cool Hand Luke 22:36

If you and others who have posted in this thread have the idea that responsible private ownership of guns includes the right to take the law into your own hands and employ deadly force against another, when there is no corresponding threat in return, then God help us. Sarah Brady would then be right about it not being a good idea for private citizens to own guns.

This shooter was a coward involved in a vengence shooting against an unarmed victim. The fact that this lawyer may have "robbed" the shooter as some have alleged, with not much evidence at all, doesn't make this a justified shooting. Where's the self defense aspect? The last time I checked neither the US Code or the Code of California grants the right to a private citizen to take the law into their own hands and mete out a death penalty under any circumstance beyond self defense, let alone one for fraud.

How is it going to look when the VPC begins quoting some of the posts in this thread from people expressing approval of this vengence shooting. This shooter has made all gun owners look pretty bad and so do a number of posts in this thread. I'm guessing the cause of "shall issue" in CA was set back considerably by this shooting.

Lumping all lawyers together with the despised family law and personal injury lawyers is painting with too broad a brush. The law has as many subspecialities as medicine or engineering. Patent lawyers, cannon law specialists, contract attornys, and most others don't deserve a bad rap.

Hear, Hear.

Agree completely. I am somewhat ill with some of the responses. They do not sound like the type of folks that would responsibly use firearms.

P.S. The bar takes a very dim view of fiscal malfeasance by attorneys.

Keith

November 1, 2003, 03:16 PM

Suffice to say that if it was a .38, all the talks of .380 and below should stop. It's clearly not enough.

Even if the wounds are peripheral hits?

ALL handgun rounds are marginal at best. You don't often have an opportunity to actually SEE that fact demonstrated, and that is the value of this piece of tape. The lesson should not be "get a bigger gun" (though that is a fine lesson in itself); but rather that a handgun (any handgun) is a fairly paltry killing or "stopping" machine. If you are going to rely on one you had better be prepared to center your opponents breast bone or brain beyond the front sight and pull the trigger multiple times.

The lawyer was damned lucky his assailant didn't know how to shoot.

Keith

WonderNine

November 1, 2003, 03:21 PM

Suffice to say that if it was a .38, all the talks of .380 and below should stop. It's clearly not enough.

-Robert

I wonder now how all those people with Keltec P3AT .380's feel now with their new larger caliber upgraded weapon. :D

Yea, it did look like it could have been a .38. Somebody said "snub", it didn't look like a snub to me more like a 4" barrel.

Keith

November 1, 2003, 03:26 PM

I'm probably the worst offender of the "kill all lawyers" faction.

I was out of line and I apologize!

I don't know if this particular lawyer is a cretin or not. Even if he is, shooting him is the wrong way to handle it. Under our system, there is no legal way to seek justice when victimized by lawyers. That's just a fact of life that we all have to live with.

Keith

Marko Kloos

November 1, 2003, 03:36 PM

This shooter was a coward involved in a vengence shooting against an unarmed victim.

Precisely.

I don't care if the lawyer was a pedophile Nazi who grills puppies on the weekends. Nobody has the right to initiate force against someone else. The shooter was a spineless coward, and an amoral human being.

Jeff White

November 1, 2003, 04:23 PM

Dave,
I'm going to merge this with the other thread...
Jeff

SaintofKillers

November 1, 2003, 04:41 PM

Hillbilly,how do you make the comparison between wildabeests and humans. Or lions and humans? Ever heard of the Ghost and the Darkness? 2 lions that worked together to survive. I have seen many people throw caution to the wind and attempt to save someone elses life, I am not talking about firefighters or police officers either. Im talking about the every day average Joe. This is the problem with some people they stand around and dont want to get involved. 10 guys raping a woman everybody stands around and watches, car flips over starts on fire, children trapped inside everyone stands around and watches, man starts shooting at someone in front of courthouse everyone stands around and watches. Why bother to CCW, just to defend yourself? Sounds kind of selfish to me. Ever heard of watching you partners back?? I have put my self out for other people and I didnt even know them, didnt want to after either. Maybe people think like this because of the fear of being sued if they do something wrong which would bring us back to the lawyer bashing. Remember somebody initiated the lawsuit, ambulance chasing lawyers wouldnt be if there wernt people willing to sue for their own stupidity. I dont pretend to run around hoping that law enforcement is going to protect me from everything, but the least that I would expect is help from my fellow man if at all possible. Wolves hunt in packs to survive for the better of the pack, they also protect each other, not like sheep who run to one end of the corral and try to push one another to the front. Heres hoping that you never find yourself in a situation were you need someone elses help, would you expect it?? Hopefully one of the wolves will be there for you and not one of sheep.

SaintofKillers

November 1, 2003, 04:46 PM

One other thing that i forgot to add is that I am not advocating everyone becoming vigilantes or running around acting like Batman but what building would have got hit if the people on the plane that crashed in Penn. on Sept 11 had just stood there and watched instead of acting.

jimpeel

November 1, 2003, 04:48 PM

I would think it reasonable to try to hire this guy as the lawyer in a lawsuit in favor of concealed carry. After all, he now has a far more vast experience in the evils of disarmament than any of us here do.

Besides, does anyone here think that someone from Brady or VPC or MMM or the like has not already visited his bedside?

We don't need another CA State Senator Scott on the scene.

TheeBadOne

November 1, 2003, 05:28 PM

I wonder if the Off-duty Deputy who tackled William Strier will lose his job, after all, he did hit a 64 year old man and throw him down on hard cement. Couldn't he have just asked the nice old man to put his hands behind him? >sarcasm<

TheeBadOne

November 1, 2003, 05:30 PM

Edward429451

November 1, 2003, 06:06 PM

I wasn't lumping all lawyers together. Just assuming that the old guy didn't do it for no reason. Maybe it wasn't self defense par se b/c the lawyer was unarmed, but older people get fleeced all the time. Tricks of the trade, scams, bankers, lawyers, abuse of the system, technicalities, and all that. More & more people are catching on that there is very little if any justice in the Courts. Fleecing the older guys money may just have been taking food out of him & his families mouths, hence defensible, at least by the old school thinking. If you push someone's back to the wall and make them feel like they have nothing more to lose...watch out.

Having little facts, its certainly armchair quarterbacking. I can relate to the guy being, systematically fleeced, shall we say? I can also relate to his probably feeling like nothing can be done in court. Prior record of the old guy? Probably not. Just got out of an institution? Doubtful. Whats that leave, hmmm?

Course my opinion don't mean squat. If the mods think my statements are dangerous to the cause, to be left up, please feel free to edit or completely remove them. I just didn't see a criminal walking up there with a gun, I seen a man who had been pushed too far.

BluesBear

November 1, 2003, 08:41 PM

From USA Today;

Court documents show Strier was involved in a dispute in which he alleged a trustee appointed by the court to manage his trust fund was withholding money he needed for medical care.

The fund was established with money Strier received in an injury settlement.

Court documents showed the dispute was so volatile that trustee Evelyn Murphy said she felt "physically threatened" by Strier and claimed he called her in late August and warned, "I'm going to kill you."

Murphy, who was represented by Curry, asked to resign as Strier's trustee and requested that a judge grant more money from the fund — about $6,240 — for her and Curry's services.

A court hearing had been scheduled Friday on Murphy's request. Police said there was no indication Strier, who had two revolvers, went into the courthouse.

*********

Hmmmm,
Perhaps Mr Strier (the shooter) had some other issues?
Maybe he wasn't the poster boy for rational thinking?
Maybe, in this case the attorney WAS doing his job?

Jeeper

November 1, 2003, 08:44 PM

I agree with the others here who are sickened by some of the posters comments. I think it is also hilarious when people start lawyer bashing. Everyone always bitches that lawyers get money for people who arent hurt, blah blah blah. Of course no one ever blames the jury, it isnt like they actually awarded the money. :)

The first thing you do is kill all the lawyers- A VERY often misquoted line from shakespere. The real meaning of the line was that if someone wanted to create a tyranny they need to get rid of the defenders of justice first...The lawyers

Jeeper

November 1, 2003, 08:50 PM

I just didn't see a criminal walking up there with a gun, I seen a man who had been pushed too far.

You sound like Sara Brady or some other person who turns a CRIMINAL into a victim. Very sad.

Tricks of the trade, scams, bankers, lawyers, abuse of the system, technicalities, and all that.

It isnt like other professions try and rip people off. Car mechanics, realtors, insurance salesman, the guy at best buy...etc

Edward429451

November 1, 2003, 09:37 PM

You sound like Sara Brady or some other person who turns a CRIMINAL into a victim. Very sad.

I think it was the old guy who turned the criminal into a victim. Yawn.

It isnt like other professions try and rip people off. Car mechanics, realtors, insurance salesman, the guy at best buy...etc

Yeah, I thought about listing every profession in the world but instead just pulled a few off the top of my head. The point was that people can be pushed too far. I doubt very seriously if this was a psychotic criminally insane old guy who targeted the poor innocent little lawyer, get real.

Shame the guy got shot. I'm not applauding the old guy for taking the law into his own hands. Just making the observation that the lawyer may have asked for it. Don't mess with a mans trust fund, Duh.

Andrew Rothman

November 1, 2003, 10:24 PM

I just didn't see a criminal walking up there with a gun, I seen a man who had been pushed too far.

:rolleyes:

First, go see an eye doctor.

ninenot

November 1, 2003, 10:36 PM

Nightwatch

"Lets Kill ALL the Lawyers,

Stolen directly from W. Shakespeare. Originally "First thing, let's kill all the lawyers" from Henry V (I think.)

What Else did we Learn from this?

I certainly hope the shooter learned not to do this in front of several cameras. Likely he will have around 35-50 years to ponder the lesson at San Quentin.

Edward429451

November 1, 2003, 11:21 PM

I agree that the old guy was wrong. I wouldn't have shot the guy myself, but I'd be hard pressed to convict if I was on the jury. Older citizens are preyed upon by intelligent scum every day. What recourse is there available to them. Hire another lawyer and take him to court? He probably can't afford it now!

You explain to me how this differs from if the fleecing lawyer had walked up and poked a gun in the guys ribs. His moneys gone. What little he got back he has to live on. Most certainly a betrayal of trust was involved, loss of dignity, loss of cash, feelings of helplessness, and enough rightious indignation to "not let him get away with it"

Why is this suprising? Does it scare you? Don't rip people off, I guess. Some suggest his actions as cowardice. Possibly depending upon mindset and context. Are you in the context of a younger man who can/is still working, making money? That gent with the trust fund is probably on a fixed income. The scum took his nest egg, security and dignity. Maybe wont be able to go on that last vacation and sip lemonade on the beach again cuz he got to stay home and keep them utilities and property taxes up, etc..

I'm not cheering the gent. But I understand that good people can be pushed too far. Older gents do not go around shooting people for no reason. There was a matter of a bunch of missing money...Lets all feel sorry for the thieving lawyer...

:rolleyes:

BluesBear

November 1, 2003, 11:46 PM

OK Let's try this in a colour that y'all can read...

fund was established with money Strier received in an injury settlement.

Court documents showed the dispute was so volatile that trustee Evelyn Murphy said she felt "physically threatened" by Strier and claimed he called her in late August and warned, "I'm going to kill you."

Murphy, who was represented by Curry, asked to resign as Strier's trustee and requested that a judge grant more money from the fund -- about $6,240 -- for her and Curry's services.

Hmmm sounds like he wasn't capable of managing his own money.
It doesn't look like it's his life long savings or his inheritance.

Looks like the money from his injury settlement was more than he could handle responsibly.

Evelyn Murphy was the trustee that was in charge of his money. If anyone was "fleecing" the old man it would have been her.

Strier is only 64 hardly the poor old geezer some of y'all seem to be portraying him.

Older citizens are preyed upon by intelligent scum every day.

Show me some proof where this is a case of anyone being preyed upon. And then explain how you formed the opinion that they were scum.
Was it the fact that the wounded man is a lawyer that made you assume than he is scum?

Older gents do not go around shooting people for no reason. There was a matter of a bunch of missing money

Since when do "older gents" become more reasonable than a younger reasonable person? And since when does simply having a REASON make shooting someone OK?

Did you use the same weak logic to assume that the shooter a "Gent" that you used to assume the victim was "Scum".

BUNCH of missing money? Where did you get that?
He was angry because she wouldn't let him have as much money as he thought he deserved. She was ASKING the court for $6,240 for fees. Now I agree that 6,000 bucks is not chicken feed, but if you have priced even a half-assed lawyer in a one horse town lately you know that that ain't much money at all.

Doesn't look to me, from the evidence presented, that anyone was stealing, embezzling, fleecing, rooking or screwing anyone out of BUNCHES of money.

From all that I have read and seen on TV it looks like a guy who's more than a ½ bubble off plumb took the law into his own hands.

tetleyb

November 2, 2003, 12:10 AM

All the tactics stuff aside, I think it shows how a good positive mental attitude and fighting, not quitting, can get you through an engagement. The lawyer didn't just quit and give up after being shot. Some people do. He showed a good will to fight and live. I believe that is what people should remember.

hillbilly

November 2, 2003, 12:31 AM

Saintofkillers........here ya go.

1) Ever read the story of Kitty Genovese? Happened in New York in 1964

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/4.html?sect=2

2) Average Joe will probably not help you out in a really bad situation with bullets flying around. I think that people who help out in really, really bad situations (meaning in this case when bullets are being fired about) are typically called "heroes" and typically make the news and often times get medals awarded to them because they are so rare.

Heroes also have a rather unfortunate tendancy of getting their recognition and medals posthumously.

3) Yes, a CCW is to protect yourself. A CCW does not make you into some sort of a do-gooder assistant deputy. A CCW handgun is only a last ditch, last resort tool which might keep you from being killed. Those who see their CCW handgun as either a license or a mandate to look for situations where they can "help out" will cause more problems than they solve.

And if I'm not mistaken, I thought one of the mantras of gun ownership was that only you can protect yourself. I thought that was the whole point of having a CCW handgun.

And no. I never expect others to help me if I ever get into a truly bad situation. It would be nice if other people would help, but I would never, ever expect them to.

It's one thing to help somebody out when the stakes are only as high as changing a flat tire.

It's something else entirely when helping out means quite possibly getting shot. The average Joe does not run towards gunfire.

hillbilly

Edward429451

November 2, 2003, 12:54 AM

Huh. Guess I missed them lil tidbits.:o OK, maybe it was her. Maybe you're right BB.

Show me some proof where this is a case of anyone being preyed upon. And then explain how you formed the opinion that they were scum.

I don't have any proof of anything. I was thinking it was the lawyer and didn't catch the trust secretary gal being the one in the position of trust. That certainly puts it in a whole different light. I didn't form an opinion that all lawyers were scum, if thats what you meant. I formed the opinion that that specific lawyer was scum, tho as it turns out, he's probably not.

Was it the fact that the wounded man is a lawyer that made you assume than he is scum?

No, not at all. I don't believe I insinuated that in any way, he just happened to be a lawyer. If lawyers have a dark cloud over thier profession sorta like used car salesman or something, not my fault. Lets not jump to conclusions. I assumed he was scum b/c I was under the impression that he had fleeced an old man, and its irrevalent where the money came from also. I know some eldely people who did get fleeced one for 20K and wifes aunt got nailed for 60 some K. Yes, it takes scum to prey on older people (or anyone).

Since when do "older gents" become more reasonable than a younger reasonable person? And since when does simply having a REASON make shooting someone OK?

As a rule, age brings wisdom and temperment. There's always exceptions, but it happens often enough that I think it was a reasonable blanket statement. The second question there is a trick question of sorts. If you mean this gents incident, he did not have a good reason. If you look at it open ended, you could say since the beginning. Reasons that would make it ok to shoot someone are discussed everyday here. OTOH, a lot of shootings are for no reason. Psychological breakdowns, criminal mindsets, evil.

Did you use the same weak logic to assume that the shooter a "Gent" that you used to assume the victim was "Scum".

Ummm, yes I did. You got me on that one. Sorry I botched on the comprehension of the established facts there. Yes, the red reads real clear.:D

c_yeager

November 2, 2003, 01:59 AM

How is saying that this old guy shouldnt be convicted because he is part of a "victim class" any different from saying that your average gang banger should be convicted for the very same reasons. After all, poor people tend to get screwed a lot too. Is this going to be our next justification for murder? If the CRIMINAL is underpriviledged or really likable they should walk? You have got to be kidding me if you dont see the double standard here.

c_yeager

November 2, 2003, 02:13 AM

I think this is a REALLY good example of how much hollywood has effected the general opinion of the world at large concerning gunfighting. What was seen on that tape is not only NOT unusual but, fairly typical of how a lot of shootings go down. Its also a good illustration of just how innefective handguns are in general. The lawyer was hit several times and showed ZERO outward effects of such. In all too many cases people dont even realize they have been shot till things slow down. And in situations where people end up dead it usually quite awhile after the fact in an entirely different location. The really arent many one-shot-stops out there. Asside from that it's also REALLY good advice to actually use the sights that the manufacturer is kind enough to install on your gun. That might have made QUITE a difference in this case.

only1asterisk

November 2, 2003, 02:25 AM

I think the lawyer has a case; he was prevented from defending himself because he was not permitted to carry in the courthouse. I would love to see victim disarmament zones bite the dust.

It is more likely he will turn being shot into a political career.

People have great reasons for not liking lawyers. It doesn't surprise me that they joke when one gets shot on television. I think anyone who has dealt with a lawyer has had thoughts of murder at some point. I don't think it is odd that people assume the lawyer did something to deserve being shot.

Hard to say what the victim was hit with, but if pressed I'd say 38 special with 158 grain LRN or something less. It doesn't mean that a .38 or .32 or whatever it was is not good for defensive use, but I would take a hard look at the ammo.

Put down the camera and help.

David

dinosaur

November 2, 2003, 06:30 AM

I`ve dealt with a probate lawyer, he was scum. That doesn`t mean I can shoot him. I don`t think the shooter will have to worry about paying for food and lodging for a long time if ever.

BogBabe

November 2, 2003, 07:37 AM

1) The speed with which the situation happened. Suddenly the lawyer found one of his clients shooting at him. There is no "dramatic slow motion shot" in real life. Bad things happen instantaneously
This statement by hillbilly stood out for me.

Can't you just hear the blissninnies insisting that if you're attacked you should just call 9-1-1? In real life, such an attack rarely allows time to call 9-1-1, much less time for the police to actually arrive. And this attack was in front of a courthouse with, presumably, no shortage of LEOs around.

ACP

November 2, 2003, 08:07 AM

I'm thinking about e-mailing this thread to Handgun Control Inc. to let a couple of you burn in hell. Some rational thinking expressed here, and then a whole lot of "gun nut" gibberish which brings us all down. This has got to be The High Road's low point. What a disgrace. :banghead:

hammer4nc

November 2, 2003, 09:31 AM

Lots of opinions...here's a website that has posted a recent (Oct 17) court petition (by lawyer-shootee Curry), and response by shooter Strier.

Link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/strier1.html

While this snapshot can't give a full view of the case, it's a little better than the pure speculation offered in this thread up to now. The petition seeks money for the trustee and legal services, and wants to replace the trustee. Also alleges phone threats by Strier. The response claims that needed medical care has been denied for lack of payment (by trustee). Also mentioned is a "waiver of past liabilities" (hmmmm?) that the trustee wanted the beneficiary to sign before releasing more funds for medical care...

We have some lawyers on THR, does the existence of this type of document let off any alarms? It did with me.

Sounds like Strier has many medical problems, and is apparently trying to represent himself legally against the trustee and attorney who have control over his money, medical care, and possibly life/death by extension.

When a person is in pain, feels his health slipping away while legal gears grind on for months, desperate acts are not uncommon.

Other opinions welcome...especially with regard to the "waiver of past liabilities" aspect.

SaintofKillers

November 2, 2003, 10:27 AM

Hillbilly,

I agree the mantra of gun ownership is to protect yourself, hence if the situation turned into this guy started shooting at innocent bystanders, and I am standing there with my 45 in my coat do I just stand there and do nothing until the gun is pointed at me?? I agree that the CCW doesnt give you the authority to be Batman as I said but I think that a lot of crime could be prevented if people would just help out when it is possible. Colin Ferguson (I believe was his name correct me if I am wrong) the nutjob who ran up and down the commuter train shooting people. Shouldnt someone have tried to stop him? I think people dont want to get involved because of legality and their own selfishness, also probably where they live and how they were brought up. I think city folk are less likely to get involved than country folk. Remember Tracy Thurman- her husband stabbed her repeatedly while the whole damn neighborhood looked on, the police came and the officer took the knife from her husband and then went to place the knife in the trunk of his prowler and her husband kicked her in the head paralizing her on one side of her body. The reason why the officer didnt shoot the SOB, if remeber correctly he was close to retirement and didnt want to jepordize his pension. See where I am going with this, even some law enforcement members are afraid to get involved for various reasons. If Tracy was armed with a 357 maybe this never would have happened to her, if her neighbor had been armed with a 357 maybe this wouldnt have happened either. Myself I dont go around looking to be a hero, I mind my own business but then again I never have been witness to an attempted murder, but if I was walking down the street and saw this happening I think that I would have made an attempt to stop it. I have to say that I respect your opinion but I disagree.

El Tejon

November 2, 2003, 11:02 AM

c_yeager, but, but what about all those "one shot stops" [suppressing involuntary gagging in name of sarcasm] in the gun rags? If you use the Ubertactical CombatMaster 2000, is it not true that your target will be so impressed that he will fall to the ground and die even before the bullets hit him?

Next you'll be telling us that a lot of people do not read ballistic tables and thus do not know how ubereffective the White Hippo load from GSC, INC. is or that 9 out of 10 people survive pistol shots.:uhoh:

hillbilly

November 2, 2003, 11:21 AM

Saintofkillers, you make good points about people having guns in mass public shooting situations.

Of course, if you are at the scene of a mass public shooting, you are automatically involved because by being part of the crowd at a public setting, you are automatically a potential target

By all means, in that situation, defend yourself because you are in danger.

But let's say you were at the scene of the televised attempted lawyer shooting with your .45. You are trained, you are willing to act, you are one of the good guys.

You are on the sidewalk, and the first you notice is probably the same as the sound tech guy in the video clip......You notice because you hear gun shots going off.

In a space of seconds you hear the first close by gun shot. You have the natural startle reflex, just like the sound tech guy in the video clip. You flinch, you duck your head in a reflexive action over which you have no real control. All normal people startle at the soud of close, unexpected gun fire. The startle reflex exists because it helps keep us all alive.

After startling, you have to then find out where the shots are coming from, who is delivering the shots, and at whom they are aimed.....

Is it a man defending himself from a mugger? Is it a mass public shooting? Is it a gangster driveby?Is is it woman defending herself from a rapist? What is it?

Judging from the video clip which I have watched many, many times, by the time you figured out that one man was illegally attacking and trying to murder another man, the shooting would have been over.

What did the shooter do? He put his gun in his bag and walked calmly down the street.

I don't know about in your state, but here in Arkansas, if you pulled your CCW piece and shot the shooter while the shooter was walking calmly down the street, and not offering a direct threat against you, then you could be charged with a crime.

It does not mean you automatically be charged with a crime, but under Arkansas law, you could be. It would depend on who the head prosecutor in your area was, how he felt about CCW, if he needed some convictions to keep his job, etc.

If I had been, say within 50 yards of that specific shooting with a CCW piece, here's what I would probably have done, honestly.

The first shot goes off! BOOM! I startle, maybe even dive behind the nearest cover because I am trying to be more in condition yellow since I am carrying, and need to be more situationally aware. Thus, I am looking for cover and concealment and scanning for bad guys near me as I walk down the street. BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM the shots rattle off as I scramble behind a parked car with my hand reaching for my CCW piece, making sure I get behind the car's wheel so I have a big solid axle between me and the shots.

I peek up over the car and now I see a man in a dark suit walking one direction with his hands up in the air and an older-looking guy with some sort of brown vest or jacket thing on walking away in the other direction, only there's a group of cameramen following the old guy in the brown and pointing at him.

I don't know what's happened. I don't know who the bad guy is or who the good guy is. Nobody seems to be shooting anymore and especially, nobody seems to be shooting at me. Some guys who appear to be cops have just jumped on the older guy. I'm getting up out of my cover and I'm finding somewhere else to go.

hillbilly

Trisha

November 2, 2003, 11:37 AM

I've re-read this thread in its entirety, trying to shake the nightmares and PTSD flashbacks that are haunting me.

Easy, casual 'good-old-boy' off-color jokes. To me it echoes clearly to lynching blacks, or lumping all hispanics as lazy. It echoes of calling all Chinese sub-human, of pulpit-thumpers deriding 'godless heathens.'

I relive my rape and sadistic beating, hearing the nice, clean-cut white guys calling me the vilest epithets while they sodomized me with a broken bottle, a broken piece of wood; while they literally tried to stomp the life out of me afterwards, smearing me with canine feces, leaving me for dead as they walked away, arm-in-arm into the night, laughing.

"Faggot." "She-male" "Freak."

A man was deliberately attacked, in public, by another man armed with a firearm - with persistence. No one interviened. That any here could even conceptualize, much less voice callous epithets and 'humor' terrifies me.

From such beginnings the horror of brutality and self-justified hate crimes arise.

That some of you espouse an ideology of inclusion, raising a vestige of yourselves as defenders of liberty and trustees of this Republic astounds me. America, the great melting pot of race, culture, the shining beacon of hope, the repository of dreams fo freedom to the opressed?

When stereotypical hate is justified, Pol Pot sleeps with a smile on his face. The KKK is empowered. The 'Conservative Curtain' is proven real, with phobic, narrow-minded armed thugs patrolling the bastions.

And I am disenfranchized, energetically.

How deep does this insidious, casual, cultural poison go? Do you, unthinking, parroting the indoctrination of your peers, perpetuate it on any level?

By your words of callous sadism, I view many participants of this thread as probable threats, not likely friends; certainly not intelligent, constructive allies in the 2A fight.

And you wonder where are the Chinese, the Hispanics, the LBGT community, the women, the youth. You are the problem, not the wellspring of the solution.

Trisha

El Tejon

November 2, 2003, 12:25 PM

Trisha, lots of hatred and ignorance to be sure. However, as the intended target of this hatred and ignorance, I pay no attention to it and seek no solace in victimhood. Maybe the perpetrators were mauled by bears and say these things without knowing what they are doing?:D

Ending ignorance and informing is the purpose of THR, of course I am a prissy Easterner who yammers on and on about education.:D

c_yeager

November 2, 2003, 12:51 PM

I bet its even more than 9 out of 10 in most cities in this country.

jimpeel

November 2, 2003, 12:52 PM

Very rambling post. Confusing at best. Not to be insensitive but ...Easy, casual 'good-old-boy' off-color jokes. To me it echoes clearly to lynching blacks, or lumping all hispanics as lazy. It echoes of calling all Chinese sub-human, of pulpit-thumpers deriding 'godless heathens.'You got all of this from a couple of lawyer jokes? :confused:
I relive my rape and sadistic beating, hearing the nice, clean-cut white guys calling me the vilest epithets while they sodomized me with a broken bottle, a broken piece of wood; while they literally tried to stomp the life out of me afterwards, smearing me with canine feces, leaving me for dead as they walked away, arm-in-arm into the night, laughing.
You or Tawana Brawley? Extremely close to the description she gave of her abduction and "rape" which didn't actually happen.
"Faggot." "She-male" "Freak."A "she-male" is a male, usually homosexual, who has breasts and dresses and acts as a woman but has not had, nor is likely to have, corrective surgery for that pesky penis thing; unlike those who are in the same condition preparing for surgery. Your post implies the following: a. You are non-White. b. You a homosexual male c. You are partially transgendered.
That any here could even conceptualize, much less voice callous epithets and 'humor' terrifies me.Noone here is any threat to you personally. If you were in Europe, you would have more to fear than here in the U.S. especially if you, in addition to the above, also happen to be Jewish. Bigotry exists everywhere and there is no escape from it.
From such beginnings the horror of brutality and self-justified hate crimes arise.This crime was a far cry from a hate crime other than the intense dislike one White man felt toward another for wrongs real or perceived.
That some of you espouse an ideology of inclusion, raising a vestige of yourselves as defenders of liberty and trustees of this Republic astounds me.Why?
When stereotypical hate is justified, Pol Pot sleeps with a smile on his face. The KKK is empowered. The 'Conservative Curtain' is proven real, with phobic, narrow-minded armed thugs patrolling the bastions.Now THERE'S a real leap from the reality of lawyer jokes to La-la land. How do you get there from here? :confused: You left out the part about throwing people into ovens.
And I am disenfranchized, energetically.Disenfranchised how?? You aren't included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights somehow? You don't get to vote? You have no rights; or you are denied the rights of every other American under the law? How so?
How deep does this insidious, casual, cultural poison go? Do you, unthinking, parroting the indoctrination of your peers, perpetuate it on any level?Again, you got all of this from a couple of lawyer jokes?
By your words of callous sadism, I view many participants of this thread as probable threats, not likely friends; certainly not intelligent, constructive allies in the 2A fight.Callous sadism? :confused: Probable threats? :confused: To whom???
And you wonder where are the Chinese, the Hispanics, the LBGT community, the women, the youth. You are the problem, not the wellspring of the solution.Hate (there's that word again) to break it to you but there are numerous people of the above stripe who post to this board. I guess they are disenfranchised too.

Not an ad-hom, but just from the above post of yours, it seems that you need help or counseling. I'm sorry you are so fearful, confused, distrustful, angry, and, in some instances, just downright hateful. Your epithets and ad-homs rival, and in many instances surpass, anything that has been posted here so far. The difference is that most of us realize that; while you seem not to.

Unapologetically posting what many here are thinking,

jimpeel

Graystar

November 2, 2003, 01:02 PM

What I really want to know is...did this guy have a Concealed Weapons license?

I doubt he did, but would like to know for sure.

Keith

November 2, 2003, 01:16 PM

Jeez Trisha, take a chill pill!

When you cut through all the baloney here you'll realize that this lawyer used the courts to transfer this elderly mans money into his own pocket. This is what lawyers do.
And of course the old man had no legal recourse, short of hiring another attorney and watching that one eat up his money trying to get it back from the first one.
The old man snapped. In a perfect world he would have just gone home and hung himself, but he chose to break the law and shoot the attorney. That's unfortunate, but it happened.

But all's well that ends well - the lawyer survived and will get to keep his hard-earned (and quite legal) money. The old man will go to prison for the rest of his life and be able to eat and get medical care.

Keith

Guntalk

November 2, 2003, 01:59 PM

Has anyone heard what caliber the shooter used?

Jeff White

November 2, 2003, 02:03 PM

I've heard 9 shot .22.

Jeff

Trisha

November 2, 2003, 02:16 PM

jimpeel, thank you for your thoughts on my posting. That today I know pain from involuntarily finding a connectivity to my past from some earlier posts in this thread is absolutely my own responsibility - and it was only after some thought that I decided to add my perceptions to this thread. It would have been all too easy, and perhaps more conventional for me to have remained silent. I am not caucasian. At the time of the attack I was pre SRS, and homeless. To the rest, I will not comment.

You have given me valuable insight into the mindset of those who see 'harmless jokes' as acceptable, and it will take me some time to try and understand it. For your concern that I, to your values and ethics, may be in need of counseling - I am grateful for the closure that acknowledges some degree of my common humanity with you and those you say you also represent, though I must decline. My house is in order.

Keith, I guess I found the pate du jour a little difficult to dismiss.

I close with only one summary: the road to self-justified hate (including the potential to act apon such bias) begins with such little things, casual things that override hoped-for higher cognitive functions.

I will do my best to refrain from future postings that contain emotional significance.

Trisha

Guntalk

November 2, 2003, 02:30 PM

Clint Smith: :Handgun bullets are like medicine. Sometimes they take a while to work."

(Typing while I'm on the air. <grin>)

El Rojo

November 2, 2003, 04:16 PM

Being a CCW holder in the PRK, unless I was walking with the lawyer or within about 10 yards, there probably wouldn't have been much I could do. Even after the fact when he is walking down the street, what am I supposed to do? Pull my gun on him and tell him to freeze? What if he decides to do a suicide by CCW? That would pretty much ruin my day and the next couple of months/years. Tackle him and risk him pulling my gun out of my unstrapped holster?

I think everything was done that was possible. The guy stuck the revolver in his jacket and walked away. He wasn't much of a threat unless he pulled the revolver out and started shooting again. Some camera men could have jumped on him and held him down. Maybe since they have the benefit of turning their heads (where as we only get the narrow TV view), they saw deputies running that way and felt no need to do anything at that point other than point him out.

If I had been nearby, I might have pulled my Glock and held it close to my side and trailed him in a safe position. If he would have went crazy and got ready to start blasting again, I could and would use the force necessary to stop him. Other than that, in the time it took to happen, he was already no longer an immediate threat and the way it was handled was good. No one else was injured, he was apprehended in less than one minute. What more do you guys want? More blood shed? A good beating?

Double Naught Spy

November 2, 2003, 04:28 PM

After seeing the video several times, I don't think the lawyer ever managed to reset the shooter's proverbial OODA loop by changing positions. I keep hearing at gun schools that if I change position, I will reset the opposition's OODA loop and the time lag in his computer (brain) will be such that I can get the upper hand. However, nothing the victim lawyer (sorry, poor choice of words) did really seemed to surprise the shooter. The lawyer went left and so the shooter twisted and shot again. Then, with no surprise, the lawyer would go right and the shooter seemed to figure this out really quick. So much for the supposed reset or getting inside the OODA loop.

BluesBear

November 2, 2003, 04:54 PM

When you cut through all the baloney here you'll realize that this lawyer used the courts to transfer this elderly mans money into his own pocket. This is what lawyers do.
Where have you read or heard anything to prove this?

From what I read in the court documents posted at TheSmokingGun, his main complaint was that the trustee was not paying for medical treatment (painkillers) that HE felt he needed.

He constantly restated that he was in such great pain. Sounds like my roomate's mother who is convinced she needs something stronger than a morphene drip for a hangnail. :rolleyes:

He also said he was in such great pain that he couldn't walk.
From that video it sure looked like he was walking just fine. Of course I am not a doctor but I did play one on radio once.

It is amazing to me that so many people who can have such a logical discourse on .45 vs 9mm or revolver vs semi-auto can jump to the obvious conclusion that, because a lawyer was involved, that the nice old guy MUST have been a victim.

Usually in the case of an accident settlement the money goes to the unjured party. In this case the courts determined that the kindly old codger was not responsible to mind his resources and therefor set up a trust to manage it. It even seems that the 'victims" own sister may be reluctant to accept the responsibility?
Anyone in here ,except me, think that there just MIGHT be a valid reason for this? Or is the entire court in on the conspiracy to deprive this poor old gentleman his Extra Strength Tylenol? :rolleyes:

Has anyone considered that perhaps that mistreated elderly man is just your basic NUTJOB? Or at least acknowledge the possibility that there may be more than a few neurons that aren't firing?

And since so many in here have appointed themselves onto the morality jury, shouldn't y'all at least wait to hear more, if not all, of the evidence before you condemn anybody?

El Rojo

November 2, 2003, 04:58 PM

I didn't think about it until reading this thread. Would any of you have jumped on that fat bastard and started beating the crap out of him after he shot you had you been the unarmed lawyer? If I don't have my Glock on me, sometimes I have my pocket knife. I don't think I would have been beyond stabbing him multiple times in self defense. I know I wouldn't have walked away and turned my back to the fat man like the lawyer did.

If the fat man had got the jump on me and I could get behind the tree, I would have done my darndest to draw while ducking and weaving and then I would have shot him a couple times regardless of his attempting to put the gun in his pocket or not.

I guess for us CCW holders, the key to this situation is knowing the threat and beating him to the punch. I think it would have been a close race if I knew he didn't like me and wanted to do me harm. I would have already been on alert and ready to draw. I can draw from concealment and get my first shot off in under 1.5 seconds.

Had I been a CCW holder in the vicinity (most likely to occur), there really isn't much you can do unless you were within 10 yards of the attack. If I was close enough and had a safe enough back drop, you shoot immediately. If you are not close enough and he is already walking away with the gun in his jacket you could draw on him and tell him to freeze, but that opens you up to all sorts of trouble. If you do this and the cops are still a couple minutes off, the guy might decide to committ suicide by Rojo. That means lawsuits and losing my gun for sometime. I wouldn't be in a big hurry to go tackle the guy because I don't have a secure retention holster. Last thing I want to do is give him another gun. I might trail him with my sidearm drawn and pressed close to my side and behind me or with my hand under my shirt and ready to draw. If he made any attempt to retreive the weapon or reload, then I would have issued a freeze command and any failure to comply would result in my shooting to stop his actions.

BluesBear

November 2, 2003, 04:59 PM

On another note, I DO agree with El Rojo.

Unless you personally saw the attack from the beginning by the time you could react and decide who was who and what was what it would have been over.

At that time the best thing you can do is be a good witness.

Keith

November 2, 2003, 05:03 PM

From what I read in the court documents posted at TheSmokingGun, his main complaint was that the trustee was not paying for medical treatment (painkillers) that HE felt he needed.

No, he would have required a physician to get painkillers. So, the trustee was in effect saying that he couldn't get the medicine that a physician had prescribed.

They lawyers were just bleeding him, as lawyers do...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Courthouse%20Shooting

Court documents show Strier was involved in a dispute in which he alleged a trustee appointed by the court to manage his trust fund was withholding money he needed for medical care.

The fund was established with money Strier received in an injury settlement.

Court documents showed the dispute was so volatile that trustee Evelyn Murphy said she felt "physically threatened" by Strier and claimed he called her in late August and warned, "I'm going to kill you."

Murphy, who was represented by Curry, asked to resign as Strier's trustee and requested that a judge grant more money from the fund - about $6,240 - for her and Curry's services

dave3006

November 2, 2003, 05:06 PM

I'll tell you what. If I were that lawyer, still on my feet, I would have beat him until he begged for help. My 10 years of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu would have been used to break both his arms so bad that he would need help to even take a pee.

The anger and disgust that I am communicating was not evident in this lawyer. It should piss you off that someone just tried to kill you. This emotion is your friend.

Sven

November 3, 2003, 02:57 AM

I'm still dumbfounded that this guy was so blind with rage that he failed to see the throng of reporters just yards away...

Rojo: If you'd pulled a gun on that guy, you probably could have been tackled by another cameraman, or taken out by a cop who thinks "I've got a clean shot on him"

rojo: what county you in? CCW in CA is hard to find where I'm at

BluesBear

November 3, 2003, 03:34 AM

No, he would have required a physician to get painkillers. So, the trustee was in effect saying that he couldn't get the medicine that a physician had prescribed.
Where did you deduce that? :scrutiny:
I didn't see anything in his filed complaint that said he couldn't get his prescriptions.
His was complaining that he couldn't see a doctor because he didn't have enough money to pay them and they wouldn't accept Medi-Cal. He was whining that he needed to see a doctor because he was in so much pain. So much pain that he couldn't walk. :rolleyes:

I guess we can rule out arthritis, in his hands, since he was able to hit his target FIVE times.

280PLUS

November 3, 2003, 06:35 AM

he managed to save himself somewhat, by hiding on the other side of about a 10" diameter tree and dodging the bullets, literally, while the shooter tried to get around it with the revolver he was using,,,

moral of the story,

regardless of how small, ANYTHING can provide cover

it appeared to me that, although the guy was getting hits, the tree prevented him from getting any into center body mass and killing the victim

now, if the attorney, or anyone else around, was capable of returning fire,,,

well, we all know how THAT story goes,,,wonder if the attorney will pick up a nice glock and carry it with him for the future

figuring a glock is an upscale yuppie attorney kind of gun... :barf:

:D

Devonai

November 3, 2003, 06:41 AM

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47645

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47620

280PLUS

November 3, 2003, 07:10 AM

please to close or merge,,,so solly,,,

:rolleyes:

Ryder

November 3, 2003, 07:18 AM

I don't think you can defend yourself once the bad guy clicks on that empty chamber and turns around to walk away. Especially when it's being televised. Revenge is not your friend. :)

News this morning said the lawyer has been released from the hospital and will probably suffer some degree of paralysis to his fingers on one hand.

I'm not too surprised the lawyer got away with his life. Anyone else notice how the shooter stabbed the pistol toward the lawyer everytime he pulled the trigger? Hahha, I doubt I could hit a barn doing that.

Jaco

November 3, 2003, 08:04 AM

Are anyone 100% sure at this stage what caliber and weapon was used?

dave3006

November 3, 2003, 08:12 AM

Ryder, I would not have cared. Besides, I was apprehending a criminal.

c_yeager

November 3, 2003, 09:26 AM

You would be COMPLETELY justified to tackle the fellow and hold him for police. For one thing, he is a fleeing criminal. For another how do you know he isnt going to get the shotgun from his car?

Kentucky Rifle

November 3, 2003, 09:42 AM

...demonstrated by the attorney behind the tree. NEVER GIVE UP! Ya' gotta admit, he was a REALLY good "dodger".

KR

Steve Smith

November 3, 2003, 10:20 AM

Merging multiple threads, standby.

jimpeel

November 3, 2003, 10:56 AM

There seems to be this lost fact that the guy was armed with two handguns. If one watches the tape of him walking away, he has both hands in his jacket pockets. We know the first firearm is in his right pocket. Just as he turns and sees the guy about to tackle him he tries to take his left hand out of his pocket but fails. That is likely where the second firearm resided.

So for those who would tackle him, you may have gotten yourself shot.

Sportcat

November 3, 2003, 10:57 AM

The lawyer spoke this morning and said he was shot SEVEN (7) times.

jimpeel

November 3, 2003, 11:10 AM

I saw him on CNN and he stated that he was shot four times in the left arm, once in the neck, where the bullet still resides, and once in the right arm.

I went to public school but even in PS math that's six.

Sportcat

November 3, 2003, 11:11 AM

I can only go by what he said in an interview as he was leaving the hospital.

Keith

November 3, 2003, 01:19 PM

I can only go by what he said in an interview as he was leaving the hospital.

He was a lawyer, by the time he gets to court he'll be complaining he was shot 14 times!

Keith

Andrew Rothman

November 3, 2003, 01:46 PM

For all of you lawyer-bashers out there:

I saw a bit on an NBC news show. The off-duty officer who tackled the assailant was a RESERVE DEPUTY. His day job was...

...ATTORNEY.

So knock it off, would ya? Lawyers are people. A few are bad, but most are just doing a job. And as we've seen, a few are heroes.

Andrew Rothman

November 3, 2003, 01:48 PM

Keith,

Clearly you have an irrational hate for all lawyers that leaves you blind to fact or logic.

Perhaps you should recuse yourself from this thread if you cannot take the High Road.

Sportcat

November 3, 2003, 01:53 PM

Mpayne - well said!

Keith

November 3, 2003, 01:58 PM

Clearly you have an irrational hate for all lawyers that leaves you blind to fact or logic. Perhaps you should recuse yourself from this thread if you cannot take the High Road.

Personal slurs and insults are a violation of forum policy. Perhaps you should recuse yourself from this thread if you can't take the High Road.

It's quite evident from the text that the lawyer was indeed lying about how many times he was shot. The hospital spokesman said he was shot three times. The lawyer claims he was shot seven times (from a revolver...).

Keith

Sportcat

November 3, 2003, 01:59 PM

I've seen seven-shot revolvers. Yes, current production seven-shot revolvers.

Keith

November 3, 2003, 02:06 PM

It could be he was shot seven times.

Perhaps the hospital overlooked four bullet holes...

Or, to be charitable, perhaps the attorney was loaded on pain meds and simply made a mistake.

Or perhaps, he is already playing the sympathy tune and looking forward to getting the rest of that old mans settlement in a civil suit.

You're free to reach your own conclusion.

Keith

Sportcat

November 3, 2003, 02:10 PM

Yep, hospitals never make any mistakes... like:

taking out the wrong lung

cutting off the wrong foot

leaving instruments in people after surgery

misdiagnosing patients

Also, if I was shot several times by a crazed man in front of the world, I might go for some sympathy.

:rolleyes:

outfieldjack

November 3, 2003, 02:26 PM

Or perhaps, he is already playing the sympathy tune and looking forward to getting the rest of that old mans settlement in a civil suit. You're free to reach your own conclusion.

Seems like you are the one JUMPING to conclusions..... I cannot believe all of your lawyer bashing.... I thought in one of your previous posts you said you were finished with that.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Keith

November 3, 2003, 03:13 PM

Seems like you are the one JUMPING to conclusions..... I cannot believe all of your lawyer bashing.... I thought in one of your previous posts you said you were finished with that

I gave three possible alternatives for the lawyers statement, only one of which revolved around the man lying. Yet, you pick that one and begin bashing me for "lawyer bashing"?

Keith

outfieldjack

November 3, 2003, 03:30 PM

Keith, I am not "bashing" you. I am only pointing out that almost EVERY post you have made on this thread has been nothing but lawyer bashing. Let me refresh your memory.....

"Shooting a lawyer? I'd be torn between clapping and getting pictures!"

Keith

"Hey, it's perfectly consistent with the "high road" to be indifferent to the suffering of pedophiles, rapists, attorneys and other assorted thugs."

Keith

"The mans sister told reporters that the shooter had been fleeced by the lawyer, and that the attorney had told him he was going to go after him again for complaining to the bar.

You can complain if you like, but I can't help being amused when somebody gets even with a lawyer, even if they resort to illegal means. The profession of law revolves around twisting the truth to suit their client or to fill their own pockets, or both. Occassionally, they'll be on the right side, but that is usually by accident. None of them choose to only take cases where they feel the client is in the right. And of course there is no legal recourse when you are victimized by lawyers. You can complain to the bar run by other lawyers, or go to court, run by even more lawyers. None of them are going to side with anyone who wants to stop the wholesale theft and corruption of their profession.

So, sometimes somebody gets made enough to shoot one, and it makes me chuckle... Sorry if that offends you!"

Keith

"No, he would have required a physician to get painkillers. So, the trustee was in effect saying that he couldn't get the medicine that a physician had prescribed.

They lawyers were just bleeding him, as lawyers do..."

Keith

"He was a lawyer, by the time he gets to court he'll be complaining he was shot 14 times!"

Keith

"It could be he was shot seven times.

Perhaps the hospital overlooked four bullet holes...

Or, to be charitable, perhaps the attorney was loaded on pain meds and simply made a mistake.

Or perhaps, he is already playing the sympathy tune and looking forward to getting the rest of that old mans settlement in a civil suit.

You're free to reach your own conclusion."

Keith

Looks like lawyer bashing to me.......

Jack

Andrew Rothman

November 3, 2003, 03:46 PM

LA Times:
On Sunday, Richard Heaton told the story of how the man he grew up with, Gerald E. Curry, was shot in the neck and both arms...
Curry has several bullet wounds in his arms, Heaton said. Also, he said one bullet is still lodged in Curry's neck and doctors have not yet decided whether to remove it....

Curry [that's the shot lawyer] was representing a court-appointed trustee for a "special needs" trust that had been established for Strier, because Strier was the recipient of a $100,000 personal-injury settlement, Heaton said. The trust allowed Strier to continue to receive Medi-Cal payments, while also being allocated money for other medical and personal costs from the settlement, Heaton said.

The court-appointed trustee to the trust was Evelyn Murphy. "She became the trustee, and then Strier wanted to get at the money for purposes Evelyn Murphy would not agree to," Heaton said.

Heaton said when Murphy refused to give in to Strier's demands, he allegedly became abusive. "If she had given in to his desires and let him spend the money however he wanted to, she would have been liable for it," Heaton said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-vannuys3nov03234429,1,4409342.story?coll=la-headlines-california

So here's a few things to consider:

Curry, the attorney, was shot at least four times. At least once in the neck, and "several" (that generally means more than two) times in the arms.

Curry JUST STARTED representing Murphy, who controlled the funds. Curry COULD NOT have ripped off Strier. COULD NOT.

Keith, just admit that you are wrong, that the shooter was a nutball, and that the lawyer was just representing a woman that STRIER HAD ALREADY THREATENED.

simonBarsinister

November 3, 2003, 03:51 PM

I rarely post here also but I read these boards every day and came here when the Firing Line closed.
SaintofKillers said it best.......I rarely post on this forum and the comments that are made here are the reasons why. SO WHAT IF HE WAS A LAWYER THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT HE SHOULD BE SHOT. I dont particularly care for lawyers either in most instances but some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You do know that some of these scumbag lawyers actually go to court to defend RKBA didnt you? I think that this whole situation is just another example how people (mostly the ones that say "I woulda done this") are the same ones who stand there in total shock and do nothing. These so called journalists and cameramen who are called heros should be the ones taken behind the woodshed for not doing anything, all this lawyer did as far as you all know is his damn job. No one knows what kind of person he was, but we all know what kind of people the bystanders were now dont we. The High Road my F:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: ng A:cuss: :cuss: s.
:cuss:

Edward429451
"SoK, I think that lawyer must have done something unethical. You can tell by the fact that a guy was shooting at him."

I seriously hope you were joking with that comment.:fire: Are you the kind of person who believes women deserve to be raped or "ask for it" by the way some dress??

I rarely post here also but I read these boards every day and came here when the Firing Line closed. If this is how some of you take the High Road, I certainly hope to hell, I am never in a postion, to need your help, or be judged by you when it matters.

To those who did indeed take the high road, in your posts, cheers. As someone new to handguns and a new CCW holder, I use this board for the education, and wisdom that so many of you are happy to give. Some here have made it clear that such wisdom they feel that they need to post, is certainly not in my best interest.:barf:

Keith

November 3, 2003, 04:00 PM

Curry JUST STARTED representing Murphy, who controlled the funds. Curry COULD NOT have ripped off Strier. COULD NOT.

Ahem, they had just walked out of court where Curry had been awarded $6000 of Striers money. Now, it's hard to imagine how Curry could have EARNED 6k of that money that quickly, but he sure had it.

Keith

RustyHammer

November 3, 2003, 04:06 PM

Yeah, but what about the really import stuff ..... like a good close-up in the hottie in the orange shorts! Now THAT would be worth looking at ... :what: :D :p

Andrew Rothman

November 3, 2003, 04:22 PM

LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-vannuys3nov03234429,1,4409342.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Curry entered the picture, Heaton said, when Murphy asked to be taken off the case. Murphy hired Curry to provide a report of her accounting from the trust and to petition the court to accept her resignation.

From the AP: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031102/ap_on_re_us/courthouse_shooting_15

Murphy, who was represented by Curry, asked to resign as Strier's trustee and requested that a judge grant more money from the fund — about $6,240 — for her and Curry's services.

That's $4,228 for Curry, the rest for Murphy.

Assuming a rate of $150/hr, that's 28 hours of work. Seems possible to me. Anyway, Murphy, as conservator, validated the $4K as correct.

The court motion is here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/strier1.html
or here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/strier1.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/strier2.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/strier3.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/strier4.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/strier5.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/strier6.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/strier7.gif

A. Partisan

November 3, 2003, 05:34 PM

The supposed hero is on Court TV(4:30cst). What a crock.
A real hero would have jumped on the shooter before his gun was empty and put away and 30 or 40 feet away from the victim.

Keith

November 3, 2003, 05:35 PM

Assuming a rate of $150/hr, that's 28 hours of work.

Nice guy! He's charging an old man on a fixed income, $150 an hour to "manage" his money for him. I don't know how much money is left, but at that rate he ought to be able to "manage" the entire amount into his pocket in short order.

Keith

Sergeant Bob

November 3, 2003, 05:44 PM

A real hero would have jumped on the shooter before his gun was empty and put away and 30 or 40 feet away from the victim.
I guess Superman was busy that day. Is that a red S on your chest?

A. Partisan

November 3, 2003, 05:59 PM

Is that an A on yours ?

Andrew Rothman

November 3, 2003, 06:22 PM

The supposed hero is on Court TV(4:30cst). What a crock.
A real hero would have jumped on the shooter before his gun was empty and put away and 30 or 40 feet away from the victim.

From the AP story:

David Katz, the reserve deputy who tackled the suspect, told "Today" on Saturday that he didn't see the shooting but heard five or six shots, and chased after Strier when camera crews pointed at a man, saying "He's the shooter."

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/7153698.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

[edit: added cite]

Andrew Rothman

November 3, 2003, 06:32 PM

Nice guy! He's charging an old man on a fixed income, $150 an hour to "manage" his money for him. I don't know how much money is left, but at that rate he ought to be able to "manage" the entire amount into his pocket in short order.

I am completely guessing on the rate. Maybe is was 21 hours at $200. But sorry, lawyers cost a lot, as do doctors, rocket scientists, investment advisors and others with scarce skills.

It's called the free market. You're not against that, are you?

And actually, if you'd read a little more and spew a little less, you'd see he charged the professional conservator of a $100,000 trust for his time. That conservator wouldn't have needed a lawyer if the old man hadn't threatened her life, prompting her to settle the account and get the heck out.

Read carefully, and I'll try to type this nice and slow.

LAWYER WORKED FOR CONSERVATOR.
CONSERVATOR APPOINTED BY COURT TO MANAGE MONEY.
CONSERVATOR RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROPRIATE DISBURSEMENT OF TRUST.
OLD MAN NO LIKE CONSERVATOR MANAGEMENT.
OLD MAN THREATEN CONSERVATOR.
CONSERVATOR HIRED LAWYER TO AUDIT TRUST, GET HER OUT.
LAWYER DOES SO.
OLD MAN SHOOT LAWYER.

[edit: whoops, the term is "conservator"]

dinosaur

November 3, 2003, 06:56 PM

I just saw the lawyer on Fox News and he denies knowing who the shooter is at all! :confused:

bogie

November 3, 2003, 06:58 PM

Well, not withstanding the occupations of assailant and assailee (hmm....), there's a couple of lessons to be learned.

1) if someone is shooting at you, don't give 'em a steady target

2) if shooting at someone, use enough gun

King

November 3, 2003, 07:22 PM

Sounds to me like the fella can't shoot if he managed only to hit the victim in in arms and one in the neck. Kudo's to the victim who worked that tree to his benefit. Otherwise, he shoud be a goner.

I'm not sure that "having enough gun" is the issue. A properly placed .22 can put your lights out and there is no guarantee that a .45 will get the job done either (although I like my chances with the big calibers better).

It didn't appear that the shooter was very skilled.

Regardless of professions, sure hate to see someone get gunned like that. THe lesson for me is how quickly something like this can go down.

BluesBear

November 3, 2003, 10:55 PM

$150 per hour for an attorney is CHEAP! VERY Cheap.

How much do you thing this guys doctors are getting per hour?

SteelyDan

November 4, 2003, 02:58 AM

I just read this thread for the first time tonight, and I'm not sure what I've got to say, but I've got to say something.

I'm a lawyer. I'm also a husband, a dad, and a step-dad. If you knew me, you'd probably say that I am a good guy, a good family man, and honest as the day is long. I'm proud of what I do, and I work very hard, and make a lot of sacrifices, for my clients.

When I meet a prospective client, I explain up-front what the fees will be, and offer two or three different options. I tell them which option I would select if I were in their shoes, and why. Then they make their choice and either hire me or not. If they don't hire me, then I don't charge them for going out and meeting them and seeing their property. If I'm hired on an hourly basis and my fees exceed my estimate, I explain what happened and work with them to make them happy.

I work in a firm with 180 lawyers, and I've dealt with hundreds of others. In my experience, about 80% of them are normal, honorable people. Another 10 to 15% are generally honorable, but they do look out for their "bottom line." The remaining few give the rest of us a bad name.
I'd guess these percentages are about the same, if not better, than just about any other profession represented on this board.

So let me thank those of you who believe it's okay, or nearly okay, or even funny to kill me, just because of what I do for a living.