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

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.

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

WHat caliber revolver?

Has anyone heard what caliber the shooter used?

with care

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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 Shooting

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

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

Where did you deduce that?
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.

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

anyone see the film of the attorney being shot?

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...

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

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

oops,,,

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

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.

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

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

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?

There's a moral to this story....

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

KR

Merging multiple threads, standby.

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.