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

[hillbilly]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Tim Burke]

We don't need no steenkin' 1st Amendment

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

 

[Waitone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Lawyer shooting - extremely poor tactics!

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]

Idiots in the media...

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]

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]

"The only tree in all of Southern California that didn't burn this week -- and some guy puts a bunch of bullets in it. "

 

[pittspilot]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[SaintofKillers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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<

 

[Edward429451]

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.