Shooting caught on tape outside courthouse.

[hardheadjarhead]

I just saw incredible footage of a guy trying to shoot an attorney outside of a courthouse in California.

The shooter is taking shots at the attorney at point blank range...not even six feet. The attorney is using a tree as cover and is ducking, bobbing, weaving. To the attorney's credit, he used the tree and his movement REALLY well. He took a bullet to the neck and arm, but apparently is going to survive. He walked away calmly after the shooter started to walk away.

REALLY dramatic footage.

SCS

 

[arnisador]

Is it on the net anywhere?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by arnisador
Is it on the net anywhere?

I don't know any thing about the internet; however, I'm sure we won't be able to escape the footage on the boob tube for months to come.
Sean

 

[arnisador]

I hope you're right--I would like to see it!

 

[OULobo]

I just saw this footage. It's both gripping and a little funny. The victim used a tree that was half his width and the shooter kept trying to shoot him when he poked his head out on either side. It literally looked a lot like a loony tunes episode. The shooter had a revolver and fired all six, he only hit in the arm and grazed the neck. The victim, a lawyer (it figures), only took one day off work for recovery. The shooter a portly older man, calmly walked away tucking his empty gun into his fanny pack. He was later tackled by a bystander and restrained until police arrived. The other interesting part was that the shooter was followed by two cameramen that filmed and pointed to him to identify that he was the shooter, but never tried to restrain him themselves. The victim walked away to seek medical attention.

The wierd parts are:
-that the victim never tried to rush or restrain the shooter, or even grab the gun when the gun was already within reach.
-that shooter couldn't kill the victim at point blank with six shots.
-that the cameramen never had the conviction to drop their cameras and restrain the shooter.

This really is a classic example of the chaos of confrontation.

 

[Eggman]

sounds like the seinfeld final episode. LOL I saw the footage and at first thought that it was a game of tag.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

OULobo wrote:

The wierd parts are:
-that the victim never tried to rush or restrain the shooter, or even grab the gun when the gun was already within reach.
-that shooter couldn't kill the victim at point blank with six shots.
-that the cameramen never had the conviction to drop their cameras and restrain the shooter.

We might consider rushing the guy, being martial artists. Others might wonder why he didn't try to run, zig zagging all the way.

The shooter shot from the hip...pushed the gun at the guy as he pulled the trigger...never acquired a sight picture and never really attempted to get around the tree. He also had a moving target. Pat Rogers, a gun guru who teaches at Gunsite, once said that he and a perp emptied their guns at each other from six feet away and both missed every shot...and no tree was blocking their respective targets. The perp threw his gun down and surrendered, if I recall the story correctly.

The whole issue with the cameramen is an interesting one. They probably were in shock. I don't doubt they were scared. Some of them probably just thought of capturing the story and getting the perp on tape for identification later. These guys aren't fighters...they're journalists. Like the attorney, they don't sit around and think about this stuff like many of us do.

But it still is an issue in journalism ethics classes...if you see someone in distress, do you take pictures or go to their aid?

It is also a popular joke. You're an award winning journalist covering a flood. You see an attorney in the middle of the raging torrent clinging to the branch of a tree dangling out over the water. He screams for help. Do you:

1. Get it on film for the nightly news.
2. Call for help.
3. Throw him a rope.
4. Cut down the tree.

Maybe that's why none of the cameramen went after the gunman. He was shooting an attorney.


Regards,

Steve Scott

 

[theletch1]

If I remember what I read of this story, the shooter was ticked because the lawyer was representing the executor of his trust fund. The shooter needed money for medical treatment and the executor refused to hand it over. As he walked away he was heard to say "That's what you get for taking my money." What get's me the most is the calmness of both the shooter and the lawyer immediately following the shooting.... it was like bang, bang, bang.....have a nice day, Jim. O.K. you too Bob. and they went their own way. The bystander that tackled him was an off-duty auxilliary police deputy.
As for the cameramen, it is my understanding that it is drilled into their head during training that they are never to put the camera down no matter what. In 1985 we had a really bad flood in this area. There were several people stranded on a roof top and were being filmed by a camera crew in a helocopter. Things got out of hand a bit as the water began to take the building down. The cameraman put his camera down to assist with the evacuation, the last man was pulled from the roof just before the building collapsed. There was a great deal of discussion amongst the media folks in this area as to whether or not the cameraman did the right thing. Some said that he should have kept the camera rolling even if someone had been swept away because the "public needs to know what's going on" others praised him for helping out.

 

[someguy]

What a crazy world we live in.

 

[RBaddorf]

I understand that this is an old topic, but some were asking if it was on the web or not. Enjoy. (or not)

www.courttv.com web site click on programs, then on video (at the top), then on archive, about 7/8 way down "point blank". Shows two different angles of the shooting.

or try here if it works "point blank" about 7/8 of the way down http://www.courttv.com/video/archive/

Ron