Ravenwood - 10/31/03 10:00 PM
While I never condone violence, someone shooting at a lawyer doesn't really surprise me very much. I'm not going to comment too much on this story, but I will make two observations.
First, had one of these bystanders (or the lawyer himself) not been denied by the California government the right to carry a concealed firearm this shooting might have been avoided. (Technically, current law allows it but selective application effectively denies concealed carry, except for Diane Feinstein or the Hollywood elite.)
Second, this comment by a media still photographer ("At first I thought it was a joke because there was no smoke") shows just how ignorant the media is when it comes to firearms. I mean, we've only been using smokeless powder now for more than 100 years. The photographer, Steve Grayson, went on to say, "But the shots were really, really loud. It was very scary." [cannot help but roll my eyes] Don't get me wrong, I realize that random gunshots are quite startling, but his description makes him sound like a 12-year old.
What type of gun/ammo was he using? In other words, was this a pellet gun or did the lawyer dodge really well to avoid being killed?
And the "stunned" defense for not helping out doesn't work very well when the photographers must have had a full minute of footage of the guy walking calmly away before somebody tackled him. "Here, lemme just get some good footage of this guy bleeding, then some more of the other guy walking away. No need to help one or stop the other, I'm sure somebody else will take care of it."
Jackasses.
Posted by: Steve Gigl at November 3, 2003 2:20 PMThat is part of their "non involvment" bullshit. If the guy saw his mother being raped, he'd probably keep filming and say "Sorry mom, I'm a journalist and cannot take sides."
Posted by: Ravenwood at November 3, 2003 3:03 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014