Seal Beach shooting

[lawrocket 3]

The collaborative process is used throughout. Think that this couple ever resolved issues regarding their divorce? You think that both parents used the kid as a weapon to hurt the other?

I do. I damned well do. I think the dad had 50% and wanted more, which was probably ridiculous under the circumstance. I think the wife found out that he got a disability settlement and wanted more money because of it. I think that one or more attorneys was busily creating work to line their pockets.

Too goddamned often we attorneys light the fuse. Yeah, this guy was a prick who killed a bunch of people. No, this guy did NOT consider his son but used him and victimized him, as well. And both sides went at it making nasty allegations and hitting below the belt because they could.

I blame the guy for 99.9% of it. I also think that my profession has to look at itself and ask what could be done differently. I know some of my compatriots who try their damnedest to piss off, pester, insult and attempt to get a showing of temper out of party opponents so they can get their clients more time with the child and therefore more child support. It's a tactic.

There are opposing counsels where I say, "Take the cost of the divorce and multiply it by three."

i've seen it. I've lived it.

Quote

either can elect to disengage when behavioral problems emerge

That's the problem. Elect to disengage and everything may be lost. You HAVE to fight.

And you are correct. We can't stop it. I just cannot help but think that there are so many cases out there I see and attorneys where I think, "This is one who is going to blow."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Collaborative divorce. An agreement between the divorcing spouses to settle their issues without court. We bring in accountants and mental health professionals, financial planners, etc. The emotions are dealt with, managed and handled.

www.collaborativepractice.com/

Again with child custody situations these are ongoing long after the divorce. As you know, at any time issues can flare up or a change in custody be sought. It's a longer term prospect.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

"This is one who is going to blow."

That sounds like a frightening way to make a living.

We are all engines of karma

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The collaborative process is used throughout. Think that this couple ever resolved issues regarding their divorce? You think that both parents used the kid as a weapon to hurt the other?

I do. I damned well do. I think the dad had 50% and wanted more, which was probably ridiculous under the circumstance. I think the wife found out that he got a disability settlement and wanted more money because of it. I think that one or more attorneys was busily creating work to line their pockets.

Too goddamned often we attorneys light the fuse. Yeah, this guy was a prick who killed a bunch of people. No, this guy did NOT consider his son but used him and victimized him, as well. And both sides went at it making nasty allegations and hitting below the belt because they could.

I blame the guy for 99.9% of it. I also think that my profession has to look at itself and ask what could be done differently. I know some of my compatriots who try their damnedest to piss off, pester, insult and attempt to get a showing of temper out of party opponents so they can get their clients more time with the child and therefore more child support. It's a tactic.

There are opposing counsels where I say, "Take the cost of the divorce and multiply it by three."

i've seen it. I've lived it.

Quote

either can elect to disengage when behavioral problems emerge

That's the problem. Elect to disengage and everything may be lost. You HAVE to fight.

And you are correct. We can't stop it. I just cannot help but think that there are so many cases out there I see and attorneys where I think, "This is one who is going to blow."

And lets make sure that you as a lawyer supports their complete and utter second amendment rights. It would suck to have your opponents client blow your head off when you pretty much have looked into that Future Crime Machine and seen your own murder.

[dorbie 0]

I agree with everything you wrote.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

And lets make sure that you as a lawyer supports their complete and utter second amendment rights. It would suck to have your opponents client blow your head off when you pretty much have looked into that Future Crime Machine and seen your own murder.

Lawyers certainly support their own right to carry, an unusually high percentage have CCW permits.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

either can elect to disengage when behavioral problems emerge

That's the problem. Elect to disengage and everything may be lost. You HAVE to fight.

No I meant a belligerent party in a collaborative process can disengage and return to legal conflict, but really I'm thinking of custody and coparenting rather than a more finite divorce process.

Even then it still boils down to a hearing and court order, unreasonable people don't accept recommendations that do not favor them and often have unreasonable expectations.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And lets make sure that you as a lawyer supports their complete and utter second amendment rights

Yep. You're goddamned right UNTIL that person demonstrates a threat. In the event that you do not think that I have been on both sides of arguing with regard to a restraining order you are wrong.

There are several of the local family bar who have CCW's. Every judge who handles family cases has one. Me? I don't own any guns.

It's my choice. There may be a circumstance in the future where I will honestly feel that I may need to have the means to protect myself. I have thus far been fortunate. Maybe because I don't litigate cases as scorched earth.

Quote

t would suck to have your opponents client blow your head off when you pretty much have looked into that Future Crime Machine and seen your own murder.

Yep. Fortunately, I can't ever recall having a case where the opposing counsel or the opposing party had any personal problem with me. Heck, I had a jury trial a couple of month ago where the opposing counsel gave me a hug when the verdict was about to be announced. Turned out that she thought I was about the most professional and courteous attorney she'd ever gone against.

So yes, I see how attorneys press buttons. I know that the process of litigation is up there right after death of a loved and serious illness in the level of stress it causes.

Managing that stress for me, my client and the opposing party is important to me. I've got a meeting with another attorney in town next week who is generally regarded as a hard-charger. Not with me she hasn't been. Not ever. Perhaps it's because I control to the tone of how things are.

Things don't have to be nasty and bitter. People don't have to be nasty and bitter. Nastiness and bitterness is a state of mind, Jeanne, and it's rather amazing what happens when you let go of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

unreasonable people don't accept recommendations that do not favor them and often have unreasonable expectations.

The collaborative process is great because the people involved ultimately understand that there is no winner in a divorce or child custody matter. There isn't. And in situations where a kid is involved I don't tolerate a client doing things against that kid's interest.

I think I just may be sick of fighting. I see shit like this, and in Seal Beach - which is practically a home town to me - and I get bothered by what people do to each other.

There are bad people who do bad things. This was a bad man who felt he had nothing to lose. He knew he wasn't going to be killed. He was going to lose his son, lose a large chunk of money. He was going to go down shooting... And do it where he knew nobody would be shooting back.

We cannot do much about the first part. I'd like to change the last sentence. We can do something about that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Yeah. I'll say it - it is YOUR thinking that is ensuring that 8 people get blown away. Or ten. Or thirty. I live in California and just two days ago a law was passed that banned open carry of handguns.

What is the purpose of these gun laws? To prevent these crimes? to prevent slayings? Shootings? Well, I hate to break it to you but the evidence suggests that it simply is not working. Period. It's not working.

Now instead of the random shootings we have random shootings and mass murders. The more guns are taken away, the more mass shootings we are getting.


Explain to me how it is that guns keep getting taken away but mass murders on are the increase? Any ideas? “Gee, the guns are taken away but mass murders keep increasing?” This was the largest mass killing on Orange County history. “But lawrocket, gun control laws have gotten so strict in California that


Bruce Pardo – 2008 – kills nine people at a Christmas Eve Party
Vincent Brothers – 2007 – convicted of killing his wife, three kids and mother-in-law.
Marcus Wesson – 2005 – killed nine of his kids
Gian Luigi Ferri – 1993 – kills eight people in a San Francisco high rise law firm
Patrick Purdy – 1989 – kill 5 children at a school in Stockton (and the big reason for an assault weapons ban)
Ramon Salcido – 1989 – kills seven people in a rampage
James Huberty – 1984 – kills 21 people at a McDonald’s
Edward Allaway – 1976 – kills 7 people at a college library

Massacres in California are getting MORE frequent. In the last week we’ve had 4 killed in Cupertino and 8 killed in Seal Beach. And the California gun laws are some of the most restrictive ANYWHERE. Yet, as the laws get stricter the massacres keep going.

Guns are a good thing to blame. Take a look at the massacre in Norway – deliberately set up to ensure that there was a target-rich environment with no threat of defense for a nice long time. Want to kill a bunch of people in America? Go to a school – nobody can defend themselves. Go to a business – guns aren’t allowed.

The gun laws here have turned “killings” into massacres. Strip the population of the opportunity to defend themselves and you have “easy pickings.” The perp in Seal Beach knew better than to put up a fight against the police – he surrendered without a fight. Nope – he’s not pulling a weapon when there’s firepower on the other side. His wasn’t’ a suicide mission – it was a homicide mission. Pick off the defenseless.

If “safety” is the reason for the gun laws, then it appears that the evidence provides a very strong argument that “safety” is not being accomplished. To argue that the same path of taking away more and more of the opportunity for people to defend themselves is misanthropic. The absolute failure of gun control laws to even slow down the murder rate should be examined. And to suggest continuing down the same path would be a smart option indicates that there is something else at work. Safety is not the goal.

Gun control is NOT working. So it’s time to go back to the drawing board and try something else.

QFT......