No. We have some to the end of Act 1.I think any discussion is a moot point, now
No. We have some to the end of Act 1.I think any discussion is a moot point, now
Why?
Ya, I'm sorry, I'm all for the right to defend one's self, but it sure looks to me like that particular use of lethal force was not required for the individual to defend himself.Because he appears to be drawing and intent on firing before the pepper spray is deployed by the victim. Photos of the incident in progress below:
If you look closely enough you can see a case being ejected while the pepper spray cloud is still airborne.
View attachment 948523
Along with my opinion that the shooting will never pass muster as "self defense" will come all the ancillary stuff as his employer (reportedly Pinkerton's, a well known private security company) and the station that hired them will face a firestorm of legal action on the civil side of the courts...
... in my judgment, with the info given - this shooter is in a lot of trouble ... <snip>...My background... <snip> ...
Do you believe that you can read his mind?Because he appears to be drawing and intent on firing before the pepper spray is deployed by the victim.
Basis for your conclusion?Ya, I'm sorry, I'm all for the right to defend one's self, but it sure looks to me like that particular use of lethal force was not required for the individual to defend himself
How might that color the situation?If you look closely enough you can see a case being ejected while the pepper spray cloud is still airborne.
What makes you think so?The victim is basically already dead at the time of that picture
Uh oh.Denver Post photos appear to show Keltner slapped Dolloff in the face, Doloff drew a handgun as Keltner sprayed Doloff with "pepper spray"
Uh oh.
Because he appears to be drawing and intent on firing before the pepper spray is deployed by the victim. Photos of the incident in progress below:
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/12/denver-protest-shooting-photos-full-sequence/
Ya, I'm sorry, I'm all for the right to defend one's self, but it sure looks to me like that particular use of lethal force was not required for the individual to defend himself.
Uh oh.
Of course not!So one slap is justification for deadly force?
So one slap is justification for deadly force?
That blanket might be a bit wide, @Kleanbore . It may not be an element of the case, but it could have an impact on jury perception. "He's out there, working as a security guard without a license, .... obviously, he's someone who thrives on conflict, and that's exactly what he went looking for...."....By the way, whether or not the shooter was licensed will not matter.
It always is.Another excellent example of how the devil is in the details.
Agreed, but if "Mr. Mace" is found to have been the initial aggressor, I think the calculus changes quite a bit....There appears to be some evidence that Doloff, the shooter, was the initial aggressor, and Keltner was defending himself with the OC. In that case, Doloff's use of lethal force would not have been justified.
True....but if "Mr. Mace" is found to have been the initial aggressor, I think the calculus changes quite a bit.
Basis for your conclusion?
You may be right, but I cannot see anything in the pics that would so indicate. Can you expand on that?
.
Because he appears to be drawing and intent on firing before the pepper spray is deployed by the victim. Photos of the incident in progress below:
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/12/denver-protest-shooting-photos-full-sequence/
If you look closely enough you can see a case being ejected while the pepper spray cloud is still airborne.
View attachment 948523
And, it's. possibly, germane that the slapper has already drawn the OC and is in his right hand.It looks to me like this is what started the incident.
The quesion is one of what, based on what he knew at the time, the shooter reasonably believed.So, if I may just quickly summarize: the shooter was in no danger from immiment threat to life or to great bodily harm.
Did you comprehend Post #9?Neither a slap nor pepper spray qualify
The point, legally speaking, has to do with the ability of the person who has sprayed someone who has gun to then take it and use it--as discussed in Post # 9.Nor did the sprayer have any other means of inflicting harm that I could see.