legality of lethal response to mace

Status
Not open for further replies.
From tidbits of video I’ve seen, the shooter started as the aggressor. Other guy starts to use mace as non lethal defense, shooter pulls gun and shoots victim in the head instantly. Shooter does not take two steps back to avoid mace cloud.
 
Like most I've seen the video (or the stills taken from it...) and in my judgment, with the info given - this shooter is in a lot of trouble and deserves what will happen to him at every stage of the process from charging through trial (and afterwards even if found "not guilty" at trial).

Given the distance between shooter and the guy with the spray this was not a justified self defense response at all, period.

My background... Twenty two years in law enforcement, officer, sergeant, finally lieutenant on a hundred man department - including three years in charge of Internal Affairs for my agency - but all of it more than 25 years ago now... I was also the shooting officer in a killing on the street all those years ago and went through a pretty tough time as a result - with an inquest that lasted six months before the shooting was ruled justified...

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...

I can only hope that anyone in the business of training folks for self defense will use this as a teaching tool - about what not to do in a confrontation...

Now if this incident had different facts, say the guy with the spray was actively using it as part of a physical assault on the guy with the gun in an attempt to disarm him... but in real life we're stuck with what actually happened...
 
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...

Pinkerton's is saying that the shooter is a contractor hired through a "local vendor". They won't say who, though.
 
Because he appears to be drawing and intent on firing before the pepper spray is deployed by the victim.
Do you believe that you can read his mind?

Do you somehow think that one should have to wait to be OC'd before drawing?

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
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?

By the way, whether or not the shooter was licensed will not matter.

If you look closely enough you can see a case being ejected while the pepper spray cloud is still airborne.
How might that color the situation?

The victim is basically already dead at the time of that picture
What makes you think so?

The question in the OP was about whether and when deadly force may be lawfully used to defend against OC spray. That was answered in Post # 9.

The discussion has moved into one of whether the shooting in the Denver incident was lawfully justifiable.

While we can make inferences from appearances here, we cannot reach any meaningful conclusions on that from what has been made public.

Things will likely hinge upon
  • Who started the confrontation; that does not mean who physically started it.
  • Whether or not there was provocation by either party or by the employers of the shooter.
  • Whether re-enactments and expert testimony will support a reasonable belief that the shooter, if he was innocent, had an objective basis for a reasonable belief that shooting at that time was necessary to prevent his being disarmed.
Keep in mind that Colorado is a "hard" stand your ground state.
 
downtown Denver, Colorado, near Civic Center Park/Denver Art Museum
Saturday, 10 Oct 2020, 3:37 pm

_ victim was Lee Keltner 49; son said he was Navy vet, ran a business, went to show support for LE, attending a "Patriot Rally" or "Patriot Muster"
_ there was a near-by counter protest called a "BLM-Antifa Soup Drive"
_ shooter was Matthew Dolloff 30, hired from Pinkerton as security for 9News/KUSA-TV
_ no connection has been found between Dolloff and "Patriot Muster" or "BLM-Antifa Soup Drive"
_ shooting occurred near the end of the opposing rallies
_ according to police affidavit Keltner was leaving the "Patriot" rally when he encountered Dolloff
_ Denver Post photos appear to show Keltner slapped Dolloff in the face, Doloff drew a handgun as Keltner sprayed Doloff with "pepper spray"
_ Dolloff's lawyer told Associated Press that Dolloff fired when Keltner reached into his shirt
_ After the shooting police recovered two handguns and a can variously described as "OC spray" and "Mace".

While Dolloff was hired through Pinkerton, he was a contract agent from a security vender and not a vetted Pinkerton employee; Dolloff did not have a Denver issued private security license.
 

Yeah, that is my understanding of the sequence of events. Whether Keltner struck Dolloff seems pretty critical. If he slapped him, maintained an aggressive attitude, then drew mace, self-defense might be a reasonable interpretation for Dolloff. Notice that the mace is already on Dolloff when the round is fired. Since mace travels much more slowly than a bullet, it had to have been sprayed prior to the shot by at least a few seconds.
 
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.

Another excellent example of how the devil is in the details.

Andrew Branca discussed this case today in his members' blog. How this will turn out will depend on exactly what happened and how it happened. And as usual, we don't have all the available information.

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.
 
So one slap is justification for deadly force?
Of course not!

It may help identify the initial aggressor--or not.

The use of pepper spray against a person who has a firearm may justify the use of deadly force. That was the question in the OP.

Why did the victim use pepper spray? Unfortunately, he cannot give us his reason.

We'll have to see how this plays out.

Some of the witnesses may be unlikely to tell what they know.
 
So one slap is justification for deadly force?

No, it's the mace. Which appears to have been sprayed well prior to the shot, since it is already on the shooter at the time of the photo (which is pretty close to the moment of the shot). The slap is only context for the events prior to the mace.
 
On a side note, after the shooting, the shooter was approached by two officers in swat gear with rifles aimed at him. He held on to his pistol WAY too long and could have been the next to get shot.
 
....By the way, whether or not the shooter was licensed will not matter.
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...."
Another excellent example of how the devil is in the details.
It always is.
...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.
Agreed, 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?

.

I think the balance of the posts in this thread cover that pretty well, and I see no need to expand by repeating what has already been said by myself and multiple other posters.

So, if I may just quickly summarize: the shooter was in no danger from immiment threat to life or to great bodily harm. Neither a slap nor pepper spray qualify. Nor did the sprayer have any other means of inflicting harm that I could see. And the presence of numerous bystanders renders death or bodily harm by mere physical contact unlikely and the actions and body language of the shooter tell me he wasn't in fear of that possibility, either. No, sorry, I'm a reasonable person and I can't see justifiable use of lethal force as reasonable in this situtaion.
 
Last edited:
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


It looks to me like this is what started the incident. You need to remember how quickly these frames are going by. This is (less than) 9 frames before the gunshot and a Nikon D5 shoots at 12 - 14 frames per second depending on recording mode.

RALLY_865.jpg

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d5/nikon-d5A6.HTM
 
Last edited:
It looks to me like this is what started the incident.
And, it's. possibly, germane that the slapper has already drawn the OC and is in his right hand.

I'm not finding a cogent definition of less lethal sprays under CO law--can some one clarify that?
If CO describes that as a weapon or a tool of battery, then the slapper may be the person initiating the altercation (and certainly not de-escalating it at all).
 
So, if I may just quickly summarize: the shooter was in no danger from immiment threat to life or to great bodily harm.
The quesion is one of what, based on what he knew at the time, the shooter reasonably believed.

Neither a slap nor pepper spray qualify
Did you comprehend Post #9?

Nor did the sprayer have any other means of inflicting harm that I could see.
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.

Do you understand that?

Of course, that is but one factor in the question of justification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top