another self-defense shooter is cleared

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

roscoe

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
2,852
Location
NV
This was kind of unusual, given the players, and noteworthy coming so soon after the popcorn shooter acquittal. I thought the prosecutor's phrasing was interesting: “In line with our ethical obligations, we cannot overcome the legal justifications of self-defense or defense of others,” she said. “We are not able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/us/denver-security-guard-charges-dropped.html.

https://kdvr.com/news/local/lawyer-...icensed-security-guard-who-shot-man-at-rally/
 
i wish he'd gotten the proper license. Unlicensed armed security led to a shooting?? Predictable. His shoot looks justified but would such circumstances have arisen if a properly trained and licensed individual had been there that day?

Who can say, but one reason to license armed security is to minimize the amount of trigger happy armed guards with no training, a regulatory goal in this case i can applaud. This was no private citizen defending himself from random circumstances, more akin to a guy getting paid to look for trouble.
 
Last edited:
sequins said:
…if a properly trained and licensed individual had ..
Click to expand...

What training did the person have? Was it inadequate?

Have you been licensed at anything?

I have had multiple licenses from the state and federal governments over the years. And in hind sight, getting them required me to prove competence but not good judgment. Keeping them required the judgement piece.

So how does licensing prevent poor decision making?
 
Last edited:
Ru4real said:
What training did the person have? Was it in adequate?

Have you been licensed at anything?

I have had multiple licenses from the state and federal governments over the years. And in hind sight, getting them required me to prove competence and not good judgment. Keeping them required the judgement piece.

So how does licensing prevent poor decision making?
Click to expand...

Shootings by non LEO security are so exceedingly rare I can't cite an occurrence, feel like that kinda says it all personally.

EDIT: I just did some googling and found a few scattered articles of armed robbery responses where security was located at a place of business or apartment complex type location... I can't find any comparable examples. I am really curious for similar cases now.

These political rally environments are EXTREMELY high risk. It's well within a citizen's first amendment rights to attend, and I support the right to attend even armed, but to do so is fraught and that must be recognized. It's not some minor thing to carry a gun into a crowd.

I suspect the news station had unlicensed security because anyone who was properly licensed would have had to run it past their insurer, who would never have approved or who would have charged a prohibitive rate; I feel the regulatory BS in this case is a good thing IMO because it creates a barrier to people being paid to go to these rallies with a gun and a "defend" whomever.

No one else was shot that day, and if the news crew hadn't had the unlicensed armed guard this never would have happened. In the circumstances he found himself in he was justified to shoot but he never should have been in those circumstances to begin with. They went into contact range with a hostile crowd. It's downright predictable that in such an environment circumstances which justify or appear to justify force will present themselves. A private citizen would have walked away, as evidenced by the fact that there were thousands of angry men like the decedent there but no private citizen managed to wind up needing to defend his life the way this security guard did...
 
Last edited:
sequins said:
That he was being paid to perform unlicensed security work while armed in an extremely high risk environment...
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps he felt a sense of duty, even though not "licensed," to try to make a positive difference. If he was licensed, would his mindset and reason for being there have been any different?

Based on what I have seen of "licensed" security guards, I have no confidence that the licensing process does any good whatsoever.
 
original discussion thread
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/legality-of-lethal-response-to-mace.876325
Legality of Lethal Response to Mace
Discussion in 'Legal' started by roscoe, Oct 13, 2020.

Some points:
Channel 9 news requested an un armed guard.
Pinkerton supplied Dolloff through a sub contractor.
Dolloff did not have the training required by Denver for armed guards, was not wearing the photo ID required for armed guards in Denver.
Dolloff was wearing nothing on him to indicate he was security.
The TV camera man was not wearing anything to indicate he was press.

RALLY86_.JPG
At this point, does Keltner present the ability, opportunity, and means to put Dolloff in reasonable person fear of imminent death or greivous bodily harm justifying the use of lethal force in self defense?
RALLY87_.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bad shoot. A 'reasonable person' would not be in jeopardy of grievous bodily harm or death from Bear spray.

Bad verdict. Because the decedent was a 'right wing protester', Dolloff was acquitted.

The key that shows the verdict was politically motivated is in the phrasing;

roscoe said:
“In line with our ethical obligations, we cannot overcome the legal justifications of self-defense or defense of others,” she said. “We are not able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Click to expand...

Criminal courts are not about ethics, or "doing the right thing". They are about legality or illegality determined by statute. (Thought I'd say it before Frank does.)

They were not able to convict because they didn't try. Manslaughter should have been a slam dunk, unless CO has some weird self-defense laws.
 
This is NOT a win for a good, sane, sober, justified self-defender.

The expanded photo deck from this incident can be found here:

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/12/denver-protest-shooting-photos-full-sequence/

The photos appear to show that the victim (the dead guy, Keltner) did NOT pose a deadly threat to Dolloff. Dolloff put his left hand on the victim, the victim swing with his left hand and knocked off Dolloff's hat and sunglasses. After this swing, the victim retreated and Dolloff drew his firearm. The victim unleashed a stream of pepper spray. And Dolloff put a single round in the victim's head, killing him immediately.

Based on the sequence of these photos, Dalloff drew his gun in response to the slap with an open hand, NOT in response to the use of pepper spray.

Although Dolloff might claim that his vision was impaired by the pepper spray, and that he couldn't really see what the victim held in his hand, in that critical moment he had a good enough view of his sights and his adversary to execute a perfect head shot at something like seven yards. On a moving target. From the holster. In about two seconds.

For those of you here who believe that this was a "good shoot", please identify where in this sequence the victim poses an objective, reasonable deadly threat to the shooter, Dolloff. Taking a swing, or even holding a can of pepper spray, do NOT constitute deadly force. In the expanded photo deck, the victim never displayed a deadly weapon of any kind. His bear spray was clearly identifiable. Where was the gun? Or the knife? Or the club? Or the size or age discrepancy? Where are the multiple attackers who are immediately adjacent? "Ability", a required element of what can be considered an imminent, deadly threat, appears to me to be missing throughout this exchange.

Furthermore, by retreating, the victim here is signalling an intent to disengage from Dolloff. It did happen quickly. Perhaps faster than Dolloff could respond to. This is likely a matter for experts to analyze. But by retreating, in absence of a distance weapon, it appears to me that the victim is demonstrating an absence of "Jeopardy", also known as "Manifest Intent". Just like "Ability", "Jeopardy" is a required element of an imminent, deadly threat, which seems to me to be missing from this sequence.

Dolloff chose to draw his gun after the slap, and before any threatened or actual application of pepper spray occurred. Unless merely holding a can of pepper spray constitutes deadly force under Colorado law.

The real issue here is the question of why the prosecutor is refusing to put the case in front of a jury to decide the facts. This is why juries exist in our system of jurisprudence. I believe that in difficult cases like this, an impartial jury is well-equipped to find the truth.

There are lots of reasons why this prosecutor may have made this decision. But in my opinion, the idea that this was a "good shoot" is definitely not among them.
 
Last edited:
luzyfuerza said:
This is NOT a win for a good, sane, sober, justified self-defender.

The expanded photo deck from this incident can be found here:

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/12/denver-protest-shooting-photos-full-sequence/

The photos appear to show that the victim (the dead guy, Keltner) did NOT pose a deadly threat to Dolloff. Dolloff put his left hand on the victim, the victim swing with his left hand and knocked off Dolloff's hat and sunglasses. After this swing, the victim retreated and Dolloff drew his firearm. The victim unleashed a stream of pepper spray. And Dolloff put a single round in the victim's head, killing him immediately.

Based on the sequence of these photos, Dalloff drew his gun in response to the slap with an open hand, NOT in response to the use of pepper spray.

Although Dolloff might claim that his vision was impaired by the pepper spray, and that he couldn't really see what the victim held in his hand, in that critical moment he had a good enough view of his sights and his adversary to execute a perfect head shot at something like seven yards. From the holster. In about two seconds.

For those of you here who believe that this was a "good shoot", please identify where in this sequence the victim poses an objective, reasonable deadly threat to the shooter, Dolloff. Taking a swing, or even using pepper spray, do NOT constitute deadly force. In the expanded photo deck, the victim never displayed a deadly weapon of any kind. His bear spray was clearly identifiable. Where was the gun? Or the knife? Or the club? Or the size or age discrepancy? Where are the multiple attackers who are immediately adjacent? "Ability", a required element of what can be considered an imminent, deadly threat, appears to me to be missing throughout this exchange.

Furthermore, by retreating, the victim here is signalling an intent to disengage from Dolloff. It did happen quickly. Perhaps faster than Dolloff could respond to. This is likely a matter for experts to analyze. But by retreating, in absence of a distance weapon, it appears to me that the victim is demonstrating an absence of "Jeopardy", also known as "Manifest Intent". Just like "Ability", "Jeopardy" is a required element of an imminent, deadly threat, which seems to me to be missing from this sequence.

The real issue here is the question of why the prosecutor is refusing to put the case in front of a jury to decide the facts. This is why juries exist in our system of jurisprudence. I believe that in difficult cases like this, an impartial jury is well-equipped to find the truth.

There are lots of reasons why this prosecutor may have made this decision. But in my opinion, the idea that this was a "good shoot" is definitely not among them.
Click to expand...

In this after-the-fact, slowed-down, analytical time line, you make perfect sense and an excellent case.

In the real time, real life scenario of the victim making sufficient contact with the shooter to knock-off his (the shooter's) glasses, and then stepping back to engage in the provocative act of drawing and firing pepper spray, it might well be said that the shooter used the only self-defense immediately at hand, (unfortunately) deadly force.

I can understand the D.A.'s choice not to prosecute. I could also understand the victim's family's choice to pursue a wrongful death lawsuit.

That said, if ever I feel I have to shoot, it will be shoot-to-kill. I am a firm believer in situational awareness and thus, staying-the-hell out of trouble and absolutely never looking for trouble. Unfortunately the shooter had a different set of ideals. Same perhaps for Kyle Rittenhouse. If trouble finds me, especially within my own home, . . . .
 
This shooter and his press were allowed to walk freely among antifa that day. Channel 9 was a supporter of their cause.

Channel 9 hired a goon that shot a righty, no big deal.
 
luzyfuerza said:
This is NOT a win for a good, sane, sober, justified self-defender.

The expanded photo deck from this incident can be found here:

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/12/denver-protest-shooting-photos-full-sequence/

The photos appear to show that the victim (the dead guy, Keltner) did NOT pose a deadly threat to Dolloff. Dolloff put his left hand on the victim, the victim swing with his left hand and knocked off Dolloff's hat and sunglasses. After this swing, the victim retreated and Dolloff drew his firearm. The victim unleashed a stream of pepper spray. And Dolloff put a single round in the victim's head, killing him immediately.

Based on the sequence of these photos, Dalloff drew his gun in response to the slap with an open hand, NOT in response to the use of pepper spray.

Although Dolloff might claim that his vision was impaired by the pepper spray, and that he couldn't really see what the victim held in his hand, in that critical moment he had a good enough view of his sights and his adversary to execute a perfect head shot at something like seven yards. On a moving target. From the holster. In about two seconds.

For those of you here who believe that this was a "good shoot", please identify where in this sequence the victim poses an objective, reasonable deadly threat to the shooter, Dolloff. Taking a swing, or even holding a can of pepper spray, do NOT constitute deadly force. In the expanded photo deck, the victim never displayed a deadly weapon of any kind. His bear spray was clearly identifiable. Where was the gun? Or the knife? Or the club? Or the size or age discrepancy? Where are the multiple attackers who are immediately adjacent? "Ability", a required element of what can be considered an imminent, deadly threat, appears to me to be missing throughout this exchange.

Furthermore, by retreating, the victim here is signalling an intent to disengage from Dolloff. It did happen quickly. Perhaps faster than Dolloff could respond to. This is likely a matter for experts to analyze. But by retreating, in absence of a distance weapon, it appears to me that the victim is demonstrating an absence of "Jeopardy", also known as "Manifest Intent". Just like "Ability", "Jeopardy" is a required element of an imminent, deadly threat, which seems to me to be missing from this sequence.

Dolloff chose to draw his gun after the slap, and before any threatened or actual application of pepper spray occurred. Unless merely holding a can of pepper spray constitutes deadly force under Colorado law.

The real issue here is the question of why the prosecutor is refusing to put the case in front of a jury to decide the facts. This is why juries exist in our system of jurisprudence. I believe that in difficult cases like this, an impartial jury is well-equipped to find the truth.

There are lots of reasons why this prosecutor may have made this decision. But in my opinion, the idea that this was a "good shoot" is definitely not among them.
Click to expand...

That is not what I saw in the photos. Pepper mace man was the aggressor from the start, and the hands on him were clearly to prevent him from advancing on the journalists. Then he slapped the shooter, then pulled out the mace. He was escalating straight through the photo sequence.

RALLY_863.jpg

RALLY_865.jpg

BTW, if you pepper mace a cop, they will gladly shoot you. Once incapacitated by pepper mace, you are helpless and subject to subsequent injury, which, given the initial attack, may have been reasonably expected.

As for the shot itself, note that the mace has already crossed the distance between them and is on the shooter when the round fires. So the mace was deployed prior to the shot.

RALLY_874.jpg

Finally, no matter how you read this, the shooter had far more reason to fear for his safety than the popcorn shooter.
 
Last edited:
That's not a cop.

The mace is being sprayed in reaction to the gun being drawn . The gun is coming out before the mace is going up. Mace has been in the guys hand the whole time .

The shooter has his hands on the shot guy prior to being slapped . I would like to know what that's about .

As far as we know , popcorn shooter and un-uniformed , un-licensed ,
possibly un-declaring himself to be security guard are un-related .

They may have dropped the charges now , but the lawsuit isn't going to be fun for the shooter , the media company or the Pinkerton agency. And charges can be brought up later depending on what comes up in the lawsuit . No double jeopardy , no statute of limitations.
 
This little murderer lives near us, Lee Keltner is friend of friends.

No, it wasn't self defense. Doloff had no business being there, injected himself into a conflict and used deadly force against an unarmed man because he slapped him.

Even if Lee had sprayed him first, which he didn't, being pepper sprayed is not justification for deadly force.

The prosecutors are idiot sycophants. This was for a jury to decide, not an agenda driven political machine that is the Denver DAs office.

It was absolutely murder 2, manslaughter at the absolute minimum.
 
And FYI, Doloff is known to his immediate neighbors as being more than a little odd, standoffish and, oh yeah......a hard left lunatic.

Prick doesn't leave the house because he knows just about everyone in the county would like to see him beaten within an inch of his life, and more than a few residents have the stones to do it if they see him.
 
Last edited:
MachIVshooter said:
This little murderer lives near us, Lee Keltner is friend of friends.

No, it wasn't self defense. Doloff had no business being there, injected himself into a conflict and used deadly force against an unarmed man because he slapped him.

Even if Lee had sprayed him first, which he didn't, being pepper sprayed is not justification for deadly force.

The prosecutors are idiot sycophants. This was for a jury to decide, not an agenda driven political machine that is the Denver DAs office.

It was absolutely murder 2, manslaughter at the absolute minimum.
Click to expand...

Journalists have a right to be there. The mace sprayer was the aggressor. If you are sprayed in the context of being physically assaulted, it is reasonable to assume you will be assaulted again once you are incapacitated. The slug certainly did not leave the pistol before the shooter was hit by mace - the photo evidence is clear. This is also without even knowing any verbal threats by the mace sprayer.
 
@roscoe , I believe that, perhaps, your observations are based on an incomplete set of photos. Please go to the Denver Post page I linked to to see the whole sequence. Note, in particular, the timestamps associated with those images.

May I provide a few contrary observations to your statements?

roscoe said:
That is not what I saw in the photos. Pepper mace man was the aggressor from the start, and the hands on him were clearly to prevent him from advancing on the journalists. Then he slapped the shooter...
Click to expand...

First, the victim (dead guy) advanced toward Dolloff, and then hit him with an open hand. Pretty aggressive behavior for sure. But such a blow constitutes ordinary force under the law. This appears to be a one-on-one encounter, and there does not appear to me to be a significant difference in size, age, or gender. I don't see any fellow combatants. So, and this question is VERY important, do you believe that such behavior justifies the use of deadly force on Dolloff's part? A hint: the use of ordinary force like this does NOT justify a response using deadly force by Dolloff, no matter who is the aggressor.

roscoe said:
...then pulled out the mace. He was escalating straight through the photo sequence.
Click to expand...

Second, between the time of the slap and the time of Dolloff's shot, what did the victim do? The answer is clear from the photographs: he retreated. The photographs do not lie. Between the time of the slap and the time of the shot, the victim retreated between five and seven yards. By contrast, Dalloff perhaps took a half-step to the rear. Do you consider retreating to be something that escalates a physical conflict? Clearly, your statement that "He was escalating straight through the photo sequence" is not correct.

Third, the victim here does not appear to have a gun, or other distance weapon in his hand. He carried what Dolloff could clearly see was a can of pepper spray. In this photo taken perhaps 1/8 of a second prior to Dolloff's shot and the spray of red pepper mist

RALLY_873.jpg

the victim had not used, nor was he threatening with his pepper spray. Do you see any threat to use the pepper spray in his hand in this photo? Was the victim's can of spray extended toward Dolloff? Another question: do you see any evidence that the victim was using, or threatening to use, deadly force to this point in the photo sequence?

For the first time in this sequence, a threatened use of deadly force does appear, however. Note that the victim didn't present this threat. Dalloff did. Note that Dolloff has cleared concealment and has his hand on the stock of his pistol.

And, of course, in the subsequent frame, 1/8 of a second later, we see him use that deadly force.

RALLY_874.jpg

roscoe said:
As for the shot itself, note that the mace has already crossed the distance between them and is on the shooter when the round fires. So the mace was deployed prior to the shot.
Click to expand...

and this

roscoe said:
The slug certainly did not leave the pistol before the shooter was hit by mace - the photo evidence is clear.
Click to expand...

Fourth, if you'll check the timestamps on the Denver Post link, you'll see that only about 1/8 of a second has elapsed between the two frames that I've attached. This is based on the number of frames recorded each second during the critical part of the encounter. Dalloff drew and fired in the same 1/8 of a second that it took the victim to raise and activate his pepper spray. With regard to human perception of time, these events are simultaneous. The mace was NOT "...deployed prior to the shot."


@roscoe , you can write and think what you want, but the conclusions you provided above are NOT supported by the photographic evidence. .

Likewise, nothing in these photographs shows that the victim used or threatened to use deadly force in any way at any time through the course of these photos. In absence of such threats, Dolloff's use of deadly force does not appear, to me, to be legally justifiable.
 
Last edited:
I'm not an expert on the law regarding the use of pepper spray. For a more-informed opinion, I'll defer to Greg Ellifritz:

https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-denver-pepper-spray-shooting

"The problem is that the criminal has to be trying to take the gun for the victim to reasonably fear for his life. We need reasonable, articulable facts that would lead a person in a similar situation to believe that a disarming attempt was immanent. Mere possibility of an event happening isn’t enough evidence to keep us out of jail."

The rest of Greg's analysis is insightful. I recommend that everyone interested in this event take a moment to read it.
 
Last edited:
roscoe said:
Journalists have a right to be there. The mace sprayer was the aggressor. If you are sprayed in the context of being physically assaulted, it is reasonable to assume you will be assaulted again once you are incapacitated. The slug certainly did not leave the pistol before the shooter was hit by mace - the photo evidence is clear. This is also without even knowing any verbal threats by the mace sprayer.
Click to expand...

I said nothing of a journalist's rights. I said Doloff had no business being there. He wasn't licensed to be a security guard, he didnt don anything to identify himself as a guard, he's a loose cannon by all accounts, and he introduced deadly weapons to a situation that already has a high likelihood of conflict, and he did so with the intent of engaging people.

Why do you think most states have some prohibition on CCW at bars, or at the very least having a BAC while carrying?

At the end of the day, he drew his weapon with no imminent threat of great bodily harm, which is the threshold in Colorado. Aerosol irritants do not represent a threat of great bodily harm, nor does being open hand slapped for interfering in a verbal confrontation between two other parties.

The original murder 2 charge was appropriate, and his guilt or innocence was for a jury to decide, not a political appointee.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
VA Judge Doesn't Buy "Self Defense" Claim
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
cratz2
C
P
  • Locked
Raging Against Self Defense
Replies
5
Views
876
El Tejon
E
W
  • Locked
MD) Another self-defense shooting in Pasadena, MD 09-24-03
Replies
2
Views
1K
greyhound
G
hso
2022 Concealed Permit Holder Defensive Handgun Use Against Mass Shooting Compilation
Replies
2
Views
479
old lady new shooter
O
2
  • Locked
`Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2003'
Replies
3
Views
1K
Moparmike
M
Back
Top