another self-defense shooter is cleared
- Thread starter roscoe
- Start date
- Status
Carl N. Brown
Member
Denver 9News specifically contracted for an unarmed security guard.
Pinkerton provided a security guard, Dolloff, through a subcontractor.
Dolloff came armed with a personal concealed weapon. He did not have the training or certification required by Denver law for an armed guard. He was not wearing the visible photo ID required by Denver law for an armed guard because he had never earned it.
Dolloff was not identified as security. The camera man was not identified as press.
Dolloff raised his shirt and drew his gun before Keltner raised his bear spray to aiming level.
Dolloff's civil liability may prove harder to avoid than the criminal charges.
Pinkerton and the subcontractor also have some 'splaning to do: why did they think Dolloff was a good choice as an unarmed security hire?
Pinkerton provided a security guard, Dolloff, through a subcontractor.
Dolloff came armed with a personal concealed weapon. He did not have the training or certification required by Denver law for an armed guard. He was not wearing the visible photo ID required by Denver law for an armed guard because he had never earned it.
Dolloff was not identified as security. The camera man was not identified as press.
Dolloff raised his shirt and drew his gun before Keltner raised his bear spray to aiming level.
Dolloff's civil liability may prove harder to avoid than the criminal charges.
Pinkerton and the subcontractor also have some 'splaning to do: why did they think Dolloff was a good choice as an unarmed security hire?
Last edited:
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
There's a substantial faction who are wondering the same thing. I can't argue with the "inability to disprove the self-defense claim," and applaud that, but the high suspicion of that faction is that if the politics were reversed, the prosecution would have pursued charges to the fullest.
Now, that's venturing into the no-no of politics on THR, but in light of the decision itself, that suspicion should be recognized by any of us who carry concealed anywhere.
Perhaps it could be legitimately (for THR) discussed as a strategic matter in some Strategy and Tactics forum somewhere.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
dranrab
Member
Let me ask you this. What information did the prosecutors glean after charging him that made them decide to drop the charges?
MachIVshooter
Member
The word you're looking for is pressure.
The events did not change, and are as documented as can be; any more detailed, and we'd have to start asking if it were staged. Hancock simply doesn't want Democrats prosecuted for assaulting or killing his right wing adversaries in his city. If the political affiliation of the parties were reversed, it would be a murder trial with no plea offers
dranrab
Member
When you charge someone, then drop the charges with no known changes in facts or evidence, that says bringing the charges in the first place was wrong.
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
One thing I particularly don't care for is an obsession with "licensing", as if having a piece of paper magically qualifies someone for anything. For very complex professions I can understand the need, Law, Medicine, etc. and I can see making them available to things like security, electricians, etc. but when people start down the line that only certified and licensed people are qualified to do anything it strikes me as more of an appeal to mid evil guild mentality of creating special classes that have a monopoly on doing some type of work. This is true for simple things like security work to prohibiting homeowners from doing work on their own house.
eyeshot
Member
If that was 5-7 yards of separation, I can see how members are posting such great pistol groups on the other forums.
What's with the headshot with people in the background? Did the stubby dude have armor on? Looks like it.
With all the people milling around, this never should have went lethal. Nothing brought it to that level on the deceased's part. IMO.
What's with the headshot with people in the background? Did the stubby dude have armor on? Looks like it.
With all the people milling around, this never should have went lethal. Nothing brought it to that level on the deceased's part. IMO.
3850remhep
Member
At least in Texas, I can't fairly comment on Colorado as I have never resided there, when someone is charged, the case advances to a grand jury which considers all the evidence and it is their collective decision whether to return a true bill and proceed with prosecuting a trial or no bill and the charges are dropped.
entropy
Member
In the eyes of those that don't want their reality shattered by facts, or clear photographic evidence, yes, it is wrong. Colorado State Law says otherwise. Judicial (and prosecutorial) activism is a real thing, and this is a prime example of it. You can't even use the "Well, we can't prosecute because his 'group' will riot in the streets" argument here. Sure, all Unlicensed Security Guards' Live Matter, but they won't have paid agent provocateurs with supply caches at the ready for the outraged masses to raze downtown Denver with.
rabid wombat
Member
Good Ol' Boy
Member
I just put two and two together.
The OP is the same Roscoe thats on NoTechTyranny.
We need an ignore feature on this site as well.
The OP is the same Roscoe thats on NoTechTyranny.
We need an ignore feature on this site as well.
MachIVshooter
Member
Riiiiiiiight.....there's never a different reason........
Archie
Member
Amazing! The DA admits there is not enough evidence to convict of murder, but several allegedly pro 2nd Amendment people declare a 'bad shoot'. This conclusion based on looking at a series of pictures - chosen by someone else
The defender - NOT "little murderer' MachIVshooter - was employed to defend the journalists. He was not 'licensed' to be a security guard in Colorado. One wonders how that circumstance happened. At any rate, the defender may be charged with operating as a [something or other] without a license (or the legal wording of the Colorado state codes). One should also check the appropriate laws of Colorado and see what the requirements are to sustain a defense of self-defense.
And one should address such concerns to the District Attorney's office.
The defender - NOT "little murderer' MachIVshooter - was employed to defend the journalists. He was not 'licensed' to be a security guard in Colorado. One wonders how that circumstance happened. At any rate, the defender may be charged with operating as a [something or other] without a license (or the legal wording of the Colorado state codes). One should also check the appropriate laws of Colorado and see what the requirements are to sustain a defense of self-defense.
And one should address such concerns to the District Attorney's office.
codytrucker
Member
Being pro second amendment doesn't mean unconditionally backing up any concealed carrier , for any reason .
those photos are time stamped . If you look you can plainly see that 1) "security guard" has his hands on the other guy 1st .
2) Guy slapped "security guard" Then stepped back ,creating space .
3) "security guard" reaction to being slapped is to immediately go for his gun .
$) as "security guard is drawing his gun , guy starts bringing up pepper spray ,in order to defend himself ( my opinion/observation) .
5) After the first frame of pepper spraying , the spray is not pointing at shooter , because the sprayer has already been shot and has lost control of nervous system .
Just my own opinion , the guy was shot because of the slap , not the spray . The D.A's decision seems to be politically motivated , from what's been reported . People that had much more justification to use their firearms defensively have had to stand up to scrutiny by trial . this certainly seems to be worthy of at least having a grand jury take a look at all the facts .
MachIVshooter
Member
I already stated what the threshold is: imminent danger of great bodily injury.
https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-1-704.html
Being slapped certainly doesn't make muster, especially when the person disengages after the single strike. And double especially when the slap was the result of the alleged defenders actions; Doloff was attempting to take Keltner's can of OC when Keltner slapped him away.
There's also a very good reason wearing something identifying you as security is a requirement. It labels one as ostensibly a neutral peacekeeper of sorts. Otherwise, some guy in street cloths engaging you is reasonably perceived as a combatant.
Archie
Member
The 'political motivation' being what?
Archie
Member
"Imminent danger of great bodily harm..." You mean like having a much larger person beat them for an unspecified length of time? The bruiser that was shot looked like a physical threat to me.
You do not think so. Well, good, that means I'm not the final authority. So you're going to have to take it up with the DA's office, about who knows what that all means.
luzyfuerza
Member
Local prosecutors don't ALWAYS get the last say in difficult cases.
One example:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/12/...-announces-new-prosecutor-ahmaud-arbery-case/
And, prosecutors who have conflicts of interest and make clearly improper decisions regarding prosecutions sometimes face criminal charges.
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/n...ed-violating-oath-office-obstructing-justice/
It doesn't happen often, but if public outcry is loud enough, sometimes these kinds of errors can be overcome.
One example:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/12/...-announces-new-prosecutor-ahmaud-arbery-case/
And, prosecutors who have conflicts of interest and make clearly improper decisions regarding prosecutions sometimes face criminal charges.
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/n...ed-violating-oath-office-obstructing-justice/
It doesn't happen often, but if public outcry is loud enough, sometimes these kinds of errors can be overcome.
MachIVshooter
Member
You think being slapped away for grabbing at something in another's hands constitutes "beat them for an unspecified length of time"?
Buddy, I hope you avoid all conflict, because it sounds like you've justified in your mind the use of deadly force in response to any physical conflict, regardless of who initiated.
And with that, you're on the ignore list. I won't waste my breath debating people who double down on the stupid.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Well, this wasn't a question of two kids rassling in the mud in mutual combat. One was armed and settled the matter that way. Plus, the question of disparity of force has been raised.
And there's a conflict there. Like myself, who figured it was good thing to have a case of self-protection by deadly force dismissed and hooray for that. Still, the specter of politics was there. The "Substantiall Faction" I mentioned above still suspected favoritism in the decision.
This suspicion will remain until a pattern of favoritism is established ( if ever), but I still think it's a matter to be considered in terms of the tactics one can use in a firearms-unfriendly legal system. In other words, don't consider this as some kind of "case law.",
Perhaps the question of escalating mutual combat (and disparity of force) should have been examined in a full court trial. It maybe would have been bad for us "gunnies," but good for knowing where we stand in self-defense situations in widely variant political environments.
Terry, 230RN
And there's a conflict there. Like myself, who figured it was good thing to have a case of self-protection by deadly force dismissed and hooray for that. Still, the specter of politics was there. The "Substantiall Faction" I mentioned above still suspected favoritism in the decision.
This suspicion will remain until a pattern of favoritism is established ( if ever), but I still think it's a matter to be considered in terms of the tactics one can use in a firearms-unfriendly legal system. In other words, don't consider this as some kind of "case law.",
Perhaps the question of escalating mutual combat (and disparity of force) should have been examined in a full court trial. It maybe would have been bad for us "gunnies," but good for knowing where we stand in self-defense situations in widely variant political environments.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
JR24
Member
Here’s a video with his reaction as well. The notable thing is apparently in Colorado pepper spray does not constitute a deadly threat (according to Branca) and therefore there’s a legal escalation issue.
Especially when the pictures show Doloff going for his gun right after the slap.
TLDR on the video is Branca feels it was worth a trial from the images alone.
https://rumble.com/vxhmio-did-denver-shooter-of-right-wing-protestor-just-get-away-with-murder.html
Personally, from the pictures I think it might have been a bad shoot, but I don’t recall any recounts about what had been said, and if the guy who got shot was saying something about killing him or whatever it was probably enough to get him off. I believe the DA has a lot of social justice stuff on his bio, so there’s that too.
By now, I suspect that we all have learned that images can be manipulated and used to manipulate. The photos seem to show multiple unfortunate choices made by more than one individual. They do not include audio, they do not include other views, we have no eyewitness statements or testimony, and we are not elected or licensed to practice law in Colorado. This happened in a matter of seconds. It is a tragedy no matter how you slice it, with one life lost and another likely destroyed. Civil litigation will likely take years, and be punitive and frustrating for all.
I see parallels with this shooting and the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting.
I didn't see the Zimmerman shooting as justified, that's my take on this one also.
It's possible the prosecutor was wanting to avoid a circus similar to what the Zimmerman/Martin trial became, to ultimately end in aquittal.
I didn't see the Zimmerman shooting as justified, that's my take on this one also.
It's possible the prosecutor was wanting to avoid a circus similar to what the Zimmerman/Martin trial became, to ultimately end in aquittal.
Last edited:
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
So when you are being assaulted and your head bashed off the sidewalk that is not justified? If that is not justified then just turn in your firearms now because you will never be allowed to use them under that standard.
- Status
Similar threads
