NBC Affiliate Private Security Kills Trump Supporter

[clarksvol00]

I thought i had read his armed license had previously been suspended.

They moved to suspend it yesterday. I think there was an article with a confusing headline about it earlier.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You had mentioned defense of others.

One of the previous comments about the mace was that if maced he couldnt protect his charge, and thus a little extra escalation might be permitted to a licensed security guard.

Unless more video/pics show up it doesnt look like the reporter was in danger, so cant claim to be generally defending them as an outsider. And if you arent licensed I would guess any extra protection Colorado might have for protecting others in a specific, security guard type situation, wouldnt apply to a non licensed individual.

The specifics always matter in these cases I think we are all trying to figure it out.

Wait. A business hired a non-licensed private individual to go armed as their representative? That seems to be begging to get sued out of existence.

 

[Grand Vol]

Wait. A business hired a non-licensed private individual to go armed as their representative? That seems to be begging to get sued out of existence.

That's not necessarily the case just yet.

 

[clarksvol00]

Wait. A business hired a non-licensed private individual to go armed as their representative? That seems to be begging to get sued out of existence.

There were conflicting reports on whether news channel hired him directly. The news channel said they went through Pinkerton, who initially said he was not employed by them. Pinkerton clarified that they subcontracted him through a separate entity.

 

[k-town_king]

The guy he shot moved back before he was shot. That's going to be hard to spin as provocation and a reason to fire. Looks much more like a retaliatory move from a snotty little punk that just got slapped.

He did way more violence and was way more of a threat than anyone that thug Bitchenhouse shot.

 

[0nelilreb]

He did way more violence and was way more of a threat than anyone that thug Bitchenhouse shot.

LOL

 

[RockyTop85]

No, but you have to be licensed to be an armed security guard in Colorado. Something he was not.

There's another issue of bonding which I'm unaware of the specific laws pertaining to that, but I'd really hope his present company has a good one.

That sounds like an issue for apportioning liability in the event that the shooting was unjustified. I could be wrong, but it seems like putting the cart before the horse to bring up his license when determining whether he was acting in defense of himself or others.

Cc: @LouderVol

 

[RockyTop85]

No but if your claim is you're providing security, while your social media presence indicates support for Antifa along with reports from people on the ground there that he along with this news crew appeared to instigate or stage the conflict then that conflict results in the death of a participant is significant both criminally and in terms of culpability for the shooter, station and the security firm.

There’s enough evidence now that I’m satisfied he was contracted to be there to protect a 9News reporter. Whether he had all the necessary licenses, aside from a concealed carry permit, doesn’t seem legally relevant to me to the criminal context, with the caveat that I don’t have any knowledge of Colorado law.

 

[KB5252]

There’s enough evidence now that I’m satisfied he was contracted to be there to protect a 9News reporter. Whether he had all the necessary licenses, aside from a concealed carry permit, doesn’t seem legally relevant to me to the criminal context.

But did the news station and he have an agenda? Did they participate in creating the chain of events that lead to the shooting?

 

[clarksvol00]

I haven't viewed the whole sequence yet and sorry if already posted.
PHOTOS: A frame by frame account of the Denver protest shooting

 

[Grand Vol]

That sounds like an issue for apportioning liability in the event that the shooting was unjustified. I could be wrong, but it seems like putting the cart before the horse to bring up his license when determining whether he was acting in defense of himself or others.

Cc: @LouderVol

But the forefront of that liability is going to be his reason for being there in the first place. So the question to start will be in what capacity was he there? As a contracted security guard being paid to protect the individual(s) he was contacted for? Or as a private citizen that happened to perceive a threat and respond with deadly force?

I see you noticed that it your next post.

But if the answer is the former, the argument of "self defense" becomes secondary to "what did his training tell him to do" and "what was his company's policies regarding the use of lethal force" along with the totality of circumstances that led to the shooting.

Self defense is one thing that can be applied. But the bigger question will be "why was he there to begin with?".

 

[hog88]

But the forefront of that liability is going to be his reason for being there in the first place. So the question to start will be in what capacity was he there? As a contracted security guard being paid to protect the individual(s) he was contacted for? Or as a private citizen that happened to perceive a threat and respond with deadly force?

I see you noticed that it your next post.

But if the answer is the former, the argument of "self defense" becomes secondary to "what did his training tell him to do" and "what was his company's policies regarding the use of lethal force" along with the totality of circumstances that led to the shooting.

Self defense is one thing that can be applied. But the bigger question will be "why was he there to begin with?".

I've been told that the standard for self defense is much higher for a paid security professional than a private citizen. Is that so?

 

[InVOLuntary]

I went through those pictures one by one. One thing that struck me as odd is he doesn't seem to be pointing the spray at the guy that shoots him. Maybe the guy sides steps? Also, he doesn't seem to raise the spray until the dude reaches for his gun. That indicates to me the deceased was raising the spray in defense of the guy pulling his weapon.

 

[RockyTop85]

But did the news station and he have an agenda? Did they participate in creating the chain of events that lead to the shooting?

I agree that the second question is legally relevant. I don’t know the answer to it. In the video I saw, the deceased purposefully walks off camera from the first mostly verbal altercation towards where he got shot. The camera stays focused on the guy yelling. A few seconds later, he gets shot. What happened during those few seconds is the important unknown. Obviously there was a physical altercation, but the still images aren’t enough to say the shooting was unjustified, in my opInion.

If some video or reliable witness statements turn up that are negative for the shooter, then maybe his politics become relevant as a possible motive, but all of that stuff just seems to be residual from the grifters and hacks working overtime to make this a partisan issue, at this point.

 

[RockyTop85]

But the forefront of that liability is going to be his reason for being there in the first place. So the question to start will be in what capacity was he there? As a contracted security guard being paid to protect the individual(s) he was contacted for? Or as a private citizen that happened to perceive a threat and respond with deadly force?

I see you noticed that it your next post.

But if the answer is the former, the argument of "self defense" becomes secondary to "what did his training tell him to do" and "what was his company's policies regarding the use of lethal force" along with the totality of circumstances that led to the shooting.

Self defense is one thing that can be applied. But the bigger question will be "why was he there to begin with?".

Sounds like you’re still muddling civil liability and criminal responsibility. But, again, I don’t know Colorado law.

 

[clarksvol00]

I went through those pictures one by one. One thing that struck me as odd is he doesn't seem to be pointing the spray at the guy that shoots him. Maybe the guy sides steps? Also, he doesn't seem to raise the spray until the dude reaches for his gun. That indicates to me the deceased was raising the spray in defense of the guy pulling his weapon.

Hard to tell. I'd say it could go either way. Mace hand is moving forward and gun hand is moving to belt.

 

[Grand Vol]

I've been told that the standard for self defense is much higher for a paid security professional than a private citizen. Is that so?

Depends on each State actually.

 

[AM64]

That sounds like an issue for apportioning liability in the event that the shooting was unjustified. I could be wrong, but it seems like putting the cart before the horse to bring up his license when determining whether he was acting in defense of himself or others.

Cc: @LouderVol

I've always believed that there are no true innocents at protests. Perhaps a protest breaks out on someone's path home from work; but otherwise if you knowingly show up at a protest, you can't make a real claim as being an innocent bystander. That includes playing in the street and being run down by a car "while watching a protest".

 

[RockyTop85]

I've always believed that there are no true innocents at protests. Perhaps a protest breaks out on someone's path home from work; but otherwise if you knowingly show up at a protest, you can't make a real claim as being an innocent bystander. That includes playing in the street and being run down by a car "while watching a protest".

I don’t disagree. Between these two guys and the news crew members who were initially detained, they had two firearms and a Costco sized can of bear mace. They knew there was going to be trouble.

But, Kyle Rittenhouse took a rifle. He knew there was going to be trouble, too. The trouble found him, and I think he was justified in defending himself.

This guy, I’m not sure, but just there’s a bit of a fuzzy line between being an idiot and being criminally idiotic, in my personal opinion. There aren’t enough facts here for me to say one way or the other.

 

[AM64]

I don’t disagree. Between these two guys and the news crew members who were initially detained, they had two firearms and a Costco sized can of bear mace. They knew there was going to be trouble.

But, Kyle Rittenhouse took a rifle. He knew there was going to be trouble, too. The trouble found him, and I think he was justified in defending himself.

This guy, I’m not sure, but just there’s a bit of a fuzzy line between being an idiot and being criminally idiotic, in my personal opinion. There aren’t enough facts here for me to say one way or the other.

"Criminal stupidity" should be a punishable crime; it seems to be one of the few things legislators' haven't covered - that may be a conflict of interest in itself considering some of the things legislatures do.

 

[Grand Vol]

Sounds like you’re still muddling civil liability and criminal responsibility. But, again, I don’t know Colorado law.

No, the reason behind "why were you there" comes into play a lot more if the individual had to be there (contractual requirement) as opposed to "showed up on my own accord." The totality changes if the person was there on their own accord and got involved where they didn't belong instead of having to be there and confronting a threat.

It's a criminal investigation regardless as any shooting should be. But the totality changes drastically if a person gets involved when they didn't need too. So, whether or not he's licensed as that contractual agent that has to be there does change the paradigm significantly.

 

[VolStrom]

Hard to tell. I'd say it could go either way. Mace hand is moving forward and gun hand is moving to belt.

If you look at the guy that got killed in relation to the fence, he is further away from the shooter in the 3rd frame than he was in the 1st as the guy was reaching for his gun.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Hard to tell. I'd say it could go either way. Mace hand is moving forward and gun hand is moving to belt.

It is hard to tell but it appears the shooter is going for his gun and the victims hand holding the mace is still down at his side. No way to know for sure.

 

[RockyTop85]

No, the reason behind "why were you there" comes into play a lot more if the individual had to be there (contractual requirement) as opposed to "showed up on my own accord." The totality changes if the person was there on their own accord and got involved where they didn't belong instead of having to be there and confronting a threat.

It's a criminal investigation regardless as any shooting should be. But the totality changes drastically if a person gets involved when they didn't need too. So, whether or not he's licensed as that contractual agent that has to be there does change the paradigm significantly.

Disagree. None of that is relevant to whether this was self-defense. Maybe relevant to the degree of murder if it wasn’t self defense.

It’s also probably the most apparent fact of the whole ordeal: 9News contracted security through Pinkerton, who hired a vendor, who sent this guy. That’s what I read Pinkerton’s statement to say.

His failure to get a license in the municipality of Denver may create some hurdles for asserting self-defense, but that’s specific to CO law, which I don’t care to delve into until more facts are known.

Generically, there are four things I’m interested in: who was the initial aggressor, would a reasonable person be afraid, was the duty to retreat (if any) satisfied, and was the use of force proportionate to the fear.

I don’t know the full answer to any of those and even if the guy was there to protest, I don’t think it directly affects those considerations.

 

[Rickyvol77]

who was the initial aggressor (hard to say, although if the armed guy tried to start the incident by trying to take the mace from the other guy, self-defense goes out the window)
would a reasonable person be afraid (of mace? again very very debatable)
was the duty to retreat (if any) satisfied (again, it's mace, and they are in a crowded area, not a dark alley alone, i don't see how the shooter can say this)
, and was the use of force proportionate to the fear (i don't see how with the facts as they are presented)