NBC Affiliate Private Security Kills Trump Supporter

#253
#253
Rickyvol77 said:
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)
Click to expand...

There was an initial supposition that shooter "lunged" for the mace, but based on the new pictures, I don't think he went for the mace.

My understanding is no duty to retreat in CO.
 
#254
#254
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Disagree on your disagree. Again, if he didn't have to be there and got involved where he didn't need to, the self defense argument doesn't work.

I think we're in tune on a lot of this and I did have to get somewhat familiar with the licensing and rules of armed and unarmed security in Denver and the surrounding areas last year. Basically, the burden of proof on use of force lies with the attacker (as it normally does) . To paraphrase "was the use of force applied within your scope of responsibility" and "has lesser means failed/could they have been employed."

Basically, a security guard going out looking for that kind of stuff is completely in the wrong. Now, we aren't sure who was the aggressor and if lesser means could have been employed. But just based on the timing in the video and positioning of the shooter and victim in the pictures, self defense will be a hard sell.

The only defense he will have is the "defense of client" (not sure of the legal term) to which is blown out of the water by not being licensed in the State of Colorado or in Denver as a security guard. He's pretty much no different than a private citizen at this point.
 
#257
#257
Grand Vol said:
Disagree on your disagree. Again, if he didn't have to be there and got involved where he didn't need to, the self defense argument doesn't work.

I think we're in tune on a lot of this and I did have to get somewhat familiar with the licensing and rules of armed and unarmed security in Denver and the surrounding areas last year. Basically, the burden of proof on use of force lies with the attacker (as it normally does) . To paraphrase "was the use of force applied within your scope of responsibility" and "has lesser means failed/could they have been employed."

Basically, a security guard going out looking for that kind of stuff is completely in the wrong. Now, we aren't sure who was the aggressor and if lesser means could have been employed. But just based on the timing in the video and positioning of the shooter and victim in the pictures, self defense will be a hard sell.

The only defense he will have is the "defense of client" (not sure of the legal term) to which is blown out of the water by not being licensed in the State of Colorado or in Denver as a security guard. He's pretty much no different than a private citizen at this point.
Click to expand...


So why doesn’t he have the same right of self-defense or defense of others as an ordinary private citizen, according to you?
 
#258
#258
RockyTop85 said:
So why doesn’t he have the same right of self-defense or defense of others as an ordinary private citizen, according to you?
Click to expand...

Did I imply or say that? The shooter had an inherent right to self defense as any citizen might. The question is, was this self defense?
 
#260
#260
RockyTop85 said:
You did. I put it in bold.

“The only defense he will have is the "defense of client"”
Click to expand...

My apologies, I didn't "click to expand" and missed your bold.

That's not necessarily the argument I was making, however, given the timing and available pictures of the events, that's the only conceivable actions he could have been taking. The point I was making was self defense is going to very hard to prove in this case. Regardless, the intent of that comment was if he was acting in a capacity of "protecting" his client (I have my own theory about that) he can use the excuse of defending his client from the aggressive person coming after them. However, since we have been informed that the shooter was not a licensed security guard, acting to protect his "client" is out the window.

Now, I'll give you that ordinary citizens can protect others (during mass shootings for example) and take on threats that don't involved them so to speak. But in this case, I'm not that's a valid defense given the timing of the events that transpired. Between the cell phone video that was taken and the photos of the shooting itself, it's pretty clear preservation of the shooter's life was not at stake.

Follow me around the scene, counselor:

We have the video of the victim arguing with someone else. It's a heated argument, but no force is being used by either party at that time. Victim walks away out of the camera while the other individual continues to argue with others. I checked the time and about 6-7 seconds passed before the shot was heard from the victim walking away. Now, pictures and the supposition based on the facts:

Based on the video, it's about 10 feet from where he walked to where the shooter is located. Let's call that three seconds to cover the distance because he wasn't rushing over.

First "published" picture is where shooter is getting b!tch slapped. It appears he is reaching towards the victim (maybe attempting to grab the spray can?) and getting the taste smacked out of his mouth. Call that a second.

The next picture shows the victim backing away. Shooter looks to be surprised by the slap, but the "threat" is retreating. (see my post here for the pictures the media is omitting) So maybe another second or two? Let's call that a second to back off since the gap is only about eight feet or so.

Next we see the spray being deployed at the same time the shot is going off less than seven seconds after the victim walked away from the verbal confrontation. At some point the shooter had to draw his weapons, aim and fire after the victim walked away (pictures don't show the pistol out until the victim is out of striking range) and continuing to back away. Let's call that 1-2 seconds and I'm being generous since he had an RMR equipped pistol making targeting easier.

Adding the times up:

Walking the ten feet at a steady pace: 3 seconds
Attempting to grab at the can and getting smacked: 1 second
Backing off: 1 second
Drawing, aiming, firing and deploying the spray: 1 second

Leaving a second unaccounted for, but I'm splicing this together and making up the times.

But the critical point here is the victim was backing off from the shooter at the time of the shooting. He is no longer a lethal threat and even if the shooter got sprayed by the bear mace (I'm assuming that's what it was) it still does not justify a lethal response.

No, there is no self defense in this case. Furthermore, exactly what was the "producer" doing on scene without any visible indication he was with the media? I know "Media" and "Medic" vests are easy to come by and have been misused as of late, but you might think he would have done it as station policy instead of looking like one of the protestors (pictures earlier in the day confirm this).

All options for him having a valid and legal shoot are off the table at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and StarRaider
#261
#261
Grand Vol said:
My apologies, I didn't "click to expand" and missed your bold.

That's not necessarily the argument I was making, however, given the timing and available pictures of the events, that's the only conceivable actions he could have been taking. The point I was making was self defense is going to very hard to prove in this case. Regardless, the intent of that comment was if he was acting in a capacity of "protecting" his client (I have my own theory about that) he can use the excuse of defending his client from the aggressive person coming after them. However, since we have been informed that the shooter was not a licensed security guard, acting to protect his "client" is out the window.

Now, I'll give you that ordinary citizens can protect others (during mass shootings for example) and take on threats that don't involved them so to speak. But in this case, I'm not that's a valid defense given the timing of the events that transpired. Between the cell phone video that was taken and the photos of the shooting itself, it's pretty clear preservation of the shooter's life was not at stake.

Follow me around the scene, counselor:

We have the video of the victim arguing with someone else. It's a heated argument, but no force is being used by either party at that time. Victim walks away out of the camera while the other individual continues to argue with others. I checked the time and about 6-7 seconds passed before the shot was heard from the victim walking away. Now, pictures and the supposition based on the facts:

Based on the video, it's about 10 feet from where he walked to where the shooter is located. Let's call that three seconds to cover the distance because he wasn't rushing over.

First "published" picture is where shooter is getting b!tch slapped. It appears he is reaching towards the victim (maybe attempting to grab the spray can?) and getting the taste smacked out of his mouth. Call that a second.

The next picture shows the victim backing away. Shooter looks to be surprised by the slap, but the "threat" is retreating. (see my post here for the pictures the media is omitting) So maybe another second or two? Let's call that a second to back off since the gap is only about eight feet or so.

Next we see the spray being deployed at the same time the shot is going off less than seven seconds after the victim walked away from the verbal confrontation. At some point the shooter had to draw his weapons, aim and fire after the victim walked away (pictures don't show the pistol out until the victim is out of striking range) and continuing to back away. Let's call that 1-2 seconds and I'm being generous since he had an RMR equipped pistol making targeting easier.

Adding the times up:

Walking the ten feet at a steady pace: 3 seconds
Attempting to grab at the can and getting smacked: 1 second
Backing off: 1 second
Drawing, aiming, firing and deploying the spray: 1 second

Leaving a second unaccounted for, but I'm splicing this together and making up the times.

But the critical point here is the victim was backing off from the shooter at the time of the shooting. He is no longer a lethal threat and even if the shooter got sprayed by the bear mace (I'm assuming that's what it was) it still does not justify a lethal response.

No, there is no self defense in this case. Furthermore, exactly what was the "producer" doing on scene without any visible indication he was with the media? I know "Media" and "Medic" vests are easy to come by and have been misused as of late, but you might think he would have done it as station policy instead of looking like one of the protestors (pictures earlier in the day confirm this).

All options for him having a valid and legal shoot are off the table at this point.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the full sequence of photos Denver Post published. I dont think the shooter went for the can of mace.
 
#262
#262
I feel like I've seen much weaker assaults get labeled reasonable justification for use of deadly force...

Not that I think it was justified in this instance.
 
#263
#263
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Rickyvol77 and StarRaider
#264
#264
Grand Vol said:
He did not, so that was my bad assumption. I was just coming here to post that for @RockyTop85

PHOTOS: A frame by frame account of the Denver protest shooting

Regardless, after he gets smacked, he immediately starts going for his pistol.
Click to expand...

That is true, but he has just been assaulted by a guy with a can of bear mace and may be trying to protect himself from further attack. I'm not sure if mace guy is retreating or backing up to give himself room to deploy the mace (I say this because the mace hand is coming forward and he only appears to take one or two step back then brace his back foot).

I'll say it again, I don't know what happened, but there is lots of room to speculate either way based on what evidence we have.

Edit: Mace guy appears to have his thumb on the trigger of the mace can the entire time.
 
Last edited:
#265
#265
clarksvol00 said:
That is true, but he has just been assaulted by a guy with a can of bear mace and may be trying to protect himself from further attack. I'm not sure if mace guy is retreating or backing up to give himself room to deploy the mace (I say this because the mace hand is coming forward and he only appears to take one or two step back then brace his back foot).

I'll say it again, I don't know what happened, but there is lots of room to speculate either way based on what evidence we have.
Click to expand...


Exactly. We don't know what was said. For example the protester may have threatened to kill the security officer or a reporter. Then fires off the mace making it difficult to see and appearing to want to render them unable to protect themselves. I can see an easy defense that he didn't know what was coming next and acted reasonably.
 
#266
#266
clarksvol00 said:
That is true, but he has just been assaulted by a guy with a can of bear mace and may be trying to protect himself from further attack. I'm not sure if mace guy is retreating or backing up to give himself room to deploy the mace (I say this because the mace hand is coming forward and he only appears to take one or two step back then brace his back foot).

I'll say it again, I don't know what happened, but there is lots of room to speculate either way based on what evidence we have.

Edit: Mace guy appears to have his thumb on the trigger of the mace can the entire time.
Click to expand...
Can’t see the pictures on mobile for some reason. What is the deceased doing with his left hand?
 
#268
#268
Grand Vol said:
My apologies, I didn't "click to expand" and missed your bold.

That's not necessarily the argument I was making, however, given the timing and available pictures of the events, that's the only conceivable actions he could have been taking. The point I was making was self defense is going to very hard to prove in this case. Regardless, the intent of that comment was if he was acting in a capacity of "protecting" his client (I have my own theory about that) he can use the excuse of defending his client from the aggressive person coming after them. However, since we have been informed that the shooter was not a licensed security guard, acting to protect his "client" is out the window.

Now, I'll give you that ordinary citizens can protect others (during mass shootings for example) and take on threats that don't involved them so to speak. But in this case, I'm not that's a valid defense given the timing of the events that transpired. Between the cell phone video that was taken and the photos of the shooting itself, it's pretty clear preservation of the shooter's life was not at stake.

Follow me around the scene, counselor:

We have the video of the victim arguing with someone else. It's a heated argument, but no force is being used by either party at that time. Victim walks away out of the camera while the other individual continues to argue with others. I checked the time and about 6-7 seconds passed before the shot was heard from the victim walking away. Now, pictures and the supposition based on the facts:

Based on the video, it's about 10 feet from where he walked to where the shooter is located. Let's call that three seconds to cover the distance because he wasn't rushing over.

First "published" picture is where shooter is getting b!tch slapped. It appears he is reaching towards the victim (maybe attempting to grab the spray can?) and getting the taste smacked out of his mouth. Call that a second.

The next picture shows the victim backing away. Shooter looks to be surprised by the slap, but the "threat" is retreating. (see my post here for the pictures the media is omitting) So maybe another second or two? Let's call that a second to back off since the gap is only about eight feet or so.

Next we see the spray being deployed at the same time the shot is going off less than seven seconds after the victim walked away from the verbal confrontation. At some point the shooter had to draw his weapons, aim and fire after the victim walked away (pictures don't show the pistol out until the victim is out of striking range) and continuing to back away. Let's call that 1-2 seconds and I'm being generous since he had an RMR equipped pistol making targeting easier.

Adding the times up:

Walking the ten feet at a steady pace: 3 seconds
Attempting to grab at the can and getting smacked: 1 second
Backing off: 1 second
Drawing, aiming, firing and deploying the spray: 1 second

Leaving a second unaccounted for, but I'm splicing this together and making up the times.

But the critical point here is the victim was backing off from the shooter at the time of the shooting. He is no longer a lethal threat and even if the shooter got sprayed by the bear mace (I'm assuming that's what it was) it still does not justify a lethal response.

No, there is no self defense in this case. Furthermore, exactly what was the "producer" doing on scene without any visible indication he was with the media? I know "Media" and "Medic" vests are easy to come by and have been misused as of late, but you might think he would have done it as station policy instead of looking like one of the protestors (pictures earlier in the day confirm this).

All options for him having a valid and legal shoot are off the table at this point.
Click to expand...

We don't know everything that happened before the shot except the certainty that the pepper spray was released before the shot was fired. In the photo the spent cartridge has traveled approximately a foot from the gun which means the bullet was released less than a second before the photo was taken. The spray from the can has already reached beyond the shooter and droplets and mist are falling toward the ground. Unless the spray travels faster than a bullet the spray was released first. I believe an argument can be made for self defense. Pepper spray is not an harmless substance and besides the shooter couldn't know what he was being attacked with. It could have been something more caustic than pepper spray.
 
#269
#269
Hunerwadel said:
We don't know everything that happened before the shot except the certainty that the pepper spray was released before the shot was fired. In the photo the spent cartridge has traveled approximately a foot from the gun which means the bullet was released less than a second before the photo was taken. The spray from the can has already reached beyond the shooter and droplets and mist are falling toward the ground. Unless the spray travels faster than a bullet the spray was released first. I believe an argument can be made for self defense. Pepper spray is not an harmless substance and besides the shooter couldn't know what he was being attacked with. It could have been something more caustic than pepper spray.
Click to expand...
Murder, no question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#271
#271
clarksvol00 said:
Balled into a fist and slightly above and forward of his waist.

Try this link if grand's didn't work. PHOTOS: A frame by frame account of the Denver protest shooting
Click to expand...

Got @Grand Vol link to work.

1602633333404.jpeg

I thought it looked like he walked off camera with a purpose, in the video. I’d say this was his purpose. 👆 Dude who was screaming “mace me” right there behind him, so this is right when he walks off camera.

He went after the media.

1602633396637.jpeg
Looks like he tried to accost the guy in blue, the same way. Maybe that’s the 9News guy, based on the 9News “Security” guy’s intervention? I would have expected a better camera than an iPhone, so idk. That’s the video we need. Bet the police have it.

Deceased looks like the aggressor. I bet he has a record, too.
Fear is pretty reasonable when you’ve already been assaulted.
No evidence of retreat (so is there a duty?)

Proportionality is a tough sell.
It’s more believable if the deceased had a gun, but I would think a shoulder holster would be visible after he falls. He looks like he could have been reaching into his jacket with the left hand, but if there’s no gun there it seems toI convenient of an argument, given the time frame of less than 2 seconds.

Leaning towards not self-defense, but the photos make a lesser form of murder more likely as well.
 
Last edited:
#273
#273
Hunerwadel said:
We don't know everything that happened before the shot except the certainty that the pepper spray was released before the shot was fired. In the photo the spent cartridge has traveled approximately a foot from the gun which means the bullet was released less than a second before the photo was taken. The spray from the can has already reached beyond the shooter and droplets and mist are falling toward the ground. Unless the spray travels faster than a bullet the spray was released first. I believe an argument can be made for self defense. Pepper spray is not an harmless substance and besides the shooter couldn't know what he was being attacked with. It could have been something more caustic than pepper spray.
Click to expand...
You see and believe what you want to believe.



Just like the rest of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#274
#274
37L1 said:
You see and believe what you want to believe.



Just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

True to a certain degree but by analyzing the photo I don't think it will be refuted that the pepper spray was released before the gun was fired. We don't know what happened before that, at least we don't know yet.


denver-shooting-50.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top