NBC Affiliate Private Security Kills Trump Supporter

[AM64]

You don’t think having an eyeful of OC spray could have thrown off his aim?

I do, and that makes the judgement to fire even poorer in this situation.

 

[KB5252]

You don’t think having an eyeful of OC spray could have thrown off his aim?

The fact there was only one shot indicates he saw his target clearly. If he was blinded by Bear spray there would likely have been more than one shot. The odds of that shot and his demeanor make that unlikely. Not impossible, just unlikely.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

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.

Didn’t they put two cops in jail for shooting a guy with a taser?

 

[RockyTop85]

I do, and that makes the judgement to fire even poorer in this situation.

The fact there was only one shot indicates he saw his target clearly. If he was blinded by Bear spray there would likely have been more than one shot. The odds of that shot and his demeanor make that unlikely. Not impossible, just unlikely.

You sound like a couple of guys looking for any reason to be critical, IMO.

To me, it seems unlikely that dude just had his ears boxed, is under the effects of pepper spray, and manages to intentionally bullseye dude’s dome, even though it’s not entirely stationary. Even from 6-8 feet or whatever distance that was, it seems more likely that he went high of his target and luck/karma/physics just weren’t in slappy-mace guy’s favor.

 

[KB5252]

You sound like a couple of guys looking for any reason to be critical, IMO.

To me, it seems unlikely that dude just had his ears boxed, is under the effects of pepper spray, and manages to intentionally bullseye dude’s dome, even though it’s not entirely stationary. Even from 6-8 feet or whatever distance that was, it seems more likely that he went high of his target and luck/karma/physics just weren’t in slappy-mace guy’s favor.

I think it much more likely the guy that had his ears boxed, as you put it, got mad and dropped the guy with a dome shot. It's possible it happened like you said but with the single shot placed as it was it seems less plausible to me.

 

[37L1]

You sound like a couple of guys looking for any reason to be critical, IMO.

To me, it seems unlikely that dude just had his ears boxed, is under the effects of pepper spray, and manages to intentionally bullseye dude’s dome, even though it’s not entirely stationary. Even from 6-8 feet or whatever distance that was, it seems more likely that he went high of his target and luck/karma/physics just weren’t in slappy-mace guy’s favor.

Look at his stance. Look at his weapon, it has a red dot reflex sight. He deliberately aimed for the head and he was not blinded nor suffering from the effects of pepper spray at the time of the shot.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I do, and that makes the judgement to fire even poorer in this situation.

mmmmm Not to sure about that. The only reason to EVER fire at someone is if you believe your life is in danger. Did he truly believe his life was in danger? That's between him and God, and unfortunately the media and a bunch of lawyers will make that decision for the rest of us. However, if he really believed his life was in danger, taking the shot with an eye full of pepper spray is an act of desperation I would say rather than one of rage. jmho.

 

[clarksvol00]

Didn’t they put two cops in jail for shooting a guy with a taser?

Both of the officers were charged, but I don't think they've been tried. Some VN commenters argued that the shooting was justified because the guy that got shot in the back from 20 feet away could have used the taser to incapacitate the officers and take their guns away.

 

[37L1]

Both of the officers were charged, but I don't think they've been tried. Some VN commenters argued that the shooting was justified because the guy that got shot in the back from 20 feet away could have used the taser to incapacitate the officers and take their guns away.

And the DA, who is charging the officers in this shooting, declared that a taser was a "deadly weapon" in another case involving the police use of one.
So. . .

WATCH: DA in Brooks Shooting Called Tasers Deadly Weapons Two Weeks Ago

 

[clarksvol00]

And the DA, who is charging the officers in this shooting, declared that a taser was a "deadly weapon" in another case involving the police use of one.
So. . .

That's fine. Doesn't change the fact that some think the potential for incapacitating you and taking your weapon is grounds to shoot somebody.

 

[37L1]

That's fine. Doesn't change the fact that some think the potential for incapacitating you and taking your weapon is grounds to shoot somebody.

This is not new case law.

 

[Caculator]

Terrorist assassin

 

[clarksvol00]

This is not new case law.

Neither are the opinions of VN posters.

 

[37L1]

Neither are the opinions of VN posters.

One holds a whole lot more weight in deciding these things than the other.

Can you guess which one?

 

[clarksvol00]

One holds a whole lot more weight in deciding these things than the other.

Can you guess which one?

Never said the opinion of VN posters had anything to do with a court case.

 

[37L1]

Never said the opinion of VN posters had anything to do with a court case.

Your opinion appears to disagree.

That's fine. Doesn't change the fact that some think the potential for incapacitating you and taking your weapon is grounds to shoot somebody.

Police use of force is written by lawyers and is influenced by court decisions. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the use of deadly force is warranted whenever a police officer's life or that of others is being threatened by the actions of a suspect. Being incapacitated, or the threat of being so, and having his/her weapon used against them, is a factor that has been ruled upon in multiple court cases.

As with all cases, each one stands on its own merit/particular circumstances, however, similar cases in the past have ruled shootings under those circumstances are justified.

 

[clarksvol00]

Your opinion appears to disagree.


Police use of force is written by lawyers and is influenced by court decisions. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the use of deadly force is warranted whenever a police officer's life or that of others is being threatened by the actions of a suspect. Being incapacitated, or the threat of being so, and having his/her weapon used against them, is a factor that has been ruled upon in multiple court cases.

As with all cases, each one stands on its own merit/particular circumstances, however, similar cases in the past have ruled shootings under those circumstances are justified.

Once again, that's all fine, but the shooter is going to make the exact same claim. "I was afraid for my life because I thought he was going to mace me then take my gun and shoot me." We can talk about the timing all we want, but that's going to be the basis for the self-defense claim.

Edit: by the way, my initial post never stated any opinion. It stated two separate facts related to the Atlanta taser shooting.

 

[37L1]

Once again, that's all fine, but the shooter is going to make the exact same claim. "I was afraid for my life because I thought he was going to mace me then take my gun and shoot me." We can talk about the timing all we want, but that's going to be the basis for the self-defense claim.

How did the victim know the suspect was armed until he pulled his weapon? Could anyone see that he was armed? Was it in plain sight? Did he declare that he was armed as a warning?

Watch the sequence. Suspect grabs at victim's pepper spray and gets slapped.

Victim moves back a step or two, suspect reaches into his front appendix area and pulls out the weapon. Victim sprays at suspect. Suspect shoots victim.

Who was fearing for his life? Who produced the hidden lethal weapon versus the not hidden non lethal weapon?

Your argument regarding this is weak.

 

[clarksvol00]

How did the victim know the suspect was armed until he pulled his weapon? Could anyone see that he was armed? Was it in plain sight? Did he declare that he was armed as a warning?

Watch the sequence. Suspect grabs at victim's pepper spray and gets slapped.

Victim moves back a step or two, suspect reaches into his front appendix area and pulls out the weapon. Victim sprays at suspect. Suspect shoots victim.

Who was fearing for his life? Who produced the hidden lethal weapon versus the not hidden non lethal weapon?

Your argument regarding this is weak.

I never said he has a good argument. I said potentially taking a weapon from an incapacitated person is justification in the eyes of some VN posters and then said he's probably going to make that argument.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

jmo... but I think (and certainly hope) that they are building a case not only on the shooter, but also the "BGM" guy who was repeatedly trying to create altercations and also the photographer who was seen following him around. Seems to be another case of so called journalists trying to "create" news instead of simply "capturing" news.

 

[k-town_king]

Terrorist assassin

Yea Rittenhouse should get life. I agree

 

[37L1]

I never said he has a good argument. I said potentially taking a weapon from an incapacitated person is justification in the eyes of some VN posters and then said he's probably going to make that argument.

It's so weak that his defense team probably won't. They probably will use self defense but I doubt that the fear of losing his firearm would enter into the argument because:

A police officer is obviously identified as such by uniform and accoutrements, a weapon is one of them and carried in plain sight. They are also charged with making arrests as part of their duties and using sufficient force as necessary to effect arrest.

The shooter was not in uniform, nor identified himself of being of some sort of official capacity, AFAIK.
His weapon was not in plain sight but concealed from view.
The victim had no reason to believe that the shooter had a firearm so how could the shooter reasonably believe that the victim would harm him with his own weapon that was concealed from the victim's view?

The police standard of "incapacitation" justifying the use of deadly force doesn't apply here.

There are other self defense arguments that they will probably be better served using such as Colorado's "stand your ground law" but that too, is weak, IMO, but better.

18-1-704 C.R.S. permits people to utilize force which they reasonably believe is required to protect themselves or others from an offense involving the implementation of physical force. Note that reacting with deadly physical force is legally justified only in the following three situations:

1. The victim reasonably believes non-deadly force is inadequate, and the victim has reasonable grounds to believe — and does believe — that he/she or another victim is in imminent danger of dying or being seriously injured; or
2. The victim reasonably believes non-deadly force is inadequate, and the aggressor is using — or reasonably appears about to be using — physical force while carrying out — or trying to carry out — burglary; or
3. The victim reasonably believes non-deadly force is inadequate, and the aggressor is carrying out — or reasonably appears about to be carrying out — a kidnapping, robbery, or sexual assault.

Note that physical force is not legally justified in either of the following three situations:

1. A person provokes the other person to use unlawful physical force and with the intent to bring about physical injury or death to another person; or
2. A person is the initial aggressor (however, initial aggressors can legally use physical force if they with withdraw from the fight, convey their intent to withdraw, but the other person persists in using — or threatening to use — illegal physical force); or
3. Any physical force is from an unauthorized “combat by agreement”, such as a rumble or gang fight

He's pretty much screwed and will probably be convinced to take a plea bargain, but you never know. It's an emotional time we live in nowadays.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

That's fine. Doesn't change the fact that some think the potential for incapacitating you and taking your weapon is grounds to shoot somebody.

Do you think there is more likelihood that a career criminal would take a cops gun and use it against him or the guy spraying mace would against a rent-a-cop?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

How did the victim know the suspect was armed until he pulled his weapon? Could anyone see that he was armed? Was it in plain sight? Did he declare that he was armed as a warning?

Watch the sequence. Suspect grabs at victim's pepper spray and gets slapped.

Victim moves back a step or two, suspect reaches into his front appendix area and pulls out the weapon. Victim sprays at suspect. Suspect shoots victim.

Who was fearing for his life? Who produced the hidden lethal weapon versus the not hidden non lethal weapon?

Your argument regarding this is weak.

The argument might be weak, but it is the one that will play out. It will be up to the lawyers that can make the most convincing argument and whether or not they can seat a liberal jury.

 

[37L1]

The argument might be weak, but it is the one that will play out. It will be up to the lawyers that can make the most convincing argument and whether or not they can seat a liberal jury.

Which one, "incapcitation" or self defense/stand your ground?

Depends more on the DA on where this will go, IYAM.