Mid

1 dead, security guard in custody after shooting near dueling Denver rallies

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Chris in Santa Cruz, CA said:

"After the shooting, Denver television station 9NEWS, also known as KUSA-TV, said it had hired private security guards for months to accompany its staff at protests. Dolloff was hired through the Pinkerton security company, the station said.

On Tuesday, the station said it had directed that guards accompanying its employees not be armed. None of the station's crew who were accompanied by Dolloff on Saturday were aware that he was armed."

This was in a Newsweek article:

https://www.newsweek.com/matthew-dolloff-denver-shooting-suspect-1538984

 

More oopsies from that article: 

 

Quote

 

The company said it is "fully cooperating" with law enforcement authorities in their investigation.

"We take loss of life in any situation very seriously and are our hearts go out to those impacted by this situation," the statement said. "As it relates to the incident in Denver on October 10, the agent in question is not a Pinkerton employee but rather a contractor agent from a long standing industry vendor. Security professionals often serve as guides to protect media crews during potentially dangerous situations or hostile environments."

at the time of the shooting and that the entities that hired him could face civil or criminal action, CBS 4 reported.

 

"Licen

The company said it is "fully cooperating" with law enforcement authorities in their investigation.

"We take loss of life in any situation very seriously and are our hearts go out to those impacted by this situation," the statement said. "As it relates to the incident in Denver on October 10, the agent in question is not a Pinkerton employee but rather a contractor agent from a long standing industry vendor. Security professionals often serve as guides to protect media crews during potentially dangerous situations or hostile environments."

Authorities confirmed Dolloff didn't have a license to work as a security guard in Denver at the time of the shooting and that the entities that hired him could face civil or criminal action, CBS 4 reported.

 

"Licensed security guard employers that hire unlicensed security guards could face disciplinary actions against their licenses ranging from a. fine, to suspension, to revocation," a statement from the city attorney's office said on Monday.

 

 

Hell of a guide this guy was. How well did the coverage of the event go when they were all on their backs looking at the sky? A lot better than if he had shot some guy who had a lot of armed friends, anyway.  They are still breathing. 

  He is not a pro and now never will be. He should have told his charges that if anything started to go bad on his command they were to back the fuck off. No questions, just get the fuck out of there. If they wanted security that could fight through a hostile batch of people looking for a fight they needed a lot more "guides".   If they wanted him along to defend them in any situation they felt like sticking their noses into they needed someone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

It was a protest. That is, it was a pretty special exercise of the First Amendment. Then we add macho American baggage, all around, and this situation cantilevers into something weird.

 

  • @Hat guy: Where did the bear spray and the attitude come from? (Chris, we may need to add ammo clips and the second gun to this guy).
  • @Rent-a-Cop: How do you feel tonight? Where did the gig and the hair trigger come from? Got a life? Got kids? You are a security hotshot now, find a ghost writer.

My current thoughts until a report states the 2nd weapon was the mad hatter's.:

2nd handgun is security guys hide piece. Hat guy should have left the bear spray at home. Never send an email when you're angry. He was angry. He came with an agenda and a spray can.

In the end its a pretty interesting twist of fate that those two people met at that time in those circumstances. They will end up teaching a lot people some good lessons which will help these things not happen in the future I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mark K said:

More oopsies from that article: 

 

Hell of a guide this guy was. How well did the coverage of the event go when they were all on their backs looking at the sky? A lot better than if he had shot some guy who had a lot of armed friends, anyway.  They are still breathing. 

  He is not a pro and now never will be. He should have told his charges that if anything started to go bad on his command they were to back the fuck off. No questions, just get the fuck out of there. If they wanted security that could fight through a hostile batch of people looking for a fight they needed a lot more "guides".   If they wanted him along to defend them in any situation they felt like sticking their noses into they needed someone else. 

nice point, why only one security guy? maybe there were others and this guy went off the reservation and the others went back to the hotel while the tac cops were all focused on the take down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris in Santa Cruz, CA said:

they only filed the charges they felt they could get conviction on with a jury hands down, 

same thing they thought in the uber case.  bad lawyering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damn, five pages on this spastic monkee shit incident.. if next a circle were introduced, how many pages would result in describing it's shape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris in Santa Cruz, CA said:

 

You can keep trying to justify a non-licensed non-identified guy hiding a gun whipping it out to shoot the guy who bitch slapped his hat and glasses off 

you can pull the same set of facts from thousands of shootings in this country under similar self-defense laws as colorado.  juries almost never convict on these facts because it always comes down to the reasonably held fear by the shooter of imminent death or substantial injury, which is not hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mark K said:

  If they wanted him along to defend them in any situation they felt like sticking their noses into they needed someone else. 

as far as i understand it, his employment status has no relevance to his defense of justifiable homicide.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just on news.  Black gunz matter guy that was arguing with the fat guy just talked from a secret location on out of state phone #.  He getting death threats... anyway.  He said though he never saw a gun, hat guy was posturing and said he would shoot him and did the finger gun to the head thing, so he 100% thought hat guy was packing..  also, new audio you can clearly hear security kid, or someone in the 9 news party, yell 9 news security ..  9 news security 3 times.  So.  The more you know right?  

 

Kid is gonna be ok, but the process is going to suck..  

 

Also also..  As to the licensing thing..  9 news found that most of their security guys overr the last 6 mo do not have security guard licensing.   So this is the norm..  

Other newsies had security too.  They looking into licensing.  

Sent from phone so sorry if typos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris in Santa Cruz, CA said:

they only filed the charges they felt they could get conviction on with a jury hands down, they have had more than four days to do the math, he pleads to voluntary manslaughter and his life as he knew it is over

More likely: They filed charges because they feel political pressure to charge him with something, so they go with something which will get quickly beaten with a vanilla self-defence argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

damn, five pages on this spastic monkee shit incident.. if next a circle were introduced, how many pages would result in describing it's shape?

Boredom, Tyler, boredom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

might I suggest a wank I mean a walk?

but seriously, I get the boredom thing, that's why I'm here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His non-sanctioned gig put him in the position to begin with. He wasn't walking to the store to buy eggs and hat guy jumps him. He helped create the scenario which fulfilled itself. 

if the mad hatter is packing and threatening people with pointed finger guns or whatever then why isn't anyone calling to the cops under the shade tree that there's a dangerous nut job with a gun threatening to shoot people and waving a hug spray can? 

Something here isn't right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

More likely: They filed charges because they feel political pressure to charge him with something, so they go with something which will get quickly beaten with a vanilla self-defence argument.

Hard to put up a strong argument against that. Everyone involved wished that guy had not shot the mad hatter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

More likely: They filed charges because they feel political pressure to charge him with something, so they go with something which will get quickly beaten with a vanilla self-defence argument.

More likely they filed charges because they are required to to continue the investigation.

Two guns were found on the scene but the police haven't identified who had them.  If you read the totally disregarded Denver rules for private security guards they are entitled to carry two guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

More oopsies from that article: 

 

Hell of a guide this guy was. How well did the coverage of the event go when they were all on their backs looking at the sky? A lot better than if he had shot some guy who had a lot of armed friends, anyway.  They are still breathing. 

  He is not a pro and now never will be. He should have told his charges that if anything started to go bad on his command they were to back the fuck off. No questions, just get the fuck out of there. If they wanted security that could fight through a hostile batch of people looking for a fight they needed a lot more "guides".   If they wanted him along to defend them in any situation they felt like sticking their noses into they needed someone else. 

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY

If he really felt the need to take the guy down throwing roundhouses from 3 feet isn't how to do it.  He was completely out of his depth.

 

8 frame-sequence.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chris in Santa Cruz, CA said:

the mad hatter was not trying to take the weapon he didn't know was there, he had no such thoughts, he wanted to spray the assholes who were filming his quixotic solo confrontation with the BGM guys

because the unlicensed security guy was not properly identified the mad hatter made a tactical error he didnt know he made until he got shot by someone who was not supposed to be there without proper identification or training

 

Your ESP power under stress is vastly superior to my own and almost anyone else's. Please have a thought for those of us without The Force that have no fucking idea what an attacker will do next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chris in Santa Cruz, CA said:

they only filed the charges they felt they could get conviction on with a jury hands down, they have had more than four days to do the math, he pleads to voluntary manslaughter and his life as he knew it is over

No way.  He walks.  This is merely a political move by the DA.  He or she is under pressure to bring charges, even if ultimately the dude might be acquitted.  Cities and DAs are finding out more and more with the mobs that will appear that its better to charge and lose than to not charge and have riots and your city torn apart.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No way.  He walks.  This is merely a political move by the DA.  He or she is under pressure to bring charges, even if ultimately the dude might be acquitted.  Cities and DAs are finding out more and more with the mobs that will appear that its better to charge and lose than to not charge and have riots and your city torn apart.  

Agreed. No way this guy gets convicted of anything involving murder. Some lesser charge? I doubt it. 
 

In the meantime... two dangerous men are off the street. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Agreed. No way this guy gets convicted of anything involving murder. Some lesser charge? I doubt it. 
 

In the meantime... two dangerous men are off the street. 

Cops all over the country are praying that a court precedent that being pepper sprayed does not merit an armed response does NOT get set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Chris in Santa Cruz, CA said:

He wasn't walking to the store to buy eggs and hat guy jumps him.

He helped create the scenario which fulfilled itself. 

if the mad hatter is packing and threatening people with pointed finger guns or whatever then why isn't anyone calling to the cops under the shade tree that there's a dangerous nut job with a gun threatening to shoot people and waving a hug spray can? 

 

None of these things are relevant to a self-defense claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

None of these things are relevant to a self-defense claim.

Good morning, myopia.

You are isolating and marginalizing shit, simply playing the legal schmegal card. You are making the assumptions that created the hat guy and the rent-a-cop wannabe.

The ;law (and status quo ) is in favor of protecting gun violence, and sits upon violence in general.

Quoting the law covers about five degrees of the 360 degree problem in the situation.

 

Chris is getting it that a violent platform was a player, from more than one angle, from more than one origin, and injected itself into the BLM matter.

Mr. Clean, your own individual angle is a loud building block for violence at protests, and everywhere else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

A dude who will attack a photographer in public for exercising his constitutionally protected activity should be put down. Sooner or later, he will kill someone.

WTF. What we have here is one arena of violence. Are you with me so far?

 

And here is another. No wonder we can't get anywhere. The hat guy wore a shirt from BGM, and  Dogballs has quoted their NY law brief twice. @Quotidian Tom

BGM offers a few other shirts

Black Guns Matter bling.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about this way. I go to the store with my gun. Should I go to the store with my gun? No. Am I licensed to do that? No. Should the store have me get a license and a uniform that says "STORE SECURITY"? Yes they should. Many levels of fail so far and $$$ aplenty for lawyers.

If you attack me, that does NOT mean I just lie down and let you run of with my gun. I still have the right of self defense and I am still not going to let Mr. Random Attacker get my weapon and do God knows what with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Good morning, myopia.

You are isolating and marginalizing shit, simply playing the legal schmegal card.

 

Joe, 'playing the legal card' isn't a thing.  The entire criminal law analysis is about marginalizing and isolating the elements of a crime or defense so that a jury can decide it.  

Despite your desire to make everything a policy discussion, this is a country of laws, notwithstanding the current GOP's lack of interest in following them.

 When something happens, the rule of law provides the culpability and the consequences.  There are very few criminal issues over the past couple centuries that have been more extensively and publicly litigated than self-defense. It's as settled a concept as there is in US jurisprudence.  

Argue policy, I agree with most of yours in theory.   Not relevant in the slightest as to what happens when this guy goes to trial. Read the uber decision if you wanna see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Think about this way. I go to the store with my gun. Should I go to the store with my gun? No. Am I licensed to do that? No. Should the store have me get a license and a uniform that says "STORE SECURITY"? Yes they should. Many levels of fail so far and $$$ aplenty for lawyers.

If you attack me, that does NOT mean I just lie down and let you run of with my gun. I still have the right of self defense and I am still not going to let Mr. Random Attacker get my weapon and do God knows what with it.

 

I remember a number of attempts to charge self-defenders with murder or manslaughter because of their violation of gun possession or carry laws. For the uninitiated, if you kill someone while you are committing another crime, there may be enhanced charges for the killing.  For instance, if a bank teller dies while you are committing a robbery, you get charged with first degree murder regardless of whether you pulled the trigger.  Similarly, if you are criminally negligent and someone dies, you can be charged with manslaughter even if you didn't actually kill the person.

Doesn't work with self-defense though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Think about this way. I go to the store with my gun. Should I go to the store with my gun? No. Am I licensed to do that? No. Should the store have me get a license and a uniform that says "STORE SECURITY"? Yes they should. Many levels of fail so far and $$$ aplenty for lawyers.

If you attack me, that does NOT mean I just lie down and let you run of with my gun. I still have the right of self defense and I am still not going to let Mr. Random Attacker get my weapon and do God knows what with it.

 

The major screw-up is not the brave "self defense." The major screw-up, with this bravery as a backdrop, is an offensive element: introducing a force magnifier,

  • The hat guy had progressive elements of violence: slaps, bear spray, and his ammo clips.
  • The drama queen guy drew a line in the sand, "Don't touch me, old man." 
  • The righteous rent-a-cop had a plan, and a gun gig, and skilz.
  • Mr. Clean come$ along for the ride.

We are good to go, for a train wreck here.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the forest for the trees. No matter how stupid the moron convention is, at the point you attack an armed person that person now has a choice to potentially lose his weapon. Only an idiot would try and fist-fight some random guy and hope his gun does not get grabbed.

Ever see a cop show where the cop decides to throw down with some bad guy and see who is the better fighter? They pass off their gun to someone to hold for a reason ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 3:06 PM, We are Rimas! said:

Can you tell me who the shooter/security guard was actively 'protecting' at the time of the shooting?  I am having trouble understanding why he was engaging with the hat-maker at the time of the indecent.

There's a guy in a blue shirt  -  initially arrested with the shooter  -  he's a producer with the TV station that employs the shooter. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The major screw-up is not the brave "self defense." The major screw-up, with this bravery as a backdrop, is an offensive element: introducing a force magnifier,

  • The hat guy had progressive elements of violence: slaps, bear spray, and his ammo clips.
  • The drama queen guy drew a line in the sand, "Don't touch me, old man." 
  • The righteous rent-a-cop had a plan, and a gun gig, and skilz.
  • Mr. Clean come$ along for the ride.

We are good to go, for a train wreck here.

 

 

 

 

like it or not, the rules of the game are the rules of the game.  If you choose to make an aggressive move towards someone in this country, there's a decent chance you will lose your life for it and the killer will most likely go free.  Don't like the rules?  Change them or don't play the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Think about this way. I go to the store with my gun. Should I go to the store with my gun? No. Am I licensed to do that? No. Should the store have me get a license and a uniform that says "STORE SECURITY"? Yes they should. Many levels of fail so far and $$$ aplenty for lawyers.

If you attack me, that does NOT mean I just lie down and let you run of with my gun. I still have the right of self defense and I am still not going to let Mr. Random Attacker get my weapon and do God knows what with it.

 

Wait????  What?  So you think you need a SECURITY VEST and a license from a store to go pick up a gal of milk on the way home if you happen to be carrying CCW at the time??  This makes no sense, so please clarify.  TIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Wait????  What?  So you think you need a SECURITY VEST and a license from a store to go pick up a gal of milk on the way home if you happen to be carrying CCW at the time??  This makes no sense, so please clarify.  TIA.

No - I was talking about being a random armed store security guard ;)

Kent Island is fairly civilized, we don't need guns to shop, if someone wandered into the store with a gun they probably would get told the deer are out back in the swamp are you lost :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 8:58 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

as far as i understand it, his employment status has no relevance to his defense of justifiable homicide.  

 

Probably, but IMO the dearly departed Trumptard's relatives (if any) will be paid off big by Channel 9 and Pinkerton, and unless they demand the moon this will be settled out of court. The incompetence is stark and undeniable.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark K said:

Probably, but IMO the dearly departed Trumptard's relatives (if any) will be paid off big by Channel 9 and Pinkerton, and unless they demand the moon this will be settled out of court. The incompetence is stark and undeniable.  

 

The civil trial will be totally different and I agree, Channel 9 and Pinkerton will be writing large checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how the guys saying you can shoot someone for carrying a skateboard say you can’t shoot someone for attacking you with bear spray. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

like it or not, the rules of the game are the rules of the game.  If you choose to make an aggressive move towards someone in this country, there's a decent chance you will lose your life for it and the killer will most likely go free.  Don't like the rules?  Change them or don't play the game.

What is that chance?  State as probability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Interesting how the guys saying you can shoot someone for carrying a skateboard say you can’t shoot someone for attacking you with bear spray. 

 I'm still unclear what came out first, the pistol or the bear spray. Could be decided in court that the guy was attempting to defend himself with the bear spray after the guy, just some guy (no uniform). pulled a gun on him and appeared to be about to shoot him. Weird shit gets labeled as fact in court sometimes.  Hell, might even be what the Trumptard was thinking. Weird shit goes down in the skulls of Trumptards too...pretty much all the time, near as I can tell. 

   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 I'm still unclear what came out first, the pistol or the bear spray. Could be decided in court that the guy was attempting to defend himself with the bear spray after the guy, just some guy (no uniform). pulled a gun on him and appeared to be about to shoot him. Weird shit gets labeled as fact in court sometimes.  Hell, might even be what the Trumptard was thinking. Weird shit goes down in the skulls of Trumptards too...pretty much all the time, near as I can tell. 

   

 

The bear spray was out all along including the first confrontation with the Black Guns Matter guy.

This is how a shepherd deals with the problem.  Calm words and no individual confrontation.

Note:  The bear spray is already in the fat guys hand.

 

3 frame-sequence.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Interesting how the guys saying you can shoot someone for carrying a skateboard say you can’t shoot someone for attacking you with bear spray. 

Zactly.  At least I'm consistent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

 I'm still unclear what came out first, the pistol or the bear spray. Could be decided in court that the guy was attempting to defend himself with the bear spray after the guy, just some guy (no uniform). pulled a gun on him and appeared to be about to shoot him. Weird shit gets labeled as fact in court sometimes.  Hell, might even be what the Trumptard was thinking. Weird shit goes down in the skulls of Trumptards too...pretty much all the time, near as I can tell. 

  

Mark, did you see the pics?  The guy was holding the bear spray in his hands well before pink boy even entered the discussion.  He had the spray can up when he went after the reporters:

6 frame-sequence.jpg

 

Also, there is no gun in pink's hands when he gets slapped here:

8 frame-sequence.jpg

Here is the whole sequence:

frame-sequence-thumb.jpg?w=1860

Frame 871-873 shows the fat man's hand with the bear spray is being raised before the gun was un-holstered.  Clean kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I noticed in the frame sequence was once fat man had been shot and was laying on the ground, the old guy with the white beard who had been trying to break up the fight between fat boy and BGM tard walked over to look at the dead guy, but never bent down to help or see if he was dead before he even hit the concrete.  Probably walked over, looked down and just shook his head and said "dumbass, you brought this on yourself."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Mark, did you see the pics?  The guy was holding the bear spray in his hands well before pink boy even entered the discussion.  He had the spray can up when he went after the reporters:

6 frame-sequence.jpg

 

Also, there is no gun in pink's hands when he gets slapped here:

8 frame-sequence.jpg

Here is the whole sequence:

frame-sequence-thumb.jpg?w=1860

Frame 871-873 shows the fat man's hand with the bear spray is being raised before the gun was un-holstered.  Clean kill.

The sequence I've seen: 

 https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/10/dueling-denver-rallies-fatal-shooting-photos/

Jumps from the head-slap to a shot of neither weapon pointed to both being pointed, bear spray in the air. 

 That the guy was waving it around for some time before the shot does not help the shooters case, he can't claim he thought it was a gun. At least not credibly.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rings on fat boy's hands are a clue, brass knuckles are illegal but 8 heavy rings are legal. I bet he rattled the shooter's chops good with that slap, I can believe the shooter wasn't going to let him have another go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside all the legal, moral and political BS - another observation about pink boy was he looked like he handled himself incredibly well throughout the entire tactical engagement from initial contact with fat man to assessing the post shot situation all the way through to being apprehended by the Po-Leece.  

  1. His initial contact with fat man after he went after the news crew was to put both hands on his fat man's chest, stay between him and the news crew and based on the body language likely said something like:  "That's enough buddy, back off". 
  2. Fat man was having none of it and slapped him hard. 
  3. Pink man regained his balance and composure, continued to provide a barrier to the news crew and didn't retaliate in kind, just stood his ground. 
  4. Fat man raises bear spray can while pink is now going for his gun, as is appropriate when someone has physically just attacked you and has obviously shown no restraint against violence.  
  5. Pink has gun raised in a defense stance but doesn't shoot until fat man pulls the spray trigger. 
  6. Bang, fat man goes down and pink is doing a good job of maintaining his defensive awareness and continues to cover fat man with the gun, muzzle slightly lowered.  
  7. Knowing there are buddies of fat man who are likely pissed that their friend is dead immediately near him, he keeps the gun up and makes sure that no one is going to jump him.  By the last frames, he's scanning around for any additional threats.  
  8. When police arrive, he likely already has the gun on the ground and is on his knees.  He's compliant with instructions and never attempts to move from the hands raised position even while he's telling them his press badge is in his left jacket pocket, but never moves to get it.  He's not argumentative with them, and keeps a calm voice and doesn't try to talk his way out of this knowing he's going to be arrested and interrogated.  

Whether you agree with his actions or not, this is pretty much a textbook self-defense tactical engagement from start to finish.  Po-Leece and self-defense schools will be playing this scenario in training courses for years to come.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mark K said:

The sequence I've seen: 

 https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/10/dueling-denver-rallies-fatal-shooting-photos/

Jumps from the head-slap to a shot of neither weapon pointed to both being pointed, bear spray in the air. 

 That the guy was waving it around for some time before the shot does not help the shooters case, he can't claim he thought it was a gun. At least not credibly.    

 

I don't know that anyone was claiming it WAS a gun nor that it had anything to do with his ability to defend himself.  I posted this a few days ago, it hopefully addresses your question:

On 10/15/2020 at 2:28 PM, Burning Man said:

100 out of 100 people in pink guy's position would have assumed it was pepper spray and would not risk being incapacitated and have their gun taken away.  The only way that equation would change is if fat guy show him the can label first and then announced:  "Sir, I'm going to spray you with bear spray in a few secs.  This is not pepper spray.  It won't hurt you, it will be only mildly annoying"  and then stopped and googled bear spray on his phone and showed it to the shooter just so he would know that bear spray is less incapacitating.  

He probably would have still been justified in shooting him.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Putting aside all the legal, moral and political BS - another observation about pink boy was he looked like he handled himself incredibly well throughout the entire tactical engagement from initial contact with fat man to assessing the post shot situation all the way through to being apprehended by the Po-Leece.  

  1. His initial contact with fat man after he went after the news crew was to put both hands on his fat man's chest, stay between him and the news crew and based on the body language likely said something like:  "That's enough buddy, back off". 
  2. Fat man was having none of it and slapped him hard. 
  3. Pink man regained his balance and composure, continued to provide a barrier to the news crew and didn't retaliate in kind, just stood his ground. 
  4. Fat man raises bear spray can while pink is now going for his gun, as is appropriate when someone has physically just attacked you and has obviously shown no restraint against violence.  
  5. Pink has gun raised in a defense stance but doesn't shoot until fat man pulls the spray trigger. 
  6. Bang, fat man goes down and pink is doing a good job of maintaining his defensive awareness and continues to cover fat man with the gun, muzzle slightly lowered.  
  7. Knowing there are buddies of fat man who are likely pissed that their friend is dead immediately near him, he keeps the gun up and makes sure that no one is going to jump him.  By the last frames, he's scanning around for any additional threats.  
  8. When police arrive, he likely already has the gun on the ground and is on his knees.  He's compliant with instructions and never attempts to move from the hands raised position even while he's telling them his press badge is in his left jacket pocket, but never moves to get it.  He's not argumentative with them, and keeps a calm voice and doesn't try to talk his way out of this knowing he's going to be arrested and interrogated.  

Whether you agree with his actions or not, this is pretty much a textbook self-defense tactical engagement from start to finish.  Po-Leece and self-defense schools will be playing this scenario in training courses for years to come.  

"Start" is way, way before that to begin with.

  Look at the stones under their feet. The camera angle changes drastically but that straight strip of stones under the Trumptards feet when he got shot? Those stones were 3 feet behind him at the point of the slap. He backed up after the slap.  

  What textbook says you should shoot someone backing away from you? 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mark K said:

"Start" is way, way before that to begin with.

  Look at the stones under their feet. The camera angle changes drastically but that straight strip of stones under the Trumptards feet when he got shot? Those stones were 3 feet behind him at the point of the slap. He backed up after the slap.  

  What textbook says you should shoot someone backing away from you? 

 

  

The same textbook that says "getting sprayed in the face with a possibly incapacitating chemical spray and having your gun taken away and used on you is the green light to shoot the MF'er".  It's in chapter 5, pg 69.  

He didn't get shot as he was backing away.  He got shot when he stopped backing away and maced the shit out of the guy he just attacked with brass knuckles.  And as to "backing up"..... look at it again.  He wasn't backing up, he moved his right leg one step backward to plant himself for the bear spray shot.  

Start with frame 864.  He hit pink so hard, he stepped back with his left foot AFTER the blow to regain his balance.  @ 870, his left foot is now planted and he never moves backward.  @ 873, he's now stepping forward with his right foot as pink is just drawing his weapon.  The pistol can be seen just clearing the holster.  

Between 873 and 874 is where it gets weird...... because there appears to be a gap in still frames.  They both continue to move that isn't captured.  Either the cameraman has just released the shutter button and stopped at 873 and then holds it again starting with 874, thereby the pause between lost some of the sequence.  Or the cameraman "lost" some of the shots and renumbered the stills from 874 on.  I'm going with door #1 but unfortunately, you never know the agenda of some media orgs.  

frame-sequence-thumb.jpg?w=1860

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

The same textbook that says "getting sprayed in the face with a possibly incapacitating chemical spray and having your gun taken away and used on you is the green light to shoot the MF'er".  It's in chapter 5, pg 69.  

He didn't get shot as he was backing away.  He got shot when he stopped backing away and maced the shit out of the guy he just attacked with brass knuckles.  And as to "backing up"..... look at it again.  He wasn't backing up, he moved his right leg one step backward to plant himself for the bear spray shot.  

Start with frame 864.  He hit pink so hard, he stepped back with his left foot AFTER the blow to regain his balance.  @ 870, his left foot is now planted and he never moves backward.  @ 873, he's now stepping forward with his right foot as pink is just drawing his weapon.  The pistol can be seen just clearing the holster.  

Between 873 and 874 is where it gets weird...... because there appears to be a gap in still frames.  They both continue to move that isn't captured.  Either the cameraman has just released the shutter button and stopped at 873 and then holds it again starting with 874, thereby the pause between lost some of the sequence.  Or the cameraman "lost" some of the shots and renumbered the stills from 874 on.  I'm going with door #1 but unfortunately, you never know the agenda of some media orgs.  

frame-sequence-thumb.jpg?w=1860

Look again. He backs up to where his foot is on that straight strip, he raise his spray there and that's where he dies. He was not moving forward.  Meanwhile both the camera and the shooter are backing away. Constantly increasing gap between the parties.

 What he should have done is order his clients to back up, back up some himself,  situating himself between the retreating clients all the way. If they begin to chase he and Gorman should position themselves between their charges and these mindless monsters and, well... if it comes to that... 

  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Look again. He backs up to where his foot is on that straight strip, he raise his spray there and that's where he dies. He was not moving forward.  Meanwhile both the camera and the shooter are backing away. Constantly increasing gap between the parties.

 What he should have done is order his clients to back up, back up some himself,  situating himself between the retreating clients all the way. If they begin to chase he and Gorman should position themselves between their charges and these mindless monsters and, well... if it comes to that... 

You just answered your own question.  The fat man isn't backing up.  The shooter is backing up and gets sprayed.  He is doing the right thing.  Had fat man never pulled the spray trigger, he is alive right now and telling his asshole RW buddies what a bad ass he is for facing down a dude with a gun drawn on him.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

You just answered your own question.  The fat man isn't backing up.  The shooter is backing up and gets sprayed.  He is doing the right thing.  Had fat man never pulled the spray trigger, he is alive right now and telling his asshole RW buddies what a bad ass he is for facing down a dude with a gun drawn on him.  Just saying.

  The fat man backed up from the point where the slap happened. I didn't say he continued backing up from there. 

  We're talking past each other. I'm talking about why it didn't have to happen, you're talking about it being justifiable. Unless you would grab a can of bear spray to kill someone we agree on his intent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mark K said:

  The fat man backed up from the point where the slap happened. I didn't say he continued backing up from there. 

  We're talking past each other. I'm talking about why it didn't have to happen, you're talking about it being justifiable. Unless you would grab a can of bear spray to kill someone we agree on his intent. 

I don't think we are talking past one another.  I'm talking about both why it wasn't avoidable as well as why it was justifiable.  The shooter WAS backing up.  I think he was moving as quickly as he could and still cover the fat man without turning his back to him.  He WAS between the fat man and his charges.  In the chaos, it would have taken a while to herd the news crew back with him.  The fat man sprayed so quickly pink wasn't able to get out of the frag pattern.  He did the right thing and I don't think there was any way to avoid it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I don't think we are talking past one another.  I'm talking about both why it wasn't avoidable as well as why it was justifiable.  The shooter WAS backing up.  I think he was moving as quickly as he could and still cover the fat man without turning his back to him.  He WAS between the fat man and his charges.  In the chaos, it would have taken a while to herd the news crew back with him.  The fat man sprayed so quickly pink wasn't able to get out of the frag pattern.  He did the right thing and I don't think there was any way to avoid it.  

If you can't take a bit of pepper spray, don't sign up to guard camera guys at a BLM rally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The civil trial will be totally different and I agree, Channel 9 and Pinkerton will be writing large checks.

self defense is just as applicable to an action for wrongful death as it is to murder. The amount they settle for depends on who's paying the lawyer bills.  Let's call the cost of a good defense to a civil wrongful death claim somewhere in the low 6 figures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Saorsa said:

What is that chance?  State as probability.

 

Bark like a dog.  I miss him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mark K said:

If you can't take a bit of pepper spray, don't sign up to guard camera guys at a BLM rally. 

Pepper spray doesn't kill people.  The guy you sprayed it with does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Sometimes.

The standard of proof changes, but the defense does not.  If his defense is as strong as I think it is, the settlement amount won't be much higher than the cost to litigate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jzk said:

Reaction with other drug in the system?  Reduced respiratory function?

Could be lots of reasons.

How many deaths have been from civilian vs. police use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The standard of proof changes, but the defense does not.  If his defense is as strong as I think it is, the settlement amount won't be much higher than the cost to litigate.

I am sure you have seen civil trials that were total losers on the merits still go the plaintiff's way anyway for $$$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The standard of proof changes, but the defense does not.  If his defense is as strong as I think it is, the settlement amount won't be much higher than the cost to litigate.

The spray was not directed at the shooter.

 

7 frame-sequence.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The standard of proof changes, but the defense does not.  If his defense is as strong as I think it is, the settlement amount won't be much higher than the cost to litigate.

I respectfully disagree. Its totally possible to not have criminal scienter and still be negligent. Not sure that's the case here. There is also going to be an assumption of risk problem on both sides of the civil case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

The spray was not directed at the shooter.

 

7 frame-sequence.jpg

OK, this is getting serious.  I think you must have had a stroke.  Please call 911.  I'm not joking.  Oh and take some aspirin now while you're waiting on the ambulance.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

OK, this is getting serious.  I think you must have had a stroke.  Please call 911.  I'm not joking.  Oh and take some aspirin now while you're waiting on the ambulance.  

874 Spray is high and to the shooters right

875 Spray is low and to the shooters right

876 Spray is released.

You notice the cloud does not obscure the shooter from the camera position.

It's entirely possible that the spray was directed to the kneepad guy who has already retreated and had been in the position being sprayed.

Here, the "guard" was reaching for his gun (at a distance of 10 to 12 feet) before the first activation of the spray.  Check the foot position of of the heavy guy.  He was moving backwards.

 

b frame-sequence.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sshow bob said:

I respectfully disagree. Its totally possible to not have criminal scienter and still be negligent. Not sure that's the case here. There is also going to be an assumption of risk problem on both sides of the civil case. 

I'm not sure how scienter plays into the defense.  Enlighten me, please?

I also don't see assumption of risk at play, happy to be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I am sure you have seen civil trials that were total losers on the merits still go the plaintiff's way anyway for $$$$.

They're out there, but I have not seen a lot of them.   At least not when politics wasn't involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

 

You notice the cloud does not obscure the shooter from the camera position.

 

you pick the strangest hills to die on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

you pick the strangest hills to die on

I guess you didn't notice that the gun was being drawn before the spray was deployed.

Hill to die on?  BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, the drama, you clever fellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I'm not sure how scienter plays into the defense.  Enlighten me, please?

I also don't see assumption of risk at play, happy to be corrected.

(Edited for tldr version: shooter may have been negligent by being there in the first place, even if he lacked criminal intent due to his reasonable belief at the moment of the shoot. The criminal defense need be only shooter state of mind, but the negligence defense requires a showing of conformity with guard standard of care.)

Sure - in Maine murder is either intentional or knowing, or the product of depraved indifference. Our criminal self defense justification, which is more limited than in many states and so may apply differently elsewhere, works by justifying the intentional act, eliminating criminal scienter. (Shooter might have issues here because Maine has a clear duty to withdraw,  and I'm not sure I see it here.)

In the tort action, plaintiff will plead negligence causes, to ensure indemnity survives. Defendant may have committed a negligent act leading to the injury, even where he never formed a criminal intent. But because there is no intentional tortious act under the negligence claim, true self-defense in the criminal sense doesn't apply. 

This makes sense in light of the dialogue on this thread. There is a lot of room between Defendant did not commit a criminal act by shooting dude, and Defendant need not have shot dude when he did. 

I have actually had this case, though my client survived. Defendant acquitted at trial of aggravated assault and attempted murder, but liable for negligent shooting.

Maybe the easiest way of expressing it is that the Defendant wasn't criminally liable because he believed his action was necessary, but he was civilly liable because he was wrong, or because he contributed to the circumstances. In any event, were I defending the defenses would be different, which is all I meant at the outset. For the criminal action I would try to show shooter reasonably believed his actions were necessary at the time, and thus were not criminal. For the civil action I would need to show that shooters actions did not violate the standard of care for a security guy similalry situated. Including by being there in the first place.

Regarding the assumption issue,  dead guy chose to go to a fight and engage. But for his choices he lives. Makes his civil case harder. But, shooter chose to be there, makes his civil defense harder. 

Maine wrongful death cap is $750k. My estimate of defense costs through judgment and appeal, including experts is $175k. I tell my adjuster to write the check on the first day. I try the criminal case all day long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sshow bob said:

(Edited for tldr version: shooter may have been negligent by being there in the first place, even if he lacked criminal intent due to his reasonable belief at the moment of the shoot. The criminal defense need be only shooter state of mind, but the negligence defense requires a showing of conformity with guard standard of care.)

Sure - in Maine murder is either intentional or knowing, or the product of depraved indifference. Our criminal self defense justification, which is more limited than in many states and so may apply differently elsewhere, works by justifying the intentional act, eliminating criminal scienter. (Shooter might have issues here because Maine has a clear duty to withdraw,  and I'm not sure I see it here.)

In the tort action, plaintiff will plead negligence causes, to ensure indemnity survives. Defendant may have committed a negligent act leading to the injury, even where he never formed a criminal intent. But because there is no intentional tortious act under the negligence claim, true self-defense in the criminal sense doesn't apply. 

This makes sense in light of the dialogue on this thread. There is a lot of room between Defendant did not commit a criminal act by shooting dude, and Defendant need not have shot dude when he did. 

I have actually had this case, though my client survived. Defendant acquitted at trial of aggravated assault and attempted murder, but liable for negligent shooting.

Maybe the easiest way of expressing it is that the Defendant wasn't criminally liable because he believed his action was necessary, but he was civilly liable because he was wrong, or because he contributed to the circumstances. In any event, were I defending the defenses would be different, which is all I meant at the outset. For the criminal action I would try to show shooter reasonably believed his actions were necessary at the time, and thus were not criminal. For the civil action I would need to show that shooters actions did not violate the standard of care for a security guy similalry situated. Including by being there in the first place.

Regarding the assumption issue,  dead guy chose to go to a fight and engage. But for his choices he lives. Makes his civil case harder. But, shooter chose to be there, makes his civil defense harder. 

Maine wrongful death cap is $750k. My estimate of defense costs through judgment and appeal, including experts is $175k. I tell my adjuster to write the check on the first day. I try the criminal case all day long. 

Shooter was there as a hired guard in spite of the fact that he was not licensed as such in Denver and did not have the necessary concealed carry permit for the city of Denver (The state is open carry).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. And that's going to speak to the negligence action, but here it would not speak to the criminal action.   But, really I was answering Clean's question to me, which was more about legal theory than this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sshow bob said:

Right. And that's going to speak to the negligence action, but here it would not speak to the criminal action.   But, really I was answering Clean's question to me, which was more about legal theory than this case. 

I would go for negligence in going to a rally with a reasonable presumption of armed angry people with no clear uniform, thus making the guard appear to be just one more armed angry person. The Dead Fat Ass Nazi's lawyer could make a case the Fat Nazi thought HE was protecting someone from a random guy with a gun.

YMMV and IANAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I would go for negligence in going to a rally with a reasonable presumption of armed angry people with no clear uniform, thus making the guard appear to be just one more armed angry person. The Dead Fat Ass Nazi's lawyer could make a case the Fat Nazi thought HE was protecting someone from a random guy with a gun.

YMMV and IANAL

That’s the beauty of our gun nuts laws in the good ole USofA(Fuck yeah!!) 

a shooting on a nice sunny day at a capitol? No worries mate! Happens all the time! Both guys armed, pace off and duel!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Saorsa said:

874 Spray is high and to the shooters right

875 Spray is low and to the shooters right

876 Spray is released.

You notice the cloud does not obscure the shooter from the camera position.

It's entirely possible that the spray was directed to the kneepad guy who has already retreated and had been in the position being sprayed.

Here, the "guard" was reaching for his gun (at a distance of 10 to 12 feet) before the first activation of the spray.  Check the foot position of of the heavy guy.  He was moving backwards.

 

b frame-sequence.jpg

The longer you wait to get medical help, the worse the effects of your stroke are going to be.  Something about that first critical hour.  You're well past that now and the effects are becoming more obvious on your cognitive functions.  I hope you at least took that aspirin back then when I told you to.  I guess about the only thing now is to have a doc monitor it and make sure the blood clot in your brain doesn't get any worse.  Maybe with some aggressive blood thinners, they can treat it before surgery is necessary.  Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

I guess you didn't notice that the gun was being drawn before the spray was deployed.

Of course it was, as it should have been after the fat guy just slugged him in the head with brass knuckles.  Drawing the gun doesn't have to wait until he sprays.  In fact doing so could be a grave tactical and fatal error.  Not drawing the gun then could have cost pink's life because even the fat man could close that gap before the gun could come out.  

If that is what you're basing your reasoning on, you're even more cognitively impaired than I first thought.  It's still not too late to call that ambulance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sshow bob said:

Regarding the assumption issue,  dead guy chose to go to a fight and engage. But for his choices he lives. Makes his civil case harder. But, shooter chose to be there, makes his civil defense harder. 

I'm not a lawyer and I haven't been to a Holiday Inn recently.  But the shooter didn't "choose" to be there.  He was employed specifically to be there to protect a news crew that was exercising heir "Freedom of the Press" constitutional right and duty to be there.  So I don't think you can apply the normal rules of an average citizen to choose to be there or not.  If he was just a bystander who happened to be armed and ended up in that altercation, then you might have a case.  But given he was there as part of his employment, I don't think that applies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I largely agree with your argument, but I'm not sure he gets that protection if he wasn't properly licensed, etc. Most of my comments, including this one, are conditional because I'm not confident I know all the facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sshow bob said:

I largely agree with your argument, but I'm not sure he gets that protection if he wasn't properly licensed, etc. Most of my comments, including this one, are conditional because I'm not confident I know all the facts. 

As am I.  This will be an interesting case, both for the prosecution and defense.  I maintain that in any other "normal" time, he likely wouldn't even be charged, except for being unlicensed.  Obviously there is nothing normal about these times and I think there is likely incredible political pressure to bring charges even if the DA knows there is zero chance of winning.

That will also be more and more the case around the country with po-leece involved shootings.  Even if its a clean shoot, there will be political pressure to at least bring charges and go through the motions of a trial lest the city gets burned down by riots and looting.  The fickle mobs are not interested in legal intricacies or right or wrong.  They just want justice, whatever that means.  "When do we want it?  NOW!"  

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In South Carolina you have to be there completely legal to be entitled to use a handgun in self defense , in any situation you can’t legally carry your going to have a problem here