Politically Motivated Violence Thread PART 2

[chipbennett]

I agree. The same rules apply. If someone slaps another, it’s not illegal to draw down on them. And I challenge you to find a case to the contrary. When someone deploys a chemical agent meant to incapacitate, then as long as you can articulate why deadly force is appropriate, it flies. For me, I’m not going to give somebody else the benefit of the doubt that they won’t continue to harm me after my ability to defend myself is diminished.

You're leaving out a key point: the shooter was the initial, physical aggressor.

Further: you are now claiming that it is legal to point a firearm at someone in response to that person merely slapping the other person? Do you really need me to look up, generally, instances of prosecutions for what most jurisdictions call brandishing, at a minimum?

And, as evidenced by the timeline of still photos, the shooter used deadly force before his victim deployed the pepper spray.

So, certainly: if you change the facts, the timeline, and the laws, you can create a scenario in which the shooter was legally justified in using deadly force.

 

[chipbennett]

I was pretty sure you would say that. Doesn’t matter though. If it would be a bad shoot for a cop, it’s a bad shoot for Dolloff regardless of biases.

It wouldn't necessarily be a bad shot for a cop, with all other facts and context held the same.

 

[chipbennett]

NO.. you're not listening. He not only got slapped, but also pepper sprayed. All indications were that it was escalating from there. Very good chance he was about to be in a life or death struggle for his own weapon. As we know, many officers are killed with their own weapon, so yes... it most likely would have been a good shoot for an officer.

Once again:

1. Pepper spray was deployed after, not before, use of deadly force
2. The shooter was the initial, physical aggressor

 

[chipbennett]

I dont know who's on who's side here. But the guy swung at someones head, and he has a weapon in his hand the entire time. Ring on every finger too. He was looking for a dance partner and he found one.

Play stupid games win stupid prizes. What was the argument with the black guns matter guy over? What did the guy who got shot t shirt say?

After all this time, you still don't have a grasp of the full timeline?

Shooter interjected himself into a situation in which he had no business interjecting himself. Shooter was the initial, physical aggressor, and therefore had zero legal justification whatsoever in using force - much less, deadly force - in self-defense.

 

[chipbennett]

And what’s illegal about drawing a gun after being forcefully slapped by another person? I’ll put it this way. If I drew up a PC for pointing a firearm, and put in the minor details that the “victim” issued a threat, was carrying pepper spray in his hand, and slapped the accused, I’d expect a prosecutor to give me the side eye, and then laugh me out of his office.

Shooter was the initial, physical aggressor. I'm not going to let you keep conveniently ignoring that, rather critical fact. The slap was the justified use of force in self-defense.

Further, the victim was backing away from his attacker, and only deployed the pepper spray in response to being drawn upon with a firearm.

 

[jamil]

It wouldn't necessarily be a bad shot for a cop, with all other facts and context held the same.

I’ll have to continue to disagree with that. Same scenario means cop is plain clothes, all other circumstances equal, victim doesn’t know it’s a cop. If the cop identifies himself as a police officer, and initiates contact in service of his duties, then the victim had no cause to slap him. I don’t think doing so could be seen as self defense. But even at that point I think it would be iffy to shoot the guy. Definitely go hands on and arrest him at that point.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Once again:

1. Pepper spray was deployed after, not before, use of deadly force
2. The shooter was the initial, physical aggressor

Where are you getting this? You're saying Dollof pulled the trigger before Keltner pulled the trigger on his can? The picture doesn't really seem to indicate this.... but ok, how about this. In the picture Kelter's hand is extended - pointing the can at Dolloff. Was Keltner raising his hand to present his pepper spray before Dolloff fired? Yes or no?

 

[KLB]

Where are you getting this? You're saying Dollof pulled the trigger before Keltner pulled the trigger on his can? The picture doesn't really seem to indicate this.... but ok, how about this. In the picture Kelter's hand is extended - pointing the can at Dolloff. Was Keltner raising his hand to present his pepper spray before Dolloff fired? Yes or no?

Again, Kelter goes for his gun, then Dollof raises the can.

 

[chipbennett]

I’ll have to continue to disagree with that. Same scenario means cop is plain clothes, all other circumstances equal, victim doesn’t know it’s a cop. If the cop identifies himself as a police officer, and initiates contact in service of his duties, then the victim had no cause to slap him. I don’t think doing so could be seen as self defense. But even at that point I think it would be iffy to shoot the guy. Definitely go hands on and arrest him at that point.

...which is why I said not necessarily a bad shoot if he had been a cop. You added context that I didn't (i.e. plainclothes); regardless, a police officer has legal authority to de-escalate a situation, and legal authority to put his hands on someone for whom he has RAS is about to commit an unlawful act/use of force - plainclothes or not. In that scenario, the deceased becomes the unlawful aggressor, which absolutely changes the scenario.

Now, the compounding factor is still the timing of the draw and shoot. The actual shooter went for his firearm when he was slapped. He drew in response to being slapped, and committed himself to that course of action in a timeframe that makes it incredibly unlikely that he factored the totality of circumstances (the victim took several steps away from the shooter after he slapped him) or the potential imminent deployment of the pepper spray into his decision to shoot.

If - a big if - the victim had stepped backward and away from the cop and presented the pepper spray as if to deploy it - and had done so before the cop drew his weapon, then the shooting would be 100% justified, IMHO.

But, of course, those aren't the facts of what happened, as we know him.

 

[chipbennett]

Where are you getting this? You're saying Dollof pulled the trigger before Keltner pulled the trigger on his can? The picture doesn't really seem to indicate this.... but ok, how about this. In the picture Kelter's hand is extended - pointing the can at Dolloff. Was Keltner raising his hand to present his pepper spray before Dolloff fired? Yes or no?

The still images are pretty clear. The slide is back and the shell already ejected when the pepper spray is deployed. It seems pretty obvious that the victim raised/deployed the pepper spray in response to being drawn upon, and not the other way around.

The shooter went for his gun in direct response to being slapped. He drew and fired without any time to assess the situation at the moment he shot. That implies that he committed himself to the shot when he was slapped. Not in response to a perceived/reasonable threat of pepper spray being deployed.

(And, again: the shooter was the initial, physical aggressor, meaning that the victim was legally justified to use force in self-defense and that the shooter was not legally justified to use force - much less, to escalate to deadly force - in response to justified use of force in self-defense.)

 

[chipbennett]

Again, Kelter goes for his gun, then Dollof raises the can.

Exactly:

1. Verbal altercation not involving the shooter
2. Shooter interjects himself into verbal altercation
3. Shooter acts as the initial, physical aggressor
4. Victim slaps shooter
5. Shooter immediately reaches for his gun
6. Victim begins backing away from shooter
7. Shooter aims his gun at victim
8. Victim raises pepper spray
9. Shooter shoots victim
10. Victim deploys pepper spray - perhaps even posthumously/involuntarily - after being shot through the eye

 

[BugI02]

Where are you getting this? You're saying Dollof pulled the trigger before Keltner pulled the trigger on his can? The picture doesn't really seem to indicate this.... but ok, how about this. In the picture Kelter's hand is extended - pointing the can at Dolloff. Was Keltner raising his hand to present his pepper spray before Dolloff fired? Yes or no?

Dolloff is drawing his weapon in these frames, Keltner has pepper spray down at his side, as he did when he slapped little big man. He is drawing on a man who presents no more physical danger to him then he did when he slapped him, which was a confrontation Dolloff initiated

So tell me, who is the aggressor in this interaction and who is responding to aggression? Does California [Colorado] have stand your ground or duty to retreat? Dolloff should burn now, and if he doesn't believe in repentance, is likely to burn later

Dolloff will eventually kill the man for doing nothing worse than humiliating the little *****

 

[Kutnupe14]

The still images are pretty clear. The slide is back and the shell already ejected when the pepper spray is deployed. It seems pretty obvious that the victim raised/deployed the pepper spray in response to being drawn upon, and not the other way around.

The shooter went for his gun in direct response to being slapped. He drew and fired without any time to assess the situation at the moment he shot. That implies that he committed himself to the shot when he was slapped. Not in response to a perceived/reasonable threat of pepper spray being deployed.

(And, again: the shooter was the initial, physical aggressor, meaning that the victim was legally justified to use force in self-defense and that the shooter was not legally justified to use force - much less, to escalate to deadly force - in response to justified use of force in self-defense.)

Yes, the slide is back. The slide cycle is after the pepper spray had been deployed. Look at the stills. There is a good 10ft between the two men, and at the moment the slide is cycling, the pepper spray had already traveled that entire gap. So you want me to believe, that in the time it took the slide to cycle (half cycle-mind you), that's spray was able to travel the distance between the two men, after the shot? This doesn't even account for Keltner raising his hand from his side and pointing it at Dollof in the first place.

 

[chipbennett]

Note: Colorado, not California

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, the slide is back. The slide cycle is after the pepper spray had been deployed. Look at the stills. There is a good 10ft between the two men, and at the moment the slide is cycling, the pepper spray had already traveled that entire gap. So you want me to believe, that in the time it took the slide to cycle (half cycle-mind you), that's spray was able to travel the distance between the two men, after the shot? This doesn't even account for Keltner raising his hand from his side and pointing it at Dollof in the first place.

You have a picture of pepper spray deployed before the shot was fired? I've not seen that one.

 

[BugI02]

Note: Colorado, not California

Gracias

 

[Kutnupe14]

View attachment 142345

Dolloff is drawing his weapon in these frames, Keltner has pepper spray down at his side, as he did when he slapped little big man. He is drawing on a man who presents no more physical danger to him then he did when he slapped him, which was a confrontation Dolloff initiated

So tell me, who is the aggressor in this interaction and who is responding to aggression? Does California have stand your ground or duty to retreat? Dolloff should burn now, and if he doesn't believe in repentance, is likely to burn later

Dolloff will eventually kill the man for doing nothing worse than humiliating the little *****

He's completely justified in drawing his weapon, after being slapped. The question you need to be asking, is if Dolloff would have even pointed his weapon at Keltner, if Keltner hadn't raised his pepper spray (which he is starting to do in the frames).

Keltner is clearly the aggressor. He issued the threat, he was carrying an incapacitation chemical agent, he was advancing on the news team. Your assertion that Dolloff is the aggressor, is simply put, nonsense. You contend that because Dolloff placed his hand Keltner he was in the wrong. How so? If your contention is correct, then our jails and poorhouses should be full of bodyguards; because they do that exact thing each and every day.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You have a picture of pepper spray deployed before the shot was fired? I've not seen that one.

It's common sense Chip. A bullet is going to travel much faster than a sprayed chemical agent. If were able to see the exchange with spray in the air and a slide cycling, if a pretty much forgone conclusion that the whomever had the spray pulled the trigger first.
Here, look at it this way. If both men had firearms, and pulled their triggers at the same time Keltner and Dolloff deployed their weapons, who would be the first person shot?

 

[chipbennett]

He's completely justified in drawing his weapon, after being slapped. The question you need to be asking, is if Dolloff would have even pointed his weapon at Keltner, if Keltner hadn't raised his pepper spray (which he is starting to do in the frames).

Keltner is clearly the aggressor. He issued the threat, he was carrying an incapacitation chemical agent, he was advancing on the news team. Your assertion that Dolloff is the aggressor, is simply put, nonsense. You contend that because Dolloff placed his hand Keltner he was in the wrong. How so? If your contention is correct, then our jails and poorhouses should be full of bodyguards; because they do that exact thing each and every day.

No. He isn't. The shooter initiated the confrontation between the two, and was the one to initiate unlawful physical contact/use of force.

That fact is indisputable, regardless of your interpretation of what happened afterward. The shooter was the initial, physical aggressor.

 

[KG1]

This convo is like deja vu all over again.