Protests - the next level?

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

oljames3
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 5350
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:21 pm
Location: Elgin, Texas
Contact:

Re: Protests - the next level?

#616

Post by oljames3 »

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:51 pm The self defense laws in Colorado may be different than in Texas. Isn't self defense nullified if you create the situation that requires self defense? In other words, you antagonize someone to the point they "slap" you, you cannot then shoot them and claim self defense. If Colorado has similar laws, the shooter cannot claim self defense if he first antagonized a response from the victim. I saw the Tucker episode and they talked of this shooter and his two partners in crime going from one group to another trying to elicit a response. Maybe for the camera. Maybe to have an excuse to murder someone.
The elements of self defense are the same in CO as they are in Texas. Colorado attorney Andrew Branca explains: https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

In an earlier post, I summarized the regaining of innocence as it pertains to self defense, and linked to an article in which Branca explained the concept in detail.

Branca is reviewing the Denver incident in significant legal detail on his blog, These reviews are restricted to members only, but you can get a 2 week trial membership for $0.99. https://lawofselfdefense.com/join/
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
2/19FA, 1st Cavalry Division 73-78; 56FA BDE (Pershing) 78-81
NRA, NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Instructor, Rangemaster Certified, GOA, TSRA, NAR L1

eyedoc
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:28 am

Re: Protests - the next level?

#617

Post by eyedoc »

parabelum wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:12 pm Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person:

“(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury;  or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204 ;  or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302 , robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302 , sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 , or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203 .

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person;
 or

(b) He is the initial aggressor;  except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force;  or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense.  If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction.  The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner.  However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense.  This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.“


So, looks like a pickle. Again, IANAL but to me it looks like his attorney will have to now prove that he did not cause provocation with an “ intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person”. It will be muddy.

Both should have stayed home.
The victim slapped the "guard" when he tried to grab his pistol from his shoulder harness and then retreated. The "guard" was the initial aggressor by trying to grab his pistol. The "guard" is totally at fault.

Image

eyedoc
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:28 am

Re: Protests - the next level?

#618

Post by eyedoc »

Rob72 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:30 pm All kinds of stupid, throughout.

If you're making a public statement, don't make it hard to tell you (Mr. Goodguy Niceneighbor) from Thugly Moron. Dress conservatively.

If someone without a badge attempts to disarm you (and why is your tickler out there to attract attention, unless you are, eh, attracting attention, which is by definition, "escalation"?) they don't get a love tap. Either you control and dominate them, while shouting for the Poleece!! or you leave.

I suspect Dolloff fancied himself a Bengazi operator, by the look of things. In his defense (and it is not a valid defense), I would wonder if the news producer had offered him a bonus if, "something exciting happens..." The fact that Pinkerton seems to legitimately not be tied to him significantly raises my suspicions.
He did slap him and try to retreat.
User avatar

rtschl
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Protests - the next level?

#619

Post by rtschl »

Making assumption this photo id below is correct... but the producer from 9news speaking with shooter just before shooting was held as a person of interest and released. Curious is there are other photos/videos of producer speaking with shooter and other Antifa BLM/BGM antagonist?

Important to note that the Denver post photographer, who took a lot of the photo's being discussed, followed BLM/Antifa a lot that day and at other events, has deleted her Twitter account. Why? Wonder what other pictures and comments are in her account?



Ron
NRA Member
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 52
Posts: 11451
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: Protests - the next level?

#620

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

oljames3 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:19 pm
03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:51 pm The self defense laws in Colorado may be different than in Texas. Isn't self defense nullified if you create the situation that requires self defense? In other words, you antagonize someone to the point they "slap" you, you cannot then shoot them and claim self defense. If Colorado has similar laws, the shooter cannot claim self defense if he first antagonized a response from the victim. I saw the Tucker episode and they talked of this shooter and his two partners in crime going from one group to another trying to elicit a response. Maybe for the camera. Maybe to have an excuse to murder someone.
The elements of self defense are the same in CO as they are in Texas. Colorado attorney Andrew Branca explains: https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

In an earlier post, I summarized the regaining of innocence as it pertains to self defense, and linked to an article in which Branca explained the concept in detail.

Branca is reviewing the Denver incident in significant legal detail on his blog, These reviews are restricted to members only, but you can get a 2 week trial membership for $0.99. https://lawofselfdefense.com/join/
It might be worth the .99 . We will see how it all plays out but it sure looks to me like the shooter antagonized the victim into slapping him and then decided to shoot. More out of a get even, than a self defense motive. The guy slapped him and then backed off. The shooter going for his gun may have been why the victim went for the mace. He very well may have gotten shot even if he had not pulled the mace. That sequence all happened in less than 2 seconds.
User avatar

rtschl
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Protests - the next level?

#621

Post by rtschl »

James O'Keefe of Project Veritas has dropped another video bomb. This time of left wing activist and Denver area Colorado Dem Executive committee member and OurRevolution chair.

WARNING: Language by the Democrat threatening to kill people to achieve the revolution but it is bleeped by Project Veritas. And of course he deleted his twitter account within an hour of the video coming out. I removed language from the quote below but be warned.

Some posts from James O'Keefe on Twitter:
“Want to change this country,with violence...there’s only one way to do it.”; "Guillotines...
"He literally says he wants to cut the heads off billionaires with a guillotine. And jokes about it."


And in case Twitter censors it because he confirms the left is organized, armed and trained:

Denver area @coloradodems exec committee/@OurRevolution chair @Kyoti00: “They underestimate how many people on the left are organized, trained, armed”; “We’re gonna show up in numbers.”; ‘killing random Nazis in the street”


Ron
NRA Member

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 55
Posts: 2717
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: Protests - the next level?

#622

Post by parabelum »

Press guy states that the security guy was protecting him.

Again, both were dumb and one paid with his life. He still looks like more of an aggressor than the shooter. Note that he’s the most active participant in the overall situation next to the dude in the black guns matter (cool shirt) shirt. Note he (victim) says get the bleep camera out of here or I’m gonna ... bleep you up etc. which would support the press guy claim that the victim threatened him. Security dude steps in between and 7secs later it is over.

He’s the initial aggressor looks like to me as he confronted the press guy solely because of the camera. The security dude just ended up in between. Just what I’m seeing at 01:32 forward.

User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 52
Posts: 11451
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: Protests - the next level?

#623

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

parabelum wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:20 am Press guy states that the security guy was protecting him.

Again, both were dumb and one paid with his life. He still looks like more of an aggressor than the shooter. Note that he’s the most active participant in the overall situation next to the dude in the black guns matter (cool shirt) shirt. Note he (victim) says get the bleep camera out of here or I’m gonna ... bleep you up etc. which would support the press guy claim that the victim threatened him. Security dude steps in between and 7secs later it is over.

He’s the initial aggressor looks like to me as he confronted the press guy solely because of the camera. The security dude just ended up in between. Just what I’m seeing at 01:32 forward.


Wow! That does make it look bad for the guy who got shot. What a dad gummed mess! Intentionally going to one of these things is not a great idea. Way to many ways to find trouble!

eyedoc
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:28 am

Re: Protests - the next level?

#624

Post by eyedoc »

03Lightningrocks wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:36 am
parabelum wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:20 am Press guy states that the security guy was protecting him.

Again, both were dumb and one paid with his life. He still looks like more of an aggressor than the shooter. Note that he’s the most active participant in the overall situation next to the dude in the black guns matter (cool shirt) shirt. Note he (victim) says get the bleep camera out of here or I’m gonna ... bleep you up etc. which would support the press guy claim that the victim threatened him. Security dude steps in between and 7secs later it is over.

He’s the initial aggressor looks like to me as he confronted the press guy solely because of the camera. The security dude just ended up in between. Just what I’m seeing at 01:32 forward.


Wow! That does make it look bad for the guy who got shot. What a dad gummed mess! Intentionally going to one of these things is not a great idea. Way to many ways to find trouble!
Too bad the "guard" turned a verbal altercation into a homicide.

seph
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:01 am

Re: Protests - the next level?

#625

Post by seph »

eyedoc wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:46 am
03Lightningrocks wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:36 am
parabelum wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:20 am Press guy states that the security guy was protecting him.

Again, both were dumb and one paid with his life. He still looks like more of an aggressor than the shooter. Note that he’s the most active participant in the overall situation next to the dude in the black guns matter (cool shirt) shirt. Note he (victim) says get the bleep camera out of here or I’m gonna ... bleep you up etc. which would support the press guy claim that the victim threatened him. Security dude steps in between and 7secs later it is over.

He’s the initial aggressor looks like to me as he confronted the press guy solely because of the camera. The security dude just ended up in between. Just what I’m seeing at 01:32 forward.


Wow! That does make it look bad for the guy who got shot. What a dad gummed mess! Intentionally going to one of these things is not a great idea. Way to many ways to find trouble!
Too bad the "guard" turned a verbal altercation into a homicide.
Correction, armed citizen. Not licensed to be a guard = not a guard. Lawsuit coming against the news media and security company though for having unlicenced personal. I heard charges were already being filed against the news media regarding the use of unlicenced personal.
Let's go Brandon! "rlol"

eyedoc
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:28 am

Re: Protests - the next level?

#626

Post by eyedoc »

seph wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:59 am
eyedoc wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:46 am
03Lightningrocks wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:36 am
parabelum wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:20 am Press guy states that the security guy was protecting him.

Again, both were dumb and one paid with his life. He still looks like more of an aggressor than the shooter. Note that he’s the most active participant in the overall situation next to the dude in the black guns matter (cool shirt) shirt. Note he (victim) says get the bleep camera out of here or I’m gonna ... bleep you up etc. which would support the press guy claim that the victim threatened him. Security dude steps in between and 7secs later it is over.

He’s the initial aggressor looks like to me as he confronted the press guy solely because of the camera. The security dude just ended up in between. Just what I’m seeing at 01:32 forward.


Wow! That does make it look bad for the guy who got shot. What a dad gummed mess! Intentionally going to one of these things is not a great idea. Way to many ways to find trouble!
Too bad the "guard" turned a verbal altercation into a homicide.
Correction, armed citizen. Not licensed to be a guard = not a guard. Lawsuit coming against the news media and security company though for having unlicenced personal. I heard charges were already being filed against the news media regarding the use of unlicenced personal.
That is why I put the word in quotes. He was called one, but he is not one. He was ill prepared for the job. He could have de-escalated the situation as the older gentleman had with the BLM agitator and victim. Instead, he wanted to be a hero and use his pistol. That Rambo attitude cost a person their life and may ruin his life needlessly.

I wonder why the press guy was not wearing his cap and badge that identified him as press.

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 55
Posts: 2717
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: Protests - the next level?

#627

Post by parabelum »

I think one thing is safe to say, neither should have been there and both acted like fools. Victim definitely had more of a Rambo disposition.
Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”