parabelum wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:50 pm
I might be in minority here on this particular case, but based on what I have seen thus far, and of course as new evidence comes out this may or may not change, it does appear that the guy who was shot was the aggressor.
It depends on why the victim slapped him. The guards left hand was stretched out to the victim. Did the guard grab or push him first and provoke the slap?
Even if he did then the victim by his own actions would appear to be an aggressor. Unless there’s a video out that shows different angles etc. there is nothing I see thus far that suggests otherwise.
Is it possible that the shooter said something to the entire crowd involved in pushing and shoving that then prompted the victim to b line towards him?
In the video I saw, it seems as if the victim is nowhere in the immediate reach of the shooter until he advances towards him. In other words, the shooter does not appear to be going after the victim, rather, victim appears to be going after the shooter.
parabelum wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:50 pm
I might be in minority here on this particular case, but based on what I have seen thus far, and of course as new evidence comes out this may or may not change, it does appear that the guy who was shot was the aggressor.
Did the victim initially slap the shooter because he was going for his weapon?
I don’t know. That piece I did not see but as I said, with what I did see it appears that the victim was the initial aggressor.
If the slap was because shooter was reaching for his weapon I’d say that is iffy as well.
Let’s say you’re there when an protifa dude walks up aggressively towards you. Words are exchanged and maybe he threatens you. Now in many jurisdictions a threat is considered an assault and now you reach for your weapon, not to use it right away but to have it ready should the victim appear armed or become more belligerent.
Victim not only doesn’t back away but proceeds to smack you committing another offense, a battery in this case. So now what are your options? You undoubtedly put yourself in a pickle by being there in the first place but that’s not criminal, it may be just dumb.
If you stand there the victim may very well disarm you (looks to be a bigger guy than you physically) and it isn’t unreasonable to believe use your weapon against you.
If you try to run, now your back is turned and you still don’t know if the victim is armed or not (aside from mace), or if he will pick up a rock and throw it at your running noggin.
You choose to shoot as maybe you see no other viable solution at the moment.
As you see, there are in my opinion at least, legal grounds for self defense here, not solid though as the details appear murky right now.
A factor which may or may not come into play here is that the shooter does appear to have had a work justification to be there, the victim appears to have come looking for trouble and found it.
The victim was retreating after the slap. He discharged the mace after the gun was pointing at him.
We need the whole surveillance video.
I agree that we need more details and video to judge better the situation. As far as retreating is concerned, I couldn’t ascertain from the video that that was the case.
Obviously, we do not have enough information to form a cogent analysis. There are some aspects of self defense law that we can discuss. For example, it is possible for the initial aggressor to regain innocence and it is possible for the defender to become the aggressor. Attorney Andrew Branca explains:
Regaining Innocence: Withdrawal & Communication
The first method is known as “withdrawal & communication,” and it involves the initial aggressor physically withdrawing, or making a good faith effort to withdraw, from the fight in combination with effectively communicating to the other party that they no longer want to fight.
...
Regaining Innocence: Circumstances of Escalation
...
What happens if the first person uses or threatens mere non-deadly force and their intended target escalates to a deadly force response? So, the first person throws a punch, and the second person responds bringing a knife or gun into the fight as their response.
...
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
Facebook and Instagram have banned John Tig Tiegen (Benghazi 13 hour fighter) who was there and I think of of the organizers of the Denver Patriot Rally. He was on Tucker Carlson tonight (Monday). He was near where the shooting happened but not right at the scene. He did say the shooter and another guy wearing Black Gun Matters shirt kept trying to antagonize marchers and huddled with the 9News reporter/producer before the shooting.
Below is a video sequence of the still photos that were taken by the photographer. If the shooter was being antagonistic towards marchers, it is going to be harder to prove self defense. This sequence below clearly shows victim backing away before he was shot.
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.
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.
If the guy slapped him and then retreated, he is no longer a threat. He regained his innocence by retreating.
I was told he slapped the guy because he tried to grab his mace. Makes sense since his left arm is stretched out in its direction.
rtschl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:50 pm
Facebook and Instagram have banned John Tig Tiegen (Benghazi 13 hour fighter) who was there and I think of of the organizers of the Denver Patriot Rally. He was on Tucker Carlson tonight (Monday). He was near where the shooting happened but not right at the scene. He did say the shooter and another guy wearing Black Gun Matters shirt kept trying to antagonize marchers and huddled with the 9News reporter/producer before the shooting.
Below is a video sequence of the still photos that were taken by the photographer. If the shooter was being antagonistic towards marchers, it is going to be harder to prove self defense. This sequence below clearly shows victim backing away before he was shot.
Looks as if the "guard" made first contact. Victim definitely retreating.
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.
If the guy slapped him and then retreated, he is no longer a threat. He regained his innocence by retreating.
I was told he slapped the guy because he tried to grab his mace. Makes sense since his left arm is stretched out in its direction.
What I was particularly talking about was the shooter, his employer and the third guy with them. The fellow on Tucker said these three had been running around trying to antagonize people. My issue is that in Texas, at least, you lose your right to claim self defense if you started the confrontation by antagonizing the other person. I can't start screaming and cussing at someone and then shoot them because they slap me, and then claim self defense??? True??
I see him smacking the shooter then making what appears to be just a step back, then fist clenched he stands for a second and it almost looks as if he is about to come towards him again when he realizes the shooter has a gun, he activated the mace and of course then he’s shot.
I’d like to see more of the exchange between the two, as of now I still see the victim as the one who initiated first physical contact by punching the shooter (both appear to have been verbal towards each other).
Doesn’t look good for the shooter, but I’d say that given that he (victim) made first physical contact byway of a smack he to me still looks like more of an aggressor here. The whole thing developed in <7sec.
I would try my best not to be in that situation in the first place, but if a larger dude walked up to me and smacked me like that, I don’t know if I would not see that as a self defense in the <7sec of that situation.
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.
If the guy slapped him and then retreated, he is no longer a threat. He regained his innocence by retreating.
I was told he slapped the guy because he tried to grab his mace. Makes sense since his left arm is stretched out in its direction.
What I was particularly talking about was the shooter, his employer and the third guy with them. The fellow on Tucker said these three had been running around trying to antagonize people. My issue is that in Texas, at least, you lose your right to claim self defense if you started the confrontation by antagonizing the other person. I can't start screaming and cussing at someone and then shoot them because they slap me, and then claim self defense??? True??
IANAL but you may be correct. What is apparent is that both engaged verbally, but the one who escalated it physically appears to be the victim. We will see.
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.
If the guy slapped him and then retreated, he is no longer a threat. He regained his innocence by retreating.
I was told he slapped the guy because he tried to grab his mace. Makes sense since his left arm is stretched out in its direction.
What I was particularly talking about was the shooter, his employer and the third guy with them. The fellow on Tucker said these three had been running around trying to antagonize people. My issue is that in Texas, at least, you lose your right to claim self defense if you started the confrontation by antagonizing the other person. I can't start screaming and cussing at someone and then shoot them because they slap me, and then claim self defense??? True??
IANAL but you may be correct. What is apparent is that both engaged verbally, but the one who escalated it physically appears to be the victim. We will see.
I have watched the many videos of these antifa/BLM terrorists using bullhorns to get right in someone's face and scream their agenda. This seems to me to be provocation. Those three had been doing this all day long to many people so it is safe to assume they did the same to the victim.
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.
