Utopia Talk / Politics / One dead, two in custody

swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat Oct 10 18:38:04 One dead, two in custody after gunfire at downtown Denver rallies “Patriot rally” and “BLM-Antifa Soup Drive” both planned for Saturday http://www...ts-saturday-civic-center-park/
sam adams Member	Sat Oct 10 20:19:54 Sounds like anti-fa shot a trump suppprter in the head.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Oct 10 22:17:58 article currently says security guard for media shot Trump cultist (w/ photo perhaps moments before shooting) scratch one member of Trump's civil war army
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Oct 10 22:25:35 final moments photo if you want to dodge the ad blocker complaints plus the ads that deserved to be blocked: http://www.../10/TDP-L-RALLY_874.jpg?w=1042
Y2A Member	Sat Oct 10 22:29:11 http://www...2020/10/10/denver1011/National Security guard in custody after fatal shooting amid dueling protests in Denver, police say By Hannah Knowles Oct. 10, 2020 at 10:39 p.m. EDT A private security guard is in custody after a fatal shooting amid dueling demonstrations in downtown Denver, police said Saturday, in the latest deadly violence to unfold at the scene of tense protests. Right-wing demonstrators had gathered at the city’s civic center for a “Patriot Rally,” as did left-wing activists affiliating themselves with Black Lives Matter and antifa, who said they wanted to “drown out their hate.” Police said Saturday that the suspect is a private security guard not affiliated with antifa; local television station 9NEWS identified the person as a guard it hired to accompany an employee covering the events. Police did not provide information on the victim after saying they were still trying to determine any connections to the protesters. “There was a large [police] presence because we had two groups with opposing views, and we know that can always get very tense,” said Joe Montoya, division chief of investigations for the Denver Police Department, at a news conference, adding that authorities tried their best to keep the groups separate. “And there’s always potential for violence.” AD Protesters were just starting to disperse from a park Saturday afternoon, police said, when officers working the events reported shots fired. The violence — under investigation as a homicide — followed a “verbal altercation,” according to Montoya. The person who was shot was taken to a hospital and later pronounced dead, police said. Neither the alleged gunman nor the victim was identified by authorities. The Denver Post reported that a man affiliated with the “Patriot Rally” sprayed mace at another man, who then opened fire with a weapon. Police said they could not confirm that Saturday, but said a mace canister was found at the scene. Two firearms were also recovered from the scene, according to Montoya. Few details were available Saturday, and authorities said they are interviewing witnesses. As some on social media accused a left-wing protester of perpetrating the violence, Montoya said he hopes to release more information about the individuals involved as soon as possible, suggesting that rumors could further inflame the situation and lead to more violence. “We’re hopeful that that information will help kind of calm the waters a little bit,” he said. “We don’t want any erroneous information going out, any speculation, because that’s really what hurts us.” Police initially took another person into custody who was nearby, but later determined they were not involved in the killing, Montoya said. 9NEWS said a producer in its investigative unit was detained and then released. The shooting took place between the Denver Art Museum and a public library, authorities said. Tensions were high in Denver heading into Saturday’s events. An organizer of the Denver “Patriot Rally,” John Tiegen, emphasized to local news station KNUS earlier in the week that he was “not calling for violence” but added that if he was attacked, he would respond “10 times fold.” Heated clashes between demonstrators this summer and fall have escalated at times into sometimes deadly conflict.
Y2A Member	Sat Oct 10 22:44:18 video, difficult to see the actual event but it is there http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF4d-N4dlmE
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Oct 10 23:45:37 to monday morning QB, he probably should've maced the guy repeatedly asking for it rather than the guy w/ the gun
Pillz Member	Sun Oct 11 00:01:38 tw couldn't celebrate trump's passing, so he'll use this to jerk off too instead.
habebe Member	Sun Oct 11 00:12:10 Well, the right wingers should burn and loot pur cities, irs what your supposed to do when this happens.
Paramount Member	Sun Oct 11 02:00:44 Looks legit to me. If someone sprays warfare chemicals on you, you have the right to shoot him in self defense. Also, is the war going to start soon?
habebe Member	Sun Oct 11 02:17:03 Americans are way too fat and lethargic for a civil war.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Oct 11 02:25:00 I'll predict late November... need some time to bring anger with results to a boil, assisted by constant misinformation from the lying fraud who has always puts himself above country so far ...but if he wins, we'll just have rioting for awhile
habebe Member	Sun Oct 11 02:30:01 Typical left wing response to not getting their way.... Just riot.
habebe Member	Sun Oct 11 02:30:09 Typical left wing response to not getting their way.... Just riot.
Y2A Member	Sun Oct 11 10:41:44 paramount if the clown loses he will call the election a sham and after that it is likely that his brownshirts (proud boys, patriot prayer, assorted deplorables) get out on the street and come out shooting.
Habebe Member	Sun Oct 11 11:09:28 Burn the Reichstag! I mean Congress....
Paramount Member	Sun Oct 11 11:42:10 Looks like it was a security guard who shot and killes one of Trump’s boys: Police have arrested a security guard after a man was shot dead during rival right- and left-wing protests in the US city of Denver. Reports said the dead man had been taking part in a so-called "Patriot Rally" of right-wing demonstrators. Police said the suspect was not linked to the counter-demonstrators. Photographs published by the Denver Post newspaper appear to show a confrontation during which the demonstrator strikes the security guard and sprays pepper spray at him before the security guard opens fire. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54497567
Habebe Member	Sun Oct 11 11:48:35 Don't trust the government The truth is out there. I want to beleive. It was all the smoking man.
Paramount Member	Sun Oct 11 11:57:37 Okay, Y2A already posted that it was a security guard. I’m slow. How did I miss that?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Oct 11 12:25:06 a good chance Trump will still say it was antifa even though that rumor was squashed pretty quick his sources are garbage plus he doesn't care about truth
Habebe Member	Sun Oct 11 12:26:37 Tw, Its what he heard, from very smart people.
obaminated Member	Sun Oct 11 21:13:15 Shooter wasnt licensed, this was murder much to the lefts chagrin
jergul large member	Sun Oct 11 21:17:48 You hear that, Kyle? Its murder. Obam said so.
Forwyn Member	Sun Oct 11 22:16:25 Video was focusing on screaming BLM guy, so right now we mostly have pictures. Looks like guard walked up and tried to snatch the mace, got slapped, drew and levelled his gun, THEN got maced, and fired. That's not self-defense. But I'll wait to see if more video comes out.
Y2A Member	Sun Oct 11 22:25:24 -Matthew Dolloff - security guard -Lee Keltner - patriot prayer protester http://www...suspect-9news-matthew-dolloff/ "A sequence of photos of the incident captured by a Denver Post photographer appears to show Keltner slapping Dolloff in the face before the two back away from each other. The next image shows Dolloff shooting at Keltner — a shell casing is seen being ejected from his handgun — as Keltner fires a cloud of pepper spray at Dolloff"
Forwyn Member	Sun Oct 11 22:26:21 Lol, another perfect storm “If he was operating as a security guard, he was in violation of the law,” said Eric Escudero, a department spokesman, stated. “Security guards are prohibited from carrying or using a firearm without getting an armed firearm endorsement for their license. All security guards in Denver are required to get a federal background check before they receive their license.” http://den...dolloff-denver-security-guard/
renzo marQuez Member	Sun Oct 11 22:37:07 Y2A Member Sun Oct 11 22:25:24 "-Matthew Dolloff - security guard -Lee Keltner - patriot prayer protester http://www...suspect-9news-matthew-dolloff/" Look at the fat boomer's glasses. Was he shot in the eye or is that just a weird reflection?
Y2A Member	Sun Oct 11 22:39:18 video of the guy that was killed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYMnJnwFzw0
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Oct 13 00:08:06 [Paramount]: "If someone sprays warfare chemicals on you, you have the right to shoot him in self defense." One of the reasons that military and police use OC spray is that it is difficult to prosecute as lethal force (part of the "less lethal force" designation). I.e., OC falls into a lower level of force in the continuum of force than does lethal force. It's usually even lower than tasers and even lower than hand strikes. That means that firing a handgun in response to someone using OC spray would be considered an unreasonable escalation — prosecuting otherwise would not be supported by case history regarding OC spray (very difficult to prosecute; prosecution usually relies on other factors). The reason is practical: getting OC-sprayed does not itself put a person's life at risk because it is an irritant that does not incapacitate; it usually just gets people to back away. .. [Forwyn]: "Looks like guard walked up and tried to snatch the mace, got slapped, drew and levelled his gun, THEN got maced, and fired. [/] That's not self-defense." Yeah, and with OC spray being out of play, that makes things fall back to the other aspects. Even if Matthew Dolloff (shooter) was slapped, you can see in the picture before he fired that Lee Keltner (slapper/sprayer) was about 10 feet away while spraying. This means that the slap could not have factored into Dolloff having a reasonable fear for his safety (no further strikes were possible from that distance — there was no danger of being incapacitated, certainly not by the OC spray). So self defense on Dolloff's part vanishes pretty quickly. If it's true that Dolloff was attempting to take Keltner's spray before the slap, that's even worse for Dolloff — it paints Dolloff even more as the aggressor. Worse still, if it's true that Dolloff was assuming a role as security and was not allowed to carry a firearm in that capacity, then he has compounding criminal charges against him that paint him as a bad faith actor. I think it's very likely that Dolloff will be getting a straight sentence for murder and will be in jail for a long time.
habebe Member	Tue Oct 13 00:17:18 I dont know, I think in that enviroment it could have easily been perceived as a greater threat than just getting maxed ( or whatever) It blinded the guy, from his POV who knows what the guy was going to do next. Just because he was a Trump supporter, I cant give him a free pass.
habebe Member	Tue Oct 13 00:18:03 Now if it went off while.he was trying to take the spray, that changes the dynamic.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Oct 13 00:48:01 [habebe]: "Just because he was a Trump supporter, I cant give him a free pass." I wouldn't either. In this case, however, there's no need. The case details speak for themselves. .. [habebe]: "It blinded the guy, from his POV who knows what the guy was going to do next." That's not how it works. Firstly, OC spray does not completely blind you, it just makes your eyes hurt (albeit a lot — and this is not to disregard its other effects (e.g., on breathing), this is just to address the "blinded" part). And even police with qualified immunity do not get to sell such a "could not see" claim — they need a lot more details in their favor (e.g., things afforded them that citizens do not get, such as non-compliance, active resistance, and violent intent). A regular citizen claiming self defense cannot say, "I couldn't see what he was doing behind that cloud, so I shot into the cloud." No. Not being able to see what your opponent is doing does not give you carte blanche to kill. A proper (reasonable) threat has to be identified. OC spray is not a reasonable lethal threat — not by its prosecution history. At best the shooter could say that he saw that the person holding the mace was also holding a pistol or that he thought that he might be, but prosecution would easily establish that no reasonable person would infer a pistol (no one else has reported that the slapper was carrying a pistol in addition to the mace, so prosecution could parade witnesses who would reverse that claim). So defense would have to invent details to sell that narrative, which wouldn't go well for the defense.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 13 05:02:48 Lol. Mace is fine, but deadly assault plastic bags and skateboards of war are lethal threats.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 13 06:00:31 Please, it was a skateboard of mass destruction.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 13 06:02:15 Habebe: Self defence often isn't available to people who don't intend to shoot. It might allow him to claim reckless manslaughter.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Oct 13 06:15:04 [jergul]: "Mace is fine, but deadly assault plastic bags and skateboards of war are lethal threats." Your point required a straw man and a distortion, so I could probably leave it there, but for curious bystanders (not bad faith Jergul-Sebs): • By the continuum of force, OC spray is in fact rated as less lethal force. If you dispute this, you dispute its long history of avoiding litigation to the contrary. • Rosenbaum throwing a plastic bag was not the justification for Rittenhouse shooting him. What *was* the justification? Answer: Rosenbaum charging Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum cornering Rittenhouse, a gunshot behind Rittenhouse contributing to his state of mind, Rosenbaum lunging at Rittenhouse, and the multiple attempts by Rosenbaum to grab Rittenhouse's rifle (a use of lethal force scenario, given that unlawfully taking someone's rifle allows the aggressor to then continue the unlawful pattern by using the rifle against them). • Skateboards are blunt force objects. They typically classify as lethal force or intermediate weapons since they carry a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury when wielded as clubs. • Even if the skateboarder was not using his skateboard as a blunt force object, he tried to forcibly remove Rittenhouse's rifle, which, again, justifies lethal force.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 13 06:24:20 Colorado is a stand your ground state. The on duty security guard was under no obligation to allow himself to become incompacitated and perhaps killed. Thanks for playing.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Oct 13 06:41:31 Asked and answered, Jergul. OC spray is not an incapacitating agent and is not considered lethal force or a threat of lethal force. It is not defined or litigated in that way, and thus your argument is invalid.
Paramount Member	Tue Oct 13 06:55:36 Don’t know why the police arrested the security guard. Trump’s boy slapped the guard and sprayed chemicals on him. The security guard was attacked. Perhaps there was a gang of Trump boys close by, and he must have feared for his life when he was attacked by one them, knowing that they are usually armed with guns and shit and has killed people previously. Sir Matthew must have feared for his life. Free Sir Matthew Robert Dolloff!
renzo marQuez Member	Tue Oct 13 07:41:27 Not entirely clear who the initial aggressor was but this shows more photos in sequence than I've seen before. Sandbag at the bottom of the fence is a potentially useful landmark. Deceased does appear to have backed up after the slap. Shooter is already going for his gun before the pepper spray is aimed at him.
renzo marQuez Member	Tue Oct 13 07:42:00 Forgot the link: http://www...shooting-photos-full-sequence/
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Tue Oct 13 07:56:34 dead guy seems to be the initial aggressor. the shooter should get off if he has a decent lawyer.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Oct 13 08:48:59 DenverPost must not know about assembling images into video via PhotoShop... but I do! http://i.imgur.com/sQ4UmIB.gifv (It's choppy at parts because they either removed key frames, didn't take photos at those moments, or were shooting photos in burst mode) I think this further supports that self defense will not fly. If someone slaps you and then backs away 10 feet, you do not have a reasonable fear for your life. Dolloff will very likely be imprisoned for a long time.
Rugian Member	Tue Oct 13 09:42:50 Both of them looked like they were spoiling for a confrontation. One of them brought mace to a gunfight. The other one is going to prison. Hardly a great loss to the world.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 13 10:22:22 "One of them brought mace to a gunfight" I was waiting for this. Nice Ruggy! CC Its a stand your ground case, not a self defence case. Your OC weakass mace is invalid as the poor security guard had no way of knowing it was not military grade. Do try to keep up.
Paramount Member	Tue Oct 13 10:28:27 You can clearly see that there are is a gang of Trump boys there, and the athmosphere seems to be very aggressive. So when one of the Trump boys walked up to Sir Dolloff and hit his face, Sir Dolloff must have feared for his life: 1) Sir Dolloff was just attacked, the Trump boy was holding something in his hand, maybe Sir Dolloff thought it was a gun (turned out to be a chemical weapon). 2) The gang of Trump boys at the scene. Maybe Sir Dolloff also thought that they too were going to attack him. 3) It is known that Trump boys are armed and Trump boys have shot and killed people previously. Knowing this, Sir Dolloff thought that his only chance to get out of this alive was to defend himself with his own gun. Anyhoo, it is good to see that more people than the Trump militia is now bringing guns with them to these rallies. The Trump militia should not be allowed to have a gun monopoly. The downside may be that now that a few people on both sides have been shot and killed, people know that the other guy might have a gun, so people will start to shoot more often because they don’t wanna be shot killed themselves. So, shoot first and fast, will be the new motto on the street rallies.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Oct 13 16:07:30 [Jergul]: "Your OC weakass mace is invalid as the poor security guard had no way of knowing it was not military grade." lol! Solid troll, Jergul. :D Do you think that "military grade" OC spray is considered lethal force? :D .. [Paramount]: "1) Sir Dolloff was just attacked, the Trump boy was holding something in his hand, maybe Sir Dolloff thought it was a gun (turned out to be a chemical weapon)." Problem with that narrative: The two were interacting even before Keltner's final raising of the OC spray. Keltner was holding the bottle out in the open for all to see well before the final confrontation. All that needs to be done to dispel the "thought it was a gun" defense narrative is to parade witnesses that can affirm that it was obvious that a round bottle with a spray nozzle was not, in fact, some kind of exotic firearm. No reasonable person in that scenario would think that a bottle is a firearm. "2) The gang of Trump boys at the scene. Maybe Sir Dolloff also thought that they too were going to attack him. 3) It is known that Trump boys are armed and Trump boys have shot and killed people previously. Knowing this, Sir Dolloff thought that his only chance to get out of this alive was to defend himself with his own gun." Problem with that narrative: Aside from Keltner's slap&spray, all of that "gang" was being non-violent. One was even trying to distance Keltner and an agitator. It appears that no one else but Dolloff pulled out a firearm. Defense can try to say that "in this political climate" [this or that], but ultimately the actual events of that moment will be the most relevant, and no one in that spot was being violent.. except maybe that BLM agitator.
obaminated Member	Tue Oct 13 19:00:42 http://www...ded-Occupy-Denver-rallies.html As usual the liberal narrative that the media immediately latches onto falls apart once the entire picture comes out.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 13 19:03:27 CC Try to keep up. I said the security stood his ground against a threat of being incompacitated by military grade pepper spray, then killed by a mob. Colorado is a stand your ground state. He stood his ground. Your argument that it factually might have been OC pepper spray is invalid. The on duty security guard had no way of knowing its potency and reacted to the threat he percieved.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 13 19:05:33 Para He had no obligation to extract himself from the confrontation. He stood his ground as he is legally allowed to do.
obaminated Member	Tue Oct 13 19:53:57 Jergul, get this through your soviet bloc head, he was not a legal security guard. He had no legal right to be there. he had no legal right to have a gun on his person.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Oct 13 22:50:25 i called it! Trump retweeted: "Yesterday in Denver a Conservative was executed by Matt Dolloff @DenverPolice claim he has no connections to ANTIFA, but that’s not what the evidence says. This is a thread EXPOSING the truth behind the murder." the retweet: http://twitter.com/TaylerUSA/status/1315221334478131205 the Nat'l Enquirer prez
renzo marQuez Member	Tue Oct 13 23:24:54 jergul large member Tue Oct 13 19:03:27 "Try to keep up. I said the security stood his ground against a threat of being incompacitated by military grade pepper spray, then killed by a mob." His better argument would be that he was disoriented after getting slapped and thought it was a gun. The guy who got shot was strapped and the shooter may have been aware of that. We'll have to see if he made any statements to the police. Based on the police presence, I'd also expect there to be more videos. Hopefully, we'll get one that shows who the initial aggressor was.
Forwyn Member	Wed Oct 14 00:19:30 "on duty security guard" lol @ jergul
Forwyn Member	Wed Oct 14 00:23:35 Also lulz @ Seb and jergul cucking for their Antifa buddies in Kenosa. This depends entirely on who started the confrontation. We know the shooter was slapped; we know his arm was extended; we know the gun was leveled before mace was deployed and the shot was fired.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 14 02:07:34 Obam More so than Kyle. Renzo The better argument is that he stood his ground after being attacked. Foryn A physical assault started the pysical confrontation. He stood his ground. Colorado is a stand your ground state. If you don't like that law, then work to have it declared unconstitutional or something.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 02:08:21 Forwyn: Glad to see your reading comprehension is as strong as ever Forwyn.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 14 02:08:44 tw What is the score now anyway? 2-2?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 02:24:17 I do find it utterly hilarious though that you can say someone has the right to use force when they are being chased because obviously the person will beat them to death; but a guy who slaps and uses pepper spray to incapacitate you is obviously not a threat. I think both shooters deserve jail; Rittenhouse for murder, this guy possibly for manslaughter depending on what his claim is; and also the guy who got shot here, had her lived, for assault. Frankly I think anyone who argues that Rittenhouse was justifiable in shooting a guy chasing him ought to be able to easily entertain either of the following arguments: "I drew my gun to defend myself because I was assaulted. As I was doing so my assailant, who had just physically assaulted me, sprayed me in the face filling my eyes and mouth with a chemical irritant and the shock of this caused me to pull the trigger involuntarily" Or "I drew my gun to defend myself because I was assaulted. As I was doing so my assailant, who had just physically assaulted me, sprayed me in the face filling my eyes and mouth with a chemical irritant. Given his previous assault, I perceived this as an attempt to incapacitate me and renew his assault. I feared that he would be able to quickly overwhelm me, impaired as I would be by the pepper spray, and that if I was knocked to the ground he and his associates would inflict serious harm, possibly even kill me. I pulled the trigger in self defence". There are all sorts of ways that these are unsatisfactory, but it takes a truly heroic level of hypocrisy to argue against these and for Rittenhouse.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Oct 14 02:26:37 @jergul, if you mean kills... 2 Trumpers seems right, as Trump has cared about exactly 2 deaths i don't know how many others have died in total
jergul large member	Wed Oct 14 02:45:18 tw Kyle go two, right? I dont know of any others. Seb Yes, but our underlying views on stand your ground and self defence do not apply in many US states. Poking fun at the hypocracy is really the only valid approach as we watch our debaters warp themselves in anatomically impossible ways.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 03:56:19 jergul: Indeed. Also while I find it absurd that you can argue rittenhouse was justified but this incident is murder/manslaughter; it doesn't so easily follow you cant argue vice versa. By actually assaulting him and then spraying him in the face with mace, there is much stronger grounds to believe he was in threat of serious injury.
Paramount Member	Wed Oct 14 04:32:09 So, I wonder. These Trump rallies. Why are there only white males. Why are they armed. And where are the parents.
Forwyn Member	Wed Oct 14 05:48:17 Seb: lol Keep your criticisms of reading comprehension to yourself. I've been pretty clear here, if mace guy started it, it's self-defense. If not, it's not. Your rant is unnecessary.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Oct 14 06:43:19 [Jergul]: "Try to keep up. I said the security stood his ground against a threat of being incompacitated by military grade pepper spray, then killed by a mob." lulz. Do you think this is Snapchat where messages disappear? :D These were your words, still there for all to read: [Jergul]: "Your OC weakass mace is invalid as the poor security guard had no way of knowing it was not military grade." Your argument was that "military grade" OC spray is worse enough compared to store-bought that it changes positions in the continuum of force (false). I notice that you didn't answer my question, so here it is again: Do you think that "military grade" OC spray is considered lethal force? :D .. [Seb]: "I do find it utterly hilarious though that you can say someone has the right to use force when they are being chased because obviously the person will beat them to death; but a guy who slaps and uses pepper spray to incapacitate you is obviously not a threat." Here's what would help a reasonable person to understand your logical error: did you notice that you had to omit details and misrepresent what happened with Rittenhouse/Rosenbaum in order to sell your comparison? Those omissions and misrepresentations make your reasoning fallacious. This is the *actual* comparison which uses case facts: Rosenbaum/Rittenhouse timeline in order: • Rosenbaum was seen antagonizing militia minutes before his attack. • Rosenbaum grabbed and attempted to remove Rittenhouse's rifle on the street. (a precipitating factor and itself a justification for lethal force if force were taken within that particular moment) • Rittenhouse broke away and ran from Rosenbaum (shows that Rittenhouse attempted to retreat/deescalate) • Rosenbaum pursued Rittenhouse through the parking lot (a perpetuating factor) • Rosenbaum threw a bag at Rittenhouse (a perpetuating factor) • A vagrant seen moments before supporting and walking with Rosenbaum fired a shot with a pistol into the air behind Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse (a perpetuating factor) • Rittenhouse, now blocked by cars on several sides, turns around towards the direction of the shot. • Rittenhouse sees Rosenbaum lunging at him *again* for his rifle, attempting to remove it (a second justification for lethal force) • Rittenhouse fires on Rosenbaum, who continues falling forward from the momentum of his charge Dolloff/Keltner timeline in order: • Man wearing a "Black Guns Matter" (BGM) shirt approaches Keltner's group and tries to provoke a confrontation. He was seen in other videos doing the same to other groups. • Keltner argues with the BGM man while Dolloff can be seen approaching and then observing from about 20 feet away. • Keltner is shoved by the BGM man, shoves back, and is separated by someone in his group while Dolloff observes, now moving closer (now about 10–15 feet away) • Keltner sees Dolloff moving in on the group and walks towards Dolloff, swearing • Dolloff attempts to grab Keltner's OC spray from him (it's OC spray, so this is not a justification for *lethal* force by Keltner, but in the continuum this justifies handed strikes) • Keltner slaps Dolloff in the face • Keltner backs away — OC spray at his side — while Dolloff remains stationary • While Keltner continues to back away, Dolloff begins to draw his pistol • Dolloff raises his pistol at Keltner, who is now 10 feet away and still backing up, OC spray at his side • Keltner raises the OC, sprays, and is shot • Keltner falls backwards (away from Dolloff) in the direction of his backward travel Do you see the differences between your misrepresentation and the actual events, Seb? Can you make an honest comparison? .. [Seb]: ""I drew my gun to defend myself because I was assaulted. As I was doing so my assailant, who had just physically assaulted me, sprayed me in the face filling my eyes and mouth with a chemical irritant and the shock of this caused me to pull the trigger involuntarily" That's a "fine" defense, but it's not supported in this case. • Firstly, it can take several seconds for OC spray to have an effect on a target (depending on where it strikes and the concentration of the strike; for direct and concentrated hits to the eyes, about 1–2 seconds). Dolloff fired less than a second after Keltner sprayed. • Dolloff was wearing a mask when he was sprayed, so there was no "filling" of his mouth. • OC spray is most effective from close range (for a canister of that size, only a few feet away), where the spray is less dissipated by distance and wind. Keltner was 10 feet away from Dolloff when he sprayed Dolloff. Most of the spray appears to dissipate in the wind to Dolloff's right side, missing Dolloff and not obstructing his view. Seconds after the shooting, the wind further pushes the spray away from Dolloff. However, "involuntarily" is an interesting word to use, Seb. If Dolloff were to say that, he would go to jail for 2–6 years by Colorado laws regarding manslaughter. .. [Seb]: "Or ... I perceived this [spray] as an attempt to incapacitate me and renew his assault. I feared that he would be able to quickly overwhelm me, impaired as I would be by the pepper spray, and that if I was knocked to the ground he and his associates would inflict serious harm, possibly even kill me. I pulled the trigger in self defence" Another fine defense that's also not supported in this case. Some big problems with it: • OC spray is not an incapacitating agent. • For Colorado citizens, OC spray is considered a self-defense tool, not a weapon. • In Colorado, it is legal to use pepper spray if life or safety is threatened (e.g., if someone points a pistol at you) • There is no evidence from the video that Keltner was attempting to "overwhelm" Dolloff at the time of the shooting. The opposite is true: Keltner was backing away. • None of Keltner's associates were approaching Dolloff at any time in the video. The opposite: they were consistently exercising restraint and deescalating. Even after the shooting, they back away. That should show why this following statement has no grounds: [Seb]: "By actually assaulting him and then spraying him in the face with mace, there is much stronger grounds to believe he was in threat of serious injury." There was no threat of serious bodily injury or death in the moment that Dolloff fired his weapon. For Rittenhouse there was. For Rittenhouse, the threat was lunging into his face, attempting to take his firearm. For Dolloff, the "threat" was 10 feet away, backing up with a defense tool that was outside of its effective range.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 06:46:28 jergul large member Wed Oct 14 02:07:34 "Renzo The better argument is that he stood his ground after being attacked." This is not true. You've shown throughout this thread that you don't understand what a stand your ground law is. For example: Hardly a great loss to the world. jergul large member Tue Oct 13 10:22:22 "Its a stand your ground case, not a self defence case." This is not true. The shooter's defense will still be that he acted in self-defense. Substantively, stand your ground only removes the duty to retreat. (There are also procedural advantages in some states but they do not impact the analysis.) He still needs to meet the other requirements for a self-defense claim. In this case, if he acknowledges that he knew it was pepper spray he's probably fucked. An *objectively* reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm is still required before deadly force can be lawfully applied. That's much more likely to be present if he believed the deceased had a gun in his hand and such a belief may have been reasonable since we know the deceased was strapped, the shooter had just been slapped and may have been disoriented, and his glasses had been knocked out of position. Were they prescription glasses? Were they sun glasses and the combination of the slap and sudden bright light disoriented the shooter? Was the shooter aware that the deceased had a gun? We'll have to see if the shooter was a retard and told the police anything after the shooting and if there is any footage establishing who the initial aggressor was.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 07:02:09 Seb Member Wed Oct 14 02:24:17 "I do find it utterly hilarious though that you can say someone has the right to use force when they are being chased because obviously the person will beat them to death; but a guy who slaps and uses pepper spray to incapacitate you is obviously not a threat." The argument has never been that Rittenhouse had the right to use force merely because he was being chased. It's funny that your prior post disparages Forwyn's reading comprehension skills when this has been pointed out to you repeatly by CC, I, and others repeatedly. In the pedomanlet shooting, he was not only being chased but heard a gunshot behind him and pedomanlet lunged for his gun. Regarding sk8terboi, he was not only chased. Others were yelling violent threats behind him ("beat his ass" or similar heard on video) and sk8erboi hit him in the head/neck area with a board as he was in an extremely vulnerable position on the ground and being surrounded by a mob. Regarding unicep, this shooting was clearly justified because unicep pulled a handgun and lunged in. The various chases do establish that Rittenhouse attempted to retreat. Thus, even if he was the initial aggressor (and all of the evidence suggests that he was not), he likely regained the right to defend himself by trying to flee until flight was no longer an option. I think both shooters deserve jail; Rittenhouse for murder, this guy possibly for manslaughter depending on what his claim is; and also the guy who got shot here, had her lived, for assault. "I drew my gun to defend myself because I was assaulted. As I was doing so my assailant, who had just physically assaulted me, sprayed me in the face filling my eyes and mouth with a chemical irritant and the shock of this caused me to pull the trigger involuntarily" Timeline does not support this. He's drawing before the pepper spray is raised and as the deceased appears to be backing away. Also, we'll need to see if he told the police anything. It was an accident/involuntary is probably more viable than "muh pepper spray." Claiming that he was disoriented/blinded, knew the deceased had a gun, and thought the gun was aimed at him would still be his best argument imo. "There are all sorts of ways that these are unsatisfactory, but it takes a truly heroic level of hypocrisy to argue against these and for Rittenhouse." This is a retarded take. We have enough evidence to know that Rittenhouse has a clear self-defense claim for each shot he fired with a high degree of certainty. We don't have enough information to evaluate the Denver shooter. We don't even know who the aggressor was.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 14 09:01:40 CC The on duty security guard was clearly standing his ground after being assaulted and in grave risk of being incompacitated by a chemical weapon and killed by the assaulter. What is hard to understand about that? Colorado is a stand your ground state. You assault someone, and threaten them further, then you will be shot like a dog.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 09:14:20 Renzo: If hearing a gunshot can justify you perceiving a person chasing you is trying to kill or seriously injure you; why wouldn't someone directly assaulting you and attempting to incapacitate you with a weapon equally cause you to fear physical threat from that person? Or are you arguing that while he had reason to believe this person was attacking him, he had no basis to believe he was in serious danger?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 09:29:08 Renzo: "He's drawing before the pepper spray is raised" Yes. But he had been assaulted previously and I believe he's permitted to draw his gun is he not, having been assaulted? While the guy appears to be having away, he might also be preparing for another attack. For example, back off so he could use pepper spray to more accurately target the individuals eyes with less risk of it being blocked by his target. Does simply taking a step backwards make it unreasonable to draw his weapon? Is he obligated to wait for a second assault before he can legally draw his weapon? What he's not entitled to do is shoot the individual. However he clearly shoots after he's been assaulted a second time by being sprayed in the face with pepper spray, by an individual who assaulted him previously. As both scenarios I outlined make clear, this is entirely in accordance with the timeline. Assaulted, draws weapon, is assaulted again, only then shoots. The argument outlined so far by various arguments is that: 1. one cannot reasonably feel threatened by pepper spray as it is non lethal; however it's still an assault and the broader context and potential impact of being incapacitated is relevant. 2. He took a step back so there was no reason for the perpetrator to feel threatened; but again that's not really clear cut either as the victim steps back and immediately commits a second assault which prompts the shooting. Essentially you are arguing that the decision to kill occured when the gun was raised brought out; but as my paragraphs make clear there is ample way to explain the gun being brought out with the intent only to use it if necessary and legal to do so; and reasonable grounds to argue that. Now it might be an offence to point the gun at an individual, but in the photos it looks "low and ready" as I believe the expression was with Rittenhouse; it's only pointing at the victim after he's raised the pepper spray. And indeed, now the perpetrator has to worry that, if incapacitated, the man who has assaulted him and appears to be preparing to do so again may turn the gun against him.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 09:31:16 Seb Member Wed Oct 14 09:14:20 "If hearing a gunshot can justify you perceiving a person chasing you is trying to kill or seriously injure you; why wouldn't someone directly assaulting you and attempting to incapacitate you with a weapon equally cause you to fear physical threat from that person?" Seb, are you arguing in bad faith or is your reading comprehension as bad as it appears to be? My discussion of the pedomanlet shooting included the following: "... and pedomanlet lunged for his gun..." Why ignore this?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 09:39:26 It does seem to me extraordinarily strange to argue in principle that Rittenhouse has right to self defence and this fellow doesn't; differences in the specific laws notwithstanding. The individual chasing Rittenhouse may have been pursuing him to remonstrate with him Renzo, as you will recall. The fellow shot here assaulted the individual, and was shot only after he assaulted the shooter again.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 09:41:12 jergul large member Wed Oct 14 09:01:40 "Colorado is a stand your ground state. You assault someone, and threaten them further, then you will be shot like a dog." You just aren't very good at this. Was there a John Oliver segment on stand your ground laws or something? If you wanted to critique how the US handles purported self-defense cases, I'd suggest focusing on which party bears the burden of proof. Traditionally, the defendant had to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence because it's an affirmative defense and the deceased isn't available to testify. In most (if not all) US states, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 09:41:32 Renzo: Don't burry the lede?
jergul large member	Wed Oct 14 09:50:19 RM The on-duty security guard was attacked, so could obviously legally defend himself. Stand your ground voids what would otherwise be a duty to retreat. Its not hard to see once you take off your cheeto tinted glasses. Its different here. A defendant would have to prove self defence beyond reasonable doubt and also prove that fleeing was not possible.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 09:52:00 Seb Member Wed Oct 14 09:39:26 "The individual chasing Rittenhouse may have been pursuing him to remonstrate with him Renzo, as you will recall." I recall you using "remonstate" and variants numerous times in a thread, focusing on irrelevant information and speculation, and ignoring or misstating the actual facts. Pedomanlet's subjective intent is not relevant. The key question is whether an objectively reasonable person in Rittenhouse's shoes would have had a fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury after (1) being chase over a substantial distance; (2) hearing a gunshot from behind during the chase; and (3) having a crazed man lunge for his gun while (4) having no reasonable options for further retreat. It's not a close call. "The fellow shot here assaulted the individual, and was shot only after he assaulted the shooter again." You're making a whole bunch of assumptions here including that the deceased was the aggressor and that the deceased raised his pepper spray before the shooter raised his gun. We do not have enough evidence to support these assumptions. Hopefully we'll get more evidence that clarifies who the aggressor was. That's the single most important question at this point. Side note: in one of the videos that captures audio but not video of the shooting, we can hear someone say "put that thing away" or something similar before the spray discharge and shot.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 09:53:23 Seb Member Wed Oct 14 09:41:32 "Renzo: Don't burry the lede?" Where did I do that?
jergul large member	Wed Oct 14 09:54:28 RM Are you disputing that the security guard was physically assaulted before the pepper spray and shooting? Then I can see where you are coming from.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 09:56:37 jergul large member Wed Oct 14 09:50:19 "RM The on-duty security guard was attacked," Not proven. It's possible that exactly the opposite occurred. We need more evidence to determine who the aggressor was. "so could obviously legally defend himself. Stand your ground voids what would otherwise be a duty to retreat." The other elements of self-defense must still be present. At the time he used deadly force, he had to have had an objectively reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. He also can't have been the aggressor.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 09:58:25 jergul large member Wed Oct 14 09:54:28 "RM Are you disputing that the security guard was physically assaulted before the pepper spray and shooting? Then I can see where you are coming from." I've been pretty clear. We need to know who the initial aggressor was first. We don't with any degree of certainty at this point. We only get into reasonableness if the shooter was not the aggressor.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 14 10:04:19 My argument rests on the security guard being physically assaulted before the pepper spray and gun game out. Its less clear cut if they both drew their weapons and discharged them at about the same time.
TJ Member	Wed Oct 14 10:18:31 http://www...aw-not-a-stand-your-ground-law
jergul large member	Wed Oct 14 10:32:03 http://pag...se-right-to-stand-your-ground/
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 10:40:10 Renzo: I would say: 1) is not in itself grounds for fear of death, for the reason I give 2) is speculative. But if you have hearing a gunshot can cause an individual to infer the person chasing him is a threat, surely two assaults is sufficient to likewise fear for their safety. 4) Rittenhouse stopped and turned before the guy caught up with him. No warning issued. 3) it's not entirely clear that he lunged for the gun, but attempting to grab the barrel of a gun pointed at you seems reasonable. However, if you think that's cause to fear disarmament and threat, doesn't that apply to being pepper sprayed in the face? You buried the lede by putting what you now appear to agree are details that don't need rebuttal up getting; and put what you clearly consider the most salient detail last, surrounding it with nonsense words intended to frame the motivation and character of the individuals like "pedomanlet", which I generally consider a sign that that my interlocutor considers the facts so thin that they need to be reinforced with hyperbole and rhetoric - in which case why bother?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 10:42:42 Renzo: The entire interaction was caught on film by a journalist. There are a series of time stamped photos. Similarly, there's a gap in the Rittenhouse footage between bin fire and where the journalists account begins. Granted, it's possible there is wider context in both cases we may not be fully aware of. But you didn't see this as a problem in the Rittenhouse case.
Forwyn Member	Wed Oct 14 12:00:23 "on-duty security guard" More jergul lulz Also hilarious that Seb and lulzgul can't seem to understand the basic concept of an aggressor
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 12:09:02 Seb Member Wed Oct 14 10:40:10 "Renzo: I would say: 1) is not in itself grounds for fear of death, for the reason I give" I have never asserted that the chase itself justified the shooting. But it is obviously relevant. "2) is speculative. But if you have hearing a gunshot can cause an individual to infer the person chasing him is a threat, surely two assaults is sufficient to likewise fear for their safety." The shot can be seen and heard on video. Are you claiming that he didn't hear the shot? Good luck proving that. And with Rittenhouse, I am not asserting that the shot itself is adequate for his self-defense claim. You're focused on each individual circumstance not being adequate... but the proper test analyzes the totality of the circumstances. Also, the standard isn't "fear for their safety." There has to have been an objectively reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm which is imminent. A slap does not create such a fear in a reasonable person. If you want to make an argument about pepper spray, go ahead. But I'm willing to wager that the Denver shooter's defense will not be that pepper spray made him fear for his life or that he would be seriously injured. He'll argue that he thought the pepper spray was a gun... unless he's already made statements contradicting that to the police. Lastly, we don't know if the deceased in Denver committed any assaults because we don't know with any degree of certainty who the aggressor was. If you look at the series of photos in sequence, the earliest contact we know of occurs when the shoots touches the deceased's chest. "4) Rittenhouse stopped and turned before the guy caught up with him. No warning issued." And? No warning was required. "3) it's not entirely clear that he lunged for the gun," The reporter witness said he thought that was what was occurring. "but attempting to grab the barrel of a gun pointed at you seems reasonable." What leads you to believe that Pedomanlet's subjective intentions are at all relevant? They aren't. "However, if you think that's cause to fear disarmament and threat, doesn't that apply to being pepper sprayed in the face?" The threats are not at all proportionate. Again, feeling any threat is not sufficient to use deadly force. There's a reasonableness requirement. The fear of death or serious bodily harm is clearly present to the reasonable person after being chased, hearing the gunshot, and having someone try to grab your gun. "You buried the lede by putting what you now appear to agree are details that don't need rebuttal up getting; and put what you clearly consider the most salient detail last, surrounding it with nonsense words intended to frame the motivation and character of the individuals like "pedomanlet", which I generally consider a sign that that my interlocutor considers the facts so thin that they need to be reinforced with hyperbole and rhetoric - in which case why bother?" I still don't know what the hell you are talking about. Please explain what I buried and where. Quote my post. And it's comical that you claim the facts on my side of the Rittenhouse shooting are "thin." My arguments all along have actually been based on the relevant facts and the relevant law. You've focused on things that are irrelevant. For the record, I call him Pedomanlet because his real name was Rosenbaum and I don't want to appear anti-semitic.
Forwyn Member	Wed Oct 14 12:17:16 Facts are utterly irrelevant to Sebs. They've already justified the Portland shooting, even though evidence pointed to an intentional execution. All that matters is the ideology of the shooter and of the victim.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 12:17:38 Seb Member Wed Oct 14 10:42:42 "The entire interaction was caught on film by a journalist. There are a series of time stamped photos." Yes, there are a series of time-stamped photos. No, they do not provide enough information to evaluate a self-defense claim. Again, we don't even know who the aggressor was. That's the first thing we need to know. "Similarly, there's a gap in the Rittenhouse footage between bin fire and where the journalists account begins." There are essentially no relevant gaps in the Rittenhouse footage. The two things we don't see are (A) what preceded the chase; and (B) exactly what happened immediately prior to the shooting of Pedomanlet. Regarding (A), it's not going to be relevant. Assuming for the sake of argument that Rittenhouse was the aggressor, Rittenhouse's retreat would enable him to regain the right to defend himself. His flight from Pedomanlet is clear from the video so gap (A) is not relevant. With respect to gap (B), the distance the video was shot from is an issue. We can't see exactly what happened. Fortunately, there was an eyewitness who happens to be a professional reporter. He has stated that Pedomanlet tried to take Rittenhouse's gun. We have enough information to know that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. In Denver, as I've repeatedly noted, we don't even know who the aggressor was. "Granted, it's possible there is wider context in both cases we may not be fully aware of. But you didn't see this as a problem in the Rittenhouse case." It's not a problem in the Rittenhouse case because we have enough information. As discussed above, the only gaps are either irrelevant or filled in by a credible eyewitness. I expect to eventually have enough info to evaluate the Denver self-defense claim too. But we're not there yet.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 12:20:52 "Doug Richards, who said he is representing Dolloff’s family, said the man who was shot reached into his shirt which made Dolloff fear for his safety, leading him to shoot." http://apn...91ae83766522c5434f1b13c5e14d66 As expected (at least to the non-"muh pepper spray" folks), Denver shooter's defense appears to be that he thought the deceased was reaching for a gun.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 12:21:04 Renzo: With the gun shot, would a reasonable person assume that because they heard a gun shot, the person chasing him was shooting at him? Which direction did the wind of the gunshot come from? Etc. "What leads you to believe that Pedomanlet's subjective intentions are at all relevant? They aren't." Does a reasonable person believe that someone grabbing a gun that they are trying to point at that person is proof the individual intends to harm them, or protect themselves? IIRC in Portland law prevents you pointing the gun unless you have fear of serious harm - but may be misremembering - the lunge appears to have happened after the gun was raised. "Please explain what I buried and where." You raised a number of points, the last of which (he lunged for the gun) you framed in such a way as to lead it being overlooked as worthless, so I didn't bother to rebut it as it looked like you yourself didn't consider it very strong. Then you got upset and suggested I was somehow misrepresenting you and arguing in bad faith - which only makes sense of you consider it fundamental, not ancillary. If it was fundamental, you probably ought to have led with it, not put it last in the middle of a clause that just begs to be ignored as silly. And one shouldn't really accuse people of bad faith when using terms like "crazed" and "pedomanlet".
Forwyn Member	Wed Oct 14 12:29:08 Lulz @ Seb multi-paragraph rants. If Dolloff initiated the fight, the victim's actions do not rise to a level necessary to override Dolloff's status as aggressor. If he did not, the factors can be seen as exacerbating. Kyle was not the aggressor, and there is no evidence he took action that would preclude his right to self-defense. Stop being a retard. Two different events with wildly different variables.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 12:29:56 Forwyn: "Facts don't matter" he says, as he suggests I've supported something I explicitly didn't; the second time he's incorrectly attributed to me a position I don't hold. I'm not sure that's quite the damning statement you think it is coming from you. It's like being accused of partisanship by fox news.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 12:35:11 "The two things we don't see are (A) what preceded the chase; and (B) exactly what happened immediately prior to the shooting of Pedomanlet. Regarding (A), it's not going to be relevant. Assuming for the sake of argument that Rittenhouse was the aggressor, Rittenhouse's retreat would enable him to regain the right to defend himself" A) might offer considerable context as to whether Rittenhouse had reasonable grounds to feel threatened for his life. B) it sounds like actually agree with me - the witness says the victim seemed to reach for the gun... After it was raised. To point the gun legally, Rittenhouse needed to have reason to fear for his life IIRC. Can having someone reach to move a gun pointing at them reasonably cause them to fear for their life? If they can, why can't someone macing you in the face? Re reaching for a gun, that's also perfectly reasonable. The point I'm making is that the argument that Rittenhouse is clear cut self defence and this incident clear cut homicide is such a laughable set of hypocrisies it's difficult to take you seriously.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 12:37:19 Forwyn: "Dolloff initiated the fight" IF. But there's no real evidence to that effect. Everything we have shows the guy who was shot assaulting him twice.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 14 12:38:38 Forwyn: I think you'll note my posts to Renzo atte about the same as the length of his posts to me. Yours are more easily addressed.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 12:38:55 Seb Member Wed Oct 14 12:21:04 "Renzo: With the gun shot, would a reasonable person assume that because they heard a gun shot, the person chasing him was shooting at him? Which direction did the wind of the gunshot come from? Etc." Rittenhouse doesn't know who fired the shot. He only knows that it occurred behind him. "Does a reasonable person believe that someone grabbing a gun that they are trying to point at that person is proof the individual intends to harm them, or protect themselves?" After a lengthy chase and a gunshot from behind? Yes. "IIRC in Portland law prevents you pointing the gun unless you have fear of serious harm -" This took place in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Not in Portland, Oregon. "but may be misremembering - the lunge appears to have happened after the gun was raised." Not clear from the video. I believe the reporter indicated that Pedomanlet was close enough to grab for the gun immediately after Rittenhouse turned. "You raised a number of points, the last of which (he lunged for the gun) you framed in such a way as to lead it being overlooked as worthless, so I didn't bother to rebut it as it looked like you yourself didn't consider it very strong." Nonsense. I described what happened chronologically. The chase and gunshot from the rear occurred before the lunge. The suggestion that I "buried the lede" by discussing events in the order that they occurred is retarded. "Then you got upset and suggested I was somehow misrepresenting you and arguing in bad faith - which only makes sense of you consider it fundamental, not ancillary." It's obviously a critical event to anyone who has been reading the Rittenhouse threads and has any reading comprehension skills. I'm not going to dumb down my content for retards. "If it was fundamental, you probably ought to have led with it, not put it last in the middle of a clause that just begs to be ignored as silly." Non-retards evaluating a self-defense claim do not ignore evidence like Pedomanlet lunging for Rittenhouse's gun. "And one shouldn't really accuse people of bad faith when using terms like "crazed" and "pedomanlet"." Says the guy pretending he knows that the deceased in Denver assaulted the shooter. Regardng my use of the term "crazed," please watch the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=N70fok1R2Kg Then, you can tell me how he just wanted to "remonstrate" fifty more times. Regarding pedomanlet, (1) Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile - he raped multiple children; and (2) he's short as fuck. Pedomanlet is an accurate descriptor and I'm trying to avoid committing an anti-semitism (his name is Rosenbaum).
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 12:52:02 Seb Member Wed Oct 14 12:35:11 "A) might offer considerable context as to whether Rittenhouse had reasonable grounds to feel threatened for his life." We already know that he did. What do you believe would change things? A video of them saying they were playing tag? Or Rittenhouse asking Peodmanlet to tickle him? This is absurd. We have enough evidence to know with a high degree of certainty that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. "B) it sounds like actually agree with me - the witness says the victim seemed to reach for the gun... After it was raised." Source for the "after it was raised" part? Also, not really relevant. It would have been reasonable for Rittenhouse to turn with his gun raised after being chased, hearing a gunshot from the rear, and not having any reasonable avenue for further retreat. "To point the gun legally, Rittenhouse needed to have reason to fear for his life IIRC." This is not true. He didn't even need to fear for his life to legally use deadly force. "Can having someone reach to move a gun pointing at them reasonably cause them to fear for their life?" A person who has pursued the shooter over a distance for a considerable time period? A person who has just heard a gunshot from the rear? Yes. "If they can, why can't someone macing you in the face?" I don't know Seb. Perhaps a gun is more deadly than mace? Just a thought. "Re reaching for a gun, that's also perfectly reasonable. The point I'm making is that the argument that Rittenhouse is clear cut self defence and this incident clear cut homicide is such a laughable set of hypocrisies it's difficult to take you seriously." Lulz. Your "perfectly reasonable" point is completely irrelevant. The alleged reasonableness of Pedomanlet reaching for the gun is not relevant. We aren't evaluating a self-defense claim for Pedomanlet. We're evaluating Rittenhouse's self-defense claim. This requires us to put ourselves in Rittenhouse's position, not Pedomanlet's position. RE: your claim that I've asserted that Kenosha was clear self-defense and Denver was clear homicide, both incidents were homicides. The Kenosha shooting(s) was/were justifiable homicide(s). We do not have enough information to determine whether the Denver shooting was justifiable.
Forwyn Member	Wed Oct 14 12:53:32 Renzo is stating relevant facts of the cases, while you try to extrapolate non-existent similarities while peddling the same ignorant shit you were called out for weeks ago, because you could't be bothered to read even mainstream analyses (NYT), or the charging documents. "IF" That's all that matters. Both individuals took actions that could be perceived as threats if they were the aggressor - Dolloff's clearly worse, as he immediately escalated to a threat of lethal force as the victim was backing away. We don't need a novel to ascertain this.
renzo marQuez Member	Wed Oct 14 12:55:09 Seb Member Wed Oct 14 12:37:19 "Everything we have shows the guy who was shot assaulting him twice." This is simply not true. The first photo of contact shows the shooter's hand on the deceased's chest. We don't know who the aggressor was.
	show deleted posts