Your a lying dog face pony soldier .. To support a successful self-defense argument, the evidence must show that the victim could not retreat—for example, because the attack was ongoing, the victim was trapped, or the victim tried to leave but was followed by the aggressor. From criminal defense lawyer.com
Retreat If Possible If an able-bodied adult raises a fist or hits another able-bodied adult, under traditional self defense laws the victim must walk away if possible. If the victim is charged with a crime and claims self-defense, the jury must consider whether the victim had a reasonable opportunity to retreat and did not take it.
No protests whatsoever. Whereas that drunk guy in the drive through with 5 kids somewhere who wrestled a cop to ground, stole his weapon, turned and fired it at him resulted in a city being burnt down. Case in point.
That is correct but if the threat is immediate such as a gun pointed at you since you can't outrun a bullet then deadly force could be used in self defense. At the moment I'm not seeing anything that clearly shows that this would be justified but I haven't seen a video of the incident. To me it would still come down to is the shooter aware that it is mace and not some other weapon. I know that in the photo there appears to be a lot of mace being sprayed but given that the dispenser is designed to release a lot quickly so I'm not clear of the timing of when the person shoots and the other person starts spraying.
Agree and good points, the video would help clarify. The photos aren’t as helpful as a video would be
I haven't found any video that has reasonable video quality, but this video has the best audio quality. You can hear the mace and the gunshot. So from the mace spray to gunshot is less than a second. Around the 2:30 mark in the video is another clip of the altercation between the guy who got shot and another person (in black shirt). The victim is holding the can of mace the whole time and the guy in the black shirt is yelling about mace. Then at 2:41, the victim can be seen to walk off screen to the right while raising his can of mace. At 2:49, you can hear the mace then the gunshot immediately after. So it does seem like the victim walked towards the shooter while raising his can of mace. However, the shooter should have realized from the argument between the victim and the guy in black shirt that the victim was holding mace rather than a gun. So I think the question comes down to whether mace can be considered to be a deadly weapon. From a case in Pennsylvania, the court judged that mace could qualify as a deadly weapon depending on how its used. In that particular case, there was a physical altercation. The mace user used the mace to disable then continued to punch and kick the other person. So it probably comes down to whether the shooter can convince a judge/jury that he feared that he would be disabled then gotten beat down if he hadn't defended himself with a gun.
Found this looking just around. https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/...gle.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2000&context=lf
If a cop was the shooter, it would suddenly be justified in the eyes of some because "the bad guy could have grabbed the good guy's gun after disabling him with mace." A similar argument was used in the Atlanta taser shooting. Just another benefit of the doubt given to police that isn't always extended to citizens.
Yes you can make the same argument here. When someone is maxed they can easily be disarmed because the pain in their face and eyes will distract them where it's easy to disarm them. So using the same logic as the taser shooter, the person had a right to shoot him for fear of what would happen to him after being maxed. Blue Lives Matter posters, can we be logically consistent here?
Just watched 9News at 4. Judge granted an extension to filing charges. DA has 72 more hours. Police have halo camera video of entire incident. Possibly more than one, since that is the Denver Art Museum
Oh noes, not criminal defense lawyer.com! How about the actual law. Did you bother to read it? Colorado 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 Dopey.
Your the dope lol, if someone is pursued and there is no immediate safe haven then this law you cite absolutely applies. Especially when you consider the fact things were thrown at him by Rosenbaum aka the sex offender of a minor / lookalike miniature stone cold and he was in close proximity reaching for the firearm and to intercept Kyle with threatening intentions
I'm leaning towards this isn't a justified shooting. So far the evidence I'm hearing is that the shooter knew it was mace and not something more lethal. I'm pretty certain the defense will argue that mace represents a a threat that could cause great bodily injury. I think that's an uphill argument. As stated mace isn't non-lethal but less than lethal deaths are rare from it. Also the shooter was actually maced but at least from the photos doesn't appear to be in too bad shape.
Yes in this case it isn’t likely because the jury will be asked whether or not the shooter attempted to first egress and evade ...getting slapped was indeed an assault from the beginning so the shooting victim contributed to the hostility involved but the shooter did not attempt the option so I can see a likelihood of murder...now how to paint the scenario as a bona fife self defense would be the face slapper pursuing and reaching for the firearm as the shooter first ran off in a different direction and then the shooter firing after the face slapper closes in the distance and then reaches for the firearm
I'm not sure retreat is as much the issue as they were already engaged physically but the appropriateness of response.
Not arguing here but if he produced the firearm and yells get back while retreating is valid , but like I said if the hat guy that slapped him comes in again and closes the distance to the point of reaching for the firearm then that is self defense if he was shot in that scenario
If you assault me , then I attempt to evade and you close in with hostile intentions and actions then I shoot you dead and that’s self defense and o btw also satisfies the legal standard of 1a
