The standard is not assault, it's reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Read it bro. https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-1-704.html
That's like saying waking up in the morning is a precursor to assault. So what? A rain drop is a precursor to a monsoon too.
We don't need to rehash this really. An assault can be anything from tripping someone to breaking someone's nose. They're not the same standard so we can leave it there. Oh. My. God.
Waking up and raindrops aren’t reasonable threats haha stop being a bombastic obtuse fool lmao... Throwing an object plus trying to grab someone’s firearm on the other hand are precursors to reasonable fear of death or Bodily injury but especially when pursuit occurs
What do you think about my argument about how mace can be used to disarm someone and therefore the shooter doesn't know what the victim would do once he's incapacitate. Similar to the taser. Cop knew it was a taser but the cop doesn't know what the perpetrator would do once he's incapacitate.
I feel this is manslaughter. If he truly wasn't a licensed security officer, this regulates him down to a bystander. If he was a registered security guard anywhere prior, the courts will use this against him. If the allegations are true, CBS4 will face a lot of backlash either way. Its too early to tell what the charges will be brought against him. If he really was a licensed security guard else where, his ass is toast. I also feel Rittenhouse should be charged with manslaughter. While I am not intending to cite any statue, but an AR-15 is an assault weapon, not a PDW. If someone is too ignorant to understand the difference, they shouldn't own guns, much less bringing them to high tense rally's.
Dude you are imagining scenarios of shooting people everyday. No joke: I wonder if all these statements you publish here are red flags for the next Snowgun Tragedy. Does someone need to be notified about your public statements on CF? Not joking: do you ever imagine being involved in a shooting? How often? What's the scenario?
Does ROXRAN realize that what we are doing here is publishing? This is public record for eternity. If, God forbid, ROXRAN is involved in a shooting, all his statements here are open to becoming evidence. Even his avatar. I believe ROXRAN has homicidal ideation. Everyday. I believe if we did a poll here to ask who is most likely to shoot someone, ROXRAN would win by a mile. ROXRAN needs to realize, everything he wrote here is already cached and will never be erased.
I think that's an uphill argument. As another poster noted there were other people there. The problem with that is that it is a very speculative argument because we would have to get in the mindset of the person shot that that was their intention rather than if they stop the shooter they won't just then leave. I was skeptical of that argument in the Rashard Brooks case, as one the taser was out, but even if it wasn't it appeared Rashard Brooks was trying to get away and not trying to kill the pursuing LEO.
The defense can argue that the mace could be used to disable the shooter thereby being at risk for bodily harm especially since the guy had already slapped him. I don't understand why you are hung up on if mace is lethal or not, I don't think that's really the question. Did the shooter think he was under the reasonable threat of bodily harm or death. Nothing in the Colorado law says he has to be under threat from something lethal.
Colorado law in the link that Cometswin posted says: "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." This is a very important point that is often frequently brought up in regard to martial arts. Slapping someone and shooting mace at them is a threat and barring retreat certainly CO and most states allow for self-defense but the response has to be reasonably appropriate. While mace is on very rare occasions lethal I doubt most people would consider responding with live fire as a reasonably appropriate response. In this case to me the key factor isn't whether Dollof could retreat but whether it was reasonable to use deadly force in response to getting slapped and mace. I think that is going to be a very difficult argument. As stated in my response the argument that the mace could be used to disable the shooter and then take their weapon is a speculative argument that requires getting into the head of the victim. Given that there was a crowd including LE and other security that seems like it's a questionable that could've succeeded but more importantly we have no way of ascertaining if that was the intention of the victim. His intention could very well be just to drive off Dollof. This goes again to the Rashard Brooks case where the argument was made that the LEO was justified in shooting Brooks because Brooks had taken a taser and fired it so that means that he could've stunned the LEO and taken his firearm. The problem there is that we can't know for sure what was in Brooks mind. If anything he appears to be trying to get away than trying to go to the LEO to disarm him after incapacitating him.
They are actually nothing alike one guy was running away and the LEO was not alone he had other officers around him, this guy was standing less than 10 feet away spraying mace after he slapped the guy with the gun. I am gonna tablet his until I see video of what actually happened I just don't see how you can come to a judgement if it will be difficult or not and I think you are looking at it from a perspective of what you think should have happened. If a guy slapped me and then proceeds to pull out bear mace a spray I sure am gonna do everything I can to protect myself and I would never own a gun.
I'm not looking at what I think should happen. The argument that the victim was going to incapacitate the shooter and take his weapon is an argument about thinking would happen as it requires knowing what is the mindset of the victim and we can never know that. It's a speculative argument. What we do know is that Dollof shot him in response to being slapped and as the victim was spraying mace. That is assault but most people would say that lethal force is a disproportionate response to less than lethal force. Anything beyond that is speculation. I haven't seen a video either but if one is out there I would certainly be willing to reconsider things. At the moment I'm not seeing enough evidence to say this is justified.
Just to add another point to this discussion. Most of us wouldn't consider getting punched or kicked as the equivalent of getting shot yet a trained boxer or other martial artist could knock out someone with a single blow. In that case then would it be appropriate in struggle like what we saw to shoot the boxer before a punch has landed or a kick has been released? Would people accept the same argument that the boxer martial artist who otherwise isn't armed could still knock other person out and take their weapon so lethal force was justified?
