That's a totally different situation - 3 am and someone sneaking around your home. I probably wouldn't shoot but would definitely be prepared to if the need arose .... You go sneaking around someone's home / yard at night , you take your life in your hands. This case , the mace guy probably didn't even know Dollof was armed until he pulled his weapon - it was concealed. He had retreated out of range of physical confrontation. Dollof made no attempt to retreat or get his client out of the situation. (That's reasonable) There are dozens of people around , including police.
Everytime I see this thread listed, I read Denver man shoots his right nut in self-defense Yep America in a nutshell.
didn't see this posted -- from Thursday, DA says she will file 2nd Degree Murder charges on Monday icymi for those looking for update
I will point out again the argument that Keltner was using mace to incapacitate Dollof to take his weapon that is SPECULATIVE because it requires knowing what was in Keltner's mind something that we can't know. To answer yourself and Sweet Lou on mace. You can see it in the pic of where Keltner is shot. There is a cloud of mace between him and Dollof. Any move by Keltner towards Dollof would result in him macing himself.
The reasonable person argument isn't just polling people on the street. Defense and prosecution will present expert testimony in order to inform and shape that argument. For the record I actually have experience with mace / dispersal irritants. I don't know what type of mace was used in this case but I've actually been exposed to it as part of that training and as recently as June was exposed to stuff like that during the George Floyd protests. I'm not at the level where I feel that I could render expert testimony but I have little doubt that such testimony will be at Keltner's trial.
From what I've followed, nothing favors him. Now granted some of these are allegations: -Left leaning activist (motive) -Attempting to slap Keltners mace out of his hand (initiating the conflict) -Out of jurisdiction (Unlicensed trained security guard willfully ignores law) -Headshot - reckless endangerment. Either he wasn't incapacitated enough from the mace to accurately get a headshot. Or headshot demonstrates he fully intended on killing the target instead of incapacitating him. If he was trying to incapacitate him as he should have, the head shot demonstrates it was a reckless shot. This will be the narrative if these allegations are true. I believe the 'fear for his life/surrounded by police' angle will come second. Dollof and Rittenhouse shootings have a lot in common and I feel Rittenhouse should be locked up. The difference being Dollof was in full control of the situation where Rittenhouse lost control of the situation.
I agree with you on the other stuff, but I don't think this is really a thing. I dont think there is any legal expectation anywhere that you should try and "only" wound someone when you pull the trigger.
Yes, but that is why the word incapacitate is used. While there is no expectation to only wound, you are not allowed to explicitly kill someone. This is why they are trained to aim for center mass. It will stop someone. Headshots are used in executions and video games. The head is a smaller target and the skull is know to ricochet the bullet.
It's sad that both red and blue average Americans have this type **** in their minds. What a useless knowledge base we have.
Once again you are going from the pic and using logic that a bystander has, you are not using the logic of the person being maced. You are right we don't know what was in anybodies mind and we don't know if that's what Keltners plan actually was. But that has not stopped you from creating a scenario to match what you think should have happened. You are speculating what was in Keltners mind.
Really, because I have no idea what was in Keltner's mind. I'm not claiming that he was intending to disarm Dollof. All I know is that got in scuffle with Dolloff and sprayed mace. To me that woudl be assault but since he's dead can't be charged with that. Beyond that I can't say for sure what his intention was.
I'm just going to add one thing I find very odd about the arguments presented here. Several of y'all have argued that the shooting was justified based on the possibility that Keltner intended to incapacitate Dollof, take his weapon so that he would then become a lethal threat. Besides being reliant on speculation that was the intention of the Keltner it is an odd that some of y'all have criticized that very same argument regarding other questionable shootings. The justification put out in the Rashard Brooks shooting was that Brooks could've tazed the LEO and taken their firearm so it was justified to shoot him. Also the justification for the Ahmaud Arbery shooting was that Arbery was going to take the younger McMichaels' shotgun so that McMichaels was justified in shooting him otherwise Arbery could become a lethal threat. In all these cases the argument for lethal force is projecting into the future so that it's not the immediate threat (mace, tazer, or bare hands) but a potential future threat. I think that is a very problematic argument and one that could end up making convictions of LEO almost impossible since they could always argue that a resisting suspect could get their firearm.
That's certainly an argument for "depraved intent" but I'm not sure how strong of an argument that could be. There is no such thing as shooting to wound as if Dollof shot at the center of mass that likely still kills him. I think any use of a firearm is lethal force. For that matter Dollof's shooting training might've been from playing a lot of video games.
What I am trying to convey is that a person is taught to shoot for center mass, not because you're less likely to kill them or more likely to wound them, but that you are more likely to hit your target, thus incapacitating them. If you really fear for your life, you want to aim for the best shot, center mass, not the face. Its on the same thought as claiming self defense when a person has just emptied two 15 round magazines in a person. If you fear for your life, you are allowed to defend yourself to no consequence of the well being of the perceived threat. However you are not allowed to explicitly kill them.
I understand what you're saying as I've had training on shoot at the center of mass. My view is that I don't know if that will make much of a difference head or body shot. I think the argument is that shooting him in the first place already showed he intended to kill him. You might be right though that this might be the difference between a manslaughter charge and a 2nd degree murder charge.
