Protests - the next level?

[03Lightningrocks]

The only way I'll be in a protest is if I stumble into one by accident, don't go looking for trouble and chances are you won't find trouble, if trouble comes looking for me it's gonna have to chase me down or trap me and that is why I carry a gun!

I think this is true for the vast majority of Americans. It is always that very small segment creating all the noise.

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/guard-custody-ov ... 45270.html

Security guard jailed over murder of pepper spray man.

Not sure how you defend yourself after this photo.

[eyedoc]

Here is the sequence.
1.Patriot slaps shooter for unknown reason.
2.Victim retreats as shooter is drawing his pistol from his waistband.
3. The victim activates his mace as the shooter fires at him.

[eyedoc]

Notice the slide is back and the case is ejected. He activated the mace after the pistol was pointed at him while he was retreating.

[eyedoc]

Alleged info on the shooters tattoo. His social media was anti-Trump.

[chamberc]

https://news.yahoo.com/guard-custody-ov ... 45270.html

Security guard jailed over murder of pepper spray man.

Not sure how you defend yourself after this photo.

Easily, and just as if someone had try to disable you in another way. For a Jury, the defendant will have to convince them if had reasonable fear for his life that if disabled he might be on the end of deadly force himself.

[srothstein]

Some interesting problems for the shooter, including that he was potentially violating the law by working as a security officer. Not certified and not in uniform according to the media. I don't think they considered he might have been a personal protection officer, which lets him work that way. I don't know how that will come into play with the city ordinances they refer to.

What may help or hurt the shooter was the initial use of force by the shootee (I can't say victim yet because I don't know if the shooting was justified or not yet). The first slap appears to be the initiation of force, and the reason for it will make a big difference in the case. Laws on self-defense say you cannot claim it if the initiator has clearly stopped the fight and is trying to leave, but the spray of mace (or whatever) brings that claim into doubt also.

Easily, and just as if someone had try to disable you in another way. For a Jury, the defendant will have to convince them if had reasonable fear for his life that if disabled he might be on the end of deadly force himself.

I agree that this is a possible defense. It is how police are trained to justify their shootings when someone uses a taser or OC on them.

[srothstein]

Some interesting problems for the shooter, including that he was potentially violating the law by working as a security officer. Not certified and not in uniform according to the media. I don't think they considered he might have been a personal protection officer, which lets him work that way. I don't know how that will come into play with the city ordinances they refer to.

What may help or hurt the shooter was the initial use of force by the shootee (I can't say victim yet because I don't know if the shooting was justified or not yet). The first slap appears to be the initiation of force, and the reason for it will make a big difference in the case. Laws on self-defense say you cannot claim it if the initiator has clearly stopped the fight and is trying to leave, but the spray of mace (or whatever) brings that claim into doubt also.

Easily, and just as if someone had try to disable you in another way. For a Jury, the defendant will have to convince them if had reasonable fear for his life that if disabled he might be on the end of deadly force himself.

I agree that this is a possible defense. It is how police are trained to justify their shootings when someone uses a taser or OC on them.

Edit to add: All in all, this is a murky situation and I urge everyone on both sides to not jump to conclusions just based on one side or the other's political beliefs agreeing or disagreeing with our own.

[strogg]

Wow. This event has turned from murky to super duper murky. Whatever little facts we knew could've ended up being false.

I am in agreement with others that it's not yet known whether he was the aggressor or acting in self defense. If he was purely acting in self defense against what was thought of as Mace as a precursor to imminent death, then he would have a defense. Or if he was open carrying, he may have a defense too (claiming the other person was spraying him with an irritant to procure his firearm). Regardless, he should be charged for acting as a security guard without the proper licensing. That is one thing (as of now) we have no doubts about.

As for the charge of murder 1, with what I can gather, it is possible. As facts become clearer and as the grand jury is presented with the evidence, it may be reduced. I don't know. But murder 1 is by no means a stretch. I'm curious to see where this heads.

[parabelum]

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.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

We will see as more info comes out but at this particular point, I agree with you. If the rolls were reversed and the shooter was a Trump supporter and mace guy was antifa, many would call it self defense.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread. Going to one of these events is not a smart move if you want to stay out of trouble. I don't go to them for the very reason that I know if I am attacked, I will respond in a most aggressive fashion, so I do myself a favor and don't go. Why look for trouble?

[eyedoc]

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?

[parabelum]

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.

[eyedoc]

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?

[eyedoc]

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.