Justified or not?

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    This is a tough one. If the shooter is found to be the aggressor, he is screwed. Unlike police, citizens can’t shoot someone because they slapped them. But after the slap, it will have to be decided why the gun was pulled. If the gun was pulled as a result to being slapped, it won’t be justified. If it was pulled as a result to potentially being pepper sprayed AFTER being slapped, maybe.

    If the pepper spray’er is found to be the aggressor, I’m pretty sure being blinded, although temporarily, would be considered serious bodily harm. Similar to if someone was trying to choke you out. The incapacitation may be temporary, but it certainly is reasonable that once you are incapacitated, permanent or long-term serious bodily harm has a high likelihood of following.

    Serious bodily harm is usually defined as long term or permanent. Pepper spray causes pain but I've never seen it being viewed as a dangerous weapon.
     

    oleheat

    Professional Amateur
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    May 18, 2009
    13,775
    38
    I believe Pinkerton said he wasn't hired through them. They also declined to state who he was hired through.

    Hmm. Perhaps- but this is from the 9News Youtube Channel:

    A private security guard is being held as a suspect in a deadly shooting near the Denver Art Museum, according to the Denver Police Department (DPD).

    Matthew Dolloff, 30, is being held at the Denver Downtown Detention Center on suspicion of first degree murder. He has not been formally charged. Dolloff was contracted through Pinkerton by 9NEWS.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Hmm. Perhaps- but this is from the 9News Youtube Channel:

    https://coloradosun.com/2020/10/13/9news-matthew-dolloff-lee-keltner-denver-shooting/

    Pinkerton said in a statement that Dolloff wasn’t actually one of its employees, describing him as a *contractor agent from a long-standing industry vendor.* The statement didn’t specify which vendor he worked for. The statement also didn’t address why Dolloff was armed when 9News had asked otherwise.

    121093167_2807268592828288_2489072056678353174_o.png


    Maybe he was sub-contracted? Either way, Pinkerton seems to be passing the buck.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    If the pepper spray’er is found to be the aggressor, I’m pretty sure being blinded, although temporarily, would be considered serious bodily harm. Similar to if someone was trying to choke you out. The incapacitation may be temporary, but it certainly is reasonable that once you are incapacitated, permanent or long-term serious bodily harm has a high likelihood of following.

    I’m reading the entire statement here instead of just the part about pepper spray being bodily harm and I agree, especially since the spray guy had already shown his intent to harm in other ways (slapping). If the shooter had been incapacitated he most certainly could have faced further injury from bear spray guy. He could have been stomped into the pavement. Bottom line from my viewpoint is, pepper spray guy attacked and continued to attack until he was put down. And again, don’t bring pepper spray to a gunfight. Or, don’t attack someone carrying a gun if you don’t wanna get shot. Big dummy.
    In the dead guy’s defense, I think he did win the draw by a fraction of a second, he just had the wrong weapon.
    I gotta say here, I got such a kick out of the Rittenhouse interview before that shooting. The part where he said, ‘yeah, we don’t have non lethal’ just made me giggle.
    Fark around and find out. Looks like more and more of these idiots are doing just that. I’ll keep enjoying the videos and the commentary as long as it’s available. It’s better than anything on the tube.
     
    Last edited:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    This is a tough one. If the shooter is found to be the aggressor, he is screwed. Unlike police, citizens can’t shoot someone because they slapped them. But after the slap, it will have to be decided why the gun was pulled. If the gun was pulled as a result to being slapped, it won’t be justified. If it was pulled as a result to potentially being pepper sprayed AFTER being slapped, maybe.

    If the pepper spray’er is found to be the aggressor, I’m pretty sure being blinded, although temporarily, would be considered serious bodily harm. Similar to if someone was trying to choke you out. The incapacitation may be temporary, but it certainly is reasonable that once you are incapacitated, permanent or long-term serious bodily harm has a high likelihood of following.

    The pepper

    Here are some definitions from Colorado law:

    (c) "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical or mental condition.

    (p) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury which, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time, involves a substantial risk of death, a substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, or breaks, fractures, or burns of the second or third degree.

    Pepper spray does not cause temporary blindness. It is designed to cause physical pain. That meets the legal definition of bodily injury. I've watch people get hit with pepper spray and continue to function. Their body had reactions to an irritant in the nose and eye but they didn't react to any pain. So they got a runny nose and watering eyes but no incapacitation. This is more likely caused by some mental issues. But the pain caused by pepper spray is unlikely to cause death or disfigurement. And the pain is temporary and not protracted. Therefore, it does not meet the legal definition of serious bodily injury.

    If the guard reacts to the pain cause by the pepper spray, is there a risk of the biker then using his hands and feet to cause serious bodily injury? Sure, that would be a reasonable conclusion given the totality of circumstances. But the totality of circumstances does not magically transform the bodily injury caused by pepper spray into serious bodily injury.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Maybe it would have been better if the guard waited to get sprayed in the face and unable to open his eyes before firing wildly and blindly in that first few seconds. That might have made for a lot better video.

    Anyway, I was able to understand the post.

    incapacitation may be temporary, but it certainly is reasonable that once you are incapacitated, permanent or long-term serious bodily harm has a high likelihood of following.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    If the guard reacts to the pain cause by the pepper spray, is there a risk of the biker then using his hands and feet to cause serious bodily injury? Sure, that would be a reasonable conclusion given the totality of circumstances. But the totality of circumstances does not magically transform the bodily injury caused by pepper spray into serious bodily injury.

    Maybe it would have been better if the guard waited to get sprayed in the face and unable to open his eyes before firing wildly and blindly in that first few seconds. That might have made for a lot better video.

    Anyway, I was able to understand the post.

    incapacitation may be temporary, but it certainly is reasonable that once you are incapacitated, permanent or long-term serious bodily harm has a high likelihood of following.

    I agree, especially since I posted essentially the same thing. As noted in a previous post, at the end of the video, it appears the biker raises his arm, the one holding the spray, as he walked toward the guard. If that's the case and if the guard was trying to take the spray away from the biker, the guard could have been doing so out of self defense to keep from being sprayed. That would suggest the biker was the aggressor. So the slap would have been further aggression rather than the biker defending himself from being disarmed by the guard.

    I'm not defending the biker. I'm just pointing out that the threat of being pepper sprayed is not justification for lethal force. If the shooting was justified, it would likely come from everything being viewed together.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    I agree, especially since I posted essentially the same thing. As noted in a previous post, at the end of the video, it appears the biker raises his arm, the one holding the spray, as he walked toward the guard. If that's the case and if the guard was trying to take the spray away from the biker, the guard could have been doing so out of self defense to keep from being sprayed. That would suggest the biker was the aggressor. So the slap would have been further aggression rather than the biker defending himself from being disarmed by the guard.

    I'm not defending the biker. I'm just pointing out that the threat of being pepper sprayed is not justification for lethal force. If the shooting was justified, it would likely come from everything being viewed together.
    It will definitely be a judge’s or juror’s nightmare to figure out. I hope we get some info from the trial or arraignment hearing. I wouldn’t wanna be on that jury.
     

    DBMJR1

    Madame Mayor's Fiefdom
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Jul 27, 2008
    2,313
    113
    New Orleans, La.
    I was reading up on traveling to bear country, and the requirements for containers ect.

    One of the federal websites discussed bear spray.

    They noted that if shot in the eye from a close enough distance, it could rupture an eye ball.

    A ruptured eyeball sure sounds like 'serious bodily harm' to me.

    Question is, can you convince a jury?
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I was reading up on traveling to bear country, and the requirements for containers ect.

    One of the federal websites discussed bear spray.

    They noted that if shot in the eye from a close enough distance, it could rupture an eye ball.

    A ruptured eyeball sure sounds like 'serious bodily harm' to me.

    Question is, can you convince a jury?


    https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/exercise-band-causes-blinding-eye-injury

    Exercise equipment can cause blindness. Sounds like ‘serious bodily harm’ as well.

    If the ‘serious bodily harm’ requires a specific, narrow set of circumstances to occur, it’s reasonable to say it’s a slight risk, not a substantial risk.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/exercise-band-causes-blinding-eye-injury

    Exercise equipment can cause blindness. Sounds like ‘serious bodily harm’ as well.

    If the ‘serious bodily harm’ requires a specific, narrow set of circumstances to occur, it’s reasonable to say it’s a slight risk, not a substantial risk.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    When I was a teenager I was warned not to do something or I would go blind but like every other 13 year old I never let up. Was I a danger to myself?
     
    Last edited:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA

    Staff online

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,230
    Messages
    1,546,149
    Members
    29,172
    Latest member
    ksgunner82
    Top Bottom