Politically Motivated Violence Thread PART 2

[Kutnupe14]

Apparently. There are right wingers to drag. Not that Keltner was anywhere near in the right to act like an aggressive *******. But we're not trying to figure out if he was being an aggressive *******. We're trying to figure out if he was shot unjustly. And the context and evidence we have now, he was shot unjustly.

…In your opinion.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Well it's obvious no minds are going to be changed. I'm not on the jury, nor are any of you. I see an guy armed with pepperspray, get into an argument with another, that argument defuses, and then he goes gallivanting up to a news crew telling them he's going to "**** them up," another guy intervenes in what I assumed was to prevent further hostilities, and knucklehead slaps him. Other guy starts to draw, and knucklehead raises his pepperspray… slow on the draw, knucklehead is sent to heaven. I have no issue with how this unfolded. Did he deserve it? No. Did he create the situation that was his ultimate demise? Yes.

If your point is, there were no good guys in this, don't be either of them... I agree, wholeheartedly.

 

[jamil]

You whole premise rested on the fact that because the Dolloff placed his hands on Keltner, then he was justified in slapping him. The situations aren't so different. Man steps between two others to prevent violence. He placed hands on the subject. How can you say that if Keltner slapped the guy its "probably not" justified, and then say that Dolloff doing essentially the same thing was the aggressor and thus justified??? Your whole contention was that someone placed hands on another, ignoring intent, and inferring that the action is unwarranted, possibly illegal.

My is that have the context about Dolloff and how that all transpired. In your scenario we don't have that context. Why would Keltner have slapped the other guy? Answer that question and it's pretty easy to answer yours.

If it was just because the other guy were filming? Yeah, Keltner would be committing assault.

 

[Kutnupe14]

We know from science that instinct has infinitesimally low reaction time. Basically zero. If Keltner was instinctively reacting to Dolloff drawing his gun, then of course there is no hesitation, but also, no intent accompanied it.

With Dolloff the whole drawing process is a cognitive, deliberate choice. Or maybe it was instinctive too. But given no context to justify it, even if it was instinctive to shoot someone after having been slapped, I don't think the law considers what was instinctive. Was he reasonably in fear of his life. Well, if he claims after the fact he (unreasonably) thought Keltner had a gun, I think it suggests he didn't really have a reasonable cause to shoot him and is just trying to save himself.

I've said as much; and in my opinion he was justified in doing so. The question, which neither you nor I can answer, was did he intend to shoot before he started to draw, or did he draw with the intent of deterrence. How fast do you think it would take for a person, drawing a gun, to make a decision "not shoot" to "shoot?"

 

[jamil]

I think I am just going to wait for jury deliberations to start and flip a quarter to form my expectations.

I'll need to wait and see if any pig's heads are thrown at expert witnesses first. Then I'll decide.

 

[jamil]

I've said as much; and in my opinion he was justified in doing so. The question, which neither you nor I can answer, was did he intend to shoot before he started to draw, or did he draw with the intent of deterrence. How fast do you think it would take for a person, drawing a gun, to make a decision "not shoot" to "shoot?"

I think the evidence points to yes. He intended to shoot. The immediacy of him going for his gun right after the slap is a big pointer to that. But I will admit that there is a subjective component to that. Different people will see it differently. And maybe there's a reasonable doubt. A fair trial will either erase the doubts or not. As it stands now. He shouldn't think too hard about trading in the orange jumpsuit.

 

[chipbennett]

You whole premise rested on the fact that because the Dolloff placed his hands on Keltner, then he was justified in slapping him. The situations aren't so different. Man steps between two others to prevent violence. He placed hands on the subject. How can you say that if Keltner slapped the guy its "probably not" justified, and then say that Dolloff doing essentially the same thing was the aggressor and thus justified??? Your whole contention was that someone placed hands on another, ignoring intent, and inferring that the action is unwarranted, possibly illegal.

The context, manner, and intent of Keltner instigating physical contact with Dolloff are different from the context, manner, and intent of the "old man" instigating physical contact with Dolloff. To the degree that we're splitting hairs here: yes, those differences matter.

 

[BugI02]

Opening clip. By your “reasonable man” standard, the guy in the middle is the aggressor? He initiates physical contact on both subjects, and both knock his had away. Would they have both been justified in, as Jamil puts it “b)(&# slapping,” the guy?

Carry it to that next step that you advocate for. If one or both of those guys HAD ***** slapped the guy in the middle, would he be justified in drawing on them and killing them?

 

[BugI02]

There is a physical interaction
Keltner is pushed back
Doloff goes for his gun
Keltner starts to raise the can.
Doloff shoots, Keltner sprays.

Keltner seems to see the gun and react. No assessment at that point.
Doloff draws and fires. No assessment there either. I challenge you to draw a weapon, pause to assess the situation and get off a shot in that time frame. The actual draw to shot fired is actually less.

Am I the only one that thinks there seems to be missing frames where he draws?

The Denver Post has the full series of photographs archived and available online, but they are behind a paywall

There are 71 images in the sequence

 

[BugI02]

I would just like comprehensive and universal RoE for interacting with progressive provocateurs and their enablers

 

[KLB]

The Denver Post has the full series of photographs archived and available online, but they are behind a paywall

There are 71 images in the sequence

Use reader view

 

[jamil]

There is a physical interaction
Keltner is pushed back
Doloff goes for his gun
Keltner starts to raise the can.
Doloff shoots, Keltner sprays.

Keltner seems to see the gun and react. No assessment at that point.
Doloff draws and fires. No assessment there either. I challenge you to draw a weapon, pause to assess the situation and get off a shot in that time frame. The actual draw to shot fired is actually less.

Am I the only one that thinks there seems to be missing frames where he draws?

It's not that they're missing. They had all the photos available for anyone to see before they put it behind a paywall. There was metadata with the photos which gives the camera model (It was a Nikon but I don't remember which now) I looked up that model to get the specs. It does have a continuous shooting mode. As long as the photographer's finger is on the button it would continue to take images at the rated frame rate.

Probably the photographer let off the button for an instant. According to the metadata on the photoes, there weren't any missing sequence numbers. So I think we got all the photos that were taken. No frames are missing, but there is a gap that exceeds what we'd have gotten if it was still continuously shooting. It's unfortunate that she took her finger off right at that moment.

 

[jamil]

Use reader view

Oh. So not a pay wall. More like a pay sun shade.

 

[kickbacked]

a man hired to protect someone steps into the path of a man making violent threats.
INGO: Battery
A man throws a hand with rings on every finger:
INGO: just a slap, barely touched him, no big deal.

edited: for bobzilla

 

[bobzilla]

a man hired to protect someone steps into the path of a man making violent threats.
INGO: Battery
A man throws a punch with rings on every finger:
INGO: just a slap, barely touched him, no big deal.

If all you’re going to do is troll please don’t bother coming back. We didn’t need more.

 

[kickbacked]

If all you’re going to do is troll please don’t bother coming back. We didn’t need more.

thats not trolling, thats putting it into perspective.

 

[bobzilla]

thats not trolling, thats putting it into perspective.

Not when you leave key critical facts out to form a narrative that isn’t true. That’s the epitome of trolling, which is exactly what you did.

a man not licensed to be a security guard is hired to be a security guard. An open handed slap is far from a punch. Both of your statements are gross misrepresentation of the actual events.

again, if you’re just going to troll go away.

 

[kickbacked]

Not when you leave key critical facts out to form a narrative that isn’t true. That’s the epitome of trolling, which is exactly what you did.

a man not licensed to be a security guard is hired to be a security guard. An open handed slap is far from a punch. Both of your statements are gross misrepresentation of the actual events.

again, if you’re just going to troll go away.

I said he was hired to protect someone, you just repeated that he was hired to protect that man.
So he struck him, for you ill edit it.

 

[jamil]

a man hired to protect someone steps into the path of a man making violent threats.
INGO: Battery
A man throws a hand with rings on every finger:
INGO: just a slap, barely touched him, no big deal.

edited: for bobzilla

Well. That’s reductive.

 

[jamil]

thats not trolling, thats putting it into perspective.

It seems to me more like you’re forcing it into your perspective.