- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Left-Wing News Hired Hitman Charged W/ 2nd Degree Murder Of Patriot
Posted on 10/16/20 at 11:53 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 10/16/20 at 11:53 am to DisplacedBuckeye
the defense won't, but the prosecution will as the burden to disprove the affirmative defense falls on them 
This post was edited on 10/16/20 at 11:54 am
1
Posted on 10/16/20 at 11:54 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:No one is looking for conspiracy (now). Dolloff is not licensed in Denver to be a security guard. Hence he was not authorized to be protecting anyone. That is what he will be going away for. But there is much more to this than his 2nd degree murder charge. Much more.
The defense will claim that Newman was looking for a story and Dolloff was doing his job.
Good compilation video that is very suspicious. Listen carefully to what the news producer (Zack Newman) and the security guard (Matt Dolloff) say immediately after the shot and during the arrest.
"The guy on the ground was going to mace me."
"That was my security guard, he just protected my fricking life."
YouTube video
9News says they did not now Matt Dolloff was armed.
Curious.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 11:54 am to the808bass
quote:No, not in a vaccuum.
His slap/aggressive strike isn’t going to come close to the definition of “great bodily harm.”
Dolloff will not argue that he fired in response to an assault that had already happened. He will assert that he moved to draw his weapon defensively in RESPONSE to that assault and to prevent further assault.
He will argue that he then fired in response to an assailant who HAD assaulted him and who was THEN raising a weapon and aiming that weapon at Dolloff. "But Keltner was RETREATING!!!" Yes, I had forgotten that projective weapons become ineffective when moved five feet further from a point-blank target.
You interpret events one way. The jury may well interpret them quite differently.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 11:54 am to Tiguar
Sure they will. But it isn't simple semantics. It will be completely pulled apart, like everything else in their interaction.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 11:54 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
No, it doesn't.
Colorado law disagrees with you.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 11:56 am to DisplacedBuckeye
In this particular discussion, it is semantics from the standpoint that we all agree it was not infact self defense and Keltner was in fact no longer an immediate threat.
You're correct that the defense will try to assert something as that is their job.
You're correct that the defense will try to assert something as that is their job.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 11:56 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Dolloff is not licensed in Denver to be a security guard. Hence he was not authorized to be protecting anyone. That is what he will be going away for.
That carries a $999 fine and up to 1 year.
I'll check the video out later.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 11:58 am to AggieHank86
Keltner's hands were at his side. The defense may assert he could have been a threat, but you don't get to shoot people for what they might do without reasonable ground such as immediate actions.
Keltner ironically would have been legally justified in drawing and shooting Dolloff the instant he saw him begin to draw a weapon.
Keltner ironically would have been legally justified in drawing and shooting Dolloff the instant he saw him begin to draw a weapon.
This post was edited on 10/16/20 at 11:59 am
Posted on 10/16/20 at 11:58 am to the808bass
quote:
Colorado law disagrees with you.
Colorado law is just Colorado law.
Colorado law doesn't view this situation in its entirety.
You should, though.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:00 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Y'all need to decide if we're discussing this from a legal stand point or from a factual interpretation standpoint. Seems to change based off of which argument got debunked at a particular time.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:00 pm to Tiguar
I see no reason we can't discuss both.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:01 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
That’s a typically gobbledegook DB statement.
The jury instructions will be based on Colorado law.
The jury instructions will be based on Colorado law.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:01 pm to Tiguar
And the day that 808 debunks anything I say is the day I stop posting here...
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:02 pm to the808bass
The jury's decision will be based on more than just Colorado law.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:02 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
So, what did you see in frame 871? This is an individual who is not a licensed security guard (and hence was not authorized to take the actions he took). Set aside all of the semantics.
Give me your professional opinion.
Give me your professional opinion.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:03 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Sure. And when you sit through a murder trial, you realize how important those jury instructions are to the barely sentient people who end up serving on juries.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:04 pm to Wolfhound45
Like I said, operating without a license isn't going to convict him of second degree murder. It should be brought up, obviously, but it's one small piece of getting this conviction.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:05 pm to the808bass
Yep.
And they're still going to use more than Colorado law.
And they're still going to use more than Colorado law.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:06 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:#coyotelivesmatter
I'll check the video out later.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:07 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
#coyotelivesmatter
fricking low blow, dude.
Page 85 of 99
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News