conan
205
I haven’t had time to see other videos…and about to take off again for few hours.
Ok. When you have time, check out the other videos.
I didn’t post the videos that showing him violently assaulting and battering three different women, because I believe those videos were all posted earlier in the thread.
If you started the fight due to vigilantism, and shot someone because you were losing that fight, it’s not self defense.
Maybe not you, someone else I guess.
Im no lawyer, but found this and it seems to contradict these claims of self-defense on his part… namely that if you’re the instigator, then you can’t make the claim of self-defense, with some caveats made. In addition, I’ve seen several posters claiming her was assaulted first by the lady boxing him out… I question if that would meet the legal definition of assault (could), but he certainly escalated the use of force by slamming the lady to the ground.
Self Defense Laws | CriminalDefenseLawyer.com.
That’s not what happened from everything I’ve seen. We’ll let the courts decide but I’d be willing to bet he goes free.
Prior to that woman “boxing him out”, he had already assaulted a number of other protestors. Interestingly, they were all women.
She was trying to prevent him from continuing to assault the protestors tearing down the statue.
Perhaps you should see more, before running to this man’s defense. The videos are all out there.
I’ve watched the ones that have been linked and looked on youtube. I just don’t see the same crap you all are claiming. It’s clear that from the video where he’s running off that he had at least 30’ between him and the people pursuing him and they chased him down. It’s CLEARLY self defense at that point, regardless of what happened prior.
1 Like
Yeah, Im aware. Im just confused as to why so many are rushing to this guys defense.
First, this claim of self-defense is just illogical IMO. Had he just been hanging out observing, then sure. None of the actions against him would be justified. But he wasn’t just hanging out. He was filmed and observed assaulting numerous others prior to being chased out from the crowd. Secondly, Im seeing several posters acting as though once he fled from the crowd, that his initial assault was somehow “reset” or something? lol. No, Im pretty sure that’s not how it works.
While it’s not connected, it brought to mind that case with Joyce Vieira, that Brazilian MMA fighter that seriously ■■■■■■ a guy up last year that flashed or groped her (some sort of sexual assault). After she said something to him initially, he kept it up and got more aggressive with the chatter. She then gave him a first-hand display of what her day job is. He retreated, she pursued, and he fought back as he continued to get his ass beat. Now using the line of logic being trotted out above, these posters are saying this guy (the instigator) could legally claim self-defense because he had begun to retreat… Think about that folks. Your saying the guy that instigated a sexual assault could be construed as the victim because he retreated then got his ass beat… and rightly so.
Why do you say “regardless of what happened prior”? Why are his previous actions irrelevant?
That’s just not how it works.
He started the fight. This is on video, taken by numerous witnesses. He repeatedly tried to provoke the crowd, withdrawing and returning to physically assault and batter more protestors.
Once you clear the area and it’s clear you’re no longer a threat, people do NOT have the right to continue to chase you down and use deadly force, which is what they were doing and saying he was “dead”. Once the threat is over, it’s a law enforcement issue and your right to use deadly force is over.
That is EXACTLY how it works. If there’s no threat, there’s no right to use deadly force. Good luck proving he started everything and good luck proving he wasn’t in fear for his life at that point that he fired. Good luck in justifying the actions of the people that chased him down, threatening to kill him… the courts will sort it and we’ll see who’s correct here. Maybe I’m wrong but from the video’s I’ve seen, it was a justified shoot. Obviously we don’t have ALL of the info yet.
Under NM law, those protestors arguably had the legal authority to physically detain him. They all witnessed him commit multiple crimes.
This one’s ugly.
Don’t poke hornet’s nests.
Also, don’t be a hornet.
I’ll go out on a limb and guess that what shows up on people’s phones in text messages and social media before that all went down will end up being important.
His physical assaults on protestors are all on video. Proving them won’t be difficult. There are hundreds of eyewitnesses.
Whether or not he was in fear for his life isn’t the point. The relevant part is whether he is culpable for putting himself in a position that made him fear for his life.
I expect it won’t be hard to convince a jury to empathize with the people who chased him down - people that he had assaulted (with pepper spray) and people who witnessed him assaulting numerous women.
Without knowing anything about NM law, this makes sense to me. Also why I think if he has anything on his phone about having intentions to get into it with people he’s probably doomed.
It’s common law stuff. 800 years of tradition, etc.
It’s statutory law in NM, as well.
1 Like
