https://www.npr.org/sections/live-up...oval-of-statue
We all knew something like this was going to happen sooner or later.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-up...oval-of-statue
We all knew something like this was going to happen sooner or later.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's a lot of different groups and influences that are heavily pushing us to kill each other while the opportunity is ripe leading into November. Many different motivations, but I think we're in for a rough four and a half months.
Video shows multiple "protestors" attacking the guy in the blue shirt prior to him pulling a gun FWIW. I don't have a comment on his reaction, only that the majority of the media is neglecting to accurately represent it.
ETA: There's also video of him pulling a protester to the ground prior to the attack. As in most every case, it appears to be one that everybody has shit on their face. I wonder what the DA will do with it. Because his earlier action constitutes a potential chargeable assault, it could potentially revoke his self-defense affirmative defense to the latter act, but NM law is in question so who knows. He (shooter) definitely escalated in the first instance. It also doesn't take a genius to know that pulling a gun amid protesters is very unwise for a ton of reasons, even if they are trying to whack you.
I read about this earlier. The reporting is so one-sided and biased...even more so than usual...that it boggles the mind. Protesters attempting to destroy property = good. Armed citizens = satan. Even the leftist governor all but praised the protesters and said the non-anarchist types, the armed protesters, were only there to cause trouble with the anarchists.
Fucking ridiculous.
Do you promise it will only be that long?Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Supposedly the shooter is the son of a sheriff. With a crowd screaming things like "I'll fucking kill you!!!", not sure what his options were. Death, or try and stay alive and deal with this in court?
As to instigating, it could be argued that everybody there was looking for a fight.
It depends on the incubation period of an unintentional pregnancy resulting from the negligent application of sodomy geese.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
-- Monty Python and the Twenty-Twenty.
He may have done something earlier, but in the video I saw leading up to the shooting, he was hit, retreated a good distance and was then attacked. Not sure about NM law, but in many states, even if someone is an initial attacker, once they retreat, there is no justified defense against them. So the mob attacking him is pure assault by them regardless of any possibility he may have been the initial aggressor.
So, does that mean the shooter is untitled to self-defense since he was very clearly retreating?
Makes murder hornets seem like a cake walk.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Optics. In the circumstances, it's not likely a court would let him even begin to make the argument, and he's at the mercy of the court (one judge), not actually at the mercy of the law. And as we're all admitting, we don't know if NM has that exemption, we just know CO does. And even then, the way that would apply is mostly irrelevant, all that does is make it so the mob can't argue justification in attacking him, it doesn't actually re-grant his ability to argue self defense (if in CO)Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
As the initial aggressor (without justification), he would lose his application of lawful use of deadly physical force if that was in CO. 18-1-704(3)(b):
(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
On an unrelated side note, I once knew a guy that spent something like 30 years in prison for what we might perceive to be justifiable self-defense (in the moment)
It started at a bar, and one guy suggested they step outside and he agreed. They fought for a short while, and then the other guy pulled a gun to kill him, there was a contest for it and he ended up getting control of it, and killed the other man with the other man's firearm.
But, because it originated in combat by agreement, he had no application of an affirmative defense for lawful use of deadly physical force and prosecution was successful. 30 years of his life lost.
The original argument started over the old method of calling dibs on playing next at a pool table (using coins). He ended up being in the wrong, because there was a sign in sheet he wasn't aware of.
That's a pretty big derail of course, but the point being, don't place ourselves in situations that can easily escalate out of control, because people can die for the stupidest garbage, or land in the can for decades over a technicality.
That's the intellectual argument, but then logic tells me that those in disagreement sitting in silence and avoiding conflict will end up being ruled by the noisy mob.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Valid argument, but not applicable to blue shirt (who threw a protester to the ground). As far as attending though, agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
My CRS citation is a bit off too, only (3)(a) is applicable to blue shirt,(b) is applicable to the protesters. Basically in CO and in most places, if you're the initial aggressor you lose application to any self-defense claim, and if you clearly withdraw and then they attack you, they lose their application to lawful defense as well. Even though technically you could argue "that only applies to the other person" - the woman, a court isn't likely to agree with that argument for optics, nor do they have to.Quote:
(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
I was referring to the idea conceptually. I wasn't speaking to the individual in this case because IANAL and don't care to commit the time to find the New Mexico statutes.
In '93 Eugene Baylis here in Colorado Springs went into the Star Bar and opened fire. He fled, followed by a ton of bikers. In the resultant shootout, he killed two and wounded two. His defense attorney successfully argued that it was self defense since he had broken off the initial attack and the bikers followed him.
A combination of ineptitude of the DA and the bikers not doing themselves any favors in court (read: lying under oath and getting caught dong it) and he got COMPLETELY off.
Except for the federal weapons charges (Feds don't like it when you bring hand grenades to a gun fight).
O2
https://apnews.com/0d078d35503adc8c909692bccd151171
Another video angle of the encounter. A bit more graphic.
https://twitter.com/SALIDmag/status/1272962710989307909
I knew one of the guys killed, we had talked about another mc a few days before. . IIRC Baylis opened fire with an AK.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
I know there were issues prior to the shooting. But just looking at that video I'd say it's gonna be pretty easy for his attorney to argue he was in serious danger.
So let me get this straight. Guy has crowd advancing on him menacingly and voicing threats. He uses pepper spray several times and they still advance. At this point, he pulls his firearm and uses it.
It seems fairly clear cut that he can claim he was in fear of his life or bodily harm at this point but the political and media types immediately jump to hate crimes. Sounds like there was a lot of hate alright -- coming from the crowd.
Can't wait for more details because the story related in the news article sure doesn't support the statements from the political types IMO.
The New Mexico Governor and Albuquerque Mayor are trying to pin it on the militia.
IIRC he ultimately died in a shootout in the Mesa County desert like a couple years ago. Started shooting at deputies out of the blue as they walked towards what they thought was an abandoned van.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
ETA: Here's the link: https://www.kktv.com/content/news/Ma...483989461.html
I’ll just leave this here.......
Attachment 81920
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SideShow Bob
I was curious why he singled out that guy to be the bullet sponge. Now it's apparent why. I wonder if those knives(?) were collected at the scene by the PD?
Well, what did everyone expect?
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
One thing I think we can all take away from this and other recent incidents- stay the hell away from these situations.
Chaos is coming.
Dont go to it.
Let it come to you.
If the triggerman in this situation would have stayed away from the area he would be at home with his wife instead of sharing a cell with Bubba right now.
We all hate what is happening right now and we all want to see a stop put to this BS.
But right now the scales are not tipped in our favor. It would not have mattered one iota if this man would have been sitting at a light in his car minding his own business and was drug out of it by protesters, beaten like Reginald Denny and with his dying breath shot one of the perps.
He "attacked" the "peaceful protestors", regardless of what the facts are.
It wouldn't matter if this guy was protecting a bus full of nuns from being gang raped by the mob.
He was wrong.
The media will spin it that way.
Keep your mind in the middle and stay frosty.
He was also the guy who had just hit him in the head with a skateboard, every bit as deadly as a baseball bat. You can see the skateboard in mid air in that pic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I think his right hand is just in the foreground of his belt. I don't know what's in his left hand, but am pretty confident that it's not a comb.
?Juan de O?ate es muy enojado!
Mexicanos, Pueblos, destruyendo la estatua!
?Viva Espa?a!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_d...as%20in%202006.
https://youtu.be/Tmy-EUvKX3I?t=52
Not condemning anyone but if you are carrying you should never, under any circumstances, escalate a situation or make it physical. I think it certainly does dampen your defense argument. You want to always be able to show you avoided confrontation at all costs until your life was on the line or the likelihood the court wont side with you goes way upQuote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
That being said I dont know all the facts so perhaps the facts are it was escalated outside of his control.
I dunno about anyone else, but I find myself much more on my P's and Q's when carrying. At least, I'm more aware of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmckay2
Many people with common sense would not go to that kinda place at a first place.
Anybody wonder what is in that backpack? I've had smaller loadouts for overnight trips in the desert.
Me too. Which is why I have a hate the fact that people typically only quote the first sentence from Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society."Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
That makes it sound as if everyone is on good behaviour only because they fear being shot.
The full quote: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Makes it quite clear that it's the ARMED person that's on their best behavior to avoid having to use deadly force.
In other words most people completely misunderstand what the quote is saying.
O2
Recognizing that some haven't seen the videos:
The issue isn't with his attendance at the protest, but prior to this shooting, he was walking through the crowd of protesters, and apparently got pissed off at one specific woman with her arms up in close proximity, walking next to him barricading him from getting closer to the statute, so it appears unprovoked, he grabbed her and literally threw her on the ground. Undoubtedly, her actions would led to frustration, but it didn't appear that she was escalating to physical force or restraint etc. against him prior to his escalation at any time.
That precipitated protesters coming after him. I bet there's a lot of people here that would have come after him if they saw a guy yank a woman and throw her to the ground too out of the blue.
There's little doubt he was in fear from his life from Mr. Knife guy, and certainly Mr. Knife guy and Mr. Skateboard guy had no justification, many of the others were pursuing to "get a license plate" e.g. to report the assault, but I think the big question for a prosecutor/jury is :
Did he have the power to avoid the confrontation in the first place... e.g. by not throwing a woman to the ground? And that right there is where he's probably going to be in the can (or probation or whatever) no matter what his justification for shooting is, both for assault in the original instance, and for whatever NM's equivalent law is for attempted homicide of some degree, which he'll have to plead down. That's how this appears to roll from the outside.
You appear to have a very strange understanding of the word "unprovoked" (and that's assuming no deliberate intent to use disingenuous language)...Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
You left out:Quote:
Originally Posted by DireWolf
Legally, it is unprovoked physical violence. It's not acceptable provocation to use physical violence when someone pisses you off. The "she pissed me off by being mouthy and her arm was in my way" is never a valid excuse for "provocation" to physically assault anyone, whether someone you know (spouse) or someone you don't (protester), you'll get charged.Quote:
Undoubtedly, her actions would led to frustration
To escalate to physical violence and throw someone to the ground, a person needs actual physical provocation beyond being unable to control their own emotions, being frustrated, or potentially being an asshole. Most people have that kind of personal restraint. Blue shirt, obviously does not. And if someone does not have that personal restraint, they need to stay the heck away from hostile situations, especially when being there* of their own volition.
ETA: Fixed it right "their".
"What is Battery?
The New Mexico criminal statutes define battery as the unlawful, intentional touching or application of force to the person of another, when done in a rude, insolent or angry manner. Striking another person with a fist during an argument or pushing someone are straightforward examples of battery. A more unusual example is touching another in a sexually suggestive manner through the person?s clothing, without the person?s consent."
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...d-assault-laws
If I were the shooter, this is what I'd charge the woman with.
Prosecutor elects to charge, often at the request of a RP, occasionally mandated by law to charge, but they are otherwise not obligated to charge anything no matter what someone demands. Even on plain-text of your description of a description it doesn't match. She had her arm up and stood in the way. Probably was being mouthy, who knows. Even if/when they touched because he wanted to go x and she was standing at y, he's intentionally touching her just as much as she is touching him. At best, if you could find a statute of impeding access to a public right away or something, if such a thing exists, that could apply, because she keeps moving to block his way. Even then, a prosecutor -elected - isn't going to charge that woman for anything, and it all fails at the consideration that courts are not actually courts of law, in the sense that a judge's personal bias and public optics determine anyone's outcome; the law is hardly applicable from the inset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
"The female protester shoved my eyeglasses into the bridge of my nose and into my eye with her arm!"
I do also love the sentiment.....citizens wouldn't feel the need to protect monuments if the fking police chiefs and politicians were not nationwide having police stand back and let these things go on and happen.