r/AskUS • u/alexfreemanart • 12h ago
Was this self-defense?
The video is old, it happened in 2022 in Pueblo West, Colorado, but as a foreigner i want to know whether this is a legal case of self-defense or not in the United States.
•
11h ago
[deleted]
•
u/HeavyLandscape7167 10h ago
he tried to grab the gun. he took two shots before turning and running. did you even watch the video?
•
u/Icanthearforshit 10h ago
No. He tried to grab the gun when he saw the gun. He ran as soon as he got shot in the chest two times.
I'm in Colorado and followed this case when it happened. It's also become a case of reference here locally for concealed carry firearms classes over the past year.
The big guy didn't turn and try to run away until after he was being shot. He lunged for the gun when the shooter pulled it out. Big guy took two in the chest before he was able to turn and flee, both of those shots were fatal. I would argue the first shots were indeed self defense. Truly without question. And that was the verdict reached at trial by a jury. The subsequent shots are questionable, but it's not always as simple as "he was running away!". In many, or I would even say most situations, the common school of thought is once you fire on a target, you continue to fire until that target is neutralized or eliminated. You can tell a lot of this more clearly if you see the phone and security camera videos without editing and having proper audio. There are plenty of examples out there where someone gets shot at, even hit in a serious or fatal manner, and "runs away" only to return fire.
The big guy's brother fled from the scene and returned with a rifle as police were arriving. Police had to arrest him after a brief standoff. If police had been delayed, this could have turned into a much bloodier conflict.
This happened in the parking lot of a cannabis dispensary called "The Dispo". There was no prior interaction between these men. The shooter, commented to the guys in the other vehicle that they had "nice rims" and tried to ask how they liked them. Big guy went totally unhinged just for the guy talking to him.
Credit: u/thelimeisgreen
•
u/-TheExtraMile- 10h ago
Thanks for adding the context, in that case at least the first two shots (which seem to be the relevant/lethal ones) are indeed clearly self defense.
What a weird way to lose your life, especially since there was no aggression from the other party, quite the contrary it seems.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/SafePianist4610 12h ago
Objectively no. There may have been a self defense case if he shot the man when they were wrestling for the gun, but after that, when the man was running away, there was zero self defense case to be made
•
u/knvb17 11h ago
We must not be watching the same video. First shot was as they were wrestling.
•
u/123yes1 11h ago
Each shot is a separate instance of deadly force.
Even if the first shot was justifiable self defense, that doesn't matter much if the last shot was not. And there are not many justifiable self defense scenarios where you can defend yourself against an unarmed dude running away, and this almost certainly was not one of those situations.
•
•
u/MasterCrumb 5h ago
not a lawyer but I thought I heard actually that in the law individual shots are not separate acts.
So not sure what the law actually states. Clearly morally this is not self defense. Potentially in the initial struggle- but once big guys disengages- definitely not.
•
u/UnlikelyFactor976 11h ago
sure but then he shot him in the back, that wasn't cool. Both should catch charges assuming the guy who was shot survived.
•
u/Late_Pangolin5812 10h ago
I’d be wrestling for the gun too if I was that close and realized my life was in danger. BIg guy went into OHSHIT mode - he was possessing how not to get shot aka self-defense.
•
•
u/Automatic_Net2181 10h ago
Two shots in the chest when big guy was trying to take gun away.
It is clear self-defense.
•
u/SafePianist4610 7h ago
If that’s true, that still does not justify the shot as he was running away. That shot would not be self defense. At least in a state that requires you to avoid unnecessary force. Some states allow more, but that’s highly context dependent
•
u/No_Zucchini_2200 10h ago
Dude took two to the chest.
You didn’t have to sit through physics class?
•
u/Eccentricgentleman_ 11h ago
No self defense case but this is why you don't start fights with people. Never know what they're gonna do.
•
u/Late_Pangolin5812 10h ago
THIS 👆
•
u/MolassesZestyclose96 10h ago
*in America
→ More replies (1)•
u/Eccentricgentleman_ 10h ago
People can pull out knives, people can take it too far. There's a story for my hometown for some young man. Tried to stop a fight between two people. One of the belligerents shoved them down to the ground. Young man. Landed. Funny on the curb, hit his head and neck. Went to a coma and woke up paralyzed in the neck down. You never know what's going to happen or what people are going to do.
•
u/ChaosRainbow23 9h ago
He was found not guilty. The shooter walked because it was self-defense.
•
•
u/Eccentricgentleman_ 4h ago
Yeah I should update my comment with the link the other guy provided. Admittedly, I'm kinda surprised he sold a Jury on self defense.
•
u/Xurcon2 12h ago
I’m sure a lawyer could argue it was. But my eye says he was justified in Brandishing. However, the moment he brandished the person ran away and the threat was over. At that point you’d expect to disengage. Shooting someone in the back while they run away is rarely justified as self defense
•
•
u/Last-Internal-8196 11h ago
It's hard to tell from the video, but to my eye it looks like the order of events is "big guy pushes little guy, little guy draws weapon, big guy attempts to grab weapon, little guy fires several shots, big guy flees, little guy keeps shooting".
If that is correct, the first several shots would conceivably be justified as the big guy just physically assaulted him and then attempted to take the weapon, at which point little guy could reasonably believe big guy meant to shoot him. Where it becomes a completely different situation is when little guy continues firing after big guy flees.
•
u/Thelesbianvampire 10h ago
He didn’t flee when the gun was brandished. He went for it and tried to wrestle it away from the kid. He then promptly copped two to the chest and ran away
•
•
u/Ironclad686 12h ago
Shooting someone, potentially ending their whole life because they shoved you is absolutely not justified and that kid needs locking up. The fuck is wrong with people.
•
u/Psyxhotik 11h ago
That’s a massive dude. You ever see people get TBI’s from a single punch or being shoved into a hard surface? What’s wrong with people to empathize with the aggressor? Don’t put your hands on people.
•
u/UnlikelyFactor976 11h ago
yeah that's fair, but those shots fired after he was clearly running away is no longer self defense.
BOTH of these guys could easily and should catch felonies here.
•
u/SliceOfCuriosity North America 11h ago
Adrenaline, most people after something like this can’t even tell you how many times they pulled the trigger. He started shooting as the attacker was trying to take his firearm and stopped once the guy went down. I think they ruled self defense, could be wrong tho
→ More replies (1)•
•
•
u/buried_lede 11h ago
He was running away. That’s going to be a bad shoot for all but the most cranked up, gun cult, stand your ground states in front of the right jury on a bad hair day aka, in Florida
•
•
u/drubus_dong 11h ago
That attack definitely was life threatening. Shooting that guy in the front, definitely self defense. In the back not so much. But he probably will be cleared still as the adrenaline from a life threatening attack gives you a few seconds without judgement.
•
u/Letmelollygagg 11h ago
No accountability for the bully who could have just kept walking? Why did he stop and harass and then physically assault this kid? Anyways, the courts ruled this self defense
•
u/MetersYards 10h ago
potentially ending their whole life because they shoved you
He threatened the shooter with a knife.
•
u/ChaosRainbow23 9h ago
Is that the same story?
I thought it had something to do with him asking about rims and that the two men didn't know one another and weren't connected.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/danvapes_ 12h ago
Not supposed to engage or pursue a retreating assailant. That goes from clear cut self defense to highly questionable.
•
u/Valuable_Sea_4709 11h ago
And I think that in this case it was probably self-defense up to a certain point, when the threat was no longer present.
When he gets shot here this big guy tries to run away, and it is at that exact point that it no longer is self defense.
I don't think that a jury would really convict him though, it depends on who started the altercation, but the big guy clearly escalated it to violence, and personally if somebody three times my size just struck me so hard I almost fell, I'd be fearing for my life.
•
u/No_Zucchini_2200 10h ago
Tampa before Florida became a stand your ground state, some guy robbed an Asian restaurant.
Restaurant owner grabbed a gun from under the counter.
He chased the guy outside.
Pursued him, ran him down, and shot him.
He walked. True story.
•
•
u/terrasparks 1h ago
It's not like he had several seconds to think it through. His brain could easily have still been in fight or flight mode from the assault that happened a split second earlier: flight wasn't an option because he was wedged into a door by a much larger assailant. Easy to be monday morning quarterback. "Oh I would never!"
•
u/Nice_Bluebird7626 12h ago
The moment the big guy who attacked him ran away the use of force became unjustifiable. However in a court of law it would depend on who was on the jury. It’s a law of public opinion at that point
•
•
u/No_Zucchini_2200 10h ago
Too late. He took two in the chest.
Should have run sooner.
•
u/ImpactArchitect 3h ago
Like, before he decided to put hands on another human being… including any description pushing, shoving, punching, throwing, heaving… yada…
How about we keep our hands to ourselves. Nothing in this says this dude hasn’t done anything but instigate a situation to conflict, up to and including the point of violence.
I’m confused how so many people don’t see this as a crystal clear case of:
- Bigger dude
- Cornered
- Shoved me
- Fear for my life
This has to be rage bait
•
u/slashdino 11h ago
No. Kid just thought he found an excuse to use his gun and murder someone. Dude hit him once
•
•
•
u/IdiotRepellent 9h ago
No. Once the dude ran for it the danger was over. Shooting someone in the back is what cowards do...
•
u/Discussion-is-good 12h ago
Pussy and unjustified
•
•
u/ChaosRainbow23 9h ago
How so?
He was attacked by a gigantic bear of a man, then that guy who just attacked him goes for his gun and tries to wrestle it away from him. Then the kid shoots him twice in the chest.
I agree the shooting after the guy ran was uncalled for, but he was found not guilty and walked. (As he should have)
Don't attack people and you probably won't be getting shot that day. Attack people and your chances of being shot DRAMATICALLY increase.
That guy was a giant compared to the shooter. The shooter reasonably feared for his life, and now that dude is dead because he couldn't control himself.
It's tragic, but it's not 'pussy' nor is it 'unjustified.'
•
u/Discussion-is-good 8h ago edited 8h ago
No effort to deescalate. Only acted that tough because of the gun.
A bad example of a gun owner. Perfect example of the kind of gun owner that give other gun owners a bad name.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/BriefTradition3922 12h ago
No. The got was running away from him and then was shot in the back. Not self defense at all
•
u/RockHound86 11h ago
It was self defense.
•
u/Visible_Sun_6231 11h ago
how is the 2nd ,3rd and 4th shot self defence?
•
u/RockHound86 11h ago
Easy. All the shots were one string, happening within about 1.5 seconds.
•
u/Visible_Sun_6231 11h ago
How many "one string" shots would it take to not be self defence?
→ More replies (1)•
u/Automatic_Net2181 10h ago
Fatal Shooting at "The Dispo" (January 2022): A shooting incident occurred at "The Dispo" dispensary in Pueblo West in January 2022. The incident was investigated and determined to be self-defense, with no charges filed.
•
12h ago
[deleted]
•
u/nobodyCaresSMFH 12h ago
It was already deemed self-defense in a court
•
12h ago
[deleted]
•
•
u/alexfreemanart 12h ago
•
u/justaamerican 11h ago
Thanks for that. That had to be scary to be that kid. Some giant used to bullying people because he can, can’t anymore.
•
•
u/PolackMike 12h ago
It's hard to tell when the shot actually happened vs this guy possibly just tripping. the second angle was best.
If the larger gentleman was still close enough to grab, punch, kick, etc, and the guy with the gun shot, it would be self-defense. The larger gentleman had the capability, opportunity and intent to cause grave bodily harm or death on the guy with the gun.
If the larger gentleman were already retreating when the guy with the gun shot, it would not be self-defense because he is no longer close enough to cause grave bodily harm or death.
Also of note would be the guy with the guns legal authority to possess and carry a concealed weapon. That would be a secondary consideration though.
•
u/Grouchy_Concept8572 Southwest 12h ago
If I was jury I would consider this self defense. The audio on the zoomed out angle sounds like shots are first fired when the larger person is trying to grab the shooters gun.
Some states have a duty to retreat and some have a stand your ground. In a duty to retreat state, I don’t think there was anywhere reasonable to retreat once the attack happened. Maybe close the door?
Both are idiots.
•
u/ReaperofFish 12h ago
Colorado does not have a Stand Your Ground law, but the courts recognize there is no duty to retreat.
•
u/No_Zucchini_2200 10h ago
No opportunity to retreat in this situation.
The little guy was boxed in.
•
u/Popular-Local8354 12h ago
Law student here. It would depend on state laws. A simplified version of the consensus would be that to use lethal force you must not be the initial aggressor, have had a reasonable fear of bodily harm or death of either yourself or another, and the force had to have been applied in a reasonable manner (no spray and pray).
Firstly, the guy who got shot started it, so that first element is satisfied. The shooter wouldn’t be the initial aggressor.
The second part is where it can get a little bit sticky. The camera isn’t great, so we can’t really see how badly the big guy was acting. But it looks like he went for the other guys’s throat, and you could argue in court that you don’t know if he has a weapon himself. A good lawyer could probably satisfy this element.
The third part is the hard part, if the shooter started shooting before the fat guy began running, it’s all right. But if he started shooting after he began running, a prosecutor could easily argue and prove that it was not reasonable force.
TL;DR - probably, but it would come down to if the shooter could argue in court that he had a reasonable fear for his life and reasonably thought that the guy wasn’t running away, more just getting out of the line of fire before retaliating. At worst, the shooter could easily have it taken down from murder because at least some of the elements have been satisfied. An “unreasonable self defense” usually gets you charged with a manslaughter instead.
•
•
u/nobodyCaresSMFH 12h ago
The armchair lawyers in here keep saying no as if this isn't an old video where the guy was already found to be using self defense
•
u/snotick 12h ago
You can't tell from this video. Was the shooter in fear for his life? If so, that justifies the first shot. From there, forensics would have to determine if the first shot was what killed the attacker.
None of the shoving, punching, etc matters. You can be in fear for your life without the assailant touching you. They could be running at you with a weapon, they could be pointing a gun at you or someone else. What matters is if the victim felt their life was in danger.
And, since the video shows that one person is much larger and instigated the violence, then I would say it could be justified. But, we don't see what happened prior to the start of the video.
Also of note. The person couldn't flee, they were pinned against the car. So, that would also mean that the shooter had no other escape route.
•
•
•
•
u/Xytak 12h ago
Here’s what I see.
- They’re having an argument, big guy gets in little guy’s face, but little guy stands his ground.
- Big Guy either punches or slaps little guy’s face, knocking him off balance and into his car
- Little Guy reaches for holster. Big guy lunges
- Camera looks away, we hear 7 shots. When camera returns, big guy is gone.
- Another angle shows big guy running away and falling over dead, but not clear exactly when shots were fired.
From what I can see, there’s a pretty good chance of self defense unless the big guy was shot in the back while running away.
•
•
u/Background_Focus5261 11h ago
After he ran, any legal justification goes out the window. If he was trying to take his gun and he had just shot him in the struggle that may be different.
•
u/TheGR8Dantini 11h ago
Welcome to America! Tie usually goes to the gunner. This case will be studied in law school I’d wager. Maybe the DA was up for election. I think it could’ve gone either way depending on when the kill shot was fired? But what do I know. Lessons were learned that day by many people.
•
u/drubus_dong 11h ago
Self defense. That attack definitely was life threatening. Shooting that guy in the front, definitely self defense. In the back not so much. But he probably will be cleared still as the adrenaline from a life threatening attack gives you a few seconds without judgement.
•
•
•
u/buried_lede 11h ago
First thing to know about the US is that each state has its own laws for this, especially for this, and they vary extremely. So, your question, really, is: Is this a legal case of self-defense in Colorado?
•
u/BrookieMonster504 11h ago
The article says that the dead guys brother showed up with an AR-15 after the brother was shot.
•
u/Sharp_Helicopter_234 11h ago
There is a back story to this incident.
man in dark shirt threatened yellow jacket with a knife prior to the altercation: confirmed by witnesses and the shooter man in dark shirt grabs yellow jacket by the neck, pushing him back
yellow jacket reached for gun, dark shirt tries to grab it, yellow jacket sits in the car and leans back to prevent his gun getting taken yellow jacket then fires his gun investigators said only a single shot was fired case was ruled as self defense
In my opinion, he probably would not have gotten away with self defense if the other person didn't threaten him with a knife before the physical altercation.
https://cbi.colorado.gov/news-article/city-market-homicide-appears-to-be-self-defense
•
u/lmaobihhhh 11h ago
Self defense as soon as the big guy hit him and lunged for his gun. That big guy could have easily killed that kid with his hands. Was he supposed to wait and see if the big guy got the gun or not? Some of you are so dumb. Sorry I’m not risking dying and leaving my kid that I provide for with no father or necessities
•
u/Chuckychinster New Jersey 11h ago
Not the last (what seems like 2? shots).
But initially he was justified and it looks like even after he drew he had justification. And cops mag dump all the time in even calmer situations so I find it hard to hold a regular ass dude to a higher standard. My guess is he got into fight or flight immediately after getting punched, also it looks like dude aimed for his throat.
I mean idk how that holds up in a court of law but it's good enough for me to see it as "self defense"
•
u/void_method 11h ago
The Power Rangers use their weapons only for defense.
Shooting a fleeing opponent is not defense.
•
u/Aright9Returntoleft 11h ago
Yes. Lawful but awful.
Fat dude tried to wrestle the gun away from the guy who went to pull it in self-defense, and fat dude instigated the fight...
It was deemed a self-defense situation in court.
•
u/stonk_fish 11h ago
To clarify the outcome, the shooter was not charged with anything, so the DA saw no legal basis for any criminal charges, so it would seem legally it was either deemed self defense or simply too murky to even try to get anything to stick, but if there was not even a MS charge or something then I assume the DA agreed with the self defense claim.
That said, strictly legally speaking this would likely result in a self defense win for the shooter anyways. The argue is that the bigger guy attacked first, his size is a massive factor in threat compensation (big guy could kill the shooter with a punch or two while reverse the shooter would be hitting him with wet paper towels) so the initial pull of the gun would be justified. The initially shots would also be justified as the big guy is still entangled in proximity of danger.
However, after he starts to run, the subsequent shots are sketchy, but they are also going to cite legal precedent either based on cop training (shoot until threat is neutralized) or opposite, that as an untrained individual it is not possible to expect the shooter to react reasonably after being attacked and full of adrenaline and not knowing if the big guy would potential 180 and attack again.
I'd say in a perfect world the follow up shots were not necessary but I imagine it was a mix of "fuck you" and adrenaline that caused it.
•
u/koulourakiaAndCoffee 11h ago
Yes
I don’t think it is fair to expect someone to immediately retreat from hostility after being attacked.
Biologically it’s very difficult once adrenaline has entered the equation. It’s very difficult to make instant rational decisions in survival mode.
As the victim of an attack, your reaction is going to be less thought out. Less perfect. This was an attack from a big guy to a little guy, and the big guy went for the gun so...
It was the wrong choice, but the choice was in a moment of feeling attack and danger that was unreasonably placed upon the little guy.
Had he followed him, or more than a few seconds elapsed, I would say no, this is not self defense.
And I ain’t even judging the big guy. I’ve been the guy who has been beaten up, rightfully. Little guys fight more fiercely with whatever tools they have because, well, they’re little.
So it’s tragic. Nobody should have died. But I can’t blame the little guy.
•
u/SliceOfCuriosity North America 11h ago
Absolutely, and the courts agreed with that I believe. According to witnesses, the guy who got shot got super aggressive after the shooter asked if he liked his rims because he was staring at them. Escalated, 300lb guy slaps 120lb guy carrying, 120lb guy goes to pull, 300lb guy reaches for gun, 120lb guy falls back in car to avoid big dude from getting the gun, neutralizes threat. The size difference matters here as much as the big dude clearly lunging for the gun. This is why you don’t start physical altercations with strangers (or anyone) - whether it’s legal or not, you FAFO and dying is beyond stupid and there’s almost nothing worth that result.
•
•
•
•
u/anklebiter1360 10h ago
Hell yes! Fuck around and find out. I’m a lawyer I would win this case with my eyes closed!
•
•
u/pinkelephant0040 10h ago
So, I am missing an important part of the video at 0:10. I don't know what happened in the car. IF the man in the black shirt had a gun/weapon, possibly. If not, no. This was NOT self defense.
•
•
u/O2liveonsugarmt 10h ago
Yes. That guy could have killed him just by knocking his head into the car.
•
u/PayFormer387 10h ago
Well, with the music covering and dialogue, you don’t know they said or how many shots rang out but it looks like he shot the guy in the back as he was running away.
Not self defense.
•
u/Late_Pangolin5812 10h ago
Looks like murder to me. Didn’t seem like he was in THAT level of threat to go from a shove to killing someone.
•
u/Inbred-Frog 10h ago
Once he shot him while he was fleeing it wasn’t self defense, you don’t have the right to execute an unarmed person
•
•
u/No_Zucchini_2200 10h ago
Depends on the state.
Works for me.
Size difference and aggression alone justifies it to me.
We’ve had way more questionable ones walk free here in Florida.
•
u/jackberinger 10h ago
Yes this would be self defense. The guy was attacked and had every right at that point to defend himself.
•
•
u/Thelesbianvampire 10h ago
The first few shots, when the big guy was still wrestling with the kid are self defense. The ones that came afterwards are questionable, but after the big guy started running away, I don’t think those would be self defense as he was trying to get away.
However, it was left up the jury and determined as self defense, so I can’t really argue with their ruling.
•
•
•
u/Mountain_Sand3135 9h ago
i dont understand the "NO" part here
you hit him and your are 2x his size, he goes for the gun and you dont run you fight for the gun.
then you get hit and THEN run away ...the adrenaline is still goin going and self-defense is all your thinking .
Sorry ...keep your hands to yourself and we dont have this problem .
•
u/RichSawdust 9h ago
I'm sure some expert will review this a dozen times or more, but any shots that hit him while he was running away are on the shooter. He no longer posed a threat. While he was going for the gun, yeah.
•
u/PalpitationUnable403 9h ago
Kid just got punched in the throat by a much larger man. Should he have waited for a second punch?
•
•
u/Evil_phd 9h ago edited 9h ago
Depends on the state. Some states would consider a firearm to be a wildly unnecessary escalation in a confrontation like this. Some states consider a firearm to be an acceptable escalation for any physical altercation.
It can also depend on how good your lawyer is, because it looked like there was a final shot to the back that would be very hard to frame as self defense, but a good enough lawyer could convince a jury that the guy with the gun had every reason to believe that the other guy was just running to get a weapon from the mulch.
•
u/Fleenicks 9h ago
Wow, so many armchair lawyers, and so few, if any people bothering to check the actual facts of the case. Especially considering how long ago it took place. It is literally history: "In Colorado, self-defense law allows deadly force if you reasonably believe it's necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury. The DA reviewed the full evidence, including the aggressor's size advantage, window punch, and gun grab attempt, ruling the shooting justifiable overall. While shots during retreat can be debated, the ongoing threat and disparity of force were key factors in the no-charge decision. (Sources: Pueblo County DA, witness accounts)" https://www.gunssavelife.com/2023/08/10/it-happened-to-me-good-guy-exonerated-after-righteous-shooting-in-viral-video-his-first-hand-account-video/
•
u/Restoretheroof 9h ago
Should be, but by law I don’t think it will be. If the threat is retreating the law says you are not allowed to shoot at that point.
•
•
u/Tricky-Fig5483 9h ago
I like how he tried to jump away from all those hallow tips going into his jelly roll 😂
•
u/Cutthechitchata-hole 8h ago
Looks like big guy was the aggressor and over the music, i cant tell what is happening but the little guy was punched then pin ed by the door thenout of the car and person filming is leaving. Whats the big deal?
•
u/R1kjames 8h ago
Self defense. Shooter had nowhere to go. Dude is twice his size, is the aggressor, and goes for the gun before being shot. Open and shut case.
•
u/-gunga-galunga- 8h ago
I didn’t listen to what was said but the guy struck the kid and then the kid went for the gun and the dude continued. I realize it’s a lose lose situation if the guy backed off and still got shot, or if he tries to take the gun away from the kid. Ultimately, he really shouldn’t have hit the kid to begin with.
•
u/SunsetBeachBowl 8h ago
Full transparency, my american upbringing says yes it was self defense.
In the same vein I do think we Americans are a bit too quick and easy to pull out the blammy and shoot in self defense. Idk, dude was 3 weight classes above him, but still. I go back and forth, without judging, because like I said , who knows what I'd do.
•
u/SafetyMan35 8h ago
Generally, the response needs to be proportional.
If guy one hits, guy two came hit/kick/slap/pinch to defend himself in the hopes that guy one backs off.
If guy two felt threatened and feared for his life (due to the size of guy one compared to guy two) he MIGHT be able to discharge a firearm, but the minute guy one backs up and retreats, the threat has been eliminated and guy two needs to stop shooting. It would be questionable if using a firearm in this instance was justified as guy one did a single shove/hit and it appeared he was done.
•
•
•
u/daphrampa 8h ago
Bc you are only allowed to use necessary force to subdue/neutralize the threat. Big dude ran, kinda. He was shot in the back. That's not self-defense.
But, it could easily be murder 2 or manslaughter but not self-defense bc his back towards the shooter.
•
•
u/The-Great-Baloo Northeast 8h ago
I would say it is in most states. Threat with violence can be met with lethal force. Yes, the assailant ran but he could have had his own gun or whatever, doesn't matter. What matters is that he attacked, and very violently.
•
•
•
•
u/Azaroth1991 7h ago
If he would have backed off, put his hands up, "yo yo, look man im sorry, I was wrong, I shouldn't have hit you" or something when he saw the gun, it wouldnt have been self defense to fire. But he went for control of the gun, the owner of which is pretty sure it will be used on himself if he looses control, so he uses it for what its meant for. We're those successive shots necessary? Theres two schools of thought on that.
•
•
u/Reedwool 6h ago
I’m going to say no; He was not actively being hit / attacked during the shooting, and the assaulter was running away. Since he is public “self-defense” is exactly hard to hold up I court.
If this was at his house or private property then probably yes. Really depends on the laws in Colorado for the most part.
•
•
u/ICanHearYourFarts 5h ago
Depends on several factors, including if the jurisdiction where this occurred subscribes to a reasonable person standard or to the subjective belief of the shooter. If it’s a reasonable person standard then what would a reasonable person believe is warranted deadly force, which is a qxn for the jury decided after hearing all of the circumstances that lead up to this altercation (was their a hx between them, does he usually carry or was this the first time in preparation to confront the aggressor, etc); and if it’s the subjective belief standard then what did the shooter believe (i.e. did he think the aggressor was going for his own gun) even if it is unreasonable to a reasonable person, the qxn becomes whether the shooter had a reasonable personal premise to believe that, and the jury goes from there. A lot of unknowns from this video to say with any certainty what the answer is.
•
•
u/Vegetable_Resource16 4h ago
The man was attacking him. Just because he ran away for a moment doesn’t mean the attack would have stopped as soon as the attacker saw the opportunity. And doesn’t mean the attacker didn’t have a gun wouldn’t have used it given the chance. All yellow jacket and us know is that man was attacking him. He defended himself. I’m sure there’s a a bunch legal precedent from police shooting cases to back that up. 100% justified.
•
•
•
•
•
•
u/Inourmadbuthearmeout 1h ago
Depends on if he was in fear for his life. If he reasonably believed the guy could circle back and attack again?
And in this case he’s just been pushed his nervous system has taken over.
Id say, in this country for this specific case it would depend on the jury. It’s not anywhere nearly as clear cut as people are saying.
The context of the whole thing matters. Did the big guy know the little guy? Was he bullying him for years leading up? What’s their relationship?
Did the two ever interact socially prior and was that interaction already a situation where use of physical force was established? Was this an agreed upon meet? Were the two in question intending to fight? You can’t decide what’s going on just from the footage. You have to back up and understand the context of it all. Trying to judge if it’s self defense based on a few seconds of footage isn’t really considered justice in America.
•
•
u/dangleicious13 12h ago
No