What justifies lethal force?

The shooter was security. I haven’t seen the entire scenario on video.

If the deceased was harassing the press and security stepped in, then in my view the shooting may (may) have been justified.

I want the entire scenario.


Sooo… if you’re the press (instigators of violence and unrest) and are threatened, your “security” can step in and shoot the person harassing you… and that’s justified. And if you’re police and a suspect shoots at you, you return fire and kill the person, that’s homicide… according to the press (instigators of violence and unrest). Makes sense…


I’ve read your reply a couple of times and I don’t understand what you’re saying.

I think you’re saying that you disagree with the media portraying police shootings as homicides. If so, I agree.


Here’s are two good article on “Police use of force” and the “Use of force continuum” that law enforcement are expected to follow. Keep in mind, some of this is not generally applicable outside law enforcement because we, as civilians, will not be called to address situations involving third parties, although anyone could face these situations.

As for your question @Greg35, no, don’t just throw out the pepper spray. If someone is yelling at you and is approaching you in an aggressive manner, pepper spray may very well be the first choice depending upon the situation. If it is an 80 pound snowflake, you may never show a weapon, presence, demeanor and verbal commands may be enough. If it is a 400 pound sumo wrestler, the situation is very different, as is the demeanor of the potential assailant. As the article points out, use of force is a continuum. Things can go from physical presence to deadly force in a moment and then deescalate just as quickly.

The toughest part in the civilian world is that most of us are not wearing a duty belt with pepper spray, a baton, a taser, handcuffs, a firearm (or two), several spare magazines and a radio. Our tool belts are condensed based upon the probability of the types of encounters we are likely to experience.


This is very much why I only carry a gun as a defensive weapon. I’m not going to have the time to determine “which of my tools is a proportional response to this specific threat?” It’s either life & death, or it’s not.


I would say no on what I have seen. The dead guy was far away and the shooter had his gun drawn from the outset. When I worked security the job was 'Observe and Report" and to retreat from danger. It may be different if it was a cop who had his pepper spray taken away and it was used against him because the threat went up and the cop lost one of his means for protection. This guard is screwed. A license to carry as a guard is not a hunting license.


As almost always is the case, initial information is incomplete or often or flat out wrong.

“Social media accounts that appear to be connected to Dolloff show that he participated in Occupy protests in Denver and supported the Black Lives Matter movement. Those accounts frequently shared posts from left-wing media outlets such as The Young Turks, and criticized Trump—whom he called a fascist—and also indicated support for self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a former Democratic presidential candidate.”

He was hired as security but appears to not have been licensed in Denver to work security, much less one who was armed. Even Pinkerton says he wasn’t their employee, but instead a “contractor”. Sounds like the news station that hired him, either through Pinkerton, or otherwise, is going to have to answer to that.

“We are in the process of still gathering information to better understand the incident that occurred in Denver on October 10 involving a contractor agent,” the statement says. “The agent in question is not a Pinkerton employee. Pinkerton is fully cooperating with law enforcement authorities in their investigation of this matter.”

Do you think maybe his political beliefs and social media activities will be used against any self-defense argument he presents? Bet it will. How about his training and experience as a security guard? Yep. What his purpose for being there and how he was hired? Sure.

As always, self defense cases will be examined and evaluated on all information and facts available. Not simply, “Dude had pepper spray” and “Dude shot dude that had pepper spray”.

I for one have not drawn a conclusion on “good shoot/bad shoot”. Even if information comes out that leads me to think “good shoot”, he could STILL be successfully prosecuted and found guilty.


No, he just told the truth. Could you please give the police subject a freakin rest. You are a broken record. We get it already. Good grief!

Done! I get it. Free speech is one-way.

1 Like

So, now its looking like the “guard” may have been approaching the pepper sprayer in an aggressive, threatening manner ??? Am I reading something wrong?

It is not one way, you know better than that. Being so relentless and repetitive hurts your argument and seems excessive. But hey, it’s your deal. Have at it. As I type this I realize that I really don’t care. I wont bother you again. Bash them at will.


You are correct. My apologies.


No apologies needed brother warrior. I am sorry to have been so rough to you. I enjoy all your other posts very much. You are a patriot.


I will let the court decide what justified lethal force in this case or not.

A good question though, is what causes lethal force application? Getting in the face of a security guard on the job with mace – I guarantee you some force application, up to the security guard if it will be a baton to the head, or worse. It does not seem like the TV crew was chasing after protesters and beating them with their lenses, so the guard was doing his job. Irrespective of what he posted on the Web.


More info on Colorado case:


As a stand-alone, I could probably agree with that. However, if it was in a riot/protest situation when there are a lot of highly emotionally-charged people, it might be a tool to help inflict grave bodily harm… kind of what @Danny28 is saying:

But since we weren’t there, we don’t know. So I’ll agree with @FarmerFrank’s comment:

And then we can consider what the reasonable person may have done in a similar situation. :thinking:

A lot of differing, interesting points brought up so far! :+1:


What’s interesting, is I always considered the pepper spray to be a “get off my back “ type non lethal weapon. It’s the first line of defense I issued my daughters, now they carry both, lethal and non lethal.
Unfortunately our thinking process needs to change as well as ROE!
Never, until now had I thought about it as spray, then shoot. So, in the case of mob violence it may be used as a lethal incapacitating weapon to ultimately stop a threat!


In Kentucky the definition of "deadly weapon includes “Any knife other than an ordinary pocket knife or hunting knife” but does not further define an ordinary pocket knife or hunting knife. Knife is on the list right after firearms and before clubs.


There’s that pesky “reasonable person” getting in here again! To be convicted of a felony in Kentucky you must be found guilty by 12 jurors, “reasonable people” and your peers. Our justice system, although not perfect, is the best in the world. But the reality is that reasonable people disagree and jury pools are filled with many people we would agree are reasonable and many who we would not. In criminal cases a lot depends on which reasonable people you sit on your jury.


I understand and agreed… about 10 years back I had jury duty, 2 times. I found that every person on those juries wanted to do their best to abide by the judge’s instructions and be truly impartial and fair. I would still rather not have to face any jury, though!!!