Matthew Dolloff pinkerton denver shooting
This photo provided by the Denver Police Department shows Matthew Dolloff. Police identified on Sunday, Oct. 11, 2020, a 30-year-old man as the suspect in a fatal shooting that took place in downtown Denver during dueling protests. Matthew Dolloff, a private security guard working for local television station KUSA TV, was being held for investigation of first degree murder in connection with Saturday afternoon's shooting, Denver police said in a social media post. (Denver Police Department via AP)
Previous Post
Next Post

Protests escalating into violent situations were all the rage in 2020, and unfortunately there was no shortage of related deaths. On the self-defense side of the scales, the most visible incident was that of Kyle Rittenhouse, of course. But the shooting of aggressive protestor Lee Keltner by security guard Matthew Dolloff certainly made waves in the news when it happened.

Looks like Denver prosecutors have [finally] decided this was such a clear-cut case of self-defense that they’re dropping all charges. From CBS4 Denver:

“I can confirm that having fully considered the facts and circumstances surrounding the charges, today we informed Lee Keltner’s family members that we will soon dismiss the criminal case against Matthew Dolloff.  In line with our ethical obligations, we cannot overcome the legal justifications of self-defense or defense of others. We are not able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” stated Carolyn Tyler, Communications Director for the Denver District Attorney’s Office.

This was an interesting case as 2020 went, in that the decedent appeared to have been part of a right-wing, counter-BLM protest. Politics have no party when it comes to justified self-defense, though I do wonder how the cookie would have crumbled should Dolloff have shot someone on the other side of the political spectrum.

 

Previous Post
Next Post

131 COMMENTS

    • The victim was neither rioting nor violent, but that’s an interesting way of admitting that you know nothing about the case in question.

        • The deceased did not initiate the attack. The shooter was the initiator/initial physical qggressor.

      • This is the guy who was shot through his sunglasses? Mmmmm. I’ve watched that video multiple times. A whole bunch of people who thought they were all badasses confronting each other, nobody backing down. It ain’t clear cut, at all. They should have gone after the television crew, and proved that their intent was to instigate violence. Conspiracy to riot, stuff like that.

        There were no innocents involved.

        • Oh, there’s no doubt that the deceased was acting like an asshole. He played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. But that doesn’t change the fact that the use of deadly force against him was not legally justifiable.

        • “But that doesn’t change the fact that the use of deadly force against him was not legally justifiable.”

          Exactly, Keltner should’ve never pointed the bear spray at Dollof.

        • I can’t tell if this is satire Miner. If you think bear spray is deadly force, then how do you feel about frozen water bottles and bricks? Now that I think about it, I seem to remember BLM-Antifa rioters using lots of bear/pepper spray during the Summer of Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protests. You would be on here defending every cop and right winger that shot to kill every lefty using those deadly force weapons, correct?

        • Dude, I believe our friend Ken posted a good explanation below:

          “When it is used in an attack, it is considered to be deadly force. The presumption is that the attacker uses it to compromise the victim’s ability to defend himself before going on to commit aggravated battery or murder. (The logic is similar to breaking into an occupied dwelling. The presumption is that breaking in demonstrates the intruder’s willingness to harm the occupants.)”

        • But according to reports, the victim was armed with a gun. If you want to kill someone, and you have a gun, then you reach for the gun first. He was also trying to create distance by backing away. All the killer had to do was take a few steps back, and the situation would be over. He could have walked away. The killer was also the first person to lay hands on someone. By the way, initial reporting stated the “security guard” said he saw the victim reach for something, as in he thought he was drawing a gun. The bullet was in the victim before the spray was on the shooter.

          “The presumption is that the attacker uses it to compromise the victim’s ability to defend himself before going on to commit aggravated battery or murder.”

          What sort of precedent are you reading from? I’ve never heard that people should presume that. Post a link if you have it.

        • To be fair, someone points a bear spray at me, I will shoot him. Argue other stuff later.

      • I’m really surprised a Denver DA wouldn’t take their chances at a trial. I don’t know about the case but something must not be clear cut.

        • It’s almost as if it has nothing to do with whether or not they think they can win the case. Maybe they should have flown in the DA from Kenosha to take a crack at it.

        • muckraker When you don’t know about a case the best thing to do is just shut up!

        • He shot the right guy.
          Rittenhouse shot the wrong guys.( life, had it not been for video evdnce)
          Examples must be made.

  1. RE: “We are not able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” stated Carolyn Tyler, Communications Director for the Denver District Attorney’s Office.”

    Who needs a courtroom, a judge and a jury when “We” is around?

    • “Protest”…LOL. Too bad more BLM n Antifools didn’t get popped.“

      No BLM protesters got “popped”, it was a right wing conservative who achieved the “room temperature challenge” as y’all put it.

      “This was an interesting case as 2020 went, in that the decedent appeared to have been part of a right-wing, counter-BLM protest“

      I’m surprised everyone here isn’t celebrating, an American citizen used his Second Amendment rights to successfully defend his life from a violent attacker, bravo!

      Oh wait, the citizen exercising his right to self-defense was not a member of your tribe?

      And it was a violent member of your tribe who was perforated, well, that makes it all different…

      • Minor MINER49er A “right wing conservative’? How do you know his political outlook? Are you psychic? We do not have a “tribe”; we are all citizens. But if as a citizen you abuse the rights of other citizens, you get what your hand calls for.

        • TYpical . There is legitimate excuse to use the death of anyone as an example of levity, ignorance and political extremism.

          I have no doubt at all that if RITTENHOUSE had been an AFRO AMERICAN and the victim WHITE, RITTENHOUSE would have gone to trial and have been put before a JURY OF HIS PEERS. it is up to that Jury to decide guilt or otherwise not a JUDGE.
          Even though I admit to being no expert on American jurisprudence I caanot see than and UNDERAGE teenager with an ILLEGAL firearm supplied to him ILLEGALLY by another person cannot have a case to answer to, Not old enough to have a glass ob f beer but old enough to shoot somebody and get away with it. If he’s not a mass-shooter in the making I’ll eat my figurative hat. Only in Amwerica

        • Expert on American jurisprudence? Heck, you should try just getting your facts straight about the Rittenhouse trial. It was all public. That you can get so much wrong, even now, is amazing.

        • Albert Hall, First of all you are a BRIT and what happens here in the USA is none of your damned business.

          Second, I don’t give a rat’s behind about your “if’s” . It seems you like most radical Leftists love to try to play the race card.

          Third, just remember that we throw off the yoke of British rule in 1776 and we don’t intend to go back.

          Fourth, just remember it was the United States of America that saved your Leftist posteriors in WWII.

          Fifth, as you are a Brit what happens in our justice system is none of your business. If you want to change things here, immigrate here, become a citizen and get off your lazy arse.

      • “And it was a violent member of your tribe who was perforated, well, that makes it all different…”
        Jawohl, Mein Fuhrer! Herr 49er is always right! The a death of a human being is okay as long as it is one of conservative thought. Herr 49er is a brilliant and articulate and highly intelligent conversationalist. Heil Mein Fuhrer!

        • The same way many people here accuse leftys, muslims and black people of crimes before their identity is known.

        • Arch Stanton and johna, We know who the people who are committing crimes are. It would be those who like you have committed the ultimate crime of TREASON with your disdain for the USA, the US flag and the Constitution.

      • Minor MINER49er Not hardly, the only people who usually engage in riotous conduct at a “demonstration” are you Leftist ANTIFA thugs.

        • Tell me Walt, was this riotous mob composed of antifa or BLM members:

          “It is sometimes difficult to tell when a lynching is a lynching. Often a “neck-tie party” was accompanied by an impromptu court which considered itself, and was considered by the community, legal. In Coffey county “a mob held trial and asked those in favor of death to pass to the right of the building and those against to the left. Nine-tenths went to the right.”[10] In Atchison in April, 1863, a mob took possession of the jail and courthouse for a week; they held court and tried each prisoner, with four or five lynchings as the result.[11] The people banded themselves into vigilance committees for the protection of themselves and their property, and death punishment by these committees was seldom considered illegal. In those days the squatters’ courts were as much respected and as effective as the government courts.“

          https://www.kshs.org/p/history-of-lynchings-in-kansas/12580

        • Minor MINER49er Again with the race card. You are talking about something that happened how many years ago?

          If you recall we fought a civil war over states’ rights and slavery. Or did you forget? I do believe that 1863 was a period during that civil war?

          Lefty, get a frickin’ grip.

        • Minor MINER49er I remind your sorry posterior of the riots, looting and murders during the riots of 2020, or did you somehow forget? Trash like you should be deposited in the dump.

        • “I do believe that 1863 was a period during that civil war?“

          Sorry Walt, but it’s not just ancient history. I guarantee your grandpa and grandma knew about innocent Black people being murdered by white mobs.

          ON April 18, 1932, Kansas was shocked by the lynching of Robert Read, in Rawlins county. Not since April 19, 1920, twelve years before, when Albert Evans was hanged at Mulberry, Crawford county, had there been a lynching in Kansas.“

          New York state did not consider anti-lynching legislation until 1938.

          https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=5631&context=lawreview

          The amnesia most white Americans have regarding white on black violence in America is fascinating.

        • “The amnesia most white Americans have regarding white on black violence in America is fascinating.”

          Indeed Herr 49er! Just like Shitcago – “The crime rate in Chicago is considerably higher than the national average across all communities in America from the largest to the smallest…” This from the Real Estate demographics website. Oops and a reminder, 90% of that crime is black on black. Huh? Jawohl, Mein Herr. Field Marshall Hunter Biden has stated that you are a modern day “Paul Joseph Goebbels who was a German Nazi politician who was the Gauleiter of Berlin, chief propagandist for the Nazi Party, and then Reich Minister of Propaganda from 1933 to 1945.” This from Wikipedia the most leftist of information websites. Heil 49er!

        • Minor MINER49er I beg to differ. 1863 is over 160 yrs ago. You Leftists love to live in the past. It’s almost like your pride and joy. I can guarantee that my grandparents and my great grandparents did not know anyone who was lynched.

          Your “anti-lynching laws” Please tell me what purpose do they serve? If I recall correctly, lynching would be considered murder? This is another one of you Leftist’s love fest with ‘laws”. For some reason, you people think that if you pass a law you have done something. What a crock of you know what.

          i can tell you that there has been plenty and I do mean plenty of Black on White attacks. I can also tell you from my experience that there are FAR more Black racists per capita than there are White.

          I can tell you from experience that Whites are discriminated due to these dumb anti-discrimination laws setting quotas than you Lefties would care to admit. I personally was discriminated against when I took the Corrections Sergeant Exam in 1985. If you were Black you received FIVE BONUS points added to your raw score. I got a NATURAL 100 on the exam and well over 500 Black officers were promoted ahead of my due to their bonus points.

          If you are looking for sympathy for Black folks, you can look elsewhere. I could give a rat’s behind about a person’s pigmentation. All I care about is the kind of person you or anyone else is. MOST Americans feel the same way I do. Yes, there is some (very little) racism. But there is far more Black racism than there ever dared to be White.

          For your further edification I live in a racial mixed neighborhood.

          Now get off your damn high righteous high horse and come back on back down to terra firma. If you don’t know what terra firma is, look it up.

      • “it was a right wing conservative”

        Well, thank god it wasn’t a left wing conservative or a right wing progressive. It’s bad enough that I need to memorize a list of pronouns (he/she/its/they/them/youse guys) without needing to learn a new set of political labels too.

    • It’s sad the way BLM is driving us to hate each other.
      I dont know about other places but around these parts Blacks lives have always mattered just as well as anybody else’s an we all smiled and said “Howdie”and opened doors for each other ,then along comes BLM and me and the same guy acting different. Its getting better but there for awhile it sucked.
      Through Unity lies strength, racism divides that strength.
      .
      I hate you, you hate me
      It works so good for the powers that be
      With a nic nak, paddy wack
      Give a dog a bone.

      • “It’s sad the way BLM is driving us to hate each other.
        I dont know about other places but around these parts Blacks lives have always mattered just as well as anybody else’s an we all smiled and said “Howdie”and opened doors for each other ,then along comes BLM“

        Opossum, I don’t really think your ignorance of the actual facts or history or real your fault, I imagine the white control school system in Kansas suppressed the true history of racism in your state.

        If BLM didn’t exist until just a few years ago, how do you account for white folk killing blacks without just cause in Kansas?

        “History of Lynchings in Kansas
        Genevieve Yost

        May 1933 (Vol. 2, No. 2), pages 182 to 219
        Transcribed by lhn; HTML editing by Tod Roberts
        digitized with permission of the Kansas State Historical Society.

        Kansas Historical Quarterly, May 1932ON April 18, 1932, Kansas was shocked by the lynching of Robert Read, in Rawlins county. Not since April 19, 1920, twelve years before, when Albert Evans was hanged at Mulberry, Crawford county, had there been a lynching in Kansas.

        The newspapers, in reporting the story, desired a list of previous lynchings in the state, and a record of about fifty was very hurriedly compiled in the library of the Kansas State Historical Society. This list, when published, aroused the interest of papers and individuals and brought in additional items. The Russell Record headed a front-page story in the following issue of its paper with the line, “Hey! Russell had a lynching, too.”[1] Interest grew until it was decided to prepare a list of lynchings in Kansas which should be as complete as possible. Such a list is valuable, not merely for its numbers and dates, but, as this paper shows, because it reflects certain phases of the economic, social, and industrial development and growth of the state.

        This list has been compiled through histories, newspapers, recollections of early settlers, and associations interested in the subject, including the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, the National Association of Advancement for Colored People, the Tuskegee Institute, and the Southern Commission on the Study of Lynching. While these institutions are interested mainly from the standpoint of race prejudice, they have contributed valuable assistance. All accounts, whenever possible, have been checked by contemporary newspapers as a final authority.“

        If you have no memory of racism in Kansas you are either very young, or willfully ignorant of the facts of history.

        I bet your grandpa remembers innocent black folk being killed by white mobs, but I’m sure it’s something they don’t talk about.

        https://www.kshs.org/p/history-of-lynchings-in-kansas/12580

        • When I was young there were White Only water faucets at the football stadium. As a little kid I couldn’t understand that. The past is not the present.
          You cant tell me BLM didn’t drive a wedge between the races, because it did.

      • “You cant tell me BLM didn’t drive a wedge between the races, because it did“

        Tell me Opossum, which of these 2 factors played a greater role in the division between the ‘races’?

        Over 240 years of legalized slavery, beating, maiming and killing millions of innocent black folks, including children…

        Or five years of disorganized BLM protests?

        And help me to understand, why do only black presidential candidates need to show their birth certificate… Or only black judicial nominees need to show their LSAT scores?

        Does it have something to do with the BLM?

        • “which of these 2 factors played a greater role in the division between the ‘races’?”

          That’s easy. At the present time, it’s BLM and the associated identity politics and racism being pushed by Democrats. Slavery was outlawed before anyone alive today was born. Jim Crow laws have been illegal before most people alive today were born. Things were getting better. Race relations WERE improving. But there was too much easy money and power to be had. So they began picking at the scab for selfish reasons. Now we have segregation again to the delight of the Left. And here you are defending it.

        • Minor MINER49er, I can tell you that Black racism has put a big, humongeous wedge between White Folks and Black. Not to mention the Black Panther Party, the Black Liberation Army, etc.

          Slavery has been over for about 160 yrs, but you Leftists love to bring up old history to try to make a point which is no longer valid.

          I suggest that you come up with a viable program which the American people would want and get off the racism kick you seem to be on.

  2. “Far leftist unlicensed Pinkerton security guard who shot a man dead at a right wing protest for using bear mace is released with no charges, because shooting unruly protestors is okay when WE do it and the victim is right wing.”

    • Well, where’s SamIAm saying that this prohibited possessor having a gun proves he carries liability for the shooting?

      Jury would decide that and “Where’s the nearest bar” right SIA?

      Iconoclastic on………

      Enjoy that crow now. 👍

    • Pepper spray is considered to be less than deadly when used in defense. When it is used in an attack, it is considered to be deadly force. The presumption is that the attacker uses it to compromise the victim’s ability to defend himself before going on to commit aggravated battery or murder. (The logic is similar to breaking into an occupied dwelling. The presumption is that breaking in demonstrates the intruder’s willingness to harm the occupants.)

      • The pepper spray in this case was used in response to unlawful use/threat of use of force – i.e. in defense.

      • “When it is used in an attack, it is considered to be deadly force.”

        Just remember, when some Ahole gets in your mom’s face in a parking lot, and she deploys her pepper spray, Kendahl will defend said Ahole when he shoots your mom dead and walks.

      • Kendahl, for your edification, pepper spray and its derivatives are considered NONLETHAL uses of force. Please get an education.

        • “…pepper spray and its derivatives are considered NONLETHAL uses of force.”

          Actually, it’s considered to be ‘less than lethal’ force, still potentially lethal…

        • Geoff, everything is “potentially lethal”. The correct term is the one I used. “nonlethal” is used in police and military circles. I think I will stick with them.

          Chemical agents as a whole are not lethal unless the person against whom they are deployed is allergic to the agent. DM (if you know what that is) is outlawed as it can be lethal to many people.

    • Framing and lies by omission ROFLAMO. Pinkerton does not hire “Leftists” nor does it hire unlicensed people. Please do yourself a favor and just shut up

        • Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Whether he was a subcontractor’s employee or Pinkerton’s is immaterial.

  3. The real message from the prosecutors to the family of the dead bad guy: “reasonable doubt” may be too high of a bar (and we are running for reelection) so you can have a go at him. Lawsuit to follow.

    edit: forgot to add FJB!

    • Rusty-Always Carry-Chains Who are they going to sue? the DA? He’s exempt from such suits under the law. Sure the alleged defendant? You can’t get blood from a turnip.

  4. Interesting application of prosecutorial discretion. The accused unlawfully initiated physical force and escalated – something that is as clear as day based on video/images of the incident.

    If only such discretion were applied to all cases of ostensible self-defense, instead of only being applied based on political ideology, as it certainly appears to be the case here.

    • Mr Bennett, the “defendant” didn’t “unlawfully initiate physical force”. Videos are funny when they are cut and cropped to fit your agenda.

      • The videos show that the deceased was engaged in a verbal exchange with a media person. The security guard interjected himself into that exchange and assaulted (i.e. unlawfully initiated physical contact with) the deceased.

        The deceased was acting belligerently, but did not initiate the use of physical force in the incident.

        • Keltner pointed the bear spray at Dolloff, Dolloff deflected the bear spray aside before Keltner could spray him. Keltner responded by slapping Dolloff, Dolloff shot Keltner to prevent him from successfully deploying the pepper spray.

          Keltner should not have pointed the bear spray at any members of the news crew, they presented no threat so there was no justification for him to have the bear spray out and pointed at them.

        • Mr Bennett, I repeat we do not know that the video was not doctored to fit an agenda. Apparently, the DA knows what you do not.

        • Mr Bennett, I repeat we do not know that the video was not doctored to fit an agenda. Apparently, the DA knows what you do not.

          Total retardation.

          What aspect of the “doctored” video is not accurate, Walter? Is there any more threat to Dolloff than the bear spray, Walter? FO with your vague BS.

        • Yes, Anonomous you are totally retarded. Any video which is shown on the TV etc, is doctored to fit the time slot of the tv “news” show.
          Is that fact too much for your retarded brain to comprehend? Or are you just brain dead?

        • Yes, Anonomous you are totally retarded. Any video which is shown on the TV etc, is doctored to fit the time slot of the tv “news” show.
          Is that fact too much for your retarded brain to comprehend? Or are you just brain dead?

          Still waiting on you to watch the video while you vigorously debate here about it. Lots of videos are dropped on twitter/FB and are not edited for a TV time slot. Are you cool with me shooting your family members after they spray me with pepper spray? Enquiring minds want to know.

        • aononomous I will ask your sorry posterior again, have you watched the video? Are you expert enough (sic) to tell if it were doctored?

          You are all mouth and short on common sense.

  5. The video is what it is. As are the photographs.

    I’m actually okay with the application of prosecutorial discretion. My lament is that such discretion aopears to be applied based not nerely as a matter of law, but rather based on the ideologies of the parties involved.

    • Mr Bennett, do you know that MOST videos are routinely doctored to fit an agenda especially with the media?? In this case, the DA felt that he was unable to present prima facie case that would stand up to a jury and to an appeal. The laws on self defense in most states is pretty clear. When a DA subpoenas a video he gets the WHOLE thing, not just the parts that fit an agenda.

      While I have not seen the video, the only agenda that a DA has is to present a case where he has a REASONABLE chance for a conviction which will stand up to an appeal.

      • “the only agenda that a DA has”

        You actually believe that highly political people never have any other agendas? Like say, I don’t know, political agendas?

        • Dude, actually a District Attorney is required to uphold his oath of office which requires that he not prosecute people where there is EXCULPATORY evidence.

          Do you know what exculpatory means?

          While a defense attorney can lie, cheat etc, a District Attorney cannot.

          Did you know that?

        • “requires that he not prosecute people where there is EXCULPATORY evidence”

          I understand where you’re coming from, but the only exculpatory evidence they listed as their reason for dropping charges was available to the public to see before they charged him, which begs the question: why did they charge him to begin with? Don’t they consider the evidence before charging someone? I also don’t think we should blindly trust DA’s to uphold their oath of office.

          Did you know that they said one of the reasons they dropped the charges was because he was open carrying bear spray? Did they just figure that out? I saw an article where the DA’s office listed the reasons for dropping the charges. There were no revelations of evidence that we didn’t know about.

        • Dude, while the “evidence” you claim was there “before” maybe true, but for some reason, the attorney who decided to prosecute initially clearly did not take that evidence into consideration when the charges were made. This District Attorney’ office has many assistant district attorneys who make initial decisions to prosecute to be later overruled by the bosses when their decision is called into question. This kind of thing happens all the time. Different attorneys have differing opinions on what to charge and what not to charge. IMHO if it immaterial whether or not the “bear spray” was carried openly or concealed. What matters is whether or not he was justified in using the bear spray. The open carry or concealment “issue” is as NON ISSUE.

        • “The open carry or concealment “issue” is as NON ISSUE.”

          I completely agree with you on that, but the DA’s office does not agree with you on that. They literally gave that as a reason for dropping the charges. In other words, it sounds like a BS excuse.

        • Dude, whether or not the DA’s office agrees with me is immaterial. The fact is that the case has been dismissed and is not going to be prosecuted.

      • While I have not seen the video…

        Jesus Christ. Why are you even taking a position then?

        the DA felt that he was unable to present prima facie case that would stand up to a jury and to an appeal.

        When did that ever stop a DA? DA’s threaten and get plea bargains all the time. DA’s often do this truly believing they would lose a case anyways.
        The absolute fact is, Dolloff shot a guy who was pepper spraying him, in a public place, on a sidewalk, amongst a bunch of people. Now, I’m fine with this. Totally fine. If everyone else wants to get on the “you can shoot people pepper spraying you” wagon.

        Are you okay with that Walter?????

        • anonomous, it’s really very simple. Now if you can’t understand what I said, I suggest you read it more slowly.

          DA’s make decisions to prosecute or not based on whether or not they THINK they can get a conviction that will stand up in court and on appeal. It is a decision made by and INDIVIDUAL that is subject to review from his/her superiors.

          The question as to whether or not the shooting was justified is not based on whether or not there was “bear spray” used or not. It is based on the frame of mind of the person being attacked and did he/she feel he/she was threatened with deadly physical force which could have caused serious injury or death. That is the criteria.

  6. The underlying issue remains the difference in prosecutorial discretion applied to this incident vs, say, the Rittenhouse incident. I’m not particularly interested in debating the unfounded presumption of doctored video.

      • I never said I wasn’t interested in debate. Try rereading what I wrote – maybe more slowly this time.

    • Mr Bennett, it is really very simple. IN the case of Rittenhouse, the District Attorney in that jurisdiction violated his oath of office and the ethics of all District Attorneys.

      I am sure you are not “interested in debating ‘unfounded’ presumption of doctored video?” as it would not fit your agenda.

      • Coming from the guy repeatedly saying “most videos are doctored!”

        You even admitted you haven’t even watched the video!!! Jesus Christ! Yet you sure have a strong opinion on this one.

        • anonomous That’s right, your royal numbs. I am say8ing that most vids you see on line or in the news ARSE DOCTORED. Can you prove otherwise? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact I know you can’t.

          That is correct, I have not seen the video. Have you? Would you know what to look for to see if a video was doctored or not? I know you would not.

      • You haven’t watched the video so the entirety of your opinion is solely based on the assumption that most videos are doctored. What is that old saw about people who assume?

        • CWT have you watched the video? Where did you watch it? And did you get a degree in detecting doctored videos? Apparently you are unaware that tv new routinely edits vids. Apparently you are unaware of how easy it is to doctor these vids?

          Do yourself a big favor and take your head out of the sand along side of that ostrich.

      • Poor WEB III can barely write a coherent sentence. His family really should take away his keys and guns. It’s better for him, his neighbors and society in general…

        • A Highly Concerned Citizen, A “highly concerned citizen” of what? When God passed out brains you thought he said trains and took the express out of town. The Conductor is still looking for your sorry posterior as you failed to pay for the ticket.

          What part of what I wrote is incoherent? Did I use words too big for you?

    • Hey Chip, glad to see you here again! Your commentary is always welcome. In case you haven’t noticed Walter is a total fucking moron, you’d do well by yourself to ignore him. If you want to have some fun, say something bad about the NRA and watch him freak.

      Looking at these exchanges here, he’s actually starting to glow in the dark.

  7. “we cant get a conviction”
    its bullshit
    nobody said that for kyle rittenhouse
    its what they say when they really mean
    “we dont want a conviction”
    they did the same thing with hillary clinton
    and michael byrd
    and when that wont work
    they will just not investigate
    just like with seth rich
    and the bogus jan 6th pipe bombs

    • sound awake, Not hardly. A district attorney is bound by his oath of office and the ethics of all District Attorneys. IF there is “exculpatory evidence” which shows the innocence of the accused, the District Attorney is duty bound not to proceed with prosecution.

      • So… you are cool with everyone shooting people that are pepper spraying them?

        Is that the behavioral standard you are seeking?

        • anonomous, I am cool with anyone using deadly physical force when they are in real fear of death or serious physical injury. This is the criteria for the use of deadly physical force. Did you watch the video? Is there any intelligible sound on the video?

        • “Real fear” is not the legal standard. “Reasonable fear” is the legal standard.

        • “So… you are cool with everyone shooting people that are pepper spraying them?“

          Pepper spray me without just cause and you get what you get.

          Pepper spray can be instantly incapacitating, especially sprayed in the face, and leave one unable to defend them selves.

          And anyone who attempts to incapacitate someone without just cause has made an unlawful assault and the victim may now employ whatever means necessary to prevent their injury or death.

        • Minor MINER49er For your continued edification, “just cause” is determined by the law. Not by Lefties like you.

          Pepper Spray is not usually “incapacitating:” as you allege. There are thousands of instances where pepper spray was ineffective. I have seen cases (where I was present) where the “pepper spray” was useless. In one case, the man it was deployed against laughed at us and said, “I eat this stuff for breakfast'”. There are just about as many instances where a Taser was ineffective.

  8. This was a very poor post by TTAG. How about a link to the original news video? Was the victim armed with a gun when he was shot? The police said two guns were recovered at the scene. Who owned the other gun? I seem to recall the original news report saying that the security guard said he saw him reach his hand down to pull a weapon, as in he thought the dude was pulling a gun on him. Remember when the judge sealed all documents on this case? Is it normal to seal the documents? Are they unsealed now? The news stationed hired a highly political left winger to work as “security” at a highly political sparring session. How is that responsible? Did the news team personally know the so-called security guard? Is he a security guard because he chooses to identify as a security guard? When is using bear/pepper spray appropriate? This TTAG post is what’s referred to as phoning it in.

  9. He was not found not guilty. The charges can be brought back at any time in the future. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t believe murder charges have a time limit. 30 years from now he can be charged and arrested.

    He was not done any favors by having the charges dropped.

  10. NICE PEACEFULL RIOT UUUM ?
    BE GLAD NOT UNDER PUTINISM , NO QUESTIONS ASKED YA JUST GO TO PRISON , 15 YEARS WHEW ? PEACEFULL OR NOT .

  11. I wish the victim’s family GODspeed in hunting him down and finishing the job.. since the courts wont do theirs..

      • “Your so called “victim” got his just and due.”

        That is an interesting assertion to make, given that you have admittedly not bothered to see any of the facts or evidence of the incident. I’m curious about the basis for such an assertion.

        • I have just recently view the video. I don’t see anything that the “defendant” did that was illegal immoral or even fattening.
          Now Mr Bennet take that and stick it in your pipe and smoke it.

          I also NOTE that the video is choppy at best. The new producer stops and starts his camera like its a kids toy. Maybe he did not know how to operate it continuously?

          Maybe you should watch the video.

        • The “defendant” initiated physical contact in the altercation. (Protip: that’s the first unlawful act in the altercation.)

          I guess you missed that part.

          The “defendant” escalated to deadly force by drawing and firing his firearm while the deceased was backing away from him.

          I guess you missed that part, too.

        • Actually the video is so chopped up there is NO WAY to tell who is the initial aggressor. If you bother to watch you will see that the producer did not get “before, during and after,” which would be a prerequisite to understanding what happened.

          For you edification not all states have the “duty to retreat” clause in their use of force laws.

          But then you do have an agenda, don’t you? Care to try again?

        • Mr Bennett, I am more than sure your agenda is anti-DA. I am sure of this because you have cherry picked what I have said. harping on small points leaving out my point about the video being all chopped up. As the vid is all chopped, you canNOT get a full complete clear picture of what happened can you?

          Care to try again, Mr Bennett?

        • That’s it? “Anti-DA”? That’s the best you’ve got?

          By the way: maybe try to find a different video source. I can’t help you there.

        • Chip Bennett, so you don’t deny being anti-DA, huh? I’m not surprised.

          If you know of a different video source by all means…
          If not shut the f’up!

        • I’m too busy rolling my eyes to bother refuting allegations of such an “agenda.”

          Also, do your own homework. It’s not my fault you waited until yesterday to bother to research the evidence.

        • Mr Bennett, it seem then that you can’t refute that you are anti-DA. Is there something you want to hide ?

          My homework is all done. Clearly you have no other vids. But keep on spreading your OPINION with is based on nothing but your OPINION (Hot Air).

  12. His attorney is US Law Shield Doug Richards.

    Dolloff is not a member of US Law Shield. He paid out of pocket.

    I talked to Doug at a gun event some years ago he told me he defended a guy on an ND with no one hurt and the only property damage was his. The DA pressed the case it was $75,000 to defend.

    The point is if you have firearms you should have a coverage plan. My wife and have been with US Law Shield for over a decade.

    On one hand I think it was murder on the other hand I’m comfortable with Doug Richards defending us just in case.

    By the way Elliott is a lefty.

  13. Man our trolls suck, like sure would be nice to not have to wade through a million words of bullshit all the time.

  14. I would imagine that the family of the deceased would have a strong civil case. The security guard was unlicensed in a state that requires a license.

  15. If Matthew didn’t get convicted does he get his dead guy back?, or at least restoration.
    I just cant see shooting something if your not going to get to eat it.
    Damn cops, they’re fat because we’re feeding them to much. Just like the booze and , and ,the gunms they take.
    Pi$$’s me off to think we’re supplying them with a barbque party complete with ATFE reccomend items and they dont invite the public.
    I think that’s why when you go to a wake you should always cut the deceased down the middle just to make sure it’s not a hide stretched over hard foam plastic.
    More then likely it is.
    That’s why you always hear ” Oh,,, what a good job the funeral home did.” Like they’re looking at a deer or something a taxidermist worked over.

  16. With the craziness that was 2020/2021, I became somewhat selective and what I followed. I knew this happened but just didn’t bother with the details. I do know that people generally do eventually get what they deserve, good or bad. If our so-called elected leaders would do their jobs and keep the peace instead of being so wrapped up in the money and power they have, most of these issues wouldn’t even happen. Too many on the left actively try to destroy the country and too many on the right are perfectly ok with letting them.

    • “Too many on the left actively try to destroy the country and too many on the right are perfectly ok with letting them.”

      They’re okay with for the same reason the right sold out our country under the ideological guise of free trade. They were bought and paid for.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here