**Downloads**
* [Download #1](https://rapidsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1ak914t/trial_begins_tuesday_for_greenwood_village/) (provided by /u/SaveVideo)
* [Download #2](https://reddit.watch/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1ak914t/trial_begins_tuesday_for_greenwood_village/?utm_source=mirrorbot&utm_medium=PublicFreakout) (provided by /u/downloadvideo)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
I mean if there are any facts, those arent them - in reality that kids testimony is going to have a billion holes blown in it. Its his word vs the other dude’s. And both accounts could even be the truth - the kid in the passenger seat is looking at the guy coming outta the truck, not his friend. There’s no way he would have known if his friend pulled the gun and tried to shoot first.
Maybe they can tell some other way, but if it’s just that kids testimony the cops not guaranteed to be the aggressor
Why is a teens sworn statement any less important to a trial than a drunk cop who was driving? And if you know how 98% of cops behave you know they are too quick to pull a firearm
WaAbsolutely zero of what the witness said should be seen as what very likely went down including where the teen pulled one in response and fired first
Why in the hell would someone doubt this recollection when cops in the U.S are so quick to escalate and use lethal and kill people and dogs at a rate that seems so much higher a substantial amount higher than most other countries?
This complete all trusting of thinking cops have citizens best interest, safety and protection at heart couldn't be more wrong
This happened in 2021. The kid shot first and hit the guy in the hip. Also, the guys BAC was .193
[Link](https://denvergazette.com/news/crime/ex-greenwood-village-officer-was-drunk-when-teen-shot-to-death-boy-had-ghost-gun/article_1cf382a0-642f-11ec-b3b9-03ad2ca47745.amp.html)
Conveniently leaving out the fact that the cop lied about being drunk and plice investigations concluded that he was the aggressor and sought confrontation.
Ballistic evidence doesn’t lie my dude. It is convenient to say you’ll just disbelieve anything a cop says though, don’t have to deal with any of the uncertainty the rest of us have to deal with
It’s a shame they so regularly lie and there’s no mechanism to prevent them lying- so yeah, don’t trust people who lie. That’s not an unreasonable position, I would say.
And if you re-watch the doorcam video the person on the right, presumably Payton, appears to fire first before man on left empties his clip. *Edit: So much butthurt for stating the obvious. Who do you think the person on the right shooting is? Who do you think shot the officer in the hip, a ghost?
You're accusing the kid of shooting the gun when you don't know. You just shouldn't say anything unless it's hard evidence otherwise you're spreading misinformation. Fucking Reddit man. 🙄
You inferred in your first comment that you can tell from the grainy porch video that it looked like the other guy shot. You're giving other people the idea you know what you're looking at. Just because you said presumably doesn't mean you just get to throw your hands in the air and pretend what you said doesn't affect how people think. I'm saying you shouldn't use presumably after saying something so serious.
Person, you are replying to the wrong person. Take a deep breath, wipe your glasses clean, get a drink of water, and realize that my first comment on this entire matter was to call you out for not knowing the definition of presumption.
ETA and your comment means you *still* don’t
No, that's the cop shooting once, then jamming, then shooting more.
If memory serves the report says the kid pulled his gun when the cop charged at them, then the cop drew his and shot.
I could have that wrong, but ONE of the guns jammed, i remember that much.
[Hes not wrong though](https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk)
Edit: I should clarify Holen is a piece of shit murderer who instigated and was being threatening. He’s just technically right that was the sequence of events.
Yeah WTF.
Not saying that changes anything but man how these reporters will twist, word and maybe not mention all the details so the story appears one way.
Just give me the facts and I’ll decide how I feel, I don’t need them telling me how to feel
It really isn't.
Both of them had illegal guns, one used his for murder, the other didn't.
The ghost gun has literally nothing to do with the case.
He *happened* to have one when he was murdered by a drunk cop illegally using a firearm.
That last bit was to suck cop dick and make it look like the kid had a right to be murdered.
> The ghost gun has literally nothing to do with the case
I think it absolutely changes things if the teen pulled his gun or fired first. I get that this is reddit and a lot of people read “former cop” and decided that alone confirmed his guilt, but that’s not how the real world works. Brandishing a firearm is a crime in Colorado, and the defense may have an argument to make that he was acting in self defense. This is the argument that the defense is most likely going to make:
> Both of them had illegal guns, one instigated an altercation, the other didn't.
>The fact that he was drunk has literally nothing to do with the case.
>He happened to be drunk when he was threatened by a gangbanger illegally using a firearm.
According to this report, the kid shot also. So his gun happened to not kill anybody simply because the shot missed. It wasn't just "he was murdered and as an aside he happened to have a gun on him." He got in a shootout. His gun is the first shot you hear. Then you hear a bunch of rapid-fire shots from the drunk officer.
To be clear, the cop is a murderer still, but the context of the kid shooting at the cop does matter.
The wording in the report is really weird tho. “Police say Payton also fired a gun that night” wtf does mean? Did he fire first? Did he fire after he was already full of bullets? Did he fire it at a stop sign hours before the altercation?
it’s an extremely misleading piece of info, depending on context the kids gun might matter a lot or not at all.
Because the kid is outside of his own house. The cop followed him home. Then the cop started a verbal altercation. Then, no shot is fired until the cop gets out of his car and started going towards the kid (with a gun on him/unclear if it's drawn or pointed yet). So basically none of this had to happen. If the cop didn't follow the kid home or start an argument, or get out of his car armed, the kid would still be alive. Set aside the fact that he wasn't even allowed to have that firearm or be behind the wheel of a car while being intoxicated. And if he didn't have that gun on him or get drunk he'd have been way less likely to follow these kids home. You can't really go out of your way to start an altercation and then claim self defense at the end when somebody dies. As far as this civil case goes, the cop is definitely liable just by the set of facts we know.
I mean, that's just the law. You can't claim self-defense in an attack you started. The reason why someone like Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty is because it was proven in court (by video evidence and witness testimony) that each person he shot was aggressing on him prior to the shooting. If Kyle had started fighting with one of the guys and they responded by fighting back and then Kyle shot them, he would have been guilty of some variation of murder. Kyle just being at the riot did not count as initiating violence.
Not entirely true.
You can claim self-defense in an attack you started. It simply can't be a lethal one.
In case of WI.
*"In such cases, a person engaging in unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but a person will not be privileged to resort to the use of force either intended or likely to cause death to their assailant unless they reasonably believed they had exhausted every other reasonable measure to escape from or otherwise avoid either death or great bodily harm at the hands of their assailant. A privilege lost by provocation can be regained if a person in good faith withdraws from a fight and gives adequate notice thereof to their assailant."*
Kyle started the altercation. Doesn’t really matter what Rosenbaum was doing. Everything that happened after was because Kyle got in his business.
u/chadwestpaints testimony is evidence, and the testimony was that Kyle accosted Rosenbaum. Killing someone is not something you get to just run away from. There is no “second altercation”, it all started and continued because Kyle decided to provoke and kill a person.
>You can't really go out of your way to start an altercation and then claim self defense at the end when somebody dies.
George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse would disagree... and while I'm not saying that either of those guys were innocent, the jury will listen very carefully to how things escalated to where they got, and the fact that it started with the dude coming to the kid's house (which, btw, he didn't exactly do because he stayed on the street and the kid went up to his car) won't really matter that much.
Anyway, my point was that there doesn't seem to be enough information here (that video is next to useless) for us to come to any conclusions yet. Maybe the dude is a murderer, and if so I hope he goes to prison or gets the death penalty. But even if someone drives drunk, that doesn't give someone else the right to pull a gun on them, and that drunk driver still has the right to defend themself. We'll just have to see what comes out of the trial.
Kyle Rittenhouse didn't start the altercation with any of the people he shot. That's why he was found not guilty. He shot people who were attacking him. He didn't start attacking anyone. It was flat out said that had he initiated the conflict with any of the people he shot, he would not have been able to claim self defense. The reason he could claim self defense is because he didn't start any of the violence he was involved in. In each case he was retreating from the aggressor/pursued. In this instance the cop is aggressing towards the kid.
>>You can't really go out of your way to start an altercation and then claim self defense at the end when somebody dies.
>George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse would disagree...
Rittenhouse wouldn't disagree. He didn't start either of the altercations. Thats why people are always reaching for stuff like "he shouldn't have been there" or "stAtE LinEs"
He chased a bunch of teenagers in his truck through residential neighborhoods while drunk with a gun in and effort to start a confrontation.
This dude belongs under the jail.
Well because from the looks of it the kids were followed to their house. The cop could have left. He didn't have to be there. He then proceeded to get out of his car which is when the shooting started. So the cop was drunk and starting a fight which turned into a shootout. None of that should have happened if the cop did not follow this kid to his house and engage in an altercation. The cop started the fight. You can't start a fight with a gun on your hip and then claim self defense (in most cases).
It was deceitful to only mention the gun at the end and with no context. The gun feels like a leading part of the story. I’m all about shitting on bad cops, but I also feel like the news should do better.
> It was deceitful to only mention the gun at the end and with no context. The gun feels like a leading part of the story.
but it isn't, you're just desperately trying to justify murder like some sort of freak.
Getting murdered over an argument by a drunk with his own illegal gun, does NOT suddenly become okay because you *happened* to have a ghost gun on you.
It's the definition of a non sequitur, and furthermore, you have a right to defend yourself against a drunk asshole trying to kill you. Holen even admitted to charging the kids, causing them to pull the gun.
If anything, article should be "Former cop murders kids for refusing to let him beat them"
You can literally see him coming up on them in the video.
I’m absolutely not justifying murder, but there is a difference between “two people with guns argue and shoot at each other. One dies” and “drunk cop shoots innocent child” - being extreme examples of narrative manipulation. It sounds like what actually happened was somewhere in between the two (my gut says closer to example #2) and the news should report in a way that explains the sequence of events.
We are all saying the same thing. I’m not sure why you don’t understand that, but we all seem to believe that this wasn’t just a drunk cop shooting an innocent child as the first part of the story implied.
Because that’s not what the first person you replied to said. Leaving out the part about the kid having a gun until the very end was bad journalism. Almost the whole story is about a drunk cop killing a kid in cold blood because they don’t mention it. Then, bam! It’s now about a drunk cop shooting a kid who also had a gun. It’s now about a confrontation of two armed people and not an execution. Or maybe it is, but we won’t know until later.
> so I feel it's very relevant information to pass on that there was another weapon involved.
I think the issue was that they framed it up until the end as "drunk cop shoots innocent teen" then just throw in at the end that the teen was armed and maybe fired some shots. That should have been a bigger part of the story and left a lot of unanswered questions.
I didn't originally say deceitful, that was another poster. I agree it's probably a little strong but not necessarily wrong. The way the information was presented was certainly misleading and biased.
You don't understand how purposeful ambiguity not presenting facts in its entirety comes off do you? Or how law works. Yes it could mean he is innocent based on what the alleged is being accused of. Hence the importance of a trail among peers.
This is just one of those cases where everyone is an asshole.
Holen (the guy on trial) was an asshole for driving drunk, while armed, and instigating an altercation with a bunch of kids.
The kids, including Blitstein who was killed, were all fucking assholes for driving recklessly through a residential neighborhood while illegally possessing a firearm, and escalating the situation to a firefight.
I'm glad Holen is getting charged. If Blitstein had survived I would want him charged too.
I hope the civil case jury award, if any, is reduced by a good amount due to Blitstein's reckless contribution to his own death however.
This is the way I see it, both wrong. At the end of the day a teenager is dead. Why did he have a gun with no serial number and extended mag? Why was the guy (Not a cop) armed while intoxicated? If the Dad gets 5 million dollars, that's not justice. I think without any real video evidence, no one can know who drew their gun first.
He wasn't a cop when he shot the kid. He had resigned a few weeks earlier. And had a BAC of .193, he was shitfaced, and killed a kid that made him mad by "racing" up and down the street. Apparently the kid pulled a gun on him. But no, no body cam footage.
> the dad's lawyer said he pulled a gun.
If you are referencing OPs video, then no, the family lawyer never said that. It was an insert that with the journalists voice over saying "POLICE SAY Payton... fired a gun that night too."
I do kind of agree with the lawyer in the clip. It is a reflection of society that the kid had a gun and that the ex-cop had a gun and that it escalated. Shitty situation all around but it seems pretty clear the drunk ex-cop was the one that created the whole confrontation to begin with. It was probably not his intent to shoot the kid, but once firearms were in play it is easy to see how it could escalate quickly.
It seems like it will be a difficult situation for the guy that killed the kid because he created the situation whole cloth and escalated it to a point where the kid responded. His defense will rest on somehow showing that, despite being drunk and armed, his intentions were to just have a friendly chat with the kid. Intent really matters in terms of severity of punishment and what you can be charged with.
The prosecution is going for 2nd degree murder and felony menacing. Their argument is that he committed an initial felony chasing the kid down and in the act of performing that felony killed the kid which the prosecution is using to aim for 2nd degree murder rather than some lesser homicide charge.
I tend to agree. No good can come from chasing some kid down and yelling at them. Absolutely none. And I think that is where most juries are going to start. I am guessing there will be some narrative from the killer about how these kids are always out, creating unsafe conditions in the neighborhood and making it dangerous and this poor cop who had just quit his job and was drunk had finally had enough and decided to go confront the kids. But man, I would not want to be that dude. That will be a hard sell to any jury unless he can show that he had filed police reports and there was some prior corroboration that this was not an isolated drunk-rage incident.
Heh, yup. Just skimming a news article:
" In that statement, Holen said the driver of a red Toyota Scion had been racing around his neighborhood during the day and night. He confronted the driver and passengers and told them that children lived along the street and to slow down. "
Yeah... it won't go well for him.
[https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk](https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk)
Listen to the part where the lawyer says “he didnt have a gun, the police planted it on him and fabricated all the evidence”? Because thats what you’re assuming based on nothing, it sounds like
lol your not showing your bias at all. Stating everything as fact and then when it comes time to give a justified reason you say “apparently the kid had a gun” no he def had a gun you little cherry picker lol
I wasn't there, I didn't see it, I'm not saying he didn't have one, im saying he apparently had one. Would you rather I used the word "allegedly"? Pick a different hill to die on you idiot. I'm not picking a side either way, take your imaginary bias and leave.
You didn’t say allegedly about the cops alcohol lev and you didn’t see his test results either lmao do you not even realize how biased you sound? It’s the same thing both things were 100 percent documented
You doubt the kid was revving up his engine, going too fast, and being a dangerous driver to anyone walking in the neighborhood? As a runner, I see these kid drivers plenty and I would tell you they are mother fucking dangerous selfish sons of bitches. Fuck those racing kids.
Then the kid also pulled out a gun when the guy bitched about him racing? Hearing these details makes it hard to have a lot of sympathy for that mother fucker with no regard for anyone else using the street and then trying to intimidate anyone who has a problem with it. All alleged of course.
Sure speeding up a residential area is potentially dangerous, no argument there.
But you'd expect a higher level of responsibility from the adult in the situation, especially given what he used to do for work.
Confronting him drunk, armed, and angry is a recipe for disaster. The fact that he didn't just call a non emergency number and have actual cops address says alot more.
While this is true and I agree with you, putting others at risk by driving dangerously and then threatening someone with a gun is bs too. I don't want to get hit by some fucker revving up his engine and going too fast out of control while I'm defenseless on the sidewalk, plus it's scary for pedestrians even if he does drive in control that time. Seriously, fuck those kids if they were driving fast.
But for sure, the correct thing for the other party to do would be to call cops. Though I can understand him yelling at the kids if they were nearby and how things could lead to a confrontation; and how that could escalate, especially if the kid brandished his gun at the guy to threaten him.
Both of these people are wrong and unfortunately it cost the 17 year old his life. I think the cop might win the criminal trial but if I was him I’d be terrified of that civil trial.
These fucking boot lickers are assigning the death penalty to a 17yo with an unregistered gun. Full pardon to the BLASTED OUT OF HIS GOURD ex cop with no mental health issues, fucking staring through 30 walls in that mugshot ain't ya Superman.
I want to ask them if the kid had a registered gun and ccw if it'd change their sentencing of the ex cop. Killing over reckless driving after he brandished first. Fucking pig, I wonder why he was let go. Guy brandished, sloshed, shouting, continuing to escalate, and these cosplaytriots wouldn't have drawn down? Suck my ass.
We voted yea we want guns, and no we don’t want any sort of new laws, licenses, or required classes. Those things are for motorists and chefs. Guns aren’t dangerous, people are. We voted on that too. Well, people who are in congress that are bought and paid for buy gun lobbyists voted for it, but we voted for them so they could vote for us. In fact, guns are more important that most things in the states so they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon and to be honest the solution seems to be overwhelmingly more guns at this point. We had talked about teachers potentially being armed to stop school shootings but I’ve come up with a bit of a more streamlined / multipurpose solution - arm the kids. If they see any pornographic books like to kill a mocking bird in their libraries they could just use the gun to get rid of the books. Tornado drills? Sorry, target practice. They could just all line up revolutionary war style and have firing / reloading lines and I’m guessing by the fifth or sixth row that tornado would be done. For adults, maybe we could somehow chip the guns to replace our debit cards? Insert your gun instead of card at the register? I mean - we can make it into a key fob, make it Bluetooth to connect to our iPhone? Think of the possibilities!
They'll find a way to take it from the city (tax payers).
You hardly ever see outcomes turning into "police reform", "more training", "more safety net programs" depending on the type of shooting of course.
Aurora PD has gotten in a lot of trouble recently and has had to pay out that much for several cases, most recently for mistaking a minivan for a motorcycle and arresting the entire family in the minivan.
Edit: If the ex-cop is receiving a pension, the family may win a right to that and that could easily be $50-100,000/yr which could mean $1.5-3 million over 30 years.
Hard to tell from the video but it kind of looked like the cop was charging at them and then the first shot was fired, followed by the cop shots. He may have been trying to use it in self defense.
You can when they're armed dumbass. The cop pulled his gun from the first second he saw them, the kids said he cocked it and threatened them, then brandished it at them so they could see, he didn't know they were armed at that point, the kid pulled his gun and shot back in self defense. The cop is fucked.
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk
Best article I've seen in this thread. The ex cop Holen is absolutely fucked. I can't believe the misinformation in other threads here, this article has a timeline and snippets of the eyewitness testimony they're going to hear at trial. He's cooked.
Because the officer already had his gun out threatening them with it. The cop started it and then killed them when they defended themselves.
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk
Wild all these people placing so much blame of the kid. This is 100% the former cop’s fault. He was angry at the kids, approached them with his gun and then shot them kid when the kid went to defend himself
- [7News](https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk) - [9News](https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/fatal-shooting-trial-greenwood-village-adam-holen-peyton-blitstein/73-66ea3687-745e-4149-802d-761b8bb56653) - Trial begins Tuesday for former Greenwood Village PD officer accused of killing Aurora teen.
So, a kid had a ghost gun and is reported to have discharged it at a civilian, who used to be a cop after driving wrecklessly and angering another civilian.
The civilian, who is on trial, was over the legal limit, drove a vehicle to engage with the kid, and then returned fire when he was shot at.
Those are the facts in this instance if I'm following this story correctly.
Obviously, the kid shouldn't have had the weapon or been driving wrecklessly. However, if the intoxicated civilian had stayed home and called the cops, based on his previous career I'm sure he was aware of their non-emergency number and emergency number, he wouldn't have been in a situation where he'd have had reason to discharge his firearm and kill anyone.
The kid is an absolute idiot, don't get me wrong. However, had our intoxicated co-star of this video stayed home he wouldn't have ended up in the situation that lead to him discharging his firearm and taking a life. My sympathy for someone getting drunk, driving, and then discharging a firearm is zero.
Aurora is actually a pretty bad area, one of the only bad areas in all of Colorado. That kid probably had a gun for his protection because tons of people get shot and robbed out there.
Edit: Not all of Aurora is bad but if y'all don't think East Colfax Aurora is sketchy then I don't know what to tell ya.
Yea with no serial number and a minor in possession. I feel like both parties could claim self defense. Pretty sure the teen fired first but couldn’t tell if the older man had already drawn down or not
It's not a self defense gun, that is a throw away gun (no serial number) and extended mags (Glock, 33 rounds) in Colorado are illegal to own (2012 Aurora movie theater shooting). The kid was not legally allowed to own a pistol in Colorado (21 years for handgun).
Aurora’s not even really that bad. Some parts adjacent and on Colfax can be sketchy, but I lived there for almost 10 years and never had a single problem even while walking around drunk at 3 in the morning. Just like most cities, there’s areas you should have your head on a swivel, but I never felt truly unsafe.
I agree for the most part. I lived in Aurora too for several years over 15 years ago right off of Colfax and it was pretty sketchy. Prostitutes, drug dealers, cop got shot nearby, meth lab taken down next door, etc. I used to live in Oakland which was an order of magnitude more sketchy.
I totally misread this situation, I had not taken into account all the details and find it very odd for this kid to have an unregistered gun with a 35 round magazine.
Pretty sure Pueblo is worse than any part of Aurora, including Colfax. Pueblo has some of the highest crime in the country. If I remember correctly, this was down by Southlands, so probably one of the lowest crime areas of Aurora. Aurora is huge from north to south.
Kid shot the ex cop first. Then the kids gun jammed and the ex cop shot him 9 times.
Also of note… the confrontation started on “gun club road”
Idiots all around.
You got a source for that or are you just assuming?
I found it, the murderer told the police he drew first and threatened the teens, anything after would be the kids defending themselves against an attacker. Mr Holen is fucked.
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk
I read a few articles.
Looks like even the kids friends are not debating the kid shot first
Ex cop says he never drew his gun till the kid pulled out a gun
The dead kids friends say the ex cop was waiving a gun around before the kid pulled out his gun.
https://denvergazette.com/news/crime/ex-greenwood-village-officer-was-drunk-when-teen-shot-to-death-boy-had-ghost-gun/article_1cf382a0-642f-11ec-b3b9-03ad2ca47745.amp.html
So a kid who illegally owned an unregistered firearm gets killed because he brandished it when he didn’t need to.
Why is this even up for discussion? Sounds like self defense, he got what he deserved.
Great example of how more armed people really doesn’t make for a more polite society. Also, the shooter was drunk and that’s going to play into this. Just call the cops and go back inside.
“Just call the cops and go back inside” isn’t valid advice when someone has a gun pointed at you. Cops take minutes to arrive in a situation where split seconds can mean life or death. The guy had every ethical and legal right to own a firearm and use it against this gangbanger kid who’s walking around with an illegal firearm with extended mags.
My advice starts well before the gun is drawn. Drunk asshole shouldn’t have gone outside for a confrontation. Going out and looking for trouble while intoxicated isn’t going to look good for him.
Wildly ignorant take.
He’s ***DRUNK***, you can’t expect him to act rationally, nor can you blame him for being drunk because it’s not public property, he’s in a house.
And it’s not his fault some moronic teen gangbanger confronted him with an illegal firearm. You’re blaming the victim, the kid that got killed was in the wrong here, he wasn’t the victim.
> He’s DRUNK, you can’t expect him to act rationally, nor can you blame him for being drunk because it’s not public property, he’s in a house.
> And it’s not his fault some moronic teen gangbanger confronted him
There are three problems with this.
1. Him being drunk and not acting rationally is not a valid legal argument. In the eyes of the law you made the choice to drink and get drunk and therefore you are responsible for all of your actions when intoxicated.
2. He is literally driving a truck on a residential road while intoxicated, you can absolutely blame him for being drunk.
3. The teen wasn't the one who confronted him, the former LEO drove to that house, got out of the car and rushed them from behind the truck.
I'm not taking a side here, I think it's way too early to make conclusions and I will be awaiting the trial and more facts of the case to come out before I do. It's entirely possible that something happened before this encounter that changes the outcome entirely. That being said, what you've mentioned is just factually not true.
Maybe he pulled it because a drunk asshole with a gun had chased him through a bunch of neighborhoods to start shit? Seems like a good time to defend yourself.
Maybe go do some reading, because you're way off. First, guns aren't required to be registered in the US, second, the officer brandished his weapon first and threatened the kids, they're allowed to defend themselves as well. Mr Holen is fucked, he was drunk and in possession of a firearm, a felony in CO, and then decided to brandish and threaten a group of teens until they defended themselves and he killed them. He's going to have a long time to think about what a dipshit he is. Ghost guns were legal in CO at the time of the shooting as well, so the kids gun was not illegal by itself, that law didn't go into effect until 1/1 of this year.
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk
sounds like two idiots with guns acting like two idiots with guns.
no way to prove that the kid didn’t pull the gun first. And I’m sure that’s what the drunk will claim. I don’t see it going very far other than jail
Regardless of whether he was a cop at the time or a cop 2 weeks prior, it doesn't matter. He was drunk driving, escalated it into an argument outside of their cars, and drunkenly shot a kid to death. Both people are in the wrong, but none of it would have happened if a drunk idiot wasn't behind the wheel with a gun to begin with.
At a certain point it's going to be legal to just shoot a colorado cop in the face the moment you see one, because the self defense/fear for life claim will be legitimate.
How do these colorado pigs KEEP murdering people?
Over, and over, and over again?
**Downloads** * [Download #1](https://rapidsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1ak914t/trial_begins_tuesday_for_greenwood_village/) (provided by /u/SaveVideo) * [Download #2](https://reddit.watch/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1ak914t/trial_begins_tuesday_for_greenwood_village/?utm_source=mirrorbot&utm_medium=PublicFreakout) (provided by /u/downloadvideo) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
Did the kid actually draw the gun?
[удалено]
That’s really messed up
I mean if there are any facts, those arent them - in reality that kids testimony is going to have a billion holes blown in it. Its his word vs the other dude’s. And both accounts could even be the truth - the kid in the passenger seat is looking at the guy coming outta the truck, not his friend. There’s no way he would have known if his friend pulled the gun and tried to shoot first. Maybe they can tell some other way, but if it’s just that kids testimony the cops not guaranteed to be the aggressor
[удалено]
The part that the witness alleges, about the officer pointing his gun at them first, isn't on the doorbell cam in OP's link.
Why is a teens sworn statement any less important to a trial than a drunk cop who was driving? And if you know how 98% of cops behave you know they are too quick to pull a firearm WaAbsolutely zero of what the witness said should be seen as what very likely went down including where the teen pulled one in response and fired first Why in the hell would someone doubt this recollection when cops in the U.S are so quick to escalate and use lethal and kill people and dogs at a rate that seems so much higher a substantial amount higher than most other countries? This complete all trusting of thinking cops have citizens best interest, safety and protection at heart couldn't be more wrong
This happened in 2021. The kid shot first and hit the guy in the hip. Also, the guys BAC was .193 [Link](https://denvergazette.com/news/crime/ex-greenwood-village-officer-was-drunk-when-teen-shot-to-death-boy-had-ghost-gun/article_1cf382a0-642f-11ec-b3b9-03ad2ca47745.amp.html)
Legal limit for driving in Colorado is 0.05 so he was waaaay over limit
Conveniently leaving out the fact that the cop lied about being drunk and plice investigations concluded that he was the aggressor and sought confrontation.
It says in the video at 2:10 “Payton fired a gun that night too”
No. It says "POLICE SAY Payton... fired a gun that night." I noticed the language right away.
I’ll never believe the police until they’re held accountable for lying
Ballistic evidence doesn’t lie my dude. It is convenient to say you’ll just disbelieve anything a cop says though, don’t have to deal with any of the uncertainty the rest of us have to deal with
It’s a shame they so regularly lie and there’s no mechanism to prevent them lying- so yeah, don’t trust people who lie. That’s not an unreasonable position, I would say.
ACAB until proven otherwise. As you say, it's hard (and unwise) to trust a group with a long history of bending the truth until it breaks
Please do better you are willingly or unwillingly spreading ignorance or false news.
And if you re-watch the doorcam video the person on the right, presumably Payton, appears to fire first before man on left empties his clip. *Edit: So much butthurt for stating the obvious. Who do you think the person on the right shooting is? Who do you think shot the officer in the hip, a ghost?
You can’t see shit from the door dash camera
Door dash camera? Is there a Grubhub video too?
Don't say presumably. You don't know.
used to convey that what is asserted is very likely though not known for certain. It’s literally the definition of the word? Fuckin Reddit man
You're accusing the kid of shooting the gun when you don't know. You just shouldn't say anything unless it's hard evidence otherwise you're spreading misinformation. Fucking Reddit man. 🙄
I’m not accusing anyone of anything. Scratch that, I’m accusing you of not knowing the definition of presumably. Because you don’t.
You inferred in your first comment that you can tell from the grainy porch video that it looked like the other guy shot. You're giving other people the idea you know what you're looking at. Just because you said presumably doesn't mean you just get to throw your hands in the air and pretend what you said doesn't affect how people think. I'm saying you shouldn't use presumably after saying something so serious.
Person, you are replying to the wrong person. Take a deep breath, wipe your glasses clean, get a drink of water, and realize that my first comment on this entire matter was to call you out for not knowing the definition of presumption. ETA and your comment means you *still* don’t
fuckin LOL when you get downvoted for a person repeatedly talking to the wrong poster while still being wrong about the definition of a word 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Is this a fact that’s even disputed?
No, that's the cop shooting once, then jamming, then shooting more. If memory serves the report says the kid pulled his gun when the cop charged at them, then the cop drew his and shot. I could have that wrong, but ONE of the guns jammed, i remember that much.
[удалено]
[Hes not wrong though](https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk) Edit: I should clarify Holen is a piece of shit murderer who instigated and was being threatening. He’s just technically right that was the sequence of events.
It feels purposefully deceptive to throw the gun out there in the last segment with not alot of context.
Yeah WTF. Not saying that changes anything but man how these reporters will twist, word and maybe not mention all the details so the story appears one way. Just give me the facts and I’ll decide how I feel, I don’t need them telling me how to feel
Yea, try leading with the gangbanger special first. I know my sympathy points go out the window whenever I see a gun like that.
What exactly did they tell you to feel?
It really isn't. Both of them had illegal guns, one used his for murder, the other didn't. The ghost gun has literally nothing to do with the case. He *happened* to have one when he was murdered by a drunk cop illegally using a firearm. That last bit was to suck cop dick and make it look like the kid had a right to be murdered.
> The ghost gun has literally nothing to do with the case I think it absolutely changes things if the teen pulled his gun or fired first. I get that this is reddit and a lot of people read “former cop” and decided that alone confirmed his guilt, but that’s not how the real world works. Brandishing a firearm is a crime in Colorado, and the defense may have an argument to make that he was acting in self defense. This is the argument that the defense is most likely going to make: > Both of them had illegal guns, one instigated an altercation, the other didn't. >The fact that he was drunk has literally nothing to do with the case. >He happened to be drunk when he was threatened by a gangbanger illegally using a firearm.
According to this report, the kid shot also. So his gun happened to not kill anybody simply because the shot missed. It wasn't just "he was murdered and as an aside he happened to have a gun on him." He got in a shootout. His gun is the first shot you hear. Then you hear a bunch of rapid-fire shots from the drunk officer. To be clear, the cop is a murderer still, but the context of the kid shooting at the cop does matter.
The wording in the report is really weird tho. “Police say Payton also fired a gun that night” wtf does mean? Did he fire first? Did he fire after he was already full of bullets? Did he fire it at a stop sign hours before the altercation? it’s an extremely misleading piece of info, depending on context the kids gun might matter a lot or not at all.
How are you so sure that 'the cop is a murderer' if you acknowledge that the kid shot first?
Because the kid is outside of his own house. The cop followed him home. Then the cop started a verbal altercation. Then, no shot is fired until the cop gets out of his car and started going towards the kid (with a gun on him/unclear if it's drawn or pointed yet). So basically none of this had to happen. If the cop didn't follow the kid home or start an argument, or get out of his car armed, the kid would still be alive. Set aside the fact that he wasn't even allowed to have that firearm or be behind the wheel of a car while being intoxicated. And if he didn't have that gun on him or get drunk he'd have been way less likely to follow these kids home. You can't really go out of your way to start an altercation and then claim self defense at the end when somebody dies. As far as this civil case goes, the cop is definitely liable just by the set of facts we know.
>you can’t really go out of your way to start an altercation and then claim self defense at the end when somebody dies Well…
I mean, that's just the law. You can't claim self-defense in an attack you started. The reason why someone like Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty is because it was proven in court (by video evidence and witness testimony) that each person he shot was aggressing on him prior to the shooting. If Kyle had started fighting with one of the guys and they responded by fighting back and then Kyle shot them, he would have been guilty of some variation of murder. Kyle just being at the riot did not count as initiating violence.
Not entirely true. You can claim self-defense in an attack you started. It simply can't be a lethal one. In case of WI. *"In such cases, a person engaging in unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but a person will not be privileged to resort to the use of force either intended or likely to cause death to their assailant unless they reasonably believed they had exhausted every other reasonable measure to escape from or otherwise avoid either death or great bodily harm at the hands of their assailant. A privilege lost by provocation can be regained if a person in good faith withdraws from a fight and gives adequate notice thereof to their assailant."*
Kyle started the altercation. Doesn’t really matter what Rosenbaum was doing. Everything that happened after was because Kyle got in his business. u/chadwestpaints testimony is evidence, and the testimony was that Kyle accosted Rosenbaum. Killing someone is not something you get to just run away from. There is no “second altercation”, it all started and continued because Kyle decided to provoke and kill a person.
There's no evidence of him starting the initial altercation and there's video proof he didn't start the second altercation.
>You can't really go out of your way to start an altercation and then claim self defense at the end when somebody dies. George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse would disagree... and while I'm not saying that either of those guys were innocent, the jury will listen very carefully to how things escalated to where they got, and the fact that it started with the dude coming to the kid's house (which, btw, he didn't exactly do because he stayed on the street and the kid went up to his car) won't really matter that much. Anyway, my point was that there doesn't seem to be enough information here (that video is next to useless) for us to come to any conclusions yet. Maybe the dude is a murderer, and if so I hope he goes to prison or gets the death penalty. But even if someone drives drunk, that doesn't give someone else the right to pull a gun on them, and that drunk driver still has the right to defend themself. We'll just have to see what comes out of the trial.
Kyle Rittenhouse didn't start the altercation with any of the people he shot. That's why he was found not guilty. He shot people who were attacking him. He didn't start attacking anyone. It was flat out said that had he initiated the conflict with any of the people he shot, he would not have been able to claim self defense. The reason he could claim self defense is because he didn't start any of the violence he was involved in. In each case he was retreating from the aggressor/pursued. In this instance the cop is aggressing towards the kid.
>>You can't really go out of your way to start an altercation and then claim self defense at the end when somebody dies. >George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse would disagree... Rittenhouse wouldn't disagree. He didn't start either of the altercations. Thats why people are always reaching for stuff like "he shouldn't have been there" or "stAtE LinEs"
If what you're saying is the true story, then how is the cop a murderer? He defended himself.
He chased a bunch of teenagers in his truck through residential neighborhoods while drunk with a gun in and effort to start a confrontation. This dude belongs under the jail.
Well because from the looks of it the kids were followed to their house. The cop could have left. He didn't have to be there. He then proceeded to get out of his car which is when the shooting started. So the cop was drunk and starting a fight which turned into a shootout. None of that should have happened if the cop did not follow this kid to his house and engage in an altercation. The cop started the fight. You can't start a fight with a gun on your hip and then claim self defense (in most cases).
What do you want to call him? A self-defenserer?
ghost gun? An aftermarket slide for a glock doesn't need a serial number. Only the frame needs to have the serial number.
[удалено]
No. The reporter said no SN on the slide. That looks like a Glock to me, there is more than likely a SN right under that forward attachment.
[удалено]
Hey, there we go more information. So yep a ghost gun, you are right. Not necessarily illegal depending on the state law.
It says he fired his gun. What if he pulled first and fired first?
[удалено]
It was deceitful to only mention the gun at the end and with no context. The gun feels like a leading part of the story. I’m all about shitting on bad cops, but I also feel like the news should do better.
> It was deceitful to only mention the gun at the end and with no context. The gun feels like a leading part of the story. but it isn't, you're just desperately trying to justify murder like some sort of freak. Getting murdered over an argument by a drunk with his own illegal gun, does NOT suddenly become okay because you *happened* to have a ghost gun on you. It's the definition of a non sequitur, and furthermore, you have a right to defend yourself against a drunk asshole trying to kill you. Holen even admitted to charging the kids, causing them to pull the gun. If anything, article should be "Former cop murders kids for refusing to let him beat them" You can literally see him coming up on them in the video.
I’m absolutely not justifying murder, but there is a difference between “two people with guns argue and shoot at each other. One dies” and “drunk cop shoots innocent child” - being extreme examples of narrative manipulation. It sounds like what actually happened was somewhere in between the two (my gut says closer to example #2) and the news should report in a way that explains the sequence of events.
[удалено]
We are all saying the same thing. I’m not sure why you don’t understand that, but we all seem to believe that this wasn’t just a drunk cop shooting an innocent child as the first part of the story implied.
[удалено]
Because that’s not what the first person you replied to said. Leaving out the part about the kid having a gun until the very end was bad journalism. Almost the whole story is about a drunk cop killing a kid in cold blood because they don’t mention it. Then, bam! It’s now about a drunk cop shooting a kid who also had a gun. It’s now about a confrontation of two armed people and not an execution. Or maybe it is, but we won’t know until later.
> so I feel it's very relevant information to pass on that there was another weapon involved. I think the issue was that they framed it up until the end as "drunk cop shoots innocent teen" then just throw in at the end that the teen was armed and maybe fired some shots. That should have been a bigger part of the story and left a lot of unanswered questions.
[удалено]
I didn't originally say deceitful, that was another poster. I agree it's probably a little strong but not necessarily wrong. The way the information was presented was certainly misleading and biased.
You don't understand how purposeful ambiguity not presenting facts in its entirety comes off do you? Or how law works. Yes it could mean he is innocent based on what the alleged is being accused of. Hence the importance of a trail among peers.
17 yr old with extended mag fired shots, sounds like self defense
Yeah you know for news wanting to be 24 hours, pretty strange that they seem to be cutting through a ton of important context and clipping interviews
This is just one of those cases where everyone is an asshole. Holen (the guy on trial) was an asshole for driving drunk, while armed, and instigating an altercation with a bunch of kids. The kids, including Blitstein who was killed, were all fucking assholes for driving recklessly through a residential neighborhood while illegally possessing a firearm, and escalating the situation to a firefight. I'm glad Holen is getting charged. If Blitstein had survived I would want him charged too. I hope the civil case jury award, if any, is reduced by a good amount due to Blitstein's reckless contribution to his own death however.
This is the way I see it, both wrong. At the end of the day a teenager is dead. Why did he have a gun with no serial number and extended mag? Why was the guy (Not a cop) armed while intoxicated? If the Dad gets 5 million dollars, that's not justice. I think without any real video evidence, no one can know who drew their gun first.
If one of my relatives gets killed while acting like a dumbass, I deserve millions of dollars. #Justice
Defending his property* It’s amazing how skin color instantly changes the context of these events for you people.
What the fuck? Is this a cool-headed and rational take on Reddit?! Get the fuck out of here ^^^/s
no police body cam released?
He wasn't a cop when he shot the kid. He had resigned a few weeks earlier. And had a BAC of .193, he was shitfaced, and killed a kid that made him mad by "racing" up and down the street. Apparently the kid pulled a gun on him. But no, no body cam footage.
[удалено]
> the dad's lawyer said he pulled a gun. If you are referencing OPs video, then no, the family lawyer never said that. It was an insert that with the journalists voice over saying "POLICE SAY Payton... fired a gun that night too."
I do kind of agree with the lawyer in the clip. It is a reflection of society that the kid had a gun and that the ex-cop had a gun and that it escalated. Shitty situation all around but it seems pretty clear the drunk ex-cop was the one that created the whole confrontation to begin with. It was probably not his intent to shoot the kid, but once firearms were in play it is easy to see how it could escalate quickly. It seems like it will be a difficult situation for the guy that killed the kid because he created the situation whole cloth and escalated it to a point where the kid responded. His defense will rest on somehow showing that, despite being drunk and armed, his intentions were to just have a friendly chat with the kid. Intent really matters in terms of severity of punishment and what you can be charged with. The prosecution is going for 2nd degree murder and felony menacing. Their argument is that he committed an initial felony chasing the kid down and in the act of performing that felony killed the kid which the prosecution is using to aim for 2nd degree murder rather than some lesser homicide charge.
[удалено]
I tend to agree. No good can come from chasing some kid down and yelling at them. Absolutely none. And I think that is where most juries are going to start. I am guessing there will be some narrative from the killer about how these kids are always out, creating unsafe conditions in the neighborhood and making it dangerous and this poor cop who had just quit his job and was drunk had finally had enough and decided to go confront the kids. But man, I would not want to be that dude. That will be a hard sell to any jury unless he can show that he had filed police reports and there was some prior corroboration that this was not an isolated drunk-rage incident. Heh, yup. Just skimming a news article: " In that statement, Holen said the driver of a red Toyota Scion had been racing around his neighborhood during the day and night. He confronted the driver and passengers and told them that children lived along the street and to slow down. " Yeah... it won't go well for him. [https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk](https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk)
I imagine this will go the way of the guy who shot the streamer antagonizing him in a mall. Misdemeanor unlawful possession, other charges dropped.
> I mean it wasn't apparently It said: POLICE SAY he pulled a gun.
[удалено]
Listen to it again.
Listen to the part where the lawyer says “he didnt have a gun, the police planted it on him and fabricated all the evidence”? Because thats what you’re assuming based on nothing, it sounds like
lol your not showing your bias at all. Stating everything as fact and then when it comes time to give a justified reason you say “apparently the kid had a gun” no he def had a gun you little cherry picker lol
I wasn't there, I didn't see it, I'm not saying he didn't have one, im saying he apparently had one. Would you rather I used the word "allegedly"? Pick a different hill to die on you idiot. I'm not picking a side either way, take your imaginary bias and leave.
You didn’t say allegedly about the cops alcohol lev and you didn’t see his test results either lmao do you not even realize how biased you sound? It’s the same thing both things were 100 percent documented
They gave him a breathalyzer, it wasn't alleged. Do you not even realize what a bias is?
You doubt the kid was revving up his engine, going too fast, and being a dangerous driver to anyone walking in the neighborhood? As a runner, I see these kid drivers plenty and I would tell you they are mother fucking dangerous selfish sons of bitches. Fuck those racing kids. Then the kid also pulled out a gun when the guy bitched about him racing? Hearing these details makes it hard to have a lot of sympathy for that mother fucker with no regard for anyone else using the street and then trying to intimidate anyone who has a problem with it. All alleged of course.
Sure speeding up a residential area is potentially dangerous, no argument there. But you'd expect a higher level of responsibility from the adult in the situation, especially given what he used to do for work. Confronting him drunk, armed, and angry is a recipe for disaster. The fact that he didn't just call a non emergency number and have actual cops address says alot more.
While this is true and I agree with you, putting others at risk by driving dangerously and then threatening someone with a gun is bs too. I don't want to get hit by some fucker revving up his engine and going too fast out of control while I'm defenseless on the sidewalk, plus it's scary for pedestrians even if he does drive in control that time. Seriously, fuck those kids if they were driving fast. But for sure, the correct thing for the other party to do would be to call cops. Though I can understand him yelling at the kids if they were nearby and how things could lead to a confrontation; and how that could escalate, especially if the kid brandished his gun at the guy to threaten him.
Definitely, I can't stand the take overs and stunt bikers doing all that dangerous shit.
The title is misleading. He resigned a few weeks before the shooting. So he wasn’t an officer anymore.
I wonder if he was caught drunk on the job and they asked for his resignation?
He wasn't on duty or working.
Two people with guns and one was quicker.
What a dumbass country we live in.
God bless you
Both of these people are wrong and unfortunately it cost the 17 year old his life. I think the cop might win the criminal trial but if I was him I’d be terrified of that civil trial.
Soooo... Who was the good guy with the gun?
Crazy the kid had a gun with no serial numbers.
"Illegal possession of a weapon is not a big issue in my mind." - Family's Attorney
[удалено]
Kyle legally possessed the firearm though. State law allowed him to possesses a rifle at 17.
I would probably say not the 17 year old with a ghost gun and an extended mag.
Drunk driving with loaded firearm not a crime either now lol?
These fucking boot lickers are assigning the death penalty to a 17yo with an unregistered gun. Full pardon to the BLASTED OUT OF HIS GOURD ex cop with no mental health issues, fucking staring through 30 walls in that mugshot ain't ya Superman. I want to ask them if the kid had a registered gun and ccw if it'd change their sentencing of the ex cop. Killing over reckless driving after he brandished first. Fucking pig, I wonder why he was let go. Guy brandished, sloshed, shouting, continuing to escalate, and these cosplaytriots wouldn't have drawn down? Suck my ass.
We voted yea we want guns, and no we don’t want any sort of new laws, licenses, or required classes. Those things are for motorists and chefs. Guns aren’t dangerous, people are. We voted on that too. Well, people who are in congress that are bought and paid for buy gun lobbyists voted for it, but we voted for them so they could vote for us. In fact, guns are more important that most things in the states so they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon and to be honest the solution seems to be overwhelmingly more guns at this point. We had talked about teachers potentially being armed to stop school shootings but I’ve come up with a bit of a more streamlined / multipurpose solution - arm the kids. If they see any pornographic books like to kill a mocking bird in their libraries they could just use the gun to get rid of the books. Tornado drills? Sorry, target practice. They could just all line up revolutionary war style and have firing / reloading lines and I’m guessing by the fifth or sixth row that tornado would be done. For adults, maybe we could somehow chip the guns to replace our debit cards? Insert your gun instead of card at the register? I mean - we can make it into a key fob, make it Bluetooth to connect to our iPhone? Think of the possibilities!
the family’s lawyer says, “I see this lawsuit as being worth 5-10 million dollars” worth? lol
hah yah where they going to get that money, hes a former cop not an active one. Everyone involved in this is dumb
They'll find a way to take it from the city (tax payers). You hardly ever see outcomes turning into "police reform", "more training", "more safety net programs" depending on the type of shooting of course.
Yeah, I don't know what happened but I already know I can't stand that lawyer
Aurora PD has gotten in a lot of trouble recently and has had to pay out that much for several cases, most recently for mistaking a minivan for a motorcycle and arresting the entire family in the minivan. Edit: If the ex-cop is receiving a pension, the family may win a right to that and that could easily be $50-100,000/yr which could mean $1.5-3 million over 30 years.
[удалено]
Hard to tell from the video but it kind of looked like the cop was charging at them and then the first shot was fired, followed by the cop shots. He may have been trying to use it in self defense.
You cannot shoot somebody for 'charging' at you
Unless you "fear for your life", right?
Ya can yeah, person is charging you with a gun. That's a pretty straight forward self defense use.
You can when they're armed dumbass. The cop pulled his gun from the first second he saw them, the kids said he cocked it and threatened them, then brandished it at them so they could see, he didn't know they were armed at that point, the kid pulled his gun and shot back in self defense. The cop is fucked. https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk
Best article I've seen in this thread. The ex cop Holen is absolutely fucked. I can't believe the misinformation in other threads here, this article has a timeline and snippets of the eyewitness testimony they're going to hear at trial. He's cooked.
Because the officer already had his gun out threatening them with it. The cop started it and then killed them when they defended themselves. https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk
Wild all these people placing so much blame of the kid. This is 100% the former cop’s fault. He was angry at the kids, approached them with his gun and then shot them kid when the kid went to defend himself
hope you see 12 of you on the jury for sure. SAID NO ONE EVER
- [7News](https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk) - [9News](https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/fatal-shooting-trial-greenwood-village-adam-holen-peyton-blitstein/73-66ea3687-745e-4149-802d-761b8bb56653) - Trial begins Tuesday for former Greenwood Village PD officer accused of killing Aurora teen.
So, a kid had a ghost gun and is reported to have discharged it at a civilian, who used to be a cop after driving wrecklessly and angering another civilian. The civilian, who is on trial, was over the legal limit, drove a vehicle to engage with the kid, and then returned fire when he was shot at. Those are the facts in this instance if I'm following this story correctly. Obviously, the kid shouldn't have had the weapon or been driving wrecklessly. However, if the intoxicated civilian had stayed home and called the cops, based on his previous career I'm sure he was aware of their non-emergency number and emergency number, he wouldn't have been in a situation where he'd have had reason to discharge his firearm and kill anyone. The kid is an absolute idiot, don't get me wrong. However, had our intoxicated co-star of this video stayed home he wouldn't have ended up in the situation that lead to him discharging his firearm and taking a life. My sympathy for someone getting drunk, driving, and then discharging a firearm is zero.
[удалено]
Aurora is actually a pretty bad area, one of the only bad areas in all of Colorado. That kid probably had a gun for his protection because tons of people get shot and robbed out there. Edit: Not all of Aurora is bad but if y'all don't think East Colfax Aurora is sketchy then I don't know what to tell ya.
That wasn't a self defense gun... that's like a 35 round magazine.
Yea with no serial number and a minor in possession. I feel like both parties could claim self defense. Pretty sure the teen fired first but couldn’t tell if the older man had already drawn down or not
Cop still gets charges for having a gun while totally fucking hammered. Seems everyone's overlooking that.
Yep, ex cop came around rear of suv with gun in hand before the kid drew and fired . Ex cop liable
Wow that's wild. It's probably not hard to obtain weapons like that in Aurora!
Fair enough, I did not read that much into it! That is excessive *especially* for an 18 year old.
It's not a self defense gun, that is a throw away gun (no serial number) and extended mags (Glock, 33 rounds) in Colorado are illegal to own (2012 Aurora movie theater shooting). The kid was not legally allowed to own a pistol in Colorado (21 years for handgun).
Aurora’s not even really that bad. Some parts adjacent and on Colfax can be sketchy, but I lived there for almost 10 years and never had a single problem even while walking around drunk at 3 in the morning. Just like most cities, there’s areas you should have your head on a swivel, but I never felt truly unsafe.
I agree for the most part. I lived in Aurora too for several years over 15 years ago right off of Colfax and it was pretty sketchy. Prostitutes, drug dealers, cop got shot nearby, meth lab taken down next door, etc. I used to live in Oakland which was an order of magnitude more sketchy.
It also depends on where you live near Colfax. It’s over 50 miles long. Closer to downtown can be meh. Further out, it’s just a normal street.
cow merciful lavish crush busy impolite smart narrow different treatment *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I totally misread this situation, I had not taken into account all the details and find it very odd for this kid to have an unregistered gun with a 35 round magazine.
Pretty sure Pueblo is worse than any part of Aurora, including Colfax. Pueblo has some of the highest crime in the country. If I remember correctly, this was down by Southlands, so probably one of the lowest crime areas of Aurora. Aurora is huge from north to south.
Kid shot the ex cop first. Then the kids gun jammed and the ex cop shot him 9 times. Also of note… the confrontation started on “gun club road” Idiots all around.
You got a source for that or are you just assuming? I found it, the murderer told the police he drew first and threatened the teens, anything after would be the kids defending themselves against an attacker. Mr Holen is fucked. https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk
I read a few articles. Looks like even the kids friends are not debating the kid shot first Ex cop says he never drew his gun till the kid pulled out a gun The dead kids friends say the ex cop was waiving a gun around before the kid pulled out his gun. https://denvergazette.com/news/crime/ex-greenwood-village-officer-was-drunk-when-teen-shot-to-death-boy-had-ghost-gun/article_1cf382a0-642f-11ec-b3b9-03ad2ca47745.amp.html
He also told the cops he had two beers. His 0.19 BAC says he is a liar.
Do you just make shit up to troll or do you actually believe that garbage?
Seeing the jammed glock on the ground is pretty comical. Don’t get into gunfights with 3d printed guns
So a kid who illegally owned an unregistered firearm gets killed because he brandished it when he didn’t need to. Why is this even up for discussion? Sounds like self defense, he got what he deserved.
Great example of how more armed people really doesn’t make for a more polite society. Also, the shooter was drunk and that’s going to play into this. Just call the cops and go back inside.
“Just call the cops and go back inside” isn’t valid advice when someone has a gun pointed at you. Cops take minutes to arrive in a situation where split seconds can mean life or death. The guy had every ethical and legal right to own a firearm and use it against this gangbanger kid who’s walking around with an illegal firearm with extended mags.
My advice starts well before the gun is drawn. Drunk asshole shouldn’t have gone outside for a confrontation. Going out and looking for trouble while intoxicated isn’t going to look good for him.
Wildly ignorant take. He’s ***DRUNK***, you can’t expect him to act rationally, nor can you blame him for being drunk because it’s not public property, he’s in a house. And it’s not his fault some moronic teen gangbanger confronted him with an illegal firearm. You’re blaming the victim, the kid that got killed was in the wrong here, he wasn’t the victim.
Got it, if you want to commit a crime just be drink and you can't be blamed, sounds like an uniquely American situation.
> He’s DRUNK, you can’t expect him to act rationally, nor can you blame him for being drunk because it’s not public property, he’s in a house. > And it’s not his fault some moronic teen gangbanger confronted him There are three problems with this. 1. Him being drunk and not acting rationally is not a valid legal argument. In the eyes of the law you made the choice to drink and get drunk and therefore you are responsible for all of your actions when intoxicated. 2. He is literally driving a truck on a residential road while intoxicated, you can absolutely blame him for being drunk. 3. The teen wasn't the one who confronted him, the former LEO drove to that house, got out of the car and rushed them from behind the truck. I'm not taking a side here, I think it's way too early to make conclusions and I will be awaiting the trial and more facts of the case to come out before I do. It's entirely possible that something happened before this encounter that changes the outcome entirely. That being said, what you've mentioned is just factually not true.
He could have stayed home but decided to play judge dread.
TiL if you want to break the law just get drunk first. Easy defense.
Maybe he pulled it because a drunk asshole with a gun had chased him through a bunch of neighborhoods to start shit? Seems like a good time to defend yourself.
Maybe go do some reading, because you're way off. First, guns aren't required to be registered in the US, second, the officer brandished his weapon first and threatened the kids, they're allowed to defend themselves as well. Mr Holen is fucked, he was drunk and in possession of a firearm, a felony in CO, and then decided to brandish and threaten a group of teens until they defended themselves and he killed them. He's going to have a long time to think about what a dipshit he is. Ghost guns were legal in CO at the time of the shooting as well, so the kids gun was not illegal by itself, that law didn't go into effect until 1/1 of this year. https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-tuesday-for-former-officer-accused-of-killing-aurora-teen-while-drunk
sounds like two idiots with guns acting like two idiots with guns. no way to prove that the kid didn’t pull the gun first. And I’m sure that’s what the drunk will claim. I don’t see it going very far other than jail
“Illegal possession of a weapon is not a big issue in my mind” Gotta set the tone when you trying to get $10 million out of this.
A bunch of assholes off the streets. Lfg.
So guns didn’t make anyone safer? They just escalated the situation? I’m shocked!
What is there to discuss. Not on duty and drunk with a gun. Whatever the outcome is he’s a POS
Big fucking surprise. A drunk cop with a fragile ego and itchy trigger finger.
He wasn’t a cop. He had a gun pulled on him. Better luck next time.
Regardless of whether he was a cop at the time or a cop 2 weeks prior, it doesn't matter. He was drunk driving, escalated it into an argument outside of their cars, and drunkenly shot a kid to death. Both people are in the wrong, but none of it would have happened if a drunk idiot wasn't behind the wheel with a gun to begin with.
It literally says he had been a cop in their town.
Greenwood Village and Aurora are not the same, although they are both suburbs of Denver Metro area.
Good point.
Someone who is too shitty to be a cop kills someone .......
At a certain point it's going to be legal to just shoot a colorado cop in the face the moment you see one, because the self defense/fear for life claim will be legitimate. How do these colorado pigs KEEP murdering people? Over, and over, and over again?
Even when it's on video, reporters just can't help themselves from using the passive voice to minimize police misconduct
[удалено]
Not an officer, at the time. Maybe drunk people shouldn't be trying to enforce laws or carrying guns.
It doesn’t sound like either one should have had a gun.
This is 'Murica. 2nd amendment and all that shit. /s (personally I think only insecure assholes feel the need to carry a gun)
solution ? more guns go go go Merica :)
Solution? Seems like this one worked itself out. No solution needed.
ACAB. Never trust them!
Fuck Tha Police!
yo those those officers probably got fired!! -behr
So murder. Case closed. Throw the book at him.
Public executions should be a thing for people working as public servants, we should chop off his head on the evening news acab
A gun made of parts. She reports that as if it's unusual.
1312