Cactusboy

I seriously doubt that the Martyr Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan Behdast is able to differentiate one ounce of difference between Israel or the Zionist regime. If he doesn't acknowledge any difference between the two, what could it possibly matter to you? The Martyr? No, he was probably incapable of such a distinction, but I doubt that man ever existed outside of a few recent news "stories." The Man? I'm willing to bet that the highly educated scientist, researcher and college professor capable of splitting an atom was also capable of seeing the difference between a people and its government. Does it matter? It absolutely matters. Recognizing the fact that one can call for the destruction of the current manifestation of Zionism that we see today and its adherents and still not be advocating for the destruction of Israel or a "second Holocaust" is very important. My point was, the question that cboy asked about the story as it was presented (whether that story is true, false, or highly distorted), is only asked as a way to further his viewpoint. I still maintain that it doesn't matter if he said Israel or Zionist regime if the person saying it doesn't differentiate between the two. Of course you and I know there is a difference. The question is a moot point if we're talking about some fundemental extremist. It's like trying to make a point by clarifying the difference between 6 or a half dozen. My point was that it's unclear what he wanted to put an end to...the regime or the people of the country. Because the article at least twice said regime, I would bet he only wanted an end to the regime. However many will interpret at as him wanting an end to the people too and use it as another trumped up reason to allow Israel to bomb Iran.

I'm sure it's not uncommon...and I'm sure it's not uncommon for the other side to agree to settle for own reasons. Are there any studies that show these cases get settled out of court more often than other civil suits? That is a better question to ask. No that's really not a better question to ask. The other side agrees to settle only because they know they have very little chance winning. If the lawyer thought they had a home run case, I really doubt he of all people would want to settle for minuscule amounts. You don't need studies to figure that out. Sometimes common sense works just fine. So I ask which side does it more and to what degree and you say you know one side never does it. I suppose this is another example of me being the unreasonable/stubborn one in the wrong. Not in the wrong, just wrong. Give me some reasons why they would want to settle for small amounts? The only reason I can think of is if they know they weren't going to win in civil court, so they take anything they can get. If the civil case was a slam dunk then sue for millions. Heck, people settle for more then that in civil cases for getting wrongfully fired from jobs that don't even pay much. Once again, to even bring up the civil cases in this matter, only digs your original point further into the hole. Did you find any case studies on it yet btw? Let me know when you do. 1 - You don't want to be reminded over and over about the death of a loved one for who knows how long by having it go through trial. 2 - You don't want the media invading you and your family's privacy. 3 - You don't want to be blacklisted by the police or other govt people....(real or paranoid possibilty is irrelevant..just matters what THEY think may happen or have heard what happens) Those were off the top of my head...I'm sure there are other reasons people would want to just settle rather than go to court. I'm sure money is what most think of w/ these things, but to some that just lost a loved one...they may just want the police to admit they messed up...say they are sorry and have enough money to pay for the funeral and other expenses like a kid that just lost a parent's education.

BTW if any of you wanted to know how Cactusboy's debates usually ended on the original huskerpedia site (pre hostile takeover and Cactusboy moderation), this answer is pretty typical. A few to a handful of group thinkers in a CJ? Yeah, that happened from time to time. What was your name on HP?

Ripped from today's headlines. So I wonder which it is... "annihilation of Israel" or "annihilation of the Zionist regime"

I've given fair warning that posts like this belong in the Shed. I will not warn any longer. Was it that I said "your brain"? Would it be ok if I instead said "when you can't come up w/ anything productive"?

When I saw that gobiggergoredder I thought...I wonder what he could have possibly added to the discussion... I guess you my was well take shots at people when your brain can't come up w/ anything productive to add.

click the link for the whole article. Piss poor job by the site Sub linked to. These things really irritate me...when media outlets make a big deal about comments on a facebook page or message board and act like the person associated w/ the sites are responsible. It's also irritating when people fall and post it w/out checking the original source. I've seen Sub post for years and have never seem him do this before though. Just goes to show you pretty much can't take the word of any site as being the truth. http://www.haaretz.c...k-page-1.413656

I've never heard of the site, so I have no idea how reliable they are. But Sub just went by what the site said. I don't see what all the pilling on Sub is for. Has he posted wrong stuff like this in the past...is this a BS site like Drudge and he should have known it was bogus? I wonder if it's a lie that Haaretz really reported that Net wrote it himself...if that's the case then blame goes to them. I'll google it.

A regular circle jerk of group think up in here.

I'm sure it's not uncommon...and I'm sure it's not uncommon for the other side to agree to settle for own reasons. Are there any studies that show these cases get settled out of court more often than other civil suits? That is a better question to ask. No that's really not a better question to ask. The other side agrees to settle only because they know they have very little chance winning. If the lawyer thought they had a home run case, I really doubt he of all people would want to settle for minuscule amounts. You don't need studies to figure that out. Sometimes common sense works just fine. So I ask which side does it more and to what degree and you say you know one side never does it. I suppose this is another example of me being the unreasonable/stubborn one in the wrong.

Note how he never gets around to mentioning what I am obfuscating. Sure I did...I gave a specific example in the last 2 pages. I haven noticed you completely ignore many questions and points when inconvenient to answer/address.

Darwinian Theory of Legal Obfuscation The shyster model of lawyering says play for advantage to the disregard of truth. Carried to the extreme, it can include amazing tricks aimed at dissembling and hucksterism but it does not necessarily involve using language that is badly written - indeed, the finest forms of flim-flammery come from top legal echelons, where very high-priced lawyers are often paid to craft misleading arguments that will benefit their clients (including the government). http://news.ycombina.../item?id=951081 Good stuff

obfuscate Some people are experts at obfuscating the truth by being evasive, unclear, or obscure in the telling of the facts. The people who are good at obfuscating would include defense lawyers and teenagers asked about their plans for Saturday night.

Civil or criminal court has nothing to do with how the officer handled himself in this situation. The original point of this apparently was to discuss whether or not he was right in that situation. I agree w/ this part. I was obviously trying to have a respectful discussion on it in laymans language. I again point at the fact I admitted early on I was wrong on the shooting legs and posting links that showed it didn't have much of a chance in criminal court. Fence just wanted to flex and impress w/ his legal knowledge. I'm sure someone could have some very frustrating exchanges w/ the OJ criminal case before his verdict too. I'm sure Fence would admire those on OJs side...if not for their conclusion...for their tactics.

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/57998-tuesdays-shooting-is-seventh-for-scottsdale-police-officer/page__view__findpost__p__925123

I was having a general discussion on it and then made the distinction of what would be the best route between criminal and civil based on what I googled and pasted. http://www.denverda....%20Protocol.pdf I think it was avoidable and I strongly suspect it will go to civil court. Which has happened at least 1-2 times in the past and the city lost 75-150k as a result. It seems it'd be very hard to find a cop criminally guilty in a shooting because how are you going to prove that he didn't think there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force"? The 2 above posts should have been an opening for agreement and basically an end to petty bickering. As I said, I also admitted to being wrong on the shooting legs thing...some still even wanted to argue w/ me on that(not you) even after I said I was wrong. You didn't even reply to my post where I said I think it'd to civil court....you just kept on an on arguing and I did in return. I didn't get wrapped up in or even aware if we were then talking about civil or criminal...probably because I"m a layman in this area and...again I was just having a regular discussion. IMO you tried to steer it towards legal technicalities after I showed the stuff about imminent deadly force....because it was a solid point and you wanted to whitewash it...dismiss it..etc. Now you just want a childish pissing contest. You completely ignore when you get caught in blatant hypocrisy...example..you started calling me out for making assumptions...(I then omitted/corrected them) and then you go on to make assumption after assumption (see my post w/ the list of your "ASSumptions" JR20 just today replied to it so not hard to find) It's all Lawyer Obfuscating BS 101 and you're very good at it and I missed it at first...probably because from whats I recalled of you I thought you were a respectful poster...but maybe I wasn't paying much attention or the BS only comes out of you on legal issues...?

It's also transparent as hell. And funny, in a sad way. 4 replies and none answering my question.

Can you explain why you repeatedly tried to cite criminal law if you are focusing solely on civil law? Sure, right after you answer my question.

Wait a second . . . http://www.huskerboa...post__p__923853 Now you're humble, innocent, and being unfairly picked on. Your inability to form a coherent argument, despite your repeated declarations of victory, is noted. Are we done here? As stated many times...on page 1 I said it didn't stand a chance in criminal court, but would prob go civil. You ignored that and tried to get me to argue the criminal side anyway. I argued why I thought it was an unneeded shooting but not in any legal sense...just common sense. I'm not a lawyer..I don't know all the ins/outs of the law concerning this. I never said nor implied i was being picked on...and I did start out very humble in this thread until you ignored my post on page 1. I admitted I was wrong about shooting him in the leg...I admitted (page1) it didn't have a chance in criminal court. Those 2 facts make me far more humble in this thread than you. Can you explain why you insisted on arguing the criminal side after I said it had no chance?

What is your argument? Civil or criminal. Your choice. We're all at the edges of our seats. I don't feel the need to argue it. I simply said I thought it'd go civil and not criminal. I never pretended to be a lawyer. I'm wondering how much success you have in the court room if you're this eager to have a show down w/ a layman on a sports message board. I mean...I understand how in baseball they will send a guy down to the minors to hone his skills and build confidence...but at least that's in the same profession. I don't think they send them to the YMCA. I can sort of understand wanting to help people understand the law, but in that case I would think a confident secure lawyer would do so in a humble way and not in a crass arrogant manner. But maybe the stereotypes for lawyers is true...

You have to look at it from the officer's perspective. Angry and irrational gunman retreats into his home. Comes out holding baby (hostage?!) in front of his face and body. He is holding a black object (gun?!) in his hand. He lowers the baby from his face and makes some sort of motion to his right. (Raising gun? Lowers baby so he can see to aim?) *boom* Hostage?? nice ASSumption. Raising gun?? nice ASSumption Lowers baby to aim?? nice ASSumption. Oh man...this is awesome. You know it wouldn't be to sweet except for how arrogant and cute you've been throughout this...mostly earlier on granted. And you're a lawyer? Has to suck to have your butt handed to you by a regular Joe like me. Where was the imminent threat from Saddam. but, but...he gassed his own people... but, but...he wasn't following UN resolutions but, but...he invaded Kuwait. and where was the imminent threat? Were you hoping I wasn't going to go back to the police protocol I had posted earlier? You apparently forgot your manners when you came to this board. The great CB mod would have suspended me for such an outburst. I would think you would have more class than this but from what I remember from you being a mod this is about right. I think the old saying "do as I say not as I do" comes to mind. and a 3 pointer in college basketball is only 2 points in the NBA....you only need one foot in bounds for a catch in college FB...2 in the NFL.

I'm sure it's not uncommon...and I'm sure it's not uncommon for the other side to agree to settle for own reasons. Are there any studies that show these cases get settled out of court more often than other civil suits? That is a better question to ask.

Are you a defense lawyer? No. You still don't have an argument. Looks like you're qualified. obfuscate Some people are experts at obfuscating the truth by being evasive, unclear, or obscure in the telling of the facts. The people who are good at obfuscating would include defense lawyers and teenagers asked about their plans for Saturday night.

gobiggergoredder why do you hate to using your brain? Very intelligent response, we can see that you forgot to use yours on this post!! He received what he gave "why do you hate police?"....BS

Are you a defense lawyer? are you a BS artist? Just ITCHING for a fight, huh?