Cactusboy
-
Posts
831 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Cactusboy
-
-
The other two cases that went to civil court were not won. They were settled for small amounts. My translation to this would be that the city chose to settle so they didn't have to drag it out and pay attorneys any more fees that would add up higher then the settlement itself, even if the city won. Would you agree with this carlfense? If I was wrongfully shot dead and my family sued, I'd sure as heck hope they sued for millions not $75 grand, lol. So I'm not really sure why anyone would even care about the civil case from what has been posted here, peanuts imo. I'd rather have my city settle for $75k then have a dead cop on their hands because he tried to shoot the criminal in the arm.
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.
-
A regular circle jerk of group think up in here.
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?
-
Wife of Assassinated Scientist: Annihilation of Israel "Mostafa's Ultimate Goal"
TEHRAN (FNA)- The wife of Martyr Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan Behdast, who was assassinated by Mossad agents in Tehran in January, reiterated on Tuesday that her husband sought the annihilation of the Zionist regime wholeheartedly.
"Mostafa's ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel," Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani told FNA on Tuesday.
Bolouri Kashani also underlined that her spouse loved any resistance figure in his life who was willing to fight the Zionist regime and supported the rights of the oppressed Palestinian nation.
Ripped from today's headlines.
So I wonder which it is... "annihilation of Israel" or "annihilation of the Zionist regime"
-
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.
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.
Racist comments appeared on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Facebook page after the school bus crash near Jerusalem on Thursday in which 10 children died and more than 40 were injured.
Satisfaction that "only Palestinians" were the victims and slogans such as "Death to Arabs, why do we help them?" were posted on the Facebook pages of Netanyahu, Wallah and the Israel Police.
Other comments included "Can we send another truck?" and "I'd send a double-trailer to wipe out all those sh#ts" after the bus overturned when it crashed into a truck.
Netanyahu expressed sorrow over the accident, but his aides did not remove the racist comments from his Facebook page or denounce them.
"Relax, it's Palestinian children," someone wrote on Wallah's Facebook page. Others wrote "Great! Fewer terrorists" and "May there be such buses every day." Similar comments were posted on the police's Facebook page, including "When they grew up they'd be terrorists .... God nipped them in the bud."
Netanyahu's aides declined to comment. Wallah site editor Gadi Lahav said "we monitor the page every few minutes and delete unworthy comments like these."
-
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.
Israeli Haaretz newspaper, two days ago, said Netanyahu wrote on his Facebook page that "I wish death to all Arabs.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.
-
The other two cases that went to civil court were not won. They were settled for small amounts. My translation to this would be that the city chose to settle so they didn't have to drag it out and pay attorneys any more fees that would add up higher then the settlement itself, even if the city won. Would you agree with this carlfense? If I was wrongfully shot dead and my family sued, I'd sure as heck hope they sued for millions not $75 grand, lol. So I'm not really sure why anyone would even care about the civil case from what has been posted here, peanuts imo. I'd rather have my city settle for $75k then have a dead cop on their hands because he tried to shoot the criminal in the arm.
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.
-
When this becomes your only defense to a rational point being made against you, then you should quit....
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.
-
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...?
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.
-
All of those times when you insisted that I apply your criminal standard . . . that was just you having a general discussion about civil law?
You do realize that we can go back and read what you posted, right?
And now you're just getting picked on.
-
Because you kept insisting that I apply your criminal police protocol. You can go back and read this stuff. Just click the little arrow.
Now why did you keep insisting that I apply your criminal standard when you only wanted to discuss civil law?
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.
It looks like cops are trained to shoot to kill and not shoot to stop...from my quick googling.
I found this too:
The fact that the District Attorney may feel the shooting was avoidable or “does not like” aspects of the shooting, does not make it criminal. In these circumstances, remedies, if any are appropriate, may be in the administrative or civil arenas.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.
from same link:
officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person . . . when he reasonably believes that it is necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. Therefore, the question presented in most officer-involved shooting cases is whether, at the instant the officer fired the shot that wounded or killed the person, the officer reasonably believed, and in fact believed, that he or another person, was in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death from the actions of the person who is shot. In order to establish criminal responsibility for knowingly or intentionally shooting another, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person doing the shooting either did not really believe he or another was in imminent danger, or, if he did hold such belief, that belief was, in light of the circumstances, unreasonable.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 a face saving maneuver. Unfortunately for him it's not working so well.
It's also transparent as hell. And funny, in a sad way.
4 replies and none answering my question.
-
Can you explain why you insisted on arguing the criminal side after I said it had no chance?
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.
-
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...
Wait a second . . .
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. 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?
-
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.
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...
-
all you did was list a bunch of facts, but none show there was an in imminent threat. What he did at a different location to different people doesn't make what happened w/ the cops IMMINENT. None of the thngs you listed show any deadly force was imminent. Do I need to post the def of imminent?
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.
-
The other two cases that went to civil court were not won. They were settled for small amounts. My translation to this would be that the city chose to settle so they didn't have to drag it out and pay attorneys any more fees that would add up higher then the settlement itself, even if the city won. Would you agree with this carlfense? If I was wrongfully shot dead and my family sued, I'd sure as heck hope they sued for millions not $75 grand, lol. So I'm not really sure why anyone would even care about the civil case from what has been posted here, peanuts imo. I'd rather have my city settle for $75k then have a dead cop on their hands because he tried to shoot the criminal in the arm.
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.
-
Oh. You don't have an argument. I see.
Criminal? Nope. Despite citing criminal opinions and talking about it for pages you've got nothing.
Civil? Nope. Despite not focusing on it until now, you still have no argument.
Obfuscation, indeed. Given your history you will now declare victory. Awesome.
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.
-
Cactusboy,
Why do you hate the police? You clearly have an issue with them. You take every opportunity to use a story here and there to make them all look bad. It would be like a person reading only your posts on Huskerboard and then thinking that all of us on the board were ignorant because of your content. My personal favorite was your 'waste of taxpayer money thread' from a few months back.
Keep up the good work.
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
-
Oh. You don't have an argument. I see.
Criminal? Nope. Despite citing criminal opinions and talking about it for pages you've got nothing.
Civil? Nope. Despite not focusing on it until now, you still have no argument.
Obfuscation, indeed. Given your history you will now declare victory. Awesome.
Are you a defense lawyer?
are you a BS artist?
Just ITCHING for a fight, huh?
Mostafa's ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel
in Politics & Religion
Posted
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.