Cactusboy

Are you a defense lawyer?

Apology accepted for taking us all through those many pages of unproductive blabbering because you decided to argue the criminal side even though I said on page 1 that I ONLY thought it'd go civil. Why do I have to prove my case for civil? I simply said/think it'd go civil and that I don't think he should be allowed to carry a gun. I've been trying to just have a normal discussion on it...but you just want a pissing contest...and going by this last post of "prove your case" you still do. I'm starting to think you've developed a crush on me. Move this to the woodshed for all I care..... Catusboy...You may have just moved to yourself into the sole possesion of the biggest 'Tool' on Huskerboard. You struggle comprehending not only what others write, but also the babble that YOU convey. You insulted two members of the board, never answered any questions and now think you need an apology. You take it a step further by showing that once your ignorance is exposed that another dude must have a 'crush' on you. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. Never did I think I would side with Carlfense, but he served you. That really means a lot coming from you. I mean...it's about as meaningful as what Glenn Beck thinks of Obama.

Apology accepted for taking us all through those many pages of unproductive blabbering because you decided to argue the criminal side even though I said on page 1 that I ONLY thought it'd go civil. Why do I have to prove my case for civil? I simply said/think it'd go civil and that I don't think he should be allowed to carry a gun. I've been trying to just have a normal discussion on it...but you just want a pissing contest...and going by this last post of "prove your case" you still do. I'm starting to think you've developed a crush on me.

I can't believe that we sidetracked your discussion of civil liability. Oh, wait . . . http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/57998-tuesdays-shooting-is-seventh-for-scottsdale-police-officer/page__view__findpost__p__923212 Looks like you are the one who brought in the DA's Colorado Police protocol regarding criminal law. Now that you realize (but haven't admitted) that you can't win that argument you'd like to change it to civil law. That was on page 1. Where before that was I ever talking about criminal? After reading back through page 1 or so it seems after I made the distinction between civil and criminal and that I only thought it'd go civil....you decided to take it strictly criminal. Where, before the first page, were you talking about criminal law? Seriously? Are you arguing that if you had been talking about criminal law on Page Zero I'd have a point? Your deflections are getting weaker and weaker. The only law that you cited (not actually law) was criminal. Now you're trying to act like others focused unfairly on criminal law. And, I still don't see an admission that you were not correct. More obfuscation. You're obfuscating by being evasive and a wise ass. For example I said that was on page one that I said that...and asked where before did I talk about criminal. It's possible that I did because that wasn't the first post of mine on page 1...it could be an earlier post on page 1. So it wouldn't have to be "page zero". I didn't say "before the first page" Those are your words. Yes talked about criminal and civil in that same post and said it probably didn't have a chance in criminal and I thought it'd go civil. All this is on the same post. If I made this distinction and said it could probably only go civil...given this why would you keep up w/ arguing the criminal aspects? It's clear to me you do not want an honest discussion and whenever you are caught w/ your hand in the cookie jar you just babble a bunch of nonsense as a way to avoid accountability. Did they teach you this tactic in law school or did you pick it up on your own?

From what I can find, for civil the jury only need to believe there is more than a 50% probability that there was negligence.

I can't believe that we sidetracked your discussion of civil liability. Oh, wait . . . http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/57998-tuesdays-shooting-is-seventh-for-scottsdale-police-officer/page__view__findpost__p__923212 Looks like you are the one who brought in the DA's Colorado Police protocol regarding criminal law. Now that you realize (but haven't admitted) that you can't win that argument you'd like to change it to civil law. That was on page 1. Where before that was I ever talking about criminal? After reading back through page 1 or so it seems after I made the distinction between civil and criminal and that I only thought it'd go civil....you decided to take it strictly criminal.

On page one I said it seems to be very hard to find a cop guilty in a criminal case like this. Looks like the little dance over the criminal side was for nothing. I don't know how it exactly works in a civil case. Is it just that there is a lower standard of burden of proof needed? Nothing happened to me...just have my parents in town visiting.

So I decided to go back to see how this discussion started and progressed. Here is what I posted on page 1. http://www.huskerboa...post__p__923209 I stated: I said that after posting this which I found on the internets. It wasn't from wiki Walks, sorry to disappoint. Some how it got turned into a pure criminal law argument by fence...even though I said here that I thought it would only be a civil case and not criminal. Seem we got our eye off the ball as far as the going after me and what I said. Please add anything from the past discussion that I may have overlooked. update - later I said the cop has an itchy trigger finger and shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

why laugh quietly, hell I'd laugh out loud I suppose. He appears to be much better at saying that he won arguments than he is at actually winning arguments. I'm still waiting patiently for his argument. I kind of like this being on the defense. You can just sit back and poke holes in arguments. Didn't realize you were famous.

I don't know where that post is and haven't read the entire thread, but I wouldn't know if it was standard from state to state. I know how Iowa does it. Is Iowa's any different than this? 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. If so, how? Nope the "reasonable person" standard is pretty much used to judge all actions in law enforcement. In fear for my life or another is the basic standard to be justified in the use of deadly force. There is no official protocol in Iowa for this like there is in Colorado?

You know you're on the wrong side of logic and reason when walks is going against you.

I don't know where that post is and haven't read the entire thread, but I wouldn't know if it was standard from state to state. I know how Iowa does it. Is Iowa's any different than this? 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. If so, how?

gobiggergoredder why do you hate to using your brain?

You had time to find that site between smelling your own farts? This isn't a court of law...I can cite police protocol if I want. If you want to find and post the law covering it that's up to you. If I find ether I'll post it. Quit smug lawyer schtick. Sure. And I can discount a Denver, Colorado police protocol as irrelevant in a discussion of an alleged Scottsdale, Arizona crime. I'm still waiting. Beyond a reasonable doubt. You're kind of the boy who cried "victory." Pity. and if the Scottsdale protocol also says there needs to be an imminent thread of deadly force you will what?

I posted this earlier but didn't see a reply. Maybe it was missed. BIGREDIOWAN...is the Colorado protocol pretty standard? Does it differ from yours and if so how? I'll call Scottsdale PD Monday to see if I can get a copy of their protocol.

Well whatever it is...getting overly defensive and overreacting doesn't do you any favors on perception.

yes...I know this and it's been covered. You're arguing where there is no disagreement. If you just want to release energy you should go run around the block or pull some weeds. It'd be much more productive.

Murphy's Laws of Combat #16 - No plan survives the first contact intact. THis isn't Nam Walter...

Because you are making a split second decision. Just like that officer did in that situation. the scenario you described and what we know of what happened in Scottsdale are nothing alike. Because you know all the facts of what happened, by reading it on the internet, not because you were actually there. Hence that makes you the expert on this situation. I understand, you're never going to be wrong because the internet told you exactly what happened, and that provides you undeniable evidence. You can continue making your cases based on wikipedia or google, books you've read and not on real world experience. This is the reason you can prattle on forums such as this, but not in the real world. Good day sir... fence and I have both made it clear we are going by and only going by what was reported in the article posted. I don't know what else to tell you...looks like you're just itching to argue.

I already said that from what I found police are trained to shoot to kill and not stop. We aren't trained to kill dude...............what part of that don't you understand? We are trained to stop the threat................how do I know? I've been one for 10 years and I'm also a state firearms instructor. Whatever garbage you find off of wikipedia to back up your claims is just that. I don't know why you're taking such offense to this. I googled it and found this. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7461450 So it's not shoot to stop or shoot to kill... I don't care...I don't know why you're making an argument out of this. My point is I found that they don't shoot to stop/shoot at legs, etc.

BIGREDIOWAN...is the Colorado protocol pretty standard? Does it differ from yours and if so how? I'll call Scottsdale PD Monday to see if I can get a copy of their protocol.

You had time to find that site between smelling your own farts? This isn't a court of law...I can cite police protocol if I want. If you want to find and post the law covering it that's up to you. If I find ether I'll post it. Quit smug lawyer schtick.

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? I'm a big fan of this exchange. Really felt like Dick Cheney was right here w/ us all on HB.

Are you saying if it was from the Scottsdale police you'd take all this back? Hey! We're getting somewhere. It looks like you're edging towards admitting that your standard is both inapplicable in Scottsdale and not actually law. Would you like to find the actual law in Scottsdale or would you like me to find it for you? Then you can go about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this officer violated it. Why don't you want to answer the question? Just say yes or no and you can even add anything after that. Are you saying if it was from the Scottsdale police you'd take all this back? Since you thought what I posted before DID apply to Scottsdale I don't see how anything will change if I find the exact same protocol for Scottsdale. It seems like you're just playing coy lawyer games.

Are you saying if it was from the Scottsdale police you'd take all this back?