Cactusboy

Police protocol? You were quoting a police protocol that whole time? Oh my. I thought that you were citing a legal authority. Was your police protocol even from Scottsdale, AZ? That changes things a bit. I found in my nephews coloring book that a policeman can shoot anyone at anytime with no consequences. EDIT: I just actually read the link (not just the quoted portion) and saw that it is from Denver, CO. That's hilarious. Classic deflection out of weakness. As if protocol varies on this in any significant way. Are you saying if it was from the Scottsdale police you'd take all this back? Better thing that answer through before giving it. I feel your frustration of putting so much time into a losing "case" vs an average joe on the internets. Where did you go to law school?

Officer's perspective. He is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the available facts. Those aren't my assumptions. That is how the officer's actions could (and probably will) be justified. That's the wonderful part. We will get a definite answer from the criminal court on this case. On that day I will gracefully accept your admission that you were incorrect. How long are you going to play your bluff? Let's remedy that. Prove that the officer could not have acted reasonably. If you think that the shooting was unjustified you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I can win without proving anything. You can't. Now you're moving the goal posts. We can only go on the facts not your assumptions or your assumptions of what the officer may have thought. The grasping at straws isn't working.

15 yards?? That's more than double what was oringally reported.

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?

actually we didn't address the imminent threat of deadly force part until here recently. That's really what this all comes down to.

Please. List each obfuscating statement. You can't just say Post #71. List each offending statement. Again, the bluff is wearing thin. Still waiting . . . Also, my Westlaw subscription doesn't cover AZ so my imputed knowledge/collective knowledge case law is from Nebraska. From what I remember these are fairly similar across the country. 280 Neb. 43, 783 N.W.2d 612 would be an excellent place for you to begin your journey. Cheers. that's a side argument...I'll get back to it later. Don't want to take away from the meat and potatoes.

Again...FROM WHAT WE KNOW the man shot didn't do anything to show he was about to use deadly force on anyone. IF you disagree post the part from the article that shows there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force". It's a totality of the circumstances test from the officer's own personal perspective. I've listed the facts from the article that rise to that level several times in this thread. Most of them are in ordered and numbered for your perusing convenience. Do you really need me to copy and paste them for you? For the most part we don't disagree on the facts. (You don't seem to think that the pointing of the cocked gun can be a factor but that is simply incorrect. (If you want case law I'll give it to you.) The wife's sick so I have the time. Where we disagree is what results from the application of those facts to the law. That's fine with me. "to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force." You can't run from this. Where was the imminent threat of deadly force? Answer w/ making no assumptions. 1. Officer knew suspect had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor and yelled at him after kicking the neighbors trash can into the street. 2. Suspect is holding a baby in front of his chest and face. 3. Officers are pointing their firearms at the suspect. (Here it would be nice if we knew what words were exchanged.) 4. Multiple officers say that suspect appears to be holding black object in his hand. 5. Lowers baby from in front of his face and reaches down to his right. The italicized facts are the most important to the officer's defense. Listed roughly in descending order of importance. 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 sound like neocons trying to defend the legality of Iraq war.

Again...FROM WHAT WE KNOW the man shot didn't do anything to show he was about to use deadly force on anyone. IF you disagree post the part from the article that shows there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force". It's a totality of the circumstances test from the officer's own personal perspective. I've listed the facts from the article that rise to that level several times in this thread. Most of them are in ordered and numbered for your perusing convenience. Do you really need me to copy and paste them for you? For the most part we don't disagree on the facts. (You don't seem to think that the pointing of the cocked gun can be a factor but that is simply incorrect. (If you want case law I'll give it to you.) The wife's sick so I have the time. Where we disagree is what results from the application of those facts to the law. That's fine with me. "to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force." You can't run from this. Where was the imminent threat of deadly force? Answer w/ making no assumptions. Him poiting a loaded gun at a different location to a different person doesn't make it imminent when he was shot.

Don't forget to reply to post 75

In post 69 I make a very short, clear and solid stance. Your reply, post 71, doesn't address it head on and instead is evasive, unclear and meant to confuse/deflect. I'm tightening up my points/argument to prevent this but you keep trying to go all over the place w/ evasive blabbering. Definition of OBFUSCATE : confuse <obfuscate the reader> intransitive verb : to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

What I posted earlier... Again...FROM WHAT WE KNOW the man shot didn't do anything to show he was about to use deadly force on anyone. IF you disagree post the part from the article that shows there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force".

He pointed a firearm at the time of the shooting? You're simply trying too hard and getting sloppy. Post the def and I'll show you how it's what you're doing.

it's 100% true that from what we know there was no threatening behavior at the scene and no one was in danger at the scene. To say otherwise is an assumption to support your claim/defense of the cop. I didn't say WE KNOW...I said FROM what we know. Big difference. Why do you keep trying to separate the gun pointing and the police response? They were dispatched to investigate that crime. If police respond to a call of a man who just murdered a woman in his yard and ran into his home should the police totally disregard the murder because it happened before they arrived? It's the same string of conduct. You must be in the approximately 1% of people who think that pointing a cocked gun at a bystander and shortly after having the police show up with guns drawn is not a "tense, threatening environment." I'm not sure what your daily life is like . . . but that fits the bill of a tense, threatening environment. The officer's were informed that there was very threatening behavior by this man. That is indisputable. It is not an assumption. You seem to be implying that I will blindly defend police action. That is most definitely not the case. Given the facts from this case, in my professional opinion, the shooting was defensible. It's not a perfect case. None of them are. That said, were I asked who would win in court I'd lay heavy odds on the officer. That is not because of an inherent bias in the legal system in favor of LEOs but rather because the facts that we have support this argument. Also, I see that you've said this: As you probably know, what the man deserved is not relevant to whether or not the officer's actions were defensible. In fact, those are quite different theories that require different arguments. I'm arguing that the officer was acting within reason and that his actions are defensible. What are you arguing? Are you saying that the officer's shot cannot be justified? Pure obfuscation on your part. I'll post what I said again which still stands. it's 100% true that from what we know there was no threatening behavior at the scene and no one was in danger at the scene. To say otherwise is an assumption to support your claim/defense of the cop. I didn't say WE KNOW...I said FROM what we know. Big difference.

I said we can come back to this. It can be an after discussion.

it's 100% true that from what we know there was no threatening behavior at the scene and no one was in danger at the scene. To say otherwise is an assumption to support your claim/defense of the cop. I didn't say WE KNOW...I said FROM what we know. Big difference.

It's 2 different scenes at different times..even if it's as little as just 15 min later. From what we know the guy wasn't acting odd or threatening in any way. Just because he pulled a gun on a neighbor down the street and earlier doesn't mean it's a green light to shoot him now at a different place and time. Again, from what we know it wasn't a tense, threatening environment...from what we know no one was in any sort of danger. Agreed? Then change the 1st bold to just "guy turns around towards house" Is it safe to assume he's facing away from house when talking to the officer that came to his door? even if it's just "turns" it doesn't change anything. It's simply a movement that as far as we know is 100% nonthreatening. Last bold is a known fact that happened after the shooting. We can come back to this later. For now let's see if we can come to an understanding on the other stuff.

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.

Ok, then I have a hypothetical situation for you. You're in the military, in a combat zone in the middle of a fire fight. A woman or a kid (say 12 years old), picks up a rifle, and points it at you. What do you do? Probably whatever it is I'm trained to do. If you want me to answer anyway...how far away are they? What is in between us? How far away from me is the nearest thing to hide behind? 30 yards, just open ground, no cover If they were aiming at me I'd probably shoot them unless maybe if I was trained not to. I don't see why it matters if this in a combat zone though.

Getting called out on your . . . shall we say creativity? . . . is not a gotcha game. Let's simplify this. Show me step by step why you think that the officer was NOT justified in shooting. You've already looked at the applicable standard. Apply the facts (ALL of the facts. Not just the ones that you want.) as they were known to the officer at the time to that standard. I already did just that to prove my case. Now it's your turn. I'd be more than happy to return to a more civil discussion of the facts of this case as they are applied to the law. I already did, but I'll break it down again. Known facts: Guy was accused of pulling gun on neighbor. Police show up and guy has baby in his hand. Cop w/ gun 18' away sees something black in his hand. Guy turns around to go back in the house and has he reaches down to his right the cop shoots him in the head. Ends up guy didn't have a gun on him, but there was a cell phone in his pocket. Based on known facts alone I'd say it's not proven that he deserved to be shot. The cop would need to show that there he was a threat to someone's life and the facts known don't show he was. Just because he threatened a civilian earlier in a different place doesn't mean he will do so to police at his door. It's not on me to prove he wasn't threatening someone...it's on you to prove he was. There is nothing in the known facts that could lead anyone to conclude it was a justified shooting. The most you could do it say you don't know if it was. I'm saying it wasn't justified based on the known facts...because we can't assume he was guilty of making threats or putting anyone's life in danger w/out there being any evidence that he did.

That's why you are an internet message board hero and not a cop. If you were, and had been put in all those situations, you would probably have been shot dead by now. Yeah . . . it's pretty easy to sit back and nit pick after the bodies drop. It's a little different story out in the real world. Are or have you been a cop? I am pretty sure he is an attorney... That would make sense.

Please show me where I claimed that I had been in their shoes. You have a nasty little habit of inventing facts . . . and then you accuse me of only wanting to win at all costs. Curious. I never said you did make that claim. I just made a clarification. See...always w/ the gotcha games and pissing contests w/ you.

You keep omitting facts. Also, "ONLY holding a baby" is not relevant because that was only discovered after the shooting. I believe you called that "Icing on the Cake." I keep updating my "so this is what it comes down to"...because I'm not just trying to "win". which is why I was very willing to tell everyone my findings on "shoot to kill". You on the other hand seem to only want to "win" and win style points. and I stated ".even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere" Not true. I've repeatedly said that my opinion could be easily changed if we hear more facts. All I'm saying is that given the facts that we have currently, it was a defensible action. It's true. You are more wrapped up in some personal pissing contest than anything. It's why you keep on nit picking what I say instead of just making the obvious corrections yourself. For example...the walking into the house thing you pointed out...so then I change it to turning to go to the house....or the "only holding a baby" thing. You just want to play gotcha games instead of just having a normal discussion.

You keep omitting facts. Also, "ONLY holding a baby" is not relevant because that was only discovered after the shooting. I believe you called that "Icing on the Cake." I keep updating my "so this is what it comes down to"...because I'm not just trying to "win". which is why I was very willing to tell everyone my findings on "shoot to kill". You on the other hand seem to only want to "win" and win style points. and I stated ".even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere"

That's why you are an internet message board hero and not a cop. If you were, and had been put in all those situations, you would probably have been shot dead by now. Yeah . . . it's pretty easy to sit back and nit pick after the bodies drop. It's a little different story out in the real world. Are or have you been a cop? Nope. But I deal with these situations (with varying degrees of severity) every day. Then you haven't been in their shoes either.

Ok, then I have a hypothetical situation for you. You're in the military, in a combat zone in the middle of a fire fight. A woman or a kid (say 12 years old), picks up a rifle, and points it at you. What do you do? Probably whatever it is I'm trained to do. If you want me to answer anyway...how far away are they? What is in between us? How far away from me is the nearest thing to hide behind?