Tuesday's shooting is seventh for Scottsdale police officer

[Sub-Husker]

This shooting seemed appropriate.

 

But in reading the article in the OP... the question that should be asked is why so many people in Scottsdale are friggin' armed lunatics.

[Cactusboy]

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 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.

 

I said that after posting this which I found on the internets. It wasn't from wiki Walks, sorry to disappoint.

 

 

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.

 

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.

[carlfense]

Good to see you Cactusboy. I wondered if something had happened to you.

 

Now that you have basically admitted that you can't prove a criminal case I am interested to see your civil theory.

 

Fire away.

 

[Cactusboy]

Good to see you Cactusboy. I wondered if something had happened to you.

 

Now that you have basically admitted that you can't prove a criminal case I am interested to see your civil theory.

 

Fire away.

 

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.

[carlfense]

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.

 

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.

 

 

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?

You'll have to start by establishing a theory of liability.

[Cactusboy]

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.

 

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.

[Cactusboy]

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

[carlfense]

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.

 

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.

[carlfense]

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

If you choose to go the negligence route. I probably wouldn't.

[Cactusboy]

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.

 

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?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!?!? Come on, let's all gather around the campfire and sing some Kum By-ah (or however the hell you spell it)

[carlfense]

Waiting for your argument. Civil or criminal. Your choice.

 

Prove your case.

 

No offense, but you aren't very good at this.

[Cactusboy]

Waiting for your argument. Civil or criminal. Your choice.

 

Prove your case.

 

No offense, but you aren't very good at this.

 

 

 

 

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.

[carlfense]

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.

[HSKR]

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.