Jump to content


Tuesday's shooting is seventh for Scottsdale police officer


Recommended Posts

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. :(

 

 

 

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

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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

 

jdin561l.jpg

Link to comment

obfuscate audio-yrxp37.gif

 

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.

 

OBFUSCATE = 102576_matt-damon-in-the-informant.jpg

Don't forget Bill Clinton.

Link to comment

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

 

jdin561l.jpg

 

When this becomes your only defense to a rational point being made against you, then you should quit....

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

When this becomes your only defense to a rational point being made against you, then you should quit....

Then again, the irony of obfuscation through accusations of obfuscation is entertaining.

 

Note how he never gets around to mentioning what I am obfuscating.

 

Step 1. Insist that a criminal standard is applied.

Step 2. Complain that everyone is focusing on a criminal standard.

Step 3. ?????

Step 4. PROFIT.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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. :)

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...