walksalone Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. Only because you obfuscate.... 2 Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 A regular circle jerk of group think up in here. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 A regular circle jerk of group think up in here. and you're the pivot man Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 A regular circle jerk of group think up in here. Take it to the Shed. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. The ambigious examples might need to be clarified... Link to comment
HSKR Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 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. Link to comment
HSKR Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 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. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 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? Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 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. Link to comment
HSKR Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 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. #1 doesn't work because if that was the case you wouldn't take it to court in the first place. #2 doesn't work either, why would the media try to dig stuff up on the family? These aren't celebrities and this isn't TMZ #3 mad me laugh out loud and made me picture you looking out your window for black helicopters after you wrote it if you really think that. They just have a loved one killed and they just want an apology? Thanks for another LOL. Enough money for a funeral? Sorry but I don't think the legal process is that quick. If they needed money for a funeral, it would have been paid for a loooooong time ago. If they really needed the money and had no doubt the officer was in the wrong, the family would not settle but go for the win and the big money. The fact there was a settlement more then likely says that the civil suit was frivolous in the first place. Let men know when you think of some more legitimate reasons or find that study that explains it. Link to comment
formercactusboy Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 what an entertaining beatdown this was. it looks to me like a loose cannon was eliminated before he could hurt anyone. p.s. i like the new SN I was given...not too shabby. Link to comment
Recommended Posts