walksalone Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 If you find the Scottsdale protocol I will laugh quietly and then ask you to find the legal standard. why laugh quietly, hell I'd laugh out loud Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 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. 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. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 If you find the Scottsdale protocol I will laugh quietly and then ask you to find the legal standard. 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. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 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. 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? Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 If you find the Scottsdale protocol I will laugh quietly and then ask you to find the legal standard. 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. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Still waiting . . . Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 If I find ether I'll post it. No worries. I found it for you. Cactusboy- what happened? The wind seems to have gone out of your sails. You spent around a dozen posts claiming that you were right or that you had won. I asked you to prove it up . . . and all you can do is post Southpark videos about farts. Do you remember the posts where I said that you were bluffing? I believed that at the time . . . but I guess I expected you to have something better than 2 - 7 off-suit. Anyways. You can still redeem yourself. Use the standard. Apply the facts. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think that you can do it. Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Anyways. You can still redeem yourself. About as possible as this gal completing the sit up. Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 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. 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? I have no idea what you're trying to get at? We abide by the State law, that's it. Our policies and precedures and the way we operate are based on State law. Would a reasonable person in like circumstances do the same thing. That's how we are judged in Iowa. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Highly doubt Cactus will come back to this... he's received a good ol' fashioned whoopin' from 3 different angles.... Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 While late to the party, perhaps this will help... Pursuant to Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386 (1987), determining whether an officer used excessive force - including the use of deadly force - requires an analysis under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard. Citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Graham Court specifically stated that in determining "objective reasonableness" one must look at the totality of the circumstances. The totality of the circumstances can include information provided through a 911 call (there are several hundred cases in support of this, so I won't bother citing all of them, but for anyone interested, you can start with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and work your way through all the refinements of subsequent decisions). Therefore, the term "imminent threat" in cases of determining excessive force is not limited to just the circumstances or facts observed by the officer at the scene. It can include non-scene facts and circumstances that are known to the officer. This includes, but is not limited to, information from 911 calls. Given the information in the 911 call, coupled with the facts and circumstances present at the scene, I'd have to say that this justified the use of deadly force, and does not constitute excessive force. For what it's worth... 2 Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 While late to the party, perhaps this will help... Pursuant to Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386 (1987), determining whether an officer used excessive force - including the use of deadly force - requires an analysis under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard. Citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Graham Court specifically stated that in determining "objective reasonableness" one must look at the totality of the circumstances. The totality of the circumstances can include information provided through a 911 call (there are several hundred cases in support of this, so I won't bother citing all of them, but for anyone interested, you can start with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and work your way through all the refinements of subsequent decisions). Therefore, the term "imminent threat" in cases of determining excessive force is not limited to just the circumstances or facts observed by the officer at the scene. It can include non-scene facts and circumstances that are known to the officer. This includes, but is not limited to, information from 911 calls. Given the information in the 911 call, coupled with the facts and circumstances present at the scene, I'd have to say that this justified the use of deadly force, and does not constitute excessive force. For what it's worth... And that ladies & gentlemen, is how you make a valid point... I am not worthy Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 While late to the party, perhaps this will help... Pursuant to Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386 (1987), determining whether an officer used excessive force - including the use of deadly force - requires an analysis under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard. Citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Graham Court specifically stated that in determining "objective reasonableness" one must look at the totality of the circumstances. The totality of the circumstances can include information provided through a 911 call (there are several hundred cases in support of this, so I won't bother citing all of them, but for anyone interested, you can start with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and work your way through all the refinements of subsequent decisions). Therefore, the term "imminent threat" in cases of determining excessive force is not limited to just the circumstances or facts observed by the officer at the scene. It can include non-scene facts and circumstances that are known to the officer. This includes, but is not limited to, information from 911 calls. Given the information in the 911 call, coupled with the facts and circumstances present at the scene, I'd have to say that this justified the use of deadly force, and does not constitute excessive force. For what it's worth... AR, that's entirely too reasoned and sourced for a message board post. Please add several emoticons and semi-trolling comments. YouTube links would also be a plus. You'd think that someone who runs this place would know this stuff. Well done. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 AR, that's entirely too reasoned and sourced for a message board post. Please add several emoticons and semi-trolling comments. YouTube links would also be a plus. You'd think that someone who runs this place would know this stuff. Well done. Don't forget to add several wikipedia links or other links.... Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Well done AR on your citing. Link to comment
Recommended Posts