Tuesday's shooting is seventh for Scottsdale police officer

[gobiggergoredder]

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.

 

Move this to the woodshed for all I care.....

 

Catusboy...You may have just moved to yourself into the sole possesion of the biggest 'Tool' on Huskerboard. You struggle comprehending not only what others write, but also the babble that YOU convey. You insulted two members of the board, never answered any questions and now think you need an apology. You take it a step further by showing that once your ignorance is exposed that another dude must have a 'crush' on you. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

Never did I think I would side with Carlfense, but he served you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kpTvm6CYA

[carlfense]

HSKR- That sort of settlement happens all of the time. It's often cheaper to just pay out a small amount than to fight, and win, in court. That's probably likely.

[walksalone]

Hey Cactus, you should try to make your arguments, more like this...

 

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...

 

You'll have a better chance of not being chastised by other board members....

[walksalone]

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.

 

I dare you to make less sense. What you've just said has even less bearing on what has been discussed in the past 3+ pages. Carlfense, although we may not agree about things, is 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.

 

Move this to the woodshed for all I care.....

 

Catusboy...You may have just moved to yourself into the sole possesion of the biggest 'Tool' on Huskerboard. You struggle comprehending not only what others write, but also the babble that YOU convey. You insulted two members of the board, never answered any questions and now think you need an apology. You take it a step further by showing that once your ignorance is exposed that another dude must have a 'crush' on you. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

Never did I think I would side with Carlfense, but he served you.

 

 

That really means a lot coming from you. I mean...it's about as meaningful as what Glenn Beck thinks of Obama.

[Cactusboy]

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.

 

Are you a defense lawyer?

[walksalone]

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.

 

Are you a defense lawyer?

 

are you a BS artist?

[Cactusboy]

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.

 

Are you a defense lawyer?

 

are you a BS artist?

 

Just ITCHING for a fight, huh?

[walksalone]

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.

 

Are you a defense lawyer?

 

are you a BS artist?

 

Just ITCHING for a fight, huh?

 

A fight about what? That this whole thread, you've managed to make your self look like half an ass? Carlfense and BRI have chewed you up, spit you out. And when you attempt to come back, it's with something weaker than your initial argument. You should do yourself a favor and admit that these guys are whipping your ass and just call it a day. And I'll save you the trouble of calling my milkshake or what ever piss poor comeback you'll attempt to use.

[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.

 

Are you a defense lawyer?

No.

 

You still don't have an argument.

[Sub-Husker]

This has to be one of the least interesting topics to have such a prolonged pissing contest over.

 

The moderators would be doing everyone a favor if this entire thread was either burned of moved over to the Woodshed.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Cactusboy,

 

Why do you hate the police? You clearly have an issue with them. You take every opportunity to use a story here and there to make them all look bad. It would be like a person reading only your posts on Huskerboard and then thinking that all of us on the board were ignorant because of your content. My personal favorite was your 'waste of taxpayer money thread' from a few months back.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

gobiggergoredder why do you hate to using your brain?

 

 

Very intelligent response, we can see that you forgot to use yours on this post!!

[Cactusboy]

Cactusboy,

 

Why do you hate the police? You clearly have an issue with them. You take every opportunity to use a story here and there to make them all look bad. It would be like a person reading only your posts on Huskerboard and then thinking that all of us on the board were ignorant because of your content. My personal favorite was your 'waste of taxpayer money thread' from a few months back.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

gobiggergoredder why do you hate to using your brain?

 

 

Very intelligent response, we can see that you forgot to use yours on this post!!

 

He received what he gave "why do you hate police?"....BS

[Cactusboy]

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.

 

Are you a defense lawyer?

No.

 

You still don't have an argument.

 

 

Looks like you're qualified.

 

 

obfuscate

 

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.

[johnnyrodgers20]

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 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?

 

 

You apparently forgot your manners when you came to this board. The great CB mod would have suspended me for such an outburst. I would think you would have more class than this but from what I remember from you being a mod this is about right. I think the old saying "do as I say not as I do" comes to mind.