carlfense Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Ah. Pointing a cocked firearm at someone = no danger. You are either trying very hard to win with a losing hand or you're just trolling. I don't think obfuscation means what you think it means. He pointed a firearm at the time of the shooting? You're simply trying too hard and getting sloppy. Post the def and I'll show you how it's what you're doing. It doesn't matter if he pointed the gun at the exact time of the shooting. Imputed knowledge doctrine. We've been over this but you must have forgotten. That said, it's a cute little straw man that you've got there. You should change his outfits with the seasons. Here's my post: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/57998-tuesdays-shooting-is-seventh-for-scottsdale-police-officer/page__view__findpost__p__923778 Please bold each of my statements that obfuscate the facts. Thanks. I notice that you aren't even trying to make an argument any longer. Instead you're throwing up blind collateral attacks. Apparently the bluff is wearing thin. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 In post 69 I make a very short, clear and solid stance. Your reply, post 71, doesn't address it head on and instead is evasive, unclear and meant to confuse/deflect. I'm tightening up my points/argument to prevent this but you keep trying to go all over the place w/ evasive blabbering. Definition of OBFUSCATE : confuse <obfuscate the reader> intransitive verb : to be evasive, unclear, or confusing Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Don't forget to reply to post 75 Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 What I posted earlier... 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. Again...FROM WHAT WE KNOW the man shot didn't do anything to show he was about to use deadly force on anyone. IF you disagree post the part from the article that shows there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force". It's a totality of the circumstances test from the officer's own personal perspective. I've listed the facts from the article that rise to that level several times in this thread. Most of them are in ordered and numbered for your perusing convenience. Do you really need me to copy and paste them for you? For the most part we don't disagree on the facts. (You don't seem to think that the pointing of the cocked gun can be a factor but that is simply incorrect. (If you want case law I'll give it to you.) The wife's sick so I have the time. Where we disagree is what results from the application of those facts to the law. That's fine with me. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 In post 69 I make a very short, clear and solid stance. Your reply, post 71, doesn't address it head on and instead is evasive, unclear and meant to confuse/deflect. I'm tightening up my points/argument to prevent this but you keep trying to go all over the place w/ evasive blabbering. Definition of OBFUSCATE : confuse <obfuscate the reader> intransitive verb : to be evasive, unclear, or confusing Please. List each obfuscating statement. You can't just say Post #71. List each offending statement. Again, the bluff is wearing thin. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 What I posted earlier... 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. Again...FROM WHAT WE KNOW the man shot didn't do anything to show he was about to use deadly force on anyone. IF you disagree post the part from the article that shows there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force". It's a totality of the circumstances test from the officer's own personal perspective. I've listed the facts from the article that rise to that level several times in this thread. Most of them are in ordered and numbered for your perusing convenience. Do you really need me to copy and paste them for you? For the most part we don't disagree on the facts. (You don't seem to think that the pointing of the cocked gun can be a factor but that is simply incorrect. (If you want case law I'll give it to you.) The wife's sick so I have the time. Where we disagree is what results from the application of those facts to the law. That's fine with me. "to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force." You can't run from this. Where was the imminent threat of deadly force? Answer w/ making no assumptions. Him poiting a loaded gun at a different location to a different person doesn't make it imminent when he was shot. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 What I posted earlier... 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. Again...FROM WHAT WE KNOW the man shot didn't do anything to show he was about to use deadly force on anyone. IF you disagree post the part from the article that shows there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force". It's a totality of the circumstances test from the officer's own personal perspective. I've listed the facts from the article that rise to that level several times in this thread. Most of them are in ordered and numbered for your perusing convenience. Do you really need me to copy and paste them for you? For the most part we don't disagree on the facts. (You don't seem to think that the pointing of the cocked gun can be a factor but that is simply incorrect. (If you want case law I'll give it to you.) The wife's sick so I have the time. Where we disagree is what results from the application of those facts to the law. That's fine with me. "to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force." You can't run from this. Where was the imminent threat of deadly force? Answer w/ making no assumptions. 1. Officer knew suspect had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor and yelled at him after kicking the neighbors trash can into the street. 2. Suspect is holding a baby in front of his chest and face. 3. Officers are pointing their firearms at the suspect. (Here it would be nice if we knew what words were exchanged.) 4. Multiple officers say that suspect appears to be holding black object in his hand. 5. Lowers baby from in front of his face and reaches down to his right. The italicized facts are the most important to the officer's defense. Listed roughly in descending order of importance. THE FOLLOWING IS ABSOLUTELY NOT INTENDED AS PART OF THE JUSTIFYING FACTS. That disclaimer before you try to say that I'm obfuscating. ((((If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts of a legal argument it would get even more interesting if we discussed the justification from a perspective of allowing an armed man to retreat to his residence with a 9 month old in his arms in the face of police orders that he comply after pointing a cocked gun at his neighbor.)))) Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 In post 69 I make a very short, clear and solid stance. Your reply, post 71, doesn't address it head on and instead is evasive, unclear and meant to confuse/deflect. I'm tightening up my points/argument to prevent this but you keep trying to go all over the place w/ evasive blabbering. Definition of OBFUSCATE : confuse <obfuscate the reader> intransitive verb : to be evasive, unclear, or confusing Please. List each obfuscating statement. You can't just say Post #71. List each offending statement. Again, the bluff is wearing thin. Still waiting . . . Also, my Westlaw subscription doesn't cover AZ so my imputed knowledge/collective knowledge case law is from Nebraska. From what I remember these are fairly similar across the country. 280 Neb. 43, 783 N.W.2d 612 would be an excellent place for you to begin your journey. Cheers. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 What I posted earlier... 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. Again...FROM WHAT WE KNOW the man shot didn't do anything to show he was about to use deadly force on anyone. IF you disagree post the part from the article that shows there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force". It's a totality of the circumstances test from the officer's own personal perspective. I've listed the facts from the article that rise to that level several times in this thread. Most of them are in ordered and numbered for your perusing convenience. Do you really need me to copy and paste them for you? For the most part we don't disagree on the facts. (You don't seem to think that the pointing of the cocked gun can be a factor but that is simply incorrect. (If you want case law I'll give it to you.) The wife's sick so I have the time. Where we disagree is what results from the application of those facts to the law. That's fine with me. "to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force." You can't run from this. Where was the imminent threat of deadly force? Answer w/ making no assumptions. 1. Officer knew suspect had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor and yelled at him after kicking the neighbors trash can into the street. 2. Suspect is holding a baby in front of his chest and face. 3. Officers are pointing their firearms at the suspect. (Here it would be nice if we knew what words were exchanged.) 4. Multiple officers say that suspect appears to be holding black object in his hand. 5. Lowers baby from in front of his face and reaches down to his right. The italicized facts are the most important to the officer's defense. Listed roughly in descending order of importance. 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 sound like neocons trying to defend the legality of Iraq war. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 In post 69 I make a very short, clear and solid stance. Your reply, post 71, doesn't address it head on and instead is evasive, unclear and meant to confuse/deflect. I'm tightening up my points/argument to prevent this but you keep trying to go all over the place w/ evasive blabbering. Definition of OBFUSCATE : confuse <obfuscate the reader> intransitive verb : to be evasive, unclear, or confusing Please. List each obfuscating statement. You can't just say Post #71. List each offending statement. Again, the bluff is wearing thin. Still waiting . . . Also, my Westlaw subscription doesn't cover AZ so my imputed knowledge/collective knowledge case law is from Nebraska. From what I remember these are fairly similar across the country. 280 Neb. 43, 783 N.W.2d 612 would be an excellent place for you to begin your journey. Cheers. that's a side argument...I'll get back to it later. Don't want to take away from the meat and potatoes. Link to comment
Ratt Mhule Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Are you guys arguing just to argue? This has gone nowhere since post #1. The same points are being made over and over and over... Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Are you guys arguing just to argue? This has gone nowhere since post #1. The same points are being made over and over and over... actually we didn't address the imminent threat of deadly force part until here recently. That's really what this all comes down to. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 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* Edit: This is interesting. A few more facts. I had forgotten about the home made bomb. Doesn't factor into whether the shot was justified, of course. http://www.azcentral...us-run-ins.html "The intent was to rescue the baby." Edit again: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/police-officer-shoots-man-with-baby_n_1281450.html Police said Loxas went back in his house after allegedly threatening the neighbors, then opened the door with the 9-month-old grandson in his arms but wouldn't come out.Several officers called for him to come outside, but Loxas refused, Rodbell said. Peters shot Loxas in the head with a scope-equipped rifle from about 15 yards away when he leaned over and reached inside the house. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Are you guys arguing just to argue? This has gone nowhere since post #1. The same points are being made over and over and over... I think it has about run its course unless we can find additional facts. He has his opinion. I have mine. Arguments can be made for either. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 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? Link to comment
Recommended Posts