Tuesday's shooting is seventh for Scottsdale police officer

[Cactusboy]

 

 

Edit again:

http://www.huffingto..._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.

 

15 yards?? That's more than double what was oringally reported.

[carlfense]

 

 

Edit again:

http://www.huffingto..._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.

 

15 yards?? That's more than double what was oringally reported.

That's not the only difference between the HP piece and the others.

[carlfense]

 

 

Hostage?? nice ASSumption.

Raising gun?? nice ASSumption

Lowers baby to aim?? nice ASSumption.

Officer's perspective. He is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the available facts. Those aren't my assumptions. That is how the officer's actions could (and probably will) be justified. That's the wonderful part. We will get a definite answer from the criminal court on this case. On that day I will gracefully accept your admission that you were incorrect.

 

How long are you going to play your bluff? Let's remedy that.

 

Prove that the officer could not have acted reasonably. If you think that the shooting was unjustified you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I can win without proving anything. You can't.

[carlfense]

Were you hoping I wasn't going to go back to the police protocol I had posted earlier?

Police protocol? You were quoting a police protocol that whole time? Oh my. I thought that you were citing a legal authority.

 

Was your police protocol even from Scottsdale, AZ?

 

That changes things a bit. I found in my nephews coloring book that a policeman can shoot anyone at anytime with no consequences.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I just actually read the link (not just the quoted portion) and saw that it is from Denver, CO. That's hilarious.

[carlfense]

Anyways. I'm going to get some sleep. It's been fun. Maybe tomorrow we can apply these facts to Moroccan law.

 

FYI. You might want to read the paragraph after the one you cited from your Denver, CO police protocol. If you aren't too wedded to your argument that might provide some valuable information. Or at least it could . . . if the shooting was in Denver.

[Cactusboy]

 

 

Hostage?? nice ASSumption.

Raising gun?? nice ASSumption

Lowers baby to aim?? nice ASSumption.

Officer's perspective. He is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the available facts. Those aren't my assumptions. That is how the officer's actions could (and probably will) be justified. That's the wonderful part. We will get a definite answer from the criminal court on this case. On that day I will gracefully accept your admission that you were incorrect.

 

How long are you going to play your bluff? Let's remedy that.

 

Prove that the officer could not have acted reasonably. If you think that the shooting was unjustified you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I can win without proving anything. You can't.

 

Now you're moving the goal posts. We can only go on the facts not your assumptions or your assumptions of what the officer may have thought. The grasping at straws isn't working.

[Cactusboy]

Were you hoping I wasn't going to go back to the police protocol I had posted earlier?

Police protocol? You were quoting a police protocol that whole time? Oh my. I thought that you were citing a legal authority.

 

Was your police protocol even from Scottsdale, AZ?

 

That changes things a bit. I found in my nephews coloring book that a policeman can shoot anyone at anytime with no consequences.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I just actually read the link (not just the quoted portion) and saw that it is from Denver, CO. That's hilarious.

 

Classic deflection out of weakness. As if protocol varies on this in any significant way. Are you saying if it was from the Scottsdale police you'd take all this back? Better thing that answer through before giving it.

 

I feel your frustration of putting so much time into a losing "case" vs an average joe on the internets. Where did you go to law school?

[carlfense]

Cactusboy- I owe you an apology. I had a good laugh at your expense last night and that was not necessary. I shouldn't expect everyone to know where and when laws are applicable. Sorry, sir. Seriously.

[carlfense]

Now you're moving the goal posts. We can only go on the facts not your assumptions or your assumptions of what the officer may have thought. The grasping at straws isn't working.

I don't have to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove the case. If you think the officer was a wrongdoer that makes you the prosecution.

 

Fire away. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

We can even find the right law to apply if you'd like. I do apologize about that. There's just something that tickles my fancy about someone repeatedly insisting that I have to apply a portion of a certain law . . . when that law doesn't even apply in the area discussed. I have a weird sense of humor.

[Cactusboy]

Cactusboy- I owe you an apology. I had a good laugh at your expense last night and that was not necessary. I shouldn't expect everyone to know where and when laws are applicable. Sorry, sir. Seriously.

 

 

Are you saying if it was from the Scottsdale police you'd take all this back?

[carlfense]

Cactusboy- I owe you an apology. I had a good laugh at your expense last night and that was not necessary. I shouldn't expect everyone to know where and when laws are applicable. Sorry, sir. Seriously.

 

 

Are you saying if it was from the Scottsdale police you'd take all this back?

Hey! We're getting somewhere. It looks like you're edging towards admitting that your standard is both inapplicable in Scottsdale and not actually law.

 

Would you like to find the actual law in Scottsdale or would you like me to find it for you? Then you can go about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this officer violated it.

[Cactusboy]

Cactusboy- I owe you an apology. I had a good laugh at your expense last night and that was not necessary. I shouldn't expect everyone to know where and when laws are applicable. Sorry, sir. Seriously.

 

 

Are you saying if it was from the Scottsdale police you'd take all this back?

Hey! We're getting somewhere. It looks like you're edging towards admitting that your standard is both inapplicable in Scottsdale and not actually law.

 

Would you like to find the actual law in Scottsdale or would you like me to find it for you? Then you can go about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this officer violated it.

 

Why don't you want to answer the question? Just say yes or no and you can even add anything after that.

 

Are you saying if it was from the Scottsdale police you'd take all this back?

 

Since you thought what I posted before DID apply to Scottsdale I don't see how anything will change if I find the exact same protocol for Scottsdale. It seems like you're just playing coy lawyer games.

[Cactusboy]

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?

 

 

I'm a big fan of this exchange. Really felt like Dick Cheney was right here w/ us all on HB.

[carlfense]

You're still trying to apply the wrong law (well . . .actually it's worse than that. It's not even the law in Colorado. It's a police protocol from Colorado). Why on earth would you still be clinging to that? I feel guilty . . . I assumed that you were using the correct law and the relevant passage. If I would have read your link instead of your blurb I could have saved you a lot of time and energy. I don't feel bad about wasting my own time . . . but your time is probably valuable.

 

 

 

Here you go: http://www.azleg.gov...sedStatutes.asp

 

Your case, counsellor. Beyond a reasonable doubt please.

[Cactusboy]

You're still trying to apply the wrong law (well . . .actually it's worse than that. It's not even the law in Colorado. It's a police protocol from Colorado). Why on earth would you still be clinging to that? I feel guilty . . . I assumed that you were using the correct law and the relevant passage. If I would have read your link instead of your blurb I could have saved you a lot of time and energy. I don't feel bad about wasting my own time . . . but your time is probably valuable.

 

 

 

Here you go: http://www.azleg.gov...sedStatutes.asp

 

Your case, counsellor. Beyond a reasonable doubt please.

 

You had time to find that site between smelling your own farts?

 

This isn't a court of law...I can cite police protocol if I want. If you want to find and post the law covering it that's up to you. If I find ether I'll post it. Quit smug lawyer schtick.