Tuesday's shooting is seventh for Scottsdale police officer

[carlfense]

Can you explain why you insisted on arguing the criminal side after I said it had no chance?

 

Because he is a lawyer and wants to win, I think that is simple enough!!

Also, because Cactusboy is the one who insisted for three pages that we apply a criminal standard.

 

Now that he realizes that it's a losing argument he wants to change the standard.

 

It's a face saving maneuver. Unfortunately for him it's not working so well.

[knapplc]

It's a face saving maneuver. Unfortunately for him it's not working so well.

 

It's also transparent as hell. And funny, in a sad way.

[carlfense]

It's a face saving maneuver. Unfortunately for him it's not working so well.

 

It's also transparent as hell. And funny, in a sad way.

[Cactusboy]

Can you explain why you insisted on arguing the criminal side after I said it had no chance?

 

Can you explain why you repeatedly tried to cite criminal law if you are focusing solely on civil law?

 

Sure, right after you answer my question.

[Cactusboy]

It's a face saving maneuver. Unfortunately for him it's not working so well.

 

It's also transparent as hell. And funny, in a sad way.

 

4 replies and none answering my question.

[jsneb83]

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Can you explain why you insisted on arguing the criminal side after I said it had no chance?

 

Because he is a lawyer and wants to win, I think that is simple enough!!

Also, because Cactusboy is the one who insisted for three pages that we apply a criminal standard.

 

Now that he realizes that it's a losing argument he wants to change the standard.

 

It's a face saving maneuver. Unfortunately for him it's not working so well.

 

 

Amen to that, he is a sly one, look at the Israeli thread, keep on him Carl!!!

[carlfense]

Can you explain why you insisted on arguing the criminal side after I said it had no chance?

 

Can you explain why you repeatedly tried to cite criminal law if you are focusing solely on civil law?

 

Sure, right after you answer my question.

Because you kept insisting that I apply your criminal police protocol. You can go back and read this stuff. Just click the little arrow.

 

Now why did you keep insisting that I apply your criminal standard when you only wanted to discuss civil law?

[knapplc]

Oops. Carl just lost the thread. Or the point. Or whatever.

 

By playing the "I won't answer you until you answer me" game you've given in to his demands, thus you have lost.

 

It's a bizarre form of entertainment, but it's entertaining, apparently.

[carlfense]

Oops. Carl just lost the thread. Or the point. Or whatever.

 

By playing the "I won't answer you until you answer me" game you've given in to his demands, thus you have lost.

 

It's a bizarre form of entertainment, but it's entertaining, apparently.

Why kill the mouse? What would we do then?

[knapplc]

Oops. Carl just lost the thread. Or the point. Or whatever.

 

By playing the "I won't answer you until you answer me" game you've given in to his demands, thus you have lost.

 

It's a bizarre form of entertainment, but it's entertaining, apparently.

Why kill the mouse? What would we do then?

 

There's always another mouse.

[carlfense]

Oops. Carl just lost the thread. Or the point. Or whatever.

 

By playing the "I won't answer you until you answer me" game you've given in to his demands, thus you have lost.

 

It's a bizarre form of entertainment, but it's entertaining, apparently.

Why kill the mouse? What would we do then?

 

There's always another mouse.

You're a wise man.

[Cactusboy]

 

Because you kept insisting that I apply your criminal police protocol. You can go back and read this stuff. Just click the little arrow.

 

Now why did you keep insisting that I apply your criminal standard when you only wanted to discuss civil law?

 

I was having a general discussion on it and then made the distinction of what would be the best route between criminal and civil based on what I googled and pasted.

 

 

It looks like cops are trained to shoot to kill and not shoot to stop...from my quick googling.

 

I found this too:

 

The fact that the District Attorney may feel the shooting was avoidable or “does not like” aspects of the shooting, does not make it criminal. In these circumstances, remedies, if any are appropriate, may be in the administrative or civil arenas.

 

http://www.denverda....%20Protocol.pdf

 

I think it was avoidable and I strongly suspect it will go to civil court. Which has happened at least 1-2 times in the past and the city lost 75-150k as a result.

from same link:

 

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. Therefore, the question presented in most officer-involved shooting cases is whether, at the instant the officer fired the shot that wounded or killed the person, the officer reasonably believed, and in fact believed, that he or another person, was in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death from the actions of the person who is shot. In order to establish criminal responsibility for knowingly or intentionally shooting another, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person doing the shooting either did not really believe he or another was in imminent danger, or, if he did hold such belief, that belief was, in light of the circumstances, unreasonable.

 

It seems it'd be very hard to find a cop criminally guilty in a shooting because how are you going to prove that he didn't think there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force"?

 

The 2 above posts should have been an opening for agreement and basically an end to petty bickering. As I said, I also admitted to being wrong on the shooting legs thing...some still even wanted to argue w/ me on that(not you) even after I said I was wrong.

 

You didn't even reply to my post where I said I think it'd to civil court....you just kept on an on arguing and I did in return. I didn't get wrapped up in or even aware if we were then talking about civil or criminal...probably because I"m a layman in this area and...again I was just having a regular discussion. IMO you tried to steer it towards legal technicalities after I showed the stuff about imminent deadly force....because it was a solid point and you wanted to whitewash it...dismiss it..etc. Now you just want a childish pissing contest. You completely ignore when you get caught in blatant hypocrisy...example..you started calling me out for making assumptions...(I then omitted/corrected them) and then you go on to make assumption after assumption (see my post w/ the list of your "ASSumptions" JR20 just today replied to it so not hard to find) It's all Lawyer Obfuscating BS 101 and you're very good at it and I missed it at first...probably because from whats I recalled of you I thought you were a respectful poster...but maybe I wasn't paying much attention or the BS only comes out of you on legal issues...?

[carlfense]

All of those times when you insisted that I apply your criminal standard . . . that was just you having a general discussion about civil law?

 

You do realize that we can go back and read what you posted, right?

 

And now you're just getting picked on.

[walksalone]

The 2 above posts should have been an opening for agreement and basically an end to petty bickering. As I said, I also admitted to being wrong on the shooting legs thing...some still even wanted to argue w/ me on that(not you) even after I said I was wrong.

 

You didn't even reply to my post where I said I think it'd to civil court....you just kept on an on arguing and I did in return. I didn't get wrapped up in or even aware if we were then talking about civil or criminal...probably because I"m a layman in this area and...again I was just having a regular discussion. IMO you tried to steer it towards legal technicalities after I showed the stuff about imminent deadly force....because it was a solid point and you wanted to whitewash it...dismiss it..etc. Now you just want a childish pissing contest. You completely ignore when you get caught in blatant hypocrisy...example..you started calling me out for making assumptions...(I then omitted/corrected them) and then you go on to make assumption after assumption (see my post w/ the list of your "ASSumptions" JR20 just today replied to it so not hard to find) It's all Lawyer Obfuscating BS 101 and you're very good at it and I missed it at first...probably because from whats I recalled of you I thought you were a respectful poster...but maybe I wasn't paying much attention or the BS only comes out of you on legal issues...?

 

This has nothing to do with the original post. His arguement has had to been stretched so far, it barely resembles the original point because of the logistical beatdown thats been handed out by multiple people.

 

Civil or criminal court has nothing to do with how the officer handled himself in this situation. The original point of this apparently was to discuss whether or not he was right in that situation. To save face some face, you've contorted and derailed this conversation in such a fashion that it has become laughable. You've put yourself in a situation where wikipedia or google isn't going to save you. Right now you're bailing out water out of your sinking argument, and you can't keep up wtih the deluge.