• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here We Go Again

TurtleDude said:
Tensing's actions were less idiotic than the guy who shot a ccw holder 7 times-leading to a settlement of over THREE million dollars.
Click to expand...
:doh
Civil damages is irrelevant to criminality.


TurtleDude said:
Both of those former cops are not going to be police officers ever again
Click to expand...
iLOL You do not know that.
 
Excon said:
:doh
Civil damages is irrelevant to criminality.


iLOL You do not know that.
Click to expand...

they must not teach such things in second rate law schools
 
Excon said:
And here I was hoping you had something relevant to say. Doh!
Click to expand...

not in this thread to be certain

delighted in underscoring your recognition that td could not appreciate the insignificance of a civil finding relative to a criminal matter

carry on
 
justabubba said:
not in this thread to be certain

delighted in underscoring your recognition that td could not appreciate the insignificance of a civil finding relative to a criminal matter

carry on
Click to expand...
I guess you just cannot figure out that a civil settlement means that the cop's employer knew he had done something wrong. that was the point that apparently was beyond your comprehension. You spend much of your comments demonstrating you are upset that you apparently never made it to law school. In fact, most of your comments to me are snide and pathetic cracks about law school.
 
Excon said:
:doh
Civil damages is irrelevant to criminality.


iLOL You do not know that.
Click to expand...

1) both men cost their employers massive amounts of money. what sort of department will take the chance of hiring either of those two again? what do you think the insurance carriers for any such department will say about such a hiring

2) you and others have said the two officers did nothing wrong. I disagree. Tensing violated protocol and panicked. the yahoo that shot Castile really f'd up. was it criminal? I believe so but I also know that many citizens are loathe to punish cops who kill people many citizens aren't sympathetic to. Tensing's victim was a mope-a dope dealer and a guy who has fathered bunches of children with a whole harem of "baby mammas". Castile was no where near as bad but he had been smoking dope. i

3) civil damages in both cases were through a settlement. thus there was not a court finding that the two officers acted inappropriately. Indeed, I suspect the settlement has a statement saying the employers do not admit any wrongdoing. However, that sort of numbers means that the cops' employers figured a civil jury would find the actions of the cops improper

that is the point. trying to pretend I don't know the difference between guilt beyond a reasonable doubt versus liability by a preponderance of the evidence is really a sad testament to your lack of paying attention
 
TurtleDude said:
1) both men cost their employers massive amounts of money. what sort of department will take the chance of hiring either of those two again? what do you think the insurance carriers for any such department will say about such a hiring

2) you and others have said the two officers did nothing wrong. I disagree. Tensing violated protocol and panicked. the yahoo that shot Castile really f'd up. was it criminal? I believe so but I also know that many citizens are loathe to punish cops who kill people many citizens aren't sympathetic to. Tensing's victim was a mope-a dope dealer and a guy who has fathered bunches of children with a whole harem of "baby mammas". Castile was no where near as bad but he had been smoking dope. i

3) civil damages in both cases were through a settlement. thus there was not a court finding that the two officers acted inappropriately. Indeed, I suspect the settlement has a statement saying the employers do not admit any wrongdoing. However, that sort of numbers means that the cops' employers figured a civil jury would find the actions of the cops improper

that is the point. trying to pretend I don't know the difference between guilt beyond a reasonable doubt versus liability by a preponderance of the evidence is really a sad testament to your lack of paying attention
Click to expand...

" ... and a guy who has fathered bunches of children with a whole harem of "baby mammas""

Sounds presidential.
 
Fenton Lum said:
" ... and a guy who has fathered bunches of children with a whole harem of "baby mammas""

Sounds presidential.
Click to expand...

maybe in your world
 
justabubba said:
not in this thread to be certain

delighted in underscoring your recognition that td could not appreciate the insignificance of a civil finding relative to a criminal matter

carry on
Click to expand...
I understand that some folks need to make it exclusively about a poster and not about what they argued, I am not one of those folks. :shrug:
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess you just cannot figure out that a civil settlement means that the cop's employer knew he had done something wrong. that was the point that apparently was beyond your comprehension. You spend much of your comments demonstrating you are upset that you apparently never made it to law school. In fact, most of your comments to me are snide and pathetic cracks about law school.
Click to expand...

finally, something factually correct from you
my posts responding to yours are disproportionally directed towards your comments about legal topics
that is because you display such a limited grasp of the subject
but that you understand that reality makes me hopeful your ability to read for comprehension is improving
 
Excon said:
I understand that some folks need to make it exclusively about a poster and not about what they argued, I am not one of those folks. :shrug:
Click to expand...

iLoL!
 
justabubba said:
finally, something factually correct from you
my posts responding to yours are disproportionally directed towards your comments about legal topics
that is because you display such a limited grasp of the subject
but that you understand that reality makes me hopeful your ability to read for comprehension is improving
Click to expand...

you have continually proven that you don't understand legal issues and that is what causes you to say (almost in isolation) that my comments are wrong. The last thing you want to do is to make any issue a dispute among reading comprehension with me because 95% of the posters are going to find your's wanting.

you engage in the stupid comment of pretending I don't know that civil liability is different than criminal guilt. That was a moronic straw man you set up because I was talking about the fact that the two cops did something wrong. and many things people do wrong do not end up causing them to be found GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT but they still acted improperly. that was my point that you apparently were unable to comprehend or you dishonestly ignored in your desire to try to prove you knew something I didn't know.
 
justabubba said:
finally, something factually correct from you
my posts responding to yours are disproportionally directed towards your comments about legal topics
that is because you display such a limited grasp of the subject
but that you understand that reality makes me hopeful your ability to read for comprehension is improving
Click to expand...

Where and when did you get your JD?
 
Rucker61 said:
Where and when did you get your JD?
Click to expand...

the DMs (sometimes) get upset at forum members who solicit another's credentials. we will see if this is one of those times
 
justabubba said:
the DMs (sometimes) get upset at forum members who solicit another's credentials. we will see if this is one of those times
Click to expand...

Figures the sarcasm would be beyond you.
 
justabubba said:
the DMs (sometimes) get upset at forum members who solicit another's credentials. we will see if this is one of those times
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Firstly, this is not "DM Territory". Secondly, do not comment on Moderation.
 
justabubba said:
that would have then been mimicry
Click to expand...
Are you saying it wasn't?




TurtleDude said:
1) both men cost their employers massive amounts of money. what sort of department will take the chance of hiring either of those two again? what do you think the insurance carriers for any such department will say about such a hiring
Click to expand...
You spoke to a definitive.
So again.
You do not know that.​
If you do not like that reply, try changing what you argue as I was correct. You do not know that.


TurtleDude said:
2) you and others have said the two officers did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...
I do not care what others have argued.
If I did not argue it, do not argue it to me as if I did. With that said, based on the evidence, neither did anything criminally wrong.


TurtleDude said:
Tensing violated protocol and panicked.
Click to expand...
No. Your interpretation is that he panicked. Others rightly think he didn't panic but instead acted appropriately to the situation as it presented.
That is why there was dueling experts, and frankly the defense's expert sounded more credible given the fact that he actually reviewed the audio in conjunction with the video, while the prosecution's expert did not.


As for violating protocol? And?
Violation of protocol would be reason for remedial training or internal disciplinary action.
It is not make his response to getting dragged wrong or criminal in any way, shape, or form.



TurtleDude said:
the yahoo that shot Castile really f'd up. was it criminal? I believe so but I also know that many citizens are loathe to punish cops who kill people many citizens aren't sympathetic to.
Click to expand...
You believe so, and then make an excuse as to why the jury found the way they did, iLOL.



TurtleDude said:
However, that sort of numbers means that the cops' employers figured a civil jury would find the actions of the cops improper
Click to expand...
Another thing you state but do not actually know.
No, it does not necessarily mean that.


TurtleDude said:
that is the point. trying to pretend I don't know the difference between guilt beyond a reasonable doubt versus liability by a preponderance of the evidence is really a sad testament to your lack of paying attention
Click to expand...
iLOL Whatever you are using to interpret what I say, is off.
I didn't pretend anything about you or what you said.
I stated a fact in reply to what you stated. That I have to point this out makes me wonder though.

Again. You do not know that.
You may certainly believe it, but you do not know it. (You decided to go down the insulting path so don't blame me for returning what you dished out.) I am sorry to see you are unaware of the difference, which actually is sad testament to a lack of knowledge.

But not only that, it is like you do not remember what has been said between us elsewhere.

Why in the world would you argue to me a civil judgement when we already went down this road in regards to anther recently?
Based on that knowledge you should have known what to expect in reply. But noooooo, not you. Doh!


Excon said:
A civil suit win does not make the guy guilty of a crime. So I care not about that nonsense.

Secondly, I believe when such a justified killing happens that a standard payout should be given to recognize, that even though it was justified, it was also a mistake. But that is just me, and it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not the act was justified.
Click to expand...


A civil suit award is irrelevant to criminality. Period.
 
tldr

a civil judgment or settlement is a commentary on wrong doing
 
TurtleDude said:
tldr

a civil judgment or settlement is a commentary on wrong doing
Click to expand...

if wrong doing was actually established, then a guilty verdict would have been rendered in a criminal trial
 
justabubba said:
if wrong doing was actually established, then a guilty verdict would have been rendered in a criminal trial
Click to expand...

that's really stupid. you apparently don't understand the two different burdens of proof.

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is what is required for a criminal conviction. if 11 people think you are guilty and one thinks there is reasonable doubt, you aren't convicted

wrongdoing in a civil case-preponderance of the evidence. in other words, if the jury believes its more likely than not that you were in the wrong, the judgment is against you.

in many cases, the prosecutor OVERCHARGES a case for various reasons. The Tensing case in Cincinnati is a classic example. No way that shooting was murder. but the prosecutor insisted on charging murder and twice the jury has hung. He should have charged RECKLESS homicide which requires a far lower malicious standard than murder.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid. you apparently don't understand the two different burdens of proof.

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is what is required for a criminal conviction. if 11 people think you are guilty and one thinks there is reasonable doubt, you aren't convicted

wrongdoing in a civil case-preponderance of the evidence. in other words, if the jury believes its more likely than not that you were in the wrong, the judgment is against you.

in many cases, the prosecutor OVERCHARGES a case for various reasons. The Tensing case in Cincinnati is a classic example. No way that shooting was murder. but the prosecutor insisted on charging murder and twice the jury has hung. He should have charged RECKLESS homicide which requires a far lower malicious standard than murder.
Click to expand...

which takes us right back to my position: if there was criminal wrongdoing present then the officer would be found guilty in a criminal trial
he wasn't
the civil trial has nothing to do with it
 
justabubba said:
which takes us right back to my position: if there was criminal wrongdoing present then the officer would be found guilty in a criminal trial
he wasn't
the civil trial has nothing to do with it
Click to expand...

you really don't understand the obvious

if the jury thought the officer was wrong but not wrong beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT then they have to acquit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom