Sport Horse Spotlight

B&A Jump 1

Real Estate Spotlight

Sale Spotlight

COTH_without Subscribe
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You�re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it�details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums� policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it�s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users� profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses � Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it�s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who�s selling it, it doesn�t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions � Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services � Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products � While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements � Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be �bumped� excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues � Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators� discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you�d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user�s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Barisone Pleads Not Guilty

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by smoofox View Post

    What a load of hooey. Only negative comments are allowed? Have you actually read these threads - or do you just fly through them occasionally to fling stuff at the walls and hope it will stick? There has been a very small vehement group of anti-LK posters who have gone completely off the rails at times. The majority of us who have posted in these threads are/were simply discussing the events from all points of view - not pro MB and not pro LK. We are now apparently "not allowed" to do that - as per the self-appointed moderators.

    LK arrived - occasionally lashing out and swinging for the fences - and basically got the expected reaction from some. Many of us advised her NOT to post on these threads at this time. No one made her post. That was/is entirely her choice - and I still think it is not a good idea and may harm her case but I am not LK.

    Certain posters who seek to run the conversation as they and only they see fit then moved in on the threads. Posters have to REPEATEDLY post that shooting someone is never the right solution, that shooting someone is not good etc. - lest they be jumped by the small self-righteous indignant posse who finds fault with everyone and everything that is not LK herself - or so it seems. When they post to play the martyrdom card about how wonderful and amazing and selfless they are for protecting LK from everyone else on the threads... it gets beyond tiresome. The claims that every other poster (aside from the martyrs) is dishing out "constant harassment" and committing "victimization" are not only untrue - but sadly laughable.

    This post of yours strikes me as having “an air of contempt”.

    You have stated several times that you and others have advised LK not to post. LK has a team of lawyers and a lawyer father. And you think it is your place, as an anonymous poster on a BB, to “advise” her on posting?

    You accuse me and perhaps dragonfly90 of “seek[ing] to run the conversation” on the Barisone case, but think it is your place to advise the victim of the shooting and the victim of the internet bullying not to post, and similarly castigate posters who took her side enough to be accused of being her alters.

    [Pause here so smoofox can mock me for wanting to appear a martyr.]

    If you have been following the discussion of the actual case, someone asked if there was information about the gun. LK chimed in and stated that RC had been charged with gun violations. If people want to decline to believe her, fine.

    But almost immediately, people are saying she is a drama seeking liar, making up the thing about the charges, because they can’t turn up documentation in an internet search.

    Many pages of useless crap later, someone (not you) provides the useful information that in NJ, criminal charges are not on the database until after conviction.

    Turns out that LKs statement about gun charges, in response to a direct question, may well be TRUE. Turns out that the inference that because multiple people could not find it in an internet search implies that LK must be lying, is FALSE.

    So in your (contemptuous) opinion, LK, who as the victim has access to more information than others, should not be posting. While you make a point of calling out me and dragonfly90 for criticizing the anti LK core, have you bothered to call out those falsely claiming to have caught LK in a drama seeking lie? Or any of their other unsubstantiated accusations?
    Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Jan. 14, 2020, 04:07 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

      A recurring theme of GWE is that MB has remained silent, while LK has not. There is a logical reason for this.

      Until the trial starts, his legal team does not need to commit to a particular defense strategy, in the sense that they don’t need to commit to a particular “scenario”, for example, LK brought the gun to the porch, there was a struggle, she gets accidentally shot, he brought it with him to defend himself against the dog and fired at the dog, but missed the dog and hit her, etc. As long as MB says nothing, the choice of “scenario” used by the defense is constrained only by the evidence the prosecution already has.

      If MB makes statements A, B, and C, those statements may contradict some of the many scenarios currently available to the defense, narrowing his options with regard to defense strategy. By not saying anything, he is keeping his options open.

      Yes, that certainly makes sense. If you make no statement, you can’t contradict yourself later. I do wonder what his defense and statement will be.
      Obviously I don’t like LK. But it doesn’t matter how I view her, I would NEVER consider shooting her or someone else who annoyed/harassed me. So if he tries to use that as a defense (that she “drove him to do it”) then he’s an absolute fool and deserves to be locked up. I’ve said it at least a dozen times: her behavior past/present is not any kind of valid excuse for his actions. If he did indeed walk up to that house with a gun he deserves to be in prison for a long time. It’s inexcusable. Whether she called CPS/SafeSport etc or not, it doesn’t matter. I don’t care if she did stand outside his residence and scream at him (or whatever he said on that 911 call) there is still no excuse to shoot someone unless you are in imminent danger: as in someone is trying to actively kill you in that moment.

      But as I’ve said before, her being shot/being a victim in this circumstance doesn’t excuse the times she has been a bully or threatened someone. (Those are still not reasons to try to kill someone.)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

        Do you have this in writing for the state of NJ? Would be interesting to see the actual wording on this if it is true.
        I'm just curious... does anyone know why the laws appear to protect deadbeat renters and tie the hands of the landlord? For years, I've heard nightmare stories of landlords on the losing end of a lease. I get protecting tenants that are playing by the rules, but why on earth is it not ok to boot someone that isn't paying for a service you're providing??

        Comment


        • According to this, if the tenant does any of the following they can be evicted in 3 days;

          https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...minations.html

          Disorderly conduct; willful or grossly negligent destruction of landlord’s property; assaults upon or threats against the landlord; termination of tenant’s employment as a building manager, janitor, or other employee of the landlord; conviction for use, possession, or manufacture of an illegal drug either on the property or adjacent to it within the last two years, unless the tenant has entered a rehabilitation program (includes harboring anyone so convicted); conviction or civil liability for assault or terroristic threats against the landlord, landlord’s family, or landlord’s employee within the last two years (includes harboring); liability in a civil action for theft from landlord, landlord’s family, landlord’s employee, or another tenant; committing or harboring human trafficking.
          N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A:18-61.2(b), 2A:18-61.1 One month Habitual failure to pay rent after written notice; continued violations, despite repeated warnings, of the landlord’s reasonable rules and regulations; at the termination of a lease, refusal to accept reasonable changes of substance in the terms and conditions of the lease, including specifically any change in the term thereof.
          If MB was in distress due to any of the above, he had the autority to remove LK within 3 days. So this makes me think, he chose his path, over simply evicting. For whatever reason, and the rest is now history.
          MOO
          Boss Mare Eventing Blog

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post
            According to this, if the tenant does any of the following they can be evicted in 3 days;

            https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...minations.html



            If MB was in distress due to any of the above, he had the autority to remove LK within 3 days. So this makes me think, he chose his path, over simply evicting. For whatever reason, and the rest is now history.
            MOO
            Out of curiosity, because I know nothing about landlording(or whatever its actual term is) if you serve an eviction notice and the tenant doesn’t leave, what happens next? Do the police then have to come remove the tenants? Or is there some other recourse?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GiveEmEl View Post

              Yes, that certainly makes sense. If you make no statement, you can’t contradict yourself later. I do wonder what his defense and statement will be.
              Obviously I don’t like LK. But it doesn’t matter how I view her, I would NEVER consider shooting her or someone else who annoyed/harassed me. So if he tries to use that as a defense (that she “drove him to do it”) then he’s an absolute fool and deserves to be locked up. I’ve said it at least a dozen times: her behavior past/present is not any kind of valid excuse for his actions. If he did indeed walk up to that house with a gun he deserves to be in prison for a long time. It’s inexcusable. Whether she called CPS/SafeSport etc or not, it doesn’t matter. I don’t care if she did stand outside his residence and scream at him (or whatever he said on that 911 call) there is still no excuse to shoot someone unless you are in imminent danger: as in someone is trying to actively kill you in that moment.

              But as I’ve said before, her being shot/being a victim in this circumstance doesn’t excuse the times she has been a bully or threatened someone. (Those are still not reasons to try to kill someone.)
              Consider this analogy:

              There is a row of dominoes, and the last domino is [MB shoots LK]. It didn’t happen out of the blue, there was stuff going on, which is represented by the dominoes leading up to the last one.

              Especially in the last thread, and to some extent in this one, my interpretation is that some posters have explicitly or implicitly said that by
              1. Making a false allegation of child abuse to SS or CPS
              2. Being a squatter and refusing to leave
              ​​​​​​3. Screaming outside his windows at night, or
              4. Generally being an icky person
              it is LK who set the whole line of dominoes falling, so that she “caused” her own shooting. This is what I consider victim blaming.

              The caveat that “of course he should not have shot her” is not enough, IMO. I have been objecting to the idea that, while acknowledging that MB should not have shot her, posters seem to try to hold her responsible for the preceding dominoes falling and sort of forcing his hand. That’s how I interpret the drumbeat of “explain why you didn’t leave”, insisting she “explain what her role in the events was” and the insistence that she filed a false allegation of child abuse.

              Why harp on those things if not to construe them as dominoes that caused the last domino to fall?

              Further, I do not see any evidence to substantiate any of the first three items. Obviously, many of you find her icky. But if Barisone thought her money was not sufficient compensation for dealing with her, ickiness and all, he merely had to give her 30 days notice to leave, and take her horses and her money with her.
              Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Jan. 14, 2020, 04:36 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                This post of yours strikes me as having “an air of contempt”.

                Projection. No airs intended. Only what you seek to find I guess - that much is clear. I can be sarcastic - just another service I offer.

                You have stated several times that you and others have advised LK not to post. LK has a team of lawyers and a lawyer father. And you think it is your place, as an anonymous poster on a BB, to “advise” her on posting?

                No - it is just a suggestion. Not an order of any kind - and yet you, as an anonymous poster on a BB, delight in chastising, condemning, judging and "advising" others on anything and everything.

                You accuse me and perhaps dragonfly90 of “seek[ing] to run the conversation” on the Barisone case, but think it is your place to advise the victim of the shooting and the victim of the internet bullying not to post, and similarly castigate posters who took her side enough to be accused of being her alters.

                Well, you are twisting words and trying to determine the conversation in this post - so there ya go. And I never accused anyone of being an LK alter and did not think anyone was an LK alter - but by all means, go on being you...

                [Pause here so smoofox can mock me for wanting to appear a martyr.]

                You have presented yourself as such. As fighting a noble cause and thwarting the meanies.

                If you have been following the discussion of the actual case, someone asked if there was information about the gun. LK chimed in and stated that RC had been charged with gun violations. If people want to decline to believe her, fine.

                Condescending comments again. You assume that only you have been "following the conversation" and have any insight. It is hard to follow the conversation when it is constantly being torpedoed by lengthy lectures...

                But almost immediately, people are saying she is a drama seeking liar, making up the thing about the charges, because they can’t turn up documentation in an internet search.

                Again with "people" - try saying "a few" instead of accusing most of us of doing things we have not done.

                Many pages of useless crap later, someone (not you) provides the useful information that in NJ, criminal charges are not on the database until after conviction.

                Turns out that LKs statement about gun charges, in response to a direct question, may well be TRUE. Turns out that the inference that because multiple people could not find it in an internet implies that LK must be lying is FALSE.

                *ahem*

                Then direct those concerns to those who actually said that. Instead of, once again, lecturing everyone as a way to redirect the narrative. All this sh-stuff is just going in endless circles - but maybe that is the plan? Who knows...

                So in your (contemptuous) opinion, LK, who as the victim has access to more information than others, should not be posting. While you make a point of calling out me and dragonfly90 for criticizing the anti LK core, have you bothered to call out those claiming to have caught LK in a drama seeking lie? Or any of their other unsubstantiated accusations?

                Again with the projection. I merely offered my thoughts that she should perhaps not be posting as it could harm her case. Something you allegedly are concerned about - but apparently not. You know - all these posts of hers could be presented as evidence that may work against her. It was just a suggestion that many others made as well in previous threads - but thanks for taking the time to once again sneer, chastise and single someone out for your undivided attention and ultimate wisdom. <<< That was sarcasm. Just in case you wanted to slap some other label on it.

                If I could sit on this thread and park on my keyboard, I might make more posts addressing every damn thing that comes along that I do not agree with - but alas, I am not worthy. I need to devote that time and energy to the horses and the bad weather - you know, OUTSIDE. Away from the keyboard.

                A forum is made up of many different opinions and concerns. Not just the ones that a few (see what I did there?) posters have decided should be "permitted".

                Back to the barn.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CanteringCarrot View Post

                  Oh, there is plenty of blame to be placed on MB. He acted quite stupidly.

                  It blows my mind how many people do not do written/signed/witnessed. Blows. My. Mind. Then when it goes to crap they act all surprised.

                  I did board at one stable with no contract years ago, and it actually worked out quite well and was one of the best stables I've ever boarded at (I moved from the area, that's the only reason I left, BO and I are on good terms and I have driven back for weekend clinics). It gave me major anxiety. I was incredibly stupid and lucky. But I also dug around the community to figure out the BO's reputation, so that helped. But still.

                  I was almost involved in a landlord tenant dispute when I inherited a home. An unwritten tenancy, of course. Again, I lucked out. The tenant moved along, and I sold the home. After a small glimpse into being a land lord and browsing landlord tenant laws, I decided no way was that something for me!

                  Some of these horse training or residence deals have big money involved, but no contracts. Crazy.
                  ALL the blame in terms of MB being in jail rests on his shoulders, and his shoulders alone. He fired a gun at 2 people. End of.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                    Mostly pointing out that by remaining silent, MB is simply acting in his own self interest. It’s not that he is being noble in staying mum regarding his “side” of the case.

                    To the extent that there is a reason for LK to remain silent, it would be a DIFFERENT reason than MB, since she is not a criminal defendant at risk of narrowing her defense strategy.
                    But hasn't she filed a civil suit or two? Wouldn't it make sense for her to remain silent until that is resolved? I would think that in a civil suit discrepancies in statement made on social media regarding events may be more admissible in civil court than in criminal court.
                    Oh, well, clearly you're not thoroughly indoctrinated to COTH yet, because finger pointing and drawing conclusions are the cornerstones of this great online community. (Tidy Rabbit)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BigMama1 View Post
                      ALL the blame in terms of MB being in jail rests on his shoulders, and his shoulders alone. He fired a gun at 2 people. End of.
                      Yeah, I'm not arguing that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SonnysMom View Post

                        But hasn't she filed a civil suit or two? Wouldn't it make sense for her to remain silent until that is resolved? I would think that in a civil suit discrepancies in statement made on social media regarding events may be more admissible in civil court than in criminal court.
                        She has filed several civil suits and is a defendant, along with others, in a civil suit filed by Sweet Grass Farms.

                        When she posts, she typically says “I can talk about this but not that”. I assume she has discussed it with lawyers and some stuff is off limits to discuss.

                        I also agree that in the heat of the moment, she may risk saying something she shouldn’t. So for a lot of reasons, I would not post, in her position. But it’s her call.

                        There is still the major distinction that she is not the defendant in a criminal case. The civil cases are “just money”, of which she seems to have plenty.






                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MHM View Post

                          In addition to the feature that would tell you how many posts anyone had on a thread, I also miss the option to block certain posters. I don’t know if I ever actually used it, but it was always nice to know it was a possibility.
                          Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post

                            Looks like RC has changed her FB settings so I can't see all her posts, there was much more in comments from LK, but those seem to have been hidden or deleted as well. I didn't screen shot any of it at the time, but since there's been discussion about who probably and "plausibly" contacted CPS, it jogged my memory that there was a claim about the proof that her children were sleeping in cat crap by LK. My question is, who documents that in pics, and then DOESN'T report it?
                            Just to be clear- are you implying NOW I should’ve escalated a situation in which we were already in fear? Ironic. Only bc, BEFORE, you & others had a hissy when you accused me of reporting things to authorities, thereby escalating an already tumultuous situation....... Confused. Which is it?
                            ????????????????????

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caffeinated View Post

                              It's possible? I can try to go down that rabbit hole later... but these threads, IMO, have gotten way out of control, it feels pointless to try and inject facts LOL

                              (also - for that I'd need to do a PACER search, but that's not free.)
                              F E D E R A L. W A R R A N T
                              ????????????????????

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                Consider this analogy:

                                There is a row of dominoes, and the last domino is [MB shoots LK]. It didn’t happen out of the blue, there was stuff going on, which is represented by the dominoes leading up to the last one.

                                [...]

                                I have been objecting to the idea that, while acknowledging that MB should not have shot her, posters seem to try to hold her responsible for the preceding dominoes falling and sort of forcing his hand.

                                [...]

                                Why harp on those things if not to construe them as dominoes that caused the last domino to fall?
                                Because it's a terrible analogy that doesn't represent the viewpoints of most people who've posted on these threads?

                                The universe doesn't consist of a set of binary switches all lined up in a tidy row ready to set in motion some fatalistic sequence of events. The fact that you construe the situation as a deterministic series of dominoes does not mean that anyone else does. Most people recognize that there are thousands of tiny decisions and events that could have gone in any number of ways, and that ultimately create a complex context in which that final awful decision to pull a handgun trigger was made.

                                There are some here who think discussion is pointless because only the decision to pull the trigger matters -- not any of the context surrounding that decision. There are many others who find it troubling for a number of reasons to consider the trigger pull isolated from that context. I won't pretend that every single post in these threads has been reasoned and dispassionate. But a majority of the folks reading and even posting on these threads are just curious about the context in which this sort of tragedy could have possibly occurred, as in most contexts it would be unthinkable.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by La-LaPopRider View Post

                                  Just to be clear- are you implying NOW I should’ve escalated a situation in which we were already in fear? Ironic. Only bc, BEFORE, you & others had a hissy when you accused me of reporting things to authorities, thereby escalating an already tumultuous situation....... Confused. Which is it?
                                  I'm not implying anything. I asked a question, which you either can't answer because you've been advised not to, or are choosing not to answer. I understand it might be better for you not to say until trial..... but piles of cat crap falling into children's beds is disgusting and probably something that CPS would look into. It seems that if you had pictures of that, which you publicly claimed to on RC's facebook page, the reason for those pictures would be to file a report, wouldn't it? I have not said anything would be wrong with you reporting anything to the authorities. If I saw that, I would call them myself. I'd get myself off the property of the guy I overheard plotting to murder me and hide my body first, but CPS would be there ASAP.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post
                                    According to this, if the tenant does any of the following they can be evicted in 3 days;

                                    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...minations.html



                                    If MB was in distress due to any of the above, he had the autority to remove LK within 3 days. So this makes me think, he chose his path, over simply evicting. For whatever reason, and the rest is now history.
                                    MOO
                                    Exactly, exactly & exactly. As I’ve always maintained, this was never just some “landlord/tenant,” dispute. Though, if an eviction were all they were seeking- due to their ridiculous accusations- we would’ve been forced to leave in 3 days if any merit were found to their fictitious allegations. Many of these people could watch a video of what MB did & still claim some outrageous thing - like, “that wasn’t really MB!!! It was a paid actor/imposter!” JHC .... smh
                                    ????????????????????

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                      Consider this analogy:

                                      There is a row of dominoes, and the last domino is [MB shoots LK]. It didn’t happen out of the blue, there was stuff going on, which is represented by the dominoes leading up to the last one.

                                      Especially in the last thread, and to some extent in this one, my interpretation is that some posters have explicitly or implicitly said that by
                                      1. Making a false allegation of child abuse to SS or CPS
                                      2. Being a squatter and refusing to leave
                                      ​​​​​​3. Screaming outside his windows at night, or
                                      4. Generally being an icky person
                                      it is LK who set the whole line of dominoes falling, so that she “caused” her own shooting. This is what I consider victim blaming.

                                      The caveat that “of course he should not have shot her” is not enough, IMO. I have been objecting to the idea that, while acknowledging that MB should not have shot her, posters seem to try to hold her responsible for the preceding dominoes falling and sort of forcing his hand. That’s how I interpret the drumbeat of “explain why you didn’t leave”, insisting she “explain what her role in the events was” and the insistence that she filed a false allegation of child abuse.

                                      Why harp on those things if not to construe them as dominoes that caused the last domino to fall?

                                      Further, I do not see any evidence to substantiate any of the first three items. Obviously, many of you find her icky. But if Barisone thought her money was not sufficient compensation for dealing with her, ickiness and all, he merely had to give her 30 days notice to leave, and take her horses and her money with her.
                                      What I’m saying is exactly what you just said. The behavior I have mentioned of hers is not related to the shooting.
                                      I haven’t said she needs to acknowledge her part or asked what her part was. Yes, others have. I have not.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by GreenWithEnvy View Post
                                        Don't believe any of it. Apparently she is a master manipulator who likes to threaten and taunt. One thing throughout all of this is she has never shown any cruelty toward animals. I don't believe a word of her post on RC's page. Actually, there is very little one can believe since so much seems to be for effect and reaction. Again, accepts no responsibility for anything of consequence.

                                        Originally posted by MorganSercu View Post

                                        I don't believe her, but to post such an awful falsehood tells people a lot about her character.

                                        However, if she has a dog that has bitten more than one person I would argue she isn't a good dog owner and put her dog at risk. So, not outright cruelty but very irresponsible of her. Which goes along with not accepting responsibility.
                                        ​​
                                        Do you people just say random words - hoping the next person will either add on more random words... or elaborate on the first ones? That would make YOU the ones “threatening & taunting - saying things for effect & reaction.” Not me.

                                        MorganSercu how dare you call me an irresponsible pet owner. And..... how does anything involving my dogs “go along with not accepting responsibility ?? How dare you insinuate I should “accept responsibility,” for being almost murdered. Disgusting. You & GWE are ...... (where’s the vomit emoji ??) Anyone?
                                        ????????????????????

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by x-halt-salute View Post

                                          Because it's a terrible analogy that doesn't represent the viewpoints of most people who've posted on these threads?

                                          The universe doesn't consist of a set of binary switches all lined up in a tidy row ready to set in motion some fatalistic sequence of events. The fact that you construe the situation as a deterministic series of dominoes does not mean that anyone else does. Most people recognize that there are thousands of tiny decisions and events that could have gone in any number of ways, and that ultimately create a complex context in which that final awful decision to pull a handgun trigger was made.

                                          There are some here who think discussion is pointless because only the decision to pull the trigger matters -- not any of the context surrounding that decision. There are many others who find it troubling for a number of reasons to consider the trigger pull isolated from that context. I won't pretend that every single post in these threads has been reasoned and dispassionate. But a majority of the folks reading and even posting on these threads are just curious about the context in which this sort of tragedy could have possibly occurred, as in most contexts it would be unthinkable.
                                          I don’t have a problem with people wanting to discuss the context.

                                          We know that she did not leave the farm prior to being shot. What I honestly don’t understand is why there were many posts by a couple of posters (many posts/ only a few posters) who kept harping on “Why didn’t you leave?” “You should have left, it was his barn/home”, “You still haven’t explained why you didn’t leave”, unless their logic is that it was her responsibility to leave prior to getting shot. Why else would her failure to leave be relevant to anything?

                                          So we already know the facts of the context: she had not left prior to Aug 7. This is a sincere question: what is the point of repeatedly asking her why she hadn’t left?

                                          I will say again that the majority of the people posting are neutral, curious posters with insights to contribute and discuss.
                                          But IMO a very small number of posters seem to have an agenda of taunting LK (“Answer the question as to why you didn’t leave”; “You have never taken responsibility for anything, you should take responsibility for your role in the events leading up to the shooting, “You have a reputation for refusing to leave barns when asked.”) I really don’t understand the point of those posts unless the point is to suggest that she had a significant role in setting up a bunch of dominoes.

                                          If the analogy is not useful, don’t use it. I never said anything was deterministic.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X