Barisone Criminal Case Update

[smoofox]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

So ya think the subject of the personal attack may be the person who flagged it? Brilliant!

Strange.
I read the post being discussed that either side could like it.
I would bet that some of the likes that post got were from both sides of this discussion.

That is why I am surprised it was flagged.

Both sides could decide it is about others. It is not a personal attack at anyone specific. To be a “personal attack” doesn’t it need to be an attack on a specific person?

Oh, please. It was an attack on someone specific. This game of “maybe I wasn’t talking about you” is stupid.

Do the mods really let attack posts stand if one simply refers to “someone”, when it’s obvious who “someone” is?

ETA. Please note that I said that the game of saying “maybe I wasn’t talking about you” is stupid, I did not call any poster stupid.

You really like to complain about the moderation here. Geez.

I can tell you that when I first read it, I had no idea who it was talking about. That might be because (refer to my other post here) I suck at remembering names and I am too lazy to go track back and see what side of the debate that poster typically posts on.

Same for me. There has been a lot of sniping back and forth (even by those who complain about it the most) by a select few in these threads and unless one was inclined to go back and look up a poster’s previous posts to figure out how they felt about certain posters, that particular post could have referred to a couple of people at opposite ends of this discussion.

And for the record…

I have only flagged a few posts in the past - in the Current Events forum - and they were vile. I was not the only one who did so in those cases.

I have never tagged a moderator - unlike the frenzy of tagging that happened in this thread.

I think I PMed a moderator once or twice over the years - not about anything to do with these threads. I know I had needed help with log in issues after some upgrade. Scandalous.

I have never criticized the moderation or rules of a private board that one can simply walk away from if one so wishes. It is not exactly rocket science. Unless you were YankeeDuchess - in which case it was a long, drawn out, indignant flounce with much lecturing, fingerpointing etc. I will cherish the messages I got from her telling me how to post or even better, not to post at all.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@smoofox

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

So ya think the subject of the personal attack may be the person who flagged it? Brilliant!

Strange.
I read the post being discussed that either side could like it.
I would bet that some of the likes that post got were from both sides of this discussion.

That is why I am surprised it was flagged.

Both sides could decide it is about others. It is not a personal attack at anyone specific. To be a “personal attack” doesn’t it need to be an attack on a specific person?

Oh, please. It was an attack on someone specific. This game of “maybe I wasn’t talking about you” is stupid.

Do the mods really let attack posts stand if one simply refers to “someone”, when it’s obvious who “someone” is?

ETA. Please note that I said that the game of saying “maybe I wasn’t talking about you” is stupid, I did not call any poster stupid.

You really like to complain about the moderation here. Geez.

I can tell you that when I first read it, I had no idea who it was talking about. That might be because (refer to my other post here) I suck at remembering names and I am too lazy to go track back and see what side of the debate that poster typically posts on.

Same for me. There has been a lot of sniping back and forth (even by those who complain about it the most) by a select few in these threads and unless one was inclined to go back and look up a poster’s previous posts to figure out how they felt about certain posters, that particular post could have referred to a couple of people at opposite ends of this discussion.

And for the record…

I have only flagged a few posts in the past - in the Current Events forum - and they were vile. I was not the only one who did so in those cases.

I have never tagged a moderator - unlike the frenzy of tagging that happened in this thread.

I think I PMed a moderator once or twice over the years - not about anything to do with these threads. I know I had needed help with log in issues after some upgrade. Scandalous.

I have never criticized the moderation or rules of a private board that one can simply walk away from if one so wishes. It is not exactly rocket science. Unless you were YankeeDuchess - in which case it was a long, drawn out, indignant flounce with much lecturing, fingerpointing etc. I will cherish the messages I got from her telling me how to post or even better, not to post at all.

So, for the record, when the post in question referred to ”a certain someone” you did not understand it to be a reference to the victim of the shooting?

Is it the case (as far as you know) that an otherwise unacceptable post is OK if there is genuine ambiguity as to the subject of the post? Just asking; not complaining.

[3PonyFarm]

@eggbutt, do you know when the next hearing will be? It seems something was mentioned for late January but I don’t know if it was available to watch online.

[FitzE]

This current “respectful request for clarification from the moderators” is an EXACT repeat of YD’s “respectful request for clarification from the moderators” about IDing posters’ IRL identities. Note how this thread was first diverted from the actual topic to the one about moderation. The mods responded, effectively shutting down that line of hijacking.

Now it’s being diverted to discussion of that clarification and, perhaps, the need for even more/different clarification.

Let’s all please stop engaging in these repeated tangents. Whether it is intentional or not (and I’m choosing to believe it is not at this time and this poster honestly wants to understand), this is how YD was able to make the old threads such complete shambles.

CurrentlyHorseless: Your query has been asked and answered by the mods. If you honestly have questions and aren’t out to hijack the thread, please, your fellow forum members are asking you politely and repeatedly: take those questions to the Tech forum and you will get all the help you seek without derailing this thread.

This thread is to discuss the case and I’ve been hoping someone will have some insight into the admissibility issue. Discussing moderation and rules has been done quite a bit here and now, if you need more info, it would be best to move that discussion to the proper place for such discussions on this forum. It will be a win-win. This thread will stay on topic and you will actually get better mod response in Tech help because they actually monitor that section specifically in order to answer questions like the ones you are posing. You’ll get a vastly better and faster response over there.

This is not to be construed as a suggestion not to post; it is a simple request to allow this topic to go forward and to ask your continued moderation questions in the correct section so that this thread can get back on track. If you don’t mean to hijack this thread and are truly and honestly interested in answers to your questions about the rules and moderation, there is no reason you would not follow that course of action.

[CanteringCarrot]

@FitzE

This current “respectful request for clarification from the moderators” is an EXACT repeat of YD’s “respectful request for clarification from the moderators” about IDing posters’ IRL identities. Note how this thread was first diverted from the actual topic to the one about moderation. The mods responded, effectively shutting down that line of hijacking.

Now it’s being diverted to discussion of that clarification and, perhaps, the need for even more/different clarification.

Let’s all please stop engaging in these repeated tangents. Whether it is intentional or not (and I’m choosing to believe it is not at this time and this poster honestly wants to understand), this is how YD was able to make the old threads such complete shambles.

CurrentlyHorseless: Your query has been asked and answered by the mods. If you honestly have questions and aren’t out to hijack the thread, please, your fellow forum members are asking you politely and repeatedly: take those questions to the Tech forum and you will get all the help you seek without derailing this thread.

This thread is to discuss the case and I’ve been hoping someone will have some insight into the admissibility issue. Discussing moderation and rules has been done quite a bit here and now, if you need more info, it would be best to move that discussion to the proper place for such discussions on this forum. It will be a win-win. This thread will stay on topic and you will actually get better mod response in Tech help because they actually monitor that section specifically in order to answer questions like the ones you are posing. You’ll get a vastly better and faster response over there.

This is not to be construed as a suggestion not to post; it is a simple request to allow this topic to go forward and to ask your continued moderation questions in the correct section so that this thread can get back on track. If you don’t mean to hijack this thread and are truly and honestly interested in answers to your questions about the rules and moderation, there is no reason you would not follow that course of action.

[trubandloki]

I will go back to two topics that have been brought up already -

Journalist types - Why would an article not correct the incorrectly person identified as the victim of a crime? That seems like an easy fix/edit. Do they just publish and are done?
I mean, seriously, how do you not get the victim right? That has to be upsetting to the actual victim.

I still can not imagine how one hands their gun over to someone else to see and then never accounts for it again. There has to be more to that ‘letting him see it’ story.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@cutter99

@CurrentlyHorseless

@cutter99

Eh, I would let it stand the way it is. Let whoever got their knickers in a knot continue to stew over it. Obviously there were plenty of us who agreed wholeheartedly with you!

Eh, I would let it stand. Whoever was attacked (and you didn’t even mention anyone’s name!) has been attacked a thousand times before on this forum, so what difference does one more pointless attack make?

Obviously, there are plenty of us who enjoy this sort of thing! This is just exactly what gives CoTH its jolly, entertaining character!

This is a board that consists of people posting their opinions. If someone is hurt or upset over what is posted, that is their issue and no one else’s. Not everyone agrees, nor should they. We are all different.

If you perceive you are being attacked a thousand times 1) why come back, 2) you might want to consider why you are think you are being attacked, 3) you might want to try looking at things from a different perspective.

No one is forcing anyone to read what is here or forcing anyone to post.

I do not perceive I am being attacked “a thousand times”, but I have some empathy for the person who is, as do at least a handful of other posters.

I would enjoy the forum much more if these attacks did not occur. They seem pointless to me. If it gets bad enough, I have always been aware that I can leave.

This is satire, right? Because last night and the night before pure venom was being spewed yet there was no complaint from you at all.

Guess it depends maybe on who the post author is?

I agree with others - go to the Help or Tech sections.

[Moderator_1]

I’m actually glad there were some questions raised about the “hidden posts,” as it’s made us aware of some finer points of this new software platform. In the case of the post referenced above, it was alerted on, and we agreed with the alert and chose the option to “hide” it (as it was personal commentary we were trying to help divert the thread away from), thinking that was removing the post from the threads…not realizing that it would remain as a hidden post that users could still choose to access. We’ll adjust how we choose to delete posts in the future to avoid this confusion.

Some aspects of the site look different when viewed from a moderator account, so even though we’d like to get the discussion back to the topic itself vs. various moderation debates, we do appreciate learning how things look from the user side in this case.

…and now back to the topic.

[CanteringCarrot]

@trubandloki

I will go back to two topics that have been brought up already -

Journalist types - Why would an article not correct the incorrectly person identified as the victim of a crime? That seems like an easy fix/edit. Do they just publish and are done?

I still can not imagine how one hands their gun over to someone else to see and then never accounts for it again. There has to be more to that ‘letting him see it’ story.

I have no idea why they wouldn’t correct it. Unless they’re completely unaware of the mistake. It’s not uncommon to go back and edit/fix an article published online. You wouldn’t want to publish and be done with it, regardless of mistakes. I think it’s not right and also could be (rightfully) upsetting.

As for the gun thing, I have no effin’ clue.

[3PonyFarm]

Well said @FitzE! I too would be interested in learning more about the admissibility issue.
Thank you!

[Knights_Mom]

@3PonyFarm

Well said @FitzE! I too would be interested in learning more about the admissibility issue.
Thank you!

As would I just to see if my hunch is correct from my time in the field of law.

[Fat_Dinah]

Witnesses don’t testify “for” or “against” anyone. They swear to tell the truth, i.e., to give accurate factual testimony of events. RC cannot agree or refuse to testify if she is subpoenaed, except to use the 5th amendment against self incrimination. Since her case has been settle d, that is not an issue and probably why the prosecution went ahead with her case before the trial.

[Scribbler]

@DownYonder

There’s a post over on technical help that explains the algorithm for these automated flags.

[Knights_Mom]

@Fat_Dinah

Witnesses don’t testify “for” or “against” anyone. They swear to tell the truth, i.e., to give accurate factual testimony of events. RC cannot agree or refuse to testify if she is subpoenaed, except to use the 5th amendment against self incrimination. Since her case has been settle d, that is not an issue and probably why the prosecution went ahead with her case before the trial.

I don’t think her settlement is complete until she fulfills her obligation to testify as per the Prosecution’s deal.

[trubandloki]

@Knights_Mom

I don’t think her settlement is complete until she fulfills her obligation to testify as per the Prosecution’s deal.

How do these deals work?

She is being called by the prosecution and they will likely prep her with answers to support their case (all while being truthful, clearly). I assume they can not rescind the deal if upon cross examination her answers are some what helpful to the other side?

[Scribbler]

@Knights_Mom it’s true her probation isn’t over for a few years. But her trial and punishment has been decided in probably the most lenient terms available under the NJ law. When she goes to testify she will not be under trial herself.

Since we don’t have access to her full trial, we really can’t say what “he asked to see the gun” means because there is likely stuff that follows, “and then…”

As far as innacurare captions in on line small newspapers, that happens all the time as this material gets copied from one to the next. It may in fact be difficult or impossible to alter a photo + caption arriving as a unit. Or at least way above the pay grade of the person tasked with aggregating online content.

[trubandloki]

@Scribbler

As far as innacurare captions in on line small newspapers, that happens all the time as this material gets copied from one to the next. It may in fact be difficult or impossible to alter a photo + caption arriving as a unit. Or at least way above the pay grade of the person tasked with aggregating online content.

Oh, that is interesting. I did not realize the place that published this received the photo with the caption as a unit.

[Knights_Mom]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_state’s_evidence#:~:text=A%20criminal%20turns%20state’s%20evidence,s)%20may%20be%20important%20evidence.

[Sdel]

@trubandloki

I still can not imagine how one hands their gun over to someone else to see and then never accounts for it again. There has to be more to that ‘letting him see it’ story.

It makes perfect sense if you look at it from the point of view that a trusted friend is going to store it for you. I wouldn’t necessarily go looking for my gun if I thought I had an understanding of where it would be and that is really the only explanation for that.

Now the only question is, do you believe that “trust” is based on a planned murder, a “dupe job”, or a legitimate concern that one doesn’t understand NJ gun laws and the police have been called everyday for a week (remember RC is from NC)?

[Knights_Mom]

If the defendant doesn’t fulfill their obligation this says what happens.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-the-prosecution-back-plea-deal.html

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-plea-bargains-get-made.html