Perhaps he did, she is saying she didn’t know what happen to it after she gave it to him. So then one wonders why she is lying. If the gun was truly missing then why wouldn’t those in fear for their lives report it to the police, to support their claims of being in danger.
4 Likes
Who knows is right!
What exactly do you think she is lying about? She gave MB the gun, and didn’t see it again until after the shooting. Neither of those are lies. Neither of those mean it didn’t go missing or that RC didn’t know it had gone missing.
The only side describing the gun as missing is LK. She has since the beginning…and also attaches an idea to the missing gun that would conveniently trigger a CPS investigation if it was reported . It strikes me as odd that she does so…I assume she does so because there is a report somewhere that we haven’t seen that references the gun as missing…and JumpinQueen has indeed referenced RC as saying the gun was missing. I just assume they were not presenting an accurate reporting on what was said, but presenting it with a heavy spin to support their own narrative.
4 Likes
We’ve removed a fairly large number of posts from last night and this morning focused more interpersonal commentary and complaints about moderation, forums rules, etc. than the topic at large. Please discuss the case and related issues vs. each other.
We’ve also removed one user’s access to the site.
24 Likes
For some reason, I interpreted Barisone’s request to “look at” the gun as happening when she did not have the gun on her, so she needed to go get it (from the truck?) to show/give it to him.
If someone requested to look at my gun, I’m pretty sure I would respond with “Why?” If there is no good explanation provided, I would not hand it over.
6 Likes
I 100% agree with this.
5 Likes
If MB told her, after he got it, the gun was missing from his possession, and she states she didn’t SEE it after she gave it to him, I guess that is not lying, but not telling the whole story of what she knows about the gun. I don’t think the gun went missing after given to MB but we will see.
3 Likes
I just don’t see this as nefarious. MB was a longtime friend of RC who was also there out of concern for the horse. If a stranger said something, sure, but a long time trusted friend? You are missing a lot of context about the whole situation.
6 Likes
I think you are reading too much into a limited news report. Again, what she actually said to the police is probably going to look a lot different than a few cherry picked lines presented in a news article.
5 Likes
Hey, I am happy to pull up several quotes from LK stating it was “missing”…some from the first thread and the one from the last thread as a start.
6 Likes
I believe most if not all of us have written the same, similar or agreed with those who “said” this.
2 Likes
Possibly. Aren’t we all! It is significant that the gun owner has agreed to testify for the prosecution.
And not good news for the defense no matter how hard people try to spin things.
2 Likes
Perhaps there was a “why?”. No one here knows, do they? Maybe a recording can tell us what the full conversation was, forensically analyzed as to who the correct speak was.
3 Likes
I hope you’re ok!
9 Likes
I don’t agree. I think it was an essential witness or they have no case. But I think this witness has the potential to bite them hard. What is the prosecution going to do if RC says she was bitten because she entered the apartment looking for her gun?
6 Likes
If you wish but I am not sure that would be proof it actually did. LK can be all over the place with things she says or perhaps that is what she was told when the owner wasn’t sleeping with it out at the barn anymore after she gave it to MB. Hopefully at trial we will learn more on the chain of possession of the gun as to whose finger prints were on it and other real evidence. Who knows.
2 Likes
If MB were a long time friend of mine, I would not assume his request to see the gun was nefarious, but I would still want to know why he was asking. Whether he said “I’d like to look at your gun” or “Can I have your gun”, I’d want to know the reason.
Whether I hand it over would depend on the answer.
If he said, “I have a gun safe, and it’s safer if locked up there”, maybe.
If he said, “Things are really tense, and I want it for self defense” probably not.
If he said, “I just like handling guns”, no.
I think there is zero chance he said “I’m thinking about shooting some people.”
Based on the prosecutor’s deal with RC, I have to assume they believe she was not part of a plot and she did not realize the gun would be used in an attempted murder.
But even with a trusted friend or a spouse for that matter, I cannot imagine not asking why they were asking for the gun.
7 Likes
That is correct, in that you don’t have to prove every element in each subsection happened. But she first said the code would have examples in it like “shooting someone point blank with a gun”, and that is just not true. Just because the statute contains a lot of the use of “or” instead of “and”, it doesn’t follow that the pieces are not elements, but merely examples.
Additionally, KM cited the code from her own state. I linked to NJ’s statute. In NJ, simple assault is subsection (a) and there are numbered elements that each alone can satisfy the charge. Aggravated assault is section (b), set out the same way. The statute then clarifies the degrees that apply to each of the enumerated elements. So, to get back to the original point of lesser included offenses, if you can’t prove subsection 2 happened, but you can for 3, for example, then that might be a lesser charge within the scope of assault.
NJ’s murder statute, when read in conjunction with the attempt statute, is not as easy to follow (certainly not mirroring KM’s state at all), yet KM insisting that specific example of conduct would be included, even in her state. They are not. Broad elements are enumerated, within which a variety of conduct may fit.
She then tried to tell us that the jury instructions were the same thing as the statute.
I think KM was also trying to bait me for specific analysis of this case as applied to the statute, but I am not going there. I thought the example of the assault statute was a more user friendly example to answer other posters’ hypothetical questions. And I am not an expert in criminal law or have any idea what the actual evidence presented in this case is going to shake out to be (recordings, ballistics, expert testimony). Plus, we aren’t real clear on the defenses at this point either (has there been a ruling on the Miranda hearing yet?) And then of course juries sometimes surprise us. And so I am not going to take the bait for speculation. But I will say, the NJ statute does not exactly provide a clear roadmap in my opinion, compared to some other states, or what attempted murder is or exactly what needs to be proved, and it’s also not clear that a charge of assault is a lesser included offense that doesn’t have to be charged separately.
4 Likes
I totally agree. There has to be more to that story.
I am just saying that if someone asked to see my gun I would ask them why. Why is part of being a responsible gun owner. So, there has to be a why, which is the more to the conversation that is not being given.
3 Likes
