If moolah and media are his desire, she’ll have met her match
6 Likes
Why start now?
Accuracy also makes it harder to make things say what you want them to rather than what everyone understands them to say. It also makes it harder to pretend you don’t understand as cover to insult/misrepresent/lie about others.
Basically, it’s super inconvenient.
11 Likes
You mean she said “someone who apparently reaped what she sowed”? (You left out the word “reaped”).
No, that doesn’t change how I initially read it. I (as I now understand INCORRECTLY) interpreted her to be saying that she accepted the blame. I now understand that she was saying that others, although not necessarily the court system, which is what I was talking about, subjected her to
victim blaming. That is awful.
Another question for the lawyer types.
Can they make the civil case proceed when the criminal case has not happened yet?
It seems like doing civil before criminal puts the defendant (anyone, not this one specifically) at risk in the criminal case when matters are brought up and discussed on the record at the civil trial.
4 Likes
I now understand that it was an important “cultural” reference of which I was horrifically unaware, but I don’t feel like bothering with the clip. It appears others have enjoyed it, though.
You asked. Perhaps you should bother to listen before you threaten to report people for outing fictional characters.
20 Likes
They can do anything they like. But civil trials drag on for eons, (all those interrogatories and depostions can take years) and criminal trials are (jurisdictional dependent) time driven.
You want too file promptly on the civil side, as civil actions often are barred if you wait too long to file.
6 Likes
Or maybe not jump all over people for a perceived wrong without all the information.
18 Likes
:lol::lol::lol: Imagine what the criminal prosecutor is thinking about now!
3 Likes
YD, what you’ve said in this thread and others on this forum disgusts me more deeply than anything else I’ve encountered on the internet. And I’ve been on Reddit.
Your insistence on a dichotomy between well-meaning advice to women on being pro-active about safety versus victim blaming in criminal trials minimizes the experiences of the vast majority of sexual assault and rape survivors in an appalling way. If you are truly here to play the role of a victims’ advocate, that should nauseate you just as much as it does all of those who’ve spoken up about your disgraceful posts.
Your recent focus on distancing your own experience from those of women you think have made choices that make them more vulnerable to rape, like “sexy dress” or “intoxication” also belies your real interest in supporting victims in the abstract and fighting against victim blaming. You appear to have interpreted my own mention of a tank-top and a drink to mean a tight, sexy tank-top and drinking to intoxication, which again betrays your real position on blaming people for the violence perpetrated against them. No surprise there, but it does nothing but undermine your claims about supporting victims of violence in the abstract and protecting them from undeserved blame.
You say you’ve apologized to me, and perhaps you have, but if so I didn’t notice it among the pages of blathering about how I and others must misunderstand your analogy that equates speculation on this thread regarding the escalation of a two-sided conflict to victim blaming specifically in the context of criminal proceedings for rape cases. All I see is insistence that I must have misinterpreted you, and failure to respond to any of the logical arguments that have been presented against your pitiful analogy.
I expect you’ll delete your original horrid post to save face. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a darn. I offer my perspective not because I have any interest in your attention or others’, but because what you’ve said here is inconsistent with and disrespectful to the lived experience of victims of violent assault, whose interest you claim to represent.
37 Likes
Dotting ts and crossing all the i s I’d think!
3 Likes
{{{{HUGS}}}}
7 Likes
Absolutely brilliant!!! Thank you!
2 Likes
And you wonder why you are out of the loop or don’t understand. Such a superior attitude.
15 Likes
Okay, so I have worked with battered women in the past. And one of the issues that comes about due to the abuse (which does NOT have to be physical or come only at the hands of a romantic partner) is acute over-reactions to mundane occurrences. Or an inability to handle in a rational way a situation that someone else might find very annoying, but not life threatening.
The defense might be smart to go with that. There might be some trauma in his life that triggered PTSD from some prior relationship. If that is the case, then a lot of LK’s behavior will be used to show how he could have been triggered into a gross over-reaction. It sounds like his mother was a real piece of work. That might be fertile ground to establish trauma.
Out of all the stuff that has been written and guessed at and speculated on and argued over, the most interesting piece for me is that counter claim that has been filed in the civil case. It does not look like he is denying he shot her. He is saying there are mitigating factors that diminished his capacity to respond to her behavior in a rational way. And that he behavior contributed to his diminished capacity. She wouldn’t even necessarily need to know or suspect that her behavior was triggering him.
I don’t know how this will play out. I am certainly not in one camp or the other. But I do find the psychology of this beyond fascinating and the legal issues are right up there, too. I don’t think she should have been shot. And I don’t think that he shot her is in dispute. If it were, he would probably be out on bail right now.
The question is why. And that is just so inexplicable that it has grabbed a lot of attention in the horse world. You don’t have to be in one camp or the other to be interested. To say that is kind of ridiculous.
Sheilah
12 Likes
:lol::lol::lol:
If only there were a 5 min. argument option where YD is concerned.
15 Likes
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Can’t be bothered, right. Okay.
10 Likes
OMG. Diaries, letters, written word, text messages, social media posts, recordings ALL are evidence and can be admitted in court if the source is verified.
I just can’t…there isn’t enough patience in the world to deal with this poster. Ya’ll have at it.
12 Likes
Nah, can’t be bothered, meself.
10 Likes
Its a beautiful, and totally appropriate response. But if you think YD is going to read it, or actually understand it, other than to find some minutiea within it which she will pull out and completely twist into something you never said, and take offense at you, I’m afraid she doesn’t have the capability, according to her previous behaviour on this thread, to read for comprehension.
And she never ever apologized to you. The only reference to an apology she made was to say that she Would apologize, if only someone would explain to her why she needed to. Which isn’t an apology. Its an admission of being passively unwilling to apologize. I don’t remember if it was in reference to you.
Yes, YD’s comments on this thread are some of the most abhorent postings I’ve ever read on any bulletin board, but certainly the most disgusting on this one.
28 Likes
