I assume it was loose. In a much earlier post way back when, it was said the dog got out by accident or something. Anyway, it seems to have been loose that afternoon.
Loose, despite having bitten someone recently and known to be aggressive/protective? I am very surprised that the owner(s) werenāt far more proactive and careful to have the dog properly secured and under their control.
I am shocked a police officer permitted anyone on the scene to leave his sight for any reason whatsoever.
Did I read somewhere in this thread that LK & RG had amassed recordings for a year? Thatāsā¦interesting.
Thatās not my area of expertise
International and/or European dispute resolution with some dabbling in Human Rights is more up my alley. So I am not a good resource for Criminal law, trial logistics, court procedure, litigation, especially re the US system. Do I know a few things? Sure, but not nearly as much as the others mentioned, I bet. Sort of why Iām following this, actually. Interested to see how it actually plays out.
Same, very interested and the expertise/experience shared is fascinating. I have a German colleague who specialises in your first area. Also fascinating - and really often gets conflicted out, which must be frustrating in that field.
I did one Hague Convention on Child Abduction case when I was in London as part of a pro bono team, and one asylum case in NY, which is the closest Iāve come to your second specialty. May I PM you?
This 100%. And that is a pro-victim stance, wanting everything locked down tight and handled properly so as to clear innocent parties and pinpoint the guilty ones.
Every party capable of moving should have been cuffed pending the arrival of backup.
A biting dog may well have been shot. Once the bleeding suspect was cuffed the non bleeding suspect is accompanied to the fastest place to put the dog - even if itās in the cop car. Then that suspect cuffed then turning to the unconscious victim calling for the ambulance and officer in need of assistance. This is trained peace officer procedure designed to protect that responding officer.
If the dog was not actively biting then the non bleeding suspect should have been immediately cuffed.
Must add that ideally both the suspects should have been searched after cuffing but its understandable to stop the biting dog ASAP.
Note: note sure if any of this has already been said, as Iām not reading every post in detail.
Depends on what kind of jam. A stovepipe jam can be āclearedā quickly if you know what youāre doing. That bullet is a goner though for a quick clear, as the method involves slapping it away very hard, sending it flying and allowing the next round to advance. If there were only three bullets, and 3 shots fired, that doesnāt add up.
In my experience, these small carry guns jam regularly. Thatās why I quit on them - I now have a full size 9mm that is for personal protection that has not jammed or no-fired in over 3000 rounds.
If the gun in question is the Ruger LCP (or LCP II), many have no actual safety switch. The trigger pull is extremely heavy and long on the gun (which is common on all small carry guns to prevent accidental fires). I assume itās the LCP because of the color description.
Back to a stovepipe clearā¦ if itās the Ruger LCP, .380 bullets are ttttiiiinnnnyyyy and would be very difficult to slap-clear a stovepipe jam as thereās not much to whack at. It would be a very skilled gun handler to get that done quickly enough to fire again in a high-stress situation.
Does anyone know if the forensics determined those bullets were fired from that particular gun?
Sure.
So questions I have are:
Did the gun actually jam?
How many bullets were originally in it?
I would assume a ballistics report was done. As well as the GSR. Or is that not standard? Seems like it would be, in a shooting.
So we seem to have some conflicting information surrounding the gun, again.
I still am curious why a person would allegedly plan a murder but only bring (allegedly) 3 bulletsā¦but some how fired 3 shots, but the gun jammed after 2? As usual regarding this event, I am confused. Even if itās not relevant to THIS case, maybe it will be in others. That and itās just sheer curiosity.
And - apologies if itās already in the court docs as I havenāt been following this super close -
Taurus makes a twinsie model for the puke-pink Ruger. I have owned that Taurus (not in puke pink though), and I could not get three rounds in a row out of it without a jam.
Do we know itās a Ruger, outside of LK running her mouth?
Puke-pink
The cop said it was a Ruger
I assume he actually looked at it, and saw the brand name. But, with the ineptitude of these cops, it wouldnāt surprise me if he didnātā¦
Today I learned that a gun can look like vomit.
I hate anything that makes a piece of equipment designed to kill ācuteā or āfashionable.ā
So yes. Puke Pink.
Why on earth would someone at the center of a case currently being tried constantly pop up on an internet forum to write antagonistic, sarcastic, wordy beyond belief posts? I cannot wrap my head around this kind of behavior.
The need to control a narrative and be the center of attention. Weāve seen this type of behavior for four years in the WH recently.
And it isnāt strictly on this forum either.