The gun was referenced as a pink and black 9mm Ruger in the hearing and only mentioned in the context of the officer describing how he found it. No mention of the shots fired/owner.
4 Likes
The dog was biting MB/RG in the ānarrativeā on COTH. The dog could have had evidence on it already when the police arrived. By being put away that evidence could have been missed or contaminated.
8 Likes
Yes, the entire crime scene was totally mishandled by standard police training. I get that these cops are used to small town life and Mayberry RFD, but youād think they would have had MINIMAL training to become sworn and licensed.
11 Likes
You cant be serious, this is the most hypocritical thing I have read here in a long long time.
One, youāre policing what people post which you always tell people not to do to you and two, you are the biggest culprit of all those things in these threads!
@Knights_Mom maybe he only had that many bullets available?
Are people really trying to suggest MB was not the shooter here or that RG did something when he went in the house to secure the dog?
So much focus on the dog! When I ran out of my house from my attacker the first thing I did was take my three dogs and lock them in the barn, before I got in my car and drove off. People would probably question me too, why do that instead of run away if youāre life is in danger? etc etc.
You have NO idea how you will act in this situations until you are in them. They are terrifying, your adrenaline is over the top and youāre trying to survive but also keep it together and make sense of things.
10 Likes
Thatās not true either, often Grand Jurys DONT indict. This thread is beyond heavily biased.
3 Likes
Why on earth do posters continually harass, cyber stalk, and obsess over that person also?
I cannot wrap my head around this kind of behavior.
Tell me you donāt understand trauma or complex PTSD without telling me you donāt understand trauma or complex PTSD ā¦
5 Likes
As I said, it has NOTHING to do with the dog. We are genuinely confused about why the LEO instantly believed RGās version of events and allowed him to leave and return to the scene unattended. If you read above, there are many reasons LEOs donāt allow folks to wander around of their own volition.
We are confused, and I think it a reasonable question, as to why standard protocol like having everyone stay still, where they and their hands could be seen by the officer, was not followed. Youāve seen a routine traffic stop on film, Iām sure. The people arenāt just moving about as they please. With no evidence of weapons at all, the police control the movements of the various actors until everything is sorted out.
Completely forget the dog: the question is the movement of the actors (one was cuffed, the other came and went of his own volition from what we can tell so far, which is not standard protocol) and why the LEO believed RG re: who is the shooter without further investigation.
Again, these questions remain EVEN IF we assume everything RG said was correct and true. These types of questions are exactly on point for discussing a crime. And, again, wanting the scene and all actors handled properly is not pro-defendant, itās also pro-victim. If you are 100% behind the victims, you donāt want slip ups by the police to allow for any doubt as to who did what, or if evidence was properly collected and handled.
One more time: it has NOTHING to do with the dog.
19 Likes
ok thank you, the dog keeps getting brought up over and over.
There was only one person on the scene at the time right?
1 Like
Yes, only one LEO. Which is all the more reason, for his own safety, to make sure people arenāt moving around, taking away or bringing things into the scene, etc.
10 Likes
Hereās another illustration: Iām always surprised when I see footage of LE leading people, including children, away from a school with an active shooter situation. The innocent children have their hands up and are running as directed by the LEOs.
It always takes me aback b/c the children with the hands raised makes it look like they are suspects. They arenāt, strictly, but the police donāt know, among the folks present, who is a shooter and who is innocent. As they rescue these poor kids, they have them keep their hands up so they can tell for sure who is not armed and dangerous.
Same here: RG, even allowing that he is an innocent victim, should have been treated like that or like a traffic stop: stop, hands where I can see them, check for weapons, GSR, etc. before being released to deal with the dog or anything else. Itās just completely standard so why was it not done here?
22 Likes
I believe the officer stated he was aware of the situation at the farm before he responded, so he already knew how the parties were aligned and who the other officers believed were the at-risk vs risky individuals.
By his actions he wasnāt worried about securing the scene, or not knowing what was going on. Why that may be, or what will come of it remains to be seen.
4 Likes
And again, what kind of evidence could have been/not been on the dog that was contaminated by being picked up and put away. Was there GSR on the dog? Blood? Whose? Was the dog ever processed for evidence?
6 Likes
Oh, please. The over the top and aggressive tone are no different from what they were prior to the incident.
However, I suppose I didnāt make my point very well. You would think a person at the center of a case currently being tried would know enough, or would have been strongly advised, to keep her mouth shut and her fingers off the keyboard. If she suffers from PTSD professional help is readily available, and itās not here on this forum.
26 Likes
But why would that be acceptable - to pre-decide who was the good guy and who was the bad guy based on the opinion of officers who are not you nor are they there at the time and, furthermore, to proceed based on such assumption without independently verifying at the time and scene of the crime?
Someone that night acted VERY differently than previously and trained LEOs would know that what you think you know about a party can change drastically from one visit to the next. In a professional capacity, I donāt think, well, thatās who we figured was the bad guy all along so I went with that, really holds up as proper procedure at a crime scene.
10 Likes
Yes but when you are in the trauma your head doesnāt help you, at all. Speaking from experience. So please, be kind to the victim regardless of personal beliefs.
She is welcome to post here as much as she likes, just like the rest of us.
3 Likes
Oh Iām not saying it was at all acceptable, Iām with you on that. I see this as an epic screw up by the cops and as you point out, a huge disservice to LK, as it could mean the prosecution loses. See:OJ Simpson trial. Itās a bad business all round.
5 Likes
Exactly! It will be a HUGE disservice to LK/RG if their narrative is substantively accurate bjt the handling of the scene weakens the prosecutorās case.
4 Likes
Wondering why she is possibly doing herself harm, as far as the trial goes, isnāt being unkind. And perhaps she could be a bit kinder.
And are you a moderator? 
19 Likes
But he had never met any of them, so why would he take either manās word as being truthful (identity)?
14 Likes
Dang! You must not be reading these forums very much.
Donāt preach to me. Just donāt. You donāt have one iota what Iāve been through in my life, so back off. I have generally ignored several posters the past two threads who like to insult me and call me a liar and preach at me. Get over it. ALL of us have a privilege to post here respectfully whether we are a current victim, past victim or anything in between. Just stop chastising anyone who doesnāt agree with you or Lala.
21 Likes
