Law schools, I reckon. All those budding jurists just waiting to be guinea pigged!
2 Likes
.
4 Likes
Wait - Wouldnāt the real first priority be to save the life of a victim, IF that life was in jeopardy? Even if other people get away, or just wander around as they should not because they donāt obey an officerās instructions.
BUT - According to this thread, not one but two people did other things BEFORE attending to Person #1, who was down, shot and bleeding, according to what has been posted here.
AND - Sometimes one officer is unable to control everyoneās actions. One officer can only handcuff one person at a time, as far as I know. While the officer is doing that, other people either follow the officerās instructions, or they donāt.
Not having enough officer presence to control the actions of all the people present at a crime scene has been a huge and disruptive issue in many other cases. Maybe it is here, as well.
Per the info in this thread:
-
Officer is FIRST occupied securing Person #2, who had been identified as the shooter.
-
Person #3 ignoreās officerās instructions and goes into the house with the dog. Officer canāt stop this action because officer is busy securing #2.
If in that moment the officer lets go of Person #2 to pursue #3, now both #2 AND #3 are on the loose. Officer has to catch up with #3 who is already in the house. While doing so #2 would be unattended. No control over anyone.
Clearly the officer chose to remain in control of #2, the identified shooter. Once #2 is secured with handcuffs, the officer can move on to reeling in #3. The officer is only one person.
BUT ā Shouldnāt the real priority be saving the life of Person #1, shot and laying on the ground? Even if that means Persons #2 and #3 flee the scene altogether. The life matters more.
BUT AGAIN ā In that moment, both the officer AND Person #3 did other things BEFORE attending to Person #1. Officer is securing #2. #3 is securing the dog.
Leading me to believe that something about the circumstances of Person #1 must have caused both men to believe that she was not in immediate danger of her life. So, it appeared rational to both of them to attend to next most urgent issue of the moment. Whatever the next most urgent issue was, in each of their minds.
Just a side note! Just speculation! But TWO people on the scene put their priority on things that were of less importance than saving a life, taking action on the next most important thing in each of their minds. No idea what was actually going through all of the heads at the scene, though.
5 Likes
Well I donāt typically remember a single posters opinion on a thread from a year ago so maybe you are a bit bitter.
Nothing wrong with emotions. Better to express them and acknowledge them. Women especially have been taught to always suppress our emotions because if we let them out weāre ācRaZyā or āuNhInGeDā. Emotions are a good thing and itās really ok to have them.
Nah. You tried to make a cheap shot at me for some weird thing I said about my dog once. Iām not even that mad about it honestly. My dog is pretty freakin cute. If youāre going to derail the thread to talk about my dog, honestly Iām cool with itā¦ heās adorable. Iām happy to discuss all things related to my dog! You just let me know what you want to know!
1 Like
If the case went to trial, at that point the truth of the allegations would be argued. But instead, the case was dismissed without any finding at all on the validity of the allegations.
Barisoneās lawyers did not need to establish the truth of any of the allegations they listed in order to file the case.
2 Likes
When did IM ever say anything to support the defense?
I mostly remember him pretty much parroting almost everything LK said. And on the rare occasions he strayed from her story, LK usually chimed in to say he had gotten that part wrong.
9 Likes
If you want pm me. Iām out now. Early riding tomorrow. Tried to message you but your profile is private. I think we are talking past each other. And I wonāt further derail this thread.
7 Likes
Case in point.
9 Likes
He did mostly parrotā¦.but he also tried to claim credible by being a key informant on things to both the prosecution and defense. Iād also like to point outā¦.I donāt think LK ever once corrected him in real time of the wrong information in those posts.
ETA: went back and reviewed IMās post. He was never actually polite and did actually throw around insults in pretty much every post. He just wasnāt as over top and direct about it. And no, LK never addressed his inconsistencies at all in previous threads and only attacked his credibility in this thread once his claims started being used against her.
12 Likes
That was my thought, initially. But if youāre testing arguments in a mock trial, Iād think itās important to have mock jurors that reflect average jurors. Law students might respond quite differently from the average Joe.
3 Likes
He tried to claim being credible, for sure.
I believe LK did correct him any time he strayed from her party line, but Iām not going to wade through those old threads to dig around in them.
3 Likes
I have nothing to say to you. Iāll just go ahead and assume you were trying to pm me to apologize to me for derailing the thread to make a weird insult about my dog. Itās ok all is forgiven. My memory is not as great as yours and I will not hang onto this for the next year like you.
Also Iām pretty sure you can still PM people who have their profile on private right? I think you just go to messages and then type their name in and you can still message peopleā¦ I think.
Nope but itās fine. Iām done.
5 Likes
Youāre missing the fact that the officer puts his safety first, so secure the alleged shooter (person#2) back up appears, attend to person #1.
Helping person #1 with an active shooter loose equals more injured/dead people.
It is a hard math, indeed.
15 Likes
That would be ideal, but real jurors have real jobs they canāt leave for three days to listen to trial trials, where law students get credit to sit there. At least where I was we didā¦
That sounds harsh the way I wrote it, itās not meant to be, I was trying to be succinct. And I really wanted to write āa trial trialā
Let me see if I can fix this quote malfunction for you so your responses make senseā¦
1 Like
No, no I did not. I did quote her. I did NOT say āthis, from reliable source, Nancy Jaffer.ā It is because you (g) believe she is āreliable,ā that I quoted her. I find her repulsive. But, unless you are she, assume I know more about her tactics than you do.
1 Like
A long time ago, I was a juror in a mock trial put on at the Vermont Law School. Law students pretending to be both prosecutors and defense.
3 Likes
Wow!!! Turning my quote grey instead of white, helped the quote make so much more sense!!! Why, you must be a genius! Or just a detractor.
1 Like
Itās adorable you think I somehow control the background color of the quote.
Just too cute.
9 Likes
