Was there any mention of the glass being broken in the door window? I thought it was stated somewhere it was broken. If it was, and the dog was taken in through that door, I would think it would be a problem with preserving the evidence. I tried to get a good look at the door but couldn’t see anything.
1 Like
No mention that I heard. LK has more than 1 dog remember…
4 Likes
3 Likes
I feel like you might be missing the point of the statement.
12 Likes
You can believe what you want - there was nothing legally or factually incorrect with saying that the shooter and victim facing each other is consistent with a finding of self defense.
24 Likes
Ya think?
11 Likes
It’s called agenda based argument.
9 Likes
I looked at the trailer for the show. Not much of a tv person but that show looks like it could be entertaining. Yes, it is like that but on a smaller scale. Even plaintiff attorneys in multi million claims hire consultants and also do mock trials to gauge the best approach. And it may be a little creepy to know that yes, they will try to find out as much as possible about all the potential jurors and the sitting jurors.
The factual statement is that the shooter and victim facing each other could be consistent with self defense. It also could be consistent with murder/attempted murder/accidental shooting.
If I said, “the fact that LK was shot from the front is consistent with attempted murder”, many of you would be all over me telling me how wrong I am. And you would be right. Words really do matter; “is” has a different meaning than “could be”.
3 Likes
Our barn owner requires everyone who rides a horse, owner or not, to sign a waiver. In addition, any visitor who comes on the property JUST to see the horses must sign a waiver.
8 Likes
You are misunderstanding, once again, what the meaning of “consistent with” is; your statement that it is consistent with attempted murder is also accurate
At this point I have to assume you’re being deliberately obtuse.
38 Likes
You are clearly not understanding the meaning of the term “consistent with,” and not understanding the attempts to explain to you what it means.
A is consistent with B if when B happens, you could see A. It does not mean that A shows B definitely happened, just that B could have happened.
A shot to the front is consistent with self-defense. It is also consistent with someone walking up to someone else and shooting them intentionally. It is not consistent with the victim actively fleeing at the time of the shot (in which case the shot would not be in the victim’s front). It may not be consistent with suicide or accident (whether it is or is not depends on location/angle and whether that could possibly be self-inflicted). See the difference?
ETA “could” in the 1st sentence of my 2nd paragraph because I realized it was necessary for accuracy
14 Likes
I have always had to sign a liability waiver everywhere I have ridden - even if I go to barn where a friend rides to hack… and at private barns.
10 Likes
Yes, I would find that to be completely unsurprising if a boarder wanted to bring in an outside person to ride the boarder’s horses. In any state, regardless of the specific state laws.
Particularly if the boarder in question had a history or tendency to be litigious. And/or a lawyer in the family. Or both.
11 Likes
I have ridden at the same barn and trainer for 7 years. I have to sign a liability waver there as well. The waivers and agreements get updated. In my world this is normal…
6 Likes
My issue is with the word “is” because the statement is not complete. If you said, “a frontal entrance would is consistent with self defense, murder/attempted murder, or accidental shooting”, that would be a factual statement. Simply saying it “is” consistent only with self defense indicates that is the only thing it can be. Again, words matter. Well, at least to me, maybe not so much to others lol.
In my line of work I have to write accurately; a mistake like this would not be tolerated at my job. Clearly the standards here at COTH are not nearly as high, so I will do my best to ignore mistakes like this. I can’t promise though; it’s like nails on a chalkboard for me.
This is what confounds me to no end - with MB being a top professional, a world class professional, why did he not have signed waivers, contracts, etc. This loose verbal bartering obviously had dire consequences. MB’s attorney, at one of the hearings, even said there was no written contract. He was in the business for what, 30 years or more? Was he always that sloppy with agreements and contracts?
2 Likes
We all have our crosses to bear.
18 Likes
Someone mentioned that his ex wife was the one who ran the business and he focused his time on training and teaching. I don’t know if he has any business experience at all, but suddenly being forced to take over all aspects of a business when you had none of those responsibilities before could be really overwhelming, so I would think getting waivers signed could be something that he just never even thought to do.
2 Likes
Yes we do and I appreciate your understanding of mine lol.
