No, I totally understand and agree with the statements by IPEsq on this issue.
2 Likes
This is VERY different from a rape situation. A woman choosing to dress provocatively, sleep around, or even prance around naked in no way harms a would-be rapist. The comparison to LK’s behavior leading up to this incident is insulting to victims of rape.
40 Likes
I think you just won the internet. This is so what it looks like.
23 Likes
Snort! 
5 Likes
Disagree. That’s b/c none of those things are aimed at a particular person. That’s just the way she dresses and expresses herself.
The difference here is that the way LK and RG are, as people, and the ways they were acting and the things they were doing were directed specifically at MB: they testified under oath to planning to ‘destroy’ him; they testified to accessing his office and planning to disable his security cameras; they testified to recording him and there is evidence that they are flat out lying under oath and did record other places than the ones they admit.
They weren’t just going about their business dressing certain ways and talking about their lives. They were carrying out a plan that they admitted to under oath to harass and, again, I quote, ‘destroy’ him.
You see the distinction, I hope.
35 Likes
Agree, a woman’s dress doesn’t drive a man to a state that he rapes.
But stress and fear certainly can effect mental state such that one takes actions they otherwise might not.
10 Likes
The legal standpoint is that they were tormenting and scaring people, lots of people, and that is why things went south.
17 Likes
I agree. I’m guessing why some of this is contentious. The judge has stated he will not allow the character of the victim to be on trial. The defense is arguing that it is very relevant…
12 Likes
Times 1000!
THANK YOU.
7 Likes
Appears so to me as well. I wonder if he has been threatened by JK. Ghastly thought but I wouldn’t put it past him.
4 Likes
It wasn’t confirmed that was why she gave it to him.
I don’t think being afraid of the dog is relative though.
2 Likes
Her character may not be.
Her actions are
12 Likes
Beauty contestant past?
Yes, I absolutely can. But I’m guessing there are finer points in the law that don’t. And I’m guessing that there is something about that if the victim is scary to OTHER people, then it’s not relevant to how MB felt.
I am frustrated as well it’s not allowed in. I’m just trying to offer a bit of an explanation for Taylor’s remarks about the victim’s character not being on trial.
9 Likes
BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT!
9 Likes
Perfect distinction. Fine, we don’t need to hear the shocking vulgarities she used with GJ and how she left racist bad reviews of a barn owner she didn’t like. But why can the jury not hear all the ACTIONS they took leading up to the shooting?
26 Likes
If everybody on the property was afraid of the dog, that could be a valid reason to bring a weapon to defend yourself from the dog, if that’s the path the defense chooses to follow.
27 Likes
It was also proven that MB planned on making their lives hell instead of just asking them to leave.
MB is not exempt of culpability, imo. Both parties contributed to this.
9 Likes
As someone who has been required to work around dogs with a habit of biting the help, being afraid of the dog certainly adds to the other stress of the day to day.
23 Likes
