Barisone Trial This Month

[eggbutt]

I understand what you are saying now…you are referring to @MorganSercu motives rather than questioning LK’s motives. Got it.

[trubandloki]

@RND

Why give this whole thing so much oxygen?

Like I said above, I don’t think this post has anything to do with Morgan, it is an example to dispute the claim that LK only attacks back, she does not start anything.

[SillyHorse]

@RND

I don’t understand why so many people respond to LK’s nonsense with an equal or greater amount of nonsense.

I don’t think that’s true. The responses aren’t nonsense, just because you don’t like them. Or unless you can’t make sense of them. Calling them nonsense doesn’t make them nonsense.

[RND]

@trubandloki

Like I said above, I don’t think this post has anything to do with Morgan, it is an example to dispute the claim that LK only attacks back, she does not start anything.

MorganSercu posted the COTH blogger and LK’s response to her and said:

@MorganSercu

Well, Lauren tried to intimidate someone

I asked MorganSercu which part of it she thought was intimidating.

[Angela_Freda]

@RND

I asked which part of LK’s response in that post was intimidating to MorganSercu, because MorganSercu posted it and said it was intimidating. I just don’t see where the intimidation is.

Saying its intimidating, and it is, doesn’t mean its intimidating towards Morgan Secru. . Obviously the intimidation was towards whomever LK was responding to.

If you don’t see the suggestions of the writer being added to the investigation etc as intimidating, suggesting harming their business, etc… Hey, nice for you.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Angela_Freda

@Angela_Freda

@CurrentlyHorseless

I was just responding to your question as to why I kept mentioning the disparity between MB and LK in terms of height, weight and physical strength. I think the disparity is pertinent for his claim that deadly force was necessary for self defense .

And the presence of others besides MB and LK isn’t?

@CurrentlyHorseless, I’m still waiting for a reply to this question.

The presence of others doesn’t create a disparity in “force” between the two sides that might explain the use of force in defending ones self?

If by “others”, you’re referring to RG and the dog:

I think that fanciful stories about “the participation of the dog”, as EB put it, are laughable. Literally laughable. I have a movie in my head in which Bilinkas alleges that MB obtained and brought a gun because he was afraid of a dog, but nevertheless chose to interact in person rather than by text, and that bringing three bullets is the exact number you bring if you think you might need to subdue a dog, but would never be the appropriate number if you intended to attempt to murder two people. As Bilinkas attempts to go through this speech, people in the courtroom can’t help but laugh.

If you want to continue to amuse yourself with stories about “the participation of the dog”, go ahead. Don’t expect me to engage.

I have addressed the very pertinent role of RG. He was courageous to tackle and subdue Barisone. If Barisone had been free to finish the job on LK, he, Barisone, would be in a much worse situation now, on trial for murder. If not stopped, Barisone in his psychotic state was at risk of killing others. RG probably had a right of self defense to use lethal force against Barisone, but had the restraint and courage not to.

[eggbutt]

And, we’re off spinning a tangent about @MorganSercu word rather than discuss the case or behavior of the principles in the case.

[RND]

@Angela_Freda

Saying its intimidating, and it is, doesn’t mean its intimidating towards Morgan Secru.

Jesus. I didn’t say it was intimidating TOWARDS MorganSercu. MorganSercu described the response as trying to intimidate the COTH blogger. I am wondering which part MorganSercu thinks is intimidating towards the COTH blogger, because I just don’t see anything that is intimidating.

[RND]

@eggbutt

And, we’re off spinning a tangent about @MorganSercu word rather than discuss the case or behavior of the principles in the case.

I asked a clarifying question of someone who posted something here. Just because others are having trouble following my question doesn’t make it inappropriate to ask.

[hut-ho78]

@eggbutt

It certainly appears she threatened subpoenas (not sure she has that authority) and mentions how this person is hurting LS’s business with her private texts - how? The general public would never have known about any texts.

Who knows what LK expected from her public post? An apology? From whom, for what? Or was this simply another example of getting attention via provocation?

“Getting attention via provocation” maybe you answered my questions with this although it was a response to something else. Is baiting LK a way to get attention?

[Angela_Freda]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If by “others”, you’re referring to RG and the dog:

I think that fanciful stories about “the participation of the dog”, as EB put it, are laughable. Literally laughable. I have a movie in my head in which Bilinkas alleges that MB obtained and brought a gun because he was afraid of a dog, but nevertheless chose to interact in person rather than by text, and that bringing three bullets is the exact number you bring if you think you might need to subdue a dog, but would never be the appropriate number if you intended to attempt to murder two people. As Bilinkas attempts to go through this speech, people in the courtroom can’t help but laugh.

If you want to continue to amuse yourself with stories about “the participation of the dog”, go ahead. Don’t expect me to engage.

I have addressed the very pertinent role of RG. He was courageous to tackle and subdue Barisone. If Barisone had been free to finish the job on LK, he, Barisone, would be in a much worse situation now, on trial for murder. If not stopped, Barisone in his psychotic state was at risk of killing others. RG probably had a right of self defense to use lethal force against Barisone, but had the restraint and courage not to.

How lucky you’ve never been attacked by a dog, know to attack people.

Beyond that, your answer was very enlightening.
Clearly your bias prevents you from cogently discussing this.

[Angela_Freda]

@RND

Jesus. I didn’t say it was intimidating TOWARDS MorganSercu. MorganSercu described the response as trying to intimidate the COTH blogger. I am wondering which part MorganSercu thinks is intimidating towards the COTH blogger, because I just don’t see anything that is intimidating.

hmmm… Why would that be?

[eggbutt]

I answered your post saying the threat of subpoenas and ruining someone’s business may be intimidating to some. We have no idea how, or if, LS responded to LK privately. I doubt it because she is a professional. It’s all malarkey.

[eggbutt]

@hut-ho78

@eggbutt

It certainly appears she threatened subpoenas (not sure she has that authority) and mentions how this person is hurting LS’s business with her private texts - how? The general public would never have known about any texts.

Who knows what LK expected from her public post? An apology? From whom, for what? Or was this simply another example of getting attention via provocation?

“Getting attention via provocation” maybe you answered my questions with this although it was a response to something else. Is baiting LK a way to get attention?

How on earth was LS comment on her Blog on The Chronical baiting Lauren? Did she even mention her? Dang. Ya’ll will defend her nasty behavior regardless. I guess GJ somehow baited LK too, right?

[soloudinhere]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I have a movie in my head in which Bilinkas alleges that MB obtained and brought a gun because he was afraid of a dog, but nevertheless chose to interact in person rather than by text, and that bringing three bullets is the exact number you bring if you think you might need to subdue a dog, but would never be the appropriate number if you intended to attempt to murder two people.

You might want to find a new hobby.

Sorry, but this whole thing is approaching the realm of the ridiculous now.

I’m not making this comment from a legal standpoint or commenting on anyone’s strategy or whatever. I’m making this comment as a layperson.

This is not a joke and it’s not funny.

If you want to continue to amuse yourself with stories about “the participation of the dog”, go ahead. Don’t expect me to engage.

Sounds like the only one amusing themselves with made-up “movies” is you.

[eggbutt]

@FitzE

If I read KM’s post correctly, she thinks explaining her motivation is futile. This highlights the difficulty of discussing this case. No one can even speculate on what happened or may have happened or any theories without that speculation, in and of itself, being deemed ‘bashing’, ‘attacking’, ‘blaming’, etc. Anyone speculating is a ‘hater’, ‘MB fangirl’, ‘victim blamer’. This is true even for speculation that does not discuss LK or relate to her behaviour past or present.

While there have certainly been posts here that cast a very negative light on LK, and there have been reactions to those posts, even posts which speculate about timing, distance between house and barn, questions re: admissibility of evidence, etc., have routinely drawn responses from various posters ranging from public mockery and name calling (in the vein of: I bet you’re not even a lawyer, you’re nothing but a lowly clerk, you know nothing at all about the law, you’re nobody and MB always made fun of you/where you live, etc.), to attempted doxing, to private attempts at threats and control/bullying.

Within those private threatening and bullying PMs, the range has been from ‘you shouldn’t post in X thread or in X way’, to ‘your identity has been subpoenaed and disclosed’ to ‘you will be sued and your farm and horses taken from you’. PMs came from not only LK, but posters who self-identified as her supporters, whatever that means to them. To my knowledge, no one has PMed those posters in attempts to control what they post or to threaten them in any way whatsoever, which is a notable difference.

Recall that one poster was so intimidated by those PMs she left the forum for almost a year and has since been afraid to post in these threads. And, it should be noted, she wasn’t even very active or particularly contrary in her posting.

Speculation and discussion about the crime and how it happened should be allowable from all viewpoints. That’s what true-crime discussions are all about. Speculation about the fact pattern should not be turned into an attack on the speculating party. If I develop a theory that the dog brought the gun to the altercation, discuss, if you want, how the dog could or could not have done so, etc. No need to tell me I’m a dog hater and will do anything to twist the facts to implicate the dog and fit my anti-dog narrative and ignore pro-dog facts and I’m probably a cat fangirl and will be exposed as such in national media and through a libel suit. Just discredit or explore the theory – or not. The rest is just not necessary.

Do none of the “LK apologists” have any response to this post?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

Let’s remember that I once posted I had read a FB post of LKs which mentioned her having a certain type of gun. That comment of this memory of mine of that posting unleashed a barrage of lies, threats and insults by her upon me in PMs which I then exposed to the light of day on this forum only to discover I wasn’t the only recipient of such negative attention.

Did I shoot her? Nope.
Did I say MB was innocent? Nope.
Did I say she deserved to get shot if that’s what happened? Nope.

So to many of the readers here, casting LK solely as a benign character in this twisted story of events remains unconvincing and disingenuous at best.

Now her advocates may not like this fact but it exists and is reality nevertheless.

As I recall, you posted that she owned a Ruger (the type of gun used in the shooting), full stop.

I most certainly did post I recalled seeing a FB post of hers where SHE stated she had a Ruger. What’s your point?

This post was about how she responded.

My point is that if she had not posted that she owned a Ruger, your post asserting that would not be true statement.

If you don’t trash talk, why were you responding to my question?

Because it tagged no one and as it appeared immediately under and right after my post it seemed a logical conclusion.

If you were not addressing me then state so here.

I was still addressing cutter. However, now we are conversing, once you let the forum know you had received PMs from LK, why do you keep repeating it? Also, had you given any thought that a shooting victim who had been trash talked while in a coma might be overly sensitive to comments that she owned and brought the weapon used to shoot her? When you responded back to her, did you explain you just noticed it and you were not implying it was her fault she got shot or did you respond defensively in return?

Why do I keep repeating it? Because I want to. Because it happened. Because it’s the truth. I thought you wanted the truth to prevail? I know I do. Always.

I did not do a psychological analysis of a stranger on the internet in order to determine a treatment plan and strategy.

I witnessed an event and stated what I witnessed.

I never said the weapon that caused her injury was absolutely her particular Ruger. Where would you get such a thing?

Personally if my loved one was involved in an event that became a topic of discussion on social media, I would do all I could to make sure they weren’t involved at all on social media in order to lessen any emotional or psychological upset.

How did you get from “implying” to “absolutely”? In the middle of people trash talking her, did you actually mean to imply she brought the gun used to shoot her? Or just make a completely innocent comment of what you observed on social media?

I’ll leave it up to you to decide. You will anyway.

I’ve been perfectly clear and concise.

Here is my understanding:

LK has acknowledged owning a gun or guns, but not to owning a Luger.

Early on, it was not 100% clear who owned the gun used in the shooting.

You posted that she posted on FB that she owned a Luger. That suggests that the gun used in the shooting was owned by her.

You keep complaining that she has “threatened you”. If you posted the untrue statement about her supposedly admitting publicly that she owned a weapon of the type used in the shooting, I can she that she would consider that a libelous statement.

Was her “threat” a statement that she would or might sue you for libel? Truth of the statement is an excellent defense against a charge of libel, so if you’re certain what you wrote is true, you can literally laugh off her “threat”. You only need to feel threatened if what you posted was not true.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

If I read KM’s post correctly, she thinks explaining her motivation is futile. This highlights the difficulty of discussing this case. No one can even speculate on what happened or may have happened or any theories without that speculation, in and of itself, being deemed ‘bashing’, ‘attacking’, ‘blaming’, etc. Anyone speculating is a ‘hater’, ‘MB fangirl’, ‘victim blamer’. This is true even for speculation that does not discuss LK or relate to her behaviour past or present.

While there have certainly been posts here that cast a very negative light on LK, and there have been reactions to those posts, even posts which speculate about timing, distance between house and barn, questions re: admissibility of evidence, etc., have routinely drawn responses from various posters ranging from public mockery and name calling (in the vein of: I bet you’re not even a lawyer, you’re nothing but a lowly clerk, you know nothing at all about the law, you’re nobody and MB always made fun of you/where you live, etc.), to attempted doxing, to private attempts at threats and control/bullying.

Within those private threatening and bullying PMs, the range has been from ‘you shouldn’t post in X thread or in X way’, to ‘your identity has been subpoenaed and disclosed’ to ‘you will be sued and your farm and horses taken from you’. PMs came from not only LK, but posters who self-identified as her supporters, whatever that means to them. To my knowledge, no one has PMed those posters in attempts to control what they post or to threaten them in any way whatsoever, which is a notable difference.

Recall that one poster was so intimidated by those PMs she left the forum for almost a year and has since been afraid to post in these threads. And, it should be noted, she wasn’t even very active or particularly contrary in her posting.

Speculation and discussion about the crime and how it happened should be allowable from all viewpoints. That’s what true-crime discussions are all about. Speculation about the fact pattern should not be turned into an attack on the speculating party. If I develop a theory that the dog brought the gun to the altercation, discuss, if you want, how the dog could or could not have done so, etc. No need to tell me I’m a dog hater and will do anything to twist the facts to implicate the dog and fit my anti-dog narrative and ignore pro-dog facts and I’m probably a cat fangirl and will be exposed as such in national media and through a libel suit. Just discredit or explore the theory – or not. The rest is just not necessary.

Not true at all. The first couple of days of this thread contained almost 100% calm, respectful discussion of the case with no bashing of anyone, and no accusations of bashing.

It really is that simple. Drop the bashing, and the discussion of the actual case flourishes.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

The first couple of days of this thread contained almost 100% calm, respectful discussion of the case with no bashing of anyone, and no accusations of bashing.

Really? Within the 1st 10 posts, we find these respectful posts:

The reality is quite a few posters refrained from posting on this thread for some reason for some time, so it was “LK apologists” projecting their thoughts for several days.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Angela_Freda

@CurrentlyHorseless

If by “others”, you’re referring to RG and the dog:

I think that fanciful stories about “the participation of the dog”, as EB put it, are laughable. Literally laughable. I have a movie in my head in which Bilinkas alleges that MB obtained and brought a gun because he was afraid of a dog, but nevertheless chose to interact in person rather than by text, and that bringing three bullets is the exact number you bring if you think you might need to subdue a dog, but would never be the appropriate number if you intended to attempt to murder two people. As Bilinkas attempts to go through this speech, people in the courtroom can’t help but laugh.

If you want to continue to amuse yourself with stories about “the participation of the dog”, go ahead. Don’t expect me to engage.

I have addressed the very pertinent role of RG. He was courageous to tackle and subdue Barisone. If Barisone had been free to finish the job on LK, he, Barisone, would be in a much worse situation now, on trial for murder. If not stopped, Barisone in his psychotic state was at risk of killing others. RG probably had a right of self defense to use lethal force against Barisone, but had the restraint and courage not to.

How lucky you’ve never been attacked by a dog, know to attack people.

Beyond that, your answer was very enlightening.
Clearly your bias prevents you from cogently discussing this.

Just responding to your nudge that you were “waiting for a response”.

I have been bitten by dogs, although never badly. If I were afraid of being bitten by a particular dog, my means of self preservation would be to not put myself in the area the dog considered its territory rather than to obtain and bring a gun.