Barisone Trial This Month

[Knights_Mom]

@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.

Again you are wrong. In various ways.

I believe to my core that I saw her post where she stated she had 2 guns and that one was a Ruger. So did a number of other people state they saw the post. Therefore my statement is not libelous.

Aside from this initial point the other requirements of libel remain unfulfilled.

Additionally, to extrapolate that my statement implies anything such as your fantasy that I said she was shot with her own gun is a fresh, new, never before used comment born of imagination and desperation.

As for my feeling threatened: I luckily learned a few things vacuuming under lawyers desks for 31 years. I was very annoyed at the attempt to bull**** me in order to shut me up and I immediately thought of how many others who lacked “vacuuming” experience might believe these strong arm tactics and so I publicly posted of those PMs 3 weeks after to disprove a post which laughably alleged that certain behaviors were not done by LK.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

, 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.

Even if that dog was on your property?

[trubandloki]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

, 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.

Even if that dog was on your property?

Yes, this is my question too. Even if the dog is on your own property where you are allowed to go, you would simply not go there? Interesting. Not believable, but interesting.

[cutter99]

@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?

Well, since you are addressing me…

I have the right to respond as I, like many others here, have been threatened unnecessarily.

And accused of being fan girls, victim bashers, as well as a multitude of other things. And as this is a “discussion” forum, we have the right to reply, just like you do.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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

@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.

Yeah, I was curious about the fact that the two most most prolific “participants” refrained from posting on this thread for several days.

It was wonderfully calm and respectful during that brief time.

Why did you stay away, EB?

I don’t consider myself an “LK apologist”. Could you drop the term, please?

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

It was wonderfully calm and respectful during that brief time.

You call those posts respectful?

Well, doesn’t that explain quite a bit…

[Sdel]

@cutter99

And accused of being fan girls, victim bashers, as well as a multitude of other things. And as this is a “discussion” forum, we have the right to reply, just like you do.

I seem to recall my very factual recitation of the first responding officers testimony was described as, how should I put it….oh yeah, “my lies”.

[cutter99]

@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.

Just because YOU have a movie in YOUR head, does not make it a reality. Many of us are not paying admission to that movie.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Why did you stay away, EB?

I didn’t stay away. I just didn’t post. As I said many posts ago, I decided that I was not going to start a new thread about the Miranda decision, and I didn’t.

As far as “LK apologists”, I agree it is annoying just as “MB apologist” is or MB Fan Girls, etc.

As far as why others didn’t post earlier, I have no idea. Perhaps waiting for me or others to wade in, busy with life, I just don’t know.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@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.

Again you are wrong. In various ways.

I believe to my core that I saw her post where she stated she had 2 guns and that one was a Ruger. So did a number of other people state they saw the post. Therefore my statement is not libelous.

Aside from this initial point the other requirements of libel remain unfulfilled.

Additionally, to extrapolate that my statement implies anything such as your fantasy that I said she was shot with her own gun is a fresh, new, never before used comment born of imagination and desperation.

As for my feeling threatened: I luckily learned a few things vacuuming under lawyers desks for 31 years. I was very annoyed at the attempt to bull**** me in order to shut me up and I immediately thought of how many others who lacked “vacuuming” experience might believe these strong arm tactics and so I publicly posted of those PMs 3 weeks after to disprove a post which laughably alleged that certain behaviors were not done by LK.

You’re making my point. If you’re confident that nothing you posted was libelous, then her PMs to you would have been mere BS that a person confident that they had not committed libel would have laughed off snd ignored.

Truth of the statement is an absolute defense. Your belief “to your core” that is was true is not as bullet proof, if the statement was not true.

When she informed you that the statement was not true, did you retract it and apologize, or double down?

I would think that retraction and apology would reduce the likelihood of a successful libel action, if you were ever worried about that.

[eggbutt]

Honestly, the quoting of an entire chain of responses is becoming annoying. Why not just reply or quote specific portions?

Back to the conversation.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@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.

Again you are wrong. In various ways.

I believe to my core that I saw her post where she stated she had 2 guns and that one was a Ruger. So did a number of other people state they saw the post. Therefore my statement is not libelous.

Aside from this initial point the other requirements of libel remain unfulfilled.

Additionally, to extrapolate that my statement implies anything such as your fantasy that I said she was shot with her own gun is a fresh, new, never before used comment born of imagination and desperation.

As for my feeling threatened: I luckily learned a few things vacuuming under lawyers desks for 31 years. I was very annoyed at the attempt to bull**** me in order to shut me up and I immediately thought of how many others who lacked “vacuuming” experience might believe these strong arm tactics and so I publicly posted of those PMs 3 weeks after to disprove a post which laughably alleged that certain behaviors were not done by LK.

You’re making my point. If you’re confident that nothing you posted was libelous, then her PMs to you would have been mere BS that a person confident that they had not committed libel would have laughed off snd ignored.

Truth of the statement is an absolute defense. Your belief “to your core” that is was true is not as bullet proof, if the statement was not true.

When she informed you that the statement was not true, did you retract it and apologize, or double down?

I would think that retraction and apology would reduce the likelihood of a successful libel action, if you were ever worried about that.

Yours is a circular, senseless sputtering of gobblygook and nonsense. Your conclusion is nonsense and your path there, bizarre.

I apologize to her for her threatening me? NEVER. Plus she never admitted the lies.

It was Mod1 who verified that what LK said was not truthful.

I can post the whole thing again. Shall I? You know, so memory is freshened. You seem to have forgotten.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

It was wonderfully calm and respectful during that brief time.

You call those posts respectful?

Well, doesn’t that explain quite a bit…

The posts by Jealoushe and Endless? Yes, I thought they were calm and respectful.

[eggbutt]

It appears this thread has sunk to the level of posters only deflecting posts from other users. Nothing about the case is being discussed with the back and forth of what words were used or meant.

So, I am eager to learn who are on the witness lists. I would imagine subpoenas have already gone out to most, if not all, of the witnesses.

[eggbutt]

Of course you do. Obviously we have differences of opinion.

[trubandloki]

@eggbutt

So, I am eager to learn who are on the witness lists. I would imagine subpoenas have already gone out to most, if not all, of the witnesses.

Is that information available somewhere?

I have to assume that LK knows. Heck, IM must know, right?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@cutter99

@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.

Just because YOU have a movie in YOUR head, does not make it a reality. Many of us are not paying admission to that movie.

Angela Freida insisted I respond to her question on my thoughts on RG and the dog. Complain to her.

[eggbutt]

I don’t know if they are posted anywhere and I don’t know if the prosecutor is obligated to give LK a list of defense and prosecution witnesses.

[trubandloki]

@eggbutt

I don’t know if they are posted anywhere and I don’t know if the prosecutor is obligated to give LK a list of defense and prosecution witnesses.

But I thought IM said that they have a close relationship with someone on all sides, so they must know.

[Sdel]

IM talked about those two working students that LK was always going on and on about being witnesses.

LK also talked a lot about those people who contacted her about how horrible MB was being witnesses too.

And then there was a lot of back and forth about GJ and her relevancy as a witness as well.