Then if it’s irrelevant (as I said) what’s with all the drama? It paints you as unsure and insecure.
3 Likes
To me, it’s relevant as a statement about KMs integrity in being able to admit she misremembered. It’s also relevant in understanding LKs perception that KM had libeled her. KM refused to back down when LK clarified on CoTH that she did not a own a Ruger, and has continued to double down. I’m not justifying the way LK handled the situation with the PMs (which I have not seen) but I can understand LKs anger at KMs continued insistence that LK had posted on FB that she owned a gun of the type used to shoot her.
Now that RC is going to testify that she owned the gun used in the shooting, brought it to N.J., and handed it to MB (at his request), whether LK happens to own a Ruger is irrelevant to the trial.
But I will stop posting about it.
3 Likes
See post 1507.
1 Like
If you have not seen the PM’s them maybe you should go find the thread where they are posted.
KM has no reason to lie about having seen what they say they saw. LK has been shown to not be fully honest over many things posted. If I had to choose one that was more likely to be telling the truth here, I would pick KM.
Honestly, if you would stop demanding proof, the whole topic of LK owning or not owning a Ruger would like just go away, so I agree, stop posting about it.
To add a laugh - I can say I (consider that bolded) do not own a Ruger. Though my permit might say otherwise. So there is also that technicality of owning versus OWNING.
9 Likes
Surprise!! I’m not on trial!!
And as for my “integrity” I’m not the poster who got caught lying about serving subpoenas to people here on this forum.
And once again, do review your libel laws. Telling the truth is not libelous just because you don’t like what was written.
8 Likes
I was quoting the max sentences stated in the article about Barisone turning down the plea deal.
1 Like
Re bolded. Obviously telling the truth is not libelous!
1 Like
@soloudinhere, this is a general question not specific to this case. It seems sometimes in cases that there is such a huge disparity between the charges offered in a plea deal and the potential charges possible in a guilty verdict at trial. Is there a statistic of how many cases that go to trial actually result in these higher penalties?
I certainly understand the need for plea deals and im sure for many, it is their best option to take them. It is frustrating when one hears of a case where an innocent person takes a plea because they feel they have no other choice.
Because it is a right of an accused person to have a trial, I never understood the charge disparity. For example, if a prosecutor is willng to accept a 5 year sentence on a plea, why have a trial penalty with possible 20 year sentence? (made up example)
Do prosecutors ramp up the charges and hope they get somewhere between 5 and 10 years at trial?
I would be interested to hear an opinion of this by someone knowledgeable in law. Thank you!
4 Likes
6 Likes
What is the definition of PBR?
???
“In forensics and popular usage, point-blank range has come to mean extremely close range (i.e., target within about a meter (3 ft) of the muzzle at moment of discharge but not close enough to be an actual [contact shot]"
(https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Contact_shot)).[1]”
“Also, “point blank” does not mean “contact distance” as some think it means. The term point blank would describe that distance out from the muzzle which is close enough that there has been little or no practical degradation of ballistic performance. For a handgun, that might mean 4 or 5 feet, or even further depending on the caliber. For a rifle, “point blank” might mean 15 or 20 yards or more. So I am going to assume that by “point blank” the original poster means “contact distance,” which could be defined as that distance as which the muzzle is within a few inches or less of the target. Example: Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald at pretty much contact distance.”
(informative article)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-kind-of-wound-would_b_4385573
1 Like
Re the gun confusion. Many people do not write clearly, especially when they are in a mad rush to fire off a response about something they are passionate about.
Consider the following scenario.
Person A (discussing a shooting): “The Ruger (used in the shooting) was pink. Mine is black.”
Most people would take that to mean that Person A has a Ruger. Now, s/he may in fact have a Sig and not a Ruger, but because they did not make a clear distinction, listeners/readers are going to take their words at face value.
Not saying that is what occurred, but I do wonder if something similar caused some of the misunderstanding.
[Edited to try to make it even MORE clear - LOL.]
9 Likes
What is with this phenomenon that some of us are required, no demanded to provide proof of things said? The frantic accusation yesterday that I must have inside information and just who did I get such information from that has never been spoken and I must produce my evidence or be a liar - a favorite Kanarek word. Yet, when I stated how I knew that Simring was one of Barisone’s expert witnesses, that wasn’t enough. It was demanded I provide the exact information. Then when the actual post was provided there wasn’t one word of “oh, yeah, I was wrong”. In the past this same poster has said that what several heard in hearings isn’t what was said even though they posted exactly the same information immediately after the hearing (so no time for conspiracy or collusion). We were told to check our hearing. Yet when some of us pushback and make similar demands of proof, we’re told to go search for it. Another favorite demand for proof is the letter Barisone wrote from jail. The ridiculous post yesterday about how I came to read the letter was really strange. When, where, how and why I read the letter described by the poster was ludicrous to say the least. The goal was to provoke me into saying whether I was part of the group Barisone authorized to share the letter with or did I beg someone somewhere to see it.
I know this type of provocation is going to intensify over the next month or so, particularly with some trying to get the thread(s) closed. But let me say this now, find your own proof to dispute something I have said. I’m done doing your work for you.
18 Likes
OMG calm down, frantic accusation? You blow everything out of proportion. Like big time. Also this entire post is beyond hypocritical its amusing.
I’m pretty sure I have figured out your position in this now though, so there’s that.
5 Likes
Oh really? Exactly what is my position? Proof please.
4 Likes
4 Likes
The snowflakes emoji are cute. Though it is interesting how different they look in the preview versus how they look on the actual screen.
Screen shot of the preview panel so you (general) can see the difference.
3 Likes
Go search for it
1 Like
How typical. By the way, I’m glad I was able to amuse you.
1 Like
Who do you think is confused about the difference between point blank range and contact distance? I’m not sure who you mean by “original poster”; I went back to the first post on this thread and there is no mention of “point blank” in the post, so maybe you are referring to LK’s post that you quoted. But that doesn’t make sense either because she is stating that 3 feet away is about what point blank range is (the one inch she mentions is the distance between the two entry wounds). And based on your post, for a handgun, it seems that 3 feet would be considered point blank range.
3 Likes
