We all know what she meant, come on. You’re just antagonizing her. This is a viscous cycle where everyone here picks apart everything she says and antagonizes her and then when she eventually bites back y’all use that as justification for picking on her even more and the cycle repeats over and over again. Just stop it.
This isn’t some random anonymous user that’s just being a jerk online, this is a real person who experienced a very real trauma and probably feels very attacked on these threads.
Wrong. Not as far as the law is concerned. A murderer is someone who has committed murder.
Murder is an act which results in death.
All you do is whine about how people respond. It’s getting boring that our responses don’t measure up to your standards. I once again remind you of the ignore feature.
You’re just mad I’m not whining about LK. It’s perfectly ok to criticize others on this thread as long as it’s only LK that you’re criticizing. Anyone else doesn’t deserve any criticism for their behavior on this thread.
You are the one showing bias here.
You’re being quite ridiculous. Can’t even admit you wrote this definition of murderous with the true definitions of the word staring you in the face. Go read some books instead of looking for a constant argument about nothing.
Read some books? I’ve STUDIED them. Actual law books with statutes and EVERYTHING.
The definition is clear. Your arguing is ridiculous. Your insults, predictable.
We’re talking about the definition of murderous here, not “murder” as defined from the law.
Ok. Fine I’m out then. My definition was purely intended in the legal sense. My comments were meant solely for legal term general usage.
Agreed, as a scholar of the law, which the other posters clearly are not and don’t understand the importance of language and nuance in law. If so, they would have cited a legal dictionary instead of the armchair one.
It often seems like the comments on this thread get more ridiculous later in the evening. I don’t know if that’s when people have had a couple of glasses of wine or some other substance or everyone’s just tired and cranky by then or what.
Thank you, I really appreciate that.
As a scholar of the law?
I still don’t see how the general definition was incorrect. I didn’t know there was such a thing as an armchair dictionary 
I think some posters are talking past each other a bit re the legal vs general definition and word usage thing.
I wonder about this sometimes. I’m in another time zone so this is morning for me. Having tea, going to the gym, starting my day, etc. Some of you all in the US and Canada are up late. I can’t be on here so late or in the wee hours of the morning when I have to get up at 5. Maybe some are better at functioning with less sleep than I am 
Let’s revisit a post by IM which specifically stated (but paraphrased) “in order to charge for CONSPIRACY, much specificity is needed such as hearing, “We are going to kill X and Y at 1pm on Friday.” So…. No. Again, your ridiculous theory fails to make “perfect sense,” but, instead, makes zero sense at all. Do you even bother to read anyone else’s posts, aside from the few “usual suspects,” with whom you are confident will take the already nonsensical crap you spew & (completing what one might believe impossible) twist it into something even more nonsensical than your own crap? Better yet, do you bother reading your OWN posts?
At some point, you’re going have to square yourself up with the fact - you know nothing. Some may have forgotten, though my screenshots have not, it wasn’t long ago you were still stating (not speculating) that there were “several other houses on the premises,” so (paraphrased) “LK & RG could’ve gone to another house but chose to stay where they were to torment MB & co,” until a poster corrected you to state, “No, there was only a farmhouse and barn.” That must have been embarrassing. Caught, having exactly no information.
I stated at one point, “MB had just received a large insurance check.”
Your (again, false) accusation: “Omg, isn’t it obvious they were going through MB’s MAIL!!! Isn’t that a FELONY!”
(Bc, there aren’t about 50 other ways that we, and every other inhabitant on the property would have known this, or anything.) EYE ROLL.
You state: “Don’t forget, the only information the authorities had to go on came from only 1 source! RG!!”
In response to that, I’ve got 3 words for you, one (rhetorical) question & one statement: 1.)GRAND JURY INDICTMENT.
2.) Are you asserting that a Grand Jury granted a “true bill,” indictment on ALL charges “as is,” bc the prosecutor presented only 1 statement made by 1 witness/victim at the scene?
3.)Sorry, that is not how indictments work.
Add on- from now on, you will state only facts and back them up with evidence. Oh, wait. Silly me. If you were truly forced to back up your claims of “fact,” with actual evidence as Coth rules dictate, you would be unable to post anything at all. (Perhaps, KM can open her “vault,” of “evidence,” and help you out a bit?) That said, as long as you write the words, “this is only speculation,” prior to or after your fictional declarations, you are free to continue embarrassing yourself. However, you are not only failing horribly to add anything of value to this discussion, you’re depriving both readers and those with honest questions, the ability to be provided with such, to the extent they can be provided. That is fact. Not “speculation.” Here’s another fact- this is the amount of bathroom work performed by RG at the house or barn: ZERO. This is the amount of stars provided by each client survey for BR installations completed by RG by the BR remodeling company by which he was previously employed: FIVE (Bravo, the latter being 1 fact EB actually got right!!)
Add on 2: (to others) yes, words DO matter. Therefore, you may want to think again before using these words/phrases/sentences: “squatters,” “RG’s shoddy work,” “evicted,” “illegal recordings,” “it was LK’s gun,” “grifters,” “not a murderer,” “first level rider,” “LK’s Olympic dreams,” (never mentioned once by me) “MB’s clean record,” “RC never charged,” “Suboxone dealer,” “terrorists,” “clear pattern of harassment,” “in-laws have a restraining order,” “met that lawyer 5 minutes before detention hearing,” “brought 4th horse without permission,” “brought 5th horse without permission,” “arsonist,” “RG threatened/bullied minors,” “ignored fire marshal’s instruction to vacate” “MB told them to leave,” “LK shot RG,” “Lk shot AT RG,” “LK has a pattern/history of convictions,” “RG & daddy made threats to staff on 8-8,” “they planned to get themselves shot,” …… Did I miss any other disgusting, false, victim blaming/shaming phrase, sentence or word? Probably. But, 1am. I fully expect Coth to locate ALL of these and comply with its own rules & guidelines.
I’d argue the opposite. Nobody that’s had a couple glasses of wine would be here arguing over the definition of “murderous” vs “murdering”. Those are the people who are most definitely not currently drinking any wine.
This thread would probably be way more peaceful if everybody only commented after a couple glasses of wine.
QFP
You know there are angry and bitter drunks out there, right? Some people get even more dramatic when they drink wine 
Sounds like LK (or whoever made this up) has watched too many law dramas on TV. Suddenly MHG will be charged and MB will get reduced charges even though he is the one that shot LK? Amusing.
MB said on the 911 tapes that he wanted them off the property. I think he went to tell them to leave, he brought the little purple gun to defend himself in case their dog attacked him, and it all went sideways and he ended up shooting LK even though he didn’t go there with that intention.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
