I was only saying my interpretation of what IM said was completely different from Iris’s interpretation. I was not saying I believed IM’s statement.
But it’s not true that MB “must first be found guilty of attempting to murder 2 people”, for there to be a sentencing hearing, is it? Unless he is found not guilty of all charges, there will be a sentencing hearing, won’t there? Even if there’s no trial and he pleads guilty to a lesser charge?
Since this seems to have gotten lost in all the usual nonsense, I’ll ask again. Anyone brave enough to answer? It’s a pretty straightforward question.
I was just asking for clarification, and you’ve clarified. Thanks.
If you’re going to cyber stalk someone you should perhaps improve your Google skills before making a post to call them a liar.
2 seconds on Google shows me Pam was the owner of a horse competing successfully at small tour in CDIs by Canadian Rebecca Cowden. It seems very reasonable that someone like MB could spot a very talented small tour horse under a lesser-known rider and believe that under a pro like himself, the horse would be capable of a world-class GP.
Sure, that’s an easy one to answer. Yes, and for the same reason why someone like GJ would/could be used. To establish/attack credibility. It’s really not the gotcha question you think it is. It just highlights your intent on being argumentative and obtuse to the responses given to you. Maybe that is why it was generally ignored.
What “position”? I never stated “a position” on this point. I was seeking clarification from FitzE on her position, and she kindly provided the clarification that she was not addressing the issue of M’Naghten or even the insanity defense at all.
Probably, who knows who will be called other than IM’s insight? All character witnesses will be called I suspect…for those with reading comprehension issues, that’s my guess.
Agreed. And as has been said he didn’t shoot seahorse, to get her horse for himself, even though he (allegedly) had that gun safe full to use. So it goes both ways.
Does that mean Seahorses is lying? Of course not.
Does it mean MB did intend to shoot and kill LK? Nope
I’ve never seen or known a male trainer who at times didn’t sound gruff, mean even. I always took it with a grain of salt…expressing frustration/passion at not getting their instruction across. I don’t know anything about any horse abuse with MB. Some believe round spurs and snaffle bits are abusive…personally I believe the excessive use of tight drawreins is abusive as is Rollkur. I just don’t know and won’t question this person’s experience. For sure she had the ability to leave when she felt uncomfortable, as the majority of us would do.
Either by hearing or by plea bargain the defendant must first be found GUILTY of some charge. Once he is found guilty then sentencing occurs. But the person who was injured plays no role in any determination. They can be a testifying witness and they can do a Victim Impact Statement. But they don’t negotiate “if MB testifies it was all MHGs plot” then MB will get 5 years instead of 15. That’s not how this works.
I’ve already answered it days ago. It depends.
Days ago I referenced rape cases where the sexual activities of the victim are routinely called into question at trial. What was she was wearing, was she drunk, what did she expect going up to the rock stars hotel room at 3:30 am?
What does this mean? Are we talking criminal or civil?
Civil.
Sorry, I did not specify. The civil case against the cops. It appears it was dismissed.
Hopefully Eggbutt has a pdf to post for anyone unable to access the website.
The whole case was dismissed??
From the denial…
III. MOTION TO DISMISS
Rule 4:6-2 governs motions to dismiss. A motion to dismiss pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e) “should be granted in only the rarest of instances” and generally without prejudice. Printing Mart- Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 772 (1989). When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court’s inquiry is limited to an examination of the “legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint.” Id. at 746. In that regard, the court is not concerned with plaintiff’s ability to prove the allegation. Id. Instead, courts must “search the complaint in depth and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim, opportunity being given to amend if necessary.” Id. In addition, courts must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and construe all reasonable inferences of fact in favor of plaintiff. Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623, 625–26 (1995).
In evaluating motions to dismiss, courts may consider “allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.” Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 183 (2005) (citation omitted). It is the existence of the fundament of a cause of action in those documents that is pivotal; the ability of the plaintiff to prove its allegations is not at issue. Id.
This is just the counter claim/request to amend.
If I read correctly it said that it was not found to be a civil rights violation but several things were mentioned as favorable to the plaintiff. I dont know if the defense can use anything about this statement in the criminal case.
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
