Barisone assessment

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@cutter99

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

When do you imagine he first asked her to leave, if not on Aug 5? And if he did ask her to leave prior to Aug 5, why did he not state the earlier date in his civil suit against the police? If he had asked her to leave prior to Aug 5, he would have used the earliest possible date in his lawsuit.

Irrelevant. She was recording them for weeks, if not months, including the conversations between MB and Tarshus. She knew she wasn’t welcome and they were working on it. Let’s not forget that she laughed when she was testifying about not being able to recall how she first got a copy of the letter.

She knew MHG wanted her gone, and she knew the situation was tense.

I asked the narrow, specific question as to when Barisone actually asked her to leave. According to his own civil suit, it was Aug 5.

If he had been willing to give her the 30 days notice she was entitled to as a tenant, when he actually decided he wanted them gone, he would have had to demand she vacate by 30 days from the date of the demand. Tarshis said that even on the 6th, Barisone did not want to evict her, instead he wanted to “scare her out”. Why? I don’t think he was avoiding the formal demand to vacate and eviction because he was being kind; he did not want to wait 30 days. He choose intimidation and harassment to try to scare her out in a few days rather than give her the 30 days notice that she was legally entitled to.

Do you think the jurors in the civil suit will think its “irrelevant” that he shot her 1 day after giving her the demand to vacate? I think they’ll find it relevant.

Yeah, it was really relevant to the jurors in the criminal case, wasn’t it???

How was LK failing to leave just because the situation was tense (without having been asked to leave prior to Aug 5) relevant for the criminal trial? Remotely relevant?

Barisone had no right to attempt to murder her whether she had overstayed a 30 day notice of whether she was legal tenant on Aug 7.

The NGRI verdict indicates that the jury found that the prosecutor made his case that Barisone “did the deed” in terms of shooting her in a way likely to cause severe injury or death. That was determined as a prerequisite for the jury to even consider whether Barisone was insane. They did consider whether he was insane, and determined that he was, as he plead.

Having been determined to be legally insane at the time her shot her, he is not guilty of the crime of attempted murder.

Does legally insanity absolve the shooter of civil liability as well?

[cutter99]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@cutter99

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

When do you imagine he first asked her to leave, if not on Aug 5? And if he did ask her to leave prior to Aug 5, why did he not state the earlier date in his civil suit against the police? If he had asked her to leave prior to Aug 5, he would have used the earliest possible date in his lawsuit.

Irrelevant. She was recording them for weeks, if not months, including the conversations between MB and Tarshus. She knew she wasn’t welcome and they were working on it. Let’s not forget that she laughed when she was testifying about not being able to recall how she first got a copy of the letter.

She knew MHG wanted her gone, and she knew the situation was tense.

I asked the narrow, specific question as to when Barisone actually asked her to leave. According to his own civil suit, it was Aug 5.

If he had been willing to give her the 30 days notice she was entitled to as a tenant, when he actually decided he wanted them gone, he would have had to demand she vacate by 30 days from the date of the demand. Tarshis said that even on the 6th, Barisone did not want to evict her, instead he wanted to “scare her out”. Why? I don’t think he was avoiding the formal demand to vacate and eviction because he was being kind; he did not want to wait 30 days. He choose intimidation and harassment to try to scare her out in a few days rather than give her the 30 days notice that she was legally entitled to.

Do you think the jurors in the civil suit will think its “irrelevant” that he shot her 1 day after giving her the demand to vacate? I think they’ll find it relevant.

Yeah, it was really relevant to the jurors in the criminal case, wasn’t it???

How was LK failing to leave just because the situation was tense (without having been asked to leave prior to Aug 5) relevant for the criminal trial? Remotely relevant?

Barisone had no right to attempt to murder her whether she had overstayed a 30 day notice of whether she was legal tenant on Aug 7.

The NGRI verdict indicates that the jury found that the prosecutor made his case that Barisone “did the deed” in terms of shooting her in a way likely to cause severe injury or death. That was determined as a prerequisite for the jury to even consider whether Barisone was insane. They did consider whether he was insane, and determined that he was, as he plead.

Having been determined to be legally insane at the time her shot her, he is not guilty of the crime of attempted murder.

Does legally insanity absolve the shooter of civil liability as well?

Well, if it wasn’t relevant, according to you, in the criminal trial, why would it be relevant in a civil trial???

And once again, NOT GUILTY= NOT GUILTY.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

How was LK failing to leave just because the situation was tense (without having been asked to leave prior to Aug 5) relevant for the criminal trial? Remotely relevant?

Barisone had no right to attempt to murder her whether she had overstayed a 30 day notice of whether she was legal tenant on Aug 7.

The NGRI verdict indicates that the jury found that the prosecutor made his case that Barisone “did the deed” in terms of shooting her in a way likely to cause severe injury or death. That was determined as a prerequisite for the jury to even consider whether Barisone was insane. They did consider whether he was insane, and determined that he was, as he plead.

Having been determined to be legally insane at the time her shot her, he is not guilty of the crime of attempted murder.

Does legally insanity absolve the shooter of civil liability as well?

.

[Knights_Mom]

@Sdel

She had two weeks, minimum of audio recordings, including the “plan” to get rid of her and including the conversations about it with MB’s attorney. I think she knew more people than MHG wanted her out. Who gives a flip when she was formally asked to leave. Why did she call SS before she left if she knew it was so tense? That can be done anytime after.

The jurors, will probably get the details on the plot to ruin MB and decide she broke it, she bought it.

And you sure are certain about what LK knew and when and to what extent for someone who doesn’t have any connection to LK.

And once LK heard that MHG wanted her out is when LK should have started packing.

That’s what normal people do. They don’t engage in some imaginary mental 3D chess to usurp the significant other of the trainer/barn owner.

Because even if a human tenant might have tenancy rights, boarded horses do not. So if MB wanted to the horses could have been removed.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@cutter99

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@cutter99

@CurrentlyHorseless

@cutter99

@Seeker1

Michael pointed gun and tried to kill 2 people…not surprising to me that you don’t think that is in a category by itself. Very typical of your lack of logic

Kinda like “FINISH THE BASTARD” is in a category by itself?

You know, I have never said anything like that in 50 + years of life, and I have quite the mouth on me, so I would say that it is most definitely in its own category!

I agree with you @cutter99. Texting “finish the bastard” is not at all in the same category as shooting two people.

It’s more in the category of texting or saying “ruin her universe”.

Ah, but once again @CurrentlyHorseless, you are flat out wrong. It was never proven MB shot at one person let alone two IN A COURT OF LAW!

Not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity!

Before you start with BUT, BUT, BUT- the words “NOT GUILTY” do actually mean something, and not what YOU perceive them to mean!

He was determined by a court of law to have shot LK, with the caveat that he was legally insane at the time, and therefore NGRI of attempted murder of LK. That’s what the one count of NGRI means.

I personally think he probably also shot at RG.

Well I personally believe MB was jumped by LK and RG and the gun discharged in the squabble.

So there’s that.

You were wrong before. You are wrong now. But by all means keep showing everyone the version of things to be presented at trial.

@Knights_Mom- I will do you one better.

I do not believe Michael brought the gun to the house. I believe both LK and RG were responsible for the gun being at the house.

It’s unfortunate that Bilinkas was unable to establish that, because that’s the only way Barisone could have gotten a straight NG on both counts.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

It’s unfortunate that Bilinkas was unable to establish that, because that’s the only way Barisone could have gotten a straight NG on both counts.

.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@cutter99

@CurrentlyHorseless

@cutter99

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

When do you imagine he first asked her to leave, if not on Aug 5? And if he did ask her to leave prior to Aug 5, why did he not state the earlier date in his civil suit against the police? If he had asked her to leave prior to Aug 5, he would have used the earliest possible date in his lawsuit.

Irrelevant. She was recording them for weeks, if not months, including the conversations between MB and Tarshus. She knew she wasn’t welcome and they were working on it. Let’s not forget that she laughed when she was testifying about not being able to recall how she first got a copy of the letter.

She knew MHG wanted her gone, and she knew the situation was tense.

I asked the narrow, specific question as to when Barisone actually asked her to leave. According to his own civil suit, it was Aug 5.

If he had been willing to give her the 30 days notice she was entitled to as a tenant, when he actually decided he wanted them gone, he would have had to demand she vacate by 30 days from the date of the demand. Tarshis said that even on the 6th, Barisone did not want to evict her, instead he wanted to “scare her out”. Why? I don’t think he was avoiding the formal demand to vacate and eviction because he was being kind; he did not want to wait 30 days. He choose intimidation and harassment to try to scare her out in a few days rather than give her the 30 days notice that she was legally entitled to.

Do you think the jurors in the civil suit will think its “irrelevant” that he shot her 1 day after giving her the demand to vacate? I think they’ll find it relevant.

Yeah, it was really relevant to the jurors in the criminal case, wasn’t it???

How was LK failing to leave just because the situation was tense (without having been asked to leave prior to Aug 5) relevant for the criminal trial? Remotely relevant?

Barisone had no right to attempt to murder her whether she had overstayed a 30 day notice of whether she was legal tenant on Aug 7.

The NGRI verdict indicates that the jury found that the prosecutor made his case that Barisone “did the deed” in terms of shooting her in a way likely to cause severe injury or death. That was determined as a prerequisite for the jury to even consider whether Barisone was insane. They did consider whether he was insane, and determined that he was, as he plead.

Having been determined to be legally insane at the time her shot her, he is not guilty of the crime of attempted murder.

Does legally insanity absolve the shooter of civil liability as well?

Well, if it wasn’t relevant, according to you, in the criminal trial, why would it be relevant in a civil trial???

And once again, NOT GUILTY= NOT GUILTY.

Civil liability =/= criminal liability

NG =/= NGRI

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

It’s unfortunate that Bilinkas was unable to establish that, because that’s the only way Barisone could have gotten a straight NG on both counts.

.

!

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Barisone had no right to attempt to murder her

The jury found he didn’t actually attempt to murder someone.

@CurrentlyHorseless

Does legally insanity absolve the shooter of civil liability as well

Diminished capacity absolutely can.

@CurrentlyHorseless

How was LK failing to leave just because the situation was tense (without having been asked to leave prior to Aug 5) relevant for the criminal trial? Remotely relevant?

It appears the jury believes her relentless campaign to finish the bastard, including outstaying her welcome, was relevant. It will be a thousand times more relevant in the civil trial.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Civil liability =/= criminal liability

NG =/= NGRI

.
.
.

@CurrentlyHorseless

!

[NEEDS_A_NAP]

I see a potential Lifetime movie script is still being written in someone’s head.

[cutter99]

@NEEDS_A_NAP

I see a potential Lifetime movie script is still being written in someone’s head.

BINGO!!!

[Sdel]

@cutter99

@NEEDS_A_NAP

I see a potential Lifetime movie script is still being written in someone’s head.

BINGO!!!

What, is daddy’s money running out? Are we looking for independent $ from a book or movie deal?

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Does legally insanity absolve the shooter of civil liability as well?

It probably does when the insanity is directly caused by the predatory actions of the other parties.

That whole…what’s it called, contributory stuff the lawyer types keep going on about…

[ekat]

@Sdel

It probably does when the insanity is directly caused by the predatory actions of the other parties.

That whole…what’s it called, contributory stuff the lawyer types keep going on about…

Mr Deininger said it quite well in the civil suit:

“ Defendant was not competent at the time of the alleged incident and, as a result, should have no liability to Plaintiff for her injuries, by reason of Barisone’s mental state and/or condition which included but was not limited to battered-person-syndrome cause by Plaintiff’s campaign of emotional battery against Defendant and/or persons in his care.”

[Knights_Mom]

@ekat

Mr Deininger said it quite well in the civil suit:

“ Defendant was not competent at the time of the alleged incident and, as a result, should have no liability to Plaintiff for her injuries, by reason of Barisone’s mental state and/or condition which included but was not limited to battered-person-syndrome cause by Plaintiff’s campaign of emotional battery against Defendant and/or persons in his care.”

And we already know the jury and 90% of the public commenting on the trial across this and other social media all have noted and seen FINISH THE BASTARD.

A civil jury will see the same.

[ekat]

@Knights_Mom

And we already know the jury and 90% of the public commenting on the trial across this and other social media all have noted and seen FINISH THE BASTARD

Also this:

“ As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Kanarek’s wrongful acts, actions, and omissions, Kanarek cause injury to Barisone including but not limited to: (a) placing him in fear for his life and physical wellbeing; (b) placing him in fear for the lives and physical wellbeing of Barisone Family members; © placing him in fear for the lives and physical wellbeing of Barisone’s business staff, clients and the horses owned and/or boarded by Barisone at his dressage farm; (d) emotional distress, including emotional distress with physical manifestations; (f) traumatic stress; (f) emotional breakdown; (g) post-traumatic stress; (h) battered-person-syndrome; (i) psychiatric ailments and eventual breakdown; (j) destruction of his state of mental peace, tranquility, enjoyment and stability; (k) injury to his business; (l) injury mental state; (m) unlawful invasion of his privacy; (n) property damage; (o) irreparable harm; § financial harm; (q) physical harm; and ® other injuries.”

[Sdel]

@ekat

@Knights_Mom

And we already know the jury and 90% of the public commenting on the trial across this and other social media all have noted and seen FINISH THE BASTARD

Also this:

“ As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Kanarek’s wrongful acts, actions, and omissions, Kanarek cause injury to Barisone including but not limited to: (a) placing him in fear for his life and physical wellbeing; (b) placing him in fear for the lives and physical wellbeing of Barisone Family members; © placing him in fear for the lives and physical wellbeing of Barisone’s business staff, clients and the horses owned and/or boarded by Barisone at his dressage farm; (d) emotional distress, including emotional distress with physical manifestations; (f) traumatic stress; (f) emotional breakdown; (g) post-traumatic stress; (h) battered-person-syndrome; (i) psychiatric ailments and eventual breakdown; (j) destruction of his state of mental peace, tranquility, enjoyment and stability; (k) injury to his business; (l) injury mental state; (m) unlawful invasion of his privacy; (n) property damage; (o) irreparable harm; § financial harm; (q) physical harm; and ® other injuries.”

All of which were testified to in the criminal trial…

[ekat]

@Sdel

All of which were testified to in the criminal trial…

And will be again in the civil trial. And they only need to convince 5 out of 6 jurors this time, instead of 12.

[Knights_Mom]

@ekat

@Knights_Mom

And we already know the jury and 90% of the public commenting on the trial across this and other social media all have noted and seen FINISH THE BASTARD

Also this:

“ As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Kanarek’s wrongful acts, actions, and omissions, Kanarek cause injury to Barisone including but not limited to: (a) placing him in fear for his life and physical wellbeing; (b) placing him in fear for the lives and physical wellbeing of Barisone Family members; © placing him in fear for the lives and physical wellbeing of Barisone’s business staff, clients and the horses owned and/or boarded by Barisone at his dressage farm; (d) emotional distress, including emotional distress with physical manifestations; (f) traumatic stress; (f) emotional breakdown; (g) post-traumatic stress; (h) battered-person-syndrome; (i) psychiatric ailments and eventual breakdown; (j) destruction of his state of mental peace, tranquility, enjoyment and stability; (k) injury to his business; (l) injury mental state; (m) unlawful invasion of his privacy; (n) property damage; (o) irreparable harm; § financial harm; (q) physical harm; and ® other injuries.”

I dare say LK/RG are directly responsible (along with the police) for the monetary losses the actions initiated by LK caused. And as a juror, after seeing the testimony and evidence which is bound to be shown, I would definitely assess LK as the culpable party. 100%.