Barisone assessment

[ekat]

@Scribbler

I thought I also read on here that first husband worked in or ran a pawn shop?

She testified he owned a gun shop.

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you, I wonder if that includes another member in the same household that may own a weapon.

[Scribbler]

@ohnoO

As I recall from several LK posts very early on, there was no information about an exposed dryer wire.
It went something like this; they were in the barn at night—maybe just RG.
The dryer was running.
A staff member called down the aisle to RC that they were going upstairs to bed and the dryer was not cutting off on its own.
RG/LK knew that RC didn’t hear the staff member because they somehow knew she was asleep.
So instead of just unplugging the thing (as people have logically suggested) and leaving a note, LK started texting everyone who had been instructed to ignore her.

Maybe she didn’t have a pen and paper—she could have just broken into the office and borrowed some!

So you know, all you need to do to stop a dryer is open the door. It doesn’t restart I until you turn or push the start function agsin.

Sometimes on a certain load the dryer legitimately takes twice as long as you might expect. I expect there was nothing wrong with the dryer which is why LKRG did nothing but used it as a pretext for a nuisance call to authorities.

[ekat]

@3PonyFarm

Thank you, I wonder if that includes another member in the same household that may own a weapon.

Yeah, that doesn’t change. For example, if I am eligible to legally own a gun, and my significant other is not, I am still allowed. What I have to do is ensure that significant other has no access, the gun is never available to him or allowed to be within his “constructive” control. For example, a gun safe, preferably one with a biometric lock.

[LilRanger]

@ekat

Also, I’ve read more than I ever dreamed of about Krol hearings. Other than knowing it’s a closed courtroom, I still don’t know much about how those proceed so if anyone has any insight there, that would be cool, too

I dont have any experience in NJ, but I do have experience with involuntary civil commitments. Generally the assesment involves the psychiatrist interviewing the person numerous times over the course of time. If it is a 72 hour hold, there will be fewer meetings, of course. Over those interviews the Dr determines whether the person continues to be a danger to themselves or the community. They may do standardized tests, but they may just talk to them and get an understanding of their perspective. I have found that given a long enough interview, you can get a sense of a person’s mental state, even with those who are crafty and trying to “look good” for the interview.

The hearig is an evidendentiary hearing, with the State and the “defense” represented, the main focus is on the Dr. s report. The report to the Judge is generally written but is testified to by the dr. The Drs go into the details and their impressions of the person’s situation and give recommendations. Often the person’s attorney can also ask questions of the dr, and get more info or try to get the Dr to modify or agree the person doesn’t need involuntary commitment.

The judge then usually hears from the person, or their attorney, about their position and why they believe they no longer need commitment. that can be very telling in itself.

then the judge determines, based on the evidence presented, whether the person continues to require that level of supervision and treatment, or if there is another, lower level of care that will work, if one is needed at all.

In my experience the emphasis is on the person being released, if possible, rather than keeping them if theyar eenot a threat to themselves or others.

[3PonyFarm]

Thanks, I wasn’t sure about that.

[ekat]

@LilRanger

dont have any experience in NJ, but I do have experience with involuntary civil commitments. Generally the assesment involves the psychiatrist interviewing the person numerous times over the course of time. If it is a 72 hour hold, there will be fewer meetings, of course. Over those interviews the Dr determines whether the person continues to be a danger to themselves or the community. They may do standardized tests, but they may just talk to them and get an understanding of their perspective. I have found that given a long enough interview, you can get a sense of a person’s mental state, even with those who are crafty and trying to “look good” for the interview.

The hearig is an evidendentiary hearing, with the State and the “defense” represented, the main focus is on the Dr. s report. The report to the Judge is generally written but is testified to by the dr. The Drs go into the details and their impressions of the person’s situation and give recommendations. Often the person’s attorney can also ask questions of the dr, and get more info or try to get the Dr to modify or agree the person doesn’t need involuntary commitment.

The judge then usually hears from the person, or their attorney, about their position and why they believe they no longer need commitment. that can be very telling in itself.

then the judge determines, based on the evidence presented, whether the person continues to require that level of supervision and treatment, or if there is another, lower level of care that will work, if one is needed at all.

In my experience the emphasis is on the person being released, if possible, rather than keeping them if theyar eenot a threat to themselves or others.

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. Typically, does the judge make the decision right then and there? Or do they take it under advisement? Do they typically follow the Dr’s recommendation? Again - generally - not fact specific. I appreciate the insight!

[eggbutt]

But, if the commitment is for evaluation, is that the same thing?

[ekat]

@eggbutt

But, if the commitment is for evaluation, is that the same thing?

Yes. He isn’t voluntarily confined. He’s court ordered to be there.

[Sdel]

@eggbutt

But, if the commitment is for evaluation, is that the same thing?

Unfortunately, I think the verdict itself will seal the deal on that…

[Scribbler]

@ekat

@Scribbler

I thought I also read on here that first husband worked in or ran a pawn shop?

She testified he owned a gun shop.

Oh right!! Yes. My mistake. I knew it was someone running a business that she walked into. Poor dude. Even with all my criticism of gun laws in the USA, my guess is most gun shop owners would be straight up guys with an orderly life and strong safety skills. Likely horrified by the real LK after the honeymoon period.

[Davignport]

This topic was so nice before certain people came on and just proceeded to rehash everything over and over and over. It just defies logic that they feel it is necessary to do this. Those of us that just want new information or to discuss something LOGICALLY seem to be stuck with the barrage of useless posts. Yes, we can just scroll on by but it is still annoying. And, if Seeker1 is really Laruen’s mother, that pretty much says all you need to know about the Kanarek family.

[LilRanger]

@ekat

Typically, does the judge make the decision right then and there? Or do they take it under advisement? Do they typically follow the Dr’s recommendation? Again - generally - not fact specific. I appreciate the insight!

In many cases, the Judge makes the decision at the hearing and the order is entered right then and there, with both parties signing it. Sometimes the orders are simply a form that the Judge fills out with check boxes and short determinations. other times the attorneys will bring a form or order prepared for the Judge to sign. That often happens if everyone is on the ssame page as to what will happen.

[ekat]

@LilRanger

In many cases, the Judge makes the decision at the hearing and the order is entered right then and there, with both parties signing it. Sometimes the orders are simply a form that the Judge fills out with check boxes and short determinations. other times the attorneys will bring a form or order prepared for the Judge to sign. That often happens if everyone is on the ssame page as to what will happen.

Good to know. But now I’m dying to ask, what happens if everyone is not on the same page (or even the same book)?

[enjoytheride]

What’s the point of starting a new thread if the same group of people are going to argue about the exact same things with the same group of people? You could just not respond to Hut or Horseless?

[LilRanger]

@ekat

Good to know. But now I’m dying to ask, what happens if everyone is not on the same page (or even the same book)?

Lots of times that happens when the person fells theyare perfectly fine and don’t need to be committed. Then the judge will consider their position, but without any opposing evidence from another medical professional, it’s not often their argument will succeed. In fact, they often show a lot of MH symptoms when they are arguing against the Dr.'s findings. It’s basically a mini-bench trial. I say mini, because the issue is extremely narrow, and the availble evidence is also pretty limited in that there aren’t more then maybe 3 witnesses.

if the person “loses” and the judge orders them to be committed, they are led away, only very rarely restrained. usually it doesn’t get that far, and many are much more compliant even while protesting bitterly, than you might imagine.

To eeryone, I apologize for the typos, i’m on a tablet and not proof reading too well!

[eggbutt]

Well, I guess that is always a chance to take.

[ekat]

No apologies needed about the typos!

That makes a lot of sense. I can see how a person who is not really ready to be released could “out” themselves, so to speak, especially under the pressure of a hearing.

I think I had just never considered, until your explanation, that the patient would testify. I’m so used to a criminal trial where generally you don’t want your defendant anywhere near the stand. It’s good to know that can be a factor.

Again - appreciate the insights. I like to have an understanding of processes and that helped.

[eggbutt]

Does anyone know if Dr Simring or Dr Mustache are involved with the AK evaluation?

[LilRanger]

Many times the person really wants to testify, and since they are (again this is my area) sitting at the same table as the judge, they do get to say something. While that can be “incriminating” and they can show their hand, so to speak, the Dr is the main source of evidence, and getting to say your piece is important for many. And there isn’t a crime invovled, even though you are losing your liberty for 6 months.