I still don’t understand the issue. The gun charges are “possession of a gun for an illegal purpose”; the illegal purpose is shooting two people in either attempted murder or aggravated assault.
When he took the gun out of the safe and loaded it and put it in his pocket to go to the farmhouse, was he not aware of right vs wrong?
I would think they would decide insane vs not insane the consistently on all charges, and not find he was delusional on the attempted murder charges but sane on the possession of a weapon for an illegal purpose.
I wanted to add if the tenant violates the lease, and I would hope he had a good clause lease loaded with rules etc. that would make the lease null and void that minute. Just the property being made uninhabitable would also void the lease. If this guy returns to this type of business, surely he has learned his lesson about leases, lawyers and the perfect tenant lol
THIS.
It’s simply incredible to think that MB & co should have just left the barn with all the horses in it. I NEVER would do that. For god sake, it was HIS farm and those were HIS and HIS clients horses, who care he was entrusted with … are you kidding me? “Sorry your horse died tragically, but I was afraid of the people living in MY house, so I left …”
Personally, I’m crossing all my fingers and toes that the jury has determined that (due to HUGE lack of evidence) the charges of attempted murder and assault were not proved, and now are figuring out the gun charge, and are possibly going to find that one not guilty by reason of insanity or diminished capacity. I think they very well might find something in the psychiatrists testimony which dissuades one or more of the elements necessary for conviction in that one as well.
To my mind, the “when” is the crux of the insanity. A juror could accept he was delusional when he got the gun and when he fired it. Or, decide he knew what he was doing when he got the gun and drove there, then had the “breakdown” and wasn’t competent when he fired the gun. Or that he wasn’t insane at any time.
Getting 12 people to agree to one of those??
I stopped listening to Branca when he made fun of the hay guy’s outfit and hair, and continued on about the lady who testified right after the hay guy. He said uncalled for, awful, personal type comments about both and did not even bother to comment on their testimony. He’s an asshat; so full of himself. Maybe he should take a closer look in the mirror. And FYI Branca: If you have to make fun of peoples’ looks to be funny, guess what? You’re not funny.
Ugh. I’m glad I did not bother to watch his video. And I thought the lady after the hay guy looked very polished and put together, myself.
Plus if the thing you noticed most about their testimony was their appearance, you’re doing it wrong. In general anyway, but particularly with those two witnesses.
Who stays on someone’s property when they know they are not wanted? A crazy toxic person. LK isn’t a decent person. That’s a given. Honestly, though, don’t forget the laws of tenancy either. Tenants have rights. They aren’t unlimited, but they do have rights. Barisone should have worked within the law. He didn’t. There were so many ways he could have gone after her legally. He could have reported her for illegally recording conversations. Why didn’t he? Honestly, I think MB was so stressed and sleep deprived that he couldn’t think straight and make wise decisions. Why his lawyer didn’t argue diminished capacity, I’ll never know.
They had their eyes on that place to take it lock stock and barrel and not in the usual, legal way , this being only my opinion but I think LK saw his weakness and took advantage slowly but surely like I said in another post this is so Pacific Heights
I’m guessing he put the gun in his pocket just in case because he was afraid they might try something. Then I’m guessing that they tried something and he panicked and pulled it out and shot it. He was probably half together when he drove there but then lost it at some point during the confrontation. All just my supposition.
I think a clean break was difficult because of several unwritten agreements. One was the renovation work by RG. Another was her purchase of Jay-T, an older high level horse with health issues. It sounds like she paid him $40,000 for the horse and she took financial responsibility for everything other than a provisio that the horse remained at his long term home with free board.
When things were going well, it looked like a win-win. MB gets cash for a difficult to sell horse, LK rides the horse, the horse isn’t sold off the property.
But suppose things go downhill a few months later? Does MB offer to reverse the sale and give her the $40,000 back? Seems unlikely. She apparently thought the deal involved a few years of free board — if she has to take the horse, does MB refund part of the purchase price?
It seems there was no written contract for the original two horses plus housing for $5,000 per month, but if that was the only deal, it would have been simple for either side to leave/evict.
It was the other sloppy financial arrangements - the purchase of an unmarketable retiree with visions of him staying indefinitely at his long time home, and the renovations with unspecified scope of work and payment schedule that made a breakup really complicated.
The purpose of written agreements is not so much that you have it in writing to present to a court. The purpose is that both parties get into specifics so they each understand what the other party expects. It sounds to me that the two parties probably had very different understandings of what they were promised. That sloppiness and lack of clarity is not disastrous when everything is going well, but I think that it created a situation in which LK and MB were thoroughly enmeshed in sloppy financial deals.
