Barisone- New Thread

[hut-ho78]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@Jealoushe

Basically it goes: There is NO evidence that the beating was first. They can not enter that in because there is simply no evidence to suggest that and defense has not brought any in to support it.

But what he CAN say is that the physical evidence never proved that MB shot the gun. He said himself that he expects the jury to find LK/RG to have been thoroughly discredited in their testimony.

I think the ear witness testimony and the 911 call are plenty to establish what happened and that it wasn’t self defense.

Agree

[AltersAreUs]

@Jealoushe

There can’t be any show of preparation for self defense.

Then people who have conceal & carry permits and routinely carry can’t use self-defense ? That makes no sense at all. I mean, the whole reason many people carry is to defend themselves in bad situations (not agreeing with this mindset but it’s common). Does just arming yourself, even if there is no threat (unlike in this case) mean that you are barring a self defense defense (sorry) if you shoot someone?

[Jealoushe]

yes, I posted above about the same thing but self defense has to be in the heat of the moment.

[DownYonder]

@agequodagis

I am sure that the political pressure to find him guilty is huge.

Yes, it does appear that way.

[Jealoushe]

@AltersAreUs

Then people who have conceal & carry permits and routinely carry can’t use self-defense ? That makes no sense at all

Yes, if they are in a scenario where it calls for it. Like someone points a gun or tries to shoot them, someone attacking their family violently, etc. Self defense does not equal defending yourself.

[DownYonder]

@AltersAreUs

Then people who have conceal & carry permits and routinely carry can’t use self-defense ? That makes no sense at all.

Apparently not in the People’s Socialist State of New Jersey.

[MHM]

@Sdel

Personally, if you were ask me to send a man to jail with no physical evidence that he ever shot the gun, and two/three witnesses that: don’t have the same story, was repeatedly caught in lies, showed intent to consider engaging in acts of fraud and was engaging in petty games of revenge….

Well, it’d be a cold day in hell….

Particularly after both the eye witnesses admitted under oath to having a long history of drug use.

I don’t care what the judge told them. Even if they don’t consciously consider that as a factor in their decision, that piece of information is still in their heads regarding the credibility of those witnesses.

Think of how many people who have chimed in just on these threads on this BB with their own experiences of relatives or others with a similar history. The jury just needs to have one person with a similar experience to have reasonable doubt.

[Jealoushe]

@AltersAreUs

Then people who have conceal & carry permits and routinely carry can’t use self-defense ? That makes no sense at all.

If I have a beef with someone, grab my gun, drive to their house and call them outside, then shoot them, how is that self defense?

[rothmpp]

@Jealoushe

Even if someone attacks you with say a rope, you can’t always get away with shooting them, because the force of a gun is much more than a rope. It’s very complex. There can’t be any show of preparation for self defense.

I can’t even with this. That statement is beyond simplistic despite your assertion that “it’s very complex” and not even remotely accurate.

If I have a concealed pistol permit and am carrying a pistol legally, I most certainly can use it to defend myself and it does not automatically negate self-defense. It is about the rest of facts surrounding why I used the pistol.

[Jealoushe]

@rothmpp

If I have a concealed pistol permit and am carrying a pistol legally, I most certainly can use it to defend myself and it does not automatically negate self-defense. It is about the rest of facts surrounding why I used the pistol.

Not at all what I said lol

[rothmpp]

@Jealoushe

If I have a beef with someone, grab my gun, drive to their house and call them outside, then shoot them, how is that self defense?

Assuming that this is exactly what happened is ignoring the fact that not even the 3 witnesses could get the story straight.

[Libby2563]

@ekat

I imagine some of it was hearsay (text conversations between two people about a third) and there may have been some issues about authenticating the sheer volume of the texts.

In addition to some hearsay issues, a primary justification for the exclusion of much of the SM stuff was Rule 403.

N.J.R.E. 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time: Except as otherwise provided by these rules or other law, the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of:
(a) Undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury; or
(b) Undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
(https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/evidence/evidence4.pdf?c=D66)

[Jealoushe]

@rothmpp

Assuming that this is exactly what happened is ignoring the fact that not even the 3 witnesses could get the story straight.

Im going off what the court has determined based off evidence.

[rothmpp]

@Jealoushe

Even if someone attacks you with say a rope, you can’t always get away with shooting them, because the force of a gun is much more than a rope. It’s very complex. There can’t be any show of preparation for self defense.

@Jealoushe

Not at all what I said lol

It’s exactly what you said, lol

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

OMG

Bob Abooey is commenting on todays Law & Crime YouTube of the charge conference. I can’t seem to figure out how to share photos on the forums anymore, so I am going to quote the comments… from 1hr ago

“Oops. Bye bye “self defense”. I watched this live earlier today and the trial judge will NOT BE GIVING A SELF DEFENSE instruction due to a MAJOR failing by mr Bilinkas.
So sorry. Very sad turn of events.
GUILTY. (See 1:17 on video)”

[Angela_Freda]

@Jealoushe

There is no evidence to support it, so he can’t put it forward. The fact he took the gun and drove down there, takes away any self defense argument. You can’t lodge a defense when there is no evidence to support it. You can pick what defense you are putting up / self defense/passion/battered wife/gay panic etc but there has to be evidence accepted by the courts to support it. There was none, as per the judge.

If MB believed they also had a gun…

[Jealoushe]

I never said anything about carrying a concealed weapon??? not sure why you are arguing with me about what the law is.

[AltersAreUs]

@Jealoushe

If I have a beef with someone, grab my gun, drive to their house and call them outside, then shoot them, how is that self defense?

If that IS what happened, it’s not. But if you have a beef with someone, arm yourself for protection (allowed even in new jersey), drive about your own property, they come out, their dog attacks you, and they start beating you about the head, and you shoot them, how is that not self defense?

The prosecution’s scenario has massive gaps in the timelines and the witness testimonies are not the same. It seems very … unfair… to me that the judge get’s to completely decide on one line of defense when there are so many unknowns and lack of evidence on both sides of this line of defense.

[Jealoushe]

A little blurb about the self defense argument in NJ - from a lawyer website

https://www.lslawyers.com/self-defense.htmlstrong text

[MHM]

@ekat

I’ve seen defendants fire (or attempt to fire) attorneys on the eve of trial over that issue?

We saw the opposite situation here, when the state’s two primary witnesses tried to quit at the last minute.