This is a strange argument; there is no requirement that a clip has to be full if you intend to kill someone. He aimed a gun at someone at point blank range and emptied two bullets into her chest. But you are saying that he couldn’t possibly have intended to kill her because the gun was only partially loaded?
4 Likes
Did he?
17 Likes
Judged hardly schooled them when it’s mandate by the NJ supreme court that those two defenses must be raised in a unitary trail and not a bifurcated trial - New Jersey vs Handy, 2013.
Makes the judge look uninformed to me …
22 Likes
And, her mouth. Do not forget her ability to run that.
13 Likes
Well, yeah.
2 Likes
He’s claiming self defense, so what else would he have aimed the gun at? If the shots to the chest were a result of a struggle for the gun, why wouldn’t the defense claim that the shooting was some kind of accident? Experts can likely tell the difference based on the bullet trajectories, perhaps along with other evidence.
ETA I have no idea if he intended to kill her or not, but the fact that the gun was not fully loaded is absolutely NOT evidence that he did not intend to kill her.
5 Likes
It’ll be very interesting to hear what the possible 4th witness has to say. Someone close enough to the scene for the first responding officer to notice as they were driving in was probably close enough to see or hear something about the altercation.
8 Likes
Nope, we live in an innocent until proven guilty country. We don’t have a system where the prosecution can say “CurrentlyHorseless killed the butler in the library with a candlestick” and the defense has to prove they didn’t. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution - they have to clearly lay out a case that shows that the butler was killed in the library, with a candle stick AND that CurrentlyHorseless did the deed beyond reasonable doubt. It’s why prosecutors tend to be so very methodical - they go piece by piece showing each major part of their accusation is true beyond reasonable doubt. The defense’s job is to show there is reasonable doubt within the prosecution’s story.
No one is denying that Barisone shot them. What the prosecution needs to prove is that he was of sound mind and not defending himself when he did so.
16 Likes
Aiming at and shooting during a struggle aren’t necessarily the same thing
-to me-
10 Likes
Isn’t that exactly what I said in my post that you just quoted?
If one is going to shoot someone in self defense, they are most likely going to purposefully aim the gun at that person. The defense claim would be self defense.
If someone unintentionally shoots someone during a struggle for a gun, they are not likely intentionally aiming the gun at that person. The defense claim would be that the shooting was some type of accident, not self defense.
We already know which scenario the defense is claiming in this case.
4 Likes
And her keyboard, which she used to routinely brag about being armed with an actual gun to all the internet routinely …
29 Likes
We do?
5 Likes
Or…A person is attacked by two people with a gun and while struggling with them they manage to control the gun long enough to shoot one of the attackers, twice in the chest.
13 Likes
All of us but you, apparently.
3 Likes
whatever you want to tell yourself 
so many people here think they are better informed than the judge. Would you ever agree that random people on the internet with no experience in your field or job can have a more educated opinion than you on those matters of work?
I think not.
3 Likes
So in that case, the shooter gained control of the gun, aimed it at someone, and pulled the trigger, probably claiming self defense.
To recap, if someone has control of a gun, aims it at someone, and intentionally pulls the trigger: NOT AN ACCIDENT
If two or more people are struggling for control of a gun and it goes off without anyone intentionally pulling the trigger: ACCIDENT
The density around here is exhausting.
7 Likes
like so many in these threads
4 Likes
To be clear, “accidentally” shooting a gun can still result in criminal charges. The defense for those charges can still be self defense.
There are crimes where there was no specific intent - I didn’t mean to kill that person, but I still did, and that’s involuntary manslaughter.
In fact, it’s often only intent that separates many possible charges, and it’s why juries can find you guilty of say, manslaughter instead of 1st or 2nd degree murder. The circumstances matter a great deal.
18 Likes
Well, given that the lawyer was able to site a state supreme court case that MANDATES he do what he’s doing with this given defense, yes, I think the lawyer was better informed than the judge in this case. Also, given that this judge has made critical errors in the past about the state’s self-defense laws (Morris case in 2014), I’m more inclined to believe the lawyer has his ducks in a row on this one.
34 Likes
The attorney in question probably has them extra in a row, being that he was the defense attorney in the 2017 case involving this same judge where the jury was given improper instruction about the requirements for self defense.
21 Likes
