Barisone Trial This Month

[AltersAreUs]

@soloudinhere

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.

Did not know that, only knew it was the same judge.

[ASB_Stars]

@RND

All of us but you, apparently.

and me!

[Knights_Mom]

@RND

@trubandloki

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.

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.

Yeah but that’s not attempted murder

[Jealoushe]

uh huhhhh

[RND]

@Knights_Mom

Yeah but that’s not attempted murder

I never said it was attempted murder. Attempted murder is a charge, not a defense. I am talking about possible defense claims in shooting scenarios.

[Knights_Mom]

I’m thinking that your average alleged thug, having conceived the idea of murder for long enough to have a potential murder weapon driven up several states for his use, before going to allegedly do his evil deed would lock and load his weapon to its full potential and not go to do such a deed with just a few bullets when a full clip is right there, available and ready to use.

Your average juror would NOT equate such behavior as a sign of engaging in action with the intent to cause the death of a person. The average juror would think “Hmmm I think I’d fully load the gun”.

This brings to my mind reasonable doubt.

Also, the laughable, bizarro scenario of the successful dressage trainer suddenly turning into a mass murderer is rendered flat on so many levels I can’t help but eyeroll.

I would love to see the prosecution allege that just so I can watch the jury do a simultaneous eyeroll.

[Knights_Mom]

@RND

@Knights_Mom

Yeah but that’s not attempted murder

I never said it was attempted murder. Attempted murder is a charge, not a defense. I am talking about possible defense claims in shooting scenarios.

He’s being charged with Attempted Murder.

Do follow along, wouldn’t want to be accused of being dense.

[Jenerationx]

I’m looking forward to seeing what evidence is presented.

[Einhorn]

And to seeing how it’s presented.

[Einhorn]

I got a hella bad beating from a turkey once, I don’t want to think what damage a swan could do!

[RND]

@Knights_Mom

He’s being charged with Attempted Murder.

Do follow along, wouldn’t want to be accused of being dense.

Again, you are the one who needs to keep up. I never mentioned CHARGES because I was talking about the DEFENSE.

And again, attempted murder is NOT A DEFENSE, it is a CHARGE. And yet again, I was talking about the DEFENSE, not the CHARGES. Therefore, I did not mention attempted murder in any of my posts about the DEFENSE.

Had I been talking about the CHARGES, I would have spoken to attempted murder, because that is the CHARGE. But I was not talking about CHARGES, so I did not mention attempted murder.

My six year old grandson could understand this stuff better than some of you. My god.

[Knights_Mom]

@RND

@Knights_Mom

He’s being charged with Attempted Murder.

Do follow along, wouldn’t want to be accused of being dense.

Again, you are the one who needs to keep up. I never mentioned CHARGES because I was talking about the DEFENSE.

And again, attempted murder is NOT A DEFENSE, it is a CHARGE. And yet again, I was talking about the DEFENSE, not the CHARGES. Therefore, I did not mention attempted murder in any of my posts about the DEFENSE.

Had I been talking about the CHARGES, I would have spoken to attempted murder, because that is the CHARGE. But I was not talking about CHARGES, so I did not mention attempted murder.

My six year old grandson could understand this stuff better than some of you. My god.

I’ll try again.

I know attempted murder is a charge. I also know the charging code for it in my jurisdiction as well as necessary elements… I’m familiar.

You described a scenario. My statement is that the scenario you described is not one which fulfills the charge of attempted murder.

Got it?

[RND]

@Knights_Mom

I’ll try again.

I know attempted murder is a charge. I also know the charging code for it in my jurisdiction. I’m familiar.

You described a scenario. My statement is that the scenario you described is not one which fulfills the charge of attempted murder.

Got it?

I described a scenario where someone intentionally points a gun at another person, pulls the trigger, and shoots that person. I did not mention what kind of charge might result from this scenario because I wasn’t discussing charges, I was discussing defenses. Are you saying this scenario could not result in an attempted murder charge?

The other scenario I presented was where two or more people were struggling for a gun and it unintentionally went off and someone gets shot (someone else brought this up first, and I was replying to that person). I mentioned that the DEFENSE for this scenario could include some kind of accident. I did not mention at all what type of CHARGE might be appropriate for this scenario because it doesn’t matter to me.

[SillyHorse]

@Jealoushe

so many people here think they are better informed than the judge.

You are mistaken. We think the defense attorney is better informed than the judge. You are the only one who seems to think otherwise.

[Knights_Mom]

@RND Under this highlighted scenario that you presented the charge of Attempted Murder is not sustained.

That’s all I’m saying. That you yourself presented events which if proven at trial will provide reasonable doubt as to intent to murder (attempted murder) resulting in a not guilty verdict for that charge.

I’m glad you agree with me on that even if that hasn’t sunk in yet.

[RND]

@Knights_Mom

Under this highlighted scenario that you presented the charge of Attempted Murder is not sustained.

That’s all I’m saying. That you yourself presented events which if proven at trial will provide reasonable doubt as to intent to murder (attempted murder) resulting in a not guilty verdict for that charge.

Yes, under the highlighted scenario, the charge of attempted murder is not appropriate. And I did not say that it was. It isn’t clear to me why you felt the need to point that out when I didn’t claim it in the first place. It was a generic point that I was not attributing to the Barisone case; in fact, at one point I said that this is highly unlikely to be what happened based on the self defense claim.

If someone is specifically discussing yellow roses, I wouldn’t feel the need to interject and say that roses can be red, because it is understood that this particular discussion is focusing solely on yellow roses, and other colors are not pertinent in this conversation. I wouldn’t assume the person had no idea that roses can also be red.

[Knights_Mom]

@RND

@Knights_Mom

Under this highlighted scenario that you presented the charge of Attempted Murder is not sustained.

That’s all I’m saying. That you yourself presented events which if proven at trial will provide reasonable doubt as to intent to murder (attempted murder) resulting in a not guilty verdict for that charge.

Yes, under the highlighted scenario, the charge of attempted murder is not appropriate. And I did not say that it was. It isn’t clear to me why you felt the need to point that out when I didn’t claim it in the first place. It was a generic point that I was not attributing to the Barisone case; in fact, at one point I said that this is highly unlikely to be what happened based on the self defense claim.

If someone is specifically discussing yellow roses, I wouldn’t feel the need to interject and say that roses can be red, because it is understood that this particular discussion is focusing solely on yellow roses, and other colors are not pertinent in this conversation. I wouldn’t assume the person had no idea that roses can also be red.

QFP

[RND]

@Knights_Mom

QFP

I’m working way below my pay grade here; I’m going go have an intelligent conversation with someone.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@AltersAreUs

@CurrentlyHorseless

The circumstances of insanity or self defense need to be proved. Not whether he shot them.

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.

It’s my understanding that an affirmative defense differs from a normal defense. If my plea was simply “not guilty”, and my defense was “I wasn’t there, I was off competing at Wellington at the time,” then I agree that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

What I think I understand from my inferior legal education based on Wikipedia and google is that in an affirmative defense such as “not guilty by reason of insanity” or “not guilty by reason of self defense”, in that case the defendant is affirming that he did the deed (I walloped the butler with a blunt object), so that the prosecution no longer has to prove that I did the physical act.

My understanding is that in an affirmative defense, (as opposed to “not guilty; I wasn’t even there”), the burden of proof then the shifts to the defense to prove the relevant circumstance: the insanity or the need for self defense.

If Barisone thought he could get an acquittal by claiming that the gun went off accidentally during a scuffle, why wouldn’t the plea be just “not guilty”, instead of “not guilty by reason of insanity”?

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@AltersAreUs

@CurrentlyHorseless

The circumstances of insanity or self defense need to be proved. Not whether he shot them.

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.

It’s my understanding that an affirmative defense differs from a normal defense. If my plea was simply “not guilty”, and my defense was “I wasn’t there, I was off competing at Wellington at the time,” then I agree that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

What I think I understand from my inferior legal education based on Wikipedia and google is that in an affirmative defense such as “not guilty by reason of insanity” or “not guilty by reason of self defense”, in that case the defendant is affirming that he did the deed (I walloped the butler with a blunt object), so that the prosecution no longer has to prove that I did the physical act.

My understanding is that in an affirmative defense, (as opposed to “not guilty; I wasn’t even there), the burden of proof then the shifts to the defense to prove the relevant circumstance: the insanity or the need for self defense.

If Barisone thought he could get an acquittal by claiming that the gun went off accidentally during a scuffle, why wouldn’t the plea be just “not guilty”, instead of “not guilty by reason of insanity”?

Just a guess here but maybe because he has no recollection of the event he has no ability to aid in his own defense?