Barisone Trial This Month

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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?

He has no recollection of the “event” but somehow knows that he was shooting in self defense?

ETA:
Aren’t

1. Not guilty
2. Not guilty by reason of insanity, and
3. Not guilty by reason of self defense

three distinct pleas?

[Fiesta01]

In the military, we were taught center of mass was the chest cavity (i.e., where the vital organs reside). We were told not to aim for head (unless you’re a sniper, of course, different situation). The head is a much smaller target so in a fluid situation, your chances of stopping a target were much better aiming for the chest.

[eggbutt]

Recently there have been posts wondering why a new thread wasn’t started after the decision on the Miranda rights - specifically why I hadn’t started a new thread, with the comment that I had promised to provide the results of that hearing. If I broke a promise to the users of the forum, I apologize. To be perfectly honest I missed the hearing and decided to sit back and see if anyone else started a new information thread.

Actually, while some took Judge Taylor’s decision to allow MB’s comments to be allowed in the trial as a win for the prosecution, I believe it’s a nothing burger. MB saying “I had a nice life” and other statements made certainly don’t signify an admission of guilt at all. In my opinion MB spoke through deep physical and mental shock and later at the trauma center, through strong pain medications. The statements made make no difference to me and I will explain why I can make that decision - many years ago I was in a horrific auto accident. I had back and head trauma and was in severe shock. To this day I don’t remember the seconds leading up to the wreck or the aftermath until much later in the ER. I was told later that statements I made were strange and mentioned an argument I had with someone days before. Should I have been held accountable for anything I said at that time and have my words positioned to fit someone’s narrative? Nothing Barisone allegedly said indicates guilt at all…he DID have a good life until LK, JK and RG became involved. As far as I’m concerned, he could have made any of the comments the days before, and captured on the recordings and they would be as meaningless as they were the day of the shooting in my opinion.

Relevant information was gained from the hearings however. We learned details about how the scene was or wasn’t secured, how RG went in the house unaccompanied, how the police reacted on the words of one person before they knew full details, that a dog was involved and actually biting MB and then the cop, and the fact the first cop searched MB and found nothing and the second cop later found a full magazine on him (I certainly hope forensics were done on that magazine and, of course, the weapon itself). The two cops’ testimonies certainly opened the doors for further questions. Perhaps that was the goal to begin with. In less than two weeks jury selection begins and we will all get answers shortly thereafter. For MB to have declined a generous plea offer, they must be confident in their case.

[RHdobes563]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Angela_Freda

@CurrentlyHorseless

I think that shooting two bullets into someone at center mass and point blank range is difficult yo construe as anything other than intent to kill

Really?

Sarcasm?

I don’t think so, but I am not good at mind reading so I can not say for sure what Angela_Freda was trying to say.

I can think of several reasons how bullets would end up in the torso that do not include the intent to kill. The main one has already been said here several times. Where the person has no desire to kill anyone, they just want the threat against them to stop. Typically called Self Defense.

The threat of a 5’2” 110 pound female armed with a cell phone?

I will be highly entertained to follow the trial in which Bilinkas attempts to convince the jury it was self defense.

How about a 5-year-old child?

Florida teacher leaves classroom on stretcher after 5-year-old attacks: report (msn.com)

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@RHdobes563

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Angela_Freda

@CurrentlyHorseless

I think that shooting two bullets into someone at center mass and point blank range is difficult yo construe as anything other than intent to kill

Really?

Sarcasm?

I don’t think so, but I am not good at mind reading so I can not say for sure what Angela_Freda was trying to say.

I can think of several reasons how bullets would end up in the torso that do not include the intent to kill. The main one has already been said here several times. Where the person has no desire to kill anyone, they just want the threat against them to stop. Typically called Self Defense.

The threat of a 5’2” 110 pound female armed with a cell phone?

I will be highly entertained to follow the trial in which Bilinkas attempts to convince the jury it was self defense.

How about a 5-year-old child?

Florida teacher leaves classroom on stretcher after 5-year-old attacks: report (msn.com)

If a 5’ 2” 110 pound woman, or a 5 year old child assaults you with their fists, or with a cell phone, or with a paperback book, you are entitled to defend yourself. However, the nature of the self defense cannot be out of proportion relative to the assault you’re defending against.

I doubt the use of deadly force (shooting) would be acceptable in either of those cases, especially the 5 year old.

The teacher did not shoot the 5 year old and claim self defense. Barisone did shoot LK, and shot at RG.

[Joanne]

@CurrentlyHorseless

The teacher did not shoot the 5 year old and claim self defense.

About that 5-year-old kid with problems:

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. - A South Florida elementary school teacher who had to be hospitalized after she was attacked by a 5-year-old student in her classroom was so severely injured, she had to be intubated and will need surgery, her union says.

He actually ran and attacked and jumped on her with his whole body weight. She fell and hit her head, which caused the severe injury and other bodily injuries where she is going to need surgery," Fusco told WSVN.

“She has been hospitalized several times by this student. It’s not this first time, not the second time, it’s the third time,” Fusco said.

[seahorse]

deleted

[MHM]

@Joanne

“She has been hospitalized several times by this student. It’s not this first time, not the second time, it’s the third time,” Fusco said.

By a 5 year old?!? Wow.

[Joanne]

It’s a special needs class. They don’t expect the teacher to return.

[MHM]

I just can’t imagine. I hope she makes a full recovery.

[eggbutt]

I do remember your posts and also recall you admitted you went back to him as a trainer a second time.

I’m sorry users on this forum were rude to you. You told your personal truth and no one should berate you for that. Keep in mind most of the posters have never met LK or MB so they really can’t comment on his personality, work ethic, ability to train, etc.

[seahorse]

deleted by me

[clipper]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

This is from a Canadian site regarding affirmative defense.
Glossary

# Affirmative Defense

*A defense based on facts other than those that support the plaintiff’s or government’s claim. A successful affirmative defense excuses the defendant from civil or criminal liability, wholly or partly, even if all the allegations in the complaint are true.

Could the fact just be that the person does not remember? That would not be the same as affirming someone did the deed. More along the lines of I do not remember but the prosecution has “proved” I may have. If I did then because of “insanity” or “self defense” I am not guilty.

[eggbutt]

I’m sorry for your experience. I am sure most of us have been with instructors and/or trainers we didn’t get along with or had different viewpoints at some time and moved on to someone we were better suited for. None of us can dispute what you’ve said, that’s for sure. But you seem to be the exception in your experience with MB.

[seahorse]

I deleted my posts again because I don’t want to be involved.

[eggbutt]

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make sense. Regardless, I wish you well.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@clipper

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

This is from a Canadian site regarding affirmative defense.
Glossary

# Affirmative Defense

*A defense based on facts other than those that support the plaintiff’s or government’s claim. A successful affirmative defense excuses the defendant from civil or criminal liability, wholly or partly, even if all the allegations in the complaint are true.

Could the fact just be that the person does not remember? That would not be the same as affirming someone did the deed. More along the lines of I do not remember but the prosecution has “proved” I may have. If I did then because of “insanity” or “self defense” I am not guilty.

It would be better to look up US specific and even NJ specific information.

I explained it the best I could based on my understanding. I don’t think it has to do with his not remembering.

[PDDT]

@soloudinhere Thank you for your clear and knowledgeable explanation of the legal framework relating to this case. It may fall on some deaf ears, but I am sure there are a great many of us, especially those of us following this thread but who have had nothing to add to it, who really appreciate your posts. I have certainly found them very helpful.

[soloudinhere]

@clipper

Could the fact just be that the person does not remember? That would not be the same as affirming someone did the deed. More along the lines of I do not remember but the prosecution has “proved” I may have. If I did then because of “insanity” or “self defense” I am not guilty.

This situation would be more suited to either a plea of nolo contendre - where you do not contest the state’s charges and accept punishment but do not admit guilt, or an Alford plea, where you plead guilty but maintain that you are innocent. “I don’t remember doing that, but if I did, I was insane” isn’t a good plan. If you’re going to deny all knowledge of an event, make the prosecution prove that it happened, you’re the one who did it, why you did it, and how you did it.

You can also enter an Alford plea, which basically acknowledges that the state has enough evidence to convict you, but you assert your innocence. That’s usually done to avoid the potential harsh penalties at trial.

I should add I am not at all familiar with Canadian legal procedure or rules.

[SillyHorse]

@ASB_Stars

@RND

All of us but you, apparently.

and me!

And me!