I wonder if Nir knows or cares about the Barisone suit?
4 Likes
I believe she posts on The Plaid Horse
1 Like
If you believe everything MB and his lawyer state in the lawsuits against the police and town it seems they are admitting that he did in fact go to where they were living to shoot her and at her fiancé…not in self defense or accidentally. So we do know what happened. He is just blaming his shooting her on her behavior prior to when he went insane and the police in not stopping him from snapping. If you believe him.
If you believe in their conflict LK was the only one acting badly you might have sympathy for the shooter going insane. Good chance there is evidence otherwise.
The best bet for MB is a plea agreement as there is probably a great deal of evidence the police have (that none of us have seen) that would make it very likely he would be convicted or at best declared insane if it goes to trial. Based on what his lawyers are claiming in the lawsuit.
3 Likes
You are attempting to extrapolate a lot of things that are just not there. “A” for effort though!
20 Likes
Wrong.
Even IF he went there with a gun it could have been to defend against HER guns OR the dog.
Just face facts: We will not JUST BELIEVE her version of things. As she’s lied to me personally multiple times on this forum I have no reason to believe a damn thing she says.
23 Likes
An insanity defense in a criminal case is used in less than 1% of cases. If that’s MB’s criminal case defense it’s likely not going to be successful. If by some miracle it would fly, MB might spend many more years locked up for mental illness than he would for his current charges. That is if can get any of the criminal charges reduced in a plea bargain. In case some people just don’t get it, 1st degree attempted murder with a gun in NJ, especially an illegal gun, can carry a life sentence. NJ has the Graves Act, as well as NERA (No Early Release Act). The minimum sentence a judge can impose under the Graves Act alone is mandatory 42 months. His 1st degree sentencing guideline starts at 10 years, and he has 2 counts of 1st degree attempted murder, along with the gun charges. The best he could hope for is to get charges reduced to 2nd degree felony. NERA prohibits defendants from being let out of prison before serving at least 85% of their jail term. MB is more than likely going to be spending many years in prison. No amount of claims that LK and/or RG drove MB insane in a period of 5 days or a week is going to influence a judge or jury to drop or significantly reduce any of his charges. And not only is MB facing a long prison sentence, the judge can also impose up to $150,000 fine and restitution. If MB ever gets released from prison after serving 85% of his sentence, he would then have to remain in NJ for the remainder of his probation period, at least 3 years. No running off to FL, if he still owns property there, with the fantasy that he will resume his old life. He’s cooked. I would guess any property he still owns will be sold to cover his enormous legal fees. People, especially those locked up facing life in prison, will throw every dollar they have at attorneys in the thin hope they can somehow get released.
Then to the matter of the charges against RC – she also faces a significant prison sentence due to the Graves Act. Not only did she transport a handgun from another state, the gun was altered in some way and was used in a serious crime that caused great physical harm. The mandatory sentence again is 42 months. It doesn’t matter if she possessed the handgun due to any fear. The NJ guns laws are very clear. Any responsible gun owner should be aware of state gun laws. Even if you have a legally owned gun in another state, you are not permitted to carry that gun into NJ even if it’s locked in the trunk of your car. For instance, if you happen to get a traffic stop where you’re simply traveling through on an interstate in NJ, and have an unloaded gun locked in the trunk of your car, you are still charged under the Graves Act. You can apply for a waiver and will probably get it under those circumstances, but you are still going to have to spend a lot of money on legal fees and court appearances for being ignorant of responsible gun ownership and laws pertaining thereto.
I don’t know MB or anyone involved in this case. I do support enforcing applicable gun laws. In the case of RC, I wonder if she will claim MB stole the gun and ammunition out of her locked vehicle in order to try to get her charges reduced or apply for a waiver. If RC claims he took the gun from under her pillow, she will face the mandatory 42 month sentence for making the gun available for anyone to pick up and use in a crime. And will MB claim she handed him the gun, because if he says he stole it, that’s more counts against him. In the end, both parties may try their best to throw each other under the bus.
All this other talk about LK is wasted breath, wasted space. It’s meaningless to the crux of the criminal case(s). And MB’s ridiculous civil filing against the police department is clearly a desperate grab for some type of settlement. That’s one of the most poorly written complaints I’ve ever seen. Back in my day a law student could write a more intelligent complaint. Makes me wonder what the standard is for calling oneself a litigator these days.
13 Likes
Perfect.
2 Likes
Anything specific that is perfect? Or just life in general is perfect?
4 Likes
If it was self defense why are his lawyers saying it was him mentally snapping because of LK bullying him?
Self defense would be a better argument, if they had any evidence backing that up.
1 Like
Last I read he has zero recollection of the actual event.
4 Likes
Self defense means the actor has a reasonable fear for their life and safety.
When you deal with an addict who boasts about gun ownership and their malicious intentions, I suspect a case could be made.
But hey, glad you are rejoycing about this.
You seem to be the only one.
Are you related to LK?
15 Likes
I agree with this point and to me it is weird that either side would seem so happy…
9 Likes
Are already covered and have been since he was arraigned.
4 Likes
That’s good, then he’ll have assets to pay fines and restitution in addition to personal injury awards in the civil case against him. His personal liability insurance carrier has no doubt denied covering any claim since his criminal act caused the damages. Most insurance companies deny coverage if the event was due to a criminal act by the insured. Even if in the personal injury suit he is found, say, 50% liable and LK is 50% liable in the occurrences that day resulting in the grave and permanent injury to LK, the award would probably be in excess of 1 million.
3 Likes
Interesting.
Not the same situation but my experience is that if you drive drunk, your vehicle insurance still covers damages to the other person(s).
Driving drunk is criminal, isn’t it?
3 Likes
In most cases driving drunk, reckless driving, etc, is considered accidental. If the act is intentional, like taking a gun and shooting someone in the chest, coverage will probably be denied.
2 Likes
Also, if MB enters a plea bargain, he has to admit guilt in the shooting. Any claim of self defense cannot be plea bargained as the judge would have to deny it. Which may be why no self defense claim is made as MB would not be able to make a plea under that circumstance.
3 Likes
That is strange, because they can put you in jail for it…so I am thinking that lots of people do not look at it as accidental.
4 Likes
Even though drunk driving is an illegal act, insurance companies are still paying for damages the drunk caused. Their insurance company will probably drop them, or double or triple their rates afterward though. That’s why a lot of former DUI offenders who are involved in subsequent accidents have no coverage and the injured parties are on the hook for their own expenses.
1 Like
I agree with all that. But, the insurance still covers that final act while they are insured…
Edit to add - this does make me wonder what type of insurance a standard person might carry to cover them in a situation like this thread is discussing and if there is even such a thing. I mean… Do we know that MB even has insurance to cover him for this situation that you are saying will not cover? I am guessing the standard home owner policy does not include ‘shooting a tenant’.
2 Likes
