Court date for Michael Barisone?

[vxf111]

It’s turned into deep digging (and some catty comments) on unrelated people who just happened to buy the property. Those poor people have nothing to do with LK and MB.

And a whole lot of WILD speculation pretty divorced from the few facts known in the public record. Plus a lot of misunderstanding about what a 1983 claim is even all about. If this progresses the way 1983 cases usually do, there are going to be motions filed and that entire case may be over well before any actual facts would be made public from this case. But we’ll see what happens.

Yes, people often let their imaginations run wild on COTH. It may be no different than other COTH threads but that doesn’t mean I’m interested in jumping into the fray. It’s just not my thing. I really have no interest in speculating or guessing about what facts or theories may or may not be true. Just because I’m interested in the case generally doesn’t mean I have to want to do that. I’m not looking down on people for engaging in speculation. I just don’t find it useful and I don’t care to join in.

[FitzE]

It’s fine not to want to participate in that bit. I was replying to this:

“I am really not interested in playing “what if” and guessing about the facts. I am following these cases now and I am interested in what actually HAPPENS… but I am not going to try to guess the facts or spin out hypotheticals based on conjecture.”

I didn’t realize you had mentioned anywhere the stuff about digging into unrelated people. I was responding only to the bit about people guessing/conjecturing/etc. That’s what I think is normal/typical of these types of stories.

[trubandloki]

I do not disagree that the digging into the people who bought the place is weird. (Though I get why it started, someone asked if it sold and then people were trying to figure out if it REALLY sold. I want to also add that I love that it is a place with ponies and up down kids now.)

I was not commenting on specifics.

Catty comments… this is COTH. Catty comments always happen. (They happen on every forum I do believe, heck, they appear to happen in all aspects of life.)

Edit to add - Personally I have found your legal comments here to be very helpful and personally I would love real legal information on the other case but I am fine if you do not want to post there, for whatever the reason. But can’t blame us for asking since your advice was helpful here.

[LexInVA]

Kanarek/Kanerek/Kanarak is a common Jewish family name, so you’ll almost always find it anywhere that a large, traditional Jewish community exists.

[Scribbler]

General comment.

I think the interest in the new buyers from my part was wondering if it sold to a shell company as a way of actually keeping it, plus also wondering if it would stay a horse property. My first thought on paving company owning an indoor was that well, you can store a lot of equipment in a big indoor arena.

Then of course we always parse out stable web pages, it’s what we do here :). The website was clearly made for startup and not updated in the months since, so that gives the impression of a shell company too. But they are active on FB and obviously running a normal, happy kiddie program, so really nothing to see there and looks totally legit.

It’s always of mild interest what happens to crime scene properties and haunted houses, etc.

[Dee-Vee]

Bottom line is you can make a lot more money on storage than on horses. A number of former stables up this way are now storage facilities

[erinmeri]

I appreciate your level-headed, thoughtful (but straightforward for us laypeople), commentary! Most of these LK/MB threads are dominated by people who have no knowledge of the law and who seem to have a certain agenda. I, for one, appreciate your comments! Thanks for putting that time in!

[Cat_Tap]

@Dee-Vee

Bottom line is you can make a lot more money on storage than on horses. A number of former stables up this way are now storage facilities

I have been thinking about that for some time. I am getting old and tired of worrying about the horses. I don’t want to leave my property and move into town but what to do with the indoor and all my lovely fenced pastures (20 acres of pasture, 20 acres worked by a local farmer and 10 acres of woods and wetlands.

I am only 10 minutes from town but do not have any visible neighbors.

[Knights_Mom]

You can rent to a horse person and hopefully you will get someone good, pays and is respectful of your property. They can care for any animal you have as part of the deal while you still live there.

[Cat_Tap]

@Knights_Mom

You can rent to a horse person and hopefully you will get someone good, pays and is respectful of your property. They can care for any animal you have as part of the deal while you still live there.

I have thought about that also but the negative aspects are that they have to drive past my house (and pool) to get to the barn, I would still worry about their horses if i see them running because of bugs etc. it would bother me if they didn’t show up early in the morning to feed etc. and I don’t like to have strangers around.

All third world problems I realize.

[Knights_Mom]

Fence. Bushes. Automatic feeders. Toss em grain yourself.

That perfect fit may exist. Selling and moving is such a drag.

[3PonyFarm]

I have a question for the legal professionals here that have been wonderful about lending their knowledge and expertise to this thread. (Thank you by the way!)

With the recent civil case that was shared, item 132 states that MB was mentally incompetent at the time of the shooting and rendered to be insane.

My question is, does this statement lock the criminal case defense team to using a not guilty by reason of insanity defense or do they still have other options to use?

If such a defense is used and if it was successful, does that mean the defendant goes free or are they sent to a mental health facility for treatment?

My attorney friend (who is not a horse person and is not familiar with this case) does not seem to like the wording of an insanity defense. Without really explaining why, she said the term is outdated and such a defense can create a lot of other issues.

I would be interested in knowing what the legal peeps had to say! Thank you!

[Knights_Mom]

I suspect there are 2 different standards of insane between civil and criminal cases. But I’m not a criminal lawyer.

I have studied and tried to understand being deemed incompetent to stand trial via mental disease or defect for years. The best I can say is that it qualifies if the person didn’t understand it to be wrong at the time and/or can’t aid in their own defense.

Manson stood trial and was not deemed insane or incompetent to stand trial. Was that political? Is legal insane the same as insane insane?

Don’t know.

Let’s see if this helps.

https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/6-1-the-insanity-defense/

[3PonyFarm]

Is creepy weird a legal term? Manson was definitely that!

Thanks!

[trubandloki]

@3PonyFarm

Is creepy weird a legal term?

It most certainly should be!

[Sdel]

@3PonyFarm

My question is, does this statement lock the criminal case defense team to using a not guilty by reason of insanity defense or do they still have other options to use?

I think the problematic response in the other civil trial is that he can’t remember what happened as a function of the psychological trauma. He can’t make statements to counter other witness testimony. I think it is primarily strategy though. Maybe to get a better plea deal.

However, LK isn’t a great witness. Between the secret recordings, harassment through reports of code violation and false CPS reporting and Safe Sport, and the social media posts before and after the shooting, and if there is indeed a paper trail that they threatened legal action to force him to allow her to stay, it makes a strong case for someone who was intentionally pushing his buttons and trying to harm him.

Now add in the attempt to discredit the police witnesses with bias and improper procedure. And quite frankly, it’s a crap argument that the police aren’t biased (BLM anyone?).

[3PonyFarm]

I also wonder if his civil claim is successful against the police department, would that open the police to a possible suit by the victim as well?

[Angela_Freda]

That seems like a reasonable thing.
It could be questioned whether any of the parties would have been injured at all if the police had taken the situation far more seriously

[Sdel]

@Angela_Freda

It could be questioned whether any of the parties would have been injured at all if the police had taken the situation far more seriously

Honestly…after that many police responses…they should have both been arrested so they could be drug in front a judge and started sorting this out in the legal system.

[KellyS]

@Sdel

And quite frankly, it’s a crap argument that the police aren’t biased (BLM anyone?).

See, this is where the “theorizing” goes off the rails.

I know it’s cool for liberals/progressives to assume all police are bad guys right now, but do you realize what hypocrites that makes us in doing so?

In all our rhetoric, we talk about not judging people by their race/ethnicity, sexuality, or abilities, among other things. How about their profession? This attitude of all cops are “biased” shows your own biases, and you don’t seem to see how you are engaging in behavior that you would otherwise condemn.

You do realize that there are a lot of people in law enforcement who do their jobs well and make sure their departments have no tolerance for any type of bias, right? However, those aren’t the people being shown in the news–we’re (rightly) seeing the people and departments that demonstrate that systemic racism is present in many places in this country.

In addition, so many of these comments show how ignorant you (group) are about what can and cannot be legally done. You are not privy to the actual facts of the case, but you’re ready to let Barisone be the victim and everyone else take the blame based on a one-sided story. A story that leaves out the context for many of the accusations and purported “facts” in order to manipulate the reader’s conclusions. It’s obviously worked quite well.

There’s only one person in this case who shot someone else, and I have yet to see any reason to justify it, although many people seem to be doing so. If this were anyone else, we would be using this as the jumping off point for a discussion on gun violence.

Finally, isn’t the attitude of “arrest everyone and let the legal system sort it out” what we’re trying to get away from? In so many of the recent situations with law enforcement, the situation has stemmed from exactly this attitude.

If you wonder where I’m coming from with my comments about where progressives go wrong, please read Nice Racism by Robin DiAngelo, the author of White Fragility.