Dressage - Michael Barisone

[Djones]

Again…

If the collective deduction is that this situation should be starved of oxygen… make it happen

[La-LaPopRider]

@trubandloki

You know how this works far more than I do so can you clarify for me - I thought the defendant never had to get on the stand if they did not want to.

Yes! I can, np. No, a defendant cannot be compelled to testify - however, via the 6th and 5th Amendments, a defendant
has the right to compel & face his accusers.
One way to avoid taking the stand as a defendant, is to simply plead the 5th. Another way, is to claim insanity (not temporary) - the
kind which allegedly hinders the
defendants ability to know the difference from right & wrong on a daily basis. In these types of “insanity,” pleas, a hired “expert psychiatrist,” can tell the defendants “story,” & be cross examined by the prosecution without the risk of putting the defendant on the stand with the added benefit of “the story,” (while hearsay at that point) being told to a jury by a licensed doctor- which provides the illusion of seeming more “legitimate,”

This only occurs when the insanity defense is not “temporary insanity,” but long standing “diminished capacity,” to understand what things in life are “delusions,” or “real.” The state would then provide an expert psychiatrist who would either agree with the findings of the paid, private “expert,” or, challenge those findings with his/her own.

So, no, (shorter version, sorry - MB cannot compelled to testify. It’s my belief that if a person is truly innocent, that person should be able to compose him/herself enough to answer questions asked by lawyers. The defendant can still plead the 5th on any “self-incriminating,” question, so it makes no sense to me.

[MHM]

@La-LaPopRider

@trubandloki

You know how this works far more than I do so can you clarify for me - I thought the defendant never had to get on the stand if they did not want to.

Yes! I can, np. No, a defendant cannot be compelled to testify - however, via the 6th and 5th Amendments, a defendant
has the right to compel & face his accusers.
One way to avoid taking the stand as a defendant, is to simply plead the 5th. Another way, is to claim insanity (not temporary) - the
kind which allegedly hinders the
defendants ability to know the difference from right & wrong on a daily basis. In these types of “insanity,” pleas, a hired “expert psychiatrist,” can tell the defendants “story,” & be cross examined by the prosecution without the risk of putting the defendant on the stand with the added benefit of “the story,” (while hearsay at that point) being told to a jury by a licensed doctor- which provides the illusion of seeming more “legitimate,”

This only occurs when the insanity defense is not “temporary insanity,” but long standing “diminished capacity,” to understand what things in life are “delusions,” or “real.” The state would then provide an expert psychiatrist who would either agree with the findings of the paid, private “expert,” or, challenge those findings with his/her own.

So, no, (shorter version, sorry - MB cannot compelled to testify. It’s my belief that if a person is truly innocent, that person should be able to compose him/herself enough to answer questions asked by lawyers. The defendant can still plead the 5th on any “self-incriminating,” question, so it makes no sense to me.

Good to know.

[soloudinhere]

For others reading who may be following along, that summation of the so-called “insanity defense” is incomplete at best and very misleading at worst.

Primarily because diminished capacity is completely different from an insanity defense. They are related but the terms are not interchangeable by any stretch.

[CanteringCarrot]

Yep. I will say that if you do want to learn more about law or any process relating to, do not use this thread, as it is, as your source. There are much better sources available that are both more reputable and accurate. It’s nice when those who haven’t been to law school want to play armchair lawyer, but don’t take them so seriously.

This thread is so sad on multiple levels. Really hope all involved can get the help and closure that they so desperately need.

[SadieRidingHorses]

Another wise post from @CanteringCarrot!

[SillyHorse]

@CanteringCarrot

I will say that if you do want to learn more about law or any process relating to, do not use this thread, as it is, as your source.

I will say that if you want to learn about anything, do not use Ms. LaLa as your source. See this for reference: Amateur rule: where do you protest someone’s status?

[DQHubby]

I don’t know either the shooting victim or the the accused. It’s very disheartening and in some aspects disgusting to see the level of bullying directed towards the person shot. To the individuals who accuse the shooting victim of being an agitator, drama queen, unhinged or what ever other unflattering adjectives should look in the mirror when speaking or writing about her. Perhaps you need to remember, if this case goes to trial, the jury will not know either Michael or Lauren and all your questionable distasteful comments will be nothing but the bullying of a shooting victim that survived the attempted murder of her and another individual.

[Ghazzu]

Apropos of no post in particular, but how much of the internet material that was posted after the shooting is legally relevant to the case?