Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

A reasonable person would not expect their landlord to show up in the middle of the afternoon and shoot them, two days after informing them that their presence was unwanted.

Are you really pretending they had no idea they were unwelcome until 3 days before the shooting? Puh-leeeezzz

[Warmblood1]

@Rubyroo

@Warmblood1

They must meet certain thresholds to be admitted into a psychiatric facility.

This is simply not true in my experience as I have described. For voluntary commitment, stays of around a week were the norm in my experience, as opposed to the norm of 30 days decades ago. Yes, there is a discharge process that must be followed and it does not happen within minutes; I never disputed that.

It is absolutely true. I’ve been part of the process where patients are admitted. I know what questions are asked. I’m not going by a relative’s experience but what I’ve directly witnessed.

[hut-ho78]

@OntheFnce

@hut-ho78

@OntheFnce

@CurrentlyHorseless

@lazaret

By asking her to leave, he well may have met his standard to take reasonable measures to avoid her injury. By choosing not to leave, she may well have waived his duty to her.

@Warmblood1

Here is the exact wording from @lazaret.

I found this shocking, but it’s what Lazaret said.

Not exactly sure why you find this shocking. Anyone who has taken basic law classes would understand this.

Anyone taking basic law classes knows it is not ok to shoot someone for not leaving.

If you took some law classes you might learn that your reply would be challenged in class.

And there is where you are speaking out of your hat. You don’t know what classes I have or have not taken or what experiences with LE, courts, or the law. I am not a lawyer. I’m not going to get into a skunk contest about how much experience I have beyond that. What is the point? We already have enough braggadocios expounding upon their vast law knowledge when they have none that pertains to this situation.

[OntheFnce]

@hut-ho78

@OntheFnce

@hut-ho78

@OntheFnce

@CurrentlyHorseless

@lazaret

By asking her to leave, he well may have met his standard to take reasonable measures to avoid her injury. By choosing not to leave, she may well have waived his duty to her.

@Warmblood1

Here is the exact wording from @lazaret.

I found this shocking, but it’s what Lazaret said.

Not exactly sure why you find this shocking. Anyone who has taken basic law classes would understand this.

Anyone taking basic law classes knows it is not ok to shoot someone for not leaving.

If you took some law classes you might learn that your reply would be challenged in class.

And there is where you are speaking out of your hat. You don’t know what classes I have or have not taken or what experiences with LE, courts, or the law. I am not a lawyer. I’m not going to get into a skunk contest about how much experience I have beyond that. What is the point? We already have enough braggadocios expounding upon their vast law knowledge when they have none that pertains to this situation.

Well, this is a telling reply

[trubandloki]

@lazaret and other legal professionals I would like to respectful ask that you please keep giving your amazing legal responses even with people ignoring them, twisting them, and pretending you do not know what you are talking about. Many of us totally appreciate all the facts that you share.

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t think that she had a “duty to leave”, despite thinking she should have left.

If you claim to be in genuine fear for your life, and you have both the ability and the means to leave, you don’t believe you have a duty to leave? You don’t believe it’s your responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect yourself in that situation?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

You would be deliberately misunderstanding and paraphrasing what I said incorrectly, though.

No, @Lazaret.

I did not misquote you, as you suggested.

If there was any misunderstanding on my part, it was not a “deliberate misunderstanding”.

If you want to clarify how I may have “incorrectly paraphrased” your statement, please explain.

[Sdel]

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t think that she had a “duty to leave”, despite thinking she should have left.

If you claim to be in genuine fear for your life, and you have both the ability and the means to leave, you don’t believe you have a duty to leave? You don’t believe it’s your responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect yourself in that situation?

Based on testimony….it seems LK had a duty to remain in the house and call 911 and not attempt to engage Michael Barisone at all unless he attempted to enter the house.

[MHM]

@Sdel

People also don’t generally like to reward bad behavior. Any jury that sees this case would be telling everyone that purposefully staying to harass someone after you were asked to leave and planning to destroy someone and his career with false allegations is okay to do if they awarded any kind of payout to LK. I think that is a tall order to expect a jury to fulfill.

Especially if there is anyone on the jury who has ever had a tenant of any kind.

[BigMama1]

@Rubyroo

If his business was suffering for a long time, it’s even more unfortunate that he wasn’t given the support needed to handle the situation in a more mature, business-like fashion that might have given his clients the confidence to wait it out until Lauren was out of there for good.

I’m sorry but I can’t imagine any reasonable client wanting to “wait it out” when a drug addict with a criminal record is playing ninja around the barn at night, screaming beneath people’s windows, and posting veiled threats online to harm people and animals at the farm.

He was handling it in a professional fashion - by asking her to leave, then by working with Daddio and the lawyers to find a suitable place for her to go and, when all else had failed, by initiating the legal eviction process.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

A reasonable person would not expect their landlord to show up in the middle of the afternoon and shoot them, two days after informing them that their presence was unwanted.

Are you really pretending they had no idea they were unwelcome until 3 days before the shooting? Puh-leeeezzz

No, BigMama1.

I think LK and RG were fully aware of how strongly MHG and some of the others wanted them gone.

What I said was I can believe that MB himself may not have actually asked them to leave, ever. I can believe that it was Tarshis who first informed them that they should leave on Aug 5.

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

What I said was I can believe that MB himself may not have actually asked them to leave, ever. I can believe that it was Tarshis who first informed them that they should leave on Aug 5.

And I can believe that unicorns are real, but that doesn’t make it true.

Michael himself stated he asked them to leave many, many, many times. But I guess you prefer to believe a pair of lying, grifting drug addicts

[MHM]

I literally laughed out loud. Thank you.

[Rubyroo]

@BigMama1

I’m sorry but I can’t imagine any reasonable client wanting to “wait it out” when a drug addict with a criminal record is playing ninja around the barn at night, screaming beneath people’s windows, and posting veiled threats online to harm people and animals at the farm.

He was handling it in a professional fashion - by asking her to leave, then by working with Daddio and the lawyers to find a suitable place for her to go and, when all else had failed, by initiating the legal eviction process.

He could have started the eviction process long before the ninja nonsense began. I’m not sure how professional it is to shoot a client, but we’re all different I suppose.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t think that she had a “duty to leave”, despite thinking she should have left.

If you claim to be in genuine fear for your life, and you have both the ability and the means to leave, you don’t believe you have a duty to leave? You don’t believe it’s your responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect yourself in that situation?

No, I don’t think that LK had a “duty to leave” in the legal sense that her decision to not leave makes her legally responsible for the fact that she was shot.

Whether she did or didn’t have a duty to leave would depend on exactly how you are defining the “duty to leave” in a legal sense.

[hut-ho78]

@lazaret

You would be deliberately misunderstanding and paraphrasing what I said incorrectly, though.

Actually no. You have wonderful explanations. That one was either not one or you actually meant to say that he did not have to refrain from shooting her instead of using the eviction process allowed by law.

[Rubyroo]

@BigMama1

Michael himself stated he asked them to leave many, many, many times.

I haven’t heard this before - what are the many, many, many times? Did he say this on 48 Hours? I need to watch that.

[hut-ho78]

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Warmblood1

I think this contributes to LK’s own negligence and lack of duty to escape the situation as well as her direct contribution to the escalation of the situation.

Obviously, in retrospect, she should have left.

But I think it will be hard for Barisone’s lawyers to establish that she “had a duty” to leave, despite being a legal tenant. A reasonable person would not expect their landlord to show up in the middle of the afternoon and shoot them, two days after informing them that their presence was unwanted.

She wasn’t a legal tenant. She may have had tenancy rights as far as the eviction process but she wasn’t a legal tenant.

The old SGF versus MB. MB invited her there, she was there longer than 30 days, he invited her back because “he needed the money.” Legal tenant/tenant rigjts. SGF is claiming MB didn’t have the right to do that under the lease. That is in the contract and contract law precedent. SGF is stating that just to separate from the case. Their stance is they didn’t give permission therefore it is not their problem. It will be interesting to see what the court does with that line of reasoning.

And you would be wrong. Nothing to do with contract law as far as LK being a legal tenant. There was no contract or lease signed. She was eligible to be evictedin days under Holdover laws. There was coercion.
Coercion is not contractual. The property was a single family building.

Yes it was a single family building by International Building Code as it was permitted as a two family building. In reality it has an illegal 3rd apartment in the basement with only one egress.

There was no lease agreement except verbal. There was no lease expiration date. There was no holdover situation.

This article on holdover explains it and goes more in depth over the eviction process in New Jersey than even the state helpful guidance document I posted back in Woman Shot at Barisone Farm.

https://legalbeagle.com/6685021-rights-squatters-new-jersey.html

There was absolutely a Holdover situation due to the drugs, threats, harassment, disorderly conduct and criminal records of the grifters.

No. That was eviction for disorderly conduct, the emergency 3 day rule. A holdover is when the lease term expires and the renter stays on. In New Jersey it becomes a month to month. One would think 30 day eviction notice but the article also mentioned a 90 day notice for other than eviction.

[hut-ho78]

@Sdel

@hut-ho78

Yes, I agree. Self defense is. I refer you to lawyer Branca who breaks down the elements of self defense.

Branca classified the verdict for this case as jury nullification.

Yes. I disagree with him on that just as I disagreed with him that Arbury was a good self defense.

The elements of self defense is what I referred you to. Try that.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

A reasonable person would not expect their landlord to show up in the middle of the afternoon and shoot them, two days after informing them that their presence was unwanted.

Are you really pretending they had no idea they were unwelcome until 3 days before the shooting? Puh-leeeezzz

No, BigMama1.

I think LK and RG were fully aware of how strongly MHG and some of the others wanted them gone.

What I said was I can believe that MB himself may not have actually asked them to leave, ever. I can believe that it was Tarshis who first informed them that they should leave on Aug 5.

In fact in the interview after his exonerated he specifically stated they were asked to leave many times, by him.