Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[hut-ho78]

48 hours. MHG testified otherwise.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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

Yes, Michael himself stated to the 48 Hours interviewer that he had asked her to leave many times. That doesn’t make it true.

I do happen to believe LK and JK on this issue because it fits with a bunch of evidence presented at the trial, including the MHG text, and because MB in his civil suit made no claim the he had asked them to leave prior to Tarshis sending the letter on Aug 5.

I’m not convinced that MB has no memory of the shooting. It might be true, but it might be a convenient lie.

[Knights_Mom]

@hut-ho78

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.

Ok call it that. Long story short, still an eviction. 3 days works for me. She still wasn’t leaving.

And the definition of Holdover isn’t that. It is the desire to get the tenant out for cause, not for non payment.

[Sdel]

@hut-ho78

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

I’m well aware of elements of self defense. Taylor refused to let evidence of an altercation in. Specifically the history of a dog with a history of biting and the dog bites in areas that could not have happened under the witness testimony. They should have been allowed to explore the origins of physical evidence. As well as being able to explore the circumstances around the cameras and the video that RG told the officer caught the incident.

[eggbutt]

In all of the comments I’ve read anywhere, not one has glorified Moustache except two posters here. His ego turned the majority of people off and his pompous attack of the defense experts was laughable and caused many to completely disregard anything he had to say.
I got the feeling he had been told by someone the case would be a slamdunk and his testimony would be superfluous. Big mistake on Schellhorn’s part.

I heard through the grapevine the State wanted Simring but he was already working for the defense. I recall IM having a meltdown that I posted Simring’s name here. What a shame he didn’t realize Simring had already been confirmed in one of the hearings!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@hut-ho78

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

I’m well aware of elements of self defense. Taylor refused to let evidence of an altercation in. Specifically the history of a dog with a history of biting and the dog bites in areas that could not have happened under the witness testimony. They should have been allowed to explore the origins of physical evidence. As well as being able to explore the circumstances around the cameras and the video that RG told the officer caught the incident.

What?

You can’t shoot a person if you’re acting in self defense against a dog.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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.

If he had been found straight NG on all counts, that would be exoneration.

Being found NGRI is not exoneration.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Being found NGRI is not exoneration.

It most certainly is.

[Rubyroo]

I’m disappointed that no one has answered my questions regarding jury nullification (copied below for reference). Does anyone here think that juries going rogue and disregarding the oath they take is a good thing? Does anyone really believe that this jury thought they were doing Michael a favor by putting him in a mental hospital with no specific release date?

I myself take oaths seriously so I would not be a part of something like what some are describing happened with the jury in Michael’s trial. I also think it’s a bit disrespectful to accuse this jury of not following the judge’s instructions when there is no evidence that happened. Would anyone here be comfortable as a juror ignoring the oath you took and just disregarding the judge’s instructions because you thought it would be best for the defendant? If so, what are some circumstances where you would think this would be ok? I hope some chime in because I am genuinely curious to hear others’ opinion on this.

@Rubyroo

Maybe they ignored the judge’s instructions and decided that even though they didn’t believe that Michael was the shooter, they thought he looked like he needed help so they found him insane to make sure he got locked up in a mental health facility for an indeterminate amount of time. But holy hell, I certainly hope no one thinks that would be a good thing for a jury to do.

@Rubyroo

Again, does anyone think that a jury going rogue in this way is a good thing? They aren’t his mother; why would a jury do this to a complete stranger rather than follow the oath they took and follow the judge’s instructions? Are you proposing that enough members of the jury decided that Michael did NOT shoot Lauren, but thought he looked like he needed mental health help, so they NGRI’d him to being locked down in a mental institution for an indeterminate amount of time? Is it reasonable to think this was their thought process, and they thought this was actually being helpful to Michael?

[OntheFnce]

If he had been found straight NG on all counts, that would be exoneration.

Being found NGRI is not exoneration.
[/quote]

Once again, wrong.

“ It can also be a verdict entered by a jury in a criminal case, stating that the defendant cannot be held guilty because of the defendant’s insanity (however, such a verdict may require the defendant to be admitted into a mental institution).”

[MHM]

@Kitty64

Maybe where you live that is the case. Availability of psych beds can vary widely, as can state law on “holds”. Many years ago psych hospitals were everywhere. I think they’re less common now.

No doubt it’s a different kind of psychiatric facility, but how long did it take for them to find an available bed for MB so that he could get out of jail?

That seemed to take a long time. The whole system seems to be quite overloaded.

[Danvers]

No pictures or videos…. Sadness.

[Sdel]

@Rubyroo

I’m disappointed that no one has answered my questions regarding jury nullification (copied below for reference). Does anyone here think that juries going rogue and disregarding the oath they take is a good thing? Does anyone really believe that this jury thought they were doing Michael a favor by putting him in a mental hospital with no specific release date?

I guess @CurrentlyHorseless has declined to give you her lecture explaining that there could not possibly have been any jury nullification at play because the jury was given specific instructions on how to find the verdict and so the jury could not have thought anything outside of those instructions. Maybe if you ask her nicely she’ll give it to you by PM.

However, she seems to also be unwilling to accept that a jury who returned such a verdict, under the jury instructions given, also found that Michael was not responsible for his actions based on the defense psych’s evidence that LK’s behavior caused him to have a mental break and become temporarily insane to the point that he could not understand right from wrong. They couldn’t have possibly thought anything other than that because they granted the defense based on the defense psych experts, not the state’s, and only the state and it’s expert tried to insert a bunch of other mental stressors into their arguments as the reason for his mental state.

[SpicyPRE]

@Rubyroo

Regarding the bolded (bolding mine), anyone can commit themselves to a mental hospital any time and a bed will be found somewhere for that person. No one has to “qualify” for it.

this is not a true statement. There has to be a reason that is substantiated to require an inpatient stay. You reference a family member as your point of evidence, I am going to bet that there was a diagnosis and behavior that demonstrated that an inpatient stay was warranted. The hospital is going to want some guarantee that they can recoup their $$ and mental health beds are at a premium these days. A criteria must be met. If a person is on self pay and can demonstrate the resources to pay, then there are private facilities available.

[Rubyroo]

@Sdel

I guess @CurrentlyHorseless has declined to give you her lecture explaining that there could not possibly have been any jury nullification at play because the jury was given specific instructions on how to find the verdict and so the jury could not have thought anything outside of those instructions. Maybe if you ask her nicely she’ll give it to you by PM.

However, she seems to also be unwilling to accept that a jury who returned such a verdict, under the jury instructions given, also found that Michael was not responsible for his actions based on the defense psych’s evidence that LK’s behavior caused him to have a mental break and become temporarily insane to the point that he could not understand right from wrong. They couldn’t have possibly thought anything other than that because they granted the defense based on the defense psych experts, not the state’s, and only the state and it’s expert tried to insert a bunch of other mental stressors into their arguments as the reason for his mental state.

So no, you’re not going to answer my questions. I was hoping you would be one who would provide some input since you seem to be one of the folks here who believes that the jury did in fact disregard their oath and the instructions as a favor to Michael.

[MHM]

Man, oh, man. It is exhausting just to watch the lunging going on here. It must be much more exhausting to actually participate in it.

[MHM]

@Danvers

No pictures or videos…. Sadness.

I’m… sorry?

I did say it was a podcast. Lol.

[hut-ho78]

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

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.

Ok call it that. Long story short, still an eviction. 3 days works for me. She still wasn’t leaving.

And the definition of Holdover isn’t that. It is the desire to get the tenant out for cause, not for non payment.

A holdover isn’t an eviction. It is simply a status. The lease has run out. They can raise the rent and present new terms. You can stay month by month umt they want you out.

[Knights_Mom]

You know when I read stuff like this it makes me wonder if the actual truth is LK charged him attacking and in response with self defense he shot at her.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/lauren-kanarek-shooting-michael-barisone-evidence-photos/

[hut-ho78]

@Sdel

@hut-ho78

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

I’m well aware of elements of self defense. Taylor refused to let evidence of an altercation in. Specifically the history of a dog with a history of biting and the dog bites in areas that could not have happened under the witness testimony. They should have been allowed to explore the origins of physical evidence. As well as being able to explore the circumstances around the cameras and the video that RG told the officer caught the incident.

Which went to the cloud so not a local device. Had their been a real video, it theoretically should have been obtainable from a third party.