I agree that in the criminal trial he was found NGRI instead of Guilty because the finding of insanity implied that criminal intent was not there. It wasn’t a crime.
It’s not clear to me that a finding of insanity excuses a shooter from civil liability in the same way it excuses a shooter of criminal responsibility. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t.
The fact the Deininger asserts that MBs insanity makes him not responsible doesn’t answer the question for me, either. Deininger filed a 100 page civil suit against the police that was quickly dismissed, remember?
If the issue of insanity is contested by either side, I’d expect the burden to prove insanity would be in the side of the side alleging insanity.
Yes. I have heard of verbal contracts. My statement was that Tarshis testified that there were no written contracts.
The problem with verbal contracts is that when each side “remembers” the terms differently, there is no written documentation to determine what was actually agreed upon.
I have concluded that this refusal to understand is done purposefully and with some sort if intent. Even perhaps malintent.
That being said I think its important - crucial - for all the people reading, the ones we never know of because they don’t post, that inaccurate statements continue to be challenged lest they eventually be accepted truth due to lack of correction.
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.
I thank you @lazaret and others for continuing to challenge those fallacies presented here.
See… with respect to the portion I bolded… the key question is WHY did MB have an acute mental health crisis at the time of the shooting?
During the criminal trial, two expert witnesses (Dr. Simring and Dr. Hasson) testified that the acute psychotic condition (a delusional disorder) was brought on by the severe emotional stress MB experienced as a result of LKs ongoing campaign of mental harassment.
Remember that? Dr. Simring actually referenced ‘gaslighting’ and the story ‘The Turn of the Screw’ during his sworn testimony.
When it came to the criminal trial, LK faced no liability for her actions. She was simply a witness. The issue of whether or not MB was insane, and why, only related to his criminal charges. But if there is a civil trial, she will be both a plaintiff and a defendant, and she will have liability. So… with respect to the evidence of her actions, and how they led to MBs psychotic break at the time of the shooting…
It will undermine her case as a plaintiff
It will go to substantiating MBs counterclaims (with respect to which she is a defendant)
The civil liability claim will look at the proximate cause of her injuries.
I doubt a team of top psychiatrists would have the arrogance to claim they can parse out precisely when and why the delusions arose and became severe enough for him to shoot someone.
The fact that he was insane was the crucial issue in the criminal trial. I know the mob is certain that it was LK alone who “drove him insane”, but I seriously doubt “drove him insane” is a psychiatric term, or that actual psychiatrists would think that they could meaningfully determine that his acute mental crisis was precipitated by this person or that event.
But if you’re going ignore the concept of “proximate cause” to go that much deeper, then one could say MHG is responsible for not recognizing the impending breakdown and getting him treatment before he shot someone. It would be the rabbit hole if all rabbit holes. I imaging that’s why civil liability depends on the “proximate cause”.
You know what is so weird about the bolded sentence?
This non-stop social media campaign to redefine what the NGRI verdict meant won’t amount to Jack when it comes to what happens with the ongoing legal situation.
So what is the point of it? As best I can tell… it seems like it is some sort of attempt to win a ‘moral victory’ in the court of public opinion.
Uhhhh… newsflash. it’s failing miserably in the court of public opinion as well.
If you want to make this claim, then it would also follow that anyone who might have been attempting to provoke that person might also recognize the situation for what it is and have an obligation to remove themselves from the situation rather than make it more dangerous.
Be careful what you wish for, what applies to someone else can also apply to you. If a reasonable other person should have seen the situation or known what it was, eg SGF, then so should another reasonable person, eg LK, RG, LK’s father, or any other bystander involved in the situation.
I’m not making the claim in the fragment of the sentence you quoted.
I’m pointing out the rabbit holeness of asserting that LK is responsible for an insane man shooting her because her actions, among a whole complex of factors, may have contributed to the acute mental state. That’s going way beyond the proximate cause of her injuries. If you choose that rabbit hole, then you have to ask why MHG did not recognize his breakdown (there were signs), why RC handed the gun to him, etc.
In the civil case, the very first filing by Nagel, he states that MB shot LK (no. 7) at point blank range.
Under no. 28 he states due to MB’s assault and batterery LK sustained severe and permanent personal injuries.
Does shooting fall under assault and batterery? I thought it was more of a physical effort like what was done to MB. Unless she sustained injuries while assaulting him.
Just confused on wording and why list it twice if they are talking about the shooting.
when it comes to what happens with the ongoing legal situation.