MB CIVIL SUIT UPDATE #10 K’s Request to Adjourn (delay) DENIED 11/01/22

[erinmeri]

Oh my. I always get a kick out of people arguing with legal professionals… but telling an actual (as I understand it) lawyer that you’re overqualified for a conversation about the law because you know how to Google (even after you have cited law incorrectly quite recently) really takes the cake.

[MHM]

@anon6923113

Soooo… you are back to arguing that this was all somehow MHGs fault?

Maybe LK should sue MHG then. I’m sure she will get really far with that.

Yes, I wonder which of them the jury would believe in a civil trial. Even before the lawyers brought up anything about their respective backgrounds.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I wish to remind you that Lazaret made the statement

“The issue of the shooting was not in dispute in the criminal trial.”

Also, “The only fact was that she received gunshot wounds.”

And?

[erinmeri]

In addition: in my world, when I believe something and am being told I am incorrect by a professional in that field, I typically ask questions, instead of argue.

It’s far easier to say “it is my understanding that [whatever I believe]. Can you please help me understand why I am incorrect?” and “But what about [citation]?” That way, I can 1) still do research, 2) understand correctly what the pros think, and 3) have a respectful, intelligent discussion with someone who might help educate me. Works for all but the most gruff of folks - doctors, vets, horse pros, what have you.

[ekat]

@3PonyFarm

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.

So, in the first spot where he lists the shooting, that’s where he’s laying out the story, if you will - the “facts” of the case, as LK sees them.

In the second spot, that’s where he’s listing the actual tort. Assault and battery as a tort is defined as:

“A person is subject to liability for an assault if (a) s/he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the plaintiff, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) the plaintiff is thereby put in such imminent apprehension. A battery necessarily includes a preceding assault and in addition extends to actual, nonconsensual contact”

For reference, LK’s complaint:

LK Civil Suit.pdf (233.1 KB)

[LilRanger]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

I wish to remind you that Lazaret made the statement

“The issue of the shooting was not in dispute in the criminal trial.”

Also, “The only fact was that she received gunshot wounds.”

And?

And the bits in the middle linking those two statements? Not important, apparently. I absolutely don’t understand why the criminal trial is even being discussed.

Much more exciting is: what will the judge do on Friday?

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@lazaret

@CurrentlyHorseless

then one could say MHG is responsible for not recognizing the impending breakdown and getting him treatment before he shot someone.

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.

Her actions have been seen by people here and across SM as THE cause of MBs mental decline.

I would suggest you go and review SM comments but we both know you are unwilling to.

The FACT remains that LK and allies harassed and plotted to terrorize MB and others at the farm until the powder keg situation exploded. Had LK moved out, had LK never been there MB would have been fine.

And like I said the people here and across SM see this and know this.

The jury in the civil case will also see this after the bizarre terror parade of barefoot ninjas, online harassment, gun porn (who has that pic of the AK or AR gun LK posted once), dryer drama, cat poop, child welfare, sleeping outside, etc caused.

And then when they see what was going on behind the scene with googling exploding bullets and the treasure chest of all those plots then it will be GAME OVER for LKs case. And I’m guessing the jury members will think what the commenters on SM thought too.

[erinmeri]

@ekat

So, in the first spot where he lists the shooting, that’s where he’s laying out the story, if you will - the “facts” of the case, as LK sees them.

In the second spot, that’s where he’s listing the actual tort. Assault and battery as a tort is defined as:

“A person is subject to liability for an assault if (a) s/he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the plaintiff, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) the plaintiff is thereby put in such imminent apprehension. A battery necessarily includes a preceding assault and in addition extends to actual, nonconsensual contact”

For reference, LK’s complaint:

LK Civil Suit.pdf (233.1 KB)

Question, with regards to intent… I know that we are essentially “resetting” for the civil trial, and that the standards are different… but if this jury believes he was insane, intent can’t really apply, right? Or am I off base? Does that not apply to civil suits?

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you!

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

“The issue of the shooting was not in dispute in the criminal trial.”

Also, “The only fact was that she received gunshot wounds.”

Both statements are correct. Nobody disputed that LK was shot. The fact that she had gunshot wounds is the only fact that can be proven conclusively without an element of doubt.

[SillyHorse]

Please, just IGNORE THEM. Please!

The discussion is interesting until they insert themselves into it with their tired old fabrications and intentional obtuseness (is that even a word?). Honestly, ignore them and they might lose interest and go away.

[Knights_Mom]

@erinmeri

Question, with regards to intent… I know that we are essentially “resetting” for the civil trial, and that the standards are different… but if this jury believes he was insane, intent can’t really apply, right? Or am I off base? Does that not apply to civil suits?

I could easily be wrong but I wonder if insanity per se will even come into play. If one were just to look at the elements of acts by LK and of those assisting her, and then look at her posts, and then look at her criminal record, and the circumstances of the shooting itself with the lack of forensics, I would wonder if it would even matter to the jury if he were clinically insane. I’m wondering if they will see the shooting as a situation that IF he shot her it was a situation of self defense from groin bites, phone head bashing and Marine combat.

[ekat]

@erinmeri

Does that not apply to civil suits?

Not really, in the same way. But you can see where MB’s attorneys are going with the defense that he was not competent Because Of the actions of the Plaintiff.

(Plus what @Knights_Mom said.)

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

All proximate cause means is that the action caused the injury. It does not equate to 100% liability for damages.

I understand that proximate cause “does not equate to 100% liability for damages”.

In English, a proximate cause would be distinguished from an ultimate cause. In English, “proximate” means “immediately preceding in a chain of events.”

I can see why a civil liability case would depend on the proximate cause of an injury rather than the ultimate cause of an entire chain of events.

If you get beyond the proximate or immediately preceding cause of her injuries (which was MB getting a gun and driving over there to shoot her), and go back further in the causal chain (MHG did not recognize he was already displaying delusional behavior and failed to get him help, SS notified CPS to investigate MHG, RG called the building inspectors, LK posted weird stuff online), determining the ultimate cause as opposed to the proximate cause is hopeless. I can see why the law specifies the proximate cause.

The cause of MBs insanity was not determined in the criminal trial, only the fact of the insanity mattered. I doubt that a claim that LK “drove him insane” would count as a proximate cause of her injuries.

[erinmeri]

Thank you both!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

“The issue of the shooting was not in dispute in the criminal trial.”

Also, “The only fact was that she received gunshot wounds.”

Both statements are correct. Nobody disputed that LK was shot. The fact that she had gunshot wounds is the only fact that can be proven conclusively without an element of doubt.

MB was presumed innocent until the prosecutor made his case that it was MB who shot her.

The fact that MB shot her was proven to the required legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

There is no legal standard of “proven conclusively without an element of doubt.”

There were plenty of other facts presented in the trial. I won’t bore you by reciting them.

[SillyHorse]

Ignore, ignore, ignore.

[erinmeri]

I am sitting on my hands. If I can do it, so can you!!! If you need a distraction, Top Gun: Maverick is streaming and it is pretty great (and I am an anti-military leftist!)

[anon6923113]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If you get beyond the proximate or immediately preceding cause of her injuries (which was MB getting a gun and driving over there to shoot her), and go back further in the causal chain (MHG did not recognize he was already displaying delusional behavior and failed to get him help, SS notified CPS to investigate MHG, RG called the building inspectors, LK posted weird stuff online), determining the ultimate cause as opposed to the proximate cause is hopeless. I can see why the law specifies the proximate cause.

Your VERY specific, ongoing attempt to assign some sort of culpability to MHG is noted. Because it’s noteworthy.

I will also note that the ONLY other people who seem to believe MHG is in ANY way they responsible for any of the mess that happened on 08/07/19? Uhhhhh… LK and JK.

Lastly… I will note that LK seemed to have a toxic obsession with MHG. To put it mildly.

[MHM]

@erinmeri

I am sitting on my hands. If I can do it, so can you!!! If you need a distraction, Top Gun: Maverick is streaming and it is pretty great (and I am an anti-military leftist!)

I very rarely bother to go see a movie in the theater anymore, but I made an exception this year for Top Gun: Maverick. And it was, indeed, pretty great.