MB update

[eggbutt]

Quiet as a tiny mouse. That said, there are times I become infuriated at ridiculous accusations and being considered an Illegal Mob leader. I recall a time beginning in September 2019 that I was the absolute monster to many on these threads because I dared to tell the truth and shine a bright light on particular behaviors. My how time has changed that perception as the behaviors of certain parties has been shown by them!

Specific irritating posters are like gnats - sometimes one needs to swat at the irritation.

Thanks all - Susan/Squeaky out (for a while, busy day).

[Warmblood1]

@ekat

Part of me agrees with you, especially your last sentence. But the Krol decision in NJ and the subsequent litigation since 1975, has held:

“The object of the (commitment) order is to impose that degree of restraint upon defendant necessary to reduce the risk of danger which he poses to an acceptable level. Doubts must be resolved in favor of protecting the public, but the court should not, by its order, infringe upon defendant’s liberty or autonomy any more than appears reasonably necessary to accomplish this goal”

And

“ Commitment requires that there be a substantial risk of dangerous conduct within the reasonably foreseeable future”

“ The standard is "dangerous to self or society.’ Dangerous conduct is not identical with criminal conduct. Dangerous conduct involves not merely violation of social norms enforced by criminal sanctions, but significant physical or psychological injury to persons or substantial destruction of property. Persons are not to be indefinitely incarcerated because they present a risk of future conduct which is merely socially undesirable. Personal liberty and autonomy are of too great value to be sacrificed to protect society against the possibility of future behavior which some may find odd, disagreeable, or offensive, or even against the possibility of future non-dangerous acts which would be ground for criminal prosecution if actually committed…”

In other words, if they try to commit him to look for stability, Mr B and MB will appeal, and he will likely win, based on the way NJ courts have ruled.

Thank you for providing that info. That’s very interesting and honestly pretty comforting to read in regards to the appreciation for an individual’s liberty and one not being condemned by potential future actions.

In that case, it would seems that if a patient is stable and nonviolent towards self, people and environment, and if the patient exhibits normal social behavior, then the patient is to be released. I would imagine risk for future dangerous conduct would be gauged upon those things as well.

The way non-forensic inpatient has been described to me by inpatient doctors previously is that inpatient is a way to stabilize the patient. Individual, and more intensive therapy, is done in outpatient settings utilizing individual therapy, etc. Essentially, inpatient settings are not individualized enough to exponentially progress a patient’s individual treatment and are not expected to do so. Outpatient treatment is.

So with all of those things put together, it seems MB will be released soon.

[ekat]

I completely understand your concerns. I think it’s important to note, though, that MB hasn’t actually been committed yet. He’s being held pending evaluation to determine if he should be.

That standard in NJ is pretty clear. Their courts have held, since at least the ‘60’s, that mental illness alone is not enough to deprive someone of their liberty. There has to be a showing that the patient poses a risk of danger to themselves or the public in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The psychiatrist could very well determine that MB poses no such risk. At which point, he should be fully released, no conditions, no future hearings in this matter, nothing except whatever orders of protections they choose to file. If I were his attorney, I’d already be working on those in FL.

Maybe it doesn’t go that way. Maybe the psych doc will decide he needs to be confined in some way. But it’s equally possible that he’ll be free come the end of August. What they can’t do is commit him or restrain him in any way without that finding that he poses a risk of danger to himself or the public.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

MB shot and nearly killed LK. The jury found that he is not criminally responsible for having shot her due to the insanity. If he was insane at the time (I agree with the jury that he probably was), he’s not morally responsible either.

I have no hatred for MB. I have never met him, and know of him primarily from the Colbert clip. He seems (preshooting) charismatic.

I sincerely wish all parties — MB, MHG, LK and the others can get past this senseless tragedy and put their lives back together.

There is huge support for MB to do so. LK has made plenty of bad choices in her life and obviously contributed to the crisis (although I don’t think she “caused” his insanity).

Since MB was not in his right mind when he shot her
(was literally not himself), what is preventing him from expressing remorse to LK and her family that one of the consequences of his mental break was his nearly killing LK? What is stopping him from conveying to Eggbutt to lay off the SM harassment of LK?

LK was victimized when she was shot and nearly died. It appears she has mostly recovered physically.

IMHO, the threads here on CotH have (by no means all posters, in fact just a very small set of posters) have very deliberately attempted to get her blackballed from barns, and, well, harassed and abused her.

Why? What is the purpose? Why can’t you let her get on with her life?

The Krol hearing is about determining whether MB is sufficiently sane to be released, conditionally or unconditionally, from the psychiatric facility. Given that he’s in the psychiatric facility because he shot someone while delusional, I think it’s relevant as to whether he know understands, rationally, that shooting her was wrong.

I think it’s possibly relevant to the hearing as to whether he now understands that shooting someone is not a rational response to provocation, and feels remorse. If LK and her family feel they are under continued attack by his supporters, I think that possibly relevant in that it indicates neither he nor his lawyers nor his “support system” has done anything to call off the attack. Does he still think, delusionally, that he is at war with her?

The hearing is about MBs mental state. But it’s also about the safety of the public and LK if he is released. I think, IMHO, that whether he can acknowledge to himself and his supporters that shooting LK was wrong (no matter how bad the provocation) is an important issue. If he had expressed remorse for shooting her, and indicated a preference for the “elderly illegal mob” (my understanding is that this is Eggbutt’s preferred term) to let LK get on with her life, I would have donated to the GoFundMe.

I have noted a very marked change in Eggbutt’s posting since a month or two ago. Perhaps there has been a communication from the inner circle.

Here’s my point: If you want to be supportive of MB, it’s not as simple as thinking “The more I tear down LK, the more I’m building up MB.” Perhaps some posters consider tearing down LK as fun. But if posters think tearing her down is somehow supporting MB, I think that’s a dicy proposition.

But I can’t control what anyone posts, so carry on.

QFP

[ekat]

@Warmblood1

Thank you for providing that info. That’s very interesting and honestly pretty comforting to read in regards to the appreciation for an individual’s liberty and one not being condemned by potential future actions.

In that case, it would seems that if a patient is stable and nonviolent towards self, people and environment, and if the patient exhibits normal social behavior, then the patient is to be released. I would imagine risk for future dangerous conduct would be gauged upon those things as well.

The way non-forensic inpatient has been described to me by inpatient doctors previously is that inpatient is a way to stabilize the patient. Individual, and more intensive therapy, is done in outpatient settings utilizing individual therapy, etc. Essentially, inpatient settings are not individualized enough to exponentially progress a patient’s individual treatment and are not expected to do so. Outpatient treatment is.

So with all of those things put together, it seems MB will be released soon.

It is good to read. Heck, NJ doesn’t even think they have to abide by societal norms. Odd is ok! But absent the threat of danger to himself or others, he’s walking out of there (within 48 hours, per NJ statute). I’m truly hoping that is the case!

Edit to add: (not directed to you, a general statement) the NJ case laws and statutes don’t require a showing of remorse, or a statement that people shouldn’t post whatever they want to post on social media or any declaration at all about the incident that got them there. It is SOLEY to determine if the patient presently is a risk of danger to himself or the public. NJ a even carves out that exception that they can be considered at risk to a certain individual or circumstance, and then the onus is on the patient to show what preventative measures are in place to avoid that specific risk - and then they still get released.

This hearing isn’t about our postings in CoTH, LK’s ramblings elsewhere, a gofundme, anything Other than whether or not MB is dangerous to himself or the public in the reasonably foreseeable future.

[Warmblood1]

I would think that if MB and his legal team had any foresight on the issue, and expected that he be held in NJ, that he would not have kept the farm in FL with the intentions of that being his residence. That alone makes me believe that his release won’t confine him to NJ.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m saying that Eggbutt in particular has admitted she has been in contact with Barisone insiders the whole time. Did I? Really? If knowing MHG is “being in contact with insiders”, I guess I’m guilty. Interesting that simply paying close attention to every detail makes me in contact with Barisone’s team. But let’s play along and pretend I go to lunch with all of Barisone’s team on a regular basis…so what if that was true? If Barisone or the lawyers who represent him did not approve of the content harassment and mockery of LK, this stance could easily have been conveyed at some point to the long time team leader.

But wait. In the last couple months, there was a marked change in the tone and frequency of Eggbutt’s posting here. Her posting is very different from what it was last fall. Hmm. ABSOLUTELY! The “marked change” was the NOT GUILTY VERDICT - one I predicted almost three years ago! Being proven right makes a difference in perspective!

My comments in bold.

I don’t consider MHG an insider after 2019. I believe you’ve been in contact with at least one insider subsequent to the shooting.

The verdict was NGRI, not NG. Big difference.

[Warmblood1]

@CurrentlyHorseless, you are going to get the thread shut down by continually dredging up things from the past. This thread is about Mb, his hearing, and any updates with MB. Please keep the thread on topic.

[eggbutt]

How amazing to consider it is apparent some believe the CoTH Forums are the center of the social media universe. This small, yet awesome chat platform can’t carry a candle to the monster chats on YouTube, but here we are. I will continue to remain the target of specific people to vent their angst.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@Warmblood1

In regards to MB’s upcoming hearing - I think there is a possibility that he will be held longer at Ann Klein for further evaluation to see stability in a more long term way. He seems to have a great support system which will work in his favor. But I do wonder if they will err on the side of caution win terms of release.

It goes without saying that more time inpatient is in no way indicative of guilt or poor progress.

Part of me agrees with you, especially your last sentence. But the Krol decision in NJ and the subsequent litigation since 1975, has held:

“The object of the (commitment) order is to impose that degree of restraint upon defendant necessary to reduce the risk of danger which he poses to an acceptable level. Doubts must be resolved in favor of protecting the public, but the court should not, by its order, infringe upon defendant’s liberty or autonomy any more than appears reasonably necessary to accomplish this goal”

And

“ Commitment requires that there be a substantial risk of dangerous conduct within the reasonably foreseeable future”

“ The standard is "dangerous to self or society.’ Dangerous conduct is not identical with criminal conduct. Dangerous conduct involves not merely violation of social norms enforced by criminal sanctions, but significant physical or psychological injury to persons or substantial destruction of property. Persons are not to be indefinitely incarcerated because they present a risk of future conduct which is merely socially undesirable. Personal liberty and autonomy are of too great value to be sacrificed to protect society against the possibility of future behavior which some may find odd, disagreeable, or offensive, or even against the possibility of future non-dangerous acts which would be ground for criminal prosecution if actually committed…”

In other words, if they try to commit him to look for stability, Mr B and MB will appeal, and he will likely win, based on the way NJ courts have ruled.

Bolded phrase for emphasis.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Bolded phrase for emphasis.

Why? Are you implying some knowledge that MB poses that risk now?

[Warmblood1]

@ekat

Persons are not to be indefinitely incarcerated because they present a risk of future conduct which is merely socially undesirable. Personal liberty and autonomy are of too great value to be sacrificed to protect society against the possibility of future behavior which some may find odd, disagreeable, or offensive, or even against the possibility of future non-dangerous acts which would be ground for criminal prosecution if actually committed…”

You should read the next sentence. I have provided it in bold.

[ekat]

@Warmblood1

You should read the next sentence. I have provided it in bold.

THANK YOU!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Warmblood1

@CurrentlyHorseless, you are going to get the thread shut down by continually dredging up things from the past. This thread is about Mb, his hearing, and any updates with MB. Please keep the thread on topic.

I responded to a post of yours in which you urged “Please enlighten us as we are all clueless.”

I did not participate in the wild tangent concerning inflammatory posts on YouTube and agree that such tangents derail the thread.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

Bolded phrase for emphasis.

Why? Are you implying some knowledge that MB poses that risk now?

No. I’m pointing out that one of the considerations for release is risk of “psychological injury” to others, not just risk of criminal actions.

In order to maximize his chances for release, I would think that his team want to make him look as strong as possible on all criterion.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

No. I’m pointing out that one of the considerations for release is risk of “psychological harm” to others, not just risk of criminal actions.

In order to maximize his chances for release, I would think that his team want to make him look as strong as possible on all criterion.

A) you’re reading it wrong and b) how do you know his team hasn’t done that? What risk of substantial psychological harm does MB currently pose?

By the way, the actual quote is “psychological injury”.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Warmblood1

@ekat

Persons are not to be indefinitely incarcerated because they present a risk of future conduct which is merely socially undesirable. Personal liberty and autonomy are of too great value to be sacrificed to protect society against the possibility of future behavior which some may find odd, disagreeable, or offensive, or even against the possibility of future non-dangerous acts which would be ground for criminal prosecution if actually committed…”

You should read the next sentence. I have provided it in bold.

I read the statement in its entirety, so had already read the passage you’ve presented in bold.

[Angela_Freda]

@ekat

Dangerous conduct involves not merely violation of social norms enforced by criminal sanctions, but significant physical or psychological injury to persons

If only this were applied universally, to all involved.

[trubandloki]

Oh sure. One meeting has me away from COTH and the thread explodes.
So weird that this thread existed for days, with a few quiet posts and then …

@Warmblood1

Who the heck is the long time team leader? And why do you assume I would be so easily persuaded to follow the instruction of anyone?

And more importantly, if we have a long time leader…how did so many of us not know it? Clearly it is a very poor leadership style if none of us knew we were being lead.
Darn, I am now a failure at being a follower along with so many other things in life.

@Warmblood1

In regards to MB’s upcoming hearing - I think there is a possibility that he will be held longer at Ann Klein for further evaluation to see stability in a more long term way. He seems to have a great support system which will work in his favor. But I do wonder if they will err on the side of caution win terms of release.

My problem with this is, I think that MB can get far better care/help outside of AK either at home or some facility whose goal is treatment not storage.

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

If they recommend holding for another three months out of an abundance of caution, it also allows them to work through all the details of what would be involved with a conditional release to a home in a different state.

They have had lots of time to work thru that since his first hearing was scheduled for May.

@eggbutt

How amazing to consider it is apparent some believe the CoTH Forums are the center of the social media universe.

I have had this thought too.
COTH forum is amazing and has been for a long time. It is something I am very thankful for.
But darn, it is nothing compared to so many other social media platforms out there. I do not get why some folks act like if COTH says it is green that the rest of the world will suddenly be saying it is green too.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

No. I’m pointing out that one of the considerations for release is risk of “psychological injury” to others, not just risk of criminal actions.

In order to maximize his chances for release, I would think that his team want to make him look as strong as possible on all criterion

Well, here’s the legal definition of “psychological injury”:

Psychological injury is considered a mental harm, suffering, damage, impairment, or dysfunction caused to a person as a direct result of some action or failure to act by some individual. The psychological injury must reach a degree of disturbance of the pre-existing psychological/ psychiatric state such that it interferes in some significant way with the individual’s ability to function.

(Sounds a lot like “Finish the Bastard” to me, as an aside)

So, are you implying that you believe that Michael Barisone is currently, right now, at risk for inflicting that on himself, or the public?

How do you think his attorneys would mitigate that if the psychiatrist determines that is the case?