NEW Barisone Court Filing - 7/15/21

[eggbutt]

@YankeeDuchess

But if he wanted to communicate with LK and was afraid of the dog, why not suggest that he text LK rather than go the the farmhouse with a loaded gun, especially since it was supposedly obvious to everyone that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown?

And say what, @YankeeDuchess ?
Maybe “get the hell out of MY house, off MY property, and take your dog and horses with you.” Gosh, you are so right! I bet that would have worked!

And now you are saying it was obvious to everyone he was on the verge of a mental breakdown? Hmmmmm…imagine that.

[MHM]

@FitzE

…but also actually already partially banned for that behaviour.

I really cannot understand the logic of only banning someone from part of the BB. If they behave in a way that deserves a ban, why would anyone expect them to behave in a different way just because they are in a different forum??

[FitzE]

@MHM

@FitzE

…but also actually already partially banned for that behaviour.

I really cannot understand the logic of only banning someone from part of the BB. If they behave in a way that deserves a ban, why would anyone expect them to behave in a different way just because they are in a different forum??

I cannot agree more. It chills participation in the forum; it lends a seedy/unsavory character to the proceedings; it makes us all feel like heightened caution is required instead of just being able to participate and discuss; it is super creepy; it is aggressive and creates a threatening atmosphere hanging over the forum at all times.

I cannot understand the logic either. Truly perplexing.

[YankeeDuchess]

[quote=“FitzE, post:832, topic:762137, full:true”]

@Knights_Mom

@trubandloki

@Knights_Mom

I figure today is Do Over Sunday where you post the same things, and ask the same questions, and have the same conclusions over and over and over.
[/quote]

Certain posters totally enjoy asking the very same question over and over and over and over and over again, inclusive of long paragraph filled posts all saying the very same thing.

You just learn to scroll past it all. Give it a try, it will make your days much better.

Thank you. I agree completely.

While I agree, I think the repeated and aggressive/obsessive postings and taggings are a continuation of the harassment many have been subject to via message.

Again, I would caution anyone about engaging directly with someone not only known to cyber stalk/dox, but also actually already partially banned for that behaviour. The presence of such actors really drags down the respectability of the forum as a whole.

Please be careful.

Since @FitzE has alluded, yet again, to my being banned from CE for “cyberstalking” and “doxxing” someone, let me state that the nature of the alleged “cyberstalking” was looking at the publicly posted LinkedIn profile of a poster who told others (including but not limited to me) not to post on scientific topics such as COVID because, unlike her, they lacked the advanced academic degrees in the relevant field (biology). I posted neither her IRL identity nor the information I learned on her LinkedIn page.

Nevertheless, I completely agree with the message of @FitzE here that someone who wishes to remain anonymous should be careful about posting copious amounts of really specific identifying information on a public forum. Some posters on the forum use there real name or otherwise disclose their identity, and others seem to expect anonymity but post enough person information that the veil of anonymity is thin indeed.

@JumpinQueen actually posted the publicly posted professional information on “Ruth Cox”, but I suppose that’s not “cyberstalking” since it was probably the wrong “Ruth Cox”, and we don’t know whether the appropriate “Ruth Cox” is an anonymous poster here.

But I agree with @FitzE. Posters who wish to remain anonymous should be careful about voluntarily disclosing too much personal and professional information.

[trubandloki]

@MHM

I really cannot understand the logic of only banning someone from part of the BB. If they behave in a way that deserves a ban, why would anyone expect them to behave in a different way just because they are in a different forum??

Well said! I agree.

[MHM]

@trubandloki

Well said! I agree.

Thanks.

There I go applying that pesky logic again. Lol.

[YankeeDuchess]

@ohnoO

Because one probably should not try to straighten out/resolve a train wreck like this with a text!

Probably because she would have texted back “I refuse to communicate with you; talk to my lawyer.”

It would have been far better — for Barisone — to get that message by text rather than precipitate an. in person confrontation while holding a gun.

I don’t see the “I brought the gun for self defense against a dog” as consistent with an insanity defense.

[trubandloki]

@MHM

@trubandloki

Well said! I agree.

Thanks.

There I go applying that pesky logic again. Lol.

As has been proven so many times in this thread along, using logic is so over rated.

[YankeeDuchess]

@MHM

@YankeeDuchess

@ohnoO

Yes! I can see it in my mind’s eye—RC handing MB her gun and saying something like, “if you are going up to the house, here, take this for defense against the dog, because his/her bite is vicious”.

But if he wanted to communicate with LK and was afraid of the dog, why not suggest that he text LK rather than go the the farmhouse with a loaded gun, especially since it was supposedly obvious to everyone that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown?

Perhaps texts had not been a productive form of communication with the parties involved.

I will say that it’s easy enough for us to ask in hindsight why didn’t they calmly and rationally do this or why didn’t they do that? But it does not sound as if anybody on the property was very calm and rational by that stage of the proceedings.

If Barisone considered LK and RG dangerous terrorists threatening his life, that’s all the more reason he should have stayed away and used a text, or email, or phone call, or had his lawyer contact them.

[YankeeDuchess]

@eggbutt

@YankeeDuchess

But if he wanted to communicate with LK and was afraid of the dog, why not suggest that he text LK rather than go the the farmhouse with a loaded gun, especially since it was supposedly obvious to everyone that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown?

And say what, @YankeeDuchess ?
Maybe “get the hell out of MY house, off MY property, and take your dog and horses with you.” Gosh, you are so right! I bet that would have worked!

And now you are saying it was obvious to everyone he was on the verge of a mental breakdown? Hmmmmm…imagine that.

No, I’m saying that it’s his lawyers who are saying, in the filing that you posted, that it was obvious he was on the verge of a mental breakdown. I’m saying the opposite that possibly it was not obvious to everyone, given that none of the other adults such as MHG intervened to call his psychiatrist, or his physician, or 911 to get him emergency mental health attention.

He says, in the filing you posted, that he told them to vacate on Aug 5, but a demand to vacate from the landlord requires 30 days notice before the eviction process can even begin. He did not have the right to tell them on Aug 5th to be gone by Aug 6th.

[MHM]

@YankeeDuchess

I don’t see the “I brought the gun for self defense against a dog” as consistent with an insanity defense.

I can see it as a valid way to cast reasonable doubt on an allegation that he intended to murder anyone. If he does not remember the events that day, how could anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether he had a gun to protect himself from the dog or for some other reason?

But of course, I am not the judge or the jury on this case any more than you are.

[eggbutt]

[quote=“YankeeDuchess, post:840, topic:762137, full:true”]

@FitzE

@Knights_Mom

@trubandloki

@Knights_Mom

I figure today is Do Over Sunday where you post the same things, and ask the same questions, and have the same conclusions over and over and over.
[/quote]

Certain posters totally enjoy asking the very same question over and over and over and over and over again, inclusive of long paragraph filled posts all saying the very same thing.

You just learn to scroll past it all. Give it a try, it will make your days much better.

Thank you. I agree completely.

While I agree, I think the repeated and aggressive/obsessive postings and taggings are a continuation of the harassment many have been subject to via message.

Again, I would caution anyone about engaging directly with someone not only known to cyber stalk/dox, but also actually already partially banned for that behaviour. The presence of such actors really drags down the respectability of the forum as a whole.

Please be careful.

Since @FitzE has alluded, yet again, to my being banned from CE for “cyberstalking” and “doxxing” someone, let me state that the nature of the alleged “cyberstalking” was looking at the publicly posted LinkedIn profile of a poster who told others (including but not limited to me) not to post on scientific topics such as COVID because, unlike her, they lacked the advanced academic degrees in the relevant field (biology). I posted neither her IRL identity nor the information I learned on her LinkedIn page.

Nevertheless, I completely agree with the message of @FitzE here that someone who wishes to remain anonymous should be careful about posting copious amounts of really specific identifying information on a public forum. Some posters on the forum use there real name or otherwise disclose their identity, and others seem to expect anonymity but post enough person information that the veil of anonymity is thin indeed.

@JumpinQueen actually posted the publicly posted professional information on “Ruth Cox”, but I suppose that’s not “cyberstalking” since it was probably the wrong “Ruth Cox”, and we don’t know whether the appropriate “Ruth Cox” is an anonymous poster here.

But I agree with @FitzE. Posters who wish to remain anonymous should be careful about voluntarily disclosing too much personal and professional information.

QFP

[Knights_Mom]

[quote=“YankeeDuchess, post:840, topic:762137, full:true”]

@FitzE

@Knights_Mom

@trubandloki

@Knights_Mom

I figure today is Do Over Sunday where you post the same things, and ask the same questions, and have the same conclusions over and over and over.
[/quote]

Certain posters totally enjoy asking the very same question over and over and over and over and over again, inclusive of long paragraph filled posts all saying the very same thing.

You just learn to scroll past it all. Give it a try, it will make your days much better.

Thank you. I agree completely.

While I agree, I think the repeated and aggressive/obsessive postings and taggings are a continuation of the harassment many have been subject to via message.

Again, I would caution anyone about engaging directly with someone not only known to cyber stalk/dox, but also actually already partially banned for that behaviour. The presence of such actors really drags down the respectability of the forum as a whole.

Please be careful.

Since @FitzE has alluded, yet again, to my being banned from CE for “cyberstalking” and “doxxing” someone, let me state that the nature of the alleged “cyberstalking” was looking at the publicly posted LinkedIn profile of a poster who told others (including but not limited to me) not to post on scientific topics such as COVID because, unlike her, they lacked the advanced academic degrees in the relevant field (biology). I posted neither her IRL identity nor the information I learned on her LinkedIn page.

Nevertheless, I completely agree with the message of @FitzE here that someone who wishes to remain anonymous should be careful about posting copious amounts of really specific identifying information on a public forum. Some posters on the forum use there real name or otherwise disclose their identity, and others seem to expect anonymity but post enough person information that the veil of anonymity is thin indeed.

@JumpinQueen actually posted the publicly posted professional information on “Ruth Cox”, but I suppose that’s not “cyberstalking” since it was probably the wrong “Ruth Cox”, and we don’t know whether the appropriate “Ruth Cox” is an anonymous poster here.

But I agree with @FitzE. Posters who wish to remain anonymous should be careful about voluntarily disclosing too much personal and professional information.

QFP

[Brown_Derby]

@FitzE

I cannot agree more. It chills participation in the forum; it lends a seedy/unsavory character to the proceedings; it makes us all feel like heightened caution is required instead of just being able to participate and discuss; it is super creepy; it is aggressive and creates a threatening atmosphere hanging over the forum at all times.

Reminds me so much of when I boarded with the world’s most self-absorbed person. Ack, that feeling in one’s gut when seeing Ms. Thing’s car…

[YankeeDuchess]

@MHM

@YankeeDuchess

I don’t see the “I brought the gun for self defense against a dog” as consistent with an insanity defense.

I can see it as a valid way to cast reasonable doubt on an allegation that he intended to murder anyone. If he does not remember the events that day, how could anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether he had a gun to protect himself from the dog or for some other reason?

But of course, I am not the judge or the jury on this case any more than you are.

But if the claim is that his rationality and mental competence was intact when he decided to obtain the gun and drive over to the farmhouse to communicate with LK (when he could have safely done so without being in the physical presence of the dog by using text, email or phone), at what moment does he suddenly become insane?

The major news I took from this filing is that he will use an insanity defense. I’m going to be shocked if his criminal defense attorneys try to use a blend of insanity and self defense; I think it would just weaken the insanity defense.

[FitzE]

Jaysus! Thank you for the QFPs. That is so specifically and aggressively worded it is rather breathtaking.

There is a distinction to be made between the general caution one needs when engaging in an online community, and the specific threats inherent when such a community contains someone identified and confirmed to have violated the rules and trust of the community. Especially when that person defends their actions, shows no remorse, and threatens to do so again. Creepy does not begin to describe it. It’s really not okay.

[Knights_Mom]

@FitzE

So much weird in a number of posts.

[eggbutt]

@YankeeDuchess

The major news I took from this filing is that he will use an insanity defense. I’m going to be shocked if his criminal defense attorneys try to use a blend of insanity and self defense; I think it would just weaken the insanity defense.

Oops! You forgot to add your gratuitous comment “that Eggbutt posted” when referring to the filing.

[MHM]

@YankeeDuchess

But if the claim is that his rationality and mental competence was intact when he decided to obtain the gun and drive over to the farmhouse to communicate with LK (when he could have safely done so without being in the physical presence of the dog by using text, email or phone), at what moment does he suddenly become insane?

Exactly where in that filing does it specify when his memory lapse started? Or when he obtained the gun, if indeed that is what happened? I must have missed both those parts.

[Angela_Freda]

Since the town officials/PD apparently made him feel they would not assist, and it was up to him to get them out…

@ohnoO

Yes! I can see it in my mind’s eye—RC handing MB her gun and saying something like, “if you are going up to the house, here, take this for defense against the dog, because his/her bite is vicious”.

… Yes I too would be concerned about the dog.