Barisone Safe Sport Update

Why is my mantra, which is consistent with the jury’s decision, considered to be tired by you, but your mantra, where MB is innocent when there is absolutely no evidence to show, is perfectly ok to continue repeating here? You have admitted that you absolutely despise LK and her family so you clearly are biased. I, on the other hand, have shown disdain for both LK and MB for their decisions leading up to the shooting, and yet I am the one who is maligned and accused of being a troll.

I’m not going to stop pointing out that many of you are doing exactly the awful things that you are accusing LK of doing. And I don’t care that the moderator here is enabling you to do that. It’s disgusting. MB should pay for his bad decisions just as LK should pay for her bad decisions. I hope that happens for both of them. You can’t bully and harass people, and you can’t shoot people who bully and harass you. Both sides need to be accountable for their actions.




Moving along, I wonder what the time frame for USEF might be considering all they have on their plate with this event? Will Barisone’s suspension hearing (if that is how it proceeds) be before the other complaints regarding LK? As Jaffer pointed out this is all new ground for them.


I smell a preview of the civil trial.


[edit] We just have wanted to sort things out and watch it unfold as it goes… like watching 48 Hours or Dateline. We know a tragic shooting happened but we will never know the details of exactly how it happened. Of the only three witness who remember any of it clearly, two are admitted liars and addicts and one can only speak canine.

I think LK’s side of the civil trial has been compromised by her behavior since the criminal trial - as well as contributions from others.

It will be interesting to watch all the details in the civil trial play out as well.


When MB is released from custody I’m thinking he is likely to be reinstated. The parties should have protective orders against one another. Those protective orders should be all inclusive as to limitations on behavior and conduct such as harassment.


Are protective orders state specific or are they valid in other states as well?


To me, since the verdict of the criminal trial was NOT GUILTY/RI the defendant was found not criminally responsible and so not guilty. That verdict keeps SS/USEF from keeping the suspension due to criminal disposition of MB as (once again) the criminal disposition is NG.

I’m thinking the NGB and/or SS therefore has no legal basis to continue the suspension once MB is released. The suspension will most likely continue even if MB is released home until such time as he is fully adjudicated as no threat to the public.


Usually state specific when issued by the court but here, in this case, I’m talking about USEF or SS issued protective orders between 2 members. I’m talking do not harass, intimidate, go within x amount of feet at shows type of directives.


Thank you. If he were to be released and was reinstated, hopefully all parties and any member would respect the court’s and SS ruling and behave appropriately. If not, there should be harsh penalties for any violators.


I think we are probably going to look at a temporary suspension with training restrictions for a while to the extent of his mental health releases. I imagine all the discovery from the trial will be given to SS in arguing mitigating factors to the situation.


I agree. The not guilty verdict gives the respective entities no legal basis to continue the ban in the presence of his continued lawful, good behavior.


think O2


I hope they won’t have to add another module to the Safe Sport Training to cover this unprecedented situation. LOL
As for the back and forth, seriously can you just ignore each other. It’s beyond tedious.


FWIW, even convicted felons can vote in most (all?) states after release, convicted felons can obtain a passport (even while still incarcerated except in certain circumstances), released felons can hold office and serve on a jury in many states, and released felons can even have their firearms rights restored in many states - if not automatically, then through a clemency hearing.

Given the “not guilty” portion of the verdict, I would fully expect that MB could/should have all rights restored once he has satisfied the terms of his release.

Edited to add that I would think that since SS governs nationally, if it doesn’t approve of his restoration, that may be a very interesting case for ACLU to look at. And although USEF seems to govern imperiously when it can, I would hope that if SS approves of the lifting of MB’s suspension, then USEF would do so.


I do not think getting a passport, voting rights back, etc. can be correlated to this situation. Safe Sport is about keeping sport participants safe.(My simple 1st grader mind…) Voting does not put anyone in danger. But being allowed to own a firearm is a lot closer. For sure, this SS decision will generate lots of legal research and memorandums of law as criminal law, psychiatry, and SS intersect.


I would argue whether “voting puts people in danger” but that’s another topic entirely. :grin:

I was using those examples to point out that since even convicted felons get most or all of their rights restored once they have satisfied the terms of their release, it would seem a bit incongruous to not extend the same philosophy to MB’s situation.

There may be info in various statutes that apply specifically to NGI verdicts, but they didn’t turn up in my quick Google search (although I may not have used the correct search keywords). It will indeed be interesting to hear what SS and USEF decide once the terms of MB’s release are made known.


This is the last time I’m going to answer this question so please try to read for comprehension this time. Here is the link to what a “not guilty by reason of insanity means in NJ:

Pay particular attention to this part:

“ Pleading insanity in a New Jersey criminal case is an affirmative defense in which a defendant admits that they committed a crime, but asserts that they were not responsible for their actions due to mental illness .”

The crime that MB committed was that he shot LK. His team did not deny that, and the jury decided that although MB shot LK, he was not responsible for the crime due to mental illness.


This has nothing to do with you stating that Michael Barisone thinks it is acceptable to shoot people. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues, not me!

You are showing all of us here what you are truly about! We appreciate it greatly!


I would remind posters that as MB had no recollection of the shooting event that he could not aid in his own defense. His one attempt at doing so was removed by Judge Taylor (self defense).

His only option left was NGI so if there was any implied admission of guilt with that there was nothing he could do about it. But his other initial claim of self defense makes it clear that in the mind of MB at least, he doesn’t remember having the intent to shoot anyone. The juries finding of a straight NG of RG seems to also imply the jury felt that way too.