Thank you for abbreviating that for me. As I have to tell my children all the time, if you have to say “but” then you didn’t mean what you said to begin with.
3 Likes
Simply put: nothing serves as a valid excuse for LKs behavior. NOTHING.
23 Likes
I feel like I’m going to be turning that one over in my head for a while.
5 Likes
I agree…all the more reason in my mind that Taylor was biased during the trial. Bias is a natural emotion. Being able to lock it away when a person’s future is on the line is paramount, particularly when one has the absolute power to control the trial. I don’t believe Taylor was successful hiding his bias.
Bilinkas took a lot of flack for doing everything he could to present his client’s defense when roadblock after roadblock was thrown in his way. Taylor gave a wonky excuse for denying self defense but in reality, had Taylor allowed it, I have confidence that would have been the verdict. I also recall Taylor talking firmly to Barisone about his decision to reject the plea deal. I appreciate he wanted to be sure Barisone was making his own decision and understood what he was gambling with. But his tone of voice was telling to me. For sure he is not fond of Bilinkas.
17 Likes
I’m sorry I hit Johnny, but Johnny stuck his tongue out at me.
Suzie shouldn’t have ripped up Maggie’s homework but Maggie wouldn’t play with her on the playground.
The purpose of “but” is to justify or minimize a behavior not accept responsibility, or generally to add conditions onto a statement.
9 Likes
You know. It really is amazing that you (a few of you) pick apart MB (elderly, depressed, delusional, divorced, cheater, money issues, young girl chaser, possible abuser, bad business man, etc) and yet you summarize LK as “problematic”.
This really speaks volumes.
31 Likes
I agree with much of what you say but not the part where she used it to justify her actions. Again, it’s not paranoia if you get shot. It’s very understandable she and her family could think it is a conspiracy, especially because RC brought the weapon.
I think they were trying to say words to the effect of get rid of her meaning get her out not get rid of her as in Becket - will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest.
They had also decided to ruin her with his connections at USEF and USDF so not just her trying to ruin him.
Kind of puts all of the agencies in a pickle since she was shot. My guess is they will monitor everyone and if he is deemed completely safe, reinstate him. I really hope he can recover and the verdict is one which allows that.
I hope she keeps riding and training. It seems like this was important to her. I’ve seen so many people get discouraged with just high vet bills or bad trainers or over horsed. This would be tough the overcome.
Thank you so much for your unpleasant response that I can use as an example of how you respond to anyone with a different opinion.
1 Like
Totally agree
9 Likes
You have argued with every one of us discussing issues. You double down on your opinion repeatedly. Hence my comment.
9 Likes
Because it came up in court that MB told the farrier to stop shoeing LK’s horses and RG was upset about it. It was also discussed in these threads.
The conversation was about neglect.
Repeating again and again I believe that what they heard was a plot to get her out of the barn but after she was shot twice it is understandable if LK and her family believed it was a murder plot.
I quit reading once the thread turned towards hashing out the case and talking about LK, but to the topic of the thread – it is an interesting situation because while the verdict is an acquittal, it is not a straight “not guilty”, and so this situation does not seem to fit into the definition of Criminal Disposition under SS. Note that if he did accept a plea including for any lesser included offense, he’d still be banned under the Criminal Disposition section. I think either he will be suspended until he’s released from inpatient mental health care (during which time he’s not going to any USEF events anyway), or some lawyers with Safe Sport are trying to figure out whether the intent of the definition is to include this type of verdict or not. My guess is that it will not because there is a lack of criminal culpability. I mean, if you could avoid suspension under Safe Sport after being removed from the sex offender’s list according to the relevant jurisdiction’s rules, then why not for an actual acquittal in court?
It’s a different issue if anyone has restraining orders out against another rider/owner/trainer and both want to attend shows–but that’s not something for USEF’s or SS’s jurisdiction but whatever local law enforcement.
15 Likes
I didn’t say he did. When someone asked why Judge Taylor knew about the recordings before trial I believed there were pre trial motions concerning what could be introduced as evidence.
Kirby may have heard later from others what Judge Taylor ruled.
I don’t see a conspiracy here.
Not shoeing is now neglect? Goodness. I understood MB instructed the farrier to not shoe her horses that day (italics assumed) probably because at that time he was under the impression they would be leaving relatively quickly.
10 Likes
You can’t say why I believe what I do. We don’t know each other. I haven’t told you. Thank you for another example of your treatment of people who don’t agree with you.
It was a different farrier who testified. In fact, I don’t know if he would technically even be called a farrier, since he specified that he is a barefoot trimmer.
I think the conversation with the actual farrier could have easily been “Don’t shoe those horses on my tab,” or “Don’t shoe those horses because they might not pay you,” or a similar variation on that theme.
9 Likes
And didn’t see it posted - this is the definition of Criminal Disposition.
It is a violation of the Code for a Participant to be or have been subject to any disposition or resolution of a criminal proceeding, other than an adjudication of not guilty, including, but not limited to: an adjudication of guilt or admission to a criminal violation, a plea to the charge or a lesser included offense, a plea of no contest, any plea analogous to an Alford or Kennedy plea, the disposition of the proceeding through a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, deferred prosecution, disposition of supervision, conditional dismissal, juvenile delinquency adjudication, or similar arrangement.
8 Likes
I’m curious about this. In Canada, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which applies to government services and other areas of life including private services and employment which fall under federal regulation. Provinces have their own human rights legislation for “social areas” (e.g. employment, housing, goods, services, facilities and vocational associations).
If someone was mentally ill, but cleared of a reasonable risk to cause harm to others, banning him from participation in competition, even attending them and worse preventing him from earning his living could reasonably be found to be a violation of his human rights.
Do you not have the same protections in the US?
edited to move to a proper computer - my tablet thought I was too long winded
3 Likes
