Barisone Safe Sport Update

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Do you imagine that in the six months leading up to the trial, SS did not develop a contingency plan as to whether it would investigate if the verdict was NGRI?

No, I don’t. I imagine SS is so overwhelmed with active cases under investigation that when there is an automatic suspension, that case gets shelved until the criminal charges are dealt with.

MB’s SS sanctions may seem important to a small group of people in the dressage world, but within an organization dealing with every Olympic sport and stretched so thin by the volume of complains, I don’t imagine for a second MB’s case was of any priority while the automatic suspension was in place. It’s just one drop in a very large bucket and since he posed no risk to anyone while incarcerated, I’d assume SS would focus its energies on cases where the subject may pose an immediate danger to someone, particularly where there are minors involved.

Now that the criminal charges have been resolved, the questions of how to deal with the original complaint, and the NGRI verdict are being addressed.

[RHdobes563]

@Knights_Mom

@Sdel

Honestly, based on the Jaffer article, this seems a lot like a formality to me. A hoop they have to jump through before dropping everything.

I would agree.

In considering this we have to remember that in some ways MBs case is unique.

Most of the time or at least much of the time, those adjudicated NGI are people far removed from reality. They were cray cray then and they are cray cray now. Those are the types you want to stay institutionalized.

But MBs case was more of a case of a vulnerable person being driven to insanity and once removed from the constant barrage of harassment and torment was again back into reality though despondent and possibly depressed.

In light of this both the criminal justice system and SS and USEF should decide that MB poses no menace and rightfully should return to full freedoms and permissions.

And it’s been pointed out that in the past, Michael Barisone has sought appropriate help/counseling/therapy when he’s needed it. I don’t expect that to change. In fact, it will probably be some sort of ‘condition’ of his release. That being said/written, I would think SS and USEF would seriously this for reinstatement—I don’t think Michael Barisone and his close supporters would have a problem with this ‘condition.’

[eggbutt]

@Knights_Mom

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.

Indeed.

[eggbutt]

It is my understanding there are several open complaints against LK from various sources, including the huge complaint filed by MB/MHG before the incident. The fact there is an active no contact order on all parties, which includes the mention or discussion on MHG’s children, leads me to believe the MB/MHG complaint is quite active and is being evaluated. It will take as long as it needs to take to reach a conclusion that will be as divisive as MB’s criminal trial verdict IMO. Regardless what the result is for any investigation into LK’s behavior, I believe the damage has already been and continues to be done due to her recent inappropriate behavior on other chat areas.

[PDDT]

Speaking in general terms, it seems we have moved a long way from a presumption of innocence in our society. Why would someone charged with a crime be permanently suspended? I guess this relates to the discussion on another thread about weaponizing important programs to keep others, especially minors safe, but a malicious accusation could permanently destroy someone’s life.

In this case, given the seriousness of the charge, I can understand a temporary suspension, but a permanent suspension absent a conviction seems to undermine the presumption of innocence.

[BigMama1]

@PDDT

In this case, given the seriousness of the charge, I can understand a temporary suspension, but a permanent suspension absent a conviction seems to undermine the presumption of innocence.

A SafeSort suspension does not require any criminal investigation to take place - look at George Morris as an example. SS is not there to rule if criminal behaviour has occurred. Determining innocence or guilt is up to the justice system and has nothing to do with whether or not someone should lose their membership in a sports organization.

SS is there to investigate claims filed and determine if there is enough evidence to support the claim. If so, they impose sanctions, which differ depending on the seriousness of the allegations. The most severe sanction they can impose is a permanent ban. It is reserved for the most serious offences but at the end of the day still amounts to little more than losing a license or being kicked out of a club.

And even in an SS investigation, someone is presumed “innocent” with no sanctions imposed until after the completion of a very thorough and often lengthy investigation. The exception is when the person under investigation is believed to present an ongoing and immediate risk to minors while the investigation occurs. In those cases a temporary ban is enforced immediately, out of caution.

[cutter99]

@BrendaJane! You made my day!

[Angela_Freda]

I would add if the allegation was related to mental health, the ban would smack of discrimination. In general.

In this particular case, since he led a productive, professional life while getting care for his mental health without any problems prior to being targeted by these three … I’d say doubly so.

[cutter99]

@RND

Well bless your heart!

At least when I post, I can back up what I have posted!

You, on the other hand, not so much!

[Moderator_1]

RND’s posting privileges have been removed, after a prolonged history of insults, etc. Let’s all please remember that it’s fine to express your opinions, but please do so without insults, profanity, etc.

[BrendaJane]

happy to oblige

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

So either SS is not investigating LK or the allegations against her are considered less serious than those against MB, which makes sense, SINCE SHE DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE.

Re bolded. The claims in MBs suit against the police came from MB, not from the police!

I wonder if SS is going ask MB if he wants to file a complaint against LK as part of his interview. MHG’s complaint certainly isn’t about what LK did to MB as a means to destroy him. That is from criminal trial discovery that has so far been protected. MHG has probably not had access to it to use for her complaint.

Re: bolded. You really struggle with reading comprehension don’t you.

[eggbutt]

@Sdel

I wonder if SS is going ask MB if he wants to file a complaint against LK as part of his interview.

I’m confused (yet again)…doesn’t MB already have a complaint against LK & others?

[Sdel]

I imagine, considering the extreme change in facts, and the unique nature of this case, SS might want a more specific set of allegations presented from MB in order to update his complaint with MHG, if it is still open.

I wonder if such a plot was revealed through the discovery if SS would consider LK a danger and place a temporary suspension.

[BrendaJane]

FINISH THE BASTARD
an intentional plot to ruin a person is not as severe as the inconclusive events on the Barisone farm for you? A good thing that RG had Barisone in a possibly deadly choke hold, not LK then?

You can take her in then, see how you like it, I guess.

[Knights_Mom]

@BigMama1

@PDDT

In this case, given the seriousness of the charge, I can understand a temporary suspension, but a permanent suspension absent a conviction seems to undermine the presumption of innocence.

A SafeSort suspension does not require any criminal investigation to take place - look at George Morris as an example. SS is not there to rule if criminal behaviour has occurred. Determining innocence or guilt is up to the justice system and has nothing to do with whether or not someone should lose their membership in a sports organization.

SS is there to investigate claims filed and determine if there is enough evidence to support the claim. If so, they impose sanctions, which differ depending on the seriousness of the allegations. The most severe sanction they can impose is a permanent ban. It is reserved for the most serious offences but at the end of the day still amounts to little more than losing a license or being kicked out of a club.

And even in an SS investigation, someone is presumed “innocent” with no sanctions imposed until after the completion of a very thorough and often lengthy investigation. The exception is when the person under investigation is believed to present an ongoing and immediate risk to minors while the investigation occurs. In those cases a temporary ban is enforced immediately, out of caution.

IMHO the contents of GMs book, in his own words, by his own admission, contain statements in which a ban MIGHT be done including but not limited to rapping horses legs to jump and the intentional injury leading to bone breaks of TWO student riders.

So I don’t know what SS was thinking regarding the old allegations of a sexual nature upon a minor, but I’m saying there was other stuff too. When I read his book all I could keep on thinking was “Who would admit this?”

[GiveEmEl]

Is a ban from SS also a ban from USEF? I have trouble understanding the distinction other than minors.

[Knights_Mom]

@GiveEmEl

Is a ban from SS also a ban from USEF? I have trouble understanding the distinction other than minors.

Yes

[GiveEmEl]

I’ve heard of “guilty but insane” so I admit I can’t quite distinguish the difference.

[GiveEmEl]

Thank you!