Safesport in the wake of the Barisone Verdict: Weaponization and Inconsistent Standards

[Knights_Mom]

@BigMama1

@Knights_Mom

Once MB is released freely he should IMMEDIATELY have his SS ban lifted.

It’s not even debatable.

At the very least, if it even considers keeping the ban, it should be on a temporary basis while SS conducts its own thorough investigation to determine whether MB presents a risk to minor students. Agree that a ban for criminal charges should not be in place once someone has been found not guilty at trial.

Although his ban had nothing to do with minor students in the first place.

[Knights_Mom]

@vxf111

I’m glad others understood. I clearly didn’t. I find it easier to read things communicated in full sentences and clearly expressed, but other people may be better at deriving intent from sentence fragments and snippets of commentary around quotes. I’m still not sure what you think “went wrong” here. That LK hasn’t suffered any consequences for having made a “false” SS report against MB (thereby “weaponizing” the SS process)?

Here’s the problem with that reasoning, if that is your reasoning, LK did not successfully weaponize SS. She called and made a report (of some sort) to SS. SS deemed it to be more appropriately investigated by CPS. SS alterted CPS. CPS went out to the property to investigate. Before CPS could complete its investigation, MB shot LK, sending her to the hospital.

THEN SS excluded MB-- not because of the report LK had made about the child abuse but because MB had been charged with attempted homicide. SS excluded MB because he shot a client with a gun and not because of any allegations of child abuse.

Isn’t that what you want? It’s what I want. If someone is a USEF member and shoots and attempts to kill another person with a gun, I want the shooter excluded from USEF events until the criminal charges are resolved. I feel the same way about any violent crime. Do you feel otherwise? You think USEF members who have been criminally charged with other violent crimes (assault, rape, etc.) should continue to get to compete while criminal charges are pending? USEF is a membership club, I am perfectly comfortable with temporary exclusions during the pendency of a criminal process for members charged with serious bodily injury crimes. Now that MB has been found not guilty, I am also fine with the USEF lifting the exclusion. But I think it was completely appropriate to temporarily exclude him while charges were pending (not that it mattered tremendously as he was incarcerated and unable to participate in USEF activities anyway).

What exactly do you think SS should have done differently here? Not report an allegation of child abuse to CPS? Not suspend a member who was charged with attempted homicide of a client? Reinstate MB the moment the jury returned its verdict? This is a complex case with pretty unusual facts. It would not surprise me if MB is ultimately reinstated but I’m not looking for my pitchfork because it didn’t happen immediately post-trial. I think there’s still a fair amount factually that needs to be sorted out here, including whether MB remains a risk to himself and others.

It appears you think SS should in some way punish LK for making a false accusation. It can and perhaps it will. But first there would have to be some evidence that LK did indeed make a false accusation. I think that’s going to be problematic to determine here. CPS didn’t get to finish its investigation (or rather the whole thing kind of got superseded) because MB shot LK while the child abuse investigation was ongoing. So we don’t really know that the allegation was “false.” Moreover, even if it was unfounded, do we really want to discourage people from making SS reports where a child is at risk? There’s a difference between a malicious/false report and one that turns out to be wrong. Even if the report LK turned out to be wrong, it hasn’t been proven to be malicious. It seems like there was a chaotic environment there (even if it was largely created by LK herself) and I am not sure it’s crystal clear that the allegations were wholly malicious even if they turned out to be incorrect. I want people to report even suspected child abuse (and SS in fact requires it) and not only to report child abuse that the reporter has 100% confirmed. We’re all assuming that LK made the report maliciously and that’s certainty one way to view the facts but I am not sure it’s the only way. And that’s why I think this is a complicated matter for SS to sort out. It’s not as black and white as you seem to imply.

We don’t know whether SS is going to take some action towards LK. The trial literally just ended a few days ago. It seems inappropriate to me to claim a system is broken/needs reform when it’s been given roughly a week to “work” in a pretty complex case with a lot of idiosyncratic facts and issues. LK may be suspended in the future.

Look, if you ask me my PERSONAL OPINION OF LK, I’ve got one and it’s not positive. But that doesn’t mean I just get to assume all the facts are as I want them to be consistently with my personal opinion and then be mad at SS because it doesn’t draw all the same inferences from the facts.

This case is complicated. LK made a report of child abuse. But MK also shot her. And the facts around these two events are not crystal clear. They’re subject to some interpretation. That SS has not immediately reinstated MB nor immediately excluded LK in such a complicated (and frankly weird) case isn’t that concerning to me. I think largely the SS process worked as it was intended to.

I pretty much agree with you and add that during incarnation it didn’t really matter if SS excluded him at all since he was locked up. I suppose it may have kept any horses he owns from being shown MAYBE.

But I do agree with you especially since during lockup SS is moot.

[MHM]

@vxf111

I am not sure it’s crystal clear that the allegations were wholly malicious even if they turned out to be incorrect.

I have to ask. Did you follow the evidence in the trial at all?

It seems pretty clear that most of her actions in that final stretch were malicious. And she admitted under oath on the witness stand that she had been texting with others about her plan to “ruin his life.” Those were her exact words.

I agree that once safe sport was contacted, they had an obligation to inform CPS. And CPS had an obligation to come out and investigate the claim once it was reported to them.

That doesn’t change the fact that safe sport should have a system in place to investigate people who purposely file false claims and suspend or ban them appropriately, based on the situation.

Also, do you think CPS did not finish their investigation when all was said and done? Even if they were not able to finish it that day, I doubt they just dropped all the paperwork in the trashcan due to those events.

[vxf111]

I assume CPS did eventually find the allegations unfounded but I didn’t see ay evidence of that in the testimony I watched. That’s why in my very first post on this thread I stated that I wasn’t sure about that fact.

I did not watch the trial live and I have not watched all the recordings of all the testimony. I’ve seen some snippets. From what I watched, LK is all over the place. I certainly didn’t find her to be a credible witness. But I did not see uncontroverted evidence that the report was wholly malicious. It’s possible that was in testimony I didn’t watch. I did see some questioning on it and it seemed to suggest that she had some complaints about the children’s care, and in addition was pursuing her general strategy of making life miserable for MB. Like I said, she was kind of all over the place, and there was some suggestion of some belief that the children were in some risk. There was so much going on with all the interpersonal drama, safety issues relating to wiring/renovations, people sneaking around and antagonizing each other, and a some unaccounted for weapons-- I’m not sure it’s 100% clear that the report was wholly meritless. That’s one conclusion you can draw, and perhaps in other testimony she admitted point blank that the SS report was purely malicious, but I didn’t see that testimony. I did see her being all over the place with her explanations and certainly you might misbelieve her explanations for why she did what she did, but that’s a little different.

I didn’t find her testimony particularly credible myself. But I also don’t know all the facts that SS knows. They presumably have a whole file, much of which is not public record and did not come up in the criminal trial.

If the evidence is slam dunk that the report was malicious, then give SS some time to work. False reports in bad faith do violate SS. So if the evidence shows LK did that, she well may be excluded. It’s been a WEEK since the verdict. To expect some sort of immediate suspension/exclusion this quickly is unrealistic. Especially given that SS will want to cross all its Ts and dot all its Is so any exclusion isn’t successfully challenged and reversed. And if the evidence is not as black and white as you’re suggesting (and the part I watched was not)… again, give SS some time to sort things out. It’s been essentially a week and there’s a fair amount at stake here. Don’t you want SS to get it right (so any exclusion sticks) rather than do it fast and potentially leave any decision open to challenge? It’s literally been only a week.

[Angela_Freda]

I don’t see where anyone has expressed distress that SS hasn’t acted yet.
Just assertions that we all hope that they do and will.

As for CPS and the SS allegation of harm being accurate because MD shot LK, well, I still don’t believe it was ever proven that he intentionally shot her, and it is as likely that there was a struggle and the gun became involved, either for self defense or accidentally.

[hut-ho78]

@Angela_Freda

@ladyj79

The idea that it was an unsafe environment for kids was certainly supported.

what made the environment unsafe was LK

She shot no one. People say it’s ok to post trash talk about her and her family here but not ok for her to trash talk on SM. Dissonance.

[hut-ho78]

@Angela_Freda

I don’t see where anyone has expressed distress that SS hasn’t acted yet.
Just assertions that we all hope that they do and will.

As for CPS and the SS allegation of harm being accurate because MD shot LK, well, I still don’t believe it was ever proven that he intentionally shot her, and it is as likely that there was a struggle and the gun became involved, either for self defense or accidentally.

For him to be given not guilty by insanity meant the state proved the the elements of the crime of attempted murder and the gun charge for her. He is not guilty because the jury believed he was insane and didn’t know what he was doing when he shot her.

[Angela_Freda]

@hut-ho78

She shot no one.

if only shooting was the only way people could be harmed…

@hut-ho78

People say it’s ok to post trash talk about her and her family here but not ok for her to trash talk on SM. Dissonance.

sharing her own testimony is not trash talking her.

[iridedressage]

As the parent MHG would be the first interviewed. I would guess she told CPS that she had sent the child to the fathers for his/her safety and why. She would also interview RC to see if they’re stories matched. If the child had been there he/she would have been interviewed and if the call was indeed in regard to MB, he would have been interviewed last. If she then believed the call was a false report she would follow-up with SS.

[Angela_Freda]

Great.
I can disagree with it.

[MHM]

@Angela_Freda

I don’t see where anyone has expressed distress that SS hasn’t acted yet.
Just assertions that we all hope that they do and will.

Exactly.

If safe sport finds that LK or anyone else is making false accusations to stir up trouble for others, those people who file false claims should face serious consequences.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@vxf111

If the evidence is slam dunk that the report was malicious, then give SS some time to work. False reports in bad faith do violate SS. So if the evidence shows LK did that, she well may be excluded. It’s been a WEEK since the verdict. To expect some sort of immediate suspension/exclusion this quickly is unrealistic. Especially given that SS will want to cross all its Ts and dot all its Is so any exclusion isn’t successfully challenged and reversed. And if the evidence is not as black and white as you’re suggesting (and the part I watched was not)… again, give SS some time to sort things out. It’s been essentially a week and there’s a fair amount at stake here. Don’t you want SS to get it right (so any exclusion sticks) rather than do it fast and potentially leave any decision open to challenge? It’s literally been only a week.

This is fair.

One thing that is unclear right now, is whether or not SafeSport even is investigating this situation, and whether there were malicious and false reports.

It’s very clear that it is against SafeSport code to make malicious and false reports.

But is unclear as to how an investigation into a potential malicious and false report is actually initiated… and what the process involves.

I think some clarity on this specific issue might be reassuring to many people who are shocked and unsettled by what transpired in this INCREDIBLY specific, and INCREDIBLY unusual case.

[hut-ho78]

Client complains about trainer. Trainer complains about client then shoots client. Client gets banned. That would reek of retaliation. Not a good look.

[MHM]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

But is unclear as to how an investigation into a potential malicious and false report is actually initiated… and what the process involves.

It seems like safe sport does not say a word until they have completed their investigation, unless they feel the need to issue an immediate temporary suspension to prevent further harm from taking place.

Or at least, that seems to have been the procedure in the horse cases they have worked on. So unless they are actually questioning someone who is either a witness or the subject of an investigation, word would probably not get out.

[BigMama1]

@hut-ho78

For him to be given not guilty by insanity meant the state proved the the elements of the crime of attempted murder and the gun charge for her. He is not guilty because the jury believed he was insane and didn’t know what he was doing when he shot her.

We all know what it means, thanks. And as far as SafeSport is concerned, it means he has not been convicted of any crime.

[jvanrens]

@hut-ho78

Client complains about trainer. Trainer complains about client then shoots client. Client gets banned. That would reek of retaliation. Not a good look.

This is the craziest thing you have ever posted, and I’ve been scratching my head raw over many of your posts.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Interesting. Thanks for providing that information about what standard procedure normally involves with interviews.

[ladyj79]

@CLINICALLY_PROVEN

suppose one could argue that horses in general create a potentially unsafe environment. In fact, being on a farm and in the presence of farm equipment or even nipping dogs present elements which are potentially unsafe to children (and some adults).

Correct. Which is why horses are often deemed an attractive nuisance, and the onus is on the owner to limit potential contact, especially from children. As someone who attended and taught at schools with horses, many schools no longer have horses 🤷

[smoofox]

If only everything was that simplistic.

[trubandloki]

@Knights_Mom

There is always a shyster out there who will figure out how to twist the best things in order to con the system.

These threads have shown me that there are a lot more people willing to twist things to justify being horrible than I ever imagined there were in the world. (Either that or one person has lots of identities.)