LK new the gun laws in NJ, so the complaint could have been about guns (specifically RC’s gun which she brought with her from NC), and Safe Sport could have alerted CPS because they received reports of an illegal gun on a property where children were living. Since the children were MHG’s and the gun was RC’s, that would explain CPS interviewing the two of them. All speculation though.
4 Likes
You can argue not guilty by reason of insanity based on irresistible impulses, arguing that you should not be found criminally liable for our actions because you could not control those actions, even if knowing they were wrong.
One of the defendants in the current sexual assault of a minor in criminal and SafeSport cases, could offer that defense. Claim could be based on mental illness, their own sexual abuse, porn addiction, sex addictio n. Maybe a lawyer could convince a jury.
If one of them was found NGRI, should SafeSport find him not guilty and drop their case and a ban?
2 Likes
The child protective services lady literally testified that the concerns raised were about “neglect” by MHG. Not sexual misconduct, not guns.
12 Likes
I imagine SafeSport would conduct their own investigation, since minors were involved, and would determine whether there was a risk. There were no minors involved in MB’s criminal charges.
8 Likes
Neglect can include inadequate supervision. So the office might have been investigating that a gun was on the property and there was not adequate safeguards for the children as far as their access.
3 Likes
If it was a n adult working student or employee, then you would be OK that NGRI for irresistible impulses would wipe out a sexual assault SafeSport case?
2 Likes
The woman from CPS stated that complaints fall under two buckets: sexual misconduct and neglect. There is no bucket for “guns”. Anything that is not related to sexual misconduct falls under neglect. Potential safety issues due to illegal guns on the property would not be considered sexual misconduct; therefore, that complaint would fall under neglect.
No need to be so defensive, it’s a discussion on the internet for god’s sake. Calm down.
3 Likes
Retaliation insinuates intent.
I don’t believe intent was proven.
3 Likes
If the overriding element of a SafeSport case is the inclusion of minors, then how would SafeSport be expected to involve itself in any cases involving LK, M HG and MB? Since there are no minors?
1 Like
@Fat_Dinah - I’m sort of surprised to see you posting on this thread today, interacting with a number of other forum members.
Yesterday you posted on the other Barisone thread accusing multiple forum posters of a number of things. The list included:
- Hate speech
- Making threats about LK
- Improper conduct by sending a note of support for MB to his attorney, Bilinkas (who apparently is pre-screening all correspondence, and then will pass on appropriate letters).
You stated you planned on reporting all of this alleged forum activity to the prosecutor involved in this case, in hopes it influenced the May 17th hearing that MB has before Judge Taylor. You encouraged other people to do the same.
You provided contact information for the prosecutor to assist people if they wanted to contact him about all this.
Then you seemed to say that you had reported various forum users to USEF/SS. And… you encouraged others to do the same.
You also said you contacted a synagogue in Leesburg concerning the alleged anti-Semitic hate speech, so that they could engage with COTH directly about this issue, and the particular comments that you found objectionable?
A number of people replied to you, quoting your post, because the whole thing seemed a little bit extreme. But you abandoned the discussion. Which is fine … that’s your right.
But now, you want to be an active participant in another Barisone related discussion, less than 24 hrs later, pertaining more narrowly to SafeSport related issues, involving many of the same posters you were outraged with yesterday?
I find this hard to understand.
29 Likes
It isn’t, it’s just the the priority has shifted to those cases with the overwhelming number of reports of child sexual abuse and grooming.
4 Likes
If the SafeSport ban was a temporary one solely based on a criminal charge, then yes. That’s exactly how it should work once the criminal case is resolved if the person is not convicted. However, that does not prevent SafeSport from launching their own investigation and placing someone under a new temporary suspension pending its outcome. However, that’s a moot point because my understanding is that SafeSport’s purpose is to deal with abuse of minors, not adults.
3 Likes
Oh the irony 
15 Likes
I think I asked you this on the other thread… but do you have an actual legal background?
The post verdict analysis of the Barisone trial emphasized how INCREDIBLY rare it is for people to use an insanity defense. In any case. Many commentators said the past successful insanity defense in national memory involved John Hinkley.
So it seems very unlikely this will ever be a practical issue related to a SafeSport case again.
14 Likes
I was reacting to her comment about ok to go ahead with an NGRI because it involved minors.
I don’t think minors IS the big bar. The Alberto Salazar case concerns adults only. The snowboard coach is adults.
1 Like
It shouldn’t be. That precisely why LK said she got nowhere with her SS complaint until she mentioned there were minors on the property.
The national sport governing body (USEF in this case) is supposed to deal with issues of adult bullying, abuse, etc.
6 Likes
That’s right! LK herself said that minors needed to be part of a SafeSport case for it to be taken seriously and prioritized.
6 Likes
You are missing the main point. SafeSport suspended MB automatically because he was facing criminal charges. Not because they had received credible reports of abuse by him (of either minors or adults) and investigated them. Had he been convicted, the ban would be upheld. Because he was not convicted, it should be lifted.
17 Likes
Better to ban him from renting housing since that is the context of the shooting.
25 Likes
I think that minors is a clear mission for SafeSport. I think so are unequal relationships, such as a coach and a team member, regardless of ages. That’s cases such as the snowboard coach and Alberto Sala zar.
I agree 100% that adult v. adult bullying would fall to USEF, and I think it’s a low priority compared to abusive training, drug use on horses.
1 Like
