Reuben Foster arrested for second time this offseason; DV suspected

[NoSaint]

29 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

So Foster has to live with the specter of guilt now for the rest of him life even though the accuser testified under oath that her story was a fabrication?

 

Does he though? I don’t think I  see many pitchforks for the guy, do you?

14 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Of course it won't. How many pages are there here proclaiming his guilt, and how many pages since the woman that she testified under oath that she is a liar?

To be fair, I’ve seen it get much more attention on other boards. And this is espn calling focus to it. People see it, people care. Will it get the same coverage? Likely not quite as much, but it’ll get a lot....and outside of enthusiastic football fans, I don’t think it registered with that many in the first place. Casual fans or non fans may have seen it but likely didn’t even know the guy even if they did see it.

 

I think in large part the exhaustion over discussing anything even tangentially bama related with you over the last month or two has probably caused many posters here to see the update and keep moving. That and “well, that sucks” doesn’t generate the pages of posts as quick as wondering about and speculation on what happened and could happen next.

[Royale with Cheese]

Well if this is situation, she needs to have something done to her.  Foster could probably counter sue but he probably wouldn't get anything.

Since nothing happened to Wanetta Gibson, who falsely accused Brian Banks of rape where he served 5 years in prison....nothing will happen to this girl either.

Gibson was court ordered to pay back the $2.6 million dollars that she received but I read somewhere, she already spent the money so I don't think Banks will get a penny.

 

I was wrong about Foster....his name should be cleared.  It should highlighted more on major media outlets.

[BillsBytheBay]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

 

Does he though? I don’t think I  see many pitchforks for the guy, do you?

To be fair, I’ve seen it get much more attention on other boards. And this is espn calling focus to it. People see it, people care. Will it get the same coverage? Likely not quite as much, but it’ll get a lot....and outside of enthusiastic football fans, I don’t think it registered with that many in the first place. Casual fans or non fans may have seen it but likely didn’t even know the guy even if they did see it.

 

I think in large part the exhaustion over discussing anything even tangentially bama related with you over the last month or two has probably caused many posters here to see the update and keep moving. That and “well, that sucks” doesn’t generate the pages of posts as quick as wondering about and speculation on what happened and could happen next.

The sensational story ends and we must move on to the individual to judge without context or information.... because the internet lives to make harsh judgments with nothing more than a snap shot of reality.

 

I'll be honest, it almost digusts me to be  human when we haven't moved past lynch mob mentality. 

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Well if this is situation, she needs to have something done to her.  Foster could probably counter sue but he probably wouldn't get anything.

Since nothing happened to Wanetta Gibson, who falsely accused Brian Banks of rape where he served 5 years in prison....nothing will happen to this girl either.

Gibson was court ordered to pay back the $2.6 million dollars that she received but I read somewhere, she already spent the money so I don't think Banks will get a penny.

 

I was wrong about Foster....his name should be cleared.  It should highlighted more on major media outlets.

Slander, filling a false police report.....  I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure what she did is illegal

[Sky Diver]

2 hours ago, NoSaint said:

 

Does he though? I don’t think I  see many pitchforks for the guy, do you?

To be fair, I’ve seen it get much more attention on other boards. And this is espn calling focus to it. People see it, people care. Will it get the same coverage? Likely not quite as much, but it’ll get a lot....and outside of enthusiastic football fans, I don’t think it registered with that many in the first place. Casual fans or non fans may have seen it but likely didn’t even know the guy even if they did see it.

 

I think in large part the exhaustion over discussing anything even tangentially bama related with you over the last month or two has probably caused many posters here to see the update and keep moving. That and “well, that sucks” doesn’t generate the pages of posts as quick as wondering about and speculation on what happened and could happen next.

 

Honest reporting? Yes or no?

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/49ers/article/49ers-response-to-Foster-charges-is-shameful-12829617.php

 

The lack of critical thinking allows people to believe garbage like this.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Sky Diver

[Royale with Cheese]

2 minutes ago, JaxBills said:

The sensational story ends and we must move on to the individual to judge without context or information.... because the internet lives to make harsh judgments with nothing more than a snap shot of reality.

 

I'll be honest, it almost digusts me to be  human when we haven't moved past lynch mob mentality. 

Slander, filling a false police report.....  I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure what she did is illegal

 

What she did was very illegal but I still don't see anything happen to her.  I'm basing this on the Brian Banks situation.  He served 5 years in prison and she got off free expect the $2.6 million she's supposed to pay back which doesn't sound like she can.

[BillsBytheBay]

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

 

What she did was very illegal but I still don't see anything happen to her.  I'm basing this on the Brian Banks situation.  He served 5 years in prison and she got off free expect the $2.6 million she's supposed to pay back which doesn't sound like she can.

I would really like to give credit to John Lynch.  If this board was SFs GM, Foster would already have been fired.  Lynch stood by the kid and may have saved his career.

 

The Brian banks thing CRAWLS under my skin.....but I thought he said he didn't want her to go to prison.  If i recall I believe he forgave her too.

9 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Honest reporting? Yes or no?

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/49ers/article/49ers-response-to-Foster-charges-is-shameful-12829617.php

This Ann Killian is what is wrong with this freaken world.

She is the winner of my new Judge Dredd award.  

[Royale with Cheese]

10 minutes ago, JaxBills said:

I would really like to give credit to John Lynch.  If this board was SFs GM, Foster would already have been fired.  Lynch stood by the kid and may have saved his career.

 

The Brian banks thing CRAWLS under my skin.....but I thought he said he didn't want her to go to prison.  If i recall I believe he forgave her too.

This Ann Killian is what is wrong with this freaken world.

She is the winner of my new Judge Dredd award.  

 

Well to be fair, Lynch knew the situation much more than we do here.  I think a lot of people on here would have stood by Foster like Lynch did if he was privy (Doug Whaley word!) to information.

Sort of like McCoy's situation a few years back.  Only a few I know on BBMB were ready to get rid of him.

[Sky Diver]

14 minutes ago, JaxBills said:

I would really like to give credit to John Lynch.  If this board was SFs GM, Foster would already have been fired.  Lynch stood by the kid and may have saved his career.

 

The Brian banks thing CRAWLS under my skin.....but I thought he said he didn't want her to go to prison.  If i recall I believe he forgave her too.

This Ann Killian is what is wrong with this freaken world.

She is the winner of my new Judge Dredd award.  

 

I buy our crap Sunday newspaper because my wife wants the ads. It kills me to have to pay for propaganda. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Sky Diver

[BillsBytheBay]

2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Well to be fair, Lynch knew the situation much more than we do here.  I think a lot of people on here would have stood by Foster like Lynch did if he was privy (Doug Whaley word!) to information.

Sort of like McCoy's situation a few years back.  Only a few I know on BBMB were ready to get rid of him.

Very much my point.

[Ol Dirty B]

2 hours ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Of course it won't. How many pages are there here proclaiming his guilt, and how many pages since the woman that she testified under oath that she is a liar?

 

Someone whose story changes multiple times isn't reliable. What she said under oath isn't any more reliable than what she said to the police. The whole thing is a mess, I wish they'd stop wasting money on this trial asap.

 

I'm not going to speak on what I think about either of them, but your absolute defense of him is ridiculous. Do you at least have a personal relationship with the guy? 

[Sky Diver]

3 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Someone whose story changes multiple times isn't reliable. What she said under oath isn't any more reliable than what she said to the police. The whole thing is a mess, I wish they'd stop wasting money on this trial asap.

 

I'm not going to speak on what I think about either of them, but your absolute defense of him is ridiculous. Do you at least have a personal relationship with the guy? 

 

I am defending the presumption of innocence particularly since the allegations didn’t seem credible from the very beginning.

[Ol Dirty B]

9 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

I am defending the presumption of innocence particularly since the allegations didn’t seem credible from the very beginning.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, and needs no defending.

 

If we aren't jurors it has nothing to do with what you or I think. I don't believe anything she says, and I don't believe anything he says. I have my opinions but they are just that, opinions. I'd think you've gone beyond defending this principle that is in no danger.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[BillsBytheBay]

14 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Someone whose story changes multiple times isn't reliable. What she said under oath isn't any more reliable than what she said to the police. The whole thing is a mess, I wish they'd stop wasting money on this trial asap.

 

I'm not going to speak on what I think about either of them, but your absolute defense of him is ridiculous. Do you at least have a personal relationship with the guy? 

I think most people defending Foster here are of the opinion that we shouldn't be quick to judge.  Especially since this woman has done this before to someone else.  And since there is actually evidence that she was hurt else where.

 

But I'm sure you know all this already.  It's just odd how you miss understood the point opposed to yours.

[Sky Diver]

15 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, and needs no defending.

 

If we aren't jurors it has nothing to do with what you or I think. I don't believe anything she says, and I don't believe anything he says. I have my opinions but they are just that, opinions. I'd think you've gone beyond defending this principle that is in no danger.

 

You can convict anyone in the court of public opinion, as ridulous and baseless as it may be.

 

I like to apply logic and common sense and not rush to judgement.

[Ol Dirty B]

19 minutes ago, JaxBills said:

I think most people defending Foster here are of the opinion that we shouldn't be quick to judge.  Especially since this woman has done this before to someone else.  And since there is actually evidence that she was hurt else where.

 

But I'm sure you know all this already.  It's just odd how you miss understood the point opposed to yours.

 

I don't think you understood the point. He was responding angrily or annoyed, however he'd want to put it to a tweet by some ESPN guy I've never heard of who said he hopes the follow up story gets as much coverage as the initial story. He said of course it won't, and I can infer from that, that he wish it would.

 

Which is just beyond reasonable.

 

A) I don't believe anything he or she says. 

B) I genuinely don't know because I haven't followed it that closely, did he have assault weapons? 

C) It doesn't qualify as news from an objective stand point. What happens to Reuben Foster, a NFL LB with a lot of talent who fell in the draft because of "character concerns" is a news story. What happens to the girl who may or may not have changed her story multiple times who is not a public persona after the trial, is not a news story. It doesn't warrant ESPN or any other news outlets resources. 

 

That's a lot different than just, "defending the presumption of innocence". That's a vendetta.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Ol Dirty B
Changed stupid to reasonable. Poor choice of words on my part

[DC Tom]

16 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

You know there are safe places you can go to and services you can avail yourself of when your partner gets violent/beats you.  The key is to just get out...

 

For women, yes.  Not for men, not really.

[Ol Dirty B]

2 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

You can convict anyone in the court of public opinion, as ridulous and baseless as it may be.

 

I like to apply logic and common sense and not rush to judgement.

 

Man you're good. Check my prior post, I thought they'd be merged.

 

That could be very well what you mean, I just interpreted it differently. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, Sky Diver said:

Of course it won't. How many pages are there here proclaiming his guilt, and how many pages since the woman that she testified under oath that she is a liar?

 

Unfortunately that's the way of the world in all things. 

The original story goes on the front page with a 36-pt headline and the retraction gets printed on page 16 in 8 pt narrow.

 

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

For women, yes.  Not for men, not really.

 

There are some.

 

As a PSA I'll put this here

http://www.thehotline.org/2014/07/22/men-can-be-victims-of-abuse-too/

Always worth calling to ask.

[BillsBytheBay]

3 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

I don't think you understood the point. He was responding angrily or annoyed, however he'd want to put it to a tweet by some ESPN guy I've never heard of who said he hopes the follow up story gets as much coverage as the initial story. He said of course it won't, and I can infer from that, that he wish it would.

 

Which is just beyond stupid.

 

A) I don't believe anything he or she says. 

B) I genuinely don't know because I haven't followed it that closely, did he have assault weapons? 

C) It doesn't qualify as news from an objective stand point. What happens to Reuben Foster, a NFL LB with a lot of talent who fell in the draft because of "character concerns" is a news story. What happens to the girl who may or may not have changed her story multiple times who is not a public persona after the trial, is not a news story. It doesn't warrant ESPN or any other news outlets resources. 

 

That's a lot different than just, "defending the presumption of innocence". That's a vendetta.

Dude, I think it boils down to condeming him before or after we know the facts. 

You seem happy to just proclaim them all guilty and wash your hands of it.

Some of us think there is more we don't know... Or ever will.  So let it play out.  But it looks a lot like he will play and be a free man.  So have a good day my friend.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, JaxBills said:

Slander, filling a false police report.....  I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure what she did is illegal

 

What pisses me off about this sort of thing is that it makes real domestic violence cases more difficult to prosecute.  Victims become more uncertain about being believed, people become more uncertain about whether accusers can be believed.  It doesn't raise awareness of domestic violence, it exacerbates the difficulty of addressing it.

 

What really pisses me off, though, is the small but militant set of feminists who will say her lying was a public service to domestic violence victims.  No, it really isn't.  

[Ol Dirty B]

3 minutes ago, JaxBills said:

Dude, I think it boils down to condeming him before or after we know the facts. 

You seem happy to just proclaim them all guilty and wash your hands of it.

Some of us think there is more we don't know... Or ever will.  So let it play out.  But it looks a lot like he will play and be a free man.  So have a good day my friend.

 

When the !@#$ did I do that? Since you're going to write my posts for me let me know if you want my password to my account.

 

That way you can really have conversations with yourself. You can take the ignoring and misconstruing part right out of the equation.

 

Who is all of them?

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[Sky Diver]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

What pisses me off about this sort of thing is that it makes real domestic violence cases more difficult to prosecute.  Victims become more uncertain about being believed, people become more uncertain about whether accusers can be believed.  It doesn't raise awareness of domestic violence, it exacerbates the difficulty of addressing it.

 

What really pisses me off, though, is the small but militant set of feminists who will say her lying was a public service to domestic violence victims.  No, it really isn't.  

 

It’s a horrible thing for real abuse victims.

[TtownBillsFan]

On 5/15/2018 at 11:48 AM, Soda Popinski said:

well that sucks that she lied, I called the guy an animal after reading that he kicked the dog and hit her. If she's lying and she's admitting it, lock her up now because that is as bad or worse than actually being abused.  The damage to his reputation is irreparable.  it's like being accused of rape.   People never look at you the same again 

I haven't read the rest of the thread beyond this point, but it is for this very reason that people should learn to HOLD JUDGEMENT UNTIL ALL FACTS ARE IN!  Do not rush to judgement, unless there is overwhelming EVIDENCE, and not just accusation/speculation/conjecture.  That's what kills me about today's society;  it used to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.  It has, at least in the court of public opinion, flipped to guilty until proven innocent.  It should not be that way, and it's a shame.

Edited May 18, 2018 by TtownBillsFan

[BillsBytheBay]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

What pisses me off about this sort of thing is that it makes real domestic violence cases more difficult to prosecute.  Victims become more uncertain about being believed, people become more uncertain about whether accusers can be believed.  It doesn't raise awareness of domestic violence, it exacerbates the difficulty of addressing it.

 

What really pisses me off, though, is the small but militant set of feminists who will say her lying was a public service to domestic violence victims.  No, it really isn't.  

I sat next to the woman who accused me of DV at my daughter's graduation today. Years ago She almost cost me my job, my freedom andy baby.

 

She never felt any repercussions.

 

[Sky Diver]

1 minute ago, TtownBillsFan said:

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but it is for this very reason that people should learn to HOLD JUDGEMENT UNTIL ALL FACTS ARE IN!  Do not rush to judgement, unless there is overwhelming EVIDENCE, and not just accusation/speculation/conjecture.  That's what kills me about today's society;  it used to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.  It has, at least in the court of public opinion, flipped to guilty until proven innocent.  It should not be that way, and it's a shame.

 

I think it a combination of dishonest media and a lack of critical thinking.

[Ol Dirty B]

Just now, JaxBills said:

I sat next to the woman who accused me of DV at my daughter's graduation today. Years ago She almost cost me my job, my freedom andy baby.

 

She never felt any repercussions.

 

 

I'm sorry for what you went through, I know people who have been through the same thing, even in my estimation, wrongly convicted. They didnt get the domestic charges but got other ones associated with it.

 

But this is telling about your view of this issue. You can't just insert yourself into Reuben fosters position. 

 

Anyways, we'll probably disagree on a lot. Best of luck 

[BillsBytheBay]

33 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, and needs no defending.

 

If we aren't jurors it has nothing to do with what you or I think. I don't believe anything she says, and I don't believe anything he says. I have my opinions but they are just that, opinions. I'd think you've gone beyond defending this principle that is in no danger.

That kinda reads like you are not on the jury so you can judge.  It also reads like you believe since they both are liers you've made your decision.

 

But maybe you ment something else?

[Ol Dirty B]

6 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:

I haven't read the rest of the thread beyond this point, but it is for this very reason that people should learn to HOLD JUDGEMENT UNTIL ALL FACTS ARE IN!  Do not rush to judgement, unless there is overwhelming EVIDENCE, and not just accusation/speculation/conjecture.  That's what kills me about today's society;  it used to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.  It has, at least in the court of public opinion, flipped to guilty until proven innocent.  It should not be that way, and it's a shame.

 

It has always been guilty until proven innocent in the public eye man.

 

It's how people are wired. That's why the court of public opinion doesn't mean anything.

[BillsBytheBay]

2 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

I'm sorry for what you went through, I know people who have been through the same thing, even in my estimation, wrongly convicted. They didnt get the domestic charges but got other ones associated with it.

 

But this is telling about your view of this issue. You can't just insert yourself into Reuben fosters position. 

 

Anyways, we'll probably disagree on a lot. Best of luck 

Actually I think we agree a lot.  We just draw different conclusions based on experience.

1 minute ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

It has always been guilty until proven innocent in the public eye man.

 

It's how people are wired. That's why the court of public opinion doesn't mean anything.

Not in every case.  And some of us won't stand for it.

[Sky Diver]

4 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

It has always been guilty until proven innocent in the public eye man.

 

It's how people are wired. That's why the court of public opinion doesn't mean anything.

 

The court of public opinion doesn’t mean anything? Assualts against your reputation and character and the stigma it carries is inconsequential?

[Ol Dirty B]

Just now, JaxBills said:

That kinda reads like you are not on the jury so you can judge.  It also reads like you believe since they both are liers you've made your decision.

 

But maybe you ment something else?

 

Well yea, that is exactly what I meant. I'm free to judge however I want. It's my right, why shouldn't I? Plenty of people say they don't judge, well I do. The people who don't say the judge, don't believe them. You're inherently making a judgment by not judging.

 

In this instance, I'd say you are judging as well.

 

But yea, in my meaningless judgment, can't stress meaningless enough. She's a liar, he's probably a liar, and they're both dumb.

 

Don't really care about either of them or what happens to them. Hope they both make millions. Doesn't matter to me except when Foster plays the Bills. Only connection I have to him.

 

8 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

The court of public opinion doesn’t mean anything? Assualts against your reputation and character and the stigma it carries is inconsequential?

 

Man, you really respond conveniently to try to fix the argument in a very favorable way to yourself.

 

Are you a lawyer? I don't think you're a lawyer, I think you'd challenge yourself more if you were one. But I bet you could make a great ambulance chaser.

15 minutes ago, JaxBills said:

Actually I think we agree a lot.  We just draw different conclusions based on experience.

 

I actually think this is spot on. I'm also putting my own experiences into this, very good point.

[Sky Diver]

A lawyer? God, no. I’n an engineer.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

edit the title?

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

For women, yes.  Not for men, not really.

 

I was using sarcasm to challenge his actual manhood.

 

 

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

What pisses me off about this sort of thing is that it makes real domestic violence cases more difficult to prosecute.  Victims become more uncertain about being believed, people become more uncertain about whether accusers can be believed.  It doesn't raise awareness of domestic violence, it exacerbates the difficulty of addressing it.

 

What really pisses me off, though, is the small but militant set of feminists who will say her lying was a public service to domestic violence victims.  No, it really isn't.  

I never heard of a feminist or anti-feminist say that lying and falsely accusing someone of DV was a public service  to domestic violence victims. I have heard of the opposite response that falsely accusing someone hurts the cause which is the opposite of what you are stating. Your response is perplexing. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I was using sarcasm to challenge his actual manhood.

 

 

 

Hadn't noticed.

 

That he had actual manhood, that is.

39 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I never heard of a feminist or anti-feminist say that lying and falsely accusing someone of DV was a public service  to domestic violence victims. I have heard of the opposite response that falsely accusing someone hurts the cause which is the opposite of what you are stating. Your response is perplexing. 

 

I've heard it frequently.  Used to hear it all the time in college: "highlights the problem," "better a hundred men be punished than one rapist go free," "it shows women they can accuse and face their rapists without fear."  

 

If you haven't heard it, you've just managed to avoid those militant idiots.  Which is not a bad thing...but they do exist, and say stupid **** like that.

[4merper4mer]

28 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Hadn't noticed.

 

That he had actual manhood, that is.

 

I've heard it frequently.  Used to hear it all the time in college: "highlights the problem," "better a hundred men be punished than one rapist go free," "it shows women they can accuse and face their rapists without fear."  

 

If you haven't heard it, you've just managed to avoid those militant idiots.  Which is not a bad thing...but they do exist, and say stupid **** like that.

All true.  Especially Mr. Pats and sarcasm thing.  

 

It's also true that some very real DV victims have falsely recanted stories out of fear/love/greed/a million other things.  It's a complicated world.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

53 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

If you haven't heard it, you've just managed to avoid those militant idiots.  Which is not a bad thing...but they do exist, and say stupid **** like that.

 

Unfortunately, wherever there is an issue, you can safely bet the rent there is a militant idiot saying stupid ****

Works for any side of any issue IME

24 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

It's also true that some very real DV victims have falsely recanted stories out of fear/love/greed/a million other things.  It's a complicated world.

 

There have been some very embarrassing (to the police) cases of this.  In several, it came to light when the rapist was charged with another rape, and during the investigation evidence seized (videos, photos, "trophies" such as underwear, props) proved the first crime occurred exactly as the "recanting" victim initially described.

 

It is indeed a complicated world.

[Lfod]

I stand by what I said before. I've seen dudes get literally destroyed by a woman. When a woman turns really turns on you she will castrate you even (John Bobbet).

 

They can be the softest sweetest things ever. Can give you so much joy. Just some guys know when stuff is toxic and head for the hills and some guys just niave sticking it out when it's toxic and get burned. 

 

Know when it's time to walk away and it can't be salvadged. I think this guy may have learned that lesson. 

Edited May 19, 2018 by Lfod