Reuben Foster Arrested On Domestic Violence Charges

[Marvin49]

I can see both sides of this.

On the one hand, massively contradictory statements surely make someone an unreliable narrator, and I see the urge to just toss out everything they say.

On the other hand, I think that presents a bit of a false equivalence by flattening out all the context between the two statements.

If someone says two contrasting things, EVERY TIME I'm going to defer to:

1) The thing that was said under oath vs. the thing that wasn't said under oath.

2) The thing that puts the speaker in a negative light vs. the thing that doesn't (we all like to positively frame ourselves, and should perk up when people aren't doing that).

3) The thing that exposes the speaker to significant legal ramifications vs. the thing that doesn't.

4) The thing for which other evidence lines up vs. the thing for which other evidence does not.

FWIW I also don't think the question of if she's just unreliable or if she filed a false report and was reliable under oath is just an academic one.

If the judge deems that she's just unreliable, she can still think this should go to trial (the standard for that is low), whereas if she thinks her sworn testimony is the accurate one then this doesn't go to trial.

*Assuming* Foster didn't do this (if he did, he can rot), that decision has MAJOR ramifications for him and his career. If this goes to trial, even if he's found innocent that's probably going to cost him this full year of his football career. That's not a small thing. In that scenario, assuming he has a five or six year career that decision to go to trial costs him 15-20% of his lifetime earning potential for this career he's been prepping for his entire life. That's not nothing.

I can't understate how important the bolded statement is.

The burden of proof is FAR, FAR, FAR less to proceed at this stage than "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is very possible this thing goes to trial and some will see that as we may not know something yet or there is more to this story.

That's not the case.

Today is simply a decision on whether there is SOMETHING worth presenting to a jury where it is HIGHLY likely he will be acquitted. My guess is alot of the charges go away today, but it is very possible it proceeds and Reuben has to stand trial.

To me, if what appears to have happened is in fact really what happened, that's real injustice.

Not only is it the time away from his career, its his name in the mud for several months longer AND legal fees.

 

[kidhawk]

If someone says two contrasting things, EVERY TIME I'm going to defer to:

1) The thing that was said under oath vs. the thing that wasn't said under oath.

2) The thing that puts the speaker in a negative light vs. the thing that doesn't (we all like to positively frame ourselves, and should perk up when people aren't doing that).

3) The thing that exposes the speaker to significant legal ramifications vs. the thing that doesn't.

4) The thing for which other evidence lines up vs. the thing for which other evidence does not.

Because I think we are pretty much in agreement on everything else, I'll just address why I disagree with this part.

Yes, it's easier to believe someone when under oath, than when not under oath, but the crux here is that she said a lot of things that a person with a lawyer just shouldn't have said on the stand. This in itself should add suspicion to her testimony on the stand. What we don't know here is if there is some sort of hush deal on the side for her testimony.

At this point, I feel that Foster is likely innocent of the DV charges (with the 911 interference and gun charges not withstanding), and I feel that there is enough reasonable doubt that this portion shouldn't even go to trial, but I just can't find any good reason to believe a word she says.

Of course the fact that I can't believe a word she says, means there really isn't any evidence to charge him with the DV in the first place, so it's just that much more reason he shouldn't be tried on this particular charge.

Once that charge goes away, I think his legal team can work out a plea deal on the rest to insure no jail time

I have no idea how the league/team will handle it if that plea becomes reality.

 

[Marvin49]

If someone says two contrasting things, EVERY TIME I'm going to defer to:

1) The thing that was said under oath vs. the thing that wasn't said under oath.

2) The thing that puts the speaker in a negative light vs. the thing that doesn't (we all like to positively frame ourselves, and should perk up when people aren't doing that).

3) The thing that exposes the speaker to significant legal ramifications vs. the thing that doesn't.

4) The thing for which other evidence lines up vs. the thing for which other evidence does not.

Because I think we are pretty much in agreement on everything else, I'll just address why I disagree with this part.

Yes, it's easier to believe someone when under oath, than when not under oath, but the crux here is that she said a lot of things that a person with a lawyer just shouldn't have said on the stand. This in itself should add suspicion to her testimony on the stand. What we don't know here is if there is some sort of hush deal on the side for her testimony.

At this point, I feel that Foster is likely innocent of the DV charges (with the 911 interference and gun charges not withstanding), and I feel that there is enough reasonable doubt that this portion shouldn't even go to trial, but I just can't find any good reason to believe a word she says.

Of course the fact that I can't believe a word she says, means there really isn't any evidence to charge him with the DV in the first place, so it's just that much more reason he shouldn't be tried on this particular charge.

Once that charge goes away, I think his legal team can work out a plea deal on the rest to insure no jail time

I have no idea how the league/team will handle it if that plea becomes reality.

As I said before, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't think any hush deal would be worth admitting to 3 or 4 felonies unnecessarily...and thats the weird thing...she didn't need to admit to those to clear him of wrongdoing. That's a big reason why I tend to believe her. IMO, and its only that...my opinion, she just flat broke down and admitted to EVERYTHING on the stand. She even said she was going to get help. She was balling and they had to break in order for her to compose herself.

I think this one gets understated as well...but she admitted to and went to jail for doing the EXACT same thing in 2011. That's not a statement. That's a legal record of her falsely making the exact same accusation.

Anyway, we should get alot more info today as to how this whole thing will proceed.

On a completely unrelated matter, Niners State of the Franchise is tonight and it looks like they'll be revealing a new Throwback alt uniform (looks like the All Blacks are gone). Most think it'll be the 1994 Super Bowl Uniform.

 

[KitsapGuy]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/999387032412672001[/tweet]

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/999387032412672001[/tweet]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm really hoping he doesn't get tried for Weapons Changers.

..but jokes aside, yes. Hearing is at 3:30. Matt Maiocco reported there has been no movement on any agreement between DA and Defense....I'm guessing because Defense won't plead to lesser charge if they think there's a very good chance charges are dropped.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ Yeah, none of us know what we’re talking about obviously, but I’m guessing the DA might rather go full tilt on the gun charge rather than plead it out to try to save face a little bit — the plea deal on the weapons charge will be announced late afternoon on a Friday a few months from now.

 

[chris98251]

The witness herself creates a whole lot of reasonable doubt by herself, if that's the DA's start witness and with her history. once again creating reasonable doubt and her admission of theft. It would be hard to paint Foster as the villain here.

Create a new statute, guilty even with under oath statements of victim denying an assault is not something I think we want on the books.

 

[Marvin49]

^^^ Yeah, none of us know what we’re talking about obviously, but I’m guessing the DA might rather go full tilt on the gun charge rather than plead it out to try to save face a little bit — the plea deal on the weapons charge will be announced late afternoon on a Friday a few months from now.

I could see that, but I really hope not.

That's just petty and playing games with a mans life in order to paint a better picture of yourself.

 

[Marvin49]

The witness herself creates a whole lot of reasonable doubt by herself, if that's the DA's start witness and with her history. once again creating reasonable doubt and her admission of theft. It would be hard to paint Foster as the villain here.

Create a new statute, guilty even with under oath statements of victim denying an assault is not something I think we want on the books.

Well today the burden of proof is far less than "reasonable doubt". Its just a hearing to see if the DA can proceed to a trial. As such, entirely possible the whole thing is dropped today or a trial date is set.

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ChrisBiderman/status/999415743207768066[/tweet]

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/999415971474325504[/tweet]

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mattbarrows/status/999416095684476928[/tweet]

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MaioccoNBCS/status/999422077449814016[/tweet]

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/999422164292915200[/tweet]

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/CamInman/status/999422184090054656[/tweet]

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/999423023810670592[/tweet]

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/RSherman_25/status/999423176013627392[/tweet]

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mattbarrows/status/999423745839136768[/tweet]

 

[Marvin49]

...so only thing left that he's facing for THIS incident is the misdemeanor gun charge.

He still facing Marijuana possession in Alabama.

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/robertsalonga/status/999424594262999040[/tweet]