Reuben Foster

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by GoldBrick:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Aj_hwd954:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

The 49ers & the NFL cannot fix all of the social problems in America.

Geesh, we want our sports teams to fix everything from Cancer, Racism, domestic violence, to world hunger!

Not gonna happen, if the guy is guilty he will be going to jail so he will not be available to play football. Stop looking for sports to solve our social issues!

but don't say that to liberals!

I think both sides need to hear this.

HA yup...the private sector's job isn't about having some moral code or teaching our youth to do this or that.

In football it's about winning and making money just like 99% of other corporations. When the moral stuff starts costing them cash that's when they step in.

The NFL doesn't try to fix social issues.

The league enforces, and rightly should enforce, a standard of behavior above that to which the general public is held accountable. It isn't about morality; it's about public relations.

Millionaire athletes in legal trouble is bad press for the league, and by extension for a private entertainment conglomerate with almost $10B in annual revenue. The league will therefore continue to suspend players for producing bad press. It has nothing to do with social consciousness.

When an actor or a rock star goes to rehab, fine. It's culturally acceptable—even expected. But we have a different expection for athletes. When they don't conform to that expectation by (let's say) kneeling for the anthem, people get upset. When people get upset, the league loses revenue and that player is punished by (let's say) getting blackballed.

Is an athlete any different from an actor or a rock star? Seems to me they are all entertainers. The only difference is our cultural expectations. Athletes are expected to be role-models. So long as that expectation persists, people will get upset when althletes don't live up to it.

The operative question isn't political, it's cultural. The liberal/conservative banter is eye roll-worthy.

There is no such thing as bad press!

Floyd Mayweather beat up his ex then went out and made 100's of millions of dollars in the boxing ring afterwards. Humans don't care what athletes do off the field especially here in America! We will watch wife beaters, murderers, dog murderers, or rapist as long as they can play.

Risk to the NFL would be if players found other ways to make $ via a new league or something like that, now that would be bad press.

But Kap taking a knee almost broke the NFL.

Isn't there an evidence hearing on Friday?

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by GoldBrick:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Aj_hwd954:

Originally posted by glorydayz:
The 49ers & the NFL cannot fix all of the social problems in America.

Geesh, we want our sports teams to fix everything from Cancer, Racism, domestic violence, to world hunger!

Not gonna happen, if the guy is guilty he will be going to jail so he will not be available to play football. Stop looking for sports to solve our social issues!

but don't say that to liberals!

I think both sides need to hear this.

HA yup...the private sector's job isn't about having some moral code or teaching our youth to do this or that.

In football it's about winning and making money just like 99% of other corporations. When the moral stuff starts costing them cash that's when they step in.

The NFL doesn't try to fix social issues.

The league enforces, and rightly should enforce, a standard of behavior above that to which the general public is held accountable. It isn't about morality; it's about public relations.

Millionaire athletes in legal trouble is bad press for the league, and by extension for a private entertainment conglomerate with almost $10B in annual revenue. The league will therefore continue to suspend players for producing bad press. It has nothing to do with social consciousness.

When an actor or a rock star goes to rehab, fine. It's culturally acceptable—even expected. But we have a different expection for athletes. When they don't conform to that expectation by (let's say) kneeling for the anthem, people get upset. When people get upset, the league loses revenue and that player is punished by (let's say) getting blackballed.

Is an athlete any different from an actor or a rock star? Seems to me they are all entertainers. The only difference is our cultural expectations. Athletes are expected to be role-models. So long as that expectation persists, people will get upset when althletes don't live up to it.

The operative question isn't political, it's cultural. The liberal/conservative banter is eye roll-worthy.

There is no such thing as bad press!

Floyd Mayweather beat up his ex then went out and made 100's of millions of dollars in the boxing ring afterwards. Humans don't care what athletes do off the field especially here in America! We will watch wife beaters, murderers, dog murderers, or rapist as long as they can play.

Risk to the NFL would be if players found other ways to make $ via a new league or something like that, now that would be bad press.

But Kap taking a knee almost broke the NFL.

Nah, he shocked the belief system, so they had to put him in his place.

People still watched...

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
This is another reason my prediction is that Foster will not win this case.

Then the DA could have a real chance at losing and looking just as bad or even worse by wasting time, tarnishing someone's name, and wasting tax payers dollars.

Would it be crazy if Foster sues if it lingers on (forcing him to lose money) with no real hard evidence?

Nope, it wouldn't be crazy. But the damage would have been done. And if he were to be successful in such suit I'd hope he breaks the bank on them. But honestly, I cannot see him being successful. Who would he sue? The DA? Legally that would be an uphill battle. ". . . wasting time, tarnishing someone's name, and wasting tax payers dollars . . ." is pretty par for the course for DA's all across the nation, much less California. It's how they get bad admissions and bad convictions.

Given this nations history it amazes me how people don't think this is possible, that innocent people can be convicted based on all manner of metrics but actual evidence, i.e., "he's a bad guy anyway"; "he put himself in that position"; "he makes bad choices", etc, as if to say he deserves to be wrongfully accused and convicted due to those things.

I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see Foster winning this case.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
This is another reason my prediction is that Foster will not win this case.

Then the DA could have a real chance at losing and looking just as bad or even worse by wasting time, tarnishing someone's name, and wasting tax payers dollars.

Would it be crazy if Foster sues if it lingers on (forcing him to lose money) with no real hard evidence?

Nope, it wouldn't be crazy. But the damage would have been done. And if he were to be successful in such suit I'd hope he breaks the bank on them. But honestly, I cannot see him being successful. Who would he sue? The DA? Legally that would be an uphill battle. ". . . wasting time, tarnishing someone's name, and wasting tax payers dollars . . ." is pretty par for the course for DA's all across the nation, much less California. It's how they get bad admissions and bad convictions.

Given this nations history it amazes me how people don't think this is possible, that innocent people can be convicted based on all manner of metrics but actual evidence, i.e., "he's a bad guy anyway"; "he put himself in that position"; "he makes bad choices", etc, as if to say he deserves to be wrongfully accused and convicted due to those things.

I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see Foster winning this case.

if this was joe schmoe, then i think Joe wouldn't win. but this isn't a normal person. but a star athlete

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
This is another reason my prediction is that Foster will not win this case.

Then the DA could have a real chance at losing and looking just as bad or even worse by wasting time, tarnishing someone's name, and wasting tax payers dollars.

Would it be crazy if Foster sues if it lingers on (forcing him to lose money) with no real hard evidence?

Nope, it wouldn't be crazy. But the damage would have been done. And if he were to be successful in such suit I'd hope he breaks the bank on them. But honestly, I cannot see him being successful. Who would he sue? The DA? Legally that would be an uphill battle. ". . . wasting time, tarnishing someone's name, and wasting tax payers dollars . . ." is pretty par for the course for DA's all across the nation, much less California. It's how they get bad admissions and bad convictions.

Given this nations history it amazes me how people don't think this is possible, that innocent people can be convicted based on all manner of metrics but actual evidence, i.e., "he's a bad guy anyway"; "he put himself in that position"; "he makes bad choices", etc, as if to say he deserves to be wrongfully accused and convicted due to those things.

I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see Foster winning this case.

if this was joe schmoe, then i think Joe wouldn't win. but this isn't a normal person. but a star athlete

Based off what?

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
This is another reason my prediction is that Foster will not win this case.

Then the DA could have a real chance at losing and looking just as bad or even worse by wasting time, tarnishing someone's name, and wasting tax payers dollars.

Would it be crazy if Foster sues if it lingers on (forcing him to lose money) with no real hard evidence?

Nope, it wouldn't be crazy. But the damage would have been done. And if he were to be successful in such suit I'd hope he breaks the bank on them. But honestly, I cannot see him being successful. Who would he sue? The DA? Legally that would be an uphill battle. ". . . wasting time, tarnishing someone's name, and wasting tax payers dollars . . ." is pretty par for the course for DA's all across the nation, much less California. It's how they get bad admissions and bad convictions.

Given this nations history it amazes me how people don't think this is possible, that innocent people can be convicted based on all manner of metrics but actual evidence, i.e., "he's a bad guy anyway"; "he put himself in that position"; "he makes bad choices", etc, as if to say he deserves to be wrongfully accused and convicted due to those things.

I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see Foster winning this case.

if this was joe schmoe, then i think Joe wouldn't win. but this isn't a normal person. but a star athlete

Based off what?

based on the hundreds of other athletes who got off with nothing but a slap on the wrist.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by socal9er42:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by socal9er42:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

video proved she fabricated the first story

All it would prove is that she was in an earlier fight.
It doesn't prove that she was not in a fight with him.

It doesn't have to. If she says the injuries she received were from the earlier fight, and she says he didn't hit her, I doubt a jury would convict.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that a Conviction for the DV would occur, but it doesn't mean the DA has to drop the charges.
2 completely different things.

Very unlikely the DA will drop charges. To do that would look like he jumped the gun. If it goes to trial, the DA can at least lay out the evidence he has and let his contingency see what he has and how the recanting spoils the case (if Foster is cleared).

There is politics at work here. Every DA does it.

Not sure how you even get to thinking I said it would mean the DA would have to drop the charges. Very bluntly I said I doubted a jury would convict. I still do. I have been on a jury in both a home invasion robbery, and a murder trial. The conversations in the jury room in both trials were enlightening. I don't think this DA has a snowballs chance in hell of convicting him if that video shows her in a prior altercation, and with her recanting. It's been my experience that if there is any doubt, about anything, there are going to be jurors that just dig in and refuse to convict. The DA has to clearly convince everyone that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. All these fine points of law won't matter in that jury room to someone that either doesn't like cops or the DA, had a friend or relative they feel got screwed, feels like racial prejudice is involved, or just watched too many court room dramas on TV. To think this is going to be a conviction at this point boggles my mind.

I am not making judgements on what the DA will or won't do, what part of her story is or isn't true, or what really happened. My bet is that he won't get convicted. That's all.

I doubt the DA can convict based on the evidence, but they have enough evidence to screw up Reuben's chances with Goodell if the case proceeds further than pre-trial. I think this settles out into a plea deal where the DA saves face but gets something on record should Reuben stay stupid from here on in, and Reuben can move on to his next challenge in dealing with Goodell without the DA prolonging his absence from the team. The longer he's away due to legal issues, the more likely the 49ers can find somebody to take his place and he either is traded or let go. The DA will play that up and get a settlement plea from Reuben, I betcha.

My bet is that he completely walks on the DV charge. His big issue will be with the league.

Originally posted by mojave45:
My bet is that he completely walks on the DV charge. His big issue will be with the league.

Yeah, I see it going that way, too. Maybe, six games from the league, than it gets reduced to four games.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Nope, it wouldn't be crazy. But the damage would have been done. And if he were to be successful in such suit I'd hope he breaks the bank on them. But honestly, I cannot see him being successful. Who would he sue? The DA? Legally that would be an uphill battle. ". . . wasting time, tarnishing someone's name, and wasting tax payers dollars . . ." is pretty par for the course for DA's all across the nation, much less California. It's how they get bad admissions and bad convictions.

Given this nations history it amazes me how people don't think this is possible, that innocent people can be convicted based on all manner of metrics but actual evidence, i.e., "he's a bad guy anyway"; "he put himself in that position"; "he makes bad choices", etc, as if to say he deserves to be wrongfully accused and convicted due to those things.

I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see Foster winning this case.

I don't see how he loses the case based on evidence and what legal experts have stated as the case goes on. You need to have a a whole jury agree his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...the DA might not even have enough evidence to have an actual trial, let alone enough to win the case.

I do agree it would be very hard for Foster to sue for "malicious prosecution" against the state but he could if they feel strongly enough. He could sue the accuser I believe?

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

But Kap taking a knee almost broke the NFL.

Wrong thread

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by GoldBrick:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Aj_hwd954:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

The 49ers & the NFL cannot fix all of the social problems in America.

Geesh, we want our sports teams to fix everything from Cancer, Racism, domestic violence, to world hunger!

Not gonna happen, if the guy is guilty he will be going to jail so he will not be available to play football. Stop looking for sports to solve our social issues!

but don't say that to liberals!

I think both sides need to hear this.

HA yup...the private sector's job isn't about having some moral code or teaching our youth to do this or that.

In football it's about winning and making money just like 99% of other corporations. When the moral stuff starts costing them cash that's when they step in.

The NFL doesn't try to fix social issues.

The league enforces, and rightly should enforce, a standard of behavior above that to which the general public is held accountable. It isn't about morality; it's about public relations.

Millionaire athletes in legal trouble is bad press for the league, and by extension for a private entertainment conglomerate with almost $10B in annual revenue. The league will therefore continue to suspend players for producing bad press. It has nothing to do with social consciousness.

When an actor or a rock star goes to rehab, fine. It's culturally acceptable—even expected. But we have a different expection for athletes. When they don't conform to that expectation by (let's say) kneeling for the anthem, people get upset. When people get upset, the league loses revenue and that player is punished by (let's say) getting blackballed.

Is an athlete any different from an actor or a rock star? Seems to me they are all entertainers. The only difference is our cultural expectations. Athletes are expected to be role-models. So long as that expectation persists, people will get upset when althletes don't live up to it.

The operative question isn't political, it's cultural. The liberal/conservative banter is eye roll-worthy.

There is no such thing as bad press!

Floyd Mayweather beat up his ex then went out and made 100's of millions of dollars in the boxing ring afterwards. Humans don't care what athletes do off the field especially here in America! We will watch wife beaters, murderers, dog murderers, or rapist as long as they can play.

Risk to the NFL would be if players found other ways to make $ via a new league or something like that, now that would be bad press.

But Kap taking a knee almost broke the NFL.

Nah, he shocked the belief system, so they had to put him in his place.

People still watched...

Now kap gets to watch all he wants

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Nope, it wouldn't be crazy. But the damage would have been done. And if he were to be successful in such suit I'd hope he breaks the bank on them. But honestly, I cannot see him being successful. Who would he sue? The DA? Legally that would be an uphill battle. ". . . wasting time, tarnishing someone's name, and wasting tax payers dollars . . ." is pretty par for the course for DA's all across the nation, much less California. It's how they get bad admissions and bad convictions.

Given this nations history it amazes me how people don't think this is possible, that innocent people can be convicted based on all manner of metrics but actual evidence, i.e., "he's a bad guy anyway"; "he put himself in that position"; "he makes bad choices", etc, as if to say he deserves to be wrongfully accused and convicted due to those things.

I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see Foster winning this case.

I don't see how he loses the case based on evidence and what legal experts have stated as the case goes on. You need to have a a whole jury agree his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...the DA might not even have enough evidence to have an actual trial, let alone enough to win the case.

I do agree it would be very hard for Foster to sue for "malicious prosecution" against the state but he could if they feel strongly enough. He could sue the accuser I believe?

Indeed he could. You know, years ago I had aspirations of getting a law degree, so much to the point where I studied law for tow years, earned an AA in Paralegal, and was an intern paralegal for a year for a law office when I lived in Florida. One thing I learned about suits is that it's one thing to get a judgement in your favor. But it's quite another to actually to be able to collect on that judgement.

He could sue her, but I don't know how he collects from her. All around he losses, and she isn't punished. Notice who the DA isn't talking about charging her for filing a false police report, even after she admitted to lying?

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Indeed he could. You know, years ago I had aspirations of getting a law degree, so much to the point where I studied law for tow years, earned an AA in Paralegal, and was an intern paralegal for a year for a law office when I lived in Florida. One thing I learned about suits is that it's one thing to get a judgement in your favor. But it's quite another to actually to be able to collect on that judgement.

He could sue her, but I don't know how he collects from her. All around he losses, and she isn't punished. Notice who the DA isn't talking about charging her for filing a false police report, even after she admitted to lying?

That is true-my mother wanted to sue for medical expenses, but the mother of the kid was a divorced mother, with no child support for two kids. The lawyer told her you could but if she has no money or anything of value, how/what are you going to collect? Spending money on a lawyer to take it into litigation you actually come out on the short end.

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

What we do know is that Foster is a low character/ no character dude that can't be trusted. he is going to continue to get in trouble because he's not a good guy. Bad people make bad decisions on a regular basis and eventually catches up to them. Even from the beginning I knew there is no way this would make it through court. Few of these cases are ever prosecuted. With a high price attorney it makes it very easy to skate through the process. If he was a high character guy I might give him the benefit of the doubt. But he has shown over and over again to be a low character/no character dude and I don't buy anything he says. Anybody who's got a kid that's about nine or 10 years old and continues doing these things is either a moron, a Bad person or both

now you have went an done it

If Foster was a Seahawk, the defenders who jump to his defense would have tarred and feathered him, sent him to the guillotine and then through a wood chipper. I will never understand the double standard= innocent if a Niner; crooked as hell if he is a Seahawk.
The legal system rarely finds people guilty if they have the means to pay for a high priced attorney. Bill Cosby raped a billion girls and it took moving a mountain to barely find him guilty in what should have been a cut and dry case. People who have committed horrible acts of violence get away with it all the time. That is why from the start I didn't really care whether this case went to trial. It was never going to make it there- there would be a settlement and hush money given...what a shock when the girlfriend suddenly changes her story..only happens about 99.9 percent of the time when big bucks can flow from one account to the next.
The only ruling I care about is what NFL investigators find. They couldnt give a damn what the legal system says, they simply want to find out what happens and then levy a judgment. That is why multiple players have been suspended even though witnesses may Refuse to testify or the case dropped. There are many criminals walking free. Not guilty in the legal sense does not mean a person is not guilty in the court of public opinion.

So what you're really saying is he is guilty lol.

some see foster as the devil all because of a diluted test

How many times does the guy have to be arrested? 5? 10? Damn, he's not been in the league one year and he has been booked multiple times.

Wait, are you arguing that he is the devil?

Why do you care? What is your point exactly? Are you just complaining about it? Do you just feel a need to vent?

It is the hypocracy of the people who defend him. Let's be real. If he was playing for any other NFL team, he would be classified as a thug, a troublemaker, a loser. Because he is "one of us", people run to his defense as if he is a martyr.

The dude has been arrested twice since being a pro, failed a drug test, got kicked out of the combine and was passed by nearly every team in the draft because of character concerns. He hangs out with a shady woman who fights with others while he has a 9 year old daughter. Not sure why anyone would celebrate this guy as one of us.

It is a shame his family was so screwed up as a kid, but he is now a man with a family and team and. Franchise. And, being a guy who is continually in trouble with the law, whether you like some of the laws or not, is not acceptable to me. I'd rather have good players with good character than losers who continually attempt to sabotage the franchise. Instead of celebrating last year's movement forward, the team has to deal with his crap. It is a waste of time and energy for a team desperately needs a leader, not a guy with two strikes against him in the NFL drug protocol system after one year and someone surely up for a ssuspension regardless of this DV case.

People should be pissed off that he puts himself above the team through his behavior, instead of defending him. So, hell yeah. I am angry