Reuben Foster

https://www-cbssports-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/reuben-fosters-girlfriend-recants-claim-says-49ers-linebacker-didnt-injure-her/amp/?amp_js_v=a1&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQGCAEYASgB#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbssports.com%2Fnfl%2Fnews%2Freuben-fosters-girlfriend-recants-claim-says-49ers-linebacker-didnt-injure-her%2F

Yeah, my timeline was wrong. According to reports, it took her approximately two weeks, not two days, to seek out the DA and recant. That's a bit tougher pill to swallow.

This DA needs to drop the case and stop wasting our taxpayer dollars. At this point, it is the DA's ego that is in the way and becoming fiscal irresponsibility. It's time to fly a plane with a banner demanding the case be dropped.

This is all just fake news garbage now at this point. As a citizen in Santa Clara, f**k this DA

#FreeFoster

How long before they're back together?

Originally posted by btthepunk:
How long before they're back together?

I think they are still together now. Which tells you where his head is at. He won't last long on this team with that GF. She will make up something else to ruin his career the next time he wants to break up with her.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by btthepunk:

How long before they're back together?

I think they are still together now. Which tells you where his head is at. He won't last long on this team with that GF. She will make up something else to ruin his career the next time he wants to break up with her.

Most of the reports I've seen say former or ex girlfriend.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
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

Eh, I'm annoyed at him for putting himself in position to possibly be suspended. I'm not angry at him or anything, though. It's just football, man. It's not like these kids are running for office.

Also, you are aware that this is a 49ers forum, right? Do you really expect people here to be completely objective? Of course people are going to defend him.

I know from your draft analysis that character is really important to you. Just be aware that character judgement is completely subjective. You thinking he's a bad person does not make him a bad person. People can and will disagree.

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

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

Eh, I'm annoyed at him for putting himself in position to possibly be suspended. I'm not angry at him or anything, though. It's just football, man. It's not like these kids are running for office.

Also, you are aware that this is a 49ers forum, right? Do you really expect people here to be completely objective? Of course people are going to defend him.

I know from your draft analysis that character is really important to you. Just be aware that character judgement is completely subjective. You thinking he's a bad person does not make him a bad person. People can and will disagree.

MadDog is thinking like a grown man..reuben is 24 . Sorry but if things are dropped or found not guilty he will get a chance to prove himself to me/us before I crown him as a degenerate loser that should be out of the league.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Basically, the judge has to determine if he thinks it's credible that the victim in question is plausibly lying about it not happening. If he feels there's enough evidence to show that she's lying now and for a jury to see the evidence, things will move forward. If not, it won't go any further than the preliminary hearing.

I'd be really surprised to see a plea deal - especially with Foster's attorney looking for a quick trial. They feel like the onus is all on the prosecution to prove that the victim is lying and that Foster really did harm the woman.

If Foster really didn't hurt her, he shouldn't agree to any plea deal IMO. I wouldn't. I just think this case is gonna be too hard to get 12 people to all agree that he, without a doubt, did it.

From her new story and video to the claim by the DA that he punched her 8-10 times in the head and all she had from that was a swollen lip and ruptured ear drum.... I mean...c'mon. A guy the size of Foster is punching someone, out of rage, 8-10 times, they're gonna have some serious damage done, to the point where you'd probably be able to see the marks on her today.

*IF* the truth is that he didn't hit her, then I agree - I'd pursue a trial on both a moral and ethical point of view to exhonorate himself. But if the *truth* is that he did hit her (in some fashion - and only he would know that in his heart of hearts) I'd settle. First of all, it's more a buisness decision than a legal or moral decision at that point. If he can plea down the charges, he has a good chance of getting back on the field with the 49ers before somebody takes his job permanently. Uncertainty is bad for business, that's why businesses always settle if the uncertainty materially affects their business, even though the truth is that they are not guilty and the facts are arguable.

Reuben still has the Alabama drug issue and he's still on Goodell's substance watch program (as far as I know) and he's running out of *get out of jail cards.* He is lucky the Victim is recanting her testimony in the DV issue, I don't know if he'll be as lucky in the Alabama case - ie from an evidence point of view. He has potential technical violations both in obstruction of justice and a firearms charge here in Calif. - those don't go away even with the Victim's recantation. If he does proceed to trial, he potentially will have to appear on both cases and attorney's aren't cheap, specially if they are good. If he settles, both sides can stipulate to not reveal more information than what is already on public knowlege - that protects him from Goodell's investigations with regards to the NFLconduct policy. That eliminates one legal case and he can concentrate on the Alabama issue and possibly plead that down to a lesser charge too. Then once the Alabama case is settled, he can focus on his appeal of his possible suspension from the NFL. Fighting a 3 front war and still trying to play football is not the best strategy to keep his job and play well, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Basically, the judge has to determine if he thinks it's credible that the victim in question is plausibly lying about it not happening. If he feels there's enough evidence to show that she's lying now and for a jury to see the evidence, things will move forward. If not, it won't go any further than the preliminary hearing.

I'd be really surprised to see a plea deal - especially with Foster's attorney looking for a quick trial. They feel like the onus is all on the prosecution to prove that the victim is lying and that Foster really did harm the woman.

If Foster really didn't hurt her, he shouldn't agree to any plea deal IMO. I wouldn't. I just think this case is gonna be too hard to get 12 people to all agree that he, without a doubt, did it.

From her new story and video to the claim by the DA that he punched her 8-10 times in the head and all she had from that was a swollen lip and ruptured ear drum.... I mean...c'mon. A guy the size of Foster is punching someone, out of rage, 8-10 times, they're gonna have some serious damage done, to the point where you'd probably be able to see the marks on her today.

*IF* the truth is that he didn't hit her, then I agree - I'd pursue a trial on both a moral and ethical point of view to exhonorate himself. But if the *truth* is that he did hit her (in some fashion - and only he would know that in his heart of hearts) I'd settle. First of all, it's more a buisness decision than a legal or moral decision at that point. If he can plea down the charges, he has a good chance of getting back on the field with the 49ers before somebody takes his job permanently. Uncertainty is bad for business, that's why businesses always settle if the uncertainty materially affects their business, even though the truth is that they are not guilty and the facts are arguable.

Reuben still has the Alabama drug issue and he's still on Goodell's substance watch program (as far as I know) and he's running out of *get out of jail cards.* He is lucky the Victim is recanting her testimony in the DV issue, I don't know if he'll be as lucky in the Alabama case - ie from an evidence point of view. He has potential technical violations both in obstruction of justice and a firearms charge here in Calif. - those don't go away even with the Victim's recantation. If he does proceed to trial, he potentially will have to appear on both cases and attorney's aren't cheap, specially if they are good. If he settles, both sides can stipulate to not reveal more information than what is already on public knowlege - that protects him from Goodell's investigations with regards to the NFLconduct policy. That eliminates one legal case and he can concentrate on the Alabama issue and possibly plead that down to a lesser charge too. Then once the Alabama case is settled, he can focus on his appeal of his possible suspension from the NFL. Fighting a 3 front war and still trying to play football is not the best strategy to keep his job and play well, in my opinion.

The gun charge will be at most a fine and the gun gets taken away.
And the weed, I've read here it's a 2nd degree charge which is just having some weed (not a lot) in his car. He hasn't tested positive for weed as of now

If she does testify, the District Attorney's Office could turn to other evidence – her calls to 911, medical records and other witness testimony – in its case against Foster.
http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/article210692799.html

Does he talk about her first story or a a story from a different witness?

I don't see how 12 people on a jury could convict if Ennis sticks to her second version of events, and if the video shows her ear being injured...

The gun charge is nothing, the weed charge is nothing...

Reuben's biggest issue will be with Goodell, and if all he has is the weed charge to go on I can see Foster getting a 2 game suspension since RF is already on the drug protocol from the diluted combine sample...

Originally posted by WildBill:

Originally posted by napo:
The loaded assault weapon with a cartridge in the chamber found on his bathroom floor was disturbing. Not good.

First of all it is not illegal to have a loaded gun in any state in your home, in CA, it is only illegal to take it outside your dwelling. Also, saying that it is an assault weapon, is frivolous, but then it is CA. I don't know what the wording of what they are using for what constitutes an assault weapon or charge. The press has been very ignorant of wordings in this issue. My chopsticks can be an assault weapon! So are they using the word assault weapon or assault rifle. An assault rifle is defined as any rifle that is fully automatic. Semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle. A scary looking rifle is not an assault rifle.

If you are using a gun for home protection, not having a round in the chamber is useless. A guy within 20 feet of you can kill you, if your gun is holstered/ at rest, no round in the chamber before you can effectively get a good shot off. Because you have to draw from the holster or pick it up from where it is (on your shoulder via shoulder strap), chamber the bullet, aim and shoot. Not to mention if you have the safety on, you have to disengage that.

Is it dangerous if you have a kid in the house especially if the safety is not engaged, yes, but not against the law and in this case no kid.

CA has some kooky gun laws, but there is a 'gun storage law', i.e. criminal storage of a firearm, if you leave a loaded weapon inside your home where children under the age of 18 can have access to it then that is an issue

CA does have an excellent Castle Doctrine law in regards to home self defense, where if someone forcibly enters your home, and they are not a family member, you are automatically under the presumption of being 'in fear of your life' and you can use lethal force to defend yourself.... I'm really surprised that this law has not been modified in the crazy state, I expect that it will sometime soon

Over/Under on how many months before Foster gets in trouble again.

Line is set at 9.5