Reuben Foster

Np

Originally posted by lamontb:
8 games. If Zeke got 6 without even being charged and no guns or weed then i think Foster is looking at 8 games.

Since when has equal justice ever come out of the NFL office? They are the very definition of swaying with public opinion over or under reacting. Ray Rice beat the sit out of a woman so bad she was unconscious, and it was on video, and got a two game suspension. Wes Welker got 4 games for getting caught using Adderall ... lol. Goodell must have a dart board with numbers on it in his office. and he throws the dart right before he announces the punishment length.

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
No Chicago, that's what I would have the atty whisper BEFORE the ruling. If the DA ckfus him then let him have it. I would hope the DA resolves the issue of should he risk a mammoth loss in court vs the good publicity he gets with a conviction. Because right now his witness no longer is and she has a vid. Gotta be pretty cocky for the DA to take a case like that to court.

The DDA is not worried about what Foster is going to say, unless the DDA actually acted maliciously. That's doubtful. The DDA doesn't have carte blanche. He is controlled by a series of checks and balances. If he is moving forward, he is doing so with the full support of his superiors. There will be even greater scrutiny in this case, due to the high profile nature of the accused.

As I have said dozens of times, the video cannot exonerate Foster. At best - AT BEST - it can provide an alternative origin for Ennis' injuries.

Further, since there are, according to reports, pictures of Ennis' injuries taken directly after the altercation, they will go a long way in supporting or discrediting Ennis. It is quite easy to prove when an injury occurred. The body acts, medically speaking, in well defined ways. Read, injuries look completely different after a few minutes / hours than they do at 24 or 48 hours after the fact (Ennis' lawyer said the road rage incident occurred within 48 hours, so that could mean as much as 48 hours prior to or one minute prior to the alleged Foster incident).

I don't know what evidence the DDA has, but I do know if he actually takes this to trial, he will do so because he has both solid evidence and a firm belief said evidence is enough to result in a conviction. It's, for all intents and purposes, career suicide to do otherwise in a case like this.

Originally posted by Polkadots:

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:

No Chicago, that's what I would have the atty whisper BEFORE the ruling. If the DA ckfus him then let him have it. I would hope the DA resolves the issue of should he risk a mammoth loss in court vs the good publicity he gets with a conviction. Because right now his witness no longer is and she has a vid. Gotta be pretty cocky for the DA to take a case like that to court.

The DDA is not worried about what Foster is going to say, unless the DDA actually acted maliciously. That's doubtful. The DDA doesn't have carte blanche. He is controlled by a series of checks and balances. If he is moving forward, he is doing so with the full support of his superiors. There will be even greater scrutiny in this case, due to the high profile nature of the accused.

As I have said dozens of times, the video cannot exonerate Foster. At best - AT BEST - it can provide an alternative origin for Ennis' injuries.

Further, since there are, according to reports, pictures of Ennis' injuries taken directly after the altercation, they will go a long way in supporting or discrediting Ennis. It is quite easy to prove when an injury occurred. The body acts, medically speaking, in well defined ways. Read, injuries look completely different after a few minutes / hours than they do at 24 or 48 hours after the fact (Ennis' lawyer said the road rage incident occurred within 48 hours, so that could mean as much as 48 hours prior to or one minute prior to the alleged Foster incident).

I don't know what evidence the DDA has, but I do know if he actually takes this to trial, he will do so because he has both solid evidence and a firm belief said evidence is enough to result in a conviction. It's, for all intents and purposes, career suicide to do otherwise in a case like this.

So in your "expert opinion", a DA pushing this into trial with Ennis testifying in front of a jury and saying, Reuben Foster did not hit me, still gives the DA confidence for a conviction?
I don't see how.

Explanations for... said injures at the seen of the crime, could easily be manufactured..

Example: She was chasing Reuben and fell down the stairs. She was pushing on him and tripped and fell on the street..

Ennis giving testimony would have to create doubt, especially admitting to trying to ruin Reubens career.

"Most" and I say most things could easily be defended by a good attorney, especially, and I say this with confidence, especially with the accuser stating she lied..
I think the DA has a hell of a mountain to climb and I'll be shocked if this isn't dropped..
Just my NONexpert opinion.

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

Originally posted by Polkadots:

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:

No Chicago, that's what I would have the atty whisper BEFORE the ruling. If the DA ckfus him then let him have it. I would hope the DA resolves the issue of should he risk a mammoth loss in court vs the good publicity he gets with a conviction. Because right now his witness no longer is and she has a vid. Gotta be pretty cocky for the DA to take a case like that to court.

The DDA is not worried about what Foster is going to say, unless the DDA actually acted maliciously. That's doubtful. The DDA doesn't have carte blanche. He is controlled by a series of checks and balances. If he is moving forward, he is doing so with the full support of his superiors. There will be even greater scrutiny in this case, due to the high profile nature of the accused.

As I have said dozens of times, the video cannot exonerate Foster. At best - AT BEST - it can provide an alternative origin for Ennis' injuries.

Further, since there are, according to reports, pictures of Ennis' injuries taken directly after the altercation, they will go a long way in supporting or discrediting Ennis. It is quite easy to prove when an injury occurred. The body acts, medically speaking, in well defined ways. Read, injuries look completely different after a few minutes / hours than they do at 24 or 48 hours after the fact (Ennis' lawyer said the road rage incident occurred within 48 hours, so that could mean as much as 48 hours prior to or one minute prior to the alleged Foster incident).

I don't know what evidence the DDA has, but I do know if he actually takes this to trial, he will do so because he has both solid evidence and a firm belief said evidence is enough to result in a conviction. It's, for all intents and purposes, career suicide to do otherwise in a case like this.

So in your "expert opinion", a DA pushing this into trial with Ennis testifying in front of a jury and saying, Reuben Foster did not hit me, still gives the DA confidence for a conviction?
I don't see how.

Explanations for... said injures at the seen of the crime, could easily be manufactured..

Example: She was chasing Reuben and fell down the stairs. She was pushing on him and tripped and fell on the street..

Ennis giving testimony would have to create doubt, especially admitting to trying to ruin Reubens career.

"Most" and I say most things could easily be defended by a good attorney, especially, and I say this with confidence, especially with the accuser stating she lied..
I think the DA has a hell of a mountain to climb and I'll be shocked if this isn't dropped..
Just my NONexpert opinion.

I agree if Ennis won't testify against him it's just the DA trying to prove they're right. The victim is saying it's not him and it feels like a looser of a case for the DA. They should focus their efforts on more serious crimes with solid witnesses and evidence.

As a matter of strategy, if the DA is going to drop the case will they wait until the last minute when they're back in court ?

Originally posted by mitpdub:

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

Originally posted by Polkadots:

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:

No Chicago, that's what I would have the atty whisper BEFORE the ruling. If the DA ckfus him then let him have it. I would hope the DA resolves the issue of should he risk a mammoth loss in court vs the good publicity he gets with a conviction. Because right now his witness no longer is and she has a vid. Gotta be pretty cocky for the DA to take a case like that to court.

The DDA is not worried about what Foster is going to say, unless the DDA actually acted maliciously. That's doubtful. The DDA doesn't have carte blanche. He is controlled by a series of checks and balances. If he is moving forward, he is doing so with the full support of his superiors. There will be even greater scrutiny in this case, due to the high profile nature of the accused.

As I have said dozens of times, the video cannot exonerate Foster. At best - AT BEST - it can provide an alternative origin for Ennis' injuries.

Further, since there are, according to reports, pictures of Ennis' injuries taken directly after the altercation, they will go a long way in supporting or discrediting Ennis. It is quite easy to prove when an injury occurred. The body acts, medically speaking, in well defined ways. Read, injuries look completely different after a few minutes / hours than they do at 24 or 48 hours after the fact (Ennis' lawyer said the road rage incident occurred within 48 hours, so that could mean as much as 48 hours prior to or one minute prior to the alleged Foster incident).

I don't know what evidence the DDA has, but I do know if he actually takes this to trial, he will do so because he has both solid evidence and a firm belief said evidence is enough to result in a conviction. It's, for all intents and purposes, career suicide to do otherwise in a case like this.

So in your "expert opinion", a DA pushing this into trial with Ennis testifying in front of a jury and saying, Reuben Foster did not hit me, still gives the DA confidence for a conviction?
I don't see how.

Explanations for... said injures at the seen of the crime, could easily be manufactured..

Example: She was chasing Reuben and fell down the stairs. She was pushing on him and tripped and fell on the street..

Ennis giving testimony would have to create doubt, especially admitting to trying to ruin Reubens career.

"Most" and I say most things could easily be defended by a good attorney, especially, and I say this with confidence, especially with the accuser stating she lied..
I think the DA has a hell of a mountain to climb and I'll be shocked if this isn't dropped..
Just my NONexpert opinion.

I agree if Ennis won't testify against him it's just the DA trying to prove they're right. The victim is saying it's not him and it feels like a looser of a case for the DA. They should focus their efforts on more serious crimes with solid witnesses and evidence.

As a matter of strategy, if the DA is going to drop the case will they wait until the last minute when they're back in court ?

What does the DA lose exactly?

They keep working on the next case and the world turns

Originally posted by mitpdub:

I agree if Ennis won't testify against him it's just the DA trying to prove they're right. The victim is saying it's not him and it feels like a looser of a case for the DA. They should focus their efforts on more serious crimes with solid witnesses and evidence.

As a matter of strategy, if the DA is going to drop the case will they wait until the last minute when they're back in court ?

What more serious crimes? The allegations are pretty serious. Most people are also overlooking the gun charge, as long as that remains the DA doesn't have to drop anything.

They would only be criticised if they let the DV matter go to trial, as that is additional court and jury time that probably isn't warranted if Ennis does testify against them.

At this stage they aren't doing anything wrong.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by mitpdub:

I agree if Ennis won't testify against him it's just the DA trying to prove they're right. The victim is saying it's not him and it feels like a looser of a case for the DA. They should focus their efforts on more serious crimes with solid witnesses and evidence.

As a matter of strategy, if the DA is going to drop the case will they wait until the last minute when they're back in court ?

What more serious crimes? The allegations are pretty serious. Most people are also overlooking the gun charge, as long as that remains the DA doesn't have to drop anything.

They would only be criticised if they let the DV matter go to trial, as that is additional court and jury time that probably isn't warranted if Ennis does testify against them.

At this stage they aren't doing anything wrong.

Over looking the gun charge lol that isn't s**t. If you want to ridicule, talk about kaep

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Over looking the gun charge lol that isn't s**t. If you want to ridicule, talk about kaep

You, like many people on here have no idea how the legal system works.

Foster is facing 3 charges that have all met the standard of proof required for a pre-trail hearing.

The victim is providing evidence that may drop that standard for 2 of the charges, once vetted this may just leave the gun charge, that is a decision for the DA and the judge.

Any person calling for them to drop the charges at this stage is a moron.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

What more serious crimes? The allegations are pretty serious. Most people are also overlooking the gun charge, as long as that remains the DA doesn't have to drop anything.

They would only be criticised if they let the DV matter go to trial, as that is additional court and jury time that probably isn't warranted if Ennis does testify against them.

At this stage they aren't doing anything wrong.

All of the charges are questionable at this point. Even the gun charge is largely a matter of the gun not having been registered in the state and it appears that Foster may have until the end of June to complete the process.

REMINDER: ASSAULT WEAPON REGISTRATION ENDS AT 11:59:59 P.M. ON JUNE 30, 2018.
All applications for assault weapon registration must be submitted by this deadline. No applications will be accepted thereafter (see Penal Code section 30900(b)(1) and California Code of Regulations, title 11, division 5, chapter 39, section 5469).

The magazine charge already had to be dropped due to an injunction in federal court.


With the victim recanting, with this supposed video being out there, with these gun charges seemingly being excessive, what "is" is there?

This is a DA with corruption issues that has been the subject of California state AG investigations in the past.


https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/06/13/santa-clara-county-blasts-district-attorney-jeff-rosen-secret-action-demands-prosecutors-give-back-inappropriately-granted-perk-or-face-investigation/





Not really the type of individual you'd be surprised to see push some b******t to pump their name up in a high profile case in an election year.


Not saying that this is Nifong but this seems to be an unscrupulous person who now appears to trying Foster in the court of public opinion with the leaks coming out recently.

Hopefully, the judge steps in and sets this DA's case straight.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

All of the charges are questionable at this point. Even the gun charge is largely a matter of the gun not having been registered in the state and it appears that Foster may have until the end of June to complete the process.





The magazine charge already had to be dropped due to an injunction in federal court.


With the victim recanting, with this supposed video being out there, with these gun charges seemingly being excessive, what "is" is there?

This is a DA with corruption issues that has been the subject of California state AG investigations in the past.


https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/06/13/santa-clara-county-blasts-district-attorney-jeff-rosen-secret-action-demands-prosecutors-give-back-inappropriately-granted-perk-or-face-investigation/





Not really the type of individual you'd be surprised to see push some b******t to pump their name up in a high profile case in an election year.


Not saying that this is Nifong but this seems to be an unscrupulous person who now appears to trying Foster in the court of public opinion with the leaks coming out recently.

Questionable, yes, but have been sufficient to get passed a judge at a Pre trial hearing.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Questionable, yes, but have been sufficient to get passed a judge at a Pre trial hearing.

That burden isn't particularly high, much like with a grand jury proceeding where as the saying goes "a prosecutor could indict an ham sandwich."


What we are seeing now is a case that is positively rife with reasonable doubt. There is no way that this goes to trial and the longer the DA drags this on the more clear they make that this is ultimately about politics and not justice.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Questionable, yes, but have been sufficient to get passed a judge at a Pre trial hearing.

That burden isn't particularly high, much like with a grand jury proceeding where as the saying goes "a prosecutor could indict an ham sandwich."


What we are seeing now is a case that is positively rife with reasonable doubt. There is no way that this goes to trial and the longer the DA drags this on the more clear they make that this is ultimately about politics and not justice.

Oh I agree, it should be a matter of time before the DV stuff is dropped, but we're jumping the gun.

Question?

Is Aeneas (Williams) who took out Steve young pernounced the same as Ennis??

Hmmm, Coincidence?