Breaking: Redskins claim Reuben Foster NFL.COM

[wit33]

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

Witnesses and physical evidence are usually what gets used in cases like this. Photographs, physical observations by the police, medical observations and records, etc. Also, just the verbal accounts by both sides, what they say happened, whether it reflects whatever physical evidence there is, whether or not they keep their stories straight, etc.

 

Does it become more “he said she said” in most cases without susbstantial evidence? It seems most charges get pleaded to misdemeanors, right? I’m basing this off of nothing, but random news of popular figures from time to time. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, wit33 said:

 

Does it become more “he said she said” in most cases without susbstantial evidence? It seems most charges get pleaded to misdemeanors, right? I’m basing this off of nothing, but random news of popular figures from time to time. 

1

 

Absolutely does, yes...which is a problem for both sides.

 

It becomes more of a responsibility of the victim to find ways of either reporting it immediately or documenting it in some way--some women take photos of the abuse or tell friends and family members about it so that there is a trail of incidents they can relay to the police and courts. Sometimes restraining orders are sought...it becomes more telling if numerous restraining orders are issued before there is ever an incident that leads to arrest. Also, in some states (maybe all states?) damaging property is considered domestic violence...so Foster breaking his gf's phone, intentionally or not, has the possibility of being deemed an act of domestic violence. Not to mention, in Florida I think it can only be considered DV if both parties live in the same household together or have a child together. No idea if Foster and his gf lived together but I was under the assumption they didn't since they were "off and on".

[Veryoldschool]

14 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

So Foster is "unstable and screwed"? What did he do that warrants that title?

 

Screwed-up, I meant to say screwed-up.  Nick Saban's comments about him needing people around to manage his attitude and his actions justify being considered screwed-up.

Quote

 

And the pragmatic position is 100% defensible because the pragmatic position rests on if the player can realistically end up being good enough on the field to make the PR hit worth it.

 

It also rests on whether a team can depend on a guy staying out of trouble in the future.  This young man has a pattern of behavior so I think it is foolish to expect him to stay eligible and problem free in addition to his injury issues.  A rash bet  not a pragmatic choice in my view.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

I was talking about being a problem player legally. His weed and his toxic relationship lead directly to legal issues. His anger, so far as we know, has not.

 

 

Depends on your perspective.  His anger got him kicked out of the combine and some say it was the key driver of his drop in the draft.  And yeah it has caused legal issues for him, just in round 1 of it he was exonerated, we are about to have round 2 coming up January in Tampa courts.

 

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Again, Foster has never abused any woman as far as we know, yet doesn't deserve judgment to be withheld...and I never said it doesn't mean he didn't do it this time, but it damn well should give everyone a little more willingness to pull themselves back from judgment on Foster and this issue.

 

I don't agree with all your logic but regardless I don't think the operative point is about whether Foster is guilty or not.  The Redskins made it clear that they don't know one way or another about guilt or non guilt -- nor should they know.  The question IMO is was it a good move for the team business wise and or message wise to pay a dude every week on the team's dime while the courts and the league figure out whether he's guilty or not. 

[drowland]

44 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I don't agree with all your logic but regardless I don't think the operative point is about whether Foster is guilty or not.  The Redskins made it clear that they don't know one way or another about guilt or non guilt -- nor should they know.  The question IMO is was it a good move for the team business wise and or message wise to pay a dude every week on the team's dime while the courts and the league figure out whether he's guilty or not. 

 

Yeah this is the part that gets me.  They claimed Foster off the street and are paying his salary to deal with his legal issues and not play this year in hopes that maybe he will be able to play next year.  I get that he's a 1st rd talent and rookie contracts are ideal from a cap perspective, however I think picking him up before he's taken care of what he needs to take care of sets a bad precedent.  

 

I also wonder if Doug or Bruce gave Lynch a call about Foster.  I know there's bad blood with Kyle, but Doug or Bruce I would assume have a pretty good relationship with Lynch from their days in Tampa.  I think it would be good for the Skins to know everything the 49ers were doing to help Foster, how he was progressing and where they think it went wrong.  All we heard was they talked to former Alabama teammates. 

[NewCliche21]

7 hours ago, Jumbo said:

 

 

That's one view that's not being presented much but is widespread among many people who find the redskins on the losing side in the general public's opinion---especially those who work with dv populations. I was deep in working with that subject at times and I know @NewCliche21 has a master's in social work and is so employed, and maybe he can speak to what the take is in his professional circles.

 

So far, PR wise, whether one thinks it's fair or unfair, this is a big loser for the 'skins, though we are so far down in public opinion polls anyway and most fans will tell you they don't care about such stuff. Reality is it does impact the team, it's bottom line and financial viability, and eventually maybe ownership. So maybe the more time we spend doing dumbass things or things seen by a majority as dumbass the sooner snyder moves on. Nah. Not gonna happen.

 

From the social work perspective, and yes I've worked with this population for a long time, and yes I'm a therapist even though I sound like I need one on here, these situations suck.

 

When it comes to domestic/partner/intimate violence (we'll just say DV for brevity's sake), it's all about control.  Controlling every aspect of your life, making you feel like you can't live without them (whether through the absence of happiness or the application of pain or both), making sure you know that your value is only what they say it is, and so forth.

 

When you see someone recant their story, it's usually (I'm talking 90%+ of the time) because of the aforementioned.  That person is being controlled, threatened, intimidated.  It can be through a simple text or even a glance.  It certainly happens frequently through an intermediary (one of your boys, for instance) so that it's technically not the abuser doing it (easier to get away with in the legal sense).  That person can genuinely love the abuser, but that love is incredibly perverted in its nature.  Not Hallmark movie, but Lifetime movie.  Remember, "I can't live without you" isn't what you want to hear/say in a relationship.  "I don't want to live without you" makes it a perpetual choice, not an obligation, be it out of fear/control/codependence/etc.

 

In other words, recanting your story doesn't make you a liar.  In Foster's case, look at who we're talking about.  One of the top players in college who is now a first-round pick.  You think you were annoyed when the hot girls chose the a-holes in high school?  This is that times a billion.  The seeking of approval from someone like Foster is, consciously or otherwise, a huge goal in many women's lives.

 

Notice that she went back to him after the recanting.  That's indicative of applied feelings of guilt (How could you put me away?  You NEED me, I promise I'll never do it again, here's some flowers), that sick love I mentioned earlier, the learned helplessness (you don't need a job because I'll give you money, but if you **** me over, you'll be nothing), and/or simple fear.  It takes women an average of seven tries before being able to 100% leave a DV situation.  The amount of courage is directly inverse to the amount of support, seven times.  I can't articulate what that means.  It's a 2,000-yard rushing season, six times, before a 2,250-yard season.  That's the difficulty level.

When there are multiple arrests, you're seeing a very small fraction of what's actually happened.  For there to be ANY calls to police, and then for the responding officers to arrest the accused, that takes a **** ton of believability, especially when you're arresting an NFL player.  For the charges to not be outright dismissed is another **** ton of credibility.  I don't think many here understand the standards needed officially and unofficially to get to the stage of arrest, arraignment, and trial.  It's crazy high.

So for Foster to say that he's learned his lesson, he's just sending us flowers to promise he'll never hit us again.  A new bruise comes before the flowers even wilt.  He's done it a bunch of times, already, to the media.  He's broken that promise each time.  It will not be different here.  Remember when Bailey left?  Half of it was because this area doesn't facilitate healthy relationship habits; it exacerbates them.

 

I have to run, but there's a lot more to it.  I know we want to believe that things will change, so do I, but this has the chance of working out as a bad case of Ebola has for survival.

[Rufus T Firefly]

37 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

Notice that she went back to him after the recanting.  That's indicative of applied feelings of guilt (How could you put me away?  You NEED me, I promise I'll never do it again, here's some flowers), that sick love I mentioned earlier, the learned helplessness (you don't need a job because I'll give you money, but if you **** me over, you'll be nothing), and/or simple fear.  It takes women an average of seven tries before being able to 100% leave a DV situation.  The amount of courage is directly inverse to the amount of support, seven times.  I can't articulate what that means.  It's a 2,000-yard rushing season, six times, before a 2,250-yard season.  That's the difficulty level.

First off, excellent, informative post all around. Thank you for it.

 

The part I quoted here is what I was talking about at another point. People keep saying things about how "she perjured herself" and "she's a proven liar" and I wonder if they are that desperate to vindicate Foster, or if they really have that little experience with DV.  If she had broken up and had nothing to do with him for 2 years and then said "Oh, I made that ll up" it would be one thing. But the fact that the two of them have been together and having further incidents just means she's acting like a battered woman.

 

And, since it seems people are always quick to poke holes in a woman's credibility, how about we question whether an innocent man would really go back to a woman who had "made up for money" an accusation of him beating her, jeopardizing his career and freedom? Or does it seem much more likely he stayed with her because she lied about making it up to protect him?

[bh32]

26 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

First off, excellent, informative post all around. Thank you for it.

 

The part I quoted here is what I was talking about at another point. People keep saying things about how "she perjured herself" and "she's a proven liar" and I wonder if they are that desperate to vindicate Foster, or if they really have that little experience with DV.  If she had broken up and had nothing to do with him for 2 years and then said "Oh, I made that ll up" it would be one thing. But the fact that the two of them have been together and having further incidents just means she's acting like a battered woman.

 

And, since it seems people are always quick to poke holes in a woman's credibility, how about we question whether an innocent man would really go back to a woman who had "made up for money" an accusation of him beating her, jeopardizing his career and freedom? Or does it seem much more likely he stayed with her because she lied about making it up to protect him?

You really have no clue what you are talking about...You ever heard the term can't live with them or without them? sometimes people are in love with each other but don't get along and call the police over the dumbest **** when they don't get there way..Foster could of grabbed the phone from her over an argument and she decided to call the police.. that dosen't mean he beat her or committed DV..Let all the facts come out before you crucify the guy.

[NewCliche21]

12 hours ago, bh32 said:

You really have no clue what you are talking about...You ever heard the term can't live with them or without them? sometimes people are in love with each other but don't get along and call the police over the dumbest **** when they don't get there way..Foster could of grabbed the phone from her over an argument and she decided to call the police.. that dosen't mean he beat her or committed DV..Let all the facts come out before you crucify the guy.

 

You're being really dismissive, and I'll stroke my ego a bit, because I do know what I'm talking about.  I'm sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative or "rah rah" attitude.

 

What you're referring to is a codependent relationship, pure and simple.  Both can be abusive towards each other.  In what has been reported, you don't have that.  There's no hint of it going both ways, but there's a hell of a lot of smoke, soot, and sparks indicating that it goes the way of Foster to her, because this situation isn't unique.  You're arguing that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4 and we need to let the facts play out.  What the hell does "let all the facts come out" mean?  Seriously, define that for me.

 

You're talking about a singular incident in which she had the phone slapped away from her (you know what an accelerometer is?  No?  Go look it up, because the police will) as part of another incident of violence.  You know the phone was broken, right?  You know that she had marks on her collarbone, right?  You know that he threatened to kill her or have someone else kill her, right?  You know that the police and prosecutors didn't buy her story that she used when recanting, right?  You know that those don't just happen, right?  No, apparently you don't.

 

You haven't even read what's in the news, you haven't got a background in this, you're just spouting lines which is typical for someone experiencing cognitive dissonance for whatever reasons.  Essentially, you don't know what you're talking about.

But carry on trying to patronize others with copy-and-paste BS "defense" from every other case.  Just know that you know squat and don't try to be a dick to fellow members.

 

I've gotta get to work.  What work?  Oh, working with survivors AND offenders of this.  You have fun with the rest of your day.

[bh32]

7 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

You're being really dismissive, and I'll stroke my ego a bit, because I do know what I'm talking about.  I'm sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative or "rah rah" attitude.

 

What you're referring to is a codependent relationship, pure and simple.  Both can be abusive towards each other.  In what has been reported, you don't have that.  There's no hint of it going both ways, but there's a hell of a lot of smoke, soot, and sparks indicating that it goes the way of Foster to her, because this situation isn't unique.  You're arguing that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4 and we need to let the facts play out.  What the hell does "let all the facts come out" mean?  Seriously, define that for me.

 

You're talking about a singular incident in which she had the phone slapped away from her (you know what an accelerometer is?  No?  Go look it up, because the police will) as part of another incident of violence.  You know the phone was broken, right?  You know that she had marks on her collarbone, right?  You know that he threatened to kill her or have someone else kill her, right?  You know that the police and prosecutors didn't buy her story that she used when recanting, right?  You know that those don't just happen, right?  No, apparently you don't.

 

You haven't even read what's in the news, you haven't got a background in this, you're just spouting lines which is typical for someone experiencing cognitive dissonance for whatever reasons.  Essentially, you don't know what you're talking about.

But carry on trying to patronize others with copy-and-paste BS "defense" from every other case.  Just know that you know squat and don't try to be a dick to fellow members.

 

I've gotta get to work.  What work?  Oh, working with survivors AND offenders of this.  You have fun with the rest of your day.

How the hell do you no it's not going both ways? Are you there when it is happening? Just because he dosen't report anything dosen't mean it isn't happening.to him..Once again you are using her accusations as proof that he committed DV..

From the 911 call that i heard,she dosen't sound like a women that was just beat up,now that dosen't mean that he didn't do anything,but some of you guys already have your mind up that he did.

[Jumbo]

Well Hidey Ho miscreants, ne'er-do-wells, rapscallions, and assorted hooligans. Welcome back to the Kareem Hunt and many other matters (mostly non-football) thread. 

 

Now you know at least one of the reasons we don't allow social/political/religious discussion in the stadium. You get to learn stuff about your fellow football poster and discover that it's not just football they're clueless about and they have lots of opinions on other stuff too that's just ridiculous! 

 

We weren't looking for anything close to perfection in managing such a conundrum when we set some guidelines for trying to navigate this unusual circumstance, but many of you did strive to limit/minimize the damage well enough, and that was all we were shooting for to get this far, just as we stated. We thank those who made the effort to follow that course the best they could. Some who chose to be argumentative or actively obstruct rather than try to be cooperative and follow moderator directives met with temp bans.

 

Anyhoo, we're in that not uncommon situation with some mega-page threads wherein the arguments made in the first 5-6 pages are now on endless repeat loop.  But the main reason we're closing this now is we're really at a point where until there is new news, the conversation can't be advanced in any meaningful way and it's still perpetuating a ton of very off-topic content for this forum. We're leaving the tailgate thread open as is the norm in that forum for a topic of this sort (aside from it involving the Redskins). 

 

If news arises of genuine significance  we'll decide whether to use it to reopen this, or a member might start a new thread in the stadium, or we might just add it to the tailgate thread---leaving the options open dependent on that nautre of that news. In the meantime, as stated, if you still want to post on it, use the tailgate thread.  

 

Thank you for your participation in these Hunger Games in our own little Maze during this exciting Zombie Apocalypse.