Jump to content

Huge Piece of Shit and alleged Woman Abuser Chris Beard has been hired at Mississippi

The Ace of Aces

By The Ace of Aces
in Basketball

 Share

Recommended Posts

InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 25996

Posted
Posted
Just now, JesusSweatDuck said:

You can try, but BSC women often don't stop coming at you because you're trying to walk away.  DV is a different beast, and if he's been abused for what sounds like years, we need to give him the same ability to clear his name as much as a woman that has been beat.  The double standard here is insane.

 

I'm also not justifying what he did, but anyone that has been involved with DV will understand.  Men are abused far more often than people think.

I have. Hence I was awarded custody of both kids and she was allowed supervised visitation. Am not getting into it, my story is known on another thread. Just saying, ya don't engage and bite. Grab wrists  and get away. 

She also was dating a chick who got drunk and kicked me in the ribs separating one of them. I attract the cray cray. Maybe it is Latinas.... All I know is I walk the fuck away. 

On the second one, I should have called the cops, but again, that is on another thread. 

He bit her. He left marks. He could have been asleep and she attacked him, I get it, we don't know, but he is gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

PatrickMcHorn
PatrickMcHorn
Mittens
Mittens
Surly Bevo
Surly Bevo

Man for a board who hates cops and denial of due process a lot of you sure seem to love cops and denial of due process. 

Posted Images

The Ace of Aces

The Ace of Aces 5192

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Decade? C'mon.

Not the thread but some coach is going to have to completely rebuild a roster from the ground up most likely. Portal makes it a faster process but it’s going to be a massive setback. (I should have specific a bit and said we are going back a decade in success, Shaka did nothing so just ignore that tenure or whatever). But agin it’s irrelevant. 

Infuriating and embarrassing actions by a grown adult male. 

Edited by The Ace of Aces
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornbri

hornbri 1400

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I have. Hence I was awarded custody of both kids and she was allowed supervised visitation. Am not getting into it, my story is known on another thread. Just saying, ya don't engage and bite. Grab wrists  and get away. 

She also was dating a chick who got drunk and kicked me in the ribs separating one of them. I attract the cray cray. Maybe it is Latinas.... All I know is I walk the fuck away. 

On the second one, I should have called the cops, but again, that is on another thread. 

He bit her. He left marks. He could have been asleep and she attacked him, I get it, we don't know, but he is gone. 

To be far - It says, she said, he bite her. No where have I seen it say there were pictures of bite marks. 

Edited by hornbri
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vic Mackey

Vic Mackey 47088

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

You can try, but BSC women often don't stop coming at you because you're trying to walk away.  DV is a different beast, and if he's been abused for what sounds like years, we need to give him the same ability to clear his name as much as a woman that has been beat.  The double standard here is insane.

 

I'm also not justifying what he did, but anyone that has been involved with DV will understand.  Men are abused far more often than people think.

I didn't know he was abused for years. I don't really keep up with his personal life and honestly don't care about it. If what you say is true and he finally snapped after years of abuse, then I guess I can see why it happened. And I do agree with you in the double standard because no one can believe a man can be abused by a woman. Happens a lot but I assume the man is too embarrassed to come forward about it, at least in public.

Even after all that, I still can't see him doing all of that, even in his own defense and keep his job here.

But people are very wrong if they think he will never coach again. It will be some years but plenty of programs who want to win will swoop in for the "rehabilitated, changed man who has turned it around". Easier to justify for them in that case than the current team to let it slide and keep him around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18924

Posted
Posted
Just now, The Ace of Aces said:

Not the thread but some coach is going to have to completely rebuild a roster from the ground up most likely. Portal makes it a faster process but it’s going to be a massive setback. (I should have specific a bit and said we are going back a decade in success) 

It all depends on the next head coach.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10415

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

True but him saying "he wasn't the primary aggressor" means he is done for here at Texas. He didn't deny doing those things, he's basically saying he did but under duress (maybe). That shit isn't going to fly. His only chance at all was the rapey boyfriend angle or she was flat out lying for whatever reason. A man doing those things to a woman no matter what unless he legit felt his life was in danger (seriously doubt it), no one will tolerate that. Unless it comes to light she had a gun to him or some dangerous weapon. Even then, would Texas want to deal with that circus?

Wouldn't get too hung up on that part as we don't know if it was a direct quote in the affidavit. That could be a paraphrase of "she started hitting me and I had to defend myself." Certainly possible, but I think it's unlikely that he said "I wasn't the primary aggressor, but then I became the aggressor." Also, where did you see that he didn't deny anything? All I saw were a couple comments for the AAS, but I didn't see anything about him denying or admitting anything.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justhookit

justhookit 4191

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, mdmost said:

So he told the police he has audio records that will show he was not the aggressor but he will not share them. Sounds like a strong strategy to clear your name. 

I read that as he told the police he had them, but would not share them with the reporter. Who fucking knows in the day of twitter news.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 37980

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

True but him saying "he wasn't the primary aggressor" means he is done for here at Texas. He didn't deny doing those things, he's basically saying he did but under duress (maybe). That shit isn't going to fly. His only chance at all was the rapey boyfriend angle or she was flat out lying for whatever reason. A man doing those things to a woman no matter what unless he legit felt his life was in danger (seriously doubt it), no one will tolerate that. Unless it comes to light she had a gun to him or some dangerous weapon. Even then, would Texas want to deal with that circus?

All of this.

His only shot was if it had been a SIL, daughter's boyfriend, or some male family member who'd been staying with him.  Maybe a 5% chance.

If he choked his girl or one of his daughters, that's it, even if he wasn't the instigator.  That's not an injury you can even attempt to write off as self-defense.  You don't put your fucking hands on a woman in anger.

God fucking dammit, man.  This is so infuriating on several levels.

Edited by TexArcher
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornbri

hornbri 1400

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, justhookit said:

I read that as he told the police he had them, but would not share them with the reporter. Who fucking knows in the day of twitter news.

Exactly, a twitter reporter, pulling info from a police report that is already 2nd hand information to him. Then repeating it with his own slant and no details. No one can draw any conclusions from that. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11719

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

So he told the police he has audio records that will show he was not the aggressor but he will not share them. Sounds like a strong strategy to clear your name. 

He means he wasn't going to share them with the dipshit asking him to at that moment.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vic Mackey

Vic Mackey 47088

Posted
Posted
Just now, SquishMitten said:

Wouldn't get too hung up on that part as we don't know if it was a direct quote in the affidavit. That could be a paraphrase of "she started hitting me and I had to defend myself." Certainly possible, but I think it's unlikely that he said "I wasn't the primary aggressor, but then I became the aggressor." Also, where did you see that he didn't deny anything? All I saw were a couple comments for the AAS, but I didn't see anything about him denying or admitting anything.  

I probably jumped to conclusions but the omission of not denying any of it and then the aggressor statement led me to believe he isn't denying the woman's statement of what he did but that he wasn't the one who started it. Any of what the woman said can easily be identified right now. So it won't take long for it to come out if she is telling the truth. And if she is, he's done. Pretty sure UT won't wait around to see if doing all that was "justified" or not. Why even bring up I have audio recordings at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornbri

hornbri 1400

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

Have you been drinking all day? 

No, I think this ends badly for him 99% of the time. But until we give him a chance to defend himself or we see some physical evidence I am not convicting him. 

Edited by hornbri
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21821

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

You can try, but BSC women often don't stop coming at you because you're trying to walk away.  DV is a different beast, and if he's been abused for what sounds like years, we need to give him the same ability to clear his name as much as a woman that has been beat.  The double standard here is insane.

 

I'm also not justifying what he did, but anyone that has been involved with DV will understand.  Men are abused far more often than people think.

So you break free and run the fuck away. The breaking free is literally the only justifiable use of force that isn’t a crime. Every thing else is out of anger and legally assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Constant

Constant 6744

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, hornbri said:

To be far - It says, she said, he bite her. No where have I seen it say there were pictures of bite marks. 

If we operate similarly, responding officers would have take photos of all involved parties at the scene, and of the scene itself. A comprehensive ‘family violence packet’ would have been completed, which would have included specific information regarding the strangulation (which hand, strength of grip, how it ended). It would have also included an opportunity for the complainant to write a written statement, and would have included a lethality statement- which is a standardized form with questions regarding the relationship and the prevalence of violence.  

  • Hook 'Em 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 7116

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, mdmost said:

So he told the police he has audio records that will show he was not the aggressor but he will not share them. Sounds like a strong strategy to clear your name. 

You give them to your lawyer. Not the police. You don't give anything to the police. He shouldn't have even said that even if he has them

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Partial Austinite

Partial Austinite 16

Posted
Posted
So you break free and run the fuck away. The breaking free is literally the only justifiable use of force that isn’t a crime. Every thing else is out of anger and legally assault.
How do you know he didn't? As for the alleged bite marks, a crazy woman will do all sorts of unbelievable shit. They could be self-inflicted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 7116

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Constant said:

If we operate similarly, responding officers would have take photos of all involved parties at the scene, and of the scene itself. A comprehensive ‘family violence packet’ would have been completed, which would have included specific information regarding the strangulation (which hand, strength of grip, how it ended). It would have also included an opportunity for the complainant to write a written statement, and would have included a lethality statement- which is a standardized form with questions regarding the relationship and the prevalence of violence.  

Exactly. And if you're the employer of this guy who's still owed multiple millions of dollars on a contract you wait until you can get a reasonable handle on the outcome of that until you do anything more than suspend him. 

Just because we can't know if it's legit or she's full of shit doesn't mean the evidence isn't there either way. We won't get it but CDC can find a way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17625

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Due process kills sovereign immunity.  It is the door through which basically any other claim would be possible. 

Not really. 

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1553512.html
 

Quote

 

We next address the argument that the trial court erred in dismissing Leach's constitutional claims.   The claims in question involve the purported taking without compensation of Leach's property and his termination without due process.6  We overrule the issues in part.

* * *

With regard to the takings claim, we find the Supreme Court's decision in General Servs. Comm'n v. Little–Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex.2001) dispositive.   According to the Supreme Court in Little–Tex, to establish a takings claim, the complainant must prove 1) that the State intentionally performed certain acts, 2) that the acts resulted in a “taking” of property, and 3) that the property was taken for public use.   Id. at 598.   These elements are not satisfied when the State withholds property in a contractual dispute. 

* * * 

The compensation sought by and allegedly due Leach is that which the University contracted to pay him in return for his performance of services as the head football coach. The University purports to withhold that compensation because Leach failed to abide by the terms of their accord.   Thus, what we have here is nothing other than a contractual dispute described in Little–Tex and which falls outside the takings clause.

* * * 

Sovereign immunity bars a trial court from adjudicating lawsuits through which a complainant seeks money damages from the State.  Tex. Natural Res. & Conservation Comm'n v. IT–Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex.2002).   It does not pretermit legal actions against a governmental entity seeking equitable relief to redress violations of the Texas Constitution.  City of Elsa v. M.A.L., 226 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex.2007);  City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 S.W.2d 143, 149 (Tex.1995);  City of Arlington v. Randall, 301 S.W.3d 896, 906–07 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009, pet. filed).   One means of determining whether constitutional violations have occurred that survive the invocation of sovereign immunity is through prosecuting a declaratory action.  City of Arlington v. Randall, 301 S.W.3d at 908–09;  Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 287 S.W.3d 240, 251 (Tex.App.-Austin 2009, pet. granted).   Leach requested such declaratory relief here when seeking a declaration of whether he was denied a constitutionally protected interest by the University without due course of the law.   See Tex. Const. art. I, § 19 (stating that “[n]o citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land”). 

* * 

So, the trial court had jurisdiction to declare whether Leach was denied due course of law even though it cannot adjudicate the attempt to recover damages for breach of contract. 

* * 

In sum, we reverse those portions of the trial court's order 1) dismissing, for want of jurisdiction, Leach's due course of law claim and request for non-monetary declaratory and equitable relief founded upon it and 2) concluding that Texas Tech University waived its sovereign immunity from the breach of contract claim due to its conduct. 

 

In sum, at least under the Texas Constitution, you can sue for violation of due process. But your relief isn't going to be money. You can however get a really nice piece of paper saying that your rights were violated. So that's fun. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 7116

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Partial Austinite said:
6 minutes ago, 'stache said:
So you break free and run the fuck away. The breaking free is literally the only justifiable use of force that isn’t a crime. Every thing else is out of anger and legally assault.

How do you know he didn't? As for the alleged bite marks, a crazy woman will do all sorts of unbelievable shit. They could be self-inflicted.g

"Here Mr. Beard, bite into this styrofoam"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...