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

[Pancho 46,365]

The University cannot and should not make a decision based on optics. They should make their decision based on the evidence and truth. 

[Dbeasy 15,613]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Feels like a lot of people are going to embarrassed one way or another - CB doesn’t get fired and the early “fire him and move on” crowd look dumb (I’m part of this group) or the “wait and see, no way we fire him” crowd is shocked when CDC and Hartzell/BoR do it anyways 

And then there are those of us who’ve tried to tell both of these groups that they are full of shit and needed to wait for the facts. But that’s not the world today. 

[BurntOrangeBlooded15 1,714]

17 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

And then there are those of us who’ve tried to tell both of these groups that they are full of shit and needed to wait for the facts. But that’s not the world today. 

Yup.  Today is first to report.  Doesn’t matter if it’s correct.   Throw it out and call it a day.  
 

It’s a lose lose situation. It’s gonna be a bad look regardless of factual information if he comes back because of the picture that’s already been painted.   Is CDC/Hartzell more concerned with public opinion or winning?  That’s the question. 
 

For what it’s worth, I know a kid that works as a manager for the team and he said the team was pissed about it.  So the question of how willing are the guys to have him back comes into play a little bit.  

[Pancho 46,365]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrangeBlooded15 said:

Yup.  Today is first to report.  Doesn’t matter if it’s correct.   Throw it out and call it a day.  
 

It’s a lose lose situation. It’s gonna be a bad look regardless of factual information if he comes back because of the picture that’s already been painted.   Is CDC/Hartzell more concerned with public opinion or winning?  That’s the question. 
 

For what it’s worth, I know a kid that works as a manager for the team and he said the team was pissed about it.  So the question of how willing are the guys to have him back comes into play a little bit.  

Pissed at the perceived accusation or pissed that this situation may have fucked up their season? 

[Js1 87,275]

3 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Pissed at the perceived accusation or pissed that this situation may have fucked up their season? 

Pissed at the latter I hope. That was selfish of their coach 

[BurntOrangeBlooded15 1,714]

6 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Pissed at the perceived accusation or pissed that this situation may have fucked up their season? 

Number 2.  

[Hermanator 7,681]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

Pissed at the perceived accusation or pissed that this situation may have fucked up their season? 

 

1 hour ago, BurntOrangeBlooded15 said:

Number 2.  

That one is a lot easier to overcome and is the most likely correct one for a majority of the guys on the team. There may be a few that are more pissed their coach may have beaten his girlfriend but I'd be surprised if most aren't mostly pissed this could fuck up their chance for a final 4/title run. 

[ChiTownDoc 21,347]

4 hours ago, BurntOrangeBlooded15 said:

Number 2.  

Sums things up pretty well.  

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Pancho said:

The University cannot and should not make a decision based on optics. They should make their decision based on the evidence and truth. 

There is no fucking way you are this naïve.

What really happened hasn't mattered since about Dec 19th or so.  It doesn't require a courtroom for Texas decision makers to have a solid grasp on what happened.  It's a matter of limiting liability, whether that is from Chris Beard, the psycho lady, or towards the program and/or University.

Edited December 28, 2022 by slorch

[Doc Daneeka 6,793]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

There is no fucking way you are this naïve.

What really happened hasn't mattered since about Dec 19th or so.  It doesn't require a courtroom for Texas decision makers to have a solid grasp on what happened.  It's a matter of limiting liability, whether that is from Chris Beard, the psycho lady, or towards the program and/or University.

Texas has no liability to the psycho lady. 

Texas could fire Beard simply for the arrest, per his contract. 

It doesn’t require a courtroom, that’s true. Texas, imo, should fire Beard if there’s substantial evidence that his conduct went beyond reasonable self-defense even if the evidence for that doesn’t make it all the way to a preponderance, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Gathering evidence, including from third parties, and assessing to get a solid grasp on what happened takes time and it does matter. When Beard is reinstated, all the ducks need to be in an unassailable row because the usual suspects and the “this looks bad” crowd will be in full voice. 

[Rockethorn1978 6,206]

Who gives a fuck what the cancel culture crowd says. Texas isn’t lsu or aggy, if they keep him on I guarantee they made the right choice and are not turning their heads to domestic violence. Texas is the most liberal university in the south and know what most will say around the 40 acres. If they choose to keep beard on I trust they did due diligence in coming to that conclusion. 

[Pancho 46,365]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

There is no fucking way you are this naïve.

What really happened hasn't mattered since about Dec 19th or so.  It doesn't require a courtroom for Texas decision makers to have a solid grasp on what happened.  It's a matter of limiting liability, whether that is from Chris Beard, the psycho lady, or towards the program and/or University.

Ahh yes, this thread has been slorch’d.

 

There’s no fucking way you’re this dumb. I know Tech fans shoot first, ask questions later. Texas is doing its research like it should. Neither you nor I are privy to what the Texas admin is, especially as it relates to what their lawyers, CBS lawyers, and Randi’s lawyers are allowing to be and not to be communicated from a legal perspective. 

I, for one, and not shocked a salty tech fan cannot see this in a critical light. 

[Wulaw Horn 19,598]

We can’t ever know this because I doubt we will know how the decision makers truly feel, but here’s my thoughts:

if we believe Beard acted reasonably and did what the vast majority of dudes in his situation would, retain him and defend him as a valued asset for our community I will be very proud of the powers that be. 

If we believe the recant is bullshit and we cynically keep him around because we value what he’s building I will be embarrassed. 

If we believe the recent is bullshit, he acted wrongly and unreasonably and we terminate because that’s more important than any success we might have with him at the helm I will be proud. 

if we believe the recant is true, he acted reasonably but terminate because we are too afraid of the optics, or because the seriousness of the charge matters more than actual guilt or innocence (not in a legal sense but in a practical sense) I will be embarrassed. 

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Wulaw Horn

[ClubWhatever 12,324]

I could be wrong about all of the following, but I think today is the 10 business day deadline when open record requests for the 911 call that were filed the day he was arrested would have to be responded to.  The Ryan Autullo's of the world should be getting their rejections for AGO opinions soon.  If so then I believe the AGO would then have 45 days to rule.  If on the other hand the call is released, hold on to your butts.

[JFKFC 4,978]

3 hours ago, Rockethorn1978 said:

Who gives a fuck what the cancel culture crowd says. 

Stop with this nonsense. There wasn't a room full of social justice warriors sitting around, twisting their moustaches, just waiting for Beard to bite & strangle his fiancée so they could pounce. 

It really seems like the powers that be are keeping Beard. It is no secret that I am not a fan of this decision, however, I am now hoping that there is no photographic evidence that is damning. If there are picture of bite marks and/or neck marks, and they come out after the press conference where CDC announces he is keeping Beard, all of the "optics don't matter" crowd will learn quickly and decisively that they do matter. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Pancho said:

Ahh yes, this thread has been slorch’d.

 

There’s no fucking way you’re this dumb. I know Tech fans shoot first, ask questions later. Texas is doing its research like it should. Neither you nor I are privy to what the Texas admin is, especially as it relates to what their lawyers, CBS lawyers, and Randi’s lawyers are allowing to be and not to be communicated from a legal perspective. 

I, for one, and not shocked a salty tech fan cannot see this in a critical light. 

Lolz.  Typical. Write off a differing opinion as ‘ salty Tech fan’ and  ‘dumb.’   I am not that, even if I did not like the manner in which Beard left.    I guess calling it straight might seem ‘salty’ to you, but whatever floats your boat,brah.  I have discussedBeard and associated topics fairly and evenly since then, regardless of whether or not you accept that.

Your post was lollipops and rainbows at best. The truth and facts of what actually happened have little to do with the outcome of this decision.  They knew the facts within that first week.

[Hermanator 7,681]

9 minutes ago, slorch said:

 They knew the facts within that first week.

Explain how you can possibly know this is guaranteed. 

[BigOrange1 6,611]

4 hours ago, Rockethorn1978 said:

Who gives a fuck what the cancel culture crowd says. Texas isn’t lsu or aggy, if they keep him on I guarantee they made the right choice and are not turning their heads to domestic violence. Texas is the most liberal university in the south and know what most will say around the 40 acres. If they choose to keep beard on I trust they did due diligence in coming to that conclusion. 

just FYI, people who go around using that term all the time are fucking morons.

[Wulaw Horn 19,598]

18 minutes ago, slorch said:

Lolz.  Typical. Write off a differing opinion as ‘ salty Tech fan’ and  ‘dumb.’   I am not that, even if I did not like the manner in which Beard left.    I guess calling it straight might seem ‘salty’ to you, but whatever floats your boat,brah.  I have discussedBeard and associated topics fairly and evenly since then, regardless of whether or not you accept that.

Your post was lollipops and rainbows at best. The truth and facts of what actually happened have little to do with the outcome of this decision.  They knew the facts within that first week.

 I think you've been as reasonable as could be expected on a rival board about Beard with how it went down, and generally find you to be a positive element on this website and enjoy your stuff.  

I think your last sentence is pretty shaky. If I was conducting my due diligence in this I'd want to talk to every ex wife, ex girlfriend, ex fuck buddy, people who like him, people who hate him etc, to find out if this is a random one off or if there is any kind of pattern to this thing. It's holiday season in mid December.  If they had enough evidence to fire him with physical stuff that's a decision that surely could be made inside of week 1.  If they are leaning to keep him they absolutely should be turning over every rock and digging in every hole available to see if there is any other dirt or anything that would make this look to be a pattern.  It goes toward his credibility and believability in this instance and it also goes toward the wisdom of defending him if the physical stuff is bullshit. That would likely take a lot longer than the week before xmas to do a really through job there.  

[Js1 87,275]

11 minutes ago, BigOrange1 said:

just FYI, people who go around using that term all the time are fucking morons.

Yeah, it's the equivalent of an aggy diploma for identifying yourself as a moron. 

[SizzleChest 8,314]

33 minutes ago, slorch said:

Lolz.  Typical. Write off a differing opinion as ‘ salty Tech fan’ and  ‘dumb.’   I am not that, even if I did not like the manner in which Beard left.    I guess calling it straight might seem ‘salty’ to you, but whatever floats your boat,brah.  I have discussedBeard and associated topics fairly and evenly since then, regardless of whether or not you accept that.

Your post was lollipops and rainbows at best. The truth and facts of what actually happened have little to do with the outcome of this decision.  They knew the facts within that first week.

[Armybrat 41,434]

On 12/26/2022 at 11:18 PM, troph said:

wait a minute, Brian bozworth lives in Austin? Holy freight train mother of god that’s whacked out.  

Quote

Bosworth was named the sixth worst flop on the Biggest Flops of the Last 25 Years list by ESPN in July 2004.^[16]

 

[UTEE97 3,937]

I wonder if this were Shaka, our rival fans would be clamoring for his head before all the facts came out. There are tech/tcu turds on twitter who are pestering CDC multiple times every time he tweets. People who are opining on this terrible situation are biased one way or the other.

The administration has a responsibility to the stakeholders to make sure they don't make a hasty decision that may turn out to be costly. Beard is a top tier coach who is an alum and very well liked by the top brass. This process was never going to be hasty no matter the optics.

Edit: Everyone has skeletons in their closet. People who act holier-than-thou are full of shit. You're lucky your skeletons haven't been discovered... yet.

Firing Beard doesn't do anybody any good, if he and his fiancee are willing to work something out. Maybe she takes a payday and they split and life goes on provided Beard doesn't have a history of violence. If you fire him, who does it help other than our rivals? The victim is kicked to the street with no money and the university loses a great coach. Beard may find another job soon, so he will be the least affected by this.

Edited December 28, 2022 by UTEE97

[Billy Pilgrim 2,079]

I’m disappointed but not surprised that people want to fire someone without doing due diligence and a thorough investigation. People are too hyperreactive these days. I blame social media mobs for that.
 

If the results of the investigation conclude he’s guilty of domestic violence, then by all means fire him. If the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion or indicates he was protecting himself, why punish him even more?? What’s the rush to judgement when we don’t even have all the facts?

Edited December 28, 2022 by Billy Pilgrim

[Helobious 9,825]

4 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

I’m disappointed but not surprised that people want to fire someone without doing due diligence and a thorough investigation. People are too hyperreactive these days. I blame social media mobs for that.
 

If the results of the investigation conclude he’s guilty of domestic violence, then by all means fire him. If the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion or indicates he was protecting himself, why punish him even more?? What’s the rush to judgement when we don’t even have all the facts?

That’s the sensible thing to do, but it just isn’t how things work. If this exact thing happened to the head coach at OU or KU or A&M you know this entire site would be calling for his head. Hard to get mad at other fanbases for doing that to us. 

[deadshank 24,654]

1 minute ago, Helobious said:

That’s the sensible thing to do, but it just isn’t how things work. If this exact thing happened to the head coach at OU or KU or A&M you know this entire site would be calling for his head. Hard to get mad at other fanbases for doing that to us. 

You finally made a post worth rep.  
 

Have some. 

[NoName 17,168]

22 hours ago, Pancho said:

Anyone have these articles?

 

 

Athletic Article:

 

Spoiler

O’Neil: It’s time for Texas to act and remove Chris Beard as its coach

By Dana O'Neil

Dec 27, 2022

472

---

Here are the facts:

In April 2021, when Texas signed Chris Beard to a seven-year, $5 million annual deal, it included — per the Austin-American Statesman, which released a copy of the contract — a standard conduct clause written into every Longhorns coaching contract. It allows the university to terminate or suspend Beard with cause if, “Any conduct (a) that the University administration reasonably determines is clearly unbecoming to a Head Coach and reflects poorly on the University, the Program, or The University of Texas System; or (b) resulting in a criminal charge being brought against Head Coach involving a felony, or any crime involving theft, dishonesty, or moral turpitude.”

 

On Dec. 12, police responded to a 911 call from the 1900 block of Vista Lane in Austin, Beard’s home. According to police report, officers found a woman who said “she had been assaulted and strangled by Christopher Michael Beard.’’ In the police affidavit, officers said his fiancée, Randi Trew, told them Beard “choked me, bit me, bruises all over my leg, throwing me around, and going nuts.’’ Officers noted a bite mark on her arm and abrasions on her face and leg.

They charged Beard with assault by strangulation/suffocation on a family member, a third-degree felony, and took him to Travis County jail.

Hours later, Beard stood before a magistrate, wearing a gray and black striped prison jumpsuit, his hands cuffed before him as the judge explained that he could no longer go within 200 yards of his home or Trew. Texas suspended Beard without pay.

On Friday, 11 days after Beard’s arrest, Trew issued a statement through her lawyer, saying that Beard had not attempted to strangle her and she never wanted him to be charged. “Chris did not strangle me, and I told that to law enforcement that evening. Chris has stated that he was acting in self-defense, and I do not refute that. I do not believe Chris was trying to intentionally harm me in any way. It was never my intent to have him arrested or prosecuted. We appreciate everyone’s support and prayers during this difficult time.”

The statement was issued a little after 6 p.m. local time, after the Austin police department public information office, which handles media calls, had closed. The district attorney’s office also had wrapped up business for the extended holiday weekend.

The university responded with its own statement: “We are reviewing the statement from Randi Trew. This matter is the subject of an internal investigation and the university does not comment on pending investigations.”

 

As of today, the case against Beard still exists. He is, per his case record, scheduled for a hearing on Jan. 18. By Texas law, the district attorney can choose to pursue a case with or without Trew’s cooperation.

None of that is disputable. It happened.

The gray area — what actually happened between Beard and Trew, and where your opinion might lie on women recanting statements of alleged assault — is what some might say makes this messy or complicated.

Except it doesn’t. Texas gave itself an out clause. And it needs to use it.

Texas has the right to terminate an employee of its state university for conduct unbecoming and for being charged — not found guilty, but just being charged — with a felony. Beard, cuffed and head bowed, standing before a magistrate on the afternoon that the Longhorns played Rice would, in the eyes of most, satisfy the conduct unbecoming portion of the clause.

Yet even if you want to look past that somehow, the second part is not up for discussion. Charged with a felony. Period. Goodbye.

So what gives? Why is mighty Texas, the institution so big that it has its own TV network, the university so appealing it’s been gobbled up by the Southeastern Conference, and the state that prides itself on being bigger, badder and better than any other, being held hostage by a basketball coach?

It’s impossible to answer that, of course, since no one aside from acting head coach Rodney Terry, has said a word. The silence is deafening and subject to all sorts of speculation. So into the void, then, let’s invite the most likely of speculative assumptions: money. Firing people is tricky at any level. Firing high-profile people embroiled in complex legal cases is not easy, and when the lawyers get involved, simple decisions can become far more complicated. No doubt Beard’s side is arguing for reinstatement at best and, at worst, some sort of buyout. Lawsuits make people nervous.

 

So call the bluff, Texas. Invite the discovery.

Besides, this goes beyond the scope of athletic director Chris del Conte, or even Texas president Jay Hartzell. This lands directly at the feet of the Board of Regents, appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott and charged with overseeing the University of Texas system.

Their resumes, no surprise, read like a who’s who of the state’s elite and powerful, each not only successful in their own right but sitting on numerous boards across Texas. Board chairman Kevin Eltife is a former state senator and mayor of Tyler, Texas, and owner of a commercial real estate company. Vice-chair Janiece Longoria is an attorney and one of the founding members of the university’s Center for Women in Law. Vice-chair James “Rad” Weaver is chairman of an investment firm and is a director on the San Antonio branch of the Federal Reserve Bank. The university’s school of social work bears the name of regent Steven Hicks, thanks to his donation to the project. Nolan Perez is a physician and Kelcy Warren a CEO of an energy company. Jodie Lee Jiles is in commercial real estate, and Stuart Stedman is in investments.

These are people who make important, complex and expensive decisions every day. Who understand the consequences of both actions and inaction.

And who, above all else, can read a contract. They had to approve Beard’s contract in order for him to get the job. Presumably, they read it.

There is no good endgame here, no end around. There is no way that Chris Beard casually puts on the burnt orange again and walks the sideline like nothing happened, and everyone just gets along with the business of basketball.

And frankly, there doesn’t need to be.

Texas, mighty mighty Texas, gave itself an out clause.

It just needs to use it.

 

[ClubWhatever 12,324]

7 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

What’s the rush to judgement when we don’t even have all the facts?

I’ve seen “wait for the facts” repeated ad nauseam.   It certainly sounds like a reasonable thing to do.  But in all seriousness, what facts, relevant to this case, are we waiting for?   911 call?  Beards phone audio (if extant)?   Pictures of injuries?

[CTC2 2,865]

Beards last two hurdles are to survive the release of the 911 call and ultimate dismissal of the charges.  If the call is bad he is gone. If not, then he needs to get charges dismissed. Not sure if he survives merely dropping the felony to a misdemeanor.  With charges pending, I don’t see them bringing him back. 
Surely her lawyer did not let her issue that statement if it was contradictory to what she said on the call?  

[UTEE97 3,937]

17 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

I’ve seen “wait for the facts” repeated ad nauseam.   It certainly sounds like a reasonable thing to do.  But in all seriousness, what facts, relevant to this case, are we waiting for?   911 call?  Beards phone audio (if extant)?   Pictures of injuries?

If the charges are dropped because the DA's office is unable to get any cooperation from the victim and/or there is not enough evidence to prosecute, that will be a key factor imo. 

[closetohumping 17,826]

20 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

Beards last two hurdles are to survive the release of the 911 call and ultimate dismissal of the charges.  If the call is bad he is gone. If not, then he needs to get charges dismissed. Not sure if he survives merely dropping the felony to a misdemeanor.  With charges pending, I don’t see them bringing him back. 
Surely her lawyer did not let her issue that statement if it was contradictory to what she said on the call?  

Bad in what way?  Like him screaming in the background?  

[jimmyjazz 47,284]

It will be Christmas in January if all the Tceh fans have to eat their spleens when Texas fires Beard.

[Doc Daneeka 6,793]

26 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

I’ve seen “wait for the facts” repeated ad nauseam.   It certainly sounds like a reasonable thing to do.  But in all seriousness, what facts, relevant to this case, are we waiting for?   911 call?  Beards phone audio (if extant)?   Pictures of injuries?

More evidence that he left the house? A specific timeline that accounts for each stage of the situation that undermines/supports what she and Beard have said? Maybe waiting for the DA to make a decision on going forward with whatever cooperation there is with the GF?

Since Beard has a version of events that exonerates him, the more evidence in support of that that’s already in place if Texas keeps him, the quicker the outrage at they decision goes away. 

[conVINCEd 21,477]

50 minutes ago, Helobious said:

That’s the sensible thing to do, but it just isn’t how things work. If this exact thing happened to the head coach at OU or KU or A&M you know this entire site would be calling for his head. Hard to get mad at other fanbases for doing that to us. 

Why on earth would we want aggy to fire their basketball coach?

[Brian Fantana 6,875]

2 hours ago, UTEE97 said:

I wonder if this were Shaka, our rival fans would be clamoring for his head before all the facts came out. There are tech/tcu turds on twitter who are pestering CDC multiple times every time he tweets. People who are opining on this terrible situation are biased one way or the other.

The administration has a responsibility to the stakeholders to make sure they don't make a hasty decision that may turn out to be costly. Beard is a top tier coach who is an alum and very well liked by the top brass. This process was never going to be hasty no matter the optics.

Edit: Everyone has skeletons in their closet. People who act holier-than-thou are full of shit. You're lucky your skeletons haven't been discovered... yet.

Firing Beard doesn't do anybody any good, if he and his fiancee are willing to work something out. Maybe she takes a payday and they split and life goes on provided Beard doesn't have a history of violence. If you fire him, who does it help other than our rivals? The victim is kicked to the street with no money and the university loses a great coach. Beard may find another job soon, so he will be the least affected by this.

This is just how people on the internet are. We had Twitter trolls absolutely blasting us and calling for us to fire our AD and Kliff Kingsbury for months when Baker Mayfield and his daddy lied about being "mistreated" while at Tech. Before that (and before Twitter) same thing, multiple times, with any tiny thing Bob Knight did that the weirdos could latch onto. Before that, Craig James' bullshit, etc etc.

Do some Tech or other in-state/inter-conference fans have extra motivation to do so? Sure, but who gives a fuck. Just do the right thing, whatever that may be (firing/suspending/nothing? idfk) in the end, and things will work out.

[UTEE97 3,937]

10 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

This is just how people on the internet are. We had Twitter trolls absolutely blasting us and calling for us to fire our AD and Kliff Kingsbury for months when Baker Mayfield and his daddy lied about being "mistreated" while at Tech. Before that (and before Twitter) same thing, multiple times, with any tiny thing Bob Knight did that the weirdos could latch onto. Before that, Craig James' bullshit, etc etc.

Do some Tech or other in-state/inter-conference fans have extra motivation to do so? Sure, but who gives a fuck. Just do the right thing, whatever that may be (firing/suspending/nothing? idfk) in the end, and things will work out.

If people really worried about the victims, they would let the victims work out something with the alleged offenders without outside interference. Right now, firing Beard without the due process is the worst thing for Randi because then she loses the golden tities she had been sucking off of and given her age and looks she is unlikely to find a replacement. CB is already wealthy and will find a landing spot soon enough. 

[Brian Fantana 6,875]

14 minutes ago, UTEE97 said:

If people really worried about the victims, they would let the victims work out something with the alleged offenders without outside interference. Right now, firing Beard without the due process is the worst thing for Randi because then she loses the golden tities she had been sucking off of and given her age and looks she is unlikely to find a replacement. CB is already wealthy and will find a landing spot soon enough. 

I'm going to hard disagree with you on that, based on plenty of experience. It highly depends on the circumstances, but in legitimate abuse cases this is just about never a wise course of action. You always need some sort of neutral arbitration in situations like this, if only to make sure the alleged victims can't be intimidated into being silent or recanting their accusations. The power dynamic matters, a lot, and in this type of case, the accused is the one with most or all of the power.

[Helobious 9,825]

1 hour ago, UTEE97 said:

If people really worried about the victims, they would let the victims work out something with the alleged offenders without outside interference. 

So to clear the air: man beats the fuck out of woman, woman has to then negotiate with man for some kind of mutual resolution? He doesn’t get any kind of legal punishment? 
 

(I’m not saying Beard beat up anyone, just trying to understand your idea)

[UTEE97 3,937]

5 minutes ago, Helobious said:

So to clear the air: man beats the fuck out of woman, woman has to then negotiate with man for some kind of mutual resolution? He doesn’t get any kind of legal punishment? 
 

(I’m not saying Beard beat up anyone, just trying to understand your idea)

That's not what I said at all!

[UTEE97 3,937]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm going to hard disagree with you on that, based on plenty of experience. It highly depends on the circumstances, but in legitimate abuse cases this is just about never a wise course of action. You always need some sort of neutral arbitration in situations like this, if only to make sure the alleged victims can't be intimidated into being silent or recanting their accusations. The power dynamic matters, a lot, and in this type of case, the accused is the one with most or all of the power.

I am not interested in or commenting on "plenty of other circumstances." I was commenting on this particular incidence where Randi doesn't benefit at all from a hasty firing of Beard. It's obvious she prefers to reconcile, either for money, love, or perhaps she realizes her own contribution to this mess.  

[CTC2 2,865]

2 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Bad in what way?  Like him screaming in the background?  

That’s just it. I don’t know. Maybe it’s her hiding under the bed sounding genuinely scared. It’s a data point that will be revealed.  

[closetohumping 17,826]

1 hour ago, UTEE97 said:

If people really worried about the victims, they would let the victims work out something with the alleged offenders without outside interference. Right now, firing Beard without the due process is the worst thing for Randi because then she loses the golden tities she had been sucking off of and given her age and looks she is unlikely to find a replacement. CB is already wealthy and will find a landing spot soon enough. 

Here’s the thing.  We don’t know who the victim is.  Being a wealthy man doesn’t mean you’re guilty

[Mitch Cumsteen 18,973]

4 hours ago, UTEE97 said:

If you fire him, who does it help other than our rivals?

Other victims of domestic abuse?

[EZ$ 2,128]

So did the daughter’s boyfriend who snuck into her bedroom after midnight ever give his side of the story?

[UTEE97 3,937]

1 hour ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Other victims of domestic abuse?

If you know who the abuser is, then perhaps yes. I was falsely accused and arrested (but not changed) for DV when my ex-wife hit me, and I just pushed her back, so I know first hand how easy it is for some women to try to frame their men. It made my life extremely difficult for years to come because the arrest record showing up on background checks. We split up the next day even though she pleaded to reconcile. Point being, let's not jump to conclusions.

Edited December 28, 2022 by UTEE97

[Balcones 207]

3 hours ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

I’m disappointed but not surprised that people want to fire someone without doing due diligence and a thorough investigation. People are too hyperreactive these days. I blame social media mobs for that.
 

If the results of the investigation conclude he’s guilty of domestic violence, then by all means fire him. If the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion or indicates he was protecting himself, why punish him even more?? What’s the rush to judgement when we don’t even have all the facts?

Ok, Jerry Sandusky. 

[Texas Wahoo 3,631]

58 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Other victims of domestic abuse?

It's a tough situation that we are not going to solve on this message board.  Obviously, if people are guilty of domestic violence, you want to punish them, but if there is not enough to punish them criminally, do we want the default to be punishing them economically.  Maybe we do, but the downside is that if victims know that their husbands will be fired regardless of what actually happened if they call the police, they are certainly going to be less likely to call the police to escape an escalating situation.

 

This case is not necessarily typical, because they are not married and there are no mutual kids (so it's not clear whether she would be harmed if he is fired and has trouble getting a similar job), but if we make the default that whenever someone calls the police, all of them suffer financially, you will end up with fewer calls to the police, even if the police could help alleviate the situation.

[Doc Daneeka 6,793]

1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

It's a tough situation that we are not going to solve on this message board.  Obviously, if people are guilty of domestic violence, you want to punish them, but if there is not enough to punish them criminally, do we want the default to be punishing them economically.  Maybe we do, but the downside is that if victims know that their husbands will be fired regardless of what actually happened if they call the police, they are certainly going to be less likely to call the police to escape an escalating situation.

 

This case is not necessarily typical, because they are not married and there are no mutual kids (so it's not clear whether she would be harmed if he is fired and has trouble getting a similar job), but if we make the default that whenever someone calls the police, all of them suffer financially, you will end up with fewer calls to the police, even if the police could help alleviate the situation.

The “if the cops show up, someone is going to jail” policy almost assuredly resulted in fewer calls than there otherwise would have been. Maybe taking someone to jail is sometimes the right answer. Maybe “get your shit and go to a hotel until y’all cool off” is sometimes the right answer. There are very few instances in which a blanket policy is the right answer. 

Erring on the side of overreaction isn’t without cost any more than erring on the side of underreaction is. It’s a hard damned problem. 

[Rockethorn1978 6,206]

5 hours ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

I’m disappointed but not surprised that people want to fire someone without doing due diligence and a thorough investigation. People are too hyperreactive these days. I blame social media mobs for that.
 

If the results of the investigation conclude he’s guilty of domestic violence, then by all means fire him. If the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion or indicates he was protecting himself, why punish him even more?? What’s the rush to judgement when we don’t even have all the facts?

Social media mobs? You clearly must be a aggy for saying that per the self Righteous wokesters. Lmao.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, UTEE97 said:

If you know who the abuser is, then perhaps yes. I was falsely accused and arrested (but not changed) for DV when my ex-wife hit me, and I just pushed her back, so I know first hand how easy it is for some women to try to frame their men. It made my life extremely difficult for years to come because the arrest record showing up on background checks. We split up the next day even though she pleaded to reconcile. Point being, let's not jump to conclusions.

If you’re arrested, but not charged; it still hits your background check?

Why?