EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Good for Chris Beard. Right now it seems like Pee Wee Herman could win coaching UT!

Clown world.

---

Whatever kind of horrible human being he is, he's an incredible coach. They'll start winning at Ole Miss and soon.

---

I think the man is probably like the rest of us and not a perfect man. I think UT erred in their early dismissal of Chris Beard. We shall see. Agree with you that he is a great coach!

---

What do you mean "we shall see?" Chris Beard is an abuser of women. It's there in the police report. HAVE YOU READ IT? And you think Texas should have kept him as a leader of men? Are you ****ing serious????

He's a great basketball coach and a horrible human being. That's not "we have all erred." That's objective. Anyone who would do what he did to a woman is horrible.

He's not like the rest of us. Not in the least.

---

While I tend to agree with the gist of your post, a police report does not establish guilt conclusively. It's only apiece if evidence. Guilt can only be decided in a court of law and, unfortunately, the courts don't always get it right. Our justice system is still based upon innocent until proven guilty and the accused are guaranteed much in the Bill of Rights for a reason.

Make sure you apply that thinking in EVERYTHING... remember the internet keeps receipts.

Valid point

As JL pointed out, criminal law is different than other things. The same standard doesn't necessarily apply across the board especially when some people become professional liars & very good at covering up their crimes.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

Social media lynching maybe?
In the 1990s it was called high tech lynching, but I think that may have been defined more narrowly.

boognish_bear said:

---

Honestly, it's one of the most sickening hires I've ever seen in college athletics -- and there've been some bad ones!

— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) March 14, 2023

---

SEC SEC SEC

Since the move to the SEC was about money, this just greases the skids. Ole Miss UT (which is a trash game) just got put on prime time at least for a few years once they start playing. Funny that the UT fans are crying about this hire. Better get used to it folks

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Thank you. Some of these people have lost their damn minds.

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

We know there was enough evidence at the scene to warrant a felony charge with victim cooperation.

We also know that these cases are almost impossible to convict and thus usually get dropped without victim cooperation, which doesn't occur in the vast majority of cases because power/fear/shame dynamics inherently involved in them.

To pretend that Chris Beard is somehow the victim here is absolutely insane.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

With this new hire, Ole Miss will now have a suffocating defense, a style that will take your breath away, and not choke under pressure.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

True dat.

https://lasc.libguides.com/mass-lynching-italian-americans

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

Oh, but he is, in his mind. Since the system doesn't do a good enough job, the moralizing midwits will come in and do their best on the internet.

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

Imagine defending a woman-beating piece of **** and thinking you're the one with the moral high ground.

It's not virtue signaling to say that a guy caught beating, biting and strangling his fiance shouldn't be rewarded with one of the top-50 college basketball jobs in the country. It's common sense.

---

Dude. So that's how you get a top-50 college basketball job? Seems like it would require more qualifications...

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

Imagine defending a woman-beating piece of **** and thinking you're the one with the moral high ground.

It's not virtue signaling to say that a guy caught beating, biting and strangling his fiance shouldn't be rewarded with one of the top-50 college basketball jobs in the country. It's common sense.

---

Dude. So that's how you get a top-50 college basketball job? Seems like it would require more qualifications...

---

No one questions Chris Beard's on-court qualifications. It's his off-court disqualifications that you guys seem to struggle with.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

Imagine defending a woman-beating piece of **** and thinking you're the one with the moral high ground.

It's not virtue signaling to say that a guy caught beating, biting and strangling his fiance shouldn't be rewarded with one of the top-50 college basketball jobs in the country. It's common sense.

---

Dude. So that's how you get a top-50 college basketball job? Seems like it would require more qualifications...

---

No one questions Chris Beard's on-court qualifications. It's his off-court disqualifications that you guys seem to struggle with.

---

I'm not the one struggling with them. I'm willing to exercise more detached humility regarding what I do and don't know.

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

Imagine defending a woman-beating piece of **** and thinking you're the one with the moral high ground.

It's not virtue signaling to say that a guy caught beating, biting and strangling his fiance shouldn't be rewarded with one of the top-50 college basketball jobs in the country. It's common sense.

---

Dude. So that's how you get a top-50 college basketball job? Seems like it would require more qualifications...

---

No one questions Chris Beard's on-court qualifications. It's his off-court disqualifications that you guys seem to struggle with.

---

I'm not the one struggling with them. I'm willing to exercise more detached humility regarding what I do and don't know.

---

That's a lot of big and unnecessary words for, "I'm willing to overlook domestic abuse for guys who coach basketball well."

But I'm sure you're right. Texas and everyone else who wouldn't touch Chris Beard with a 10-foot pole is wrong. We should all be praising Ole Miss for its willingness to "exercise more detached humility" where their new woman-beating coach is concerned.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

Imagine defending a woman-beating piece of **** and thinking you're the one with the moral high ground.

It's not virtue signaling to say that a guy caught beating, biting and strangling his fiance shouldn't be rewarded with one of the top-50 college basketball jobs in the country. It's common sense.

---

Dude. So that's how you get a top-50 college basketball job? Seems like it would require more qualifications...

---

No one questions Chris Beard's on-court qualifications. It's his off-court disqualifications that you guys seem to struggle with.

---

I'm not the one struggling with them. I'm willing to exercise more detached humility regarding what I do and don't know.

---

That's a lot of big and unnecessary words for, "I'm willing to overlook domestic abuse for guys who coach basketball well."

---

Sorry for the big words. My vocabulary probably is bigger than yours, but my crystal ball is smaller.

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

Imagine defending a woman-beating piece of **** and thinking you're the one with the moral high ground.

It's not virtue signaling to say that a guy caught beating, biting and strangling his fiance shouldn't be rewarded with one of the top-50 college basketball jobs in the country. It's common sense.

---

Dude. So that's how you get a top-50 college basketball job? Seems like it would require more qualifications...

---

No one questions Chris Beard's on-court qualifications. It's his off-court disqualifications that you guys seem to struggle with.

---

I'm not the one struggling with them. I'm willing to exercise more detached humility regarding what I do and don't know.

---

That's a lot of big and unnecessary words for, "I'm willing to overlook domestic abuse for guys who coach basketball well."

---

Sorry for the big words. My vocabulary probably is bigger than yours, but my crystal ball is smaller.

---

The police report says the following injuries were evident:

--Bite mark to her right forearm (visible teeth marks and redness)
--Abrasion to her right eyebrow/temple area
--Abrasion/scrape to her left leg from her knee to her foot
--Cut to her thumb with dried blood

Additionally, the victim listed the following strangulation symptoms:

--Difficulty breathing (during)
--Rapid breathing (after)
--Shallow breath (during)

Just so we're all the same page, which part are you disputing exactly? Are you suggesting nothing happened, she deserved it, what?

Personally, I don't particularly care what the circumstances are. I don't want a coach who beats women leading my program. But if we're going to pretend that Chris Beard is the real victim here, let's at least lay out the basis for that assertion.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

So out of that entire discussion, that strawman is the only thing you pulled? 'Bout what I'd expect.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

Imagine defending a woman-beating piece of **** and thinking you're the one with the moral high ground.

It's not virtue signaling to say that a guy caught beating, biting and strangling his fiance shouldn't be rewarded with one of the top-50 college basketball jobs in the country. It's common sense.

---

Dude. So that's how you get a top-50 college basketball job? Seems like it would require more qualifications...

---

No one questions Chris Beard's on-court qualifications. It's his off-court disqualifications that you guys seem to struggle with.

---

I'm not the one struggling with them. I'm willing to exercise more detached humility regarding what I do and don't know.

---

That's a lot of big and unnecessary words for, "I'm willing to overlook domestic abuse for guys who coach basketball well."

---

Sorry for the big words. My vocabulary probably is bigger than yours, but my crystal ball is smaller.

---

The police report says the following injuries were evident:

--Bite mark to her right forearm (visible teeth marks and redness)
--Abrasion to her right eyebrow/temple area
--Abrasion/scrape to her left leg from her knee to her foot
--Cut to her thumb with dried blood

Additionally, the victim listed the following strangulation symptoms:

--Difficulty breathing (during)
--Rapid breathing (after)
--Shallow breath (during)

Just so we're all the same page, which part are you disputing exactly? Are you suggesting nothing happened, she deserved it, what?

Personally, I don't particularly care what the circumstances are. I don't want a coach who beats women leading my program. But if we're going to pretend that Chris Beard is the real victim here, let's at least lay out the basis for that assertion.

---

I have no idea what happened. A police report is just a police report. There are a whole lotta reasons you don't just process those straight into convictions. And it's clear that you do not care what the circumstances are, so long as you can morally preen in public.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

Imagine defending a woman-beating piece of **** and thinking you're the one with the moral high ground.

It's not virtue signaling to say that a guy caught beating, biting and strangling his fiance shouldn't be rewarded with one of the top-50 college basketball jobs in the country. It's common sense.

---

Dude. So that's how you get a top-50 college basketball job? Seems like it would require more qualifications...

---

No one questions Chris Beard's on-court qualifications. It's his off-court disqualifications that you guys seem to struggle with.

---

I'm not the one struggling with them. I'm willing to exercise more detached humility regarding what I do and don't know.

---

That's a lot of big and unnecessary words for, "I'm willing to overlook domestic abuse for guys who coach basketball well."

---

Sorry for the big words. My vocabulary probably is bigger than yours, but my crystal ball is smaller.

---

The police report says the following injuries were evident:

--Bite mark to her right forearm (visible teeth marks and redness)
--Abrasion to her right eyebrow/temple area
--Abrasion/scrape to her left leg from her knee to her foot
--Cut to her thumb with dried blood

Additionally, the victim listed the following strangulation symptoms:

--Difficulty breathing (during)
--Rapid breathing (after)
--Shallow breath (during)

Just so we're all the same page, which part are you disputing exactly? Are you suggesting nothing happened, she deserved it, what?

Personally, I don't particularly care what the circumstances are. I don't want a coach who beats women leading my program. But if we're going to pretend that Chris Beard is the real victim here, let's at least lay out the basis for that assertion.

---

I have no idea what happened. A police report is just a police report. There are a whole lotta reasons you don't just process those straight into convictions. And it's clear that you do not care what the circumstances are, so long as you can morally preen in public.

---

Cases are based on the evidence found at the scene and filed in police reports. So are charges. There was enough evidence at this scene to warrant a felony charge.

The only reason it wasn't pursued is because the victim wouldn't cooperate, which happens more often than not in domestic abuse cases. So unfortunately do repeat offenses. Why? Because the woman-beaters you're defending here and trying to paint as the real victims are actually just woman-beating just pieces of *****

---

Your legal expertise is impressive. Almost rivals your clairvoyance.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Too bad the ranks of the baylorfans righteous don't run the Travis County DA office. Those guys must be a bunch of woman hating knuckle draggers.

---

There's often a gulf between what can be proven in court without a cooperating victim or corroborating witness and what actually occurred. To pretend there's not and that no charges/conviction means no crime occurred is willful ignorance.

I'll take the contemporaneous report over the recanted accusation most times, particularly in domestic abuse cases or any case involving high-profile/rich defendants who have the means and influence to make their issues disappear.

And when we've reached a place where taking a hard-line stance against beating/strangling a woman is virtue signaling, we've got serious issues as a society.

---

There's also a gulf between what we know and what actually occurred. That's why all the procedures in the legal system exist - as an acknowledgement that assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on a scant amount of evidence are not sufficient basis for conviction. Reasonable minds can differ on this, but I respect those procedures, and as an extension of that I personally would not socially convict someone (a term I made up, but I think everyone will more or less understand) on less evidence than a court requires - for the exact same reasons. Our society used to more or less recognize that and roll with it. More recently, even if someone is not criminally convicted, we are happy to visit as many consequences on them as possible outside of the court of law. That used to be called lynching. Now it's called cancelling or some such. I think it's small minded and unattractive. But I'm clearly an outlier.

---

I probably wouldn't use the term "lynching" to refer to a rich white man whose only consequence for domestic abuse is to leave one P5 head coaching job for another.

---

Too bad you aren't the judge, jury, and executioner. This world could be rid of Chris Beard. So you really think lynching refers to only black people? You should do some research. LOL!!! My, my aren't you a special virtue signaling snowflake!!!!

---

Imagine defending a woman-beating piece of **** and thinking you're the one with the moral high ground.

It's not virtue signaling to say that a guy caught beating, biting and strangling his fiance shouldn't be rewarded with one of the top-50 college basketball jobs in the country. It's common sense.

---

Dude. So that's how you get a top-50 college basketball job? Seems like it would require more qualifications...

---

No one questions Chris Beard's on-court qualifications. It's his off-court disqualifications that you guys seem to struggle with.

---

I'm not the one struggling with them. I'm willing to exercise more detached humility regarding what I do and don't know.

---

That's a lot of big and unnecessary words for, "I'm willing to overlook domestic abuse for guys who coach basketball well."

But I'm sure you're right. Texas and everyone else who wouldn't touch Chris Beard with a 10-foot pole is wrong. We should all be praising Ole Miss for its willingness to "exercise more detached humility" where their new woman-beating coach is concerned.

---

It's interesting. This ideology, with even less evidence, ended Art Briles career and has his progeny coaching at tcu and any sec school with an opening.

Interesting

Bill Burr, one of the great thinkers and philosophers of our day, sums it up pretty well