Beard is done

[BWilk55]

6 minutes ago, Billybass said:

He’s supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but if there are pictures of bite marks etc…, horns need to go in another direction whether he is convicted or not. 
let’s take the high road

Innocent until proven guilty relates to the legal system, not his employment. As others have said, the university will have to do their own digging to see what happened and then decide whether to keep Beard or not.

Had she continued with her initial statement, I think Beard would have been toast. This is a step in the direction of walking things back and clearing Beard's name. However, as others have said, the statement still leaves a lot to interpretation and still makes it sound like Beard did some stuff he shouldn't have done. If we hear more that explains what happened, Beard could be in the clear but I don't think we are there at this point. 

[UTfish]

11 minutes ago, UT1983 said:

The high road is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not a court of public opinion. 

I think we would all 100% agree with that. Unfortunately, public opinion does matter to the University. 

[Wayne]

27 minutes ago, UT1983 said:

The high road is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not a court of public opinion. 

A court finds a person “guilty” or “not guilty”; It doesn’t find someone innocent. If you are found “not guilty” it definitely does not mean you are innocent. We can all think of at least one example. Probably the same one. 

[Sirhornsalot]

2 hours ago, Big Daddy Cane said:

She remembered where her bread is buttered. 

Once he gets through this, I would put an end to that relationship if I were him.

 

[TexCoyote]

There was an article in the newspaper this morning about her statement. It was pretty much what we heard. It did say the University was reviewing her statement and that it was an internal investigation and they do not comment on pending investigations. It said she made the 911 call to police. 
It also said and I haven’t seen before: The police affidavit listed several VISIBLE signs of altercation, including bite marks on her arm and abrasions on her face and leg. 
 

So who’s the next coach going to be? It doesn’t matter who started it. You’re the head coach at The University of Texas. You have to leave the premises. 

[UTfish]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I have heard of instances where women tried to use self-inflicted wounds to accuse someone of abuse. Not likely, but it is possible. 

Would be interesting to know exactly where the bite marks are. 

I  agree with SHA, whatever the facts are, that "love at first bite" relationship should end now.

[PTA]

10 hours ago, UT1983 said:

The high road is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not a court of public opinion. 

in the 21st century, the court of public opinion is the highest court.

[PTA]

submitting a quote sometimes acts like it doesn't go through.

[Eastexhorn]

Hell hasno fury like a woman scorned. Change scorned to angry and vindictive and it is a more accurate statement.

It is not a nice thing to see even if not involved.  Not sure about leaving the premises from legal stand point

Any if I ada vote would vote to keep Beard.

[tejasrulz]

5 minutes ago, PTA said:

in the 21st century, the court of public opinion is the highest court.

Sad but true

[tejasrulz]

9 hours ago, Sirhornsalot said:

Once he gets through this, I would put an end to that relationship if I were him.

 

My wife said that the night the news broke!

[UTfish]

1 hour ago, tejasrulz said:

My wife said that the night the news broke!

As Tom Herman would say, wives are really, really smart and winning an argument with them is really, really hard. 

[dssl]

12 hours ago, Sirhornsalot said:

Once he gets through this, I would put an end to that relationship if I were him.

 

We have no information on what makes the relationship work, or not work. From that one incident that seems like sound advice,  but who knows,  maybe he sees her as the love of his life and maybe that night was the first and last time they had that type of fight. 

[83Dee]

2 hours ago, PTA said:

submitting a quote sometimes acts like it doesn't go through.

This has happened to me.   Sometimes I go back and it did go through… several times.  My conclusion was that it had to do with a weak WiFi signal.  

[North Texas Golfer]

1 hour ago, UTfish said:

As Tom Herman would say, wives are really, really smart and winning an argument with them is really, really hard. 

"Here's all you have to know about men and women: women are crazy, men are stupid. And the main reason women are crazy is that men are stupid."

- George Carlin

[Baron]

14 hours ago, UTfish said:

I personally think that sado masochism is nuts, but I believe it is legal in Texas as long as both parties consent and there's no great bodily harm. 

They could claim that her injuries were a result of S&M, but if that became public knowledge, I don't think he would be retained by UT.     If kept quiet, he might keep his job.

Just a thought. 

As woke as UT is, they should be tolerant of all sexual tendencies. Now I'll just go vomit because of what I just typed.

[Baron]

13 hours ago, Wayne said:

A court finds a person “guilty” or “not guilty”; It doesn’t find someone innocent. If you are found “not guilty” it definitely does not mean you are innocent. We can all think of at least one example. Probably the same one. 

Innocent until proven guilty. Examine the sentence. You are either guilty or innocent by definition of the law.

[dssl]

1 minute ago, Baron said:

Innocent until proven guilty. Examine the sentence. You are either guilty or innocent by definition of the law.

You are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty beyond some substantial burden of doubt.  Not guilty is definitely not the same as innocent, it just implies that you are not going to have any criminal consequences. 

[Baron]

1 minute ago, dssl said:

You are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty beyond some substantial burden of doubt.  Not guilty is definitely not the same as innocent, it just implies that you are not going to have any criminal consequences. 

I get what you're saying, but I do not believe in gray areas when it comes to the law. If you are found not guilty you are still Presumed innocent.

[dssl]

13 minutes ago, Baron said:

I get what you're saying, but I do not believe in gray areas when it comes to the law. If you are found not guilty you are still Presumed innocent.

Presumed innocent for sure, but that's sometimes different from actually being innocent. 

[Wayne]

20 minutes ago, Baron said:

Innocent until proven guilty. Examine the sentence. You are either guilty or innocent by definition of the law.

No you are not. You were found not guilty because prosecution didn’t find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You could have still committed the crime. A jury doesn’t find you innocent; they find you not guilty. Innocent until proven guilty to my knowledge is not enshrined in the law anywhere.  It is just that the burden of proving guilt is on the state. In some countries the defendant has to prove they are innocent. That is very hard to do. 

[Baron]

2 minutes ago, Wayne said:

No you are not. You were found not guilty because prosecution didn’t find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You could have still committed the crime. A jury doesn’t find you innocent; they find you not guilty. Innocent until proven guilty to my knowledge is not enshrined in the law anywhere.  It is just that the burden of proving guilt is on the state. In some countries the defendant has to prove they are innocent. That is very hard to do. 

Again, read the Constitution. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. By law there are only two outcomes.

[Wayne]

7 minutes ago, Baron said:

Again, read the Constitution. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. By law there are only two outcomes.

I’ve read the Constitution presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in it. Court cases give you the presumption of innocence. But a jury finds you “guilty” or “not guilty”. Not guilty does not mean innocent. 

[Baron]

12 minutes ago, Wayne said:

I’ve read the Constitution presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in it. Court cases give you the presumption of innocence. But a jury finds you “guilty” or “not guilty”. Not guilty does not mean innocent. 

I'm done. I'm not going to argue the law with a Libtard.

[Wayne]

50 minutes ago, Baron said:

I'm done. I'm not going to argue the law with a Libtard.

I’m not a liberal. Not all guilty people have been found guilty in court. That’s my argument. If you have been found guilty you might not be, and if you were found not guilty you might be guilty. Only God and you know. And you have to answer to him someday. Your argument is the liberal argument. There is no perfect human institution.