Now that more info is available about

[notFromhere]

...what happened the night Chris Beard was arrested, what do you think?

His fiance has retracted her story, and now says Beard acted in self-defense, didn't "strangle" her, and that the police NEVER asked for her testimony the night of the arrest or thereafter....

He led TTech to an NCAA Final.
Had Texas finish their best season since 2004.
Has recruited well for Texas such that the team was ranked number 2 this season before all of the sht hit the fan.

Did they fire him because-

...they are winning without him?
....they have someone else they like better that has expressed an interest in the job?
...people in Austin really do have morals, and even the hint of impropriety, recanted or not, makes then recoil in horror?

Do you think it's possible we could do a straight up trade of Cal for Beard as long as there is no cash out of our pocket nor future performance guarantees Cal's bloated contract?

In the age of "me, too" which account of what happened do we believe? Is it the one the police didn't verify from the supposed victim the night of the arrest? Or is it the one given directly by the supposed victim that she was the aggressor, he was defending himself, and the police wouldn't listen to her?

What a bizarre string of events

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

I don't know the facts but it sounds like pr. Almost all of today's moves are based on pr

 

[BBBLazing]

...what happened the night Chris Beard was arrested, what do you think?

His fiance has retracted her story, and now says Beard acted in self-defense, didn't "strangle" her, and that the police NEVER asked for her testimony the night of the arrest or thereafter....

He led TTech to an NCAA Final.
Had Texas finish their best season since 2004.
Has recruited well for Texas such that the team was ranked number 2 this season before all of the sht hit the fan.

Did they fire him because-

...they are winning without him?
....they have someone else they like better that has expressed an interest in the job?
...people in Austin really do have morals, and even the hint of impropriety, recanted or not, makes then recoil in horror?

Do you think it's possible we could do a straight up trade of Cal for Beard as long as there is no cash out of our pocket nor future performance guarantees Cal's bloated contract?

In the age of "me, too" which account of what happened do we believe? Is it the one the police didn't verify from the supposed victim the night of the arrest? Or is it the one given directly by the supposed victim that she was the aggressor, he was defending himself, and the police wouldn't listen to her?

What a bizarre string of events

They fired him because he choked his girlfriend. You can't be a teacher or molder of young men if you are abusive to women. Of course she retracted her statement once she realized he was about to lose his 5 million dollar a year salary. She called the police. They didn't call her. Now, why would she marry him? He beats her, and he doesn't have a job.

 

[WildcatofNati]

They fired him because he choked his girlfriend. You can't be a teacher or molder of young men if you are abusive to women. Of course she retracted her statement once she realized he was about to lose his 5 million dollar a year salary. She called the police. They didn't call her. Now, why would she marry him? He beats her, and he doesn't have a job.

You have no idea whether he did or didn't choke his girlfriend. You weren't there. Did you see it? You have no idea what happened.

You're supposedly an attorney. Granted, from the 19th century at age 99 or more, even then, but, still. You should still understand things like the presumption of innocence. I remember you also wanted to think Tubman was guilty over some ******** allegation. What the Hell is wrong with you? What kind of attorney were you- the Royal Witchfinder?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

They fired him because he choked his girlfriend. You can't be a teacher or molder of young men if you are abusive to women. Of course she retracted her statement once she realized he was about to lose his 5 million dollar a year salary. She called the police. They didn't call her. Now, why would she marry him? He beats her, and he doesn't have a job.

You think thats the way it happened and that may be correct but you don't know anything as fact. I think Texas acted hastily because of our PC, cancel culture. Time will tell.

 

[BBBLazing]

You have no idea whether he did or didn't choke his girlfriend. You weren't there. Did you see it? You have no idea what happened.

You're supposedly an attorney. Granted, from the 19th century at age 99 or more, even then, but, still. You should still understand things like the presumption of innocence. I remember you also wanted to think Tubman was guilty over some ******** allegation. What the Hell is wrong with you? What kind of attorney were you- the Royal Witchfinder?

The police obviously had enough after she called 911 and then recanted. No one denied there was an altercation, she claimed it was her fault. Nonetheless, he laid hands on a woman and lost a $5 million dollar a year job because of it. I'll take my side on this one. This has nothing to do with woke. You don't lay hands on women, especially in Texas. Defend him until the longhorns come home, but I promise you this is not a good guy.

I am supposedly a retired attorney. I've seen plenty of situations where a woman called the police and said she was assaulted when she wasn't. Never when the guy made $5 million. She acknowledged in her statement that there was a physical altercation but said he was just defending himself, kind of like the football player that got slapped by his girlfriend in the elevator and then knocked her *** out, cold. If you want to go on record defending that type of conduct and call it self defense, have at it. But the University of Texas isn't about to fire one of the best five coaches in America unless they realize the guy has issues.

As far as Tubman is concerned, I only advocated for the rules, both judicial and University to be enforced. If he was as good as everyone here thought he was, he would have shown it somewhere. Tigers never lose their stripes.

 

[notFromhere]

They fired him because he choked his girlfriend. You can't be a teacher or molder of young men if you are abusive to women. Of course she retracted her statement once she realized he was about to lose his 5 million dollar a year salary. She called the police. They didn't call her. Now, why would she marry him? He beats her, and he doesn't have a job.

L.o.l.

Not according to his girlfriend, and that's the only witness. You can't be a witness and contradict your own testimony. Hysterical utterances or statements given under duress didn't use to be taken as factual, especially when they are contradicted by the same witness when NOT hysterical.

If anything, she should have been arrested for making a false statement to police and calling 911 under false pretenses.

They never even asked for her statement, so what they have at best is nothing since she has publicly contradicted herself when sober. She sounds like a piece of work, but that's between her and him at this point.

You can bring whatever biases you have to the table, you can bring your assumptions, you can even bring your supposed "omniscience," but that's not how law and justice are supposed to work.
........

Given your other statements "promising" and saying "never when the guy made $5 million" it's a personal issue you have, either with his making 5M or something else.

As far as women not being the aggressors, that's just sexist stupidity, and one day when a woman (or three) is brandishing a weapon and you have nothing, you'll lay your hands on one of those women unless you're dead before you hit the Texas dirt. There are some psychotic people out there due to meds, brain chemistry due to drugs, or just plain sick. When you see it for yourself enough times, you'll not be in that ivory tower of yours.

Saying women are never the instigators simply because a man makes a lot of money is either completely naive, or just ignorant.

 

[ktbug]

The police would also look for wounds/bruises that may have been visible, the way the house looked, witness statements, and finally the statement of those involved. Obviously something happened.

 

[rqa]

L.o.l.

Not according to his girlfriend, and that's the only witness. You can't be a witness and contradict your own testimony. Hysterical utterances or statements given under duress didn't use to be taken as factual, especially when they are contradicted by the same witness when NOT hysterical.

If anything, she should have been arrested for making a false statement to police and calling 911 under false pretenses.

They never even asked for her statement, so what they have at best is nothing since she has publicly contradicted herself when sober. She sounds like a piece of work, but that's between her and him at this point.

You can bring whatever biases you have to the table, you can bring your assumptions, you can even bring your supposed "omniscience," but that's not how law and justice are supposed to work.
........

Given your other statements "promising" and saying "never when the guy made $5 million" it's a personal issue you have, either with his making 5M or something else.

As far as women not being the aggressors, that's just sexist stupidity, and one day when a woman (or three) is brandishing a weapon and you have nothing, you'll lay your hands on one of those women unless you're dead before you hit the Texas dirt. There are some psychotic people out there due to meds, brain chemistry due to drugs, or just plain sick. When you see it for yourself enough times, you'll not be in that ivory tower of yours.

Saying women are never the instigators simply because a man makes a lot of money is either completely naive, or just ignorant.

Made under duress? She called them, not the other way around.
At best you’re saying that he was justified in physically assaulting her over broken glasses.
There is a long history of women who have been physically abused by wealthy/powerful men of recanting reports when they realize they may lose their seat on the gravy train.

Sure she could have been the instigator but that still doesn’t justify his actions.

Rarely in these cases when someone like this is fired is the event that spurs the firing, the first. I’d say there is a much greater chance than not that there has been one or more similar incidents in the past that were kept hushed.

 

[John Henry]

I just hope Texas makes Caliapri an offer he can not refuse. It is probably not going to happen but I can dream.

I have a dream

 

[Mdnerd]

In this society the man is guilty no matter what in this scenario. A good friend of mine was put in jail and not allowed to see his kids for 6 months because his wife claimed abuse. He caught her cheating and had her cell phone showing her the text messages he found and she attacked him trying to get the phone back.

He had cuts all over his face and arms from her nails and she didn’t have the slightest scratch. The police didn’t even let him speak before putting the cuffs on him. It took 6 months of court dates and psych evals before he could see his children and attempt to get back to a normal life.

Ultimately she was forced to do a psych evaluation during the custody battle and it was determined she was a full on narcissist and borderline.

I NEVER take these situations at face value based on police actions. Their policy is to arrest the man and not ask a single question before doing so.

 

[TortElvisII]

 

[TortElvisII]

In this society the man is guilty no matter what in this scenario. A good friend of mine was put in jail and not allowed to see his kids for 6 months because his wife claimed abuse. He caught her cheating and had her cell phone showing her the text messages he found and she attacked him trying to get the phone back.

He had cuts all over his face and arms from her nails and she didn’t have the slightest scratch. The police didn’t even let him speak before putting the cuffs on him. It took 6 months of court dates and psych evals before he could see his children and attempt to get back to a normal life.

Ultimately she was forced to do a psych evaluation during the custody battle and it was determined she was a full on narcissist and borderline.

I NEVER take these situations at face value based on police actions. Their policy is to arrest the man and not ask a single question before doing so.

It's a huge cluster. And a hot woman like she was, those cops would have been white knighting like you wouldn't believe. I have no idea if he's guilty or not. Courts, police all inept.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

The police obviously had enough after she called 911 and then recanted. No one denied there was an altercation, she claimed it was her fault. Nonetheless, he laid hands on a woman and lost a $5 million dollar a year job because of it. I'll take my side on this one. This has nothing to do with woke. You don't lay hands on women, especially in Texas. Defend him until the longhorns come home, but I promise you this is not a good guy.

I am supposedly a retired attorney. I've seen plenty of situations where a woman called the police and said she was assaulted when she wasn't. Never when the guy made $5 million. She acknowledged in her statement that there was a physical altercation but said he was just defending himself, kind of like the football player that got slapped by his girlfriend in the elevator and then knocked her *** out, cold. If you want to go on record defending that type of conduct and call it self defense, have at it. But the University of Texas isn't about to fire one of the best five coaches in America unless they realize the guy has issues.

As far as Tubman is concerned, I only advocated for the rules, both judicial and University to be enforced. If he was as good as everyone here thought he was, he would have shown it somewhere. Tigers never lose their stripes.

No, that wasn't your position with Tubman. You fully believed the girl without a shred of evidence and to make matters far worse, you supported the unconstitutional kangaroo courts that universities used at that time.

If you are what you claim, that is pathetic.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Sure she could have been the instigator but that still doesn’t justify his actions.

That's how I was raised too but in the situation would you feel differently if the complainant was a man? What if he was was a very small man. Legally speaking, is there a difference? Can a man only defend himself against another man?

 

[rqa]

In this society the man is guilty no matter what in this scenario. A good friend of mine was put in jail and not allowed to see his kids for 6 months because his wife claimed abuse. He caught her cheating and had her cell phone showing her the text messages he found and she attacked him trying to get the phone back.

He had cuts all over his face and arms from her nails and she didn’t have the slightest scratch. The police didn’t even let him speak before putting the cuffs on him. It took 6 months of court dates and psych evals before he could see his children and attempt to get back to a normal life.

Ultimately she was forced to do a psych evaluation during the custody battle and it was determined she was a full on narcissist and borderline.

I NEVER take these situations at face value based on police actions. Their policy is to arrest the man and not ask a single question before doing so.

He was dumb for fighting over the phone. There was nothing on the phone that couldn’t be retrieved through the courts. It served no purpose to try and use it to confront her with it…that was never going to end well. He knew she cheated, that should have been enough to seek a divorce if that was his choice.

 

[Mdnerd]

He was dumb for fighting over the phone. There was nothing on the phone that couldn’t be retrieved through the courts. It served no purpose to try and use it to confront her with it…that was never going to end well. He knew she cheated, that should have been enough to seek a divorce if that was his choice.

And there it is. He’s the bad guy. He didn’t fight over the phone, she lost her **** and attacked him while he tried to get away from it. He had no clue she’d react violently. It all eventually came out, but he had to go through hell to get there.

 

[rqa]

That's how I was raised too but in the situation would you feel differently if the complainant was a man? What if he was was a very small man. Legally speaking, is there a difference? Can a man only defend himself against another man?

First, that isn’t the case with this incident. Beard is 6’6, 200+, she is 5’5 115.

Self defense laws vary from state to state but in general if you can avoid a physical altercation you’re better off to do so 100 time out of 100.

 

[notFromhere]

Made under duress? She called them, not the other way around.

You're such a stalker without any common sense. I didn't say SHE made the call under duress. I said very specifically that statements made under duress and hysterical utterances are not usually taken as evidence in a trial. When people are not in their right minds, as you were not when reading my post, they make mistakes, and say things that are not necessarily factual.

Can you testify when completely drunk? Why do they make you swear you are of "sound mind" for legal actions?

At least you understand that she called them. Good job!

At best you’re saying that he was justified in physically assaulting her over broken glasses.

No. I'm not saying that. Get a hold of yourself, man.

SHE said, when sober, that he "defended himself." Is her sober testimony to be IGNORED in favor of her call when in an emotional state and perhaps inebriated as well? Do you know what else happened?

There is a long history of women who have been physically abused by wealthy/powerful men of recanting reports when they realize they may lose their seat on the gravy train.

There is a long history of people having adverse reactions to shots, causing everything from polio to paralysis, autism to death, and doctors/nurses refusing to report it for fear of losing their license/jobs.

Yep. I can do that, too.

Sure she could have been the instigator but that still doesn’t justify his actions.

She is actually TELLING YOU she is the instigator. Whatever happened to believing women? So, you're calling her a liar twice. She said he was defending not attacking. She said he wasn't choking her, and that she lied on he phone call.

What exactly were his actions? Tell us. Tell us everything that happened that night so we all know what you saw before during and after. I'd also like to know if it's just a story or fairy tale you've made up in your mind.

Rarely in these cases

So you're saying rarity is the nail in the coffin and the guarantee of guilt. When something like this happens to you, will you come back and post about your wrongful conviction from prison?

You know what we heard for decades? We heard that "rarely" is a person wrongly convicted. We heard it was impossible (rarely) for DNA evidence to be wrong.

I’d say there is a much greater chance than not that there has been one or more similar incidents in the past that were kept hushed

Well thank you once more for your omniscient opinion, but that is still not enough to assign guilt.

 

[rqa]

And there it is. He’s the bad guy. He didn’t fight over the phone, she lost her **** and attacked him while he tried to get away from it. He had no clue she’d react violently. It all eventually came out, but he had to go through hell to get there.

You just said he was showing her the text message on her phone. That she attacked him to get the phone back.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

First, that isn’t the case with this incident. Beard is 6’6, 200+, she is 5’5 115.

Self defense laws vary from state to state but in general if you can avoid a physical altercation you’re better off to do so 100 time out of 100.

You didn't answer my question, you skipped around it. Legally, does his size difference matter?

 

[Mdnerd]

You just said he was showing her the text message on her phone. That she attacked him to get the phone back.

Yea, where did I say he fought her over the phone?

 

[rqa]

You're such a stalker without any common sense. I didn't say SHE made the call under duress. I said very specifically that statements made under duress and hysterical utterances are not usually taken as evidence in a trial. When people are not in their right minds, as you were not when reading my post, they make mistakes, and say things that are not necessarily factual.

Can you testify when completely drunk? Why do they make you swear you are of "sound mind" for legal actions?

At least you understand that she called them. Good job!



No. I'm not saying that. Get a hold of yourself, man.

SHE said, when sober, that he "defended himself." Is her sober testimony to be IGNORED in favor of her call when in an emotional state and perhaps inebriated as well? Do you know what else happened?



There is a long history of people having adverse reactions to shots, causing everything from polio to paralysis, autism to death, and doctors/nurses refusing to report it for fear of losing their license/jobs.

Yep. I can do that, too.



She is actually TELLING YOU she is the instigator. Whatever happened to believing women? So, you're calling her a liar twice. She said he was defending not attacking. She said he wasn't choking her, and that she lied on he phone call.

What exactly were his actions? Tell us. Tell us everything that happened that night so we all know what you saw before during and after. I'd also like to know if it's just a story or fairy tale you've made up in your mind.



So you're saying rarity is the nail in the coffin and the guarantee of guilt. When something like this happens to you, will you come back and post about your wrongful conviction from prison?

You know what we heard for decades? We heard that "rarely" is a person wrongly convicted. We heard it was impossible (rarely) for DNA evidence to be wrong.




Well thank you once more for your omniscient opinion, but that is still not enough to assign guilt.

DNA evidence is never right or wrong. It is evidence. Period.
So if she was drunk then how would she know what happened with any certainty?
I’ve been drunk enough times to know that what I remember isn’t always what happened.

As for rarity, im saying it is likely that UTexas has information on other similar incidents. You nor I know what if anything has been swept under the rug. Will you admit that’s a possibility?

 

[notFromhere]

In this society the man is guilty no matter what in this scenario. A good friend of mine was put in jail and not allowed to see his kids for 6 months because his wife claimed abuse. He caught her cheating and had her cell phone showing her the text messages he found and she attacked him trying to get the phone back.

He had cuts all over his face and arms from her nails and she didn’t have the slightest scratch. The police didn’t even let him speak before putting the cuffs on him. It took 6 months of court dates and psych evals before he could see his children and attempt to get back to a normal life.

Ultimately she was forced to do a psych evaluation during the custody battle and it was determined she was a full on narcissist and borderline.

I NEVER take these situations at face value based on police actions. Their policy is to arrest the man and not ask a single question before doing so.

Exactly.

Happened to a few people I've known over 30yrs as well, but a little different than that.

1. Drunk girl caught lying and wouldn't leave someone else's apartment when asked many times. Boyfriend set her purse on the stairs outside while she was wailing on him, and walked back in the apt. She was clawing at him and wouldn't quit. Wouldn't leave the apt. Everyone else was afraid to go near her. He picked her up and took her outside. Set her down. She tried to come back in, and he pushed her back, and shut and locked the door before she could get in again.

She claimed to have been "beaten" and tried to go the domestic violence route, but he was fortunate that at least 3-4 men and women saw1 what really happened.

2. Girl had cheated on her boyfriend, but said she still wanted to be with him. He said it was over, and that she had to move out of his house, she went nuts breaking sht and assaulting him. He had to drag her out of the house and neighbors called the police. He, too, had witnesses or he'd have gone to jail and eventually might have lost his house and everything, even though he was the only one with wounds, and he was as patient with her as possible. It also helped that she had done the same thing in the past and it was thrown out.

3. Man assaulted by a woman with a weapon. He stepped out of harm's way and she fell over an object and hurt herself pretty good. He got out of there while she was incapacitated, and drove to his apartment complex, but parked away from apartment and slept in his vehicle. While she was still drunk, she called the police and went into his apt. The police got there but he wasn't there. She wounded herself at the other apartment, but she said he did it there at his apt.

Fortunately for him, they figured out she was drunk and took her home to find the scene where she hurt herself, and her story fell apart. They also figured out that she drove herself while drunk to his apt. She got a dui after the fact. She was not, however, charged with assault with a deadly weapon, as she should have been when she confessed that she attacked him.

I find it interesting that people think a man shouldn't defend himself, ever, when a woman attacks hhim. Hopefully no man is stupid enough not to defend himself, and has enough training and strength to do so without injuring the woman, or ignorant people will put him behind bars without collecting or looking at any evidence.

 

[notFromhere]

Yea, where did I say he fought her over the phone?

This one is not to be reasoned with. It's just not possible.

 

[bushrod1965]

They fired him because he choked his girlfriend. You can't be a teacher or molder of young men if you are abusive to women. Of course she retracted her statement once she realized he was about to lose his 5 million dollar a year salary. She called the police. They didn't call her. Now, why would she marry him? He beats her, and he doesn't have a job.

 

[bushrod1965]

In this society the man is guilty no matter what in this scenario. A good friend of mine was put in jail and not allowed to see his kids for 6 months because his wife claimed abuse. He caught her cheating and had her cell phone showing her the text messages he found and she attacked him trying to get the phone back.

He had cuts all over his face and arms from her nails and she didn’t have the slightest scratch. The police didn’t even let him speak before putting the cuffs on him. It took 6 months of court dates and psych evals before he could see his children and attempt to get back to a normal life.

Ultimately she was forced to do a psych evaluation during the custody battle and it was determined she was a full on narcissist and borderline.

I NEVER take these situations at face value based on police actions. Their policy is to arrest the man and not ask a single question before doing so.

Sounds like your friend had poor taste in women and married cray-cray without being perceptive enough to figure it out. I’d put that situation in the category of fu@% around and find out.

 

[Hank Camacho_rivals115797]

This thread reminds me of when Kentucky fans tried to talk themselves into taking Bud Mackey because our talent level was so bad.

 

[rqa]

You didn't answer my question, you skipped around it. Legally, does his size difference matter?

While self-defense laws vary by state, generally the force used in self-defense must be proportionate to the harm that is reasonably feared.
So in that aspect size could matter.

 

[rqa]

Yea, where did I say he fought her over the phone?

Quoting you…
“He caught her cheating and had her cell phone showing her the text messages he found and she attacked him trying to get the phone back.”

 

[Mdnerd]

This thread reminds me of when Kentucky fans tried to talk themselves into taking Bud Mackey because our talent level was so bad.

Yea, we should definitely assume guilt. Just feels better to do so…

Proof and her statement be damned, crucify the guy. Definitely the same thing as Mackey being a verified felon.

 

[Mdnerd]

Quoting you…
“He caught her cheating and had her cell phone showing her the text messages he found and she attacked him trying to get the phone back.”

Still failing to see where I said he fought her. She attacked him. He didn’t fight back…

Are you ok?

 

[TortElvisII]

The people that would have the Duke lacrosse team in prison to this day are the people that always believe women. Unless it affects one of their heroes. Or themselves.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

While self-defense laws vary by state, generally the force used in self-defense must be proportionate to the harm that is reasonably feared.
So in that aspect size could matter.

Texas law simply states you can use the force necessary for self-defense and you can't be the one who started it and reasonably belief the force is necessary. Size isn't a factor and I believe what they mean by "force necessary" is more in line with lethal vs non-lethal force.

I'm curious about his contract. One site stated he could be fired for being "charged" with a felony. I can see it if he's convicted of a felony and even some misdemeanors but only being charged makes no sense to me.

 

[rqa]

Texas law simply states you can use the force necessary for self-defense and you can't be the one who started it and reasonably belief the force is necessary. Size isn't a factor and I believe what they mean by "force necessary" is more in line with lethal vs non-lethal force.

I'm curious about his contract. One site stated he could be fired for being "charged" with a felony. I can see it if he's convicted of a felony and even some misdemeanors but only being charged makes no sense to me.

I’m sure there is no mention of size in the text of the law but at trial, when arguing over “force necessary” to a jury, the relative size differences are going to come into play in the minds of the jurors even if only subliminally. There are so many possible factors that it’s impossible to give an answer much better than “it depends“.

Between two unarmed combatants it’s going to be tough for a 6’5/250# man to claim he feared an *** whipping from a 5’0/95# woman. But without all the facts laid out it’s impossible to give a cut and dried answer.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I’m sure there is no mention of size in the text of the law but at trial, when arguing over “force necessary” to a jury, the relative size differences are going to come into play in the minds of the jurors even if only subliminally. There are so many possible factors that it’s impossible to give an answer much better than “it depends“.

Between two unarmed combatants it’s going to be tough for a 6’5/250# man to claim he feared an *** whipping from a 5’0/95# woman. But without all the facts laid out it’s impossible to give a cut and dried answer.

My point is, legally, a man does still have the right to defend himself and she obviously wasn't really hurt so we have that. If he isn't indicted, UT is gonna be in a mess.

 

[LOL_Man]

I think a desperate pathetic school like maybe Louisville should definitely be interested in Beard. He'd fit right into their Bobby Petrino collection.

 

[warrior-cat]

I’m sure there is no mention of size in the text of the law but at trial, when arguing over “force necessary” to a jury, the relative size differences are going to come into play in the minds of the jurors even if only subliminally. There are so many possible factors that it’s impossible to give an answer much better than “it depends“.

Between two unarmed combatants it’s going to be tough for a 6’5/250# man to claim he feared an *** whipping from a 5’0/95# woman. But without all the facts laid out it’s impossible to give a cut and dried answer.

Have a friend who just retired as a district judge around here. He helped me out a couple of times when he was a lawyer, and one instance was with my ex-wife. I told him about the day I found out she was cheating and that when I was packing to leave, she got angry and attacked me. She was just going at me (not the first time) she was trying to get me to retaliate so she could call the cops. I did not because of my training in the martial arts and he told me that was the best thing for me to do because, had I hurt her the prosecution could use my training against me and I could go to jail depending on how bad she was hurt. So yes, that does factor in. But, in the end, the jury will decide.

 

[Beatle Bum]

I am wondering if we need more facts. Evidently not.

 

[notFromhere]

Have a friend who just retired as a district judge around here. He helped me out a couple of times when he was a lawyer, and one instance was with my ex-wife. I told him about the day I found out she was cheating and that when I was packing to leave, she got angry and attacked me. She was just going at me (not the first time) she was trying to get me to retaliate so she could call the cops. I did not because of my training in the martial arts and he told me that was the best thing for me to do because, had I hurt her the prosecution could use my training against me and I could go to jail depending on how bad she was hurt. So yes, that does factor in. But, in the end, the jury will decide.

His martial arts training helped one of the ones I mentioned to keep the woman from hurting him or anyone else. He kept her restrained until he could get her out and lock the door behind her. Even with that, he'd have been in a lot of trouble without witnesses there, just based on her word alone.