Latimer

[Stymietee]

Gentlemen, the problem isn't just one that is created by reports but one that both brings out the worse in us and spoils any perspective jury pool.

People lie, that is a fact, they also take their personal demons with them as potential jurors. News reports and social media has almost certainly further tainted perspective jury pools or exposed how unlikely it is to get 12 "honest" citizens, who are unmoved, untainted, and have no prior or current knowledge of the case as outlined in a standard juror questionnaire form.

 

[Stymietee]

BTW: for those who are unaware, question #5 on a standard juror questionnaire form reads as follows..

5. Do NOT have any communication with anyone, or read anything about this case, or about the questions in this questionnaire until the judge lets you know that you may. Do not email text or use social media or any other means of communication to read or communicate about this case with anyone else This includes any in-person communication as well as postings, commenting, or entering into any discussion on any social media, blogs, or any other internet Forum (including any access to Facebook, Facebook live, YouTube, Twitter, Snapchat, Periscope, Vine LinkedIn, Instagram Google+, or any other method of messaging or communication) regarding anything to do with this questionnaire or this case.

 

[Stymietee]

Good luck getting an unattached jury pool after considering the world that we live in today!

 

[Ruzious]

Convicted by the media means they suspected guilt. I don’t doubt that. Being convicted by the media is not the same thing as smearing him. Had the media been going around claiming he was guilty and belittling him, that would be smearing him. Saying he was accused and saying they believe the accusation is not smearing him.

I have no interest in the distinction you're trying to make.

 

[skinsdad62]

There is nothing wrong with believing he was guilty on a personal level. That is not smearing him.

Of course he deserved due process.

when you put it in an article or on twitter it isnt on a personal level anymore

 

[skinsdad62]

Gentlemen, the problem isn't just one that is created by reports but one that both brings out the worse in us and spoils any perspective jury pool.

People lie, that is a fact, they also take their personal demons with them as potential jurors. News reports and social media has almost certainly further tainted perspective jury pools or exposed how unlikely it is to get 12 "honest" citizens, who are unmoved, untainted, and have no prior or current knowledge of the case as outlined in a standard juror questionnaire form.

believe it or not there are a lot of people who dont follow football

 

[skinsdad62]

I have no interest in the distinction you're trying to make.

i dont know what world GK lives in where you can assume, imply , and even outright say he is guilty , do it in public , on national TV , and on numerous social media platforms and then come back and say " that isnt a smear "

i dont know what word play he is trying to make . if you convict a innocent man in the above forums i have mentioned (collectively the press ) you are in fact smearing him . telling a falsehood is a smear period

i dont even know why that needs to be explained

they jumped to a conclusion he was guilty without any of it playing out . they rushed to judgement and smeared an innocent man

 

[Stymietee]

believe it or not there are a lot of people who dont follow football

Of course I believe it, but as you know arrests, especially those involving athletes, aren't just reported on sports channels. People who don't follow football or other sports for that matter, also have opinions for and against them. They aren't any different in getting, forming and interjecting their opinions via news and social media venues.

 

[Ruzious]

believe it or not there are a lot of people who dont follow football

C'mon, who in America doesn't know the 6th WR on the Skins depth chart?

 

[gkekoa]

when you put it in an article or on twitter it isnt on a personal level anymore

When you put it in an article or on twitter, it is still a personal opinion. You do realize facts are facts...such as he was accused...and opinions are opinions...such as hiring somebody accused of domestic violence is wrong.

 

[gkekoa]

i dont know what world GK lives in where you can assume, imply , and even outright say he is guilty , do it in public , on national TV , and on numerous social media platforms and then come back and say " that isnt a smear "

i dont know what word play he is trying to make . if you convict a innocent man in the above forums i have mentioned (collectively the press ) you are in fact smearing him . telling a falsehood is a smear period

i dont even know why that needs to be explained

they jumped to a conclusion he was guilty without any of it playing out . they rushed to judgement and smeared an innocent man

What falsehood was told? Everything you showed me was he was accused. Then people formed opinions based on the accusation. It is in fact an opinion that a man accused of domestic violence should not be hired. It is not a statement of fact. I did not see one person say he was guilty of the crime which would be a smear. The definition of smear is to damage the reputation of somebody by false accusations; slander. His ex smeared him. The media, which I cannot stand, did not smear him. Had the media actually smeared him, he could have brought a libel suit against the entity that printed it, or a slander suit against somebody who slandered him.

Words have meanings which we should probably know.

 

[skinsdad62]

What falsehood was told? Everything you showed me was he was accused. Then people formed opinions based on the accusation. It is in fact an opinion that a man accused of domestic violence should not be hired. It is not a statement of fact. I did not see one person say he was guilty of the crime which would be a smear. The definition of smear is to damage the reputation of somebody by false accusations; slander. His ex smeared him. The media, which I cannot stand, did not smear him. Had the media actually smeared him, he could have brought a libel suit against the entity that printed it, or a slander suit against somebody who slandered him.

Words have meanings which we should probably know.

They did by implying his guilt and out right saying it as my post above showed .

 

[skinsdad62]

Foster signing

A column Tuesday in USA Today said the team’s addition of Foster sends a “vile, inexcusable message,” and asks how team officials can explain why they’re employing someone accused of abusing a woman.

This above statements assumes guilt or why else would you say it ?


Will they try to tell their loved ones that it’s OK to turn a blind eye to domestic violence as long as a man has talent? With this move, that’s exactly what the Redskins are saying,” columnist Mike Jones wrote.

Looks like this is blatant GK

I don’t think Reuben Foster will ever play a down for the Washington Redskins but that organization just told you today what they think aboutdomestic violence,” sportswriter Richard Deitschposted to Twitter.

Again assuming guilt


Brenda Tracy, founder of #SetTheExpectation, a groupthat speaks to high school and college sportsteamsabout sexual and physical violence, posted this reaction on Twitter: “Setting my activism aside, as asurvivor of domestic violence and r*pe — Reuben Foster being picked up 72hrs after his release — hurts.”

again assuming guilt

Everyone in these post wrote the article assuming he was GUILTY . If you aren’t saying he is guilty why write these things ?

 

[Stakesarehigh]

 

[skinsdad62]

Domestic abuse is abhorrent behavior that should not be tolerated anywhere. Anywhere. In the NFL, especially in the NFL, after a string of highvisibility and terrible incidents, a line needs to be drawn, particularly with repeat offenders.

Not only did he assume guilt here but he actually called him a repeat offender KNOWING she recanted the firSt accusation

how can you be called a repeat offender and not say he is guilty In the first place ?

 

[Stymietee]

Another example of the cracks in our system. I understand that there has been acceptance in how news is reported, but I'm going to ask the question that has but one obvious answer.

A person, (doesn't matter who this person is) is arrested and accused of some crime that offends our sense of order. His or her name and likeness are part of these reports. The person is ultimately cleared and now presumed innocent/totally exonerated. The question is... is that exoneration and presumption of innocence now 100% back to where it was prior to the accusation/arrest?

 

[gkekoa]

Another example of the cracks in our system. I understand that there has been acceptance in how news is reported, but I'm going to ask the question that has but one obvious answer.

A person, (doesn't matter who this person is) is arrested and accused of some crime that offends our sense of order. His or her name and likeness are part of these reports. The person is ultimately cleared and now presumed innocent/totally exonerated. The question is... is that exoneration and presumption of innocence now 100% back to where it was prior to the accusation/arrest?

It should be...but of course it isn’t.

 

[gkekoa]

Foster signing

A column Tuesday in USA Today said the team’s addition of Foster sends a “vile, inexcusable message,” and asks how team officials can explain why they’re employing someone accused of abusing a woman.

This above statements assumes guilt or why else would you say it ? The above statement doesn’t imply guilt (even if it is believed by the individual). It specifically states “accused.”


Will they try to tell their loved ones that it’s OK to turn a blind eye to domestic violence as long as a man has talent? With this move, that’s exactly what the Redskins are saying,” columnist Mike Jones wrote.

Looks like this is blatant GK It does not at state Foster is guilty. It is a person’s perspective.

I don’t think Reuben Foster will ever play a down for the Washington Redskins but that organization just told you today what they think aboutdomestic violence,” sportswriter Richard Deitschposted to Twitter.

Again assuming guilt It doesn’t assume guilt. Nowhere does it say he is guilty.


Brenda Tracy, founder of #SetTheExpectation, a groupthat speaks to high school and college sportsteamsabout sexual and physical violence, posted this reaction on Twitter: “Setting my activism aside, as asurvivor of domestic violence and r*pe — Reuben Foster being picked up 72hrs after his release — hurts.”

again assuming guilt. Again, does not state guilt.

Everyone in these post wrote the article assuming he was GUILTY . If you aren’t saying he is guilty why write these things ?

The individuals wrote the article assuming he is guilty. There is nothing wrong with that. They have a belief and have no obligation to assume his innocence. They can’t lie in print because that would be defamation (smearing). If Reuben Foster had been smeared, I am sure his lawyer would have brought it to his attention by saying, “let’s sue.”

 

[Stymietee]

It should be...but of course it isn’t.

Correct!! And that is what makes this sort of reporting a smear. That hypothetical person will never be made whole in the greater society nor within parts of his/her own circle of family and friends.

Hell, the manner in which we function, actually function out of order transcends almost every segment of life in the U.S. Examples will include, race, politics, religion, economics, medicine, sports, et. al. but rather than getting into any of these, let's respect the "No politics" edict here.

 

[Stymietee]

The individuals wrote the article assuming he is guilty. There is nothing wrong with that. They have a belief and have no obligation to assume his innocence. They can’t lie in print because that would be defamation (smearing). If Reuben Foster had been smeared, I am sure his lawyer would have brought it to his attention by saying, “let’s sue.”

Normalizing/accepting how things are done, "there is nothing wrong with that" says so much about the collective dysfunction in this nation. A presumption of innocence, in law, and therefore, in any prospective jury pool (the general public) has to be how we function normally, but of course it isn't. Ultimately, there's no will to ever consider a lawsuit because doing that lands you in the supreme court and Congress with questions about the extent in which the first amendment allows this sort of damaging reporting.

Did this ^^^^^^^^^^ cross the political line? If so, apologies, I made the attempt to talk around it, but if so, I won't do it this way again.