Chris Beard to Arkansas?
- Thread starter BigKari
- Start date
you should also add common sense. this country also allows me to have my own opinion which I'll state when iI feel like just as you state as you feel
Maybe he’s waiting for a better job he thinks might open up next year. 🤷♂️
Having the right to an opinion doesn't include infringing on the rights of others, which includes being innocent until proven guilty and due process. Seems like you forgot that part in your common sense analysis.
So you believe in due process for Beard but have no problem in touting your facts that his fiancé lied. To you, she is guilty of lying about all of it although the police report, photos and the fact that UT wasted no time in firing his sleazy ass seems to just, escape you. I am guessing you are fighting this nonsense battle alone. It looks like you joined this forum just to prop up Beard.
Lol, dude. You really need to try reading and comprehending.
I have never said she lied. I have never said she didn't lie. I have never said Beard did or didn't abuse her. I am literally telling you I have no idea, just like you have no idea. What I am tellling you is she recanted. The prosecutor declined to press charges and acknowledged there wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute the case. I am additionally telling you that in the eyes of law, Beard is innocent at this point. That means he shouldn't be disqualified for a job at a public university when he hasn’t been convicted of wrongdoing just because you personally believe he is guilty. That's not how it works here.
Yea, I joined this forum a week before this thread was created in preparation! 🤣
She recanted because she sobered up and saw the gravy train leaving the station. The police report and her face don't lie. But no surprise, BBN had clowns calling for Petrino to be hired.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Lol, they broke up right after. I don't think recanting was going to help her keep the money.She recanted because she sobered up and saw the gravy train leaving the station. The police report and her face don't lie. But no surprise, BBN had clowns calling for Petrino to be hired.
Police reports are just statements of the parties involved and observations. Even the DA said there wasn't enough evidence to take it trial.
Can you show us her face? Something tells me you haven't actually seen what it looked like to know what you're talking about. Hint: there was only a cut abover left eyebrow.
Rumors and speculation, so I try not get caught up in it since nobody ever seems to know for sure.
I do know that we have two players, one recruit and no coach. My guess, and that's all it is, at this point would be Will Wade.
what rights did I infringe on my opinion of him being an asshole hasn't infringed on his rights at all. he seems to be doing well for himself
You've essentially determined his guilt without due process. Granted, you aren't the government, so I don't literally mean you are taking his rights from him.
I agree with most of what you say until he shouldn't be disqualified from a job. They can hire whoever they want, and chose not to hire someone they are convinced beat up his girlfriend.
At a private company sure, but not a government funded university. That would essentially be the government violating your right to due process. Now, it may certainly be an underlying reason that goes unsaid, but I would imagine if that could be proven it would be a potential legal issue.
Now, you might ask then how did UT get away with firing him. That was because his contract provided language that allowed it, and TX passed legislation a few years prior that protects schools in these cases.
A private university can hire whoever they want to be its coach as long as Title XII or similar state laws are violated.
A private could likely get away with it, but even they have to adhere to certain hiring practices.
UK is what I am mostly referring to.
I meant to say public university. Being an unconvicted asshole is not a protected class.
I don't know about that. I would say not hiring because he was accused of a crime that the charges were later dropped for at a public institution could probably have some legal consequences. It would certainly be stupid if he is the best available.
Obviously Ole Miss did some due diligence in feeling comfortable hiring him. Now other schools are wanting him and Ole Miss worked to keep him. If he turns Ole Miss into a contender this year or next, I assume he will start getting even bigger offers.
Have you ever interacted with Chris Beard or anything to know he is an asshole?
That's not the way that I interpret all of the internet talk. Beard was indeed a top target, but decided to stay put at Mississippi.
I also find it hard to believe that Tang was a legitimate candidate, mainly because of his record and experience as a head coach along with a 6 million dollar buyout.
As far as I know, Wade is still in the mix.
Nobody really knows much of anything for sure, the job has only been open for a few days and its Final Four weekend.
I don’t think you're understanding people aren't just limited to discrimination suits. Collusion, conspiracy and other reasons exist. Unfair hiring practices also include things other than just discrimination as well. I am not saying he would or certainly could have a claim, but depending on how it was handled, there could certainly be legal issues. So, I'm not really sure how I was wrong.
So what would he sue for? What would be the cause of action where he alleges a school did something wrong by not hiring him? They engaged in a conspiracy to collude to do things they are legally entitled to do? You say there could certainly be legal issues....what are they?
Ok, so...
Someone who works for a university is an employee. In legal terms that is an agent. When an agent does something on behalf of a company, or in the scope of their employment, (the principal) liability then also shift to the principal.
Now, if while in my job I makes false claims about someone, like, I dunno, calling them a domestic abuser when they haven't been convicted of such and I have no proof of such, what have I just done? And who could be liable?
Being that Beard is a public figure, actual malice will need to be present, but lets assume that burden can be met.
Now, if I provide that information to others and that is used to influence a decision, what else has just happened?
Now, who is liable in those instances and can be sued?
What are you talking about? First of all, a principal is not legally responsible for intentional illegal acts of their agent unless the agent was committing those acts in furtherance of the principal's business. If a University employee defames someone (which is what you are alluding to) the University is not responsible unless it was done to further the University. So, if UK decides not to hire Chris Beard becuase Mitch Barnhart decides based upon what he has read or seen that Beard beat, bit, bruised and choked his girlfriend, Chris Beard has no legal remedy against UK. I understand your point that Beard was not convicted. That has nothing to do with whether anyone believes he did it and don't want to hire him based upon that belief. Now if Barnhart deciced to have a press conference and say that Beard is a woman abuser, and it was proven that he was not (not proven that he was not convicted of it), and it was proven that Barnhart did that to keep someone from hiring Beard, there may be a claim. None of that happened. Not sure why you want to die on this hill. The guy choked and bit his girlfriend. If it was truly made up, he would have had a good case against Texas for firing him for bad cause in breach of his contract.
Lol, no, a principle is liable unless the the agent is solely acting for his own benefit. Or if both types of authority don't exist.
Also, it wouldn't just have to be Barnhart or Eli.
Them or any employee communicating to someone else that a person who hasn't been convicted of domestic violence, could be defamation if they were doing it for some benefit of the principal.
But it does have to do with defaming someone. Just because you believe someone did something does noy give you the right to spread that belief to others if it harms the person you're defaming in some manner if no evidence exists.
I am not really dying on a hill or saying it did happen. You simply asked for a scennario and I provided one. You've even conceded multiple times now there could be certain instances where there could be a claim.
What evidence have you seen that he did any of that? According the the DA, they didn't even have enough to prove it.
TX fired him because his contract gave them the necessary provisions to do so without owing a buyout. I also previously posted an article in the thread that mentioned TX legislation that had been passed several years prior that protected state institutions from lawsuits in these cases.
My guess is you are a first year law student that just finished the Torts section on defamation and the ConLaw section on Due Process. I can say all day long that I think Chris Beard beat his girlfriend up without any fear of liability. The DA said that because she recanted and now says it didn't happen, he didn't think he could prove the charge "beyond a reasonable doubt". And I agree with him. There was probable cause for an arrest and enough for UT to fire him for cause. Hell UL paid Rick Pitino. I've seen no evidence other than the police report that confirmed that she called the police, said he choked her and bit her, and that the police saw bite marks, bruises and cuts, and then arrested him. That is enough for me to never hire him and tell people that I think he beat her up, again, without the fear of any reprisal in civil court.
Finished first year a while ago. I am still trying to figure out what I am wrong on though? As far as I can tell, everything I have said has been spot on. I don't think a lawsuit is likely in any if the situations, just that the potential exists for there to be.
The DA already had her initial statement and evidence. They wouldn’t have needed her if the evidence was that strong.
As long as you preface them as your opinion or you believe, but the moment you start making blanket statements that so and so is a spouse beater or domestic abuse and so forth, you've committed defamation. Now as I said earlier, him being a public figure adds the actual malice element. So that makes it a bit harder, but not that much.
You don't always have to have full probable cause for an arrest. In cases of domestic violence, if police are called and see evidence of what looks like a domestic struggle, they are generally going to remove someone just as a precaution. You're still going to have to do testing to find out what is accurate and what isn't.
UT had cause because the verbiage in his contract allowed them to fire him for anything that would be detrimental to the University. He could also be fired for simply being charged with a felony, regardless of a conviction. Considering the public outcry, I completely understand why they had to make that choice to let him go. I'm sure they regret it now.
Pitino wasn't charged with anything. He was just alleged to have been invovled in the FBI sting operation. It was also his 3rd scandal in around 5 years and 2nd while they were currently on probation. That's why he was let go.
So, you've seen no evidence, spoken to no one involved, and don't know Beard or his former fiance, but based on media reports you're ready to hang em? Sounds about right for today's times.
So he’s just like you, unconvicted ahole is what you’re saying ? Being unconvicted is 99% of America. No wonder Mutch can’t find a replacement.
I could see that, he definitely will do everything he can to win. Now that he can legally pay people he will do well.
After being turned down by Beard and Tang, now they are after Jans. No longer considered a good job.
Similar threads
