Former 49er charged with attacking ex-boyfriend

[News Bot]

January 28, 2013, 05:00 AM By Michelle Durand Daily Journal
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1762218&title=Former+49er+charged+with+attacking+ex-boyfriend#.UQbLkdk8fjg.email" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_p ... 8fjg.email</a>


[wrapimg=left]http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_image/smdj_article_1762218_1.jpg[/wrapimg]Former San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders offensive tackle Kwame Harris will appear in San Mateo County Superior Court today on charges he assaulted his former boyfriend at a Menlo Park restaurant during an argument over soy sauce and underwear.

Harris, 30, is charged with felony counts of domestic violence causing great bodily injury and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury in the Aug. 21, 2012 incident. He has pleaded not guilty but was held to answer after a preliminary hearing last fall. He is due back in court today for a pretrial conference to either settle the case or confirm a jury trial hearing.

The man, Dimitri Geier, is also suing Harris civilly for assault, battery, false imprisonment, negligence and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Harris and his alleged victim had been in a romantic relationship but were no longer involved when they met at Su Hong restaurant in Menlo Park, said Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti.

Harris’ attorney Alin Cintean confirms the pair were previously involved but were just friends at that point.

Harris was to drive Geier to San Francisco International Airport but instead became upset when he poured soy sauce on a plate of rice, according to the suit filed in San Mateo County Superior Court.

The men argued for approximately seven minutes and Harris said he would no longer take Geier to the airport, the suit states.

As the men left to remove Geier’s belongings from Harris’ car so that he could instead take a cab, Harris tried pulling the other man’s pants down and accused him of stealing his underwear, according to the suit.

Geier unsuccessfully tried pushing Harris away but the bigger man shook him violently and punched him in the arms, the suit states.

Police reports list Harris as 6 feet 7 inches and 240 pounds while Geier is 6 feet 1 inch and 220, Guidotti said.

Geier allegedly hit Harris three times in the face but Harris “seemed only to grow more agitated” and punched him in the face several times until he fell, the suit states.

Harris allegedly threw Geier’s property from the car and left while Geier hailed a cab and was taken to an emergency room in San Jose.

Geier had surgery to repair broken orbital bones and required a metal plate to repair the damage.

Harris was arrested at his home.

Geier threw the first punch after the verbal fight escalated but Harris was charged because the other man ended up injured, Cintean said.

“This really is a pure self-defense case. He was attacked,” Cintean said.

Cintean said the claims and subsequent civil matter is an effort to get money from Harris.

“We’re looking forward to having this proven in court and clearing his name,” Cintean said.

A filed legal response to Geier’s lawsuit also denies every claim.

Harris was “in fear of his life and his physical well-being and was merely acting out of self-defense” because Geier was “attacking him for no apparent reason,” the complaint response states.

Harris also denies the allegation of falsely imprisoning Geier, saying he was at no time prevented or told he could not leave.

If convicted, Harris faces up to seven years in prison, Guidotti said.

He is free from custody on $75,000 bail.

 

[CGI_Ram]

He sounds innocent to me.

Dude sure has gotten thinner since his football days!

 

[brokeu91]

I wonder how many NFL players are actually gay and have not come out?

Does anyone think it would ruin the locker room/comradery? I played baseball for most of my childhood/early adult life and we had a couple of players who were gay (one was openly gay a couple of others were not open about it, but it was obvious and they later came out), and it never bothered any of us. We could care less, though sometimes some guys were a little skittish (at first) about showering with them. But after they got to know them and saw that we didn't care showering with them, they didn't really care either.

Does anyone have any personal experience in football in this matter?

 

[Thordaddy]

One of the dangers of gay relations , both parties have tendencies toward male violent behavior.
I've seen some of the most efeminate gays you can imagine snap and turn into Bruce Lee with a purse.

Sounds like winning a fight even when you are attacked in Cali is a crime, Steve Smith aught to take note :rofl:

 

[Selassie I]

So fitting when you really think about it.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Before proceeding; I want to issue a disclaimer; I have not problem with people who are gay. I don't understand it. I never will.

But I guess, whatever makes people happy, within the laws of society, I have no problem.

So with that said, I've found some really funny pictures of Kwame;

This is a very gay "high five";

I don't mind the hat, but you got to admit, he does look a little gay in it;

:lmao:

 

[Thordaddy]

Before proceeding; I want to issue a disclaimer; I have not problem with people who are gay. I don't understand it. I never will.

But I guess, whatever makes people happy, within the laws of society, I have no problem.

So with that said, I've found some really funny pictures of Kwame;

This is a very gay "high five";

I don't mind the hat, but you got to admit, he does look a little gay in it;

:lmao:

I don't think you needed to issue that disclaimer CGI, if you can't stand gays and ONLY want to point and giggle,IMO it's your right.

If on the other hand you want to do something overtly harmful to gays THAT I'd have a problem with.
I reserve the right to the former, no one has the right to do the later.

Sadly I understand why people are intelectually bullied into feeling they need to issue the disclaimer you did, speech is no longer free because professionaly offended people gain power from their profession.

IMA go now and bring back an edit ,something wv posted on another board about Django.

wv wrote

"Just somethin i skimmed today. Someone sent me this feminist perspective
on Django Unchained.
w
v

<a class="postlink" href="http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/</a> ... .html#more

VI.

In Django Unchained, evil slaveowner Leonardo DiCaprio asks a question. Sorry, back up: why does everyone call him an evil slaveowner? As far as I can tell, he was a pretty average slaveowner, I'd even say he was "kind", in the sense that all his slaves "like" him, and he rarely "tortures" anyone and by the use of quotes you can see I'm hedging, my point here is how quickly people have to broadcast their indignancy. "He's evil." So what you're saying is you're against slavery? Thanks for clarifying.

This explains the near-universal anxiety over the movie's frequent use of the word black, and someone asked Tarantino if he thought he had used it too much in the movie, and his response was perfect: "too much, in comparison to how much it was used back then?" black, and the violence, was all anyone was upset about. Terry Gross, NPR's mental Fleshlight, asked Tarantino her typically insightful and nuanced questions: "do you enjoy violent movies less after what happened at Sandy Hook?" Sigh. So there's the Terry Gross checklist for reviewing Django: gun=bad and saying black=bad. Check and check. You know what no one thought badworthy? When the white guy asked to have a certain slave sent to his room to try out her ample vagina, and the prim white lady of the house happily escorted her up. "Go on, do what you're told, girl."

I'd venture that Terry Gross and and the gang at HuffPoWo would rather be whipped than be-- that's rape, right?-- but that scene didn't light up their amygdalas, only hearing "black" did. I find that highly suspicious, or astoundingly obtuse, or both.

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: "Why don't they just rise up?"

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius. That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn't his country, he doesn't really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it's completely legitimate for a guy who

doesn't know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven't yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don't think to ask this? But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don't rise up is that he-- that system-- taught them not to. When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If "the system tells you what to do" doesn't seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED. Why did Django rise up? He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes. How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check? Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage
to kill white people?

"The dentist freed him." So? Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings. "He's 'one in ten thousand'?" Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart. "He got a gun?" Doesn't help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren't free. No. You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to. He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people. That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life. His powers were on loan, he wasn't even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man. But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner's question has a hidden, repressed dark side: DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn't own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that's the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery-- trying to rationalize what he is doing. That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident... do you see? "Why don't they just rise up?" is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: "why do the whites own slaves? Why don't they just... stop?" And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception. 1 in 10000, I guess. And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what's been repressed-- how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier "evil" to "slaveowner" if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then? "But at least I wouldn't be evil." Keep telling yourself that. And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what's up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot? You'd say what everybody says, "look wildman, don't ask me, that's just the system. Can't change it. Want to rape a black chick?"

 

[Sum1]

Before proceeding; I want to issue a disclaimer; I have not problem with people who are gay. I don't understand it. I never will.

But I guess, whatever makes people happy, within the laws of society, I have no problem.

So with that said, I've found some really funny pictures of Kwame;

This is a very gay "high five";

I don't mind the hat, but you got to admit, he does look a little gay in it;

:lmao:

I don't think you needed to issue that disclaimer CGI, if you can't stand gays and ONLY want to point and giggle,IMO it's your right.

If on the other hand you want to do something overtly harmful to gays THAT I'd have a problem with.
I reserve the right to the former, no one has the right to do the later.

Sadly I understand why people are intelectually bullied into feeling they need to issue the disclaimer you did, speech is no longer free because professionaly offended people gain power from their profession.

IMA go now and bring back an edit ,something wv posted on another board about Django.

wv wrote

"Just somethin i skimmed today. Someone sent me this feminist perspective
on Django Unchained.
w
v

<a class="postlink" href="http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/</a>" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... .html#more

VI.

In Django Unchained, evil slaveowner Leonardo DiCaprio asks a question. Sorry, back up: why does everyone call him an evil slaveowner? As far as I can tell, he was a pretty average slaveowner, I'd even say he was "kind", in the sense that all his slaves "like" him, and he rarely "tortures" anyone and by the use of quotes you can see I'm hedging, my point here is how quickly people have to broadcast their indignancy. "He's evil." So what you're saying is you're against slavery? Thanks for clarifying.

This explains the near-universal anxiety over the movie's frequent use of the word black, and someone asked Tarantino if he thought he had used it too much in the movie, and his response was perfect: "too much, in comparison to how much it was used back then?" black, and the violence, was all anyone was upset about. Terry Gross, NPR's mental Fleshlight, asked Tarantino her typically insightful and nuanced questions: "do you enjoy violent movies less after what happened at Sandy Hook?" Sigh. So there's the Terry Gross checklist for reviewing Django: gun=bad and saying black=bad. Check and check. You know what no one thought badworthy? When the white guy asked to have a certain slave sent to his room to try out her ample vagina, and the prim white lady of the house happily escorted her up. "Go on, do what you're told, girl."

I'd venture that Terry Gross and and the gang at HuffPoWo would rather be whipped than be-- that's rape, right?-- but that scene didn't light up their amygdalas, only hearing "black" did. I find that highly suspicious, or astoundingly obtuse, or both.

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: "Why don't they just rise up?"

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius. That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn't his country, he doesn't really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it's completely legitimate for a guy who

doesn't know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven't yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don't think to ask this? But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don't rise up is that he-- that system-- taught them not to. When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If "the system tells you what to do" doesn't seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED. Why did Django rise up? He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes. How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check? Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage
to kill white people?

"The dentist freed him." So? Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings. "He's 'one in ten thousand'?" Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart. "He got a gun?" Doesn't help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren't free. No. You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to. He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people. That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life. His powers were on loan, he wasn't even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man. But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner's question has a hidden, repressed dark side: DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn't own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that's the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery-- trying to rationalize what he is doing. That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident... do you see? "Why don't they just rise up?" is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: "why do the whites own slaves? Why don't they just... stop?" And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception. 1 in 10000, I guess. And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what's been repressed-- how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier "evil" to "slaveowner" if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then? "But at least I wouldn't be evil." Keep telling yourself that. And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what's up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot? You'd say what everybody says, "look wildman, don't ask me, that's just the system. Can't change it. Want to rape a black chick?"

I'd say your point should be taken as simply as you should treat people as you'd like to be treated.

 

[Ramhusker]

Soy Sauce and Underwear? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! Enough said on this subject.

 

[nighttrain]

just extremely happy it was a Whiner, ahhhhhhh, San Francisco. hehehehhehe
train

 

[Thordaddy]

Before proceeding; I want to issue a disclaimer; I have not problem with people who are gay. I don't understand it. I never will.

But I guess, whatever makes people happy, within the laws of society, I have no problem.

So with that said, I've found some really funny pictures of Kwame;

This is a very gay "high five";

I don't mind the hat, but you got to admit, he does look a little gay in it;

:lmao:

I don't think you needed to issue that disclaimer CGI, if you can't stand gays and ONLY want to point and giggle,IMO it's your right.

If on the other hand you want to do something overtly harmful to gays THAT I'd have a problem with.
I reserve the right to the former, no one has the right to do the later.

Sadly I understand why people are intelectually bullied into feeling they need to issue the disclaimer you did, speech is no longer free because professionaly offended people gain power from their profession.

IMA go now and bring back an edit ,something wv posted on another board about Django.

wv wrote

"Just somethin i skimmed today. Someone sent me this feminist perspective
on Django Unchained.
w
v

<a class="postlink" href="http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/</a>" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... .html#more

VI.

In Django Unchained, evil slaveowner Leonardo DiCaprio asks a question. Sorry, back up: why does everyone call him an evil slaveowner? As far as I can tell, he was a pretty average slaveowner, I'd even say he was "kind", in the sense that all his slaves "like" him, and he rarely "tortures" anyone and by the use of quotes you can see I'm hedging, my point here is how quickly people have to broadcast their indignancy. "He's evil." So what you're saying is you're against slavery? Thanks for clarifying.

This explains the near-universal anxiety over the movie's frequent use of the word black, and someone asked Tarantino if he thought he had used it too much in the movie, and his response was perfect: "too much, in comparison to how much it was used back then?" black, and the violence, was all anyone was upset about. Terry Gross, NPR's mental Fleshlight, asked Tarantino her typically insightful and nuanced questions: "do you enjoy violent movies less after what happened at Sandy Hook?" Sigh. So there's the Terry Gross checklist for reviewing Django: gun=bad and saying black=bad. Check and check. You know what no one thought badworthy? When the white guy asked to have a certain slave sent to his room to try out her ample vagina, and the prim white lady of the house happily escorted her up. "Go on, do what you're told, girl."

I'd venture that Terry Gross and and the gang at HuffPoWo would rather be whipped than be-- that's rape, right?-- but that scene didn't light up their amygdalas, only hearing "black" did. I find that highly suspicious, or astoundingly obtuse, or both.

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: "Why don't they just rise up?"

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius. That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn't his country, he doesn't really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it's completely legitimate for a guy who

doesn't know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven't yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don't think to ask this? But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don't rise up is that he-- that system-- taught them not to. When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If "the system tells you what to do" doesn't seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED. Why did Django rise up? He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes. How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check? Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage
to kill white people?

"The dentist freed him." So? Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings. "He's 'one in ten thousand'?" Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart. "He got a gun?" Doesn't help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren't free. No. You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to. He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people. That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life. His powers were on loan, he wasn't even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man. But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner's question has a hidden, repressed dark side: DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn't own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that's the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery-- trying to rationalize what he is doing. That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident... do you see? "Why don't they just rise up?" is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: "why do the whites own slaves? Why don't they just... stop?" And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception. 1 in 10000, I guess. And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what's been repressed-- how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier "evil" to "slaveowner" if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then? "But at least I wouldn't be evil." Keep telling yourself that. And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what's up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot? You'd say what everybody says, "look wildman, don't ask me, that's just the system. Can't change it. Want to rape a black chick?"

I'd say your point should be taken as simply as you should treat people as you'd like to be treated.

I'd say it is more that you can expect the world to be cruel, because it is , but that if you decide to engage in cruelty you need to GET where the line is.

 

[RamFan503]

Soy Sauce and Underwear? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! Enough said on this subject.

Yep. That's pretty much what I took out of it. You just can't make that shit up. :rofl:

 

[-X-]

49ers CB Chris Culliver lashes out against homosexuals

Brad Biggs
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/49ers-CB-Chris-Culliver-lashes-out-against-homosexuals.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/49e ... xuals.html</a>


San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver is taking the spotlight and making it clear he doesn’t have any desire to share a locker room with a gay teammate.

Culliver, in an interview with radio show host Artie Lange on Tuesday, said that gays would not be welcome in the locker room.

“I don't do the gay guys man," Culliver said, according to Cam Inman of the San Jose Mercury News. "I don't do that. No, we don't got no gay people on the team, they gotta get up out of here if they do.


"Can't be with that sweet stuff. Nah ... can't be ... in the locker room man. Nah."

Culliver, the third cornerback on defense and a core special teams contributor, went on to say that if a teammate was gay, he should keep it private for 10 years after he retires.

The timing for Culliver’s remarks would be poor at any moment. That he made the comments from the Super Bowl is especially damning. Earlier this week, former 49ers offensive lineman Kwame Harris, who also spent time with the Oakland Raiders, appeared in court on charges of domestic violence against a male partner.

Follow me on Twitter: @BradBiggs

 

[bluecoconuts]

Pointless hate.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Pointless hate.

Agree.



Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[-X-]

Pointless hate.

Yeah. Giant homophobe.

 

[Memento]

Pointless hate.

Pointless bigotry and pointless grammar abuse. Seriously: "don't got no"? It just shows how laughably uneducated Culliver really is. When you look at the place he plays at, he just lost himself a lot of potential fans with that rant.

 

[…..]

This goes much deeper than gays in the NFL....

The real issue here ramains a mystery......exactly how much Soy Sauce is enough soy sauce to get your ass kicked by a gay guy?

:mrgreen:

 

[RamFan503]

This goes much deeper than gays in the NFL....

The real issue here ramains a mystery......exactly how much Soy Sauce is enough soy sauce to get your ass kicked by a gay guy?

:mrgreen:

Apparently depend on whose panties you're wearin'.

 

[Ramhusker]

This goes much deeper than gays in the NFL....

The real issue here ramains a mystery......exactly how much Soy Sauce is enough soy sauce to get your ass kicked by a gay guy?

:mrgreen:

Apparently depend on whose panties you're wearin'.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Just stop it! :gay: