It would seem that a court conviction, plus some time to reflect, have done little to enlighten Robert Foster as to the real issue, including his assault on the 16-year-old Little League umpire.
Quotes from his court-imposed essay on "The Proper Behavior of Spectators at a Sporting Event" would seem to indicate that Foster would like us to believe that the age of the umpire was the focal point of this ugly incident.
However, as I recall, it was not the teen-age umpire who pleaded "no contest" to the assault charge.
Also, would Foster have been any less guilty of the crime of assault if it had been an adult umpire that he had punched? Of course not.
The numerous expenses and inconveniences incurred by Foster were a direct result of his own actions. Yet where, in his essay, do we see any acceptance of responsibility or even a hint of remorse?