The new Official Greg Hardy legal/ethics/morality/suspension thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
dallasdave said:
North Carolina Attorney General and the Mecklenburg County District Attorney need to counter sue the NFL and make it clear the NFL is a business and not a court of law. Should Taco Bell be allowed to sue the North Carolina Attorney General and the Mecklenburg County District Attorney over information about one of their employees? Of course not and the NFL should not have any special rights over other businesses. This problem needs to cured even if it has to go to the supreme court to put the NFL in its place. The NFL is not a court of law, or a police department, or a legislative branch. The NFL is a business and deserves no special privilege or special information. The court reports and information are not the NFLs business. The NFL needs to be put in its place and in no uncertain terms

As stated above, let the legal system do it's job.
Click to expand...

Yep. The NFL needs to worry about what happens on the football field. Nothing else.
 
btcutter said:
All this attention to Hardy.....Out cry by Dale Hansen.....

What happened to Jamie Winston? About to be #1 pick......turning over a new leaf for the draft.

Rape allegations, racial slurs, basically robbing the store.......all dismissed because no one will testify against him in State of Florida....

Is he already on strike 2 with Goodell or college is college and slate is clean.
Click to expand...

He's not a Cowboy.
 
TheDallasDon said:
Overrated and overpriced.......Jucy's is my spot
Click to expand...

overpriced? overrated? i beg to differ. its some texas staple drive thru stuff. you can always count on it after a night of drinking out in that texas night life. i havent had jucy's and you could be right about it being better than whataburger in terms of flavor. looks pretty damn legit from pics im seeing not gonna lie. it seems it is drive thru as well which puts in a comparative range with whataburger. if it wasn't you cant compare im sure you know. but are you able to have as many mixing options there as you can at whataburger? how is their off menu game? how is their fight in parking lots and in the store game? is it as good as whataburger?
 
Kaiser said:
I don't think the accuser ever wanted it to get this far either. The police officer that arrived on scene after the 911 call said she refused to say anything but later he asked "Don't you want to know what they are saying about you inside?" (meaning Hardy's apartment). At that point she started the story that he had beaten her, threatened to kill her, etc. Then she didn't want to testify at the Bench Trial and ducked subpoenas from the DA afterward. Its not hard to picture the entire thing being something she did in an intoxicated rage that she wanted to get away from later.
Click to expand...

If the police said anything of that sort than he should have been reprimanded for that. Police should do nothing more than take a report and not incite further conflicts by making statements about the party saying this and that. He should just take a report and leave it at that. In this case it seems that it swayed her into making false claims and a fabricated lie about how she was beaten up. She was also intoxicated and high which was the more reason why the policemen should have just his mouth and take the report and leave everything else to the law.
 
dallasdave said:
North Carolina Attorney General and the Mecklenburg County District Attorney need to counter sue the NFL and make it clear the NFL is a business and not a court of law. Should Taco Bell be allowed to sue the North Carolina Attorney General and the Mecklenburg County District Attorney over information about one of their employees? Of course not and the NFL should not have any special rights over other businesses. This problem needs to cured even if it has to go to the supreme court to put the NFL in its place. The NFL is not a court of law, or a police department, or a legislative branch. The NFL is a business and deserves no special privilege or special information. The court reports and information are not the NFLs business. The NFL needs to be put in its place and in no uncertain terms

As stated above, let the legal system do it's job.
Click to expand...

You can bet good money that andrew murray and roy cooper will never allow the NFL to see their case notes. I'm located outside of mecklenburg county and can tell you a couple things. The judges don't ask for cases the just go to the court room assigned to them that day. With Dockets in the hundreds there is no way this judge lobbied for this case. Yes most judges are for lack of a better word "activist" on domestic charges which really breaks down to violence against women not actually domestic violence. We in the area have had lots of violence against women training vs a true domestic equal fault training,as it is pretty much everywhere in the country. The only reason the officers arrested on spot is in NC any sign of a physical assault is a "shall arrest" according to statute. So with any call to police if either party had signs of assault the other is going in front of the magistrate then to court. I have seen multiple cases where they arrest both parties even when it is obvious that ones marks are defensive in nature and the officer usually allow the magistrate to make the call to not charge that party. With a district court trial you have to remember that you only have to convince that one judge who knows the technical aspects of the law which may have been the only reason she convicted. In Superior Court in a jury trial you have to convince beyond a reasonable doubt 12 jurors that all have different back grounds that not only did he do something but had intent to do it as well. I do not believe after listening to the information they had enough with or without her testimony to convict him. This was not as clear cut as a video like ray rice which I do not think was solely his fault either.
 
5Stars said:
There are ways out. Around 1974 or so I was married to a beautiful lady. However....

One really hard day after work I came home tired as hell. Well, my then wife wanted me to eat right then and there after she had prepared, I think pork chops or what not...I told her I just need to lay down first. Well, that did not go well.

We argued for a second, then I made the terrible mistake...I got off the couch, went to the table and threw the plate of food in the trash then went and layed back down to take a nap. I shut my eyes and after maybe a minute or so, woke up with a pain in my breast bone where she stabbed me with some sharp scissors! It only made a little puncture wound but it started to bleed like hell, and I had a white tee shirt on! As she was coming down again with the scissors, I blocked her arm and got up off the couch to get away.

Pissed, I told her I was leaving the house and went out the front door not knowing where to go or what to do, bleeding like hell. As I was leaving (i had a St. Bernard puppy at the time)...she told me to take my ******* dog or she would cut his throat! I loved her so much....

Well, to make a long story short, we eventually made up and everything was good...or so she thought.

About a week or so later, I came home from work on a Friday and I asked her if she needed to go to the store because I had just got paid. She said she did so I gave her a 100 dollars and asked her to get me some new socks. OK...all smiles all around.

As soon as she turned the corner out of sight, I grabbed a trash bag, filled it with some underwear socks, tee shirts, and some other crap, bungy corded it to the back of my Harley and hit the friggen road...never to see her again, not even when we got divorced. I wanted to kill the beoch but knew better.

Unless you are backed into a corner with no escape possible and a woman is trippen on you, then and only then should you be justified to hit a woman.

However, domestic violence is not just a man thing...it takes two to tango. Women can be as mean as any hood rat, but the perception in society seems to go against a man in violent situations. Mine turned out fine.
Click to expand...

I have made a few posts on this board, about the Hardy case, which might come off as I am defending Hardy. Which I am not.......

But just wanted to point out the misguided perceptions in a lot of these cases......

As far as society is concerned, there is no provoking a Man into hitting a woman. And I disagree, there absolutey cases where a man is "Provoked" into ............making a mistake. Its still wrong. But its an entirely different thing, at least in my mind, compared to Domestic Voilence....and those cases should be treated differently.

People are calling Hardy a woman abuser and that is complete BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think every man who has been through a bad/crazy divorce knows better.....

I am sure a lot of men can sympathize with this situation which I went through a few times during my divorce.

Argument breaks out: Tensions rise. I could feel my anger growing. First instinct is to just leave. It gets to that point and I think most men just subconsciously start heading for the door, to get some space. calm down.

But she aint having it. She stands in front of the door blocking the exit. You would have to physically touch her to move her to get her out of the way....as she continues to yell, antagonize , belittle, etc etc and the tension and anger build........................................... Yeah. I don't think I have to type out what was going through my head...

You can get an otherwise law abiding, easy going, normal, every day human being to do just about anything with enough..............provoking.
 
FuzzyLumpkins said:
That is a list. The list also has half the injuries being Hardy's. 3 vs 4 including to his face.
Click to expand...

She filed a sworn statement saying Hardy picked her up over his head and threw her into a bathtub. If that were true, you would think there would be more than three pictures of her injuries - and she would testify that she actually had injuries on the stand during the Bench Trial.

You would think.
 
And I want to point something out. I have sent something to Todd Archer and a couple of other media types because ESPN has lawyered up their articles and has a phrase that is misleading in my view.

First is the ESPN narrative:

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story...takes-issue-dallas-cowboys-signing-greg-hardy

Charges were dropped when Holder refused to cooperate with the district attorney's office after receiving a financial settlement from Hardy.
Click to expand...

Let's examine what went on in the bench trial:

Matthews attorney Stephen Goodwin represented Holder at Hardy’s bond hearing. Goodwin informeda judge that he was no longer Holder’s lawyer the following day when she failed to show up for a hearing on her request for a protective order.

Jamie Adams, the assistant district attorney who supervises the prosecution of domestic violence cases, said Holder has been issued a subpoena to be in court the morning of July 15.

Asked is she expected Holder to testify, Adams said, “I would hope so.”
Click to expand...

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article9134618.html#storylink=cpy

Now I want to show you Holder having her attorney speak following the bench trial conviction.



Now Hopefully after this last bit of information, it will be clear to you what I am getting at without me having to walk through the logic. Essentially what I am saying is that all of the above reports cannot be true or at the very least one is misleading. Here is what I am talking about.

Holder rejected her first lawyer and did not show up to the restraining order hearing. They moved the trial date and were forced to subpoena Holder to attend then first trial and testify.

One of the first things her lawyer says in the video after the trial is that they will be exploring the option of filing civil suit. This should be of little surprise because her client was the victim named in a criminal conviction. He is not going to get up in front of the press and threaten civil action if there was an agreement.

Now remember she didn't cooperate with the police before that trial yet here she after the trial saying that she is looking to sue.

This brings me to the ESPN:

Charges were dropped when Holder refused to cooperate with the district attorney's office after receiving a financial settlement from Hardy.
Click to expand...

Now on the one hand ESPN can just say that all the above sentence does is lay out a temporal ordering, that correlation does not mean causation and that there was never a causal link made and ay implication is assumptive. They can play dumb.

That still doesn't mean that the sentence is not misleading. They did drop the case because she refused to cooperate. Thing is we know that what is missing from the above report is that Holder refused to cooperate both before and after receiving a financial settlement.

Frankly, this is yellow journalism at it's worst. Sensational innuendo in place of clear direct reporting.
 
You must not have clicked the n
Kaiser said:
She filed a sworn statement saying Hardy picked her up over his head and threw her into a bathtub. If that were true, you would think there would be more than three pictures of her injuries - and she would testify that she actually had injuries on the stand during the Bench Trial.

You would think.
Click to expand...

You must not have hit the next page button. There were lots of pictures. No one said she was smart.
 
FuzzyLumpkins said:
And I want to point something out. I have sent something to Todd Archer and a couple of other media types because ESPN has lawyered up their articles and has a phrase that is misleading in my view.

First is the ESPN narrative:

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story...takes-issue-dallas-cowboys-signing-greg-hardy



Let's examine what went on in the bench trial:



Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article9134618.html#storylink=cpy

Now I want to show you Holder having her attorney speak following the bench trial conviction.



Now Hopefully after this last bit of information, it will be clear to you what I am getting at without me having to walk through the logic. Essentially what I am saying is that all of the above reports cannot be true or at the very least one is misleading. Here is what I am talking about.

Holder rejected her first lawyer and did not show up to the restraining order hearing. They moved the trial date and were forced to subpoena Holder to attend then first trial and testify.

One of the first things her lawyer says in the video after the trial is that they will be exploring the option of filing civil suit. This should be of little surprise because her client was the victim named in a criminal conviction. He is not going to get up in front of the press and threaten civil action if there was an agreement.

Now remember she didn't cooperate with the police before that trial yet here she after the trial saying that she is looking to sue.

This brings me to the ESPN:



Now on the one hand ESPN can just say that all the above sentence does is lay out a temporal ordering, that correlation does not mean causation and that there was never a causal link made and ay implication is assumptive. They can play dumb.

That still doesn't mean that the sentence is not misleading. They did drop the case because she refused to cooperate. Thing is we know that what is missing from the above report is that Holder refused to cooperate both before and after receiving a financial settlement.

Frankly, this is yellow journalism at it's worst. Sensational innuendo in place of clear direct reporting.
Click to expand...


It was very unprofessional for the DA to even suggest that there was a civil settlement. To imply that she was bought off from testifying would be a crime in itself. The DA's Office trusted the wrong witness and tried to cover their butts with the settlement story even though she was uncooperative and inconsistent from Day One. Her attorney that resigned after she didn't show for the Restraining Order hearing had not done that in over 20 years.

ESPN was just following the foolish lead of the DA and jumping on the anti-DV high horse by reporting on the alleged settlement. They are supposed to be journalists, but they turn into editorialists when it suits their needs.
 
bkight13 said:
ESPN was just following the foolish lead of the DA and jumping on the anti-DV high horse by reporting on the alleged settlement. They are supposed to be journalists, but they turn into editorialists when it suits their needs.
Click to expand...

I think the default of most people, myself included, is to tend toward "high horse" rather than "boys will be boys". In this case I don't think the journalists have a big agenda, I think its just laziness. The original article in the Charlotte newspaper had that phrase Fuzzy pointed out and the others have parroted the exact same thing because they don't want to spend the time to read up on the case. And if they did, they don't want to go out on a limb to defend a guy who had an accusation that serious made against him.
 
Kaiser said:
I think the default of most people, myself included, is to tend toward "high horse" rather than "boys will be boys". In this case I don't think the journalists have a big agenda, I think its just laziness. The original article in the Charlotte newspaper had that phrase Fuzzy pointed out and the others have parroted the exact same thing because they don't want to spend the time to read up on the case. And if they did, they don't want to go out on a limb to defend a guy who had an accusation that serious made against him.
Click to expand...

You are probably correct. My biases towards ESPN are as bad as what I accuse them of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

... and 76 more.
Total: 3,684 (members: 176, guests: 3,508)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,708
Messages
13,827,275
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top