Hardy Investigation Thread

[LittleBoyBlue]

One was paid off

One wasn't... Couldn't be...


I don't get the thread?

 

[tyke1doe]

A pass? Hardy was indicted, convicted, appealed, exonerated. He was fully vetted by the legal system... that's not being given a pass. In a country with principles, folks get a second chance... especially when the law says you did nothing wrong on your first chance. So now this man has a right to work in his chosen profession. Why do some in that profession shun him? Because they have and agenda. Public perception of Hardy differs from the reality of Hardy and so those with the agenda substitute reality with the perception and label Hardy a woman beater despite the law saying otherwise. Those that bow to an agenda lost out on Hardy. The Cowboys were smart enough to given Hardy the second chance he deserves rather than bowing to the agenda.

So did you feel the same way about O.J. Simpson when he was acquitted of double murder charges?

Oh, and Brady didn't commit a crime or wasn't accused of a crime, so I don't know how much the comparisons of his situation vs. Hardy's situation would apply.

Furthermore, if we're using the legal standard to pronounce innocence, why are we even criticizing Brady? He hasn't been charged with anything from a legal standpoint.

 

[WoodysGirl]

One was paid off

One wasn't... Couldn't be...


I don't get the thread?

I just pulled all the comments out of the other Pats thread. Thread title really makes no difference to me if you have another in mind. lol

 

[tyke1doe]

One was paid off

One wasn't... Couldn't be...


I don't get the thread?

Just another "My feces smells better than your feces" rationalization.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I just pulled all the comments out of the other Pats thread. Thread title really makes no difference to me if you have another in mind. lol

Don't make me no never mind ;-)

 

[LandryFan]

The three strikes law doesn't apply to the situation I'm talking about. The three strike law applies to actual convictions. I'm talking about information about prior criminal cases being introduced in an active, ongoing criminal case.

From my understanding, a defendant has a right to a fair trial, which prohibits the state from bringing up prior criminal cases that could prejudice the jury against the defendant.

If I understand your point correctly, I think you're misapplying it. It is my understanding that the league found NE guilty in deflategate independent of anything to do with Spygate, but then used Spygate in applying punishment ( in other words, you're a repeat offender, so the punishment is more severe)...civilian courts do this all the time. I'm not trying to argue the merits of anyone's opinion or the league's findings, only putting out there what I believe the league did in regards to finding guilt and applying punishment. If I misinterpreted something you said, my apologies.

 

[Kaiser]

I'm going to start a thread called "Adrian Peterson comments on Greg Hardy Legal Situation" just to see if it pushes anyone over the edge and they jump off a building. I would be close, if that actually happened.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

The law didn't say he wasn't a woman beater. The law said the first time he was guilty. The law said the second time there's not enough evidence to bring him to trial, particularly because the key witness was paid in a settlement and couldn't be found to participate in the second trial.

And if the agenda is to call attention to professional football players beating women then it's a good agenda.

The previous agenda was for the league to turn its collective head and say, like so many on this forum say, "Beating? What beating?"

Most of us here, we are taken in after a suspected DUI or suspected theft or suspected battery and then released and then charges are dropped. Our bosses will rightfully call us in, say that perception is ever thang and then gift us a 2-week severance if we are lucky.
I just want the NFL and jerra to hold his players to a higher standards.
I rankles me (and bother me two) that we keep giving passes because, well, "they have not been convicted." Well Brent was and he got a pass. Hardy I am sure did beat up a woman but technicalities prevent his trial or convinction.

I say we holdl up OUR team to a higher standard. I will take a team that try it best for us ever Sunday and misses glory to a team filled with thugs that goes to the Super Bowl.

Winning a Super Bowl will thugs, in mein mind at least, will half an existential asterisk to it.
That is how I feel.
In this day and time, when we fret about underinflating a ball, we look the other whey when players behave like their mama's never intended them to behave.

And to all here who rationalize criminality, try rationalizing it while you look into the face of a sad, battered woman.
go ahead, try that.

 

[djmajestik]

What I find interesting in the Brady case, is that league considered Spygate in rendering its decision in Deflategate.

Yet, I've read in this forum many Cowboys fans talk about the law and how the law/legal standards should govern what the league does with respect to Hardy.

Well, if that was the case, then Brady shouldn't have been suspended and the Patriots shouldn't have gotten fined or a draft pick taken away - a penalty which was based in large part based on the Patriots' history of cheating.

In a legal case (I'm working from memory so resident lawyers please check me), prior arrests or convictions aren't admissible in a case involving a particular charge. So if the league had applied a legal standard - like so many Cowboys fans argued should be done for Hardy - then the Patriots' past conduct should not have factored into their current punishment.

Yet, I don't hear too many fans on this forum complaining that the league shouldn't have taken into account the Patriots' past transgressions.

Funny how that works.

Didn't the NFL get pictures of the Hardy incident to administer their own punishment on the issue? When they tried with Brady, he wouldn't surrender what they asked for. So to me, it's more about the hiding of perceived evidence than it is about the actual indiscretion.

 

[tyke1doe]

If I understand your point correctly, I think you're misapplying it. It is my understanding that the league found NE guilty in deflategate independent of anything to do with Spygate, but then used Spygate in applying punishment ( in other words, you're a repeat offender, so the punishment is more severe)...civilian courts do this all the time. I'm not trying to argue the merits of anyone's opinion or the league's findings, only putting out there what I believe the league did in regards to finding guilt and applying punishment. If I misinterpreted something you said, my apologies.

No, you're correct. I was looking at it from the perspective of the league considering the punishment during the investigation. But if the league considered it after then you would be correct. Sentencing does take into consideration past records of transgressions/crimes.

 

[MeTed]

This thread is tedious and another argument for letting legal experts do what the do best and NFL experts do what they do best.

The law didn't say he wasn't a woman beater. The law said the first time he was guilty. The law said the second time there's not enough evidence to bring him to trial, particularly because the key witness was paid in a settlement and couldn't be found to participate in the second trial."

Not factual. Try again.

 

[tyke1doe]

Not factual. Try again.

How is it not factual?

 

[DallasInDC]

What I find interesting in the Brady case, is that league considered Spygate in rendering its decision in Deflategate.

Yet, I've read in this forum many Cowboys fans talk about the law and how the law/legal standards should govern what the league does with respect to Hardy.

Well, if that was the case, then Brady shouldn't have been suspended and the Patriots shouldn't have gotten fined or a draft pick taken away - a penalty which was based in large part based on the Patriots' history of cheating.

In a legal case (I'm working from memory so resident lawyers please check me), prior arrests or convictions aren't admissible in a case involving a particular charge. So if the league had applied a legal standard - like so many Cowboys fans argued should be done for Hardy - then the Patriots' past conduct should not have factored into their current punishment.

Yet, I don't hear too many fans on this forum complaining that the league shouldn't have taken into account the Patriots' past transgressions.

Funny how that works.

I do believe prior convictions can have bearing on the punishment (which it did in Deflategate relative to spygate).

 

[Idgit]

I guess that is your opinion. 3 bodies have judged the evidence and found that Hardy beat his GF. Yet people continue to defend Hardy in that regard. That is text book biased to me.

Not sure what you're referring to as far as the three bodies go, but even if he is guilty of the charges that have just been dismissed, it's perfectly reasonable for people to be ok with a player guilty of a misdemeanor offense that carried with it a total of 18 months of probation to play for their favorite team. Whether it's because they don't expect an NFL team to be comprised of boy scouts, or because they believe in people getting opportunities to rehabilitate, or they are just content to move on knowing worse things happen in the workplace and across the league all the time.

 

[MeTed]

What I find interesting in the Brady case, is that league considered Spygate in rendering its decision in Deflategate.

Yet, I've read in this forum many Cowboys fans talk about the law and how the law/legal standards should govern what the league does with respect to Hardy.

Well, if that was the case, then Brady shouldn't have been suspended and the Patriots shouldn't have gotten fined or a draft pick taken away - a penalty which was based in large part based on the Patriots' history of cheating.

In a legal case (I'm working from memory so resident lawyers please check me), prior arrests or convictions aren't admissible in a case involving a particular charge. So if the league had applied a legal standard - like so many Cowboys fans argued should be done for Hardy - then the Patriots' past conduct should not have factored into their current punishment.

Yet, I don't hear too many fans on this forum complaining that the league shouldn't have taken into account the Patriots' past transgressions.

Funny how that works.

If the infraction involves a legal matter then ... yeah a common sense argument can be made that any sanction should be tied to the outcome of the legal process. The Patriots infractions are not a legal matter. Yet someone not convicted of a legal crime receives a 10 game suspension versus someone who broke league rules receives a 4 game suspension. Within the context of "conduct detrimental to the league" I can see why that it is difficult to reconcile.

 

[slomoxn]

So Soooo, is all this to say some people should find another team because they don't agree with Jerry's picking up questionable players or just to whine and moan, and a holier than thou thread?

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

Public perception or Political correctness both have at least one thing in common, they change over time.

 

[cowboyvic]

A pass? Hardy was indicted, convicted, appealed, exonerated. He was fully vetted by the legal system... that's not being given a pass. In a country with principles, folks get a second chance... especially when the law says you did nothing wrong on your first chance. So now this man has a right to work in his chosen profession. Why do some in that profession shun him? Because they have and agenda. Public perception of Hardy differs from the reality of Hardy and so those with the agenda substitute reality with the perception and label Hardy a woman beater despite the law saying otherwise. Those that bow to an agenda lost out on Hardy. The Cowboys were smart enough to given Hardy the second chance he deserves rather than bowing to the agenda.

I am going to say this again. Greg Hardy hitting this woman was wrong. NO EXCUSES! but one terrible mistake like this should not get any player 27 games before he can play again. Greg Hardy has been told he can not play in the NFL for 27 games because of 1 mestamena domestic violence charge. that is unreal and unheard of. and i don't want to hear about the 15 games he got paid for last year. because if it was just about the money, he would have got a big fine. this is not about costing Hardy money. this is about not letting this man play in the NFL for 27 games because he had 1 mestamena domestic violence charge. this is wrong. and Goodell and the NFL are getting away with it. i hope Tom brady destroys Goodell. i can not stand this fool.

 

[tyke1doe]

So Soooo, is all this to say some people should find another team because they don't agree with Jerry's picking up questionable players or just to whine and moan, and a holier than thou thread?

What's wrong with being holier than thou when holiness means not beating women or tossing them on a bed of weapons?

 

[superonyx]

Whenever someone claims another poster is "the most misinformed" or applies any other superlative, I have to conclude:

1. They either haven't been exposed to much or
2. They're exaggerating

No, I'm not misinformed. In fact, my life experiences help me to understand this issue from a perspective many of you can't. I was both in an abusive situation - and I never hit the young lady back - and I've had female friends who have been in abusive situations. And it's insulting when you claim that a neighbor making a 911 call couldn't distinguish between a woman beating herself from a woman getting her butt whipped by her boyfriend.

If you've ever heard a woman getting beaten in a domestic situation, there's no doubt in your mind who is the victim and who is the perpetrator.

Me misinformed? Pulease.

I thought Hardy was suspended for allegedly pushing her away 4 times?
What is this beating you speak of? Why did the investigator not find any proof of this beating when she had access to witnesses, medical reports, transcripts from legal proceedings, photos......

Are you really calling Hardy a woman beater when no evidence exist that says he beat anyone?

And you are not the only person who has been exposed to domestic violence in their lives. This isn't the place to even mention things I have seen.