A "Rabid Giants Fan" Deals On Greg Hardy

[Rogah]

And you can still sue after a conviction.

Yes you can, but a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush. I have no doubt the cash settlement she received was an amount such that it was in her best interest to take the money and run. Otherwise, she wouldn't have accepted it.

 

[Rogah]

Sorry, if I was a victim of such abuse, I would nail him to the wall and seek justice and sue him for damages.

Yeah, nothing nails a guy to a wall like 18 months probation.

 

[Rogerthat12]

Yeah, nothing nails a guy to a wall like 18 months probation.

That was my point, he was not nailed to the wall, she could have pursued the case and not the cash.

 

[Rogah]

That was my point, he was not nailed to the wall, she could have pursued the case and not the cash.

What are you talking about? He was found guilty. He got 18 months probation. There is virtually no way whatsoever his sentence would actually be more after his jury trial, and there's a decent chance he would get less.

There's not a darn thing she could have done to really make his criminal penalty any worse than what it already was.

 

[Rogerthat12]

What are you talking about? He was found guilty. He got 18 months probation. There is virtually no way whatsoever his sentence would actually be more after his jury trial, and there's a decent chance he would get less.

There's not a darn thing she could have done to really make his criminal penalty any worse than what it already was.

The fact is she could have testified at the appeal and failed to do so.

My thoughts are if you were a true victim, you do not take a pay out, you testify at the appeal proceedings and further expose Hardy for the abuser that he is alleged to be!

You do not take a pay out that only benefits him under any circumstances, she could sue him for cash as a further penalty on her own.

You have failed to reasonably answer why as a true victim, she did not testify and took a pay out for cash, when she could have sued him anyway.

 

[Plumfool]

The fact is she could have testified at the appeal and failed to do so.

My thoughts are if you were a true victim, you do not take a pay out, you testify at the appeal proceedings and further expose Hardy for the abuser that he is alleged to be!

You do not take a pay out that only benefits him under any circumstances, she could sue him for cash as a further penalty.

To add to this, the amount she could sue for would not doubt be much higher than any settlement.

 

[dbonham]

Sorry, if I was a victim of such abuse, I would nail him to the wall and seek justice and sue him for damages.

Your scenario is a cash grab due to circumstances, if I were a true victim that would not be an option.

You really don't know what you would do. Millions of instances of domestic violence and rape never go to trial because it can prolong and exacerbate the trauma. Most victims just want to get on with their lives, or are afraid of not being believed, or being retaliated against. Look at how many women stayed silent for years after being raped by Darren Sharper before the truth came out. Why would Holder go to trial and face more defamation and slander than she already has? Look at the people discrediting her by pointing out that she had consumed drugs and alcohol. Being under the influence of alcohol doesn't mean you can't get beaten up. Being on cocaine doesn't make you a liar or make you remember things that didn't happen. So no, (allegedly) settling out of court doesn't make her a gold digger, it doesn't mean it wasn't that serious, it doesn't make her a liar.

"if I were a true victim that would not be an option"

This is the type of thing that people who have never been a victim of anything say. Be careful of talking like that around people because if you know more than a few, one has likely been a victim of abuse or rape and does not appreciate being told what a "true" victim should do.

 

[Rogerthat12]

You really don't know what you would do. Millions of instances of domestic violence and rape never go to trial because it can prolong and exacerbate the trauma. Most victims just want to get on with their lives, or are afraid of not being believed, or being retaliated against. Look at how many women stayed silent for years after being raped by Darren Sharper before the truth came out. Why would Holder go to trial and face more defamation and slander than she already has? Look at the people discrediting her by pointing out that she had consumed drugs and alcohol. Being under the influence of alcohol doesn't mean you can't get beaten up. Being on cocaine doesn't make you a liar or make you remember things that didn't happen. So no, (allegedly) settling out of court doesn't make her a gold digger, it doesn't mean it wasn't that serious, it doesn't make her a liar.

"if I were a true victim that would not be an option"

This is the type of thing that people who have never been a victim of anything say. Be careful of talking like that around people because if you know more than a few, one has likely been a victim of abuse or rape and does not appreciate being told what a "true" victim should do.

First, all of my comments were contextual, speaking of what "I" would do and further they were in the context of this case, not sexual assault, rape or other types of cases, so your point has no force.

If Holder brought the charges to begin with, she had the courage to bring this to the forefront.

You are wrong on your last point as well, many true victims will seek justice and will not settle for cash to alleviate the abusers humiliation.

They many times sue them as well, I was speaking from my point of view but you can not say ALL victims take cash pay outs that primarily benefit the abuser when they can sue them anyway?

This does beg certain questions, I have no idea why she would take the pay out if these allegations were true but your reasoning based upon the fact she initiated the litigation to begin with seems disingenuous.

 

[Rogah]

The fact is she could have testified at the appeal and failed to do so.

My thoughts are if you were a true victim, you do not take a pay out, you testify at the appeal proceedings and further expose Hardy for the abuser that he is alleged to be!

You do not take a pay out that only benefits him under any circumstances, she could sue him for cash as a further penalty on her own.

You have failed to reasonably answer why as a true victim, she did not testify and took a pay out for cash, when she could have sued him anyway.

Because winning in court is no guarantee. In the real world, it's usually a lot easier to take the money and run than spend years and years fighting in court for something you may not ever see and even if you win, it won't be all that much more than you already had offered to you.

It's a huge gamble. The risk/reward ratio simply does not justify the decision to spend years in court, filing suit, going through appeals, etc, for virtually no gain.

We all know she's no saint. There's no guarantee she wins in court. It makes far more sense to take the money and run than fight for years and years with little to gain.

 

[Rogerthat12]

Because winning in court is no guarantee. In the real world, it's usually a lot easier to take the money and run than spend years and years fighting in court for something you may not ever see and even if you win, it won't be all that much more than you already had offered to you.

It's a huge gamble. The risk/reward ratio simply does not justify the decision to spend years in court, filing suit, going through appeals, etc, for virtually no gain.

We all know she's no saint. There's no guarantee she wins in court. It makes far more sense to take the money and run than fight for years and years with little to gain.

That is still poor reasoning, she does not need to take a cash pay out regardless, she could show up and testify to tell the court what actually happened and in doing so still punish Hardy further for what he did to her.

This would serve to not allow money to sweep his acts under the carpet and would further expose him for what he did accordingly.

Taking the pay out makes her look disingenuous regardless because it was not necessary to do so especially since she brought the litigation to begin with in the case and it ultimately benefits the abuser the most!

This does not mean she was being dishonest or that her account was not true, it just undermines the force of litigation to begin with in my view.

 

[DogFace]

The consistency comes from the fact that she was not the one making the decision - it was Goodell.

She was the investigator on the case. Seriously, you're seeing things here that don't exist. Hardy would have received the same suspension no matter what team he played for.

I can see where my earlier statement above would be interpreted in the way that you did. She's approaching her job as a league employee, not as a fan. I am willing to give someone a chance to demonstrate if they have a bias.

I'm so glade you know how she approaches her job. That's comforting.
The idea behind conflict of interest rules is Most of us can't tell what people are thinking and how unbiased they are in doing their job. So people are eliminated that have a possible conflict to eliminate the speculation of bias.

 

[daveferr33]

The real problem for Hardy (and by extension the Cowboys) isn't that she is a Giants fan but that she was a prosecutor who made a living prosecuting people accused of doing the things Hardy is accused of doing. Her, by now, finely attuned confirmation bias stacks heavily against Hardy getting a fair result out of the NFL.

She states in the article that she was perfect for her job because she identified with the victims of domestic violence and rape. As such, she will probably have a difficult time even considering any evidence that would exonerate (or at least mitigate) Hardy's alleged crimes. She will most likely believe the allegations are true simply because she has 25 years of training to believe such allegations. Simply put, she is a career zealous crusader against guys accused of doing the things Hardy is alleged to have done. I doubt very much she can all of a sudden reverse course and objectively evaluate the evidence.

 

[Rogah]

That is still poor reasoning, she does not need to take a cash pay out regardless, she could show up and testify to tell the court what actually happened and in doing so still punish Hardy further for what he did to her.

The guy wasn't going to jail, no matter what. Your best case scenario is he has to serve probation.

Your asking someone to make a pretty big sacrifice and risk an awful lot in order to gain nothing but the minuscule satisfaction of seeing someone sentence to a year and a half of probation.

 

[Plankton]

I'm so glade you know how she approaches her job. That's comforting.
The idea behind conflict of interest rules is Most of us can't tell what people are thinking and how unbiased they are in doing their job. So people are eliminated that have a possible conflict to eliminate the speculation of bias.

The rooting interests of an investigator aren't relevant. I guess only people without rooting interests can work in the league office, huh?

Are you saying that there's no way that the investigator, who didn't mete the justice in this decision, could put that aside and do her job? Especially considering that she is paid by the Cowboys as well as the other 31 teams in the league? Seriously?

 

[Corso]

So only non-NFL fans need apply for that job?

Actually... I would be more comfortable about the individual's objectivity on all counts if they were not a Football fan at all. Zero personal allegiances.
Wouldn't you? Juries are chosen on that basis, why not the person who's responsible for these types of investigations?

 

[Corso]

The rooting interests of an investigator aren't relevant. I guess only people without rooting interests can work in the league office, huh?

Are you saying that there's no way that the investigator, who didn't mete the justice in this decision, could put that aside and do her job? Especially considering that she is paid by the Cowboys as well as the other 31 teams in the league? Seriously?

I'm sure you're right. I don't care. I wouldn't want the integrity of such a large decision be sullied by claims of the person investigating being personally biased.
Whether that is correct or not is irrelevant. Just for once I would like Goodell to create a situation where there aren't huge question marks in the outcome.

Just bad decision making.

 

[Rogerthat12]

The guy wasn't going to jail, no matter what. Your best case scenario is he has to serve probation.

Your asking someone to make a pretty big sacrifice and risk an awful lot in order to gain nothing but the minuscule satisfaction of seeing someone sentence to a year and a half of probation.

What risk is there to show up to an appeals trial to provide testimony to allegations that you made against the abuser?

Why report and pursue litigation to begin with if you do not want the abuser to face justice, any type?

Why alleviate the abusers public humiliation and probation for any reason if you want justice via litigation by taking a pay out that does just that?

By your logic, she opened litigation against Hardy for a pay out since probation and humiliation is all he would get?

 

[Rogah]

What risk is there to show up to an appeals trial to provide testimony to allegations that you made against the abuser?

There is tremendous risk in turning down the settlement offer.

If someone offers you a million dollars (for example) to walk away, and you turn it down because you want to testify in a criminal trial which at most will result in the guy getting probation, and could very well end up in him being found not guilty, then you've just risked a helluva lot of money for no real gain.

Why alleviate the abusers public humiliation and probation for any reason if you want justice via litigation by taking a pay out that does just that?

I doubt the guy has a single shred of regret or humiliation at his own actions.

 

[Plankton]

I'm sure you're right. I don't care. I wouldn't want the integrity of such a large decision be sullied by claims of the person investigating being personally biased.
Whether that is correct or not is irrelevant. Just for once I would like Goodell to create a situation where there aren't huge question marks in the outcome.

Just bad decision making.

No argument from me on Goodell's judgment being poor, especially when it comes to disciplining players in a sensible manner.

The only point I am making is that people are assuming bias from an investigator based on the fact that she is a Giant fan. Since she was not the only investigator working the case, and she is providing information, not the punishment on the player, I don't think that the bias would appear. Especially considering that Hardy and his attorney had an opportunity to sit with the league and present his side of the story.

I would guess that the investigation of this began last year - prior to Hardy no longer being a member of the Panthers. In other words, prior to him becoming a Cowboy.

Goodell made a decision based on PR - not bias. He is trying to make the league look tough on perceived domestic abuse. The discipline was going to be the same regardless of the team that Hardy played for. They evidently believed that based on what they reviewed, including Hardy's input, that he was guilty of domestic abuse. Hardy will appeal this, as he should. The suspension will eventually be reduced.

The people that are claiming bias on the part of the investigation have not seen any of the evidence reviewed. Not a whit. Is the evidence legit? I have no idea. Do I know what really happened that night? No, I do not. Neither does anyone else on this forum.

 

[speedkilz88]

No argument from me on Goodell's judgment being poor, especially when it comes to disciplining players in a sensible manner.

The only point I am making is that people are assuming bias from an investigator based on the fact that she is a Giant fan. Since she was not the only investigator working the case, and she is providing information, not the punishment on the player, I don't think that the bias would appear. Especially considering that Hardy and his attorney had an opportunity to sit with the league and present his side of the story.

I would guess that the investigation of this began last year - prior to Hardy no longer being a member of the Panthers. In other words, prior to him becoming a Cowboy.

Goodell made a decision based on PR - not bias. He is trying to make the league look tough on perceived domestic abuse. The discipline was going to be the same regardless of the team that Hardy played for. They evidently believed that based on what they reviewed, including Hardy's input, that he was guilty of domestic abuse. Hardy will appeal this, as he should. The suspension will eventually be reduced.

The people that are claiming bias on the part of the investigation have not seen any of the evidence reviewed. Not a whit. Is the evidence legit? I have no idea. Do I know what really happened that night? No, I do not. Neither does anyone else on this forum.

The nfl didn't start asking the NC district attorney for information until after he was with the Cowboys.