Brady's appeal decision could come next week

[Rogah]

He's been told all of that. He is still going to just repeat what you were replying to. He has been doing it for months at this point. It is just how he rolls. I find it to be rank intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.

When people keep advancing the same intellectually bankrupt falsehoods, I give them the same clear minded, informed and factual replies.

I mean, there are people who literally do not even realize that Hardy was found guilty in the bench trial. It's not my fault I have to make the same corrections time and again.

 

[5Stars]

Yeah. Sure. He is going to prosecute the victim of a domestic violence assault.

That would be a great career move for the DA! The public loves seeing women who get beat up by professional athletes end up being the ones who get prosecuted!

So, Hardy "beat her up", huh? Wow, I guess the police in that area are really lax about that if he was not prosecuted.

You know...you actually sound like a Washington troll. I know where I live, if I lay a hand on a man or woman, I'm going straight to jail.

By the way, did Hardy even go to jail that day/night?

 

[Kaiser]

The public loves seeing women who get beat up by professional athletes end up being the ones who get prosecuted!

You know who testified under oath that Hardy didn't beat up Nicole Holder?

Nicole Holder.

 

[Rogah]

So, Hardy "beat her up", huh?

Yup. That's certainly what people are going to say if a prosecutor went after the victim.

This is hardly unique to the Greg Hardy situation. It happens all the time where the victim of domestic violence stops cooperating. Usually it has to do with personal reasons like the couple reconciled instead of a payoff like what happened here. So anyway, sure..... technically, a prosecutor can go after a (non-married) victim who refuses to testify.

And when the victim continues not to cooperate, then what do you do? Have her arrested? Bring up charges against the woman who was beat up by her boyfriend? Yeah, those are really great career moves for public servants. The media would never criticize a situation where a guy beats up a woman and only the woman goes to jail. I'm sure the public would be perfectly understanding when the video footage of her being handcuffed in a courtroom made the 6 o'clock news.

 

[Kaiser]

I give them the same clear minded, informed and factual replies.

You misspelled "lie about basic facts because of a pathological need to feel morally superior at all costs".

 

[Rogah]

You know who testified under oath that Hardy didn't beat up Nicole Holder?

Nicole Holder.

Yeah? You got the transcript? Please post it here.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When people keep advancing the same intellectually bankrupt falsehoods, I give them the same clear minded, informed and factual replies.

I mean, there are people who literally do not even realize that Hardy was found guilty in the bench trial. It's not my fault I have to make the same corrections time and again.

See what I mean @Kaiser. He is once again not addressing directly what is said.

As for you, the legal standard is the WHOLE TRUTH and not just the stuff you cherry pick. Tell us again how he was convicted at the bench trial and thump your chest on the DA's throwaway line from his dismissal paperwork. Ignore the case being dropped and the DA not substantiating his claim.

 

[Kaiser]

And when the victim continues not to cooperate, then what do you do? Have her arrested? Bring up charges against the woman who was beat up by her boyfriend?

What do you do when the accuser makes completely contradictory sworn statements in her police report and in the initial hearing? And admits under oath she was on coke at the time?

You drop the case, which is what this DA did.

 

[Rogah]

You misspelled "lie about basic facts because of a pathological need to feel morally superior at all costs".

No, I spelled my statement correctly, check your dictionary. My statement is probably right next to the one where you used which is "defend a guy who attacked a woman because he is a superior athlete who can help my team win on Sunday".

 

[Rogah]

What do you do when the accuser makes completely contradictory sworn statements in her police report and in the initial hearing? And admits under oath she was on coke at the time?

You drop the case, which is what this DA did.

You seem woefully unaware that Hardy was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the bench trial.

The DA won at the bench trial. You don't drop the case after winning - unless the victim decides to stop cooperating in which case it was pointless to proceed. He was obviously not happy about dropping the case.

But yeah, I'm sure that an internet lawyer like you knows more about the case than the DA who actually prosecuted it.

 

[Kaiser]

No, I spelled my statement correctly, check your dictionary. My statement is probably right next to the one where you used which is "defend a guy who attacked a woman because he is a superior athlete who can help my team win on Sunday".

Another fact I will repost for the 50th time - all the people posting the real facts here went over this in exhaustive detail and reached the same conclusion - and they did it back in January long before Hardy was a Cowboy.

 

[Kaiser]

You seem woefully unaware that Hardy was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the bench trial.

The DA won at the bench trial. You don't drop the case after winning - unless the victim decides to stop cooperating in which case it was pointless to proceed. He was obviously not happy about dropping the case.

But yeah, I'm sure that an internet lawyer like you knows more about the case than the DA who actually prosecuted it.

Answer my question. What does a DA do when the sole witness completely contradicts herself and was on drugs at the time of the incident?

 

[Kaiser]

You seem woefully unaware that Hardy was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the bench trial.

That's like saying someone was found guilty in the initial hearing at Traffic Court before they won in a real trial.

And again, its hilarious how you claim to be an expert when you only dig out cherry picked facts but everyone else is an "Internet Lawyer".

 

[5Stars]

You seem woefully unaware that Hardy was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the bench trial.

The DA won at the bench trial. You don't drop the case after winning - unless the victim decides to stop cooperating in which case it was pointless to proceed. He was obviously not happy about dropping the case.

But yeah, I'm sure that an internet lawyer like you knows more about the case than the DA who actually prosecuted it.

Pot, meet kettle.

So, are you saying that you know more than the DA?

Do you think the courts will make Washington change their logo?

 

[Rogah]

Answer my question. What does a DA do when the sole witness completely contradicts herself and was on drugs at the time of the incident?

In this particular case, what the DA does is go to a bench trial and get a guilty verdict.

And that's exactly what happened.

 

[Rogah]

Pot, meet kettle.

So, are you saying that you know more than the DA?

No, which is why I rely on his statement that she was paid off.

So now answer the same question yourself: Donyou think you know more than the DA?

Do you think the courts will make Washington change their logo?

No, they don't have that authority, and you don't seem terribly familiar with that case. The courts may remove the federal trademark protections (which was the most recent ruling but is being appealed) but they can't make Washington actually change it.

 

[Kaiser]

In this particular case, what the DA does is go to a bench trial and get a guilty verdict.

And that's exactly what happened.

Try again. The bench trial testimony is where the sole accuser completely contradicted her sworn police statement. And where she admitted to being on coke at the time of the incident. And admitting she had attacked his car several days prior before security guards pulled her away.

What does the DA do then?

Here is a hint - this one dropped the case instead of going to a jury trial.

 

[5Stars]

No, which is why I rely on his statement that she was paid off.

So now answer the same question yourself: Donyou think you know more than the DA?

No, they don't have that authority, and you don't seem terribly familiar with that case. The courts may remove the federal trademark protections (which was the most recent ruling but is being appealed) but they can't make Washington actually change it.

Good luck this season...this is not your daddy's team.

 

[dallasdave]

Give Goodell the chair !!!

 

[Nightman]

In this particular case, what the DA does is go to a bench trial and get a guilty verdict.

And that's exactly what happened.

The bench trial is most similar to a Grand Jury indictment. It weeds out the bad cases and puts witnesses under oath. A guilty verdict just means there is enough evidence to proceed. They don't even keep transcripts or video, real thorough.

All guilty verdicts are immediately vacated when appealed. That means they are worthless. They can't be overturned by the jury trial because they have ZERO legal standing. Hardy even had to be arraigned again. Hardy is close to having the whole matter completely expunged as if it never happened.