Cowboys DE Greg Hardy's appeal hearing concludes

[jrumann59]

Lets not forget the bench trial was presided over by a judge that has a bias towards women, at least when she was family court judge she awarded custody to mothers almost 75% of the time regardless of whether the mother was best guardian for the children. I would almost say that her experience in family court made her overlook the contradictory statements from the 'victim"

 

[xwalker]

On another note, if Hardy deserves a 10 game suspension for conduct detrimental to the league, how many games is Ray McDonald going to get for multiple sexual assault allegations, plus arrest for domestic abuse and child endangerment.

If anyone should be a poster boy for conduct detrimental to the league, it's McDonald. Convictions or not, this guy simply does not get it.

Has he ever been convicted? I remember that he was able to prove one of the allegations completely false because of a home video security system.

He is on the downside of his career so teams probably won't sign him anyway.

 

[TheDude]

Yes, unfortunately in America everyone is entitled to an opinion. In my view of utopia, only people with an above average IQ would be allowed to express their opinion.

Seems like a very shallow comment

 

[TheDude]

Yeah, we can wish...

That would indeed be Utopia.

Unfortunately, anyone with vocal cords can spout off about whatever flits through their mind.

Why would uninformed opinion be threatening?

 

[AzorAhai]

Great then what does no trial mean?

Why did I just read that in a Troy Hambrick voice?

 

[TheDude]

I blame the OJ outcome on the LAPD's activities throughout the 80's and 90's. That was about a community that didn't trust their police and a defense team that exploited it. It was reasonable to think that LAPD officers could be corrupt and/or incompetent.

Jury nullification is always possible

 

[DandyDon52]

lol , 6 pages and we now know the hearing has concluded!!

 

[iceberg]

Why did I just read that in a Troy Hambrick voice?

Not real sure. I used proper grammar but I thought the same thing when ivwrote it

 

[tyke1doe]

Lets not forget the bench trial was presided over by a judge that has a bias towards women, at least when she was family court judge she awarded custody to mothers almost 75% of the time regardless of whether the mother was best guardian for the children. I would almost say that her experience in family court made her overlook the contradictory statements from the 'victim"

I think you would be hard pressed to prove bias without knowing the situation of each case as well as the percentage rate of custody awarded by male judges.
It's almost as if people automatically conclude that because she is a woman, she has bias towards women.
Or maybe you know something about her case history that we don't.

 

[tyke1doe]

But he wasn't tried and found Not Guilty. The Prosecutor in charge of bringing him to trial dropped all charges rather than going to a Jury Trial because he had zero chance of getting a conviction. That is a big distinction also.

Uh, not true. Charges were dropped because the victim would not cooperate. In fact, she disappeared. Now you may argue that the prosecution's evidence was still shaky. But without being able to interview her a second time to discuss the case with her, then they had to drop it.

You can't just omit a critical piece of information and say the prosecution had zero chance of getting a conviction. You don't know what conclusion the jury would have reached had the case gone to trial.

 

[tyke1doe]

I studied that case before he even signed with the Cowboys.

I'm convinced that she planned to get him in trouble. There are many reasons I believe this, but 2 things stand out. One is that she told her friend "he ain't seen crazy yet". The second is that on the 911 call that Hardy made it sounded as if she was chasing him around and she could be heard screaming "Just break my arm".

He might or might not have hit her, but I'm certain she was trying to set him up because he was breaking up with her and she wanted money out of it.

He violated Rule No. 4 in the Break Up Code: Never break up with a woman at YOUR place. Always break up in a public place.

 

[tyke1doe]

Interesting! I have not heard this. I apologize for not being 100% informed as I was on all things Cowboys related in my youth but between my job and keeping up supporting my 18 year old daughter who is graduating next week and who is involved with literally EVERYTHING, I do not have the time to devote to my favorite sports team that I used to when I was younger. My job and daughter take up 75+% of my time. Another 15% I am in a vegetative state recuperating . So that leaves 10% or less to keep up with my sports teams. Heck, I even have had to watch some games by DVR lately because I was supporting my daughter in soccer, golf, academics, etc.... That being said, I have not had time to read all the way through the longer Hardy threads so I had not seen this. My Christian, conservative upbringing leads me to not believe everything I hear in the media and to research it myself but I just had not had time. I am not so much a Cowboys homer that I want a guy who is guilty of what some say Hardy did on the team but I also know that what is said and reported does not always equal the truth. That being said, post like yours help me realize that what I may hear does not equal what actually happened.Thank you!! Please post more on this if you see something.

Not to be critical, but your upbringing leads you not to believe everything you hear in the media, but you believe an anonymous poster on the Internet because he merely says he's researched the Hardy case, a case you've said you've been too busy to research?

 

[tyke1doe]

The big difference between OJ and Hardy is that OJ had a trial, evidence was presented by both sides, and a jury made their decision................most people that watched the trial think the evidence showed OJ was guilty, but he got off by the jury.

Hardy on the other hand, was never given a trial, was never allowed to put evidence of his own on display, and it never made it to a jury because the DA decided to drop the chargers instead of prosecute.

Now I did watch the OJ trial and I did see the evidence presented by both sides, so I am fairly confident that OJ was guilty (and a civil jury found him guilty later on)............I have not see the evidence in the Hardy case, just media reports and such so I cannot make an intelligent decision about his guilt or innocence. All we know for sure is that an altercation happened that night and its basically a "he said, she said" issue with no physical proof of what happened. The DA decided not to prosecute after the woman disappeared and that was the end of the story. Anything beyond this is just pure speculation.

How do you know this? Wasn't it reported somewhere that photos showed she had bruises on her neck?
Could these be the pictures the NFL viewed in rendering its decision?

 

[Jarv]

I think you would be hard pressed to prove bias without knowing the situation of each case as well as the percentage rate of custody awarded by male judges.
It's almost as if people automatically conclude that because she is a woman, she has bias towards women.
Or maybe you know something about her case history that we don't.

I agree, just like you can't be biased towards Hardy without seeing the case file or personally interviewing the witnesses, or be a witness yourself. The charges were dropped, period.

 

[Plumfool]

Uh, not true. Charges were dropped because the victim would not cooperate. In fact, she disappeared. Now you may argue that the prosecution's evidence was still shaky. But without being able to interview her a second time to discuss the case with her, then they had to drop it.

You can't just omit a critical piece of information and say the prosecution had zero chance of getting a conviction. You don't know what conclusion the jury would have reached had the case gone to trial.

This is true juries can be hard to read. But the one thing they don't like is inconsistency in stories.

 

[tyke1doe]

I agree, just like you can't be biased towards Hardy without seeing the case file or personally interviewing the witnesses, or be a witness yourself. The charges were dropped, period.

Actually, it's not the same. The judge presided over his case. She has more information than any of us have.
Second, bias implies judgment. Opinions don't necessary imply judgment.
It's one thing to have a bias when you have an actual situation you have to judge and someone is on the other end of your judgment. To have an opinion means to give one's thoughts about a situation or issue.
None of what we say has any impact on Hardy's future. Thus, opinion. The judge's ruling does have an impact on Hardy's future, which makes bias more dangerous. And if we're going to accuse her of bias, we have to have more information because we're basically saying that merely because she is a woman, she rendered the decision against Hardy that she did.
I think that's a shallow conclusion.
It's one thing to have an opinion. But when you (I'm speaking in general terms) start to raise numbers and percentages, you move away from mere opinion. Which is why I said we need to see more than a limited sample size from one single percentage.
Hope that clarifies.

 

[tyke1doe]

This is true juries can be hard to read. But the one thing they don't like is inconsistency in stories.

Yeah, but each jury is a different animal. Nevertheless, point taken.

 

[cml750]

Not to be critical, but your upbringing leads you not to believe everything you hear in the media, but you believe an anonymous poster on the Internet because he merely says he's researched the Hardy case, a case you've said you've been too busy to research?

I did not say I believed him but reading what he and some others have said lets me know there is probably much more to the story. We may never know exactly what happened. Personally, I would not want a guy who actually did what Hardy was accused of on the team but seeing how the charges were dismissed it leads to questions. I expect there is and sincerely hope there is more to the story than Hardy paying the woman off not to testify. Like I said I have not had the time to read much about the situation like I would have when I was younger and if it wasn't for the alert feature on this forum I would probably never seen your post as I rarely read through long threads.

 

[Cowboys22]

Uh, not true. Charges were dropped because the victim would not cooperate. In fact, she disappeared. Now you may argue that the prosecution's evidence was still shaky. But without being able to interview her a second time to discuss the case with her, then they had to drop it.

You can't just omit a critical piece of information and say the prosecution had zero chance of getting a conviction. You don't know what conclusion the jury would have reached had the case gone to trial.

Your version is not the whole truth either. Charges were dropped because the supposed victim stopped cooperating AND her prior testimony was not consistent enough for the prosecutor to claim 100% faith in it in front of a jury. If her story would have remained consistent throughout, the prosecutor likely would have gone forward with the case even without her. Because she was not consistent, it's likely some of her story isn't true and it's also likely that a conviction would have been very difficult.

 

[tyke1doe]

Your version is not the whole truth either. Charges were dropped because the supposed victim stopped cooperating[/b] AND her prior testimony was not consistent enough for the prosecutor to claim 100% faith in it in front of a jury.[/b] If her story would have remained consistent throughout, the prosecutor likely would have gone forward with the case even without her. Because she was not consistent, it's likely some of her story isn't true and it's also likely that a conviction would have been very difficult.

Now you may argue that the prosecution's evidence was still shaky. But without being able to interview her a second time to discuss the case with her, then they had to drop it.

You basically said I didn't tell the whole truth, explained why but ignored a key piece of information I provided that addresses what you said I didn't include.