Daryl Johnston Weighs In On Greg Hardy

[tyke1doe]

I said IF

Nothing I've seen or read has shown otherwise

Okay. We don't need another multi-page back and forth on this. So you get the last word.

 

[arglebargle]

Hardy should stay away from anything involving DV. If he does as Moose says, some would take it as if he admits guilt. If he doesn't, some will say that he is avoiding the issue......it is a no-win for him to get involved.

Also, if he all of a sudden speaks up for abuse, would he sound sincere or more like forced to?

Should guys busted for drugs all of a sudden go speak to schools about drug abuse? Would they be taken seriously?

I don't know the answers but he should lay low, guilty or not.

There are people who make a huge career out of exactly that drug abuse talk. Since it is the party line, they can get a lot of (monetary) support.

 

[CyberB0b]

I'm getting tired of all of this self-righteous grandstanding from former players. Greg Hardy's conviction was overturned on appeal, and the circumstances surrounding the incident are dicey, at best.

 

[Tabascocat]

There are people who make a huge career out of exactly that drug abuse talk. Since it is the party line, they can get a lot of (monetary) support.

True, but I am not talking about guys who just recently have been condemned publicly spewing how drugs/DV is bad. Josh Hamilton can go preach but who would seriously listen to him?

The guys who make a career out of it have claimed to have turned a new leaf and have turned their lives around. Mind you, their mistakes were years in the past, not within a year or two.

There is a time and place to spread the word, now is not the time for Hardy, Rice, Josh or anyone else who would sound like they are towing the company line just to save face IMO.

 

[Hoofbite]

But............what if he truly is innocent and the whole night played out exactly like he said when he called the cops?

This guy doesn't have any sort of history doing this stuff.

They have a name for such people, "first time offender".

 

[Hoofbite]

No, not quite.
First Collins was never charged; Hardy was.
Second, we don't know if Hardy didn't do what he is accused of. All we know is that there was not enough evidence to proceed with a case (oh, and that other part of the girlfriend settling the case and disappearing). But that does not mean he isn't accused of doing what he did. Many cases never reach the court because there's not enough evidence to bring it to trial. But that doesn't mean the suspect didn't commit the crime.
Third, the league is moving ahead to punish him based on the photos it examined. You haven't seen those photos, I haven't seen those photos. But, apparently, the NFL has. I guess it remains to be seen what they actually reveal.

Oh, he can be taken advantage of. Then again, people who exercise bad judgment often are taken advantage of. And sometimes, it's because they become irresponsible in their decision-making.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Childish and irrelevant

lol.

Of course it's irrelevant.

It absolves the guy from taking the responsibility of getting himself into a messed up and stupid situation.


Which, btw, are completely avoidable. People do it every day.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm getting tired of all of this self-righteous grandstanding from former players. Greg Hardy's conviction was overturned on appeal, and the circumstances surrounding the incident are dicey, at best.

What's wrong with a little self-righteous? You and others seem to make self-righteousness along with hypocrisy as if they are akin to murder and child molestation.
At least someone is trying to take a righteous stand of some sort rather than sweeping questionable behavior and judgment under the rug under the banner of fandom.

 

[21Savage]

They have a name for such people, "first time offender".

"Innocent" in the court of law also applies.

 

[CyberB0b]

What's wrong with a little self-righteous? You and others seem to make self-righteousness along with hypocrisy as if they are akin to murder and child molestation.
At least someone is trying to take a righteous stand of some sort rather than sweeping questionable behavior and judgment under the rug under the banner of fandom.

We don't know the facts, and he hasn't been convicted of a crime. I don't remember Moose speaking out against the antics of Michael Irvin when they were winning Super Bowls.

 

[tyke1doe]

We don't know the facts, and he hasn't been convicted of a crime. I don't remember Moose speaking out against the antics of Michael Irvin when they were winning Super Bowls.

First, the "We don't know the facts" cuts both ways.

Second, life has a certain rhyme to it. If you're hanging around guys who are criminals or hanging with women who are constantly getting drunk or doing drugs, it's a pretty good bet that you're involved in someway also. Granted, on rare occasions, you have people who associate with seedy or bad who themselves are squeaky clean. But it's very rare. Unless you are transforming an area or a person or your life is so powerful that it can overcome questionable associations, it's a good bet you're involved or sympathetic or something.
This is just a principle of life, i.e., bad company corrupts good morals, birds of a feather flock together, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
And these principles have been proven time and time again.
So when Hardy associates with a woman who we know now was drunk and did drugs, what does that say about Hardy?
When Hardy is showing he's an irresponsible gun owner by having guns strewn out his bed, the way many "gangstas" do, what are we to make of this?
When people make such assessments, they do so based on observations that are generally tried and true.

Second, no, he hasn't been convicted of a crime. But let's not merely excuse the fact that the woman who says he abused her was paid in a settlement. Even if the evidence may appear that her testimony was shaky, why not let her go to trial and let her case collapse? Now Hardy was well within his rights to settle, but that doesn't stop people from reading into it the message that he paid her to shut up.

Third, how do you know what Moose said to Irvin? Maybe he did so in private? Maybe he said, "What the heck were you thinking, Michael?" We don't know.

Fourth, Moose is NOW a football commentator, who is paid to give his opinion on football matters, presumably both on and off the field. When he was a football player, he did not serve in such a role, and his role was to support the team. So he's in a different role, just as a counselor plays a different role than an investigator.

Fifth, people are allowed to grow and mature as people. Some things we let go when we're younger, we're not willing to do when we get more mature, and vice versa. We ALL do this. No one is consistent in their behavior, practices and attitudes. If that were the case, there would be no need for growth.

Now, I will say that because the case was thrown out, that factors into Hardy's favor. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to beating his ex-girlfriend. I do believe he put his hands on her, and I do question his lack of judgment based on the things I've already outlined. But he has to exercise better judgment from here on out.

 

[TheDude]

First, the "We don't know the facts" cuts both ways.

Second, life has a certain rhyme to it. If you're hanging around guys who are criminals or hanging with women who are constantly getting drunk or doing drugs, it's a pretty good bet that you're involved in someway also. Granted, on rare occasions, you have people who associate with seedy or bad who themselves are squeaky clean. But it's very rare. Unless you are transforming an area or a person or your life is so powerful that it can overcome questionable associations, it's a good bet you're involved or sympathetic or something.
This is just a principle of life, i.e., bad company corrupts good morals, birds of a feather flock together, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
And these principles have been proven time and time again.
So when Hardy associates with a woman who we know now was drunk and did drugs, what does that say about Hardy?
When Hardy is showing he's an irresponsible gun owner by having guns strewn out his bed, the way many "gangstas" do, what are we to make of this?
When people make such assessments, they do so based on observations that are generally tried and true.

Second, no, he hasn't been convicted of a crime. But let's not merely excuse the fact that the woman who says he abused her was paid in a settlement. Even if the evidence may appear that her testimony was shaky, why not let her go to trial and let her case collapse? Now Hardy was well within his rights to settle, but that doesn't stop people from reading into it the message that he paid her to shut up.

Third, how do you know what Moose said to Irvin? Maybe he did so in private? Maybe he said, "What the heck were you thinking, Michael?" We don't know.

Fourth, Moose is NOW a football commentator, who is paid to give his opinion on football matters, presumably both on and off the field. When he was a football player, he did not serve in such a role, and his role was to support the team. So he's in a different role, just as a counselor plays a different role than an investigator.

Fifth, people are allowed to grow and mature as people. Some things we let go when we're younger, we're not willing to do when we get more mature, and vice versa. We ALL do this. No one is consistent in their behavior, practices and attitudes. If that were the case, there would be no need for growth.

Now, I will say that because the case was thrown out, that factors into Hardy's favor. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to beating his ex-girlfriend. I do believe he put his hands on her, and I do question his lack of judgment based on the things I've already outlined. But he has to exercise better judgment from here on out.

1. I wonder why the response to any Hardy questions Is nothing more than "I don't know what happened. He was convicted then he was dismissed by the court. apparently he is not guilty legally and (collective) I wasn't there, to speculate more than publicly disclosed isn't prudent"

2. I don't see how guns being out have anything to do with it. They were his legally and by all accounts didn't threaten anyone with them