Greg Hardy and the Media

[iceberg]

Sporting news rooting for Greg Hardy to fail. It's become personal for the media and for the other 31 fanbases.

and several in this fan base.

 

[31smackdown]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...-bay-buccaneers-player-coach-get-into-a-fight

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...on-rodgers-mike-mccarthy-have-heated-exchange



There is a standard for sideline behavior between coaches and teammates, it's handled in-house by the team, not by the NFL or the media or the fans. Everyone has to stop thinking their opinions matter. They don't. When you own a league or business, you can make the rules.

 

[Philmonroe]

I have relatives and friends in law enforcement. For every crooked cop there's 20 cops that are outstanding human beings. And there are another 20 cops that are just trying to do their jobs and they take their jobs seriously and with the utmost integrity. I tend to believe the police over the accused because the accused usually have far more reason to lie. They are innocent until proven guilty and Hardy was found guilty and then later acquitted in large part to coming to a financial settlement with his ex. That tells me he did it when the cops believe he did it, the judge believes he did it and he paid off his ex to get the case dismissed on appeal. I don't blame Hardy for paying off his ex-gf and he can move on from this and work on himself. But I absolutely believe he did it because of all of those circumstances.

Same people that told me that Aaron Hernandez should have never talked to the cops when I stated that if he had nothing to hide, there was no reason to not give a simple interview. Hernandez didn't give a simple interview because he murdered his friend and was trying to hide the evidence. I guess those cops were lying just to get a conviction, too.





YR

Honestly you can say what you said about law enforcement for anybody/thing. It still doesn't change I'm not co signing people that I can't personally vouch for and or have been vetted by people I feel have good judgement on a particular subject. If that's how you roll as I said before hope you don't get caught out there trusting just because. I tend to keep it down the middle because I don't know why people do what they do period. Using your logic we should always believe an athlete in a rape situation because why would they have to rape a woman since they have all the money and could get plenty of women no questions asked. That's why I try to stay away from things that can't basically be applicable in any situation. Also a lot of people come to legal settlements don't necessarily mean they did something. I'm pretty sure if you talk to lawyers they would tell you that. You have no proof he did it and if you please pm said proof not a guilty verdict either. If she was so beat up why are there no pics esp after all she alleged happened? She should look really messed up. I can say I don't know if he did it or not but its not as open and **** as some are making is all I've ever said and until I see some pics or something with the conflicting info I can't say he did it for sure.

With Hernandez no need to get emotional because what does one have to do with the other? This isn't even about Hernandez so honestly what are you bringing him up for besides trying to be that guy? I didn't say cops framed Hardy so why are you asking me a question that would insist I said or implied such? I don't mind a discussion but lets not go rogue here. Lastly you were right on Hernandez but do you think you will always be right or that lawyers don't advise clients not to talk to cops right away at least?

 

[tyke1doe]

guns have no bearing on the story.. it is superfluous. It becomes a check the box once the DV is issued and judges always ask to confiscate. My ex wife had hers confiscated.
my dad collects guns and has about 500 he has all over the house. Not one has been fired. Having a gun and having it out does not = criminal or deranged citizen. I know many want it to be so, but its just not.

Again, you miss the point ENTIRELY.
I know people who have guns, and they have them locked responsibly. They don't take pictures with all their weapons displayed upon a bed much less any place else.
Therefore, people are less likely to view them as irresponsible.

However, whether you like it or not, when people see pictures of guys brandishing guns and lots of weapons or displaying them in a matter that appears cavalier, they form opinions and judgments. And, generally speaking, when people display them as such, people tend to associate that display with the "gansta" scene.

And they make judgments. And if those judgments correspond with other things Hardy does that give the appearance that he's a thug, hot-headed, temperamental, etc., then they're going to criticize him.

That's what this thread is all about - media perception of Hardy. It's not about gun control, gun laws, etc. It is about perception.

And that's what I'm addressing.

 

[TheDude]

You're missing the point. The issue isn't one of gun control.
The issue is the image it creates and how that image feeds into what people think about Hardy based on other things he has done.

You're missing the point.

How many run ins with the law has Hardy had outside the Holder incident? None. Therefore having guns knives or pitbulls or landscaping spikes out PRIOR to an incident very well could have lead Hardy to believe that this will be another quiet day in Charlotte. When it goes bananas that night, everyone then needs prior "facts" to form an opinion. But those facts werent usually set up with the pretenses of oncoming trouble.

I dont recall Hardy taking a photo and sharing to the world. If he is displaying them for visitors, then context is missing still.

Its very convenient and lazy to take one fact and extrapolate it into a caricature. If the other visitors in the apartment said Hardy quoted "This is what I use to handle my business, or keeps my girls in line" , then Maybe there is a link.

Otherwise its fitting a single situation into a preconceived story

 

[tyke1doe]

I also heard he didn't flush after using the toilet before the game.

I would normally say that DAL should just embrace being the villain or bad guys, but ESPN and the League Office have become so PC and sissified they would get players like Hardy suspended for nothing. They are clearly trying to build a mountain here because they didn't get justice the first time.

It was like when OJ got away with murder, he couldn't just go away quietly with his huge pension. He had to break bad and he got 33 years for an argument because someone else had a gun.

Uh, OJ Simpson orchestrated a crime by breaking into someone's property and enlisting others who had weapons. He didn't just simply break bad with someone.

And it was his own STUPID fault. He was given a reprieve, and he refused to disappear quietly into the night.

 

[tyke1doe]

You're missing the point.

How can I miss the point when I started the point?

 

[TheDude]

Again, you miss the point ENTIRELY.
I know people who have guns, and they have them locked responsibly. They don't take pictures with all their weapons displayed upon a bed much less any place else.
Therefore, people are less likely to view them as irresponsible.

However, whether you like it or not, when people see pictures of guys brandishing guns and lots of weapons or displaying them in a matter that appears cavalier, they form opinions and judgments. And, generally speaking, when people display them as such, people tend to associate that display with the "gansta" scene.

And they make judgments. And if those judgments correspond with other things Hardy does that give the appearance that he's a thug, hot-headed, temperamental, etc., then they're going to criticize him.

That's what this thread is all about - media perception of Hardy. It's not about gun control, gun laws, etc. It is about perception.

And that's what I'm addressing.

That is on people who pre-form opinions. Nad that is hopefully why there are courts to inform people that having guns visible isnt illegal. If it isnt illegal, then I really dont care what someone does in their own home.

If its about perception, than at least acknowledge most people are lazy and like to be spoonfed perception. That makes the medias job much easier. Create the appearance of a witchhunt. "If he owns guns, then ..." ;

 

[TheDude]

How can I miss the point when I started the point?

because your point was based on circumstance and later formed from bias.

My dad could easily be accused of killing someone and according to you there must be validity to it because you saw a picture of 500 guns laying out. That is perilously close to guilty before proven innocent

Its OK, most people need to feel they have it all figured out by the time the 1 hour crime dramam time ends at 11pm

 

[Nightman]

Uh, OJ Simpson orchestrated a crime by breaking into someone's property and enlisting others who had weapons. He didn't just simply break bad with someone.

And it was his own STUPID fault. He was given a reprieve, and he refused to disappear quietly into the night.

My point is that "they" were out to get him, rightfully so in his case. But he got 33 years for a crime most would get less than 3 years. No one was hurt.

"They" feel that Hardy got off too easy for his crimes and they want to see him get "justice", fair or not.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

No, I don't practice law. But, my uncle does. I have another uncle that is a retired NYPD burglary and theft detective. And many other friends and family involved in law enforcement.

Has law enforcement lied and embellished or even planted evidence to get a conviction?

Absolutely.

But by and large they don't. Especially in a domestic abuse situation. And if they tell me something that happened, I'm going to believe them more often than I believe the accused. Because it's never like the accused every lies and makes things up to avoid conviction. I suspect you do not practice criminal law.





YR

problem is re domestic abuse, they usually do not know what happened as they were not there.

I have practiced criminal in the past.

 

[tyke1doe]

That is on people who pre-form opinions. Nad that is hopefully why there are courts to inform people that having guns visible isnt illegal. If it isnt illegal, then I really dont care what someone does in their own home.

First, not everything is a legal matter. The guy who used to cut our lawn made a pass at my wife. That's not illegal, but he doesn't cut our lawn anymore. His comments to my wife was a glimpse into his character. Even if it happened one time, it still tells me something about him.

Second, you might not care, but others do. We're not simply talking about YOUR opinion or what YOU think. Others have their opinions and thoughts too, which is why this thread was started in the first place.

If its about perception, than at least acknowledge most people are lazy and like to be spoonfed perception.

People are lazy and spoon-fed as people are gullible and willfully ignorant and will deny/ignore patterns, trends and behavior because an athlete plays for their favorite team or champions their cause/political party etc.

Your statement cuts both ways.

That makes the medias job much easier. Create the appearance of a witchhunt. "If he owns guns, then ..." ;

It's funny how other responsible gun owners never have this problem. It's funny how other single guys never get caught with ex-hookers or celebrity hounds.

I guess they're either smarter than Hardy or have managed to keep their personal lives personal or keep out of trouble. Or maybe they just understand they shouldn't live in a certain way to cause people to question their personal behavior.

 

[tyke1doe]

My point is that "they" were out to get him, rightfully so in his case. But he got 33 years for a crime most would get less than 3 years. No one was hurt.

I acknowledge your point. But Simpson didn't need to be a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to know that one slip up would be his undoing. Heck, after his verdict, I was saying OJ needs to retreat to another country or a private island and disappear from the public scene.

But nnnoooo, he either was too full of himself or he lacked and understanding of reality. And so he sits in a jail.

"They" feel that Hardy got off too easy for his crimes and they want to see him get "justice", fair or not.

Exactly. So that means he needs to be even more careful. Just like OJ.

 

[EPL0c0]

the media did the same thing with Dez. THEN came the "sideline blowup" and Dez was the new TeamObliterator and blah blah blah... until the audio came out and they all had to eat crow.

 

[TheDude]

First, not everything is a legal matter. The guy who used to cut our lawn made a pass at my wife. That's not illegal, but he doesn't cut our lawn anymore. His comments to my wife was a glimpse into his character. Even if it happened one time, it still tells me something about him.

Second, you might not care, but others do. We're not simply talking about YOUR opinion or what YOU think. Others have their opinions and thoughts too, which is why this thread was started in the first place.

So owning a gun (and never been accused of committing a crime with one) and making a pass at an employers wife are synonymous to a flawed character. Yeah.

So your right, there are many opinions I find completely lazy, baseless, grasping and biased and probably wont value that. Other may. free world

People are lazy and spoon-fed as people are gullible and willfully ignorant and will deny/ignore patterns, trends and behavior because an athlete plays for their favorite team or champions their cause/political party etc.

Your statement cuts both ways.

I wouldnt expect you to know this, but I lived beside a High-level FO guy in Charlotte from 2006-10. I mentioned this in a thread way befpre Hardy was signed. He is still friend. Before he had been released the subject came up and he said everyone of the players and coaches wanted Hardy back and though he was great on and off the field. He had moved is family to CLT after being drafted and was pretty low key. There was only one person in the organization who made the call - Richardson, and it was after the rap video came out while he was on leave. So sure, its Richardson right, and it may not be wise to all attention during the incident, but not being smart ddoesnt make someone a villian.

So he wasnt on the team at the time.

It's funny how other responsible gun owners never have this problem. It's funny how other single guys never get caught with ex-hookers or celebrity hounds.

I guess they're either smarter than Hardy or have managed to keep their personal lives personal or keep out of trouble. Or maybe they just understand they shouldn't live in a certain way to cause people to question their personal behavior.

Also, if Irvin, Nate and the 90s teams were playing today with all the internet, photos and twitter, you could likely kiss 2 of those SBs bye-bye. Pretty sure I can dig up some hooker and celebrity hound stories, but since 95% of the population know them already - i'll pass

 

[Nightman]

I acknowledge your point. But Simpson didn't need to be a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to know that one slip up would be his undoing. Heck, after his verdict, I was saying OJ needs to retreat to another country or a private island and disappear from the public scene.

But nnnoooo, he either was too full of himself or he lacked and understanding of reality. And so he sits in a jail.



Exactly. So that means he needs to be even more careful. Just like OJ.

But a lynch mob is not justice. The 2 guys that actually had the guns got probation, The getaway driver got time served. OJ got 33 years. Karma is not a legal standard in this country.

Right now Hardy has never committed a violent crime and telling him needs to know better presumes he was guilty of something in the past. Witten had a similar sideline outburst and it was excused and forgotten.

 

[tyke1doe]

because your point was based on circumstance and later formed from bias.

Huh?
My point was based on common observations and drawing conclusions from those observations.
Do you deny that having guns strewn on a bed conveys a negative image?
Do you think guys that hook up with prostitutes, drug addicts and celebrity hounds exercise good judgment?
These aren't biases. These are observations.

Or let me put it another way: Excluding that Hardy plays for the Cowboys, if you heard of anyone else dating hookers, celebrity hounds and displaying guns like he's a gansta, what would your opinion of them be?

[

My dad could easily be accused of killing someone and according to you there must be validity to it because you saw a picture of 500 guns laying out. That is perilously close to guilty before proven innocent

Strawman argument. I wouldn't accuse your dad of killing someone because he had a picture of guns. I WOULD, however, say there's something about your dad and guns that is awfully disturbing.

Do you see the difference? When people have such a love and affinity for guns, that says something. It may tell me you're a gun nut. It may tell me you like to collect guns. But it tells me SOMETHING.

And that's why I said you're missing the point. You want to argue the legality of Hardy's case. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that what people do paints a picture of them. And in combination with other things people do consistent with that picture, people draw conclusions that are either favorable or unfavorable.

It has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with reputation.

What I'm saying makes perfectly good sense because you make the same judgments. I'm sure if you have a wife or a girlfriend and your male friend is always whistling at her or looking at her very suggestively, you're not going to simply brush that off or say, "Well, he's not committing a crime." If you're sensible, you're going to be on alert. And rightfully so.

Again, the things I'm saying are basic to humanity.

Its OK, most people need to feel they have it all figured out by the time the 1 hour crime dramam time ends at 11pm

You still don't get it. But I can't say I didn't try.

 

[burmafrd]

You're missing the point. The issue isn't one of gun control.
The issue is the image it creates and how that image feeds into what people think about Hardy based on other things he has done.

and because so many like you have their noses in other peoples business - that is why there is so much PC garbage today.

I have a best friend who was a cop for 15 years and his father was one for 30. He got out because of the way things were going downhill in police forces due to PC and politics and so on. So the contention by YR about how great 90% of cops are is no longer true or even close to it. Right now I would say you are sinking down to near 50%.

The case against Hardy was ALWAYS weak. The only reason he was convicted in the preliminary at all was due to judicial bias which is also on the rise. Anyone trying to claim there is no double standard as regards DV is full of crap. The man is ALWAYS considered the villain because it is now the PC way of looking at things. With the increasing politics involved in the whole legal system ( I refuse to call that mess a justice system- since determining who is guilty is no longer a priority) any high profile DV incident will have charges filed no matter how weak the evidence. You have NO witnesses except the two; you have no real physical evidence and what there was directly contradicted most of the woman's testimony; then you have the woman who was a drug user and admittedly drunk that day. Any halfway competent defense attorney would have destroyed her on the stand in a real trial. THE DA KNEW ALL THIS and that is why he dropped the case; the BS about not being able to find her to serve her is also garbage as it has come out they knew pretty much where she was and if they had WANTED to could have served her. The DA did not want to get involved in a high profile case that would almost certainly have looked really bad and resulted in an acquittal.

 

[tyke1doe]

So owning a gun (and never been accused of committing a crime with one) and making a pass at an employers wife are synonymous to a flawed character. Yeah.

I didn't say "flawed" character. I said it says something about his character. Character - the combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group or thing from another. ... the combined moral or ethical structure of a person or group.

Second, I didn't say owning a gun was a character flaw. I said they way one displays his weapons says something about them. I like the way you segment my argument. But I was very complete and very thorough in explaining myself.
And I'm pretty sure you recognize this.

So your right, there are many opinions I find completely lazy, baseless, grasping and biased and probably wont value that. Other may. free world

Great. Then why are you arguing with me if this is a free world? It's because you think your opinion is more right than mine.
See, even in your rebuttal you acknowledge fundamental points that I'm addressing. Whenever people argue, the underlying presumption is that one's opinion is BETTER than another's. Otherwise, why argue.
I'm addressing fundamental truths, which undergird our experience as humans. And, ultimately, you acknowledge my point because the very constructs I argue, you used in your own argument.

I wouldnt expect you to know this, but I lived beside a High-level FO guy in Charlotte from 2006-10. I mentioned this in a thread way befpre Hardy was signed. He is still friend. Before he had been released the subject came up and he said everyone of the players and coaches wanted Hardy back and though he was great on and off the field. He had moved is family to CLT after being drafted and was pretty low key. There was only one person in the organization who made the call - Richardson, and it was after the rap video came out while he was on leave. So sure, its Richardson right, and it may not be wise to all attention during the incident, but not being smart ddoesnt make someone a villian.

Never said he was a villain. What I said was what he does and how he portrays himself leaves him open for others to interpret his image in a way they feel is consistent with his actions and how he has portrayed himself.
Nothing you've said contradicts anything I've said.

Also, if Irvin, Nate and the 90s teams were playing today with all the internet, photos and twitter, you could likely kiss 2 of those SBs bye-bye. Pretty sure I can dig up some hooker and celebrity hound stories, but since 95% of the population know them already - i'll pass

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it too fits my point. People made a judgment about Irvin based on his image and his actions. Irvin didn't escape scrutiny, and, actually admits he was a bad person then.

Furthermore, I said nothing about winning Super Bowls, and it seems that's your argument. It's okay if Hardy has dubious character (you made the comparison with Irvin not I so I'm taking your argument to its logical conclusion) as long as he helps us win Super Bowls.
If that's your opinion, fine.
But I'm not arguing that nor was that my point.

 

[burmafrd]

Huh?
My point was based on common observations and drawing conclusions from those observations.
Do you deny that having guns strewn on a bed conveys a negative image?
Do you think guys that hook up with prostitutes, drug addicts and celebrity hounds exercise good judgment?
These aren't biases. These are observations.

Or let me put it another way: Excluding that Hardy plays for the Cowboys, if you heard of anyone else dating hookers, celebrity hounds and displaying guns like he's a gansta, what would your opinion of them be?

[

Strawman argument. I wouldn't accuse your dad of killing someone because he had a picture of guns. I WOULD, however, say there's something about your dad and guns that is awfully disturbing.

Do you see the difference? When people have such a love and affinity for guns, that says something. It may tell me you're a gun nut. It may tell me you like to collect guns. But it tells me SOMETHING.

And that's why I said you're missing the point. You want to argue the legality of Hardy's case. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that what people do paints a picture of them. And in combination with other things people do consistent with that picture, people draw conclusions that are either favorable or unfavorable.

It has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with reputation.

What I'm saying makes perfectly good sense because you make the same judgments. I'm sure if you have a wife or a girlfriend and your male friend is always whistling at her or looking at her very suggestively, you're not going to simply brush that off or say, "Well, he's not committing a crime." If you're sensible, you're going to be on alert. And rightfully so.

Again, the things I'm saying are basic to humanity.



You still don't get it. But I can't say I didn't try.

I can see you are one of those gun control nuts who blame an inanimate object for what people do. I have lots of friends who have displays of guns in their homes. Now not 500 or so but I have met a couple of people over the years who do have massive displays. Guess what genius- NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER BEEN IN TROUBLE WITH THE LAW.
Its people like you that are the problem.