Greg Hardy: "If Cowboys Offer, I'd Love to Stay Here"

[erod]

Please. What Hardy really is saying is, "If the Cowboys offer (more money than anybody else), I'd love to stay here."

 

[Rogah]

A bench trial is 100% meaningless as soon as it is appealed. It is as though it never happened. They don't even keep transcripts because it is so meaningless. If someone is found innocent they walk away, if they are found guilty they immediately appeal. It is non-binding.

Newsflash: there is no such thing as being "found innocent."

The total ignorance of the law from the Hardy apologists in this forum is astounding.

 

[ConstantReboot]

So now that you have been further educated by me, you should reconsider your position. Everything you thought you knew about the bench trial was wrong, and fact remains that in the one trial he had, he was able to present his defense, and he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

That ain't a media fabrication or narrative, my friend. That's a fact.

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? You sir are pulling rabbits out of thin air.

You may not like him personally or you may have something against him. But that still doesn't prove he is guilty.

If he was guilty without a reasonable doubt why did they drop charges against him when their ONLY witness did not show up?

If the DA had strong enough evidence to convict even without their one and only witness, they would have done so.

I don't think you got all your facts straight. Your arguing based on sensationalism rather than facts.

 

[Nightman]

Newsflash: there is no such thing as being "found innocent."

The total ignorance of the law from the Hardy apologists in this forum is astounding.

Tell that to OJ

Innocent until proven guilty

Anyone that says Innocent isn't the same as Not Guilty has never been on trial

 

[Rogah]

Tell that to OJ

uh, OK. "Hey OJ, there's no such thing as being found innocent."

The fact that you clearly don't understand what I am saying here shows your ignorance of how criminal courts work. There is no such thing as being found innocent.

 

[Rogah]

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? You sir are pulling rabbits out of thin air.

No, I am referencing the verdict of the bench trial.

In the one trial he had (the bench trial), he was found guilty, and the burden of proof was that of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is a FACT. Anyone disagreeing with that statement simply is ignorant of the facts of this situation.

 

[texbumthelife]

Newsflash: there is no such thing as being "found innocent."

The total ignorance of the law from the Hardy apologists in this forum is astounding.

Because in the American Judicial system, a man is innocent until proven guilty. There is no need to prove innocence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. So, since Hardy's charges were not only dropped, but he was exonerated, the man is legally innocent.

 

[texbumthelife]

No, I am referencing the verdict of the bench trial.

In the one trial he had (the bench trial), he was found guilty, and the burden of proof was that of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is a FACT. Anyone disagreeing with that statement simply is ignorant of the facts of this situation.

And that verdict was thrown out and is no long admissible, it simply serves to further your argument. No court would hear that verdict in a legal sitting. Any use of that ruling in regards to Hardy could be found liable for defamation at this point. It's moot. Let it go.

 

[Nightman]

uh, OK. "Hey OJ, there's no such thing as being found innocent."

The fact that you clearly don't understand what I am saying here shows your ignorance of how criminal courts work. There is no such thing as being found innocent.

Yeah you got me. You win the internet. You only cheer for cheaters not criminals.

Is your boy Brady innocent or guilty of cheating? Troy Vincent found him guilty, Roger Goodell found him guilty and then Federal Judge Rogah found him innocent.

 

[rick2248]

100% Hardy is Gone !

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Newsflash: there is no such thing as being "found innocent."

The total ignorance of the law from the Hardy apologists in this forum is astounding.

What's ignorant is taking the reality of innocent until proven guilty and trying to twist it into this nonsense. You can believe what you want and stamp your feet but you'll still be deluded.

 

[ConstantReboot]

No, I am referencing the verdict of the bench trial.

In the one trial he had (the bench trial), he was found guilty, and the burden of proof was that of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is a FACT. Anyone disagreeing with that statement simply is ignorant of the facts of this situation.

If he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" then there would be NO APPEAL and Hardy would not be walking around a FREE man.
No other courts would have taken on his appeal and the prosecutors would not have dismissed his case so quickly if he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thus I don't see why you completely ignore that fact.

I don't know why you keep referencing the verdict during the bench trial. It was considered voided by the prosecutors dismissing the case. Him winning his appeal supersedes any opinion of him being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thus your arguing based on that is really nothing more than a moot point and really doesn't hold much weight.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Good riddance.

 

[Rogah]

Because in the American Judicial system, a man is innocent until proven guilty. There is no need to prove innocence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. So, since Hardy's charges were not only dropped, but he was exonerated, the man is legally innocent.

No, you've gotten the phrase wrong, like so many others ignorant of courts of law.

In a court of law, one is given the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Being found not guilty - which didn't happen in this case, by the way - does not mean they have been "found innocent." There is no such thing as being "found innocent." No such term exists. It's like someone saying the Cowboys should go for it on 5th down from the 72 yard line. It's using completely inappropriate vernacular and really only shows the person speaking doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

 

[Rogah]

If he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" then there would be NO APPEAL and Hardy would not be walking around a FREE man.

That's a phenomenally ignorant statement. Many criminal courts have automatic appeals for all sorts of reasons for those found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

That's a phenomenally ignorant statement. Many criminal courts have automatic appeals for all sorts of reasons for those found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The man has a clean record.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, you've gotten the phrase wrong, like so many others ignorant of courts of law.

In a court of law, one is given the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Being found not guilty - which didn't happen in this case, by the way - does not mean they have been "found innocent." There is no such thing as being "found innocent." No such term exists. It's like someone saying the Cowboys should go for it on 5th down from the 72 yard line. It's using completely inappropriate vernacular and really only shows the person speaking doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

Again you're splitting hairs. If you want to wave your hands at various previous dispositions and ignore the current one of charges dropped and case expunged then you go for it. It's completely pointless and not based on current reality but hey you have fun with your bad self.

And this isn't a court of law. Trying to play Johnnie Cochran as if that type of argumentation is binding is amusing. You're certainly not honoring the court's ultimate decision.

 

[HappyOnions]

The man has a clean record.

Technically, yes.

Does it change the perception of his situation? Absolutely not.

Also, I don't want him here and never did.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Technically, yes.

Does it change the perception of his situation? Absolutely not.

Also, I don't want him here and never did.

The people who actually had all the facts backed away from the case. It doesn't matter what the perception is.
There's people that have the perception Garrett is a good coach.

 

[texbumthelife]

No, you've gotten the phrase wrong, like so many others ignorant of courts of law.

In a court of law, one is given the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Being found not guilty - which didn't happen in this case, by the way - does not mean they have been "found innocent." There is no such thing as being "found innocent." No such term exists. It's like someone saying the Cowboys should go for it on 5th down from the 72 yard line. It's using completely inappropriate vernacular and really only shows the person speaking doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

Maybe it's the stick in your ***, but you clearly have a reading comprehension problem, because I never said "found innocent". You're a total peacock, flaunt your feathers somewhere else, no one here cares.