Hardy charges officially expunged

[AzCowboysFan]

I don't really care about what our players do off the field as long as they are productive on it. I wouldn't care if we field a team of AP, Rice, Hardy and a bunch of ex-cons if that's what would get us another Super Bowl (or three).
I'd take that kind of team over the Cheatriots that ruin the integrity of the game itself.

 

[ohiocowboysfan25]

Yeah and the NFL office never saw the Ray Rice video.

If Werders source is the NFL, they've proven themselves as not forthcoming with the truth.

Good point. I honestly didn't catch his source or if he even had one. I was just passing on what he said.

 

[Nightman]

It's extremely naive to just blindly trust a judge's opinion. Judges can and do make terrible decisions/rulings.

The judge can do no harm with a guilty conviction in a bench trial. It is merely the first step.

A full jury trial is always required in a case like this including claims of violence.

 

[erod]

'People don't realize that judges are politicians, too' - Damien Echols



YR

Yup. Every Supreme Court judge might as well run campaign ads. They couldn't give a rip about the actual Constitution.

 

[Rogah]

I fully realize that, but this blowhard loves to poke his little Patriot head up for whack-a-loser every time a story like this breaks.

I am a Cowboys fan and season ticket holder living just north of Dallas. I work within walking distance of the new facility under construction in Frisco.

I happen to think the Patriots are innocent and were treated grossly unfairly with regards to "deflategate."

For some reason, the above statement really really upsets certain people in here.

 

[AzorAhai]

You see, this is what I am looking for.

I still am not quite convinced that Hardy didn't do this as I tend to trust the police more than the perp. But, it would be interesting to see this actually investigated by the press.

I will say this even though I'm not quite convinced of Hardy being innocent...the pictures of the bruises were in weird locations on the body.

I've read quite a bit on the psychology and crime evidence that goes into domestic violence and murders between husband and wife or boyfriend girlfriend over the years (started on it for a college assignment and it piqued my interest and I continued to read about it).

One thing I would expect based on that study where a much larger male is attacking a female girlfriend is that there would be a black eye or bruises to the mount or bruises where he slapped her. Another typical bruising would be strangulation which is very normal in an abuse situation (ever here somebody that personally knows another person and they say 'I hate him/her so much I could just strangle them.'

What we see is bruises on the back. Obviously, one could abuse somebody by causing bruising on the back. But, for that to be the main area of assault is a bit odd.

There's a bruise on the chin, but that bruise is not in line with a punch or strangulation. The bruise on her bicep is more in line with somebody grabbing her by the arm.

Now, I'm not saying that Hardy did not abuse her and that it could not have happened this way, but when I saw the pictures the first thing that I thought was how the bruising was in odd locations that were not in line with your typical domestic violence case where the women is usually beaten about the face and/or strangled. It really fits more inline with falling. I didn't know about Curtis and his part in the situation.

To me, the media should go after this part of the story because if you believe Hardy really did it, it just shoots down any claims he could possibly have.






YR

I don't know what happened or what didn't. What I do know is there is testimony from the girls own friend saying she threw herself into the bathtub. That explains the worst looking bruise.

Now to all the people saying he "beat" her, I have to question what extent of physical violence they have ever actually seen in life. If a 280 lb man "beat" her like people are suggesting these pictures would leave no shred of doubt that he did just that. Everyone claims he should just walk away, or take it or whatever else they think he should have done, but how many have been in a situation like this? I have and when you have one party who is attempting physical violence against you, it's not as simple as just walking away. Does he walk to his car with a woman assaulting him the whole way? How does he stop the violence from her part? When is it acceptable to do that? Is it ok to physically restrain her to stop her? Is it ok to grab her arms? Is it ok to push her away? What is the acceptable response to a woman who wants to cause physical harm to you? Should he flee from his own house? Sprint out of his own house? Or is he just supposed to stand there telling her to stop while he is being assaulted? At worst, I think both parties have some culpability here, but DV is thought of as a mans crime for the most part.

 

[Philmonroe]

You see, this is what I am looking for.

I still am not quite convinced that Hardy didn't do this as I tend to trust the police more than the perp. But, it would be interesting to see this actually investigated by the press.

I will say this even though I'm not quite convinced of Hardy being innocent...the pictures of the bruises were in weird locations on the body.

I've read quite a bit on the psychology and crime evidence that goes into domestic violence and murders between husband and wife or boyfriend girlfriend over the years (started on it for a college assignment and it piqued my interest and I continued to read about it).

One thing I would expect based on that study where a much larger male is attacking a female girlfriend is that there would be a black eye or bruises to the mount or bruises where he slapped her. Another typical bruising would be strangulation which is very normal in an abuse situation (ever here somebody that personally knows another person and they say 'I hate him/her so much I could just strangle them.'

What we see is bruises on the back. Obviously, one could abuse somebody by causing bruising on the back. But, for that to be the main area of assault is a bit odd.

There's a bruise on the chin, but that bruise is not in line with a punch or strangulation. The bruise on her bicep is more in line with somebody grabbing her by the arm.

Now, I'm not saying that Hardy did not abuse her and that it could not have happened this way, but when I saw the pictures the first thing that I thought was how the bruising was in odd locations that were not in line with your typical domestic violence case where the women is usually beaten about the face and/or strangled. It really fits more inline with falling. I didn't know about Curtis and his part in the situation.

To me, the media should go after this part of the story because if you believe Hardy really did it, it just shoots down any claims he could possibly have.






YR

Do you have anything I could read about the DV normal marks profile you mentioned. I've never heard of that before and would like to read up on it. Thanks

 

[erod]

None of his defenders have the guts to answer. Typical but not surprising for this place.

What's sad is that you think you actually have a point.

 

[Nightman]

This is such a delicate topic. She was bruised, and Hardy very likely is responsible for some or all of them, in my opinion.

That said, the pics are pretty much exactly what I expected them to be. Honestly, I was expecting more deep-bruising in purple/blue/black, if anything. My take from this is pretty much what it's always been: these are two emotionally damaged and very childish adults in a relationship that primarily revolved around money, sex, alcohol, and drugs. It's not really shocking that this level of dysfunction existed. And you'd have to be blind to believe Greg Hardy has a firm grip on his emotions to begin with.

It still adds up to a misdemeanor offense that carried with is a probationary sentence if he was convicted. Instead, the case has been dropped and his record expunged. We're fooling ourselves if we believe this level of conflict isn't going on unreported on every team with multiple players. It might well be happening in several Cowboys households now and we just don't know about it.

As it is, it adds up to Hardy not being one of my favorite guys. But he served his suspension and he had his day in court. It's over. I'm not going to drum up phony outrage over it just because he's largely unrepentant. It does make me concerned for him on a long term deal, but other than that, it's a dead issue in my book.

Nice of ******** to time this with the announcment that his record has been expunged, though. And I also noted that a lot of the leadup in Holder's account between the partying and the getting choked is mysteriously absent from the story. Something had to trigger it, and I'm not sure we've got a good idea of what, yet.

That is very well thought out and fair take. I think we have lost sight of what actually happened.

Too me it looks like a drunken argument between two people that had a physical not emotional relationship. They were both intent of hurting each other before walking away(not just physically).

I just listened to Jackie McMullen almost in tears blasting Cowboys fans for having the gall to still root for them. Hardy is not the only person ever accused of DV in the League. You cannot single him out. If you want a zero tolerance policy I can respect that more than the selective outrage in play here.

 

[DandyDon1722]

You see, this is what I am looking for.

I still am not quite convinced that Hardy didn't do this as I tend to trust the police more than the perp. But, it would be interesting to see this actually investigated by the press.

I will say this even though I'm not quite convinced of Hardy being innocent...the pictures of the bruises were in weird locations on the body.

I've read quite a bit on the psychology and crime evidence that goes into domestic violence and murders between husband and wife or boyfriend girlfriend over the years (started on it for a college assignment and it piqued my interest and I continued to read about it).

One thing I would expect based on that study where a much larger male is attacking a female girlfriend is that there would be a black eye or bruises to the mount or bruises where he slapped her. Another typical bruising would be strangulation which is very normal in an abuse situation (ever here somebody that personally knows another person and they say 'I hate him/her so much I could just strangle them.'

What we see is bruises on the back. Obviously, one could abuse somebody by causing bruising on the back. But, for that to be the main area of assault is a bit odd.

There's a bruise on the chin, but that bruise is not in line with a punch or strangulation. The bruise on her bicep is more in line with somebody grabbing her by the arm.

Now, I'm not saying that Hardy did not abuse her and that it could not have happened this way, but when I saw the pictures the first thing that I thought was how the bruising was in odd locations that were not in line with your typical domestic violence case where the women is usually beaten about the face and/or strangled. It really fits more inline with falling. I didn't know about Curtis and his part in the situation.

To me, the media should go after this part of the story because if you believe Hardy really did it, it just shoots down any claims he could possibly have.
YR

Yes! And this is the response I was looking for from someone Rich because when you defend it just a little you get jumped on by some people. I just wish Outside The Lines would do an interview with the DA and have him explain why the case was falling apart. All that's in the media now is her statement which has since been highly discredited.

I also am convinced the NFL and the Cowboys know all the evidence and grey areas involved and it's why he is on the team. Other than Charlotte Jones though, who could ever try to persuade people of these facts without looking disingenuous.

 

[zrinkill]

What's sad is that you think you actually have a point.

Sad that you are not bright enough to figure it out.

 

[Nightman]

It's typically not considered self defense. In fact, that would indicate that the victim had turned their back to the attacker and would result in even a more harsh judgment against the attacker. That's why it would be advisable for a person who is defending themselves with a gun to avoid shooting somebody in the back. It really doesn't look good if the entry wound is in the back.

Still, I would like to see evidence of somebody being attacked in the back in a domestic violence case as being somewhat common. Especially when it is the man attacking the woman. Normally this abuse is about the female's face and throat (in some cases it may be in the stomach, if the woman is pregnant). I'm not saying it can never happen that way, but criminal activity often has a certain profile to it. For example, robbing a bank is usually done in one of 2 ways...passing a note to the teller or actually arm robbing the bank. The latter most of the time belongs to a far different type of criminal than the bank robber that passes the note and the FBI and police take the latter far more seriously because part of that profile is to escalate the violence and somebody is more likely to get killed in a future bank robbery.

The same with domestic violence. Beating somebody in the back and not hitting them in the face or attempting to strangle them is just not very common. It would be like a bank robber coming in to rob a bank with a chain saw. Could happen, just unlikely.





YR

I am no expert but I thought the same thing. The bruising looked odd and not consistent with punches, slaps, chokes or full body slams. We will never know the truth but I do not believe he violently attacked her. There was too much physical contact from both parties but I don't think it rises to level of attention and outrage it has received.

 

[Miller]

No she's not. That's hyperbole.

If Hardy punched or smacked the hell out of her it would be a lot worse. Some of those bruises are self-inflicted going against a 6'5" 270 plus pound man, some of them are due to holding her back, and the ones on her back are probably a result of being tossed into the bathtub. I seriously don't think any of those were inflicted with intent to truly injure.

You keep telling yourself that caveman and support women being beat. Clueless

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

I don't like that Greg Hardy was signed and I will not pick a new team. On top of that, I will even complain about it should the mood strike me. Right here on this very forum in fact.

I agree. I've been a Cowboy fan before Greg Hardy and I'll be one after he leaves. It doesn't mean I have to like him though.

 

[erod]

I am a Cowboys fan and season ticket holder living just north of Dallas. I work within walking distance of the new facility under construction in Frisco.

I happen to think the Patriots are innocent and were treated grossly unfairly with regards to "deflategate."

For some reason, the above statement really really upsets certain people in here.

Yet, you're strangely absent every time we discuss the merits of Anthony Hitchens or Marinelli's defensive scheme. But mention Grogan or Gronkowski, and you're front and center with pom-poms flying.

You pained over the Brady "facts", spinning and twisting and dancing around the contradictions like a Russian ballerina. But you know NOTHING about the Hardy case, and you've drawn these hardened conclusions on whim and a prayer.

It's awfully transparent "Rogah". It's about as subtle as a ***** in church.

 

[Rogah]

Just go away, dude. I've never see anyone get out-debated so severely on the internet and keep coming back for more.

You're swimming in waters you just can't navigate.

The butthurt is strong with you..!!

 

[SultanOfSix]

You keep telling yourself that caveman and support women being beat. Clueless

No, I just have the capability to understand that the situation isn't black and white and not be sanctimonious about it. I realize that I wasn't a witness to the events, photos don't tell the whole story, and both parties can share in culpability.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Hardy is a huge man ....... I dont think punching someone in the back could be considered self defense.

She threw her back into him. lol

 

[Rogah]

Yet, you're strangely absent every time we discuss the merits of Anthony Hitchens or Marinelli's defensive scheme. But mention Grogan or Gronkowski, and you're front and center with pom-poms

You must not have been in the main forum this summer, child.

 

[tyke1doe]

Now you're restricting phrases people are allowed to use based on their heritage? Do I have to post my family history to use Irish phrases? Because I was going say "top of the morning to you" but don't want to be scolded.

You missed the point entirely. Go back to sleep.