Hardy Investigation Thread

[tyke1doe]

The whole thing is pretty ridiculous.

Pretty obvious to everybody that read the facts of the case that Hardy is getting the raw end of the deal.

I will never fault anyone, man or woman, for defending themselves against an attacker. Everyone should be afforded that opportunity, and everyone responds differently to violence. Race, religion, sex, it doesn't matter. Self-preservation is instinct, and not everyone will react the same. But everyone should have the opportunity to defend themselves without being assigned some gender specific role.That's absurd.

And while it's very noble that some feel the need to acknowledge what "they would have done" in this instance, it doesn't make them any more right. It's easy to say you'd exercise restraint without knowing the severity of the situation, but even if you did, you shouldn't be faulted should you respond differently to assault. Simple as that.

I'm also of the opinion that a man of his stature, that could potentially tear a door off it's hinges, would do some pretty serious damage to an individual if he so desired. I'd have no problem admitting if he really hit me, I'd probably be talking with a lisp for the rest of my life.

Additionally, if there was a settlement out of court, who cares? A settlement proves neither fault or innocence. Any 1L student or attorney will tell you the smart thing to do is settle the majority of the time, regardless. Simply because going through the grind that is the legal process is not enjoyable for either party, and the only ones getting the benefit for that time are the attorneys. Settling out of court is almost always the smarter decision.

I understand what you've said. But the reality - unfortunate as it may be - is that certain people in certain positions of society can't conduct themselves like other people can.

So a 6'5, 280lb NFL player can't act like a 5'6 150lb janitor who gets in a domestic dispute. The former has to bend over backwards to avoid certain situations.

That's what this is about, and what I see it is beyond the larger domestic violence issue. It's about making the right choices.

The NFL has a rookie symposium EVERY YEAR to address these very issues. And some rookies sleep through the symposium, don't attend, ignore what's being said.

So we can argue for or against Greg Hardy all we want to. We can say he has a right to retaliate against a crazy woman. But he's an NFL football player, and he's going to be held to a higher standard whether you, I or anyone in this forum likes it or not.

And he will ignore this to his detriment.

 

[tyke1doe]

Eh anyone who does that isn't worth my time. I shared to provide context. That's the only reason.

It was much needed context.

 

[tyke1doe]

OK- I missed it. Sorry about that bud.

No problem. It's hard to keep track and read every post. I miss a few things too.

 

[JoeKing]

Again, you cant be serious with this kind of nonsense.

No facts?

1. The court reviewed the evidence and found it FACTUAL enough to convict....oops, find him guilty.
2. The police looked at the facts and found it plenty enough to charge him
3. The NFL looked at the facts and determined that it was enough to suspend him

Yet, here you are with zero access to the facts, the evidence, and you are claiming he is innocent? LOL

Cmon, give me a break. Only a biased, blind Cowboys fan would hash out this kind of foolishness. If he was signed by the Eagles, you would be calling him a women beater up and down. No question.

So are you saying the GF made everything up? The bruises on her neck and body, the automatic guns............errrr the guns on the bed that he supposedly threw her on? The call to 911, do you think she faked all that?

So she staged it all, bruised herself up, asked him politely to see his guns and put them on the bed, then called the police with a made up story? Or maybe someone else beat her up and she blamed it on him?

Court, police, and NFL are all wrong and you are right?

Ill take the findings of the former, then the later.

Again, you cant be serious with this kind of nonsense.

No facts?

1. The court reviewed the evidence and found it FACTUAL enough to convict....oops, find him guilty.
2. The police looked at the facts and found it plenty enough to charge him
3. The NFL looked at the facts and determined that it was enough to suspend him

Yet, here you are with zero access to the facts, the evidence, and you are claiming he is innocent? LOL

Cmon, give me a break. Only a biased, blind Cowboys fan would hash out this kind of foolishness. If he was signed by the Eagles, you would be calling him a women beater up and down. No question.

So are you saying the GF made everything up? The bruises on her neck and body, the automatic guns............errrr the guns on the bed that he supposedly threw her on? The call to 911, do you think she faked all that?

So she staged it all, bruised herself up, asked him politely to see his guns and put them on the bed, then called the police with a made up story? Or maybe someone else beat her up and she blamed it on him?

Court, police, and NFL are all wrong and you are right?

Ill take the findings of the former, then the later.

Everything is a matter of convenience for you.

You conveniently bring up all the things that make it appear Hardy did something wrong... The police review of evidence, the court review of evidence, and the conviction from the evidence.

You conveniently leave out the fact that it was a bench trial not a jury trail. You conveniently leave out the fact that the standard to convict in a bench trial is much lower than that of a jury trial. You conveniently leave out the bench trial procedure allows no cross examining of the evidence by the defense. You conveniently leave out the fact the sole arbiter of the bench trial was an activist female judge with an ax to grind. You conveniently leave out the part where blind justice in this instance was very one sided and stacked against Hardy receiving a fair and impartial hearing. You conveniently leave out the fact that despite the witness testimony being debunked, the kangaroo court judge ignored that finding and saw fit to convict anyway. Wasn't that convenient?

It's no wonder the state of South Carolina allows for an automatic appeal with standards that low to convict at initial trial... you conveniently left that out too. What else did you leave out?.. oh yes... The appeal landed on the desk of a DA that concluded after reviewing the evidence that the case was "too weak to prosecute because it would not stand up to scrutiny." Luckily he was saved by the alleged victim not cooperating. Her testimony from the bench trial was full of inconsistencies and was about to get shredded by Hardy's defense team. Did you mention that? No you conveniently left that out too. The DA had no choice but to drop all charges but luckily could blame it on the alleged victims lack of cooperation rather than the fact that the case had no legs to stand on.

You've even conveniently added your own spin to the case by suggesting he threw his "automatic" weapons on her. I've never read that in any of the reports. It's a matter of legal fact that Hardy did not even posses a single automatic weapon in that house on that night. I can gladly furnish you a list of his weapons that the police cataloged. Not one is "automatic". The testimony concerning the weapons was that the victim was thrown onto them as they were spread out across his bed. If you belief this to be true then I will kindly suggest you don't own any firearms. How do I know this? Because a responsible firearms owner would not let a crazy woman anywhere near his/her firearms, let alone throw said crazy woman on them.

I'm not claiming access to the evidence and neither can you. What I do insist on is that a man IS innocent until proven guilty. The DA that was to prosecute the appeal knew this all too well. That's why Hardy's appeal was successful... an inconvenient truth.

The NFL, as Hardy's employer is not restricted by the same rules as our legal system so it is free to determine on its own whether Hardy gets suspended. Without a standing conviction, I disagree with NFL's decision but that too is on appeal.

 

[slomoxn]

You know there are men much smaller in size than Hardy who have held women at bay without leaving marks on them, right?

And there are women much smaller than her in prison for murder, what is your point?

 

[JoeKing]

So did you feel the same way about O.J. Simpson when he was acquitted of double murder charges?

Oh, and Brady didn't commit a crime or wasn't accused of a crime, so I don't know how much the comparisons of his situation vs. Hardy's situation would apply.

Furthermore, if we're using the legal standard to pronounce innocence, why are we even criticizing Brady? He hasn't been charged with anything from a legal standpoint.

The Simpson case is a different matter all together. How I feel about it is immaterial to Hardy's case.

Hardy committed no crime either. Are we forgetting a man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? No court of law has a standing conviction against Hardy. And his employer is no court of law. Brady on the other hand blatantly refused to cooperate with an investigation and while it can be disputed whether that is a crime, it does hint toward his guilt in the violations he is accused of committing.

 

[TheDude]

amazing how most people communicate (tone) on the internet

 

[JoeKing]

I am going to say this again. Greg Hardy hitting this woman was wrong. NO EXCUSES! but one terrible mistake like this should not get any player 27 games before he can play again. Greg Hardy has been told he can not play in the NFL for 27 games because of 1 mestamena domestic violence charge. that is unreal and unheard of. and i don't want to hear about the 15 games he got paid for last year. because if it was just about the money, he would have got a big fine. this is not about costing Hardy money. this is about not letting this man play in the NFL for 27 games because he had 1 mestamena domestic violence charge. this is wrong. and Goodell and the NFL are getting away with it. i hope Tom brady destroys Goodell. i can not stand this fool.

Of this we can agree... hitting a woman is wrong. No excuses. We can also agree that the NFL's response was wrong in the Hardy case. And we most certainly can agree that Brady tearing the commish a new anal passage would be a good thing.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you don't like me referencing my personal experience, you can simply skim over my posts. No one is forcing you to read them or respond.

And neither is anyone forcing me to engage in a discussion with you. So I leave you to your snippiness and your unanswered questions.

I don't have any questions. It was more to make a point. It should be obvious. You don't have any clue what is on those pictures.

You are demonstrating very clearly a subjective bias by making your actions the standard by which Hardy should be judged. You dealt with a violent woman without marking her so everyone else should to. It's self aggrandizing nonsense particularly in light of you never having seen the pictures.

That is a far cry from a man relating an experience as an example of a real possibility.

 

[justbob]

Closed.