Hardy Investigation Thread

[Eric_Boyer]

And from my link:

Preliminary hearings differ from trials in many important respects:

Please stop calling the trial by judge a preliminary hearing. They are two very separate and distinct legal proceedings with the predominant common element being that only a judge is presiding in either case.

it is a preliminary process - which is what I called it - and what the lawyer in the link I provided called it. stop acting like the defense had their day in court. they knew what this was, but apparently you don't.

 

[JoeKing]

LOL...........you cant be serious. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about with people talking themselves into anything. HARDY WAS CONVICTED BY A COURT OF LAW.................then they appealed. When the appeal came around, he got let off because he paid off the girl to not show up.

Hardy is a women beater, end of story. And his situation is NOT EVEN CLOSE to anything Tom Brady did. To try to lobby otherwise is a total and complete joke.

All that aside, I am happy they signed the guy. Great move.

A bench trial in the state of South Carolina can be called a court of law only by it's thinnest definition. A jury of your peers is not involved. The prosecutor present the case and the presiding judge determines guilt or innocence and imposes sentencing. There is no defense presented. The appeal is automatic. The alleged victim agreed to a settlement but that settlement was never confirmed to be financial, the DA already had the victims testimony from the bench trial so he didn't need her anyway. The DA could have proceeded with the appeal but instead decline because his case would not stand up under scrutiny. Funny how things change when the defendant get his say.

Calling Hardy a woman beater is an opinion based on no facts, only hearsay and speculation at best. The commonality that the Hardy case has with Brady's is it was only hearsay and speculation that incriminated him as well.

 

[speedkilz88]

Oh so you admit the NFL is less suited to determining wrong doing and yet accept them doing so. You say buzz words like image, conduct, ethics, morality but that's not what you are really concerned with. You are concerned with the perception of those things because if you were really are concerned with those actual things you'd see the player did nothing wrong. The legal system vetted him.



What the neighbors heard, lol. Exactly what does a man beating a woman sound like? I image it sounds just like a woman beating herself up to frame the man for beating her. It sounds exactly like that. There is enough evidence to suggest something happen but not what, so any conclusion is speculation. But the NFL knows better, oh wait you already said they don't know better.



Now you presume to tell me what I think? You have control and function of my mind? This is what is legally call hearsay. It's inadmissible in a court of law but this isn't a court of law so let's entertain it... No, you don't know my thoughts before I make them known. I believed in Hardy's right to a fair trial when he was a Panther. I believe everyone has this right, Cowboy or not. I also believe the NFL has no right to override a finding by the legal system. No foul, No penalty.

He's been told many times that wasn't the neighbor. It was another girl there (with his friend Marco) and she conflicted her testimony multiple times saying she saw what happened on the 911 call that she made the security guard make and then again to the cops. But security guard pointed out that she had only heard it and she testified that she had only heard. She also claimed on the 911 call that he was beating her at that moment when she also admitted that she had already heard that Hardy called 911 on Holder and that was when she ran down to the security guard and got him to call on Hardy.

 

[JoeKing]

Huh?

First, it's not about what I think because I'm not punishing anyone. It's about what the NFL thinks.

Second, just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it is any less immoral. You're conflating concepts.

Third, if image, ethics, conduct, etc., weren't important concepts, they wouldn't be in the dictionary and have their own separate, distinction definitions. But they are concepts, which means they have application.

Fourth, obviously, the league is concerned about image, conduct, ethics, etc. And that's because the league is trying to sell its product to a broader audience, one that includes WOMEN!!! So, of course, the league would be concerned about those issues that are of concern to a market it seeks to capture.



What does a man sound like beating a woman? You're not serious are you?
I had a neighbor who beat his girlfriend. I could hear it through the walls. Let me tell you, it's pretty clear that the woman screaming and crying and gasping for a breath as she's getting bashed doesn't sound like a man getting beat by a woman or a woman faking a beating. When people are getting beaten, there is a distinct, unique sound to it, especially when you hear the pounding of a man's fist that strikes with such velocity that at the precise moment it connects the woman also gasps and loses her breath.

You ought to be a shamed of yourself. You're so absorbed in your justification that you make light of matters you don't understand.



You really don't know what you're talking about. Hearsay is about rumors, unsubstantiated claims based on a particular incident. What I said to you is not hearsay. It is an opinion based on the facts I gathered from your comments. Opinion is not hearsay.

Second, you admit that this isn't a court of law, so why would hearsay be an issue? You sound like someone who picks legal terms, but you really don't understand how they're used. You're just trying to match words, yet you're overmatched.



That's your belief. But that's not how the real world works.
There are many people, who after being exonerated in court, have lost their jobs.
Furthermore, there are some issues that don't rise to the level of the courts and yet people can still get punished by their employer or lose their jobs.
And what I'm telling you is that THIS is perfectly legal.
You can tell Obama's wife on national television, "I think you're a witch" and the president can't do anything to you legally or have you thrown in jail.
But if your employer sees it, and he believes your actions have brought ill-repute on the company and cause clients not to do business with you, he can fire you.

Again, this is how the real world works. And the NFL is in the real world business, fantasy football notwithstanding.

We disagree on so much on many levels, I don't know where to start or even what difference it would make. I believe you are about the most misinformed poster that CZ has. But you are passionate and I can at least appreciate that. I value my time too much to waste anymore on you.

 

[Kevinicus]

And from my link:

Preliminary hearings differ from trials in many important respects:

Please stop calling the trial by judge a preliminary hearing. They are two very separate and distinct legal proceedings with the predominant common element being that only a judge is presiding in either case.

Did you even read what you quoted?

• Preliminary hearings are conducted in front of a judge alone, without a jury. Trials can also be conducted by judges alone, when the defendant waives the right to a jury, but prelims never involve a jury.

Can you remind me again of when Hardy waived his right to a jury?

You might want to read over the goals part too. That anyone would think this was anything more than preliminary, or just a process to avoid full trials for small matters that the defendant won't fight too hard on, is pretty silly.

Also what 911 call are you talking about? The one with the drunk/high chick that saw things that happened in another room? And talked about a beating that had been going on for over 30 minutes (If it was anything like you described a beating sounding like, she probably would have been dead and certainly not in the condition the officers found her in)? Or the one from the neighbor who thought someone was moving furniture in the middle of the night?

 

[tyke1doe]

it is a preliminary process - which is what I called it - and what the lawyer in the link I provided called it. stop acting like the defense had their day in court. they knew what this was, but apparently you don't.

A preliminary process is not the same as a preliminary hearing. A preliminary process simply means that it is one of the initial steps in the legal process.

The lawyer in your link may have said it was a "preliminary process," but did that lawyer also say it was a preliminary hearing?

You're trying to save face, but I don't have to be a lawyer to know that a preliminary hearing is not the same as a trial by judge, which is what I am addressing.

 

[tyke1doe]

We disagree on so much on many levels, I don't know where to start or even what difference it would make. I believe you are about the most misinformed poster that CZ has. But you are passionate and I can at least appreciate that. I value my time too much to waste anymore on you.

Whenever someone claims another poster is "the most misinformed" or applies any other superlative, I have to conclude:

1. They either haven't been exposed to much or
2. They're exaggerating

No, I'm not misinformed. In fact, my life experiences help me to understand this issue from a perspective many of you can't. I was both in an abusive situation - and I never hit the young lady back - and I've had female friends who have been in abusive situations. And it's insulting when you claim that a neighbor making a 911 call couldn't distinguish between a woman beating herself from a woman getting her butt whipped by her boyfriend.

If you've ever heard a woman getting beaten in a domestic situation, there's no doubt in your mind who is the victim and who is the perpetrator.

Me misinformed? Pulease.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

A preliminary process is not the same as a preliminary hearing. A preliminary process simply means that it is one of the initial steps in the legal process.

The lawyer in your link may have said it was a "preliminary process," but did that lawyer also say it was a preliminary hearing?

You're trying to save face, but I don't have to be a lawyer to know that a preliminary hearing is not the same as a trial by judge, which is what I am addressing.

save face? you are adding your own words - ones I never introduced.

I really have no interest in a semantic debate, it is beneath me.

Hardy and his legal team's true day in court was in front of a jury of his peers and never happened. Had it happened, given what I know about the facts of the case, he would of won. That is moot because the prosecution didn't think they had enough evidence to pursue the case.

 

[tyke1doe]

Did you even read what you quoted?

Yes. And did you read my post?
I already stated that the commonality between a preliminary hearing and trial by judge is that a judge only presides in both.

Before you question someone about reading maybe you should take your own advice?

Can you remind me again of when Hardy waived his right to a jury?

Uh, did I say he did? Are you paying attention to what we're talking about?

Context, my friend. The issue here is that a preliminary hearing IS NOT THE SAME as a trial by judge.

You might want to read over the goals part too. That anyone would think this was anything more than preliminary, or just a process to avoid full trials for small matters that the defendant won't fight too hard on, is pretty silly.

Then you must be calling the entire judicial and legal system silly because there is a difference. Otherwise, there would be no need for preliminary hearings. One would simply go to a trial by jury.

You don't know what you're talking about. But you're so invested that you will make yourself sound stupid simply to be correct.

Again a preliminary hearing is not the same as a trial by judge.

Also what 911 call are you talking about? The one with the drunk/high chick that saw things that happened in another room? And talked about a beating that had been going on for over 30 minutes (If it was anything like you described a beating sounding like, she probably would have been dead and certainly not in the condition the officers found her in)? Or the one from the neighbor who thought someone was moving furniture in the middle of the night?

I'm speaking of this one:

In a separate 911 call, a neighbor that lives below Hardy called 911 after a woman came to his door.

While the man is talking the operators, the woman can be heard yelling for them to send police.

"He is beating her [expletive] right the [expletive] now. So get here now," she urged. "I was in the apartment, he's beating her [expletive]."

The woman says she was in the front room of Hardy's apartment and Hardy and his girlfriend were in a back room.

"We need the police here now before this girl gets seriously hurt," the woman yelled.

During the call, the caller states that he has never met the woman who is yelling in the phone and says she is "clearly inebriated."

Oh, and you do know that inebriated/drunk people generally tell the truth? Alcohol has a way of loosening your inhibitions. Based on my experiences of those who have been drunk, they're all too honest.

 

[tyke1doe]

save face? you are adding your own words - ones I never introduced.

I really have no interest in a semantic debate, it is beneath me.

Hardy and his legal team's true day in court was in front of a jury of his peers and never happened. Had it happened, given what I know about the facts of the case, he would of won. That is moot because the prosecution didn't think they had enough evidence to pursue the case.

Of course, I'm adding my words. This is my description of your post. You entered the conversation to argue something other than what I was saying. And when I called you on it, you used terms like "sort of like". That's saving face.

Second, it's not a semantic debate. That's a cop out. It's a distinction that makes a difference. Maybe if you hadn't been so quick to inject yourself into this conversation and defend Hardy, you would have read and understood the context of my position with respect to this current discussion.

Calling something a preliminary hearing when it's not is not semantics. But, again, you wish it to be because you're incorrect.
You, then, want to switch the argument to a "jury of his peers" one, but that wasn't what I was talking about initially.

Again, context can be your friend if you treat him with respect.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Based on my experiences of those who have been drunk, they're all too honest.

what a load of rich creamery butter.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Of course, I'm adding my words. This is my description of your post. You entered the conversation to argue something other than what I was saying. And when I called you on it, you used terms like "sort of like". That's saving face.

Second, it's not a semantic debate. That's a cop out. It's a distinction that makes a difference. Maybe if you hadn't been so quick to inject yourself into this conversation and defend Hardy, you would have read and understood the context of my position with respect to this current discussion.

Calling something a preliminary hearing when it's not is not semantics. But, again, you wish it to be because you're incorrect.
You, then, want to switch the argument to a "jury of his peers" one, but that wasn't what I was talking about initially.

Again, context can be your friend if you treat him with respect.

grand juries don't exist in misdemeanor trials in that state. this process serves that role.

This preliminary process is sort of like a grand jury trial.

 

[tyke1doe]

what a load of rich creamery butter.

Alcohol has an sedative or depressant effect.
You can feel the effect when you drink – you’re less sensitive to pain, and you don’t hear, see or taste as well. The sedative effect also applies to your feelings and emotions. In addition alcohol depresses brain functions, reducing your ability to judge situations, yourself and others accurately. That’s why it’s often said that alcohol makes you lose your inhibitions. You’ll do things when under the influence that you wouldn’t normally do. This effect has its advantages. You make contact with people more easily, feel more sure of yourself, are less bothered by guilt or shame, worry less, get to sleep more easily, enjoy sex more. However, there’s also the risk that you can become dependent on alcohol.

Rich creamery butter, alright.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Rich creamery butter, alright.

If I lose my inhibitions, I am more prone to lying, not less.

 

[tyke1doe]

grand juries don't exist in misdemeanor trials in that state. this process serves that role.

This preliminary process is sort of like a grand jury trial.

A pear is sort of like an apple.
A pear IS apple.

A tangerine is sort of like an orange.
A tangerine is like an orange.

But grand juries don't make convictions. And grand jury findings don't involve appeals.
A grand jury finding moves a case along to trial.
Therein lies the difference.

But I've already cited the differences to you. And you know there's a difference which is why you keep saying "sort of."
But I'm not talking "sort of." I'm saying that a preliminary hearing IS NOT the same as a trial by judge. It may have similar features, but the goal is not same.
There's no disputing that, unless you want to challenge the very legal process itself.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

A pear is sort of like an apple.
A pear IS apple.

A tangerine is sort of like an orange.
A tangerine is like an orange.

But grand juries don't make convictions. And grand jury findings don't involve appeals.
A grand jury finding moves a case along to trial.
Therein lies the difference.

But I've already cited the differences to you. And you know there's a difference which is why you keep saying "sort of."
But I'm not talking "sort of." I'm saying that a preliminary hearing IS NOT the same as a trial by judge. It may have similar features, but the goal is not same.
There's no disputing that, unless you want to challenge the very legal process itself.

there is nothing to challenge. this was a preliminary process
the important part of the process was in the future, this wasn't it.

/end

 

[CrownCowboy]

Apparently, the woman that Hardy supposedly beat the hell out of didn't feel as if she was violated to the point where she thought it was necessary to participate in the prosecution of Hardy. You know, where she thought that the actions against her warranted punishment or vindication for the suffering she went through.

Instead, she has a bank account full of money. An objective that supposedly she tried to reach before with another athlete.

The bottomline is that you are innocent until proven guilty in this country. I've heard shouting matches and things thrown before that sounded like couples were killing each other, but it turned out that shouting and throwing things were all that it was. Hardy wasn't found guilty of anything by a jury of his peers, period.

As far as being a homer. Yes, I favor the Dallas Cowboys and I am biased towards them and if my team were in the situation the Patriots were in I am confident in what I'd do. With that being said, my team, the Dallas Cowboys, never cheated............repeatedly. And if they did cheat, I'd be ashamed about it.

 

[tyke1doe]

If I lose my inhibitions, I am more prone to lying, not less.

Any links to support your statement?

Second, I offered my experiences. Those whom I have been around who have been drunk, which includes my family members and my college roommate who became strangely more honest about their emotions when they got drunk. And the lost of inhibitions effect of alcohol tends to support this.

So if you're making an argument that alcohol makes you more of a liar, and lying is something that one does as a defense mechanism, your claim seems to fly in the face of the evidence of alcohol making one lose one's inhibition.

Therefore, I'd like some evidence to support your claim, outside of your own personal claims.

Thanks.

 

[tyke1doe]

there is nothing to challenge. this was a preliminary process
the important part of the process was in the future, this wasn't it.

/end

So?

The important part of any legal process is the end of that process. So if a person has a trial by jury and the defendant is found "guilty" the most important part of the process is the appeal.

See, here's the problem with your argument. It's purely subjective.

My argument is purely objective. And my argument is that a preliminary hearing IS NOT the same as a trial by judge. PERIOD.

I didn't say anything other than that. You want to argue issues such as importance and offer terms like sort of. I don't have to do that. My statement was a simple one and a factual one.

Now if I said, "the judge's decision is the one that carries the most weight" then I would be incorrect and subjective because there was another step or process, namely the right to appeal and have a trial by jury. But I didn't say that. I pointed to a fact based on law. And on that point, I am correct.

/end

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Any links to support your statement?

you want me to link anecdotal evidence?

cookoo cookoo