Hardy Investigation Thread

[Eric_Boyer]

So?

so he never got his day in court

 

[tyke1doe]

you want me to link anecdotal evidence?

cookoo cookoo

No, silly. I want you to link a site that can give some concrete medical/health structure to support your claim.

I provided a link - or information from a link - that states that alcohol makes one lose one's inhibitions. The loss of inhibitions suggests that alcohol make a person freer with one's emotions and actions. People who are freer with their emotions and actions tend to be less guarded and more honest, not more guarded.

Being less guarded tends to be associated with being more honest and truthful because you don't have the social inhibitors that would normally block you. That's why men are more open to propositioning women when the men are under the influence.

See, what I did. I took my personal experience, found an objective analysis which tends to support my personal experience and render a conclusion.

I was merely asking you to do the same thing.

 

[tyke1doe]

so he never got his day in court

Actually, he did get his day in court.
Be that as it may, I'm not even arguing that.
So I take it this is your way of saying, "Tyke1doe, I understand what you're arguing, but I simply wanted to ignore the context of your point and push forward the fact that I don't believe Hardy got his day in court."

Fine. But I think you could have made that point without joining my conversation.

 

[speedkilz88]

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.

It was not the neighbor and she was proven to have lied.

 

[tyke1doe]

It was not the neighbor and she was proven to have lied.

Oh, she was proven to have lied? By whom? The court?

 

[speedkilz88]

Oh, she was proven to have lied? By whom? The court?

She finally admitted she hadn't seen anything in court after she claimed it on the 911 call and to police that she had. She also claimed he was beating on her on the 911 call and she finally admitted in court that she had heard that he called 911 already on Holder (which would mean it was already over) she then ran downstairs and got the security guard to call 911 and made false claims. That is lying.

 

[JoeKing]

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.

Mod has already posted a warning that this is way off topic and to stop. Let it go for god sake.

 

[Kevinicus]

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?



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.



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.



I'm speaking of this one:



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.

There's so much wrong with this post, it's ridiculous.

I read your post perfectly fine. What I was pointing out went completely over your head, even though I made it VERY HUGE so you could see it. You posted a list of ways the two were different, yet one of those differences you quoted specifically stated that a trial could have only a judge if the right to a jury had been waived. Since Hardy did not waive that right, that is counter to your argument that what happened with Hardy was anything more than just something preliminary. Uh dur.


That phone call was not a neighbor, that was the other girl that was there in the other room. Even the guy who made the call pointed out that she was inconsistent with what she was saying. And no, people are not necessarily more honest when they drink. They might say things truths they normally wouldn't, but they can and do still lie just fine. It also impairs judgement which might be important in determining what it is you "saw and heard...but only heard....for 30 minutes." And this high character, highly reliable witness admitted it was more than alcohol in their system.

And the irony that you quoted this (none of which suggests more honesty btw):

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.

 

[tyke1doe]

There's so much wrong with this post, it's ridiculous.

I read your post perfectly fine. What I was pointing out went completely over your head, even though I made it VERY HUGE so you could see it. You posted a list of ways the two were different, yet one of those differences you quoted specifically stated that a trial could have only a judge if the right to a jury had been waived. Since Hardy did not waive that right, that is counter to your argument that what happened with Hardy was anything more than just something preliminary. Uh dur.

That phone call was not a neighbor, that was the other girl that was there in the other room. Even the guy who made the call pointed out that she was inconsistent with what she was saying. And no, people are not necessarily more honest when they drink. They might say things truths they normally wouldn't, but they can and do still lie just fine. It also impairs judgement which might be important in determining what it is you "saw and heard...but only heard....for 30 minutes." And this high character, highly reliable witness admitted it was more than alcohol in their system.

No, you CLEARLY didn't understand what I was saying.

You, instead, chose to focus on a point not even in dispute.

Again, my point is that a preliminary hearing is different than a trial by judge.

Do you disagree with this? If so, can you cite a judge or lawyer who says they are both one and the same?

That's all I was saying. Your other points are irrelevant to the discussion.

And I'm the one who saw the point sail over my head.

 

[Kevinicus]

That's all I was saying. Your other points are irrelevant to the discussion.

Of course they are. Points that prove you wrong are always irrelevant.

 

[tyke1doe]

Of course they are. Points that prove you wrong are always irrelevant.

So answer the question then.
If I'm wrong, is a preliminary hearing the same as a trial by judge?
And if I am, do you mind quoting/citing a judge or lawyer who says that they're one in the same?

 

[skinsscalper]

What I find interesting in the Brady case, is that league considered Spygate in rendering its decision in Deflategate.

Yet, I've read in this forum many Cowboys fans talk about the law and how the law/legal standards should govern what the league does with respect to Hardy.

Well, if that was the case, then Brady shouldn't have been suspended and the Patriots shouldn't have gotten fined or a draft pick taken away - a penalty which was based in large part based on the Patriots' history of cheating.

In a legal case (I'm working from memory so resident lawyers please check me), prior arrests or convictions aren't admissible in a case involving a particular charge. So if the league had applied a legal standard - like so many Cowboys fans argued should be done for Hardy - then the Patriots' past conduct should not have factored into their current punishment.

Yet, I don't hear too many fans on this forum complaining that the league shouldn't have taken into account the Patriots' past transgressions.

Funny how that works.

Spygate was a consideration in the severity of the penalty. Not whether penalty should be dealt.

Brady shouldn't be exonerated (by, of all things, a sensitivity to Spygate) because he was in on the deed, itself, and complicit in trying to keep it covered up. Considering the Patriots past, they are lucky to get off as easily as they did. Bellichek should have been suspended the entire season (just like Payton was). If ignorance is no excuse for Payton then no one can possibly rationalize with any logic how Bill escaped the same fate when he has ALREADY ESTABLISHED a penchant for cheating. Payton was suspended for not knowing about, what amounted to an office pool, that had ZERO EFFECT on the actual integrity of the game. The Patriots directly tried to affect the outcome of a contest by physically altering the physics of the game in their favor. When it gets down to bare bones it truly is that simple.

I think another thing that factored in (though to a lesser extent) was the arrogance of everyone on the Pat's side of the line. Bob Kraft was demanding an apology from the league before an investigation had ever even taken place. Brady standing in front of the whole world vehemently denying he knew anything about it didn't help either. I had a feeling when Bill and Tom took this thing head on at the beginning that it was a mistake. Everyone, at the time said it was brilliant and brave, yadda, yadda, yadda. "I can't comment on any of that, right now" would have been the best friend that they could have had at that time. Unfortunately, they panicked and (now we know), reasonably so. They went immediately went on the defensive and with too much fervor early on. They had no direction to go after that but in full denial mode. Once Tom dug his heels in he had no choice but to try and cover his ***.

Willie McGinnest was on NFL Network last night and he said the smartest thing regarding Brady and this whole situation. To summarize he said the Brady should have come straight out and said: "I like the ball that I play with a certain way just like any other QB in the league. I didn't think that the condition that I prefer my particular football was outside the guidelines of the rules. If they are, I take full responsibility and I'll do what's required to make sure it doesn't happen again".

Now, whether that statement would have been true or not is irrelevant. It buys him time and wiggle room. Like I said, the Patriots PR machine made a huge mistake in this whole thing from the word go and I think that it has factored in.

 

[BAT]

Spygate was a consideration in the severity of the penalty. Not whether penalty should be dealt.

Brady shouldn't be exonerated (by, of all things, a sensitivity to Spygate) because he was in on the deed, itself, and complicit in trying to keep it covered up. Considering the Patriots past, they are lucky to get off as easily as they did. Bellichek should have been suspended the entire season (just like Payton was). If ignorance is no excuse for Payton then no one can possibly rationalize with any logic how Bill escaped the same fate when he has ALREADY ESTABLISHED a penchant for cheating. Payton was suspended for not knowing about, what amounted to an office pool, that had ZERO EFFECT on the actual integrity of the game. The Patriots directly tried to affect the outcome of a contest by physically altering the physics of the game in their favor. When it gets down to bare bones it truly is that simple.

I think another thing that factored in (though to a lesser extent) was the arrogance of everyone on the Pat's side of the line. Bob Kraft was demanding an apology from the league before an investigation had ever even taken place. Brady standing in front of the whole world vehemently denying he knew anything about it didn't help either. I had a feeling when Bill and Tom took this thing head on at the beginning that it was a mistake. Everyone, at the time said it was brilliant and brave, yadda, yadda, yadda. "I can't comment on any of that, right now" would have been the best friend that they could have had at that time. Unfortunately, they panicked and (now we know), reasonably so. They went immediately went on the defensive and with too much fervor early on. They had no direction to go after that but in full denial mode. Once Tom dug his heels in he had no choice but to try and cover his ***.

Willie McGinnest was on NFL Network last night and he said the smartest thing regarding Brady and this whole situation. To summarize he said the Brady should have come straight out and said: "I like the ball that I play with a certain way just like any other QB in the league. I didn't think that the condition that I prefer my particular football was outside the guidelines of the rules. If they are, I take full responsibility and I'll do what's required to make sure it doesn't happen again".

Now, whether that statement would have been true or not is irrelevant. It buys him time and wiggle room. Like I said, the Patriots PR machine made a huge mistake in this whole thing from the word go and I think that it has factored in.

And the law actually does take your history into consideration on sentencing. Someone who is a multiple offender will be treated more harshly. So not only is Brady a cheat and a liar, he was not remorseful or cooperative - the opposite in fact. And the Pats organization not only looked the other way or condoned the act, but it's employees were as complicit in the cheating AND the lying which did not occur in the singular but over the course of a season, at the very least. An organization already caught for cheating continues to act indignant and hostile after getting caught with hand in cookie jar.

I'm of the opinion that the 4 game suspension was the incorrect penalty. Brady should have only been suspended for ONE game and one game only, the game after he was caught - the Super Bowl.

 

[skinsscalper]

And the law actually does take your history into consideration on sentencing. Someone who is a multiple offender will be treated more harshly. So not only is Brady a cheat and a liar, he was not remorseful or cooperative - the opposite in fact. And the Pats organization not only looked the other way or condoned the act, but it's employees were as complicit in the cheating AND the lying which did not occur in the singular but over the course of a season, at the very least. An organization already caught for cheating continues to act indignant and hostile after getting caught with hand in cookie jar.

I'm of the opinion that the 4 game suspension was the incorrect penalty. Brady should have only been suspended for ONE game and one game only, the game after he was caught - the Super Bowl.

A thousand likes for that one, my friend.

 

[tyke1doe]

And the law actually does take your history into consideration on sentencing. Someone who is a multiple offender will be treated more harshly. So not only is Brady a cheat and a liar, he was not remorseful or cooperative - the opposite in fact. And the Pats organization not only looked the other way or condoned the act, but it's employees were as complicit in the cheating AND the lying which did not occur in the singular but over the course of a season, at the very least. An organization already caught for cheating continues to act indignant and hostile after getting caught with hand in cookie jar.

I'm of the opinion that the 4 game suspension was the incorrect penalty. Brady should have only been suspended for ONE game and one game only, the game after he was caught - the Super Bowl.

I agree with you that the law considers history AFTER a verdict is rendered, not DURING the case.
I may be splitting hairs, but if while the NFL was investigating this matter it considered the Patriots' other transgressions, then my analogy is correct.

However, if after it completed its case and gave out a harsher penalty, then you are correct.

Be that as it may, my observation was an aside and more a statement about the fickledness of human nature.

 

[CowboyRoy]

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.

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.

 

[CowboyRoy]

There are homers on every fan site, and that's a good thing. I'd be careful where I'm getting my information on internet reputations though, if I were you. CZ gets just as much criticism for tolerating haters. And a lot of the people who complain about CZ, from my experience, are fans who've been asked to leave here for any number of very good reasons. It's a tough line to walk, but then again, it's opinions on the Internet, so I'm not sure how much it matters.

The Hardy situation is a poor example of a bias argument, either way. He can be both involved in a domestic abuse case *and* a great football player. Understanding both and still wanting his talents in Dallas might be a sign of misplaced priorities (it's not, but that argument could be made), but it's not exactly an argument for bias or homerism.

Defending Hardy for beating his GF is something only a Cowboys homer would do. Have you heard ANYONE else defend him the way some on here are doing? That is my point. And the Hardy example is a GREAT example of how Cowboy fans can laughably present a BIASED argument.

 

[Idgit]

Defending Hardy for beating his GF is something only a Cowboys homer would do. Have you heard ANYONE else defend him the way some on here are doing? That is my point. And the Hardy example is a GREAT example of how Cowboy fans can laughably present a BIASED argument.

I'd expect any group who looked at the actual details of the Hardy case to have the range of opinions we've seen here. There's legitimatley a lot of grey area there and a lot went down that's not a matter of public record.

And it's perfectly logical to take the position that he's guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence and to still want him as a football player. Some fans don't want bad guys in their roster. Others legitimately don't care. Neither is an example of bias though, which is why your point is a bad one.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I'd expect any group who looked at the actual details of the Hardy case to have the range of opinions we've seen here. There's legitimatley a lot of grey area there and a lot went down that's not a matter of public record.

And it's perfectly logical to take the position that he's guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence and to still want him as a football player. Some fans don't want bad guys in their roster. Others legitimately don't care. Neither is an example of bias though, which is why your point is a bad one.

I guess that is your opinion. 3 bodies have judged the evidence and found that Hardy beat his GF. Yet people continue to defend Hardy in that regard. That is text book biased to me.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Hardy comments pulled from Pats thread to new thread.