Hardy will serve 4 games

[casmith07]

Brady misses zero games for insufficient evidence that he was involved in deflating footballs while Hardy is missing 4 games due to evidence that got him charged with domestic violence. The charge was dropped only because his accuser refused to cooperate. Reports were he may have settled with her out of court. After the Ray Rice situation rocked the NFL world that resulted in a TV campaign against domestic violence did you expect the league to completely wipe out Hardy's suspension after already reducing it by 6 games? Do you think overturning a suspension that had to do with domestic violence would have sat well with everyone? Can you come up with a case where a player was charged with domestic violence and didn't receive a league suspension or had their suspension overturned? There's a big difference between being accused of deflating footballs and being accused and charged with domestic violence.

"Evidence."

 

[KJJ]

"Evidence."

To be charged with a crime there has to be evidence. A charge can't be made without evidence that a crime was committed and Hardy was "charged" with a crime. The charge was dismissed only because his accuser refused to cooperate. The leagues investigation was botched in deflategate due to legal deficiencies which got Brady's suspension overturned.

 

[Nightman]

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the "He wanted it to all go away" rationale.
With the focus the NFL has on domestic violence, you almost have to fight the suspension, ESPECIALLY, when your case was dismissed.
And I find the spotlight argument a shallow one. He's playing for the DALLAS COWBOYS!!! You think this is going to be the last mention of his domestic abuse case? You think if Dallas makes the Super Bowl his situation isn't going to be discussed or written about by, oh, the thousands of media personnel during Super Bowl week?
I've maintained all along I believe he isn't as innocent as some want to make him seem. He did SOMETHING! And, yes, not challenging this case leads me to believe this, in light of what I mentioned above.
He wants to make it go away, alright. I'm disappointed he didn't challenge the NFL's suspension, if he was indeed innocent.
And if he isn't, then I'll accept the suspension as fitting for his involvement in a situation of his own making.
See ya for the New England game, Greg.

Hardy brought this to the Cowboys. He was on CAR when this happened. They are the ones that paid him 13m to watch on TV.

DAL is getting exactly what they bargained for and are paying for. He just had a kid and he wants to move on with his new team.

 

[Kevinicus]

To be charged with a crime there has to be evidence. A charge can't be made without evidence that a crime was committed and Hardy was "charged" with a crime. The charge was dismissed only because his accuser refused to cooperate. The leagues investigation was botched in deflategate due to legal deficiencies which got Brady's suspension overturned.

Lol, like people have never been charged and convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Especially misdemeanor crimes like what he was accused of.

 

[KJJ]

Lol, like people have never been charged and convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Especially misdemeanor crimes like what he was accused of.

Blame that on our legal system. The NFL is going error on the side of caution with domestic violence in the wake of the Ray Rice case. If a player doesn't want to get suspended by the league they better not put themselves in a position to be charged with domestic violence. There was evidence a crime was committed in the Hardy case and reports claim that he may have settled out of court with his accuser. If Hardy felt he did nothing wrong there wouldn't have been any settlement with her out of court. If he feared going to trial and facing a jury there had to be enough evidence that caused him to pay her off if that's in deed what caused her not to want to cooperate.

 

[CF74]

Radio is speculating he didn't wanna get dragged thru the mud again, makes sense. Let sleeping dogs lie...

 

[casmith07]

To be charged with a crime there has to be evidence.

Not always.

 

[KJJ]

Not always.

There has to be at least some evidence to support that a crime was committed to charge someone. You can be arrested on the suspicion of a crime but there has to be at least some evidence to be charged. You can't just accuse someone of a crime without having anything to support it. It takes a prosecutor to decide what criminal charges to file if any. A judge has to decide if there's enough evidence to proceed in Hardy's case there was but his accuser refused to cooperate which resulted in the charges being dropped.

 

[Jstopper]

There has to be at least some evidence to support that a crime was committed to charge someone. You can be arrested on the suspicion of a crime but there has to be at least some evidence to be charged. You can't just accuse someone of a crime without having anything to support it. It's takes a prosecutor to decide what criminal charges to file if any. A judge has to decide if there's enough evidence to proceed in Hardy's case there was but his accuser refused to cooperate which resulted in the charges being dropped.

Are you telling me the DA cannot proceed on a case simply because the accuser refuses to cooperate? Wrong. DA can continue with the charges without the accuser. The fact that he decided not to speaks volumes about the confidence he felt in her story and winning this case.

 

[casmith07]

There has to be at least some evidence to support that a crime was committed to charge someone. You can be arrested on the suspicion of a crime but there has to be at least some evidence to be charged. You can't just accuse someone of a crime without having anything to support it. It takes a prosecutor to decide what criminal charges to file if any. A judge has to decide if there's enough evidence to proceed in Hardy's case there was but his accuser refused to cooperate which resulted in the charges being dropped.

I don't know what rose-colored world you live in, but people get charged all the time with a complete lack of evidence or extremely thin evidence on the table.

 

[KJJ]

Are you telling me the DA cannot proceed on a case simply because the accuser refuses to cooperate? Wrong. DA can continue with the charges without the accuser. The fact that he decided not to speaks volumes about the confidence he felt in her story and winning this case.

Listen to the video.

 

[KJJ]

I don't know what rose-colored world you live in, but people get charged all the time with a complete lack of evidence or extremely thin evidence on the table.

You might want to do some reading you can't prosecute someone and go to trial with a complete lack of evidence.

 

[casmith07]

You might want to do some reading you can't prosecute someone and go to trial with a complete lack of evidence.

Which is why Hardy's case never proceeded to trial. You act like I don't do this **** for a living.

 

[casmith07]

Listen to the video.

And that wasn't enough. And neither were the alleged photographs.

Try again, KJJ. Try again.

 

[Kevinicus]

Blame that on our legal system. The NFL is going error on the side of caution with domestic violence in the wake of the Ray Rice case. If a player doesn't want to get suspended by the league they better not put themselves in a position to be charged with domestic violence. There was evidence a crime was committed in the Hardy case and reports claim that he may have settled out of court with his accuser. If Hardy felt he did nothing wrong there wouldn't have been any settlement with her out of court. If he feared going to trial and facing a jury there had to be enough evidence that caused him to pay her off if that's in deed what caused her not to want to cooperate.

That's an absurd statement that doesn't hold with reality. Settlements occur all the time for reasons other than guilt. If there was a settlement, it lends zero credibility to the charges against him.

There is no evidence of a settlement either. Only an unsubstantiated rumor.

But you're changing the goal posts again, as usual. You claimed there had to be evidence he did something to be charged. That is just 100% not a statement of fact. It can be proven false by plenty of cases in our legal system over the years. "Blame that on our legal system," doesn't absolve you from your incorrect statement.

There is evidence that something happened that night. That is often all that is needed for charges (sometimes not even that). Whether it indicates he did what he was accused of is a different story altogether.

 

[KJJ]

Which is why Hardy's case never proceeded to trial. You act like I don't do this **** for a living.

Hardy's case never proceeded to trial because his accuser refused to cooperate listen to the video I posted. It doesn't take doing this for a living just some common sense and the ability to do a Google search. You might want try it sometime.

 

[KJJ]

And that wasn't enough. And neither were the alleged photographs.

Try again, KJJ. Try again.

I don't need to try again...case closed!

 

[Jstopper]

Listen to the video.

Again I ask you, can a DA move forward on charges without the accuser, yes or no? I believe we both already know the answer

 

[KJJ]

That's an absurd statement that doesn't hold with reality. Settlements occur all the time for reasons other than guilt. If there was a settlement, it lends zero credibility to the charges against him.

There is no evidence of a settlement either. Only an unsubstantiated rumor.

But you're changing the goal posts again, as usual. You claimed there had to be evidence he did something to be charged. That is just 100% not a statement of fact. It can be proven false by plenty of cases in our legal system over the years. "Blame that on our legal system," doesn't absolve you from your incorrect statement.

There is evidence that something happened that night. That is often all that is needed for charges. Whether it indicates he did what he was accused of is a different story altogether.

If there was enough evidence for Hardy to get charged there may have been enough evidence for a jury to convict him. A lot of people settle out of court to take things out of the hands of a judge or a jury. It's an easier and safer way out. According to the video I posted there was evidence of a settlement. All that's needed to charge someone is evidence and there was evidence. Had there not been an out of court settlement and his accuser would have cooperated Hardy's fate would have likely been in the hands of a jury.

 

[casmith07]

If there was enough evidence for Hardy to get charged there may have been enough evidence for a jury to convict him. A lot of people settle out of court to take things out of the hands of a judge or a jury. It's an easier and safer way out. According to the video I posted there was evidence of a settlement. All that's needed to charge someone is evidence and there was evidence. Had their not been an out of court settlement and his accuser would have cooperated Hardy's fate would have likely been in the hands of a jury.

So now you're dealing with hopes and wishes and allegations. No facts. Typical KJJ.