Panthers’ Final Answer: No Greg Hardy in 2015

[Mansta54]

Gimmie Hardy in a NY minute, our D needs some doggs on it.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Well a medical examiners report that indicated no injuries speaks a different story but okay. OJ was exonerated on the basis of police misconduct in the wake of the King debacle after a trial. The prosecutor abandoned the case here. Not remotely the same veracity.

I have been following this since I live locally. I think Hardy is guilty of being dumb enough to date a coke-snorting gold-digging floozy who knew her free ride was ending. If Ray Rice did not happen, the Panthers would have had his back on this until the very end. They rolled him out in week 1 and planned on continuing until pressure from the league and the public forced their hand. I don't see how they could bring him back now after completely turning away from him last season. The split is best for both parties.

 

[Fredd]

I personally would not want a letch on the Cowboys, anyone that stain the star (so to speak)...that being said, some of these guys that have had "outside of football" troubles don't tarnish the team altogether...those of you that only want RKG's of the world, remember that Michael Irvin (one of my all-time favorites) was a WKG based on his dealings outside of football

* Hardy - would want him on the team
* Peterson - not sold on the guy, but that is because of age and my preference to keep murray (his off field decisions weren't good, but that has no bearing to me)
* Manziel - punk, would NEVER want him on this team - based on his punk-ness (I know, not a word) and because he just isn't any good

there are other examples, of course, but Hardy I would LOVE to have on this team if his cost wasn't prohibitive...I didn't think Carolina would let him go to begin with...I can see him on a team with aspirations of the super bowl (see: New England)

 

[iceberg]

Good thing odds are we will never have to find out.

That wont stop the name from hitting like 1000 mentions as everyone now comes up with a shddenly brilliant idea.

 

[Rogah]

Actually that isn't the American system. If the DA thought Hardy as guilty and the girl had been paid not to testify he would just subpoena her and make her testify.

That is far, far easier said than done. What do you do when you subpoena the victim to testify and they still refuse? Throw her in jail? Yeah that'll go over real well.... throwing the victim of a domestic in jail while the attacker roams free.

 

[TheDude]

I read the dismissal. It seemed pretty unprofessional and more than a little incompetent for a DA to claim to have reliable evidence of tampering with one of their witnesses as one of the reasons for abandoning the case. An agreement regarding a civil trial would be completely besides the point but he left it vague so who knows to what he is speaking.

He claims they went by two locations in their search over the course of months. Maybe they left a man on a location but again its vague. As others have mentioned, she lived a pretty far flung life that she liked to smear on social media. I wasn't impressed into what you are talking about.

Do you have some extra sources or something because you are speaking to the actual thoughts of the judge and as to witnesses and how their testimony was received regarding Hardy's credibility. To me, the accusers credibility should be examined and it seems to have gone by the wayside. At no point does that seem to be considered.

.

There are quotes out there from the judge about his testimony in her decision. I dont see the need to track them down, the facts are:

• He called the 911 on her
• He was arrested, she wasnt
• 12 witnesses testified in the original - 10 hour - trial
• Hardy stated she attacked him ; Holder said he attacked her
• He was convicted with a judgement, which implies the judge didnt believe him in light of all the evidence - hence the verdict.
• He appealed, and case was dismissed per the DAs request due to the lack of primary witness.
  • DAs are elected officials, which can play in an over-zealous or over-cautious stance (i.e. acquittal/loss versus dropping the case). Maybe neither here nor there in this case, but may play a role for some

Edit: found one anyway:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac...dismissed-nfl-may-still-suspend-greg-hardy-2/
"Judge Rebecca Thorn-Tin ruled that “the court is entirely convinced Hardy is guilty of assault on a female and communicating threats.”

I stated previously she didnt seem like a great witness. Usually when 911 is called the other party is taken away. I can totally buy she went into acting mode and sold it to the cops.
My issue is many are seeming to imply that the initial verdict was a 5 minute railroading an miscarriage of justice. The actual facts of the process are the opposite, it was a 10 hour trial with witness, evidence, etc. The decision may or may not have ultimately been right, but in July 2014, this wasnt as a national case like was after the Ray Rice video came out in September

Also there apparently is a list of evidence that hasnt been leaked from the first trial that the NFL's Brian McCarthy has requested for it to mete out its action.

Officer Kim took photos,

https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=489077818337157121&original_referer=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2130177-greg-hardy-trial-latest-news-updates-on-panthers-des-domestic-violence-charge&tw_i=489077818337157121&tw_p=tweetembed

As far as inside knowledge of the trial, none specifically. I have 2 lawyers in the family and they say it is highly odd that the state would actually spend the money to "put under surveillance" a witness whereabouts for a misdemeanor case after trying residence of record, family, employment. They rarely if ever spend the money to track a witness out of town. Judges will generally ask if they seek a continuance to continue efforts. I would be more apt to believe that prompted the DAs to state the efforts taken in trying to find her, why she may never be available and why the dismissal was vaguely written. That seems more plausible than just soapboxing a "He paid her off to buy his acquittal" out of nowhere - but no one knows either scenario I suppose .

Any man is already behind the 8ball when in court against a female. I mentioned in a previous post that I thought his lawyer did an excellent job. He spent the money and got a reporter, and then had ammo to work to impeach testimony in the second trial. An interesting question to ask his lawyer would be "Would you have gone through the risk of a bench trial guilty verdict if this would have been after the Ray Rice video came out in September?" The Rice video is really the accelerant here to the TIME article, etc.

But, as a local reporter tweeted from the trial :
https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=489128021412941825
especially if they were going off the DVPO http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/cmp...y-arrested-domestic-viol/nfwB3/?__federated=1

I do have a friend/former neighbor who works in the Panther FO, according to him, the final straw for Richardson was catching wind of Hardy's rap release in October 2014 that included a line "Crack a B*tch." and subsequent live performance. The video is online

The guy is a good player, loved by coaches and teammates, but not incredibly smart. But he isn't alone in that scenario.

He was sentenced to AAA 3 times per week, so I would be concerned about where he is in the NFLs drug program. He likely gets the book thrown at him by the NFL, so to me, his situation is much riskier than Dez - at least from what is currently known.

 

[ghst187]

Cowboys final answer: YES Greg Hardy!

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Made up story by who? Jason Cole and every writer in Carolina? What evidence is there that they made the stories up given they were outright confirmed by the prosecution?

Made up stories by a gold digging women, he never touched her and was never found guilty in a jury trial. Think what you want but those are facts

 

[Rogah]

Made up stories by a gold digging women, he never touched her and was never found guilty in a jury trial. Think what you want but those are facts

He didn't have a jury trial and was found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt in the only trial he had that went to completion. Those are facts too.

 

[Nation]

Made up stories by a gold digging women, he never touched her and was never found guilty in a jury trial. Think what you want but those are facts

If she was a gold digger why did the arrest happen when they were dating, and if it was made up why did he have to settle with her financially after losing the first trial?

 

[Nightman]

.

There are quotes out there from the judge about his testimony in her decision. I dont see the need to track them down, the facts are:

• He called the 911 on her
• He was arrested, she wasnt
• 12 witnesses testified in the original - 10 hour - trial
• Hardy stated she attacked him ; Holder said he attacked her
• He was convicted with a judgement, which implies the judge didnt believe him in light of all the evidence - hence the verdict.
• He appealed, and case was dismissed per the DAs request due to the lack of primary witness.
  • DAs are elected officials, which can play in an over-zealous or over-cautious stance (i.e. acquittal/loss versus dropping the case). Maybe neither here nor there in this case, but may play a role for some

Edit: found one anyway:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac...dismissed-nfl-may-still-suspend-greg-hardy-2/
"Judge Rebecca Thorn-Tin ruled that “the court is entirely convinced Hardy is guilty of assault on a female and communicating threats.”

I stated previously she didnt seem like a great witness. Usually when 911 is called the other party is taken away. I can totally buy she went into acting mode and sold it to the cops.
My issue is many are seeming to imply that the initial verdict was a 5 minute railroading an miscarriage of justice. The actual facts of the process are the opposite, it was a 10 hour trial with witness, evidence, etc. The decision may or may not have ultimately been right, but in July 2014, this wasnt as a national case like was after the Ray Rice video came out in September

Also there apparently is a list of evidence that hasnt been leaked from the first trial that the NFL's Brian McCarthy has requested for it to mete out its action.

Officer Kim took photos,

https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=489077818337157121&original_referer=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2130177-greg-hardy-trial-latest-news-updates-on-panthers-des-domestic-violence-charge&tw_i=489077818337157121&tw_p=tweetembed

As far as inside knowledge of the trial, none specifically. I have 2 lawyers in the family and they say it is highly odd that the state would actually spend the money to "put under surveillance" a witness whereabouts for a misdemeanor case after trying residence of record, family, employment. They rarely if ever spend the money to track a witness out of town. Judges will generally ask if they seek a continuance to continue efforts. I would be more apt to believe that prompted the DAs to state the efforts taken in trying to find her, why she may never be available and why the dismissal was vaguely written. That seems more plausible than just soapboxing a "He paid her off to buy his acquittal" out of nowhere - but no one knows either scenario I suppose .

Any man is already behind the 8ball when in court against a female. I mentioned in a previous post that I thought his lawyer did an excellent job. He spent the money and got a reporter, and then had ammo to work to impeach testimony in the second trial. An interesting question to ask his lawyer would be "Would you have gone through the risk of a bench trial guilty verdict if this would have been after the Ray Rice video came out in September?" The Rice video is really the accelerant here to the TIME article, etc.

But, as a local reporter tweeted from the trial :
https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=489128021412941825
especially if they were going off the DVPO http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/cmp...y-arrested-domestic-viol/nfwB3/?__federated=1

I do have a friend/former neighbor who works in the Panther FO, according to him, the final straw for Richardson was catching wind of Hardy's rap release in October 2014 that included a line "Crack a B*tch." and subsequent live performance. The video is online

The guy is a good player, loved by coaches and teammates, but not incredibly smart. But he isn't alone in that scenario.

He was sentenced to AAA 3 times per week, so I would be concerned about where he is in the NFLs drug program. He likely gets the book thrown at him by the NFL, so to me, his situation is much riskier than Dez - at least from what is currently known.

You are all over the place. In some cases you recognize the real flaws with the case but then you argue for her credibility, which the whole case boils down to. I think you are placing way too much emphasis on the bench trial. That verdict is immediately vacated once the defendant appeals. It is completely set aside, it doesn't even remain as the fall back in case of a hung jury. The judge has no worries about entering a guilty verdict, it has no standing but a dismissal ends the case right there. A female judge sided with the woman in a he said/she said case, not a surprise.

A lying woman carries a lot of weight and that is why Hardy was arrested when he was the one that called the police and she was the one the followed him home and started the fight and wouldn't leave. The police just assumed the big man was the aggressor. Once her story changed from the original statements to the bench trial she was done as a credible witness. If she didn't make herself available for the jury trial that is an indictment of her character, not his. The DA has a duty to find her and force her to testify. She accused a man of some serious crimes and to let her make them and then run away from them is irresponsible.

 

[TheDude]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...ardy-released-jail-17k-bond-article-1.1791913

You are all over the place. In some cases you recognize the real flaws with the case but then you argue for her credibility, which the whole case boils down to. I think you are placing way too much emphasis on the bench trial. That verdict is immediately vacated once the defendant appeals. It is completely set aside, it doesn't even remain as the fall back in case of a hung jury. The judge has no worries about entering a guilty verdict, it has no standing but a dismissal ends the case right there. A female judge sided with the woman in a he said/she said case, not a surprise.

A lying woman carries a lot of weight and that is why Hardy was arrested when he was the one that called the police and she was the one the followed him home and started the fight and wouldn't leave. The police just assumed the big man was the aggressor. Once her story changed from the original statements to the bench trial she was done as a credible witness. If she didn't make herself available for the jury trial that is an indictment of her character, not his. The DA has a duty to find her and force her to testify. She accused a man of some serious crimes and to let her make them and then run away from them is irresponsible.

First, his record wasn't expunged. It's there in court records. To act like a bench trial is the same as a video arraignment is a little self serving. The vast majority of misdemeanors are handled via a bench trial And that verdict stands if not appealed. 99% of bench trials don't go 10 hours with 12 witnesses. And the vast majority aren't appealed.

I know that is inconvenient to rock solid proof you have that hardy was 100% the victim and the cops and judge didn't give him an iota of a fair shake. I haven't seen the photos, nor was sitting at the trial for the 11 witneses.

As far as I can tell, him lying about the guns, photos of bruising consistent with being thrown on guns hurt his case From accounts I have seen and posted.

I reserve right to be open minded...do you know whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice?

making herself not available is really a moot point. Many victims don't make themselves available at the trial (husband and wife reconcile, etc). If that is 100% proof of her guilt, then hardy should sue her for defamation or the DA should charge her with filing a false report or issue a bench warrant for failure to appeal. He never should of paid her either obviously.

I don't give a damn at this point, his case was dismissed, not acquitted, but it should be over and he should be able to play if a team wants him.

I just find this absolute certainty of "facts" in this case being thrown around as a little too simplistic and dangerous.

Whatever team signs hardy gets a guy whom the NFL wants to Throw the book at. He has a much shorter rope than most players.

If he is the martyr you know for a fact he is...he will go quick and top dollar. If he takes a prove it deal, then that says something as well.

 

[Nightman]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...ardy-released-jail-17k-bond-article-1.1791913


First, his record wasn't expunged. It's there in court records. To act like a bench trial is the same as a video arraignment is a little self serving. The vast majority of misdemeanors are handled via a bench trial And that verdict stands if not appealed. 99% of bench trials don't go 10 hours with 12 witnesses. And the vast majority aren't appealed.

I know that is inconvenient to rock solid proof you have that hardy was 100% the victim and the cops and judge didn't give him an iota of a fair shake. I haven't seen the photos, nor was sitting at the trial for the 11 witneses.

As far as I can tell, him lying about the guns, photos of bruising consistent with being thrown on guns hurt his case From accounts I have seen and posted.

I reserve right to be open minded...do you know whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice?

making herself not available is really a moot point. Many victims don't make themselves available at the trial (husband and wife reconcile, etc). If that is 100% proof of her guilt, then hardy should sue her for defamation or the DA should charge her with filing a false report or issue a bench warrant for failure to appeal. He never should of paid her either obviously.

I don't give a damn at this point, his case was dismissed, not acquitted, but it should be over and he should be able to play if a team wants him.

I just find this absolute certainty of "facts" in this case being thrown around as a little too simplistic and dangerous.

Whatever team signs hardy gets a guy whom the NFL wants to Throw the book at. He has a much shorter rope than most players.

If he is the martyr you know for a fact he is...he will go quick and top dollar. If he takes a prove it deal, then that says something as well.

I'll never know what happened and can only go by what was reported. In this case Hardy looks much more credible and I don't believe Ms Holder. A few of us have been responding to people that want to jail and punish Hardy for a crime he wasn't even tried for. Hardy is no martyr, but he isn't a crash test dummy either that the NFL can knock around just to satisfy their thirst for Domestic Violence justice.

I do want Hardy on the team, but I'm not trying to bend the facts to fit that narrative. I just don't believe her story.

 

[TheDude]

I'll never know what happened and can only go by what was reported. In this case Hardy looks much more credible and I don't believe Ms Holder. A few of us have been responding to people that want to jail and punish Hardy for a crime he wasn't even tried for. Hardy is no martyr, but he isn't a crash test dummy either that the NFL can knock around just to satisfy their thirst for Domestic Violence justice.

I do want Hardy on the team, but I'm not trying to bend the facts to fit that narrative. I just don't believe her story.

Fair enough. Im fine with him on the team. He has no pending legal issues (assuming the DA dismissed with prejudice - but with prejudice are almost never reopened). But whether or not the NFL should use him as a crash test dummy is irrelevant to what they are going to do to appear "tough on DV". Knowing that, the rap video/lyric was a stupid move.

 

[Kaiser]

Not exactly. They tried to subpoena her for months...work, residence, other know residences...couldn't serve her

They left voicemails and had a black and white knock on her door at home and work. I've had to have people served in Civil cases, it isn't always easy but it isn't that hard either if you have government resources to do so. The point is that the post I was replying to said that if a witness doesn't want to cooperate, that's the end of the case. That isn't true, if they really wanted her to testify they would put in the effort to find her (they could start with her Facebook page like BKnight said). If this was a murder trial you can bet they would find her and serve her.

Also they were trying to serve her to get her to clear up the inconsistencies in what she said in the police and what she said at trial. The onus was her at that point.

Another point that should be made is that DA's are political positions . The dismissal document you list has the DA's office saying they went to "extraordinary measures" to serve the girl, which is self serving and almost comical. They aren't going to say "Our office shuffled a case through normal channels that fell apart after becoming national news, however if we had done our jobs better we would have more work upfront and this never would have gone to the initial trial". No political position ever does that, they just write a "we did our jobs and in fact, we did it well" type of dismissal you see there. I don't think the DA did anything wrong, but that dismissal is more of a face saving political writeup than anything else.

 

[Kaiser]

.

There are quotes out there from the judge about his testimony in her decision. I dont see the need to track them down, the facts are:

• He called the 911 on her
• He was arrested, she wasnt
• 12 witnesses testified in the original - 10 hour - trial

We agree a lot more than we disagree but I want to add to a couple of points you have made.

Hardy was arrested that night because the girl made a claim of attempted murder. No surprise there.

I don't know the NC code but in most states expungement takes a year or more to do. And in the odd way NC does it, there may not be a need for an expungement because the second trial automatically vacates the first if the case is dropped.

In terms of the attorneys in your family, ask them what happens when a witness contradicts their police statement with different statements at trial (plus admits they were on coke at the time). The answer is that the witness can't be used at trial going forward. No prosecutor can say "My witness was high and lying at point A, but totally credible the rest of the time". It just doesn't work that way.

The first trial wasn't 5 minutes and it was 10 hours, but in court time that is about 2 hours of actual witnesses on the stand. Also you list the evidence of bruises entered into testimony but the girl testified she wasn't injured except for a broken toenail - and the toenail was from her kicking his car. There was another witness that testified she kicked his car also.

And from the Forbes article you posted, that is after she said in a sworn police statement "I have bruises from head to toe, including my head, neck, back, shoulders, arms, legs, elbow and feet. "

We agree on most things here, but there is nothing beyond the girl's statements indicating Hardy did anything and the girl has zero credibility.

 

[TheDude]

They left voicemails and had a black and white knock on her door at home and work. I've had to have people served in Civil cases, it isn't always easy but it isn't that hard either if you have government resources to do so. The point is that the post I was replying to said that if a witness doesn't want to cooperate, that's the end of the case. That isn't true, if they really wanted her to testify they would put in the effort to find her (they could start with her Facebook page like BKnight said). If this was a murder trial you can bet they would find her and serve her.

The govt isnt going to spend unlimited resources on a misdemeanor case subpoena of a victim. My point is it isnt like she is the first person to not show up as a subpoena witness.There is no way the state is going to track her to the ends of the earth.

If a victim doesnt show up, most DVs get thrown out absent solid physical and evidence.

[quote
Also they were trying to serve her to get her to clear up the inconsistencies in what she said in the police and what she said at trial. The onus was her at that point.
[/quote]
She was never on trial or accused of anything. The DA determined they needed her to proceed since the defense had pointed out inconsistencies. Submitting her original testimony wasnt enough.

Another point that should be made is that DA's are political positions . The dismissal document you list has the DA's office saying they went to "extraordinary measures" to serve the girl, which is self serving and almost comical. They aren't going to say "Our office shuffled a case through normal channels that fell apart after becoming national news, however if we had done our jobs better we would have more work upfront and this never would have gone to the initial trial". No political position ever does that, they just write a "we did our jobs and in fact, we did it well" type of dismissal you see there. I don't think the DA did anything wrong, but that dismissal is more of a face saving political writeup than anything else.

From what Ive heard about process servers for misdemeanors, they did go above and beyond. What I have heard is that if the person doesn't want to testify, all they have to do is not open the door. Municipalities have limited resources to stakeout and subpoena every potential witness that is hard to find.

Holder also didnt inform her lawyer of whereabouts and he withdrew from the case on the trial date.

 

[Kaiser]

The govt isnt going to spend unlimited resources on a misdemeanor case subpoena of a victim.

You are missing the point. The girl showed up at the first trial voluntarily. They didn't need to subpoena her. At trial she completely contradicted herself.

At that point they ask her to explain the differences and she won't. The subpoena goes out to get her to clarify the differences between the two because the whole case for the jury trial falls apart based on her contradictions (and being on coke at the time). She won't answer the door or return calls.

Then the DA drops the case that he has no chance of winning and in the document says they went to "extraordinary measures" to find the girl. Which is SOP for a politically appointed or elected office.

 

[Corso]

I really hope some of you who know with certainty Greg Hardy is guilty never end up being a juror. This mentality of disregarding the judicial system because it doesn't fit your perception is ridiculous. Im sure if a woman/man accused you of something you would be fine waving your right to a jury trial and accepting a verdict handed down by a single entity, who is easier to convince/deceive than multiple jurors. Your knowledge of half truths and a low percent of the evidence along with a lack of knowledge of what a North Carolina bench trial is and is used for is irrelevant because you already know exactly what happened right?

I literally stood up, clapped my hands and said "Here, here!" out loud to... well nobody was around so it was to nobody, but you get my gist.
Thank you.

 

[Corso]

.

There are quotes out there from the judge about his testimony in her decision. I dont see the need to track them down, the facts are:

• He called the 911 on her
• He was arrested, she wasnt
• 12 witnesses testified in the original - 10 hour - trial
• Hardy stated she attacked him ; Holder said he attacked her
• He was convicted with a judgement, which implies the judge didnt believe him in light of all the evidence - hence the verdict.
• He appealed, and case was dismissed per the DAs request due to the lack of primary witness.
  • DAs are elected officials, which can play in an over-zealous or over-cautious stance (i.e. acquittal/loss versus dropping the case). Maybe neither here nor there in this case, but may play a role for some

Edit: found one anyway:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac...dismissed-nfl-may-still-suspend-greg-hardy-2/
"Judge Rebecca Thorn-Tin ruled that “the court is entirely convinced Hardy is guilty of assault on a female and communicating threats.”

I stated previously she didnt seem like a great witness. Usually when 911 is called the other party is taken away. I can totally buy she went into acting mode and sold it to the cops.
My issue is many are seeming to imply that the initial verdict was a 5 minute railroading an miscarriage of justice. The actual facts of the process are the opposite, it was a 10 hour trial with witness, evidence, etc. The decision may or may not have ultimately been right, but in July 2014, this wasnt as a national case like was after the Ray Rice video came out in September

Also there apparently is a list of evidence that hasnt been leaked from the first trial that the NFL's Brian McCarthy has requested for it to mete out its action.

Officer Kim took photos,

https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=489077818337157121&original_referer=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2130177-greg-hardy-trial-latest-news-updates-on-panthers-des-domestic-violence-charge&tw_i=489077818337157121&tw_p=tweetembed

As far as inside knowledge of the trial, none specifically. I have 2 lawyers in the family and they say it is highly odd that the state would actually spend the money to "put under surveillance" a witness whereabouts for a misdemeanor case after trying residence of record, family, employment. They rarely if ever spend the money to track a witness out of town. Judges will generally ask if they seek a continuance to continue efforts. I would be more apt to believe that prompted the DAs to state the efforts taken in trying to find her, why she may never be available and why the dismissal was vaguely written. That seems more plausible than just soapboxing a "He paid her off to buy his acquittal" out of nowhere - but no one knows either scenario I suppose .

Any man is already behind the 8ball when in court against a female. I mentioned in a previous post that I thought his lawyer did an excellent job. He spent the money and got a reporter, and then had ammo to work to impeach testimony in the second trial. An interesting question to ask his lawyer would be "Would you have gone through the risk of a bench trial guilty verdict if this would have been after the Ray Rice video came out in September?" The Rice video is really the accelerant here to the TIME article, etc.

But, as a local reporter tweeted from the trial :
https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=489128021412941825
especially if they were going off the DVPO http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/cmp...y-arrested-domestic-viol/nfwB3/?__federated=1

I do have a friend/former neighbor who works in the Panther FO, according to him, the final straw for Richardson was catching wind of Hardy's rap release in October 2014 that included a line "Crack a B*tch." and subsequent live performance. The video is online

The guy is a good player, loved by coaches and teammates, but not incredibly smart. But he isn't alone in that scenario.

He was sentenced to AAA 3 times per week, so I would be concerned about where he is in the NFLs drug program. He likely gets the book thrown at him by the NFL, so to me, his situation is much riskier than Dez - at least from what is currently known.

Good stuff. I learned a lot in that one post.
Thank you.