Should Hardy Appeal, or Nah?

[nathanlt]

IF her accusations were false, then Hardy should appeal and proclaim his innocence. If he actually did the things he's accused of, he'll take the reduced punishment.

I'm waiting to see what path he chooses, personally.

 

[Little Jr]

Perhaps for some but I have presented my opinion with supporting facts that have nothing to do with my fan affiliation even before Hardy signed with the Cowboys.

Ok of course you have. Lol it's funny how many cowboy fans say they had the same opinion before he signed. Lol even funnier that so many study the case before he was singned lol.

 

[JoeKing]

IF her accusations were false, then Hardy should appeal and proclaim his innocence. If he actually did the things he's accused of, he'll take the reduced punishment.

I'm waiting to see what path he chooses, personally.

The "appeal" you are talking about has already been made and won by Hardy. The issue that now may be presented to the court is with the manner in which the NFL doles out punishment. Her accusations of Hardy will be expunged from his record.

 

[JoeKing]

Ok of course you have. Lol it's funny how many cowboy fans say they had the same opinion before he signed. Lol even funnier that so many study the case before he was singned lol.

You don't have to believe me. This forum was following the Hardy case before he signed. It's a matter of written record who was saying what on here before he signed. Go look it up if you doubt what I'm saying.

 

[Rogah]

I agree with you... your ignorance is hard enough to deal with. People attributing ignorance to you that you didn't even post just exasperates the issue. Get it together folks!

What have I said in this thread that is factually inaccurate?

Put up or shut up time.

(Here comes the part where your need to have the last word compels you to respond, but we both know you won't actually answer the question)

 

[Rogah]

Vested I interest also causes people to look through it with silver and blue glasses.

+1 +1 +1

It's amazing how this forum's opinion on Greg Hardy did a 180 when he became a free agent and the possibility of him signing here became more real.

 

[Rogah]

You don't have to believe me. This forum was following the Hardy case before he signed. It's a matter of written record who was saying what on here before he signed. Go look it up if you doubt what I'm saying.

I actually *did* look it up. I ha ve some pretty funny examples in another thread of how people have changed from when he was a Panther to when he became a free agent.

You should look it up yourself sometime as well.

 

[JoeKing]

What have I said in this thread that is factually inaccurate?

Put up or shut up time.

(Here comes the part where your need to have the last word compels you to respond, but we both know you won't actually answer the question)

More apropos would be the opposite question. What have you said in this thread that was factually accurate? Hardy beat his GF... that's never been factual but go ahead and continue confusing your assbackwards opinion with fact because that's all you do. ...mrtxstar drops the mic.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ok of course you have. Lol it's funny how many cowboy fans say they had the same opinion before he signed. Lol even funnier that so many study the case before he was singned lol.

It may be funny but it's also true. There was a considerable amount of discussion around this case, on this board, before Hardy was ever signed. This is not an issue that has only become important since we signed him. Now, if you want to say that it's gotten even more focus since Hardy has become a Cowboy, I think that's a fair statement but the idea that it's only become important to Cowboy Fans since he's become a Cowboy is not factual. I can't say, one way or the other, about if people have changed opinions. I can say that my opinion has not changed but I don't know about everybody, per say. Just an FYI.

 

[JoeKing]

I actually *did* look it up. I ha ve some pretty funny examples in another thread of how people have changed from when he was a Panther to when he became a free agent.

You should look it up yourself sometime as well.

There is also the possibility that folks opinions evolve as they inform themselves more and more about the case. I know mine did.

 

[casmith07]

There is also the possibility that folks opinions evolve as they inform themselves more and more about the case. I know mine did.

The interesting thing for me is sitting back and watching the opinions and arguments for or against the appeal absent understanding of judicial precedent

I wrote my article under the guise of a football fan/attorney. My answer from a pure practitioner's standpoint would be markedly different.

 

[JoeKing]

The interesting thing for me is sitting back and watching the opinions and arguments for or against the appeal absent understanding of judicial precedent

I wrote my article under the guise of a football fan/attorney. My answer from a pure practitioner's standpoint would be markedly different.

If anything, this thread has proven folks are more than willing to express an opinion based more on emotion than applicable facts.

While I believe the legal ramifications of Holder's accusations toward Hardy are behind him for the most part, the impact of the aftermath is not. His good name is forever soiled unless he never stops fighting to get it back.

 

[jobberone]

Except that's not what I said. I never used public opinion as actual evidence that Hardy is guilty. Not once.

I did, however, use public opinion as reasoning behind the idea that Hardy might not want to appeal. If he gets seen as Ray Rice, Part II, it would cost him financially. He doesn't have "nothing to lose" by appealing.

In the future, could you please respond to what I *actually* said, instead of making stuff up then responding to what you're *pretending* I said?

Yes you did and the bolded part below in your earlier post is what I responded to. You used the lack of 'public outcry' of him being 'actually innocent' as implication he was guilty. I never said you used evidence but I pointed out using the alleged lack of public response to imply guilt is absurd.

When Hardy was suspended 10 games, there was zero outcry (outside Dallas). If popular sentient was that he was actually innocent, you would have seen tremendous outrage.

Now the suspension is reduced to 4. Again, no national outcry, save those who think it isn't strict enough.

Anyone who thinks most people (outside this forum) think Hardy is innocent is just not even remotely in touch with reality.

And the last bolded part is an ad hominem attack on virtually everyone else, including me explicitly, on this site based on an alleged 'fact' that everyone outside of this forum agrees with you; ergo we are agenda driven. I guess it never occurred to you we are reasonable mature adults reaching an informed opinion.

You are incapable of looking at the entire picture evidenced by a complete dismissal of the events following the bench trial. You fail to understand your anecdotal and unsubstantiated 'fact' of public opinion outside this forum should be dismissed as evidence implication of guilt.

You use all or nothing thinking, a cognitive distortion, to assume the members of this forum are incapable of understanding the possibility he hit this women while entertaining a multitude of scenarios which either mitigate or even exonerate Hardy.

The entire event is clouded and complicated by facts and reasonable circumstantial evidence pointing in different directions. It's entirely possible both are guilty of assault.

You fail to reasonably consider the fact people especially public figures, corporations and insurance agencies routinely settle by cash payment as hush money to avoid negative publicity, stress, and/or the costs of litigation.

I could go on but the above illustrates your illogical reasoning to arrive at a guilty verdict based in part by the lack of alleged public response, a negative one, as a 'fact' to implicate guilt while ignoring other facts and circumstantial evidence that weigh for a presumption of innocence.

Perhaps you should consider the fact that virtually everyone in this thread disagreeing with you an implication YOU might be agenda driven and on the wrong side of a reasonable doubt of guilt considering all the evidence rather than the ones which serve your presumptions.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

IF her accusations were false, then Hardy should appeal and proclaim his innocence. If he actually did the things he's accused of, he'll take the reduced punishment.

I'm waiting to see what path he chooses, personally.

How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[MeTed]

The interesting thing for me is sitting back and watching the opinions and arguments for or against the appeal absent understanding of judicial precedent

I wrote my article under the guise of a football fan/attorney. My answer from a pure practitioner's standpoint would be markedly different.

Personally, I think the NFL over reached by leveraging "conduct detrimental." Conduct detrimental is loosely defined (to be kind) yet is was cited in both the 10-game and 4-game reduction. Nothing changed other than the NFL realizing they over reached (IMO). I would use this along with recent precedent (Rice/Peterson) to further reduce to 2 games (max).

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that if this goes to trial, the NFL is going to lose big. The Brady deal, I think they can make that stick but not this IMO.

 

[JoeKing]

I think that if this goes to trial, the NFL is going to lose big. The Brady deal, I think they can make that stick but not this IMO.

I agree but that's going to upset a great deal of people (especially Pats fans) that try to conflate the Hardy case with Brady's.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree but that's going to upset a great deal of people (especially Pats fans) that try to conflate the Hardy case with Brady's.

Honestly, it shouldn't matter who is upset or who is not. The NFL's job, IMO, is to protect the game. There should really be no worry as to who likes a ruling or who does not. It should be a matter of what is within the authority of the NFL and it should be consistent in it's application. They are in trouble with AP, Hardy and with Rice because they did not apply this type of reason to their actions. NFL needs to get out of the business of trying to be the gate keepers of social justice. They need to do what they have always been responsible for, which is to insure that teams and players are in line with the Rules of the Game. That should be their only concern IMO. They deviate from that and they are setting themselves up to fail miserably. JMO

 

[xvendettax914]

Honestly, it shouldn't matter who is upset or who is not. The NFL's job, IMO, is to protect the game. There should really be no worry as to who likes a ruling or who does not. It should be a matter of what is within the authority of the NFL and it should be consistent in it's application. They are in trouble with AP, Hardy and with Rice because they did not apply this type of reason to their actions. NFL needs to get out of the business of trying to be the gate keepers of social justice. They need to do what they have always been responsible for, which is to insure that teams and players are in line with the Rules of the Game. That should be their only concern IMO. They deviate from that and they are setting themselves up to fail miserably. JMO

This is 100% on point, but had they believed that this would not have even gotten this far.

 

[JoeKing]

Honestly, it shouldn't matter who is upset or who is not. The NFL's job, IMO, is to protect the game. There should really be no worry as to who likes a ruling or who does not. It should be a matter of what is within the authority of the NFL and it should be consistent in it's application. They are in trouble with AP, Hardy and with Rice because they did not apply this type of reason to their actions. NFL needs to get out of the business of trying to be the gate keepers of social justice. They need to do what they have always been responsible for, which is to insure that teams and players are in line with the Rules of the Game. That should be their only concern IMO. They deviate from that and they are setting themselves up to fail miserably. JMO

Man, I want a guy like you to be commish rather than what we got.