Should Hardy Appeal, or Nah?

[jobberone]

Is there actually anyone left who:

A) Hasn't arrived at a conclusion as to whether or not he beat her

B) Plan on doing so but only after his disciplinary situation is worked out with the NFL.

Can't imagine there's many.

You can't make any conclusions about facts. After that it is opinion which is fine.

 

[JoeKing]

Anyone that still thinks Greg Hardy beat up his girlfriend should read this article... http://www.charlotteobserver.com/incoming/article10422650.html

 

[Jarv]

Anyone that still thinks Greg Hardy beat up his girlfriend should read this article... http://www.charlotteobserver.com/incoming/article10422650.html

Thank you for the link, interesting read.

 

[MeTed]

I wrote a piece on the Hardy appeal situation. I think it describes the two most likely scenarios the best.

http://cleatsandcapes.com/2015/07/21/to-appeal-or-not-to-appeal-the-greg-hardy-question/

Check it out. Thanks!

The NFL cannot justify disciplining Hardy more than Rice/Peterson. It is a common sense argument that I would expect any lawyer to make.

 

[Stash]

So , with the photos that the court and the NFL seen, do you think she just fell down the stairs? Regardless of any reason, even if she hit him with a bat, he should have never paid a hand on her. For that, he is what he is. Can he move forward? Yes. Does he deserve another chance? Yes. But for what he did, he's guilty.

What a load.

So a woman can 'hit a man with a bat' and he's supposed to do nothing or run away?

Not in my world. Equality means equal. Nobody hits anybody.

 

[Rogah]

Bro, I'm not sure how you did it... but I didn't say any of that. How you quoted me, I'm not sure.

That was an honest mistake, I apologize. I can't edit it now, but I didn't mean to get names mixed up.

 

[Rogah]

No, but bench trials were created to speed dockets and grand jury proceedings for the benefit of saving cost. They are used in municipalities in lieu of GJ proceedings. In this case Hardy was never indicted by GJ.

Right, what happened was worse. In a bench trial, he gets to present his defense. (Most) Grand Juries don't allow that. Also, there is a much higher standard of proof. You have prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas a grand jury just has to find probable cause.

So being found guilty in a bench trial is significantly worse than a grand jury bringing forth an indictment.

All your misdirection does nothing to change the fact that the one impartial person that heard this case found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Rogah]

Well, the DA was at the bench trial and he was unaware of the conflicting testimony. I assume that if it was brought out in the bench trial, the DA would have been well aware of it.



And it is way too much of a punishment for a guy that is completely innocent of any wrongdoing and was just a victim of circumstance.

 

[casmith07]

The NFL cannot justify disciplining Hardy more than Rice/Peterson. It is a common sense argument that I would expect any lawyer to make.

As an attorney who tries to use common sense at every turn, I wholeheartedly agree.

Unfortunately, my observations of the folks in the NFL is that they are either wholly incompetent or are so esoteric that they are unrealistic.

 

[jobberone]

Anyone that still thinks Greg Hardy beat up his girlfriend should read this article... http://www.charlotteobserver.com/incoming/article10422650.html

Good read and a great example of hearing all the evidence before forming an opinion.

 

[jobberone]

Right, what happened was worse. In a bench trial, he gets to present his defense. (Most) Grand Juries don't allow that. Also, there is a much higher standard of proof. You have prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas a grand jury just has to find probable cause.

So being found guilty in a bench trial is significantly worse than a grand jury bringing forth an indictment.

All your misdirection does nothing to change the fact that the one impartial person that heard this case found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And once more facts became relevant it appeared there wasn't reasonable evidence to find him guilty. You're basing your opinion on one person's decision made prior to all the evidence which appears to be on the wrong side of common sense and reasonable doubt now that there are more facts.

The findings to date would lead most reasonable people to doubt the veracity of the alleged victim and to conclude the defendant is not guilty.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Anyone that still thinks Greg Hardy beat up his girlfriend should read this article... http://www.charlotteobserver.com/incoming/article10422650.html

Someone forward this to Goodell. I'd love to see his reaction to this.

 

[JoeKing]

Someone forward this to Goodell. I'd love to see his reaction to this.

It's been posted on the internet since Feb. so it's been available knowledge to him all along.

 

[Rogah]

And once more facts became relevant it appeared there wasn't reasonable evidence to find him guilty.

Whuh huh? What facts came out later that Hardy's defense counsel did not have access to?

(Please note that just because we didn't know something doesn't mean the defense attorney didn't have it.)

You're basing your opinion on one person's decision made prior to all the evidence which appears to be on the wrong side of common sense and reasonable doubt now that there are more facts.

Yes, the fact that he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law is going a long way towards shaping my opinion.

I also am considering the fact that it cannot be reasonably denied he paid her an out of court settlement.

The findings to date would lead most reasonable people to doubt the veracity of the alleged victim and to conclude the defendant is not guilty.

There has only been 1 finding to date: a guilty verdict. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Stash]

Whuh huh? What facts came out later that Hardy's defense counsel did not have access to?

(Please note that just because we didn't know something doesn't mean the defense attorney didn't have it.)
Yes, the fact that he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law is going a long way towards shaping my opinion.

I also am considering the fact that it cannot be reasonably denied he paid her an out of court settlement.
There has only been 1 finding to date: a guilty verdict. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Nice closed mind you have there. You see what you want to see and nothing else, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

In your world, there is no way in which Greg Hardy is anything but guilty. I'm very glad that neither Hardy nor myself are forced to live in that world.

 

[JoeKing]

Whuh huh? What facts came out later that Hardy's defense counsel did not have access to?

(Please note that just because we didn't know something doesn't mean the defense attorney didn't have it.)
Yes, the fact that he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law is going a long way towards shaping my opinion.

I also am considering the fact that it cannot be reasonably denied he paid her an out of court settlement.
There has only been 1 finding to date: a guilty verdict. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

It's been long established that your claim that he was found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" was shattered at the beginning of the year when DA Murray was reviewing the evidence. It is far more true that reasonable doubt is easily attainable when the evidence is scrutinized. But, hey keep your head in the sand to these facts and continue your life in the ignorance of premature judgment of an innocent man. Thank god justice prevailed in the end.

 

[jobberone]

Whuh huh? What facts came out later that Hardy's defense counsel did not have access to?

(Please note that just because we didn't know something doesn't mean the defense attorney didn't have it.)
Yes, the fact that he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law is going a long way towards shaping my opinion.

I also am considering the fact that it cannot be reasonably denied he paid her an out of court settlement.
There has only been 1 finding to date: a guilty verdict. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

See above. Facts did become evident after the bench trial. As much interest as you appear to have you should be able to find it. People including corporations and the like pay settlements often without presumption of guilt because it's cheaper and comes with less publicity.

 

[Rogah]

Nice closed mind you have there. You see what you want to see and nothing else, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

In your world, there is no way in which Greg Hardy is anything but guilty. I'm very glad that neither Hardy nor myself are forced to live in that world.

Congratulations on a post which could be one of the most hypocritical ones ever to appear on this forum.

 

[Rogah]

It's been long established that your claim that he was found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" was shattered at the beginning of the year when DA Murray was reviewing the evidence.

Uh, ok, then what do you think the verdict at the bench trial was? Not guilty??

 

[tyke1doe]

Is there actually anyone left who:

A) Hasn't arrived at a conclusion as to whether or not he beat her

B) Plan on doing so but only after his disciplinary situation is worked out with the NFL.

Can't imagine there's many.

There's a concept called "for the record." Maybe it won't convince people he didn't beat the woman, but he can always point back to the "record". I.E., "You can say whatever you want to. You weren't there. I was. And the record vindicates me."