The new Official Greg Hardy legal/ethics/morality/suspension thread

[TheDude]

Here is the truth about what happen. Greg Hardy is a piece of **** who beat his girlfriend one night out of drunken jealousy. He may have never hit her, but he did throw her around, he did drag her by her hair, he did slam a toilet seat on her arm and he did wrap his hands around her neck and choked her. He also threatened to kill her.
For those of you looking for reasons to vouch for the signing need to stop. You all sound ignorant and dumb. Stop saying the judge who sentenced him was a women's rights advocate. Stop saying the victim was all coked up. Stop saying he was the only one from the Panthers who showed up to DeAngelo Williams mothers funeral. While what I just mentioned may be true so is what I mentioned in the above paragraph.

This really isnt a black and white case. I have argued in a few other threads that the only people who can speak with total knowledge of the case are the parties and the judge. The judge was the only one entrusted to render a verdict in a court of law based on all evidence (testimony, pictures, reports, witness accounts, etc.) and she did.

That isn't the end, though. And even though the ruling was vacated on appeal, the first trial will never be summarily be marginalized without a plausible reason. I dont think there was a nefarious miscarriage/railroading of justice, or that the judge spent 10 hours on a case she had predetermined. NC bench trials - though portrayed as little more than Judge Joe Brown TV court - hand down the majority of misdemeanor trial verdicts and do not get appealed.

However, you cannot wholly discount the second trial being dropped by the prosecution. Hardy hired a good lawyer and the lawyer knew the system in NC and hired a court reporter since the state doesn't pay for them at the bench trial. Holder also didnt show up the day after the incident for the Order of Protection Hearing nor the second trial - neither of these incidents are unusual in a DV case, but there were some discrepancies in the Police report and the trial transcripts (so it was reported). Hardy should have been innocent until proven guilty. His story - while you may think is a bald face lie - was that she threw herself into the tub, toilet etc. Most people can never fathom a woman doing such a thing, but it does happen - and more than people are either aware or have been snowed to believing. So Hardy was tasked with proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" he was innocent.

I think it is important to understand that his lawyer wanted the bench trial and hired the court reporter. It is also noteworthy that this all occurred BEFORE the Ray Rice video. His lawyer was trying to get Holder to talk as much as possible to sift through potential inconsistencies that would support his clients claim. I believe if the Ray Rice video was out first and the fervor of NFL/DV was preceding the initial trial, then the strategy may have been different. My assumption.

At the end of the day, it is a shame the court system could not play out. He could have been either been found completely guilty or fully exonerated on evidence the public could also observe (versus the closed evidence of photos, etc now). Since he is innocent in a court of law, you cannot - without any iota of doubt - say that he is a piece of **** liar. He is a free man and should be free. There is nothing worse than doing time for something you didnt do - and people are and have served those sentences. I would rather err on the side of "reasonable doubt". The fact the prosecution dropped the case (and the witness was fine with it by being absent) then that is reasonable enough doubt. That should be the standard for Hardy or Mike Smith or whomever.

If it was your daughter or a friend I am sure you would not be trying to defend him, instead you would be on here telling us all what a no good piece of **** he is and how dare we try and justify and protect his horrible actions. She is not a family member of anyone here and neither is Hardy. Who are we to judge her and call her a liar. I think a lot of people on here need to take a good look in the mirror and man up and stop trying to find a reason to accept him on your/our favorite sports team.
I for one am happy he is a Cowboy. It may seem like I am contradicting myself but I always want the best players possible for my team to win but by no means will I sit here and defend the horrible facts. Now I also believe in second chances. I believe that one horrible drunk night(Josh Brent) should not ruin a persons entire life. This guy has been punished and now has to live with the fact that he has assaulted a helpless female for the rest of his life. The NFL will suspend him too as they should.

No one should defend him if he was a true guilty man. But that isnt how it played out. They both made horrendous choices. But if there are contradictory statements from her - she is a liar. The defense and prosecution both stated this concern. But at the end of the day he should not be called a liar anymore than she should. The case is done.

There is a reason he was found guilty. There is a reason he paid her off and she has not come around and her attorney has not responded. There is a reason why he was exempt all of last season and there is a reason why the NFL is going to suspend him. There is also a reason why 30 other teams did not even have this guy come to there facility.
I guess my point is I am happy about the signing because it makes our team better but by no means will I be defending him or his actions and neither should anyone on here. What happened, happened and if you keep trying to tell yourself it didn't then you are no better than Hardy himself. Root for your team and root for him to produce for our team but don't try and justify him or bring down a victim of domestic violence because it just makes you look very, very small.

I dont think the judge intentionally found him guilty - that speaks to corruption and abuse of power. I don't think that is as prevalent as some wont to believe.

I doubt he was the best witness either. But you dont seriously believe that men are on a level playing field in defending against DV or claiming they were the abused. 90% of most DV calls and arrest are men BEATING women - not squeezing them, etc.. This has to play a part in a judges decision, but I dont think the decisions are formed before opening statements.

I think most people are mad because in the US we need a winner and a loser and a case that gets dropped because of a witness is like a tie - Very unsatisfying. But legally, if its a tie, the defense wins - as it should

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

well said mclovin.

 

[Zekeats]

This really isnt a black and white case. I have argued in a few other threads that the only people who can speak with total knowledge of the case are the parties and the judge. The judge was the only one entrusted to render a verdict in a court of law based on all evidence (testimony, pictures, reports, witness accounts, etc.) and she did.

That isn't the end, though. And even though the ruling was vacated on appeal, the first trial will never be summarily be marginalized without a plausible reason. I dont think there was a nefarious miscarriage/railroading of justice, or that the judge spent 10 hours on a case she had predetermined. NC bench trials - though portrayed as little more than Judge Joe Brown TV court - hand down the majority of misdemeanor trial verdicts and do not get appealed.

However, you cannot wholly discount the second trial being dropped by the prosecution. Hardy hired a good lawyer and the lawyer knew the system in NC and hired a court reporter since the state doesn't pay for them at the bench trial. Holder also didnt show up the day after the incident for the Order of Protection Hearing nor the second trial - neither of these incidents are unusual in a DV case, but there were some discrepancies in the Police report and the trial transcripts (so it was reported). Hardy should have been innocent until proven guilty. His story - while you may think is a bald face lie - was that she threw herself into the tub, toilet etc. Most people can never fathom a woman doing such a thing, but it does happen - and more than people are either aware or have been snowed to believing. So Hardy was tasked with proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" he was innocent.

I think it is important to understand that his lawyer wanted the bench trial and hired the court reporter. It is also noteworthy that this all occurred BEFORE the Ray Rice video. His lawyer was trying to get Holder to talk as much as possible to sift through potential inconsistencies that would support his clients claim. I believe if the Ray Rice video was out first and the fervor of NFL/DV was preceding the initial trial, then the strategy may have been different. My assumption.

At the end of the day, it is a shame the court system could not play out. He could have been either been found completely guilty or fully exonerated on evidence the public could also observe (versus the closed evidence of photos, etc now). Since he is innocent in a court of law, you cannot - without any iota of doubt - say that he is a piece of **** liar. He is a free man and should be free. There is nothing worse than doing time for something you didnt do - and people are and have served those sentences. I would rather err on the side of "reasonable doubt". The fact the prosecution dropped the case (and the witness was fine with it by being absent) then that is reasonable enough doubt. That should be the standard for Hardy or Mike Smith or whomever.



No one should defend him if he was a true guilty man. But that isnt how it played out. They both made horrendous choices. But if there are contradictory statements from her - she is a liar. The defense and prosecution both stated this concern. But at the end of the day he should not be called a liar anymore than she should. The case is done.



I dont think the judge intentionally found him guilty - that speaks to corruption and abuse of power. I don't think that is as prevalent as some wont to believe.

I doubt he was the best witness either. But you dont seriously believe that men are on a level playing field in defending against DV or claiming they were the abused. 90% of most DV calls and arrest are men BEATING women - not squeezing them, etc.. This has to play a part in a judges decision, but I dont think the decisions are formed before opening statements.

I think most people are mad because in the US we need a winner and a loser and a case that gets dropped because of a witness is like a tie - Very unsatisfying. But legally, if its a tie, the defense wins - as it should

Great points but the consistency and then trying to say that she threw herself into the tub and slammed the toilet seat on her own arm I do not buy for one

That's not a bruise log form the police report. That is an evidence log from the bench trial. There are 7 entries. 3 for Hardy's injuries and 4 for hers. I for one would like to see those pictures.

Go to the second, third, forth and fifth pages for more of HER injuries....Hit the little arrow on the right

 

[RS12]

The new Official Greg Hardy legal/ethics/morality/suspension thread

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Can a woman ever "provoke" a man into a physical confrontation?

The answer to that question is no.
As a society that is how we are expecting male members of our society to behave.

And I think this touches a larger issue. And it is resonating in the general population. Look at the success of "Gone Girl" at the box office....

And the growing number of men who choose not to get married.

The law is stacked against them, is a belief that many Men have cited. Divorce, rights of a father, the court system, etc etc etc....The law is stacked against them.....

It seems like this fiasco between Hardy and this woman was fueled by both parties...
But because of the McCarthyism/Salem Witch Hunt manner in which we handle the "problem of the month", she walks away with ....Millions? And he assumes all punishment for the behavior....

I would also like to point out past behavior? Is this a pattern in their life? a history of Domestic Violence against women? Or a one time incident? Its wrong, regardless. Society has spoken and there is no provoking a man to hit a woman. That doesn't exist under our social norms.......

But when assessing a case and a human beings life. All that needs to be accounted for when determining punishment.....Its not like these guys were going home every night and beaten on their women. Like they did 60 70 years ago and women didn't have any voice or entity to help them.....It doesn't excuse their behavior. Just their punishment. This woman found it in her heart to look past that one mistake Ray made and is giving him a second chance. With counseling and education, for both of them, they will most likely live long productive lives. Ray will remain a monster for the rest of his life. She will be treated as some kind of martyr.

I am rambling. And I was taught to never hit a woman. And I never have. But ive gone through a bad breakup........................................I think many us do, go through bad break ups... run man, run for your life!!! get away !!!!

 

[Parcells4Life]

At the end of the day Jerry shouldn't get involved with something that at BEST is a huge gray area.

People can go round and round on who's fault it is but the facts are Hardy basically acknowledged he committed an act that was at least close to what was alleged by not screaming from every street corner he didn't deserve to be suspended. Whether the woman had fault or not she is not the one that is a representative of the NFL.

With different rewards come different responsibilities. That's all Jerry or Goodell need to say and stop trying to find every loophole around it and just acknowledge there's no place in the league for those guys. It's a private business so Hardys not entitled to a job.

Wonder how Jerry will like it when the protesters show up in Oxnard for training camp and on every game day.

 

[khiladi]

The cops cataloged a dime size bruise on her arm. there is a tweet incourt follow along of the bench trial over at the charlotte observer. the judge references pictures from the ER which she relates to being able to see bruising too.

I think Hardy meets the standard for assault. He did not really hurt her but its obvious that he was being physically menacing and threatened her at the very least. I think the misdemeanor was appropriate.

What I don't get is why the girl gets off free. She threw the shoe and hit him in the face. He had a cut under his eye. Two days before he left his house and stayed somewhere else. The police arrived as he was leaving. The cops described her as ranting and trying to block his car from leaving, and kicking the car door as he left. It was drug fueled but that certainly is not a pass.

I don't really know what people are trying to accomplish with their outrage over the misdemeanor. I see no predatory behavior on his part.

She was in HIS house... She was on coke, wasn't she? One can be aggressive and hurt one's own self too... One can get bruised when one is punching a guy madly in the chest and he grabs her arms to stop her.

 

[TheDude]

Great points but the consistency and then trying to say that she threw herself into the tub and slammed the toilet seat on her own arm I do not buy for one

And you don't have to buy it. But I cant get by the fact that he previously broke up with her and sent her out of town and moved her stuff out while she was gone. This points to wanting to avoid a conflict.

One thing I would think is inarguable - is that Hardy was an idiot for continuing to "hookup" with Holder after that. That also put him in a power position and her at a position trying to regain power (i.e. even footing in relationship, etc) that is typically when someone who cant ascend to a level partnership will attempt to bring the other party down. Many DV is wher ethe man tries to exude power and fear to reduce a woman. I just dont see him in the undeniable less powerful position here

 

[khiladi]

People can go round and round on who's fault it is but the facts are Hardy basically acknowledged he committed an act that was at least close to what was alleged by not screaming from every street corner he didn't deserve to be suspended. Whether the woman had fault or not she is not the one that is a representative of the NFL.
.

He was getting paid for free not to play. That could be a reason he didn't shout from every corner.

 

[Zekeats]

This really isnt a black and white case. I have argued in a few other threads that the only people who can speak with total knowledge of the case are the parties and the judge. The judge was the only one entrusted to render a verdict in a court of law based on all evidence (testimony, pictures, reports, witness accounts, etc.) and she did.

That isn't the end, though. And even though the ruling was vacated on appeal, the first trial will never be summarily be marginalized without a plausible reason. I dont think there was a nefarious miscarriage/railroading of justice, or that the judge spent 10 hours on a case she had predetermined. NC bench trials - though portrayed as little more than Judge Joe Brown TV court - hand down the majority of misdemeanor trial verdicts and do not get appealed.

However, you cannot wholly discount the second trial being dropped by the prosecution. Hardy hired a good lawyer and the lawyer knew the system in NC and hired a court reporter since the state doesn't pay for them at the bench trial. Holder also didnt show up the day after the incident for the Order of Protection Hearing nor the second trial - neither of these incidents are unusual in a DV case, but there were some discrepancies in the Police report and the trial transcripts (so it was reported). Hardy should have been innocent until proven guilty. His story - while you may think is a bald face lie - was that she threw herself into the tub, toilet etc. Most people can never fathom a woman doing such a thing, but it does happen - and more than people are either aware or have been snowed to believing. So Hardy was tasked with proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" he was innocent.

I think it is important to understand that his lawyer wanted the bench trial and hired the court reporter. It is also noteworthy that this all occurred BEFORE the Ray Rice video. His lawyer was trying to get Holder to talk as much as possible to sift through potential inconsistencies that would support his clients claim. I believe if the Ray Rice video was out first and the fervor of NFL/DV was preceding the initial trial, then the strategy may have been different. My assumption.

At the end of the day, it is a shame the court system could not play out. He could have been either been found completely guilty or fully exonerated on evidence the public could also observe (versus the closed evidence of photos, etc now). Since he is innocent in a court of law, you cannot - without any iota of doubt - say that he is a piece of **** liar. He is a free man and should be free. There is nothing worse than doing time for something you didnt do - and people are and have served those sentences. I would rather err on the side of "reasonable doubt". The fact the prosecution dropped the case (and the witness was fine with it by being absent) then that is reasonable enough doubt. That should be the standard for Hardy or Mike Smith or whomever.



No one should defend him if he was a true guilty man. But that isnt how it played out. They both made horrendous choices. But if there are contradictory statements from her - she is a liar. The defense and prosecution both stated this concern. But at the end of the day he should not be called a liar anymore than she should. The case is done.



I dont think the judge intentionally found him guilty - that speaks to corruption and abuse of power. I don't think that is as prevalent as some wont to believe.

I doubt he was the best witness either. But you dont seriously believe that men are on a level playing field in defending against DV or claiming they were the abused. 90% of most DV calls and arrest are men BEATING women - not squeezing them, etc.. This has to play a part in a judges decision, but I dont think the decisions are formed before opening statements.

I think most people are mad because in the US we need a winner and a loser and a case that gets dropped because of a witness is like a tie - Very unsatisfying. But legally, if its a tie, the defense wins - as it should

Put aside all the court terms and legal talk. What do you believe?

1. Did he throw her into the tub or did she?
2. Did he slam the toilet seat on her arm or did she?
3. Did he choke her or did she choke herself?
4. Did he throw her onto the futon filled with guns or did she?

Also, what was the motive from her point of view?
From his it seemed pretty obvious. He was drunk and jealous about the entire Nelly thing.

 

[Parcells4Life]

He was getting paid for free not to play. That could be a reason he didn't shout from every corner.

But also put his future earnings in EXTREME peril so highly unlikely it was for monetary reason

 

[Nightman]

Can a woman ever "provoke" a man into a physical confrontation?

The answer to that question is no.
As a society that is how we are expecting male members of our society to behave.

And I think this touches a larger issue. And it is resonating in the general population. Look at the success of "Gone Girl" at the box office....

And the growing number of men who choose not to get married.

The law is stacked against them, is a belief that many Men have cited. Divorce, rights of a father, the court system, etc etc etc....The law is stacked against them.....

It seems like this fiasco between Hardy and this woman was fueled by both parties...
But because of the McCarthyism/Salem Witch Hunt manner in which we handle the "problem of the month", she walks away with ....Millions? And he assumes all punishment for the behavior....

I would also like to point out past behavior? Is this a pattern in their life? a history of Domestic Violence against women? Or a one time incident? Its wrong, regardless. Society has spoken and there is no provoking a man to hit a woman. That doesn't exist under our social norms.......

But when assessing a case and a human beings life. All that needs to be accounted for when determining punishment.....Its not like these guys were going home every night and beaten on their women. Like they did 60 70 years ago and women didn't have any voice or entity to help them.....It doesn't excuse their behavior. Just their punishment. This woman found it in her heart to look past that one mistake Ray made and is giving him a second chance. With counseling and education, for both of them, they will most likely live long productive lives. Ray will remain a monster for the rest of his life. She will be treated as some kind of martyr.

I am rambling. And I was taught to never hit a woman. And I never have. But ive gone through a bad breakup........................................I think many us do, go through bad break ups... run man, run for your life!!! get away !!!!

Hardy's criminal history has a few traffic violations. He missed some meetings and broke some rules at Ole Miss and at Carolina, but I don't think he had any violent incidents. If Ms Holder was drunk and angry and physical it would be hard to defend yourself without making some contact. We will never know the truth, but he does not appear to be a stereotypical bad guy imo. I think everyone has had a drunken argument/fight with a significant other or ex. It is never pretty but it isn't always criminal.

 

[TheDude]

I just dont know.

Pro Hardy

• He had a manager and another house guest staying in another room. That usually means a man isnt going to lose it on a woman, that is usually in
• She admitted to doing drugs an the police say they both inebriated. Being drunk alone can lead to someone falling
• He was hit with shoe. that usually is not what a woman fights back with, usually clawing and scratching.
• No one ever saw him touch her
• She never seemed to be interested in the case from the initial police interview, to following day Order of Prot hearing, etc. and had questionable behaviour in court

Con Hardy

• Judge saw photos and didnt believe Hardy's story
• She testified that sometimes he would just snap if they were even laying quietly in bed. This along with coaches at Ole Miss and during the combine asked if he was bipolar.
  • I HAVE NO IDEA IF HE IS BIPOLAR OR NOT...JUST PIECING TOGETHER PARTS OF THE STORY THAT COULD EXPLAIN HIM ASSAULTING HER

 

[khiladi]

Put aside all the court terms and legal talk. What do you believe?

1. Did he throw her into the tub or did she?
2. Did he slam the toilet seat on her arm or did she?
3. Did he choke her or did she choke herself?
4. Did he throw her onto the futon filled with guns or did she?

Also, what was the motive from her point of view?
From his it seemed pretty obvious. He was drunk and jealous about the entire Nelly thing.

Because Holder said so?

There were other witnesses weren't there?

 

[Nightman]

Put aside all the court terms and legal talk. What do you believe?

1. Did he throw her into the tub or did she?
2. Did he slam the toilet seat on her arm or did she?
3. Did he choke her or did she choke herself?
4. Did he throw her onto the futon filled with guns or did she?

Also, what was the motive from her point of view?
From his it seemed pretty obvious. He was drunk and jealous about the entire Nelly thing.

You ask those questions like there are right or wrong answers. No one knows but the people in the apartment. We are all just making assumptions based on whatever we have read. No one is angry at those that think he did something wrong, but when you talk in absolutes and insult those that disagree people will respond.

 

[Zekeats]

Because of the Ray Rice incident. He could have been advised not to make such a big deal out of it and just accept the suspension.


Because Holder said so?

She made up a story that he ripped her necklace off of her and tried to flush it down the toilet and when she went to retrieve it he slammed the toilet seat on her arm? Then she repeatedly yelled at him do you want to break my arm? You got it, she made up the whole thing while high on coke. Can't believe the judge didn't see threw her fake story.

 

[khiladi]

And please don't bring up Ray Rice in the context of Goodell.

That guy saw the tape but did nothing other than giving him a 4 game suspension until it was made public and the whole world saw Ray Rice deck his wife on video...

 

[khiladi]

She made up a story that he ripped her necklace off of her and tried to flush it down the toilet and when she went to retrieve it he slammed the toilet seat on her arm? Then she repeatedly yelled at him do you want to break my arm? You got it, she made up the whole thing while high on coke. Can't believe the judge didn't see threw her fake story.

Money-grubbing hoes preserve you know what from condoms to get pregnant secretly so they can get pay checks from athletes... Women lie about who their baby's father all the time.

She admitted she was drunk. Didn't she? You seem to be avoiding the point. There were witnesses at the time..

 

[Zekeats]

You ask those questions like there are right or wrong answers. No one knows but the people in the apartment. We are all just making assumptions based on whatever we have read. No one is angry at those that think he did something wrong, but when you talk in absolutes and insult those that disagree people will respond.

Well apparently Greg Hardy and his defense at the trial stated that she did all of the above to her self. So I am asking what you would believe. Actually I was asking McLovin what he believes so I don't even understand how you got into this conversation.

 

[khiladi]

Well apparently Greg Hardy and his defense at the trial stated that she did all of the above to her self. So I am asking what you would believe. Actually I was asking McLovin what he believes so I don't even understand how you got into this conversation.

I am sure the lawyers said Holder did things to cause herself injuries not that they agreed with whatever claims she was making in how she got injured. Common sense would tell you those things.

You have no idea what happened.