With ‘Fantastic’ Romo, Staubach Says Cowboys Ready To Make 1990s-Like Run

[5Stars]

You are the new "Crazy Cowboy" since he doesn't post anymore. Hey man, I'm excited believe it or not, but I just can't get rid of this doubt deep in my heart. I guess that comes with not going to the Super Bowl in two decades.

lol I hear you. "Paranoia strikes deep, into you heart it will creep...." Hey, all of us FANS have concerns.

 

[tyke1doe]

Roger knows his opinion carries a lot of weight in Dallas. I think he wrongly convicted Hardy with his judgement call. Just like the Mayor did a few weeks ago.

Anyone that has looked at the facts of the case at all should be very leery about painting Hardy as an abuser.

No need to bring up the bench trial to try and buttress the argument. That conviction means nothing without pursuing the jury trial. It is akin to a Grand Jury indictment.

No, it's not the same as a grand jury indictment.
It was a conviction, which is appealable.
A grand jury indictment is not appealable.

 

[Nightman]

No, it's not the same as a grand jury indictment.
It was a conviction, which is appealable.
A grand jury indictment is not appealable.

No, the moment it was appealed the conviction was vacated. It had no standing what-so-ever. Hardy even had to be arraigned again. That is why I said it was like an indictment. Similar, but different.

 

[tyke1doe]

No, the moment it was appealed the conviction was vacated. It had no standing what-so-ever. Hardy even had to be arraigned again. That is why I said it was like an indictment. Similar, but different.

No, the moment he appealed was not the moment the conviction was vacated. A conviction stands upon appeal, or a ruling by the appeals court. And it is not like an indictment.
Be that as it may, Greg Hardy got himself into this situation by lacking judgment. He has to live with those consequences and the judgment people make or the impressions they get about him.
And, no, I don't find Staubach hypocritical. In fact, I'm glad he was honest. Just because Hardy is now a Cowboys, doesn't exempt him from criticism nor do we have to act like he's suddenly a Boy Scout.

 

[Nightman]

No, the moment he appealed was not the moment the conviction was vacated. A conviction stands upon appeal, or a ruling by the appeals court. And it is not like an indictment.
Be that as it may, Greg Hardy got himself into this situation by lacking judgment. He has to live with those consequences and the judgment people make or the impressions they get about him.
And, no, I don't find Staubach hypocritical. In fact, I'm glad he was honest. Just because Hardy is now a Cowboys, doesn't exempt him from criticism nor do we have to act like he's suddenly a Boy Scout.

You need to read up on NC law, you couldn't be wronger.

http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/trial-de-novo/

 

[tyke1doe]

You need to read up on NC law, you couldn't be wronger.

Have you read NC law? Have you read basic law in general? An indictment is not a conviction. That's kind of basic law.

 

[Nightman]

Have you read NC law? Have you read basic law in general? An indictment is not a conviction. That's kind of basic law.

Look above^^^^^^ and read

 

[Nightman]

No, the moment he appealed was not the moment the conviction was vacated. A conviction stands upon appeal, or a ruling by the appeals court. And it is not like an indictment.
Be that as it may, Greg Hardy got himself into this situation by lacking judgment. He has to live with those consequences and the judgment people make or the impressions they get about him.
And, no, I don't find Staubach hypocritical. In fact, I'm glad he was honest. Just because Hardy is now a Cowboys, doesn't exempt him from criticism nor do we have to act like he's suddenly a Boy Scout.

There is nothing a person can do if someone makes up a story about you assaulting them. It is not a case of using bad judgement. Hardy cannot control the impression you get of him based on lies. It shows more about you than him if need to keep calling him a criminal after the evidence shows a different reality.

 

[tyke1doe]

Look above^^^^^^ and read

I appreciate the link, but the link doesn't contradict what I initially said. In recap, I said ...

1. I said, "No, it's not the same as a grand jury indictment. It was a conviction, which is appealable. A grand jury indictment is not appealable." Please show me in that link where it contradicts my statement?

If convicted, the defendant may appeal to superior court for a trial de novo, this time with a jury.

2. I said, "No, the moment he appealed was not the moment the conviction was vacated. A conviction stands upon appeal, or a ruling by the appeals court. And it is not like an indictment.
I stand corrected on this part, only to the extent when the conviction is invalidated. But that seems more a technicality than a practicality. If one appeals a conviction by bench trial, it is automatically vacated, true. But that presumes there is a subsequent trial, i.e., a jury trial by superior court. And exactly how is that different than a jury trial being appealed to an appellant court? In both cases, it involves a secondary court invalidating the conviction.

Or, simply put, even if Hardy (in this case) appeals his conviction, and even if it is invalidated, there still must be a subsequent legal decision that solidifies it. He can't just walk away from the process with a district court verdict hanging over his head. He MUST go through the process of either the case being heard, a different verdict being rendered, or the case being thrown out.

So it's really a distinction without a difference.

 

[tyke1doe]

There is nothing a person can do if someone makes up a story about you assaulting them. It is not a case of using bad judgement. Hardy cannot control the impression you get of him based on lies. It shows more about you than him if need to keep calling him a criminal after the evidence shows a different reality.

Where did I call him a criminal?

Second, uh, yes, you can do something about who you date. You can do something about being in random relationships with women. You can control dating women who drink and do drugs. You can control have guns spread on a bed and, at the very least, giving a drunk, crackhead access to weapons. Make no mistake about it, certain environments and certain lifestyles attract certain people. Let's stop acting like Hardy is some innocent person. There's a reason why some guys attract women like this and some don't.

 

[Nightman]

I appreciate the link, but the link doesn't contradict what I initially said. In recap, I said ...

1. I said, "No, it's not the same as a grand jury indictment. It was a conviction, which is appealable. A grand jury indictment is not appealable." Please show me in that link where it contradicts my statement?


2. I said, "No, the moment he appealed was not the moment the conviction was vacated. A conviction stands upon appeal, or a ruling by the appeals court. And it is not like an indictment.
I stand corrected on this part, only to the extent when the conviction is invalidated. But that seems more a technicality than a practicality. If one appeals a conviction by bench trial, it is automatically vacated, true. But that presumes there is a subsequent trial, i.e., a jury trial by superior court. And exactly how is that different than a jury trial being appealed to an appellant court? In both cases, it involves a secondary court invalidating the conviction.

Or, simply put, even if Hardy (in this case) appeals his conviction, and even if it is invalidated, there still must be a subsequent legal decision that solidifies it. He can't just walk away from the process with a district court verdict hanging over his head. He MUST go through the process of either the case being heard, a different verdict being rendered, or the case being thrown out.

So it's really a distinction without a difference.

I appreciate the attempt at admitting you were wrong but not actually admitting anything, but everything you said is still wrong and not on a technicality.

You are fixating on the grand jury analogy. It is just a comparison. Once the actual trial starts the indictment is meaningless, same as the bench trial in NC. That is why they don't even keep records.

It is not the same as a regular appeal at all. If someone of Death Row appeals to the Supreme Court they are still on Death Row and remain there until the Court rules the first conviction is invalid.

When Hardy appealed there is no requirement for a second trial. If the State drops the charges like they did, it is over. There is no verdict, probation or bail hanging over his head. The first conviction is 100% meaningless, except to you, Roger Staubach, the NFL and the Mayor.

 

[Nightman]

Where did I call him a criminal?

Second, uh, yes, you can do something about who you date. You can do something about being in random relationships with women. You can control dating women who drink and do drugs. You can control have guns spread on a bed and, at the very least, giving a drunk, crackhead access to weapons. Make no mistake about it, certain environments and certain lifestyles attract certain people. Let's stop acting like Hardy is some innocent person. There's a reason why some guys attract women like this and some don't.

That's like blaming the sorority girl when she gets roofied for going to a party and flirting with boys.

Because Hardy should instantly know everything about a woman the moment he starts dating her and should be able to predict how she will react if he ever tries to end things. It would make him the only man in the world to know these things.

 

[Little Jr]

I couldn't agree more with Roger about hardy

 

[JDSmith]

I can't believe that this has turned into another Greg Hardy thread. Roger was asked a question, he answered it.

We all know the public facts of the Hardy case, we have all drawn our own conclusions based on those facts. Why are we still talking about and debating them?

I guess this is some kind of improvement, before last year we'd probably have 30 posters lambasting Romo and berating Roger for calling him fantastic.

 

[tyke1doe]

I appreciate the attempt at admitting you were wrong but not actually admitting anything, but everything you said is still wrong and not on a technicality.

You are fixating on the grand jury analogy. It is just a comparison. Once the actual trial starts the indictment is meaningless, same as the bench trial in NC. That is why they don't even keep records.

Uh, no, it's not. The indictment represents the charge that is being brought before the judge and jury.

Second, you just made my point with the underlined. "Once the actual trial starts" is the same as saying "A conviction stands upon appeal."

It would help that when you say I'm wrong you don't then offer statements that basically agree with what I'm saying.

It is not the same as a regular appeal at all. If someone of Death Row appeals to the Supreme Court they are still on Death Row and remain there until the Court rules the first conviction is invalid.

Did I say it was the same as a "regular" appeal?

When Hardy appealed there is no requirement for a second trial. If the State drops the charges like they did, it is over. There is no verdict, probation or bail hanging over his head. The first conviction is 100% meaningless, except to you, Roger Staubach, the NFL and the Mayor.

Your above quote is the reason why it's one thing to read words and another to interpret and understand what those words mean.

First, you're just repeating what I said.

even if Hardy (in this case) appeals his conviction, and even if it is invalidated, there still must be a subsequent legal decision that solidifies it. He can't just walk away from the process with a district court verdict hanging over his head. He MUST go through the process of either the case being heard, a different verdict being rendered, or the case being thrown out.

Second, this is why your statement makes little sense. Let's assume that the judge in this case ruled Hardy guilty, which she did.
If her conviction had no merit or was meaningless, Hardy could say, "Based on the law, the judge's ruling was meaningless and is invalid; therefore, I don't need to go through another trial. I'm free of this legal situation because the verdict is meaningless."

Of course, we know that's not the case. Why? Because the process of invalidating the judge's verdict in a bench trial ASSUMES that the case will automatically move to an appeal or a superior court trial with a jury. Only if the DA decides to drop the charges (a legal proceeding) will the district court ruling be invalidated.

The invalidation is predicated upon ...

a.) An appeal or
b.) The case being thrown out or dismissed by a legal authority.

So, yes, even though technically the judge's ruling is invalid, practically it stands until a subsequent legal action.

 

[tyke1doe]

That's like blaming the sorority girl when she gets roofied for going to a party and flirting with boys.

It has nothing to do with blame. It does have to do with judgment, which is why I used the word judgment.
If the sorority girl knows that the boys at the party have a history of targeting girls, then, yes, she exercises bad judgment.

Because Hardy should instantly know everything about a woman the moment he starts dating her and should be able to predict how she will react if he ever tries to end things. It would make him the only man in the world to know these things.

Interesting how other men (many other men) don't get into these same situations.

Second, when men are led by their glands, they ignore certain signs. If they're being honorable, they respect women and get to know them before they commence to sleeping with them. If you're judicious, you can pretty much tell who and how people are.

Third, the woman reportedly got drunk and did drugs. You mean Hardy doesn't know about this? You mean to tell me he can't discern a woman who is addicted to drugs and alcohol? And assuming his girlfriend does this, do you really think he's not involved also?
If I'm dating (not just having sex but dating) a woman and sizing her up, taking her to eat and talking with her about issues of life (you know, the stuff you should do when you're trying to learn someone), you can pick up on these things easily.
However, if you're just looking to "score," you ignore such signs.
Yes, lack of judgment is an appropriate description.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Speaking of proud, Staubach said it’s a fun time to be associated with the Cowboys once again, especially after a 12-4 season that included a playoff run.
Staubach said there is a definite buzz in Dallas about the team.
“Oh yeah, there’s no question about it,” Staubach said of the excitement. “In the ’90s, it was a lot of fun to go to work every day, watching the Cowboys win. Now, it looks like we’re headed there again. It makes a big difference.”
Staubach has always been a huge supporter of Tony Romo, even when it wasn’t a popular national opinion. Obviously that tune hasn’t changed a bit.
“I’m just mystified that we’re not all Tony Romo supporters,” Staubach said. “He’s a fantastic football player. He needs some good people around him like we all do in life. He’s a winning, franchise quarterback.”
While the pressure to win might be a little higher this year for the Cowboys, coming off their successful 2014 campaign, Staubach said the target on the team’s back really never changes.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2015/05/22/‘fantastic’-romo-staubach-says-cowboys-ready-make-1990s-run

While I believe we should have had a San Antonio Spurs type run of winning every couple of years.

For example....

- 2006 not going for it offensively against cornerbacks that took a day off from selling insurance/real estate? The Bobble.

- 2007 blown opportunity. Front runner. Crayton. Intentional grounding.

- 2009 finally winning playoff game. Then losing to Vikings. Ugh!



So with that said.... I agree we still can win SB50 and then do a back to back with 51

Then close the damn book on Romo ala john Elway!


Thank you and good night!!