Rob's House

All this has been said and addressed. I don't find it terribly persuasive. If you guys knew the standard of proof required to get a GDC conviction you'd stop posting this "conviction" bull **** as though it means anything. And the witness' decision to disappear is not a good reason to assume she was initially telling the truth. All I got out of the blurb you just posted is the judge picked whoever she thought was more believable (not exactly proof beyond a reasonable doubt) and the only witness wasn't even in the room. There is so much about this that isn't known and the fact that so many are so sure that this man is guilty of a heinous crime based on such flimsy evidence is the most disturbing thing about any of this.

One thing that bothers me about these situations (in addition to the presumption of guilt based on flimsy evidence) is the knee jerk irrational approach to any issue involving women. I think most everyone agrees that you shouldn't hit women, but it seems that for whatever reason so many guys have to one up everyone else in their quest to be Mr. chivalry that it's gotten crazy. You can see it echoed in the media and in these threads. Some dude even went so far as to say in essence that anyone who's ever had a one nighter with a girl he met in a bar is a rapist. That's just absurd on so many levels. We have people in this thread basically saying that even if a girl is attacking a guy and is the aggressor that it's not only wrong but criminal for him to throw her off of him. Where's the logic behind this thinking? The hyper emotional, rush to judgment crowd ironically assumes the moral high ground and vilifies voices of reason. I keep seeing the guy who wants to make sure you know he's against abusing or raping women because it makes him a uniquely swell guy (as though there is some sizable contingency of men who think those things are acceptable and he's just separated himself from them). These guys want you to know that they're even more offended by it than the other guy, and hence more morally superior. These beliefs form for various reasons at an early age and usually have more to do with how the person feels about himself or wants others to perceive him (ex. "maybe girls will like and respect me if I'm super supportive of women's issues") and due to the avoidance of cognitive dissonance those beliefs gradually become a core part of that persons identity. Now it's no longer something he rationally thinks, it's something he subconsciously feels and accepts without rational consideration of the circumstances. This becomes a problem when we have pop culture driven movements pushing for extreme penalties that are grossly disproportionate to the acts committed (if any acts were committed at all) with more attention given to the seriousness of the charge than the nature of the evidence, and real people are being haled in to court and getting saddled with DV convictions based on ridiculous charges that never should have seen the light of day and the self appointed chivalry squad guys are cheering it on. In my opinion this attitude is terribly condescending toward, and even degrading, to women. You're essentially saying that women are not rational and must be treated as small children who can't make decisions and aren't responsible for their own actions. It's ironic because most of the time these guys view themselves as white knights coming to the rescue, when in reality they're more often condescending chauvinists who blame their inability to attract women on their own perceived superior moral character.

At least you recognize and admit it. This is where these conversations get really frustrating. It's one thing to have an illogical opinion, quite another to make up facts to support your argument. As a rule, when you have to invent facts to support your argument then your argument is probably ****. And one might wonder what it is about you that makes you so desirous of that outcome.

My point is we don't know what happened. You and Roger Goodell are the ones who are so !@#$ing certain. So What's the standard? Whenever allegations of improper conduct that may or may not be true are made, swift and harsh consequences shall be doled out? And what's my obvious agenda?

I didn't see the part where he strangled her, just that he grabbed her by the throat (there is a very real distinction) which could be defensive.

He doesn't have a conviction and if that's the basis of your argument you don't have much. Those general district courts play fast and loose with the law And it's not uncommon for them to convict on who the judge believes more and for the circuit court to rule differently. Without knowing the judge's history I can't speak to potential bias, but I can assure you that she was very aware of the press coverage surrounding this case.

Two people in a hotel room have an argument, no one with any serious injuries, no witnesses, no accusations of anything but pushing and grabbing of the neck (which could be consistent with her being the aggressor), he called the cops, and the only evidence suggesting he was the aggressor is her word. Not exactly a strong case for domestic assault. Then we look to the penalty: He had to sit out all of last year and is suspended for 10 games this year for alleged shoving? Where's the precedent? Ray Rice knocked a girl out cold on camera and got a 2 week suspension. It really couldn't be more obvious.

Where are my assumptions? I'm looking at the facts and asking how they got to their conclusion. The only answer they've given is what you posted, which said a lot of nothing. Isn't he the one who called the cops on her? Is there any evidence that he was the aggressor other than her story?

That's bull ****, man. If he beat the **** out of her I'd agree that it doesn't matter if she were the aggressor, but that didn't happen. If someone is charging you and physically imposing their will upon you, pushing them off is both legally and morally justifiable, even if the aggressor has a vagina.

I think that's 100% true. That's the problem. Being bigger and stronger than someone doesn't give them the right to attack you, not does it impose upon you a duty to retreat from a place your lawfully allowed to be. And unless she took the drug test that night it doesn't disprove anything.

The NFL's response sounds like a long winded way of saying "we went with her version of the story just because." This whole thing stinks. It looks like Hardy's being made to take the punishment for the sins of Ray Rice.

If she was the aggressor he should have been found not guilty and no penalty should be imposed. I'm curious what the evidence to the contrary is.

Some things I'd like to know: - Did he admit this, and if not, what was the source of this info? - If true, was he the aggressor? Was he pushing around a woman who wanted to be left alone or was he pushing away an aggressive woman who wouldn't leave him alone? The answers to these questions are necessary to form a fair opinion of the interaction.

I don't know how anyone can think they know how good he can be after only 14 games. What kind of imbecile thinks they can evaluate a young QB after only 14 games?

I knew a good Christian girl in college who dated her boyfriend for two years and never slept with him. Of course, that didn't stop her from taking a mouthful of my roommate (stomachful, actually) while she was dating him and losing her virginity on the rebound two weeks after they broke up.

Personally, I think I should be allowed to act like as big of a douche as I want to with minimal repercussions because I'm an inconsequential nobody, but anyone else who ever fails to live up to my idealized code of ethics and conduct should face harsh consequences, which at a minimum includes losing their livelihood.

Without hearing what the employee is saying or knowing the back story that lead to it, I'm not sure how do many of you can determine she was out of line. How ironic that many of you want to knock her off her pedestal while staying perched high upon your own.

How presumptuous must one be to critique an article he hasn't even read? You don't even know what it's about but you have somehow formed a strong opinion about it?

The lovers don't like to read either. I guess it's hard to see the words on the page when you're blinded by man love. Guessing you didn't read it either.

It's over your head. He wasn't discussing Tebow's value to the Broncos. He was discussing his trade value on the market. The comparison to Tebow was strictly in regards to what they could get for him, not what he was worth to them.

If the point had the faintest goddamn thing to do with the Broncos' QB situation you might have a point, but it didn't so you don't.

It's interesting how Hillary's antipathy that she should get in touch with the peons is met with praise, but Bush 1 was scorned for being out of touch when he did the exact same thing. Is it different because he has a penis or because he has an R after his name? You be the judge.

Most of the people bitching about the article obviously (and many admittedly) didn't read it, most incorrectly assumed its point, and of those who did read it, most still didn't get it. The only point of the Tebow comparison was to guage potential trade value. He suggested August as the "sweet spot" for a trade because it would give the new staff time to first work with and evaluate him. It's mid-April and there's not much of interest to discuss on the football front. Hate on Rodack all you want, but this article is hardly one worth bashing him over.

I find the overwhelming majority of things politicians say on the campaign trail to be based on the presumption that the people they are trying to reach are too stupid to know any better and that those who do are either already in the bag or were never going to vote for them anyway. Hillary's just really bad at selling it.. Hillary's biggest weakness is that she's really bad at being fake, and she's almost always fake. Like that former Clinton adviser turned FNC contributor said, she thinks if you knew who she was you wouldn't like her, so she's always pretending to be someone else. The problem is her act is so painfully transparent that you couldn't buy it even if you wanted to. Her supposedly candid moments are just painful to watch. Even though I don't care for her I still cringe when she speaks.

Can you guys just let it go. It still hurts everytime I read his name; even when koolaid misspells it. He's like the girl I broke up with who then dropped 20 pounds, got a tan and a boob job, dyed her hair blond, and started dating some other dude. And you guys keep reminding me that she's gone and are squabbling over how to spell her name. I'm drowning here and you're describing the water.