Greg Hardy suspended 10 games; update: Reduced to 4

[NoSaint]

I'm not certain in any way. You claimed to be only looking at facts, while ignoring even the existence of expert medical opinion, and denied that such statements as "It looks like Hardy's being made to take the punishment for the sins of Ray Rice" were an assumption. (Or, for that matter, that such a statement would belie an agenda.)

 

I will say that the length of his suspension is certainly longer as a result of the backlash from Rice's two week suspension. But, I haven't read anything that would point to Hardy's innocence. And, obviously, there is plenty of evidence against him-- enough to get him convicted (yes, that happened).

 

While it is not confirmed, the most likely scenario is that the only thing that kept him out of prison was a lot of money that he made playing football. And, that's my point. The same system that suspended him is the same system that afforded him a salary that could buy him out of a prison sentence. He gets no sympathy from me.

For my own curiousit can you link the medical testimony that has you so confident? I'm not trying to be a skeptic in asking- genuinely curious as I didn't follow this case as close as others.

[vincec]

I truly don't know the details of the neck injuries but if that's just where he got a hand on her in order to push her back/restrain her, that's a big gap from malicious strangulation and i haven't seen a firm statement of how they could tell the difference. I'm not saying he didn't, simply trying to open the discussion in a reasonable way

Based on the fact that he was found guilty of assault and threatening to kill her, I would have to conclude that her injuries are not the result of self defense. At least he was unable to convince the judge of that.

[Rocky Landing]

Here is a link to the actual NFL release that mentions the medical testimony. https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/4-22-15-hardy.pdf

Beyond that, I'm not aware of its content.

 

I certainly wouldn't say I'm at all confident, one way or another. I haven't been following this closely in the least. But, it's there, and obviously played into both the NFL, and the N. Carolina DA's opinions.

[T master]

According to the press release:

 

"The NFL’s investigation concluded that Hardy violated the Personal Conduct Policy by using physical force against Nicole Holder in at least four instances. First, he used physical force against her which caused her to land in a bathtub. Second, he used physical force against her which caused her to land on a futon that was covered with at least four semi-automatic rifles. Third, he used physical force against her by placing his hands around Ms. Holder’s neck and applying enough pressure to leave visible marks. And fourth, he used physical force to shove Ms. Holder against a wall in his apartment’s entry hallway."

 

Sounds like a nice guy...

 

 

If this is in fact what he did he needs to be suspended for a year !!

[vincec]

 

 

If this is in fact what he did he needs to be suspended for a year !!

Or at least until after the Bills game.

[NoSaint]

Here is a link to the actual NFL release that mentions the medical testimony. https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/4-22-15-hardy.pdf

Beyond that, I'm not aware of its content.

 

I certainly wouldn't say I'm at all confident, one way or another. I haven't been following this closely in the least. But, it's there, and obviously played into both the NFL, and the N. Carolina DA's opinions.

I used to not question the nfl but after seeing the last few years- it's tough to give benefit of the doubt on "trust us" type situations. They've proven not trustworthy.

 

While I'd be far from surprised to know hardy did this--- a he said she said that she hasn't cooperated with the investigation in is a tough spot. You have medical experts on both sides- the nfls expert having never examined her. He called police so she has reason to potentially skew the story out of the gate. A rumor of a settlement but no confirmation. I get that it's easy to say "odds are guilty" but I could see how it's pretty murky for a 26 game suspension when all is done. That's going to be nearly 20% of his career and what amounts to about a 10m fine- it's got to be the harshest penalty in the history of the league for an accusation that didn't end in conviction. Short of a guy getting a full year plus in jail it's got to be pretty close to the longest conduct suspensions ever.

 

Were the guns legal? Just curious.

Edited April 23, 2015 by NoSaint

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

 

He was convicted of all of the above in a court of law. The original trial included 11 hrs of testimony including a woman who was also in the apartment that night, the officers who responded to the 911 call placed by Hardy, and medical examinations. Because NC has wierd laws, he was allowed to appeal and request a trial by Jury. He then paid the accuser to disappear.

 

"On June 15, a judge found Hardy guilty of assaulting a female and communicating threats. She sentenced him to 18 months probation; a 60-day jail sentence was suspended. Hardy appealed, and since he was convicted of a misdemeanor, under North Carolina law he’s entitled to a jury trial, which is set for Nov. 17. In court, Hardy and Curtis denied that Hardy assaulted the victim, or communicated threats."

The testimony at the trial where he was convicted included that of another woman : "However, Thorn-Tin (Judge) seemed more inclined to believe the testimony of the accuser and the defense's top witness, Christina Lawrence, another woman who was in Hardy's apartment at the time of the incident. Lawrence said she was sleeping in the other room with a friend of Hardy's when she heard scuffling and fighting and what sounded like a woman being slammed into the wall and dragged across the floor." (the words she reported hearing match the words the accuser testified she said)

 

The NFL should have had the evidence and testimony of the first trial.

 

I'm not sure what "facts" you're looking at, perhaps you would care to share your sources?

[Rob's House]

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.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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?

 

What facts are you looking at?

 

Yes, there is evidence that he was the aggressor, including the testimony of others in the apartment that night and medical evidence.

[Rob's House]

 

He was convicted of all of the above in a court of law. The original trial included 11 hrs of testimony including a woman who was also in the apartment that night, the officers who responded to the 911 call placed by Hardy, and medical examinations. Because NC has wierd laws, he was allowed to appeal and request a trial by Jury. He then paid the accuser to disappear.

 

"On June 15, a judge found Hardy guilty of assaulting a female and communicating threats. She sentenced him to 18 months probation; a 60-day jail sentence was suspended. Hardy appealed, and since he was convicted of a misdemeanor, under North Carolina law he’s entitled to a jury trial, which is set for Nov. 17. In court, Hardy and Curtis denied that Hardy assaulted the victim, or communicated threats."

The testimony at the trial where he was convicted included that of another woman : "However, Thorn-Tin (Judge) seemed more inclined to believe the testimony of the accuser and the defense's top witness, Christina Lawrence, another woman who was in Hardy's apartment at the time of the incident. Lawrence said she was sleeping in the other room with a friend of Hardy's when she heard scuffling and fighting and what sounded like a woman being slammed into the wall and dragged across the floor." (the words she reported hearing match the words the accuser testified she said)

 

The NFL should have had the evidence and testimony of the first trial.

 

I'm not sure what "facts" you're looking at, perhaps you would care to share your sources?

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.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

 

I'm sympathetic with the distrust of the NFL, and I have no strong opinion on the fairness of the 10 game suspension. But frankly, to summarize 11 hrs of testimony and a "guilty" finding in a court of law as "we went with her version of the story just because", seems like willful disregard of what appears to be substantial evidence. I don't think he paid her off to disappear (and thus rid himself of the jury trial) because he thought it was a "her version of the story just because" kind of case - if it's really all that, it should be easy to keep 12 jurors from agreeing.

 

I think bringing in the Ray Rice Sins card is specious. Hardy is paying for Hardy's sins. Whether the payment is just and consistent and administered fairly is very valid to question.

[Rob's House]

 

I'm sympathetic with the distrust of the NFL, and I have no strong opinion on the fairness of the 10 game suspension. But frankly, to summarize 11 hrs of testimony and a "guilty" finding in a court of law as "we went with her version of the story just because", seems like willful disregard of what appears to be substantial evidence. I don't think he paid her off to disappear (and thus rid himself of the jury trial) because he thought it was a "her version of the story just because" kind of case - if it's really all that, it should be easy to keep 12 jurors from agreeing.

 

I think bringing in the Ray Rice Sins card is specious. Hardy is paying for Hardy's sins. Whether the payment is just and consistent and administered fairly is very valid to question.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with everything you just said and I find your argument to be little more than deference to perceived authority, Most of all, I think the denial of Hardy being taken to task as the NFL making up for Ray Rice is willful disregard of the obvious truth, but that's just my opinion.

[FireChan]

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.

Yes. It's like old school chivalry masquerading as modern. Women being treated like children without any self-determination of their own with perceived kindness, instead of another method. Edited April 23, 2015 by FireChan

[dezertbill]

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.

I agree that with the burden of innocence falling on the man, it's a slipper slope for men these days. In Hardy's case, the NFL had all of the proof, which painted a pretty ugly picture on his part. But that dude that made that claim that it's rape for having a one night stand with a girl is an idiot, a beta male, and someone that has to kiss a girls a$$ just to get her attention. Women see his actions as fake, someone who is just trying to get their approval, and that is why even though on the exterior they may agree with him, inside they don't respect him and would never be sexually involved with him.

 

Real men don't need to fly some flag of morality in order to get a woman's attention. They understand what being a gentlemen is, and not to confuse that with physically beating someone or having sex with them against their will. Women respect them for this, as they don't want a "nice guy" who respects them to a point of vomiting in their mouths. Hence the reason why they will be with someone like that over a person who is an a$$ kisser.

Edited April 23, 2015 by dezertbill

[Buffalo Barbarian]

But of course back in time to play the Bills

 

@AroundTheNFL: Greg Hardy suspended without pay for 10 games, NFL announces.

 

@MikeGarafolo: Full release from the NFL on the Greg Hardy suspension is here: http://t.co/Am1kirCA3M

 

because last year wasn't long enough for a crime that got dismissed

[Wayne Cubed]

So essentially Hardy has been suspended for 25 games?

 

It's odd to me that the NFL didn't take a time served approach and just fine Hardy, as he was still getting paid last year. In the end I think it'll get reduced down or Hardy might end up taking it to court like Peterson did.

[ALF]

It looks like the NFL is coming down hard to deter future offences

 

The team gets penalized the most when they have to pay a player while his case is under review and he is not allowed to play.

Edited April 23, 2015 by ALF

[3rdand12]

It looks like the NFL is coming down hard to deter future offences

Im okay with that.

 

Been an interesting topic to read here folks.

This forum really gets into social values sometimes doesn't it ?

[3rdand12]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/22/hardys-suspension-raises-questions-about-disciplinary-process/

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with everything you just said and I find your argument to be little more than deference to perceived authority, Most of all, I think the denial of Hardy being taken to task as the NFL making up for Ray Rice is willful disregard of the obvious truth, but that's just my opinion.

 

I'm surprised you disagree with me on everything I just said - I guess that means you trust the NFL and you think the 10 game suspension (coupled with last year) is fair.

 

I think the point you are missing is that 11 hrs of testimony and medical evidence is a bit more than "deference to perceived authority" or "she said".

 

Essentially I think you're ignoring facts while claiming to be driven by them - by the way, I did ask what "facts" you were referencing, I haven't seen any facts just more opinion from you - but it's pretty clear we aren't going to persuade each other, so continue promulgating your agenda, no point us talking.

[NoSaint]

 

I'm surprised you disagree with me on everything I just said - I guess that means you trust the NFL and you think the 10 game suspension (coupled with last year) is fair.

 

I think the point you are missing is that 11 hrs of testimony and medical evidence is a bit more than "deference to perceived authority" or "she said".

 

Essentially I think you're ignoring facts while claiming to be driven by them - by the way, I did ask what "facts" you were referencing, I haven't seen any facts just more opinion from you - but it's pretty clear we aren't going to persuade each other, so continue promulgating your agenda, no point us talking.

Would you agree that without seeing the testimony that saying "oh they were in the court a long time they must've gotten a lot of information and made an educated and very reasonable decision" is very much deference to authority? A single judge can very easily run afoul of common sense or even law. I'll agree that odds are they were on point but what if said judge had agenda, was worried about being soft on football players after RR, or.... Without access to the info, all we can do is give deference or question authority.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

 

Fine, so let's have some facts. You say it's been addressed, I have not seen you address the question of what facts you are looking at. Now you've moved on to blanket dissing of general district court. There are variations in the quality of judges, true, but this was also 11 hrs of testimony, not a quick he said she said as many cases are.

 

In many legal cases ruled upon by a judge, the judge looks at the preponderance of the evidence and decides what is more believable. That doesn't boil down to just rolling with what "she said". That's also true of DA decisions about whether or not to bring criminal charges.

 

Frankly, and this is sure to get this moved I guess, you remind me of Al Sharpton and the rioters in Ferguson. The DA and the DOJ looked at literally hundreds of hours of testimony from dozens of witnesses, used facts such as physical evidence to decide which of the conflicting eyewitness reports were more believeable because they were consistent with the physical evidence, yet it's all "disturbing" that the cop isn't charged with murder because they have an agenda, that's their perception of what justice would look like, and to hell with whatever facts they don't like, anyone who doesn't agree is just "deferring" to "biased" authority.

 

Does that authority show bias and get it wrong sometimes, sure. Did decisions in both these specific cases appear to result from careful weighing of the evidence, well. I guess if I say so that just means I'm "deferential to authority" cuz, well, Rob says so.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Would you agree that without seeing the testimony that saying "oh they were in the court a long time they must've gotten a lot of information and made an educated and very reasonable decision" is very much deference to authority? A single judge can very easily run afoul of common sense or even law. I'll agree that odds are they were on point but what if said judge had agenda, was worried about being soft on football players after RR, or.... Without access to the info, all we can do is give deference or question authority.

 

Actually I did see a lot of the testimony and accounts of the trial in several rather thorough reports last June and July.

 

The point is that 11 hrs of witness testimony and medical evidence is a bit more than "she said". I'm not sure where the words "educated and very reasonable" decision came from, I do object to having words put in my mouth or the appearance thereof so I will thank you to clearly indicate when you are so doing. Meanwhile I think we're at an impass as far as reasonable discussion:

 

Rob: "the judge just went with what she said"

Hopeful: "but there were 11 hrs of testimony, including medical evidence and someone who was in the apartment and heard what was going on, that's a bit more than what she said"

No Saint and Rob: "oh, you're just deferential to authority".

 

Looks like a giant non-sequitor to me - as though anything but deferring to you guys is "deferential to authority".

 

It would have more credibility with me y'all started from a position of acknowledging the point that yes, in fact, 11 hrs of testimony and medical evidence is more than "she said" (whether or not you agree with the decision), and openly stating the "facts" Rob says he is going on.

 

The NFL sued to gain access to the evidence from the first trial. They were allowed access to the photographs submitted as evidence. The photographs are just flimsy "she said", right?

[Rob's House]

 

Fine, so let's have some facts. You say it's been addressed, I have not seen you address the question of what facts you are looking at. Now you've moved on to blanket dissing of general district court. There are variations in the quality of judges, true, but this was also 11 hrs of testimony, not a quick he said she said as many cases are.

 

In many legal cases ruled upon by a judge, the judge looks at the preponderance of the evidence and decides what is more believable. That doesn't boil down to just rolling with what "she said". That's also true of DA decisions about whether or not to bring criminal charges.

 

Frankly, and this is sure to get this moved I guess, you remind me of Al Sharpton and the rioters in Ferguson. The DA and the DOJ looked at literally hundreds of hours of testimony from dozens of witnesses, used facts such as physical evidence to decide which of the conflicting eyewitness reports were more believeable because they were consistent with the physical evidence, yet it's all "disturbing" that the cop isn't charged with murder because they have an agenda, that's their perception of what justice would look like, and to hell with whatever facts they don't like, anyone who doesn't agree is just "deferring" to "biased" authority.

 

Does that authority show bias and get it wrong sometimes, sure. Did decisions in both these specific cases appear to result from careful weighing of the evidence, well. I guess if I say so that just means I'm "deferential to authority" cuz, well, Rob says so.

You're so out of your element and all over the map with this that it's hard to know where to start so I'll ignore your mischaracterizations and insults and try to make it as simple as I can.

 

All we really know is the two of them had an altercation and she had some minor bruising. No witnesses. We have no way of knowing who was the aggressor and no evidence that I've seen strongly suggests otherwise.

 

In response to this, and ostensibly in defense of the NFL's stance that these are facts and not allegations, you and others offer no evidence, but rather say that a GDC judge in NC with a hyphenated last name listened to a bunch of testimony and made a decision so we should assume she's right. That's what deference to authority is. I'm not the one who said you were deferring to authority, you did. I just pointed it out.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rob's House

[Rocky Landing]

 

Actually I did see a lot of the testimony and accounts of the trial in several rather thorough reports last June and July.

 

The point is that 11 hrs of witness testimony and medical evidence is a bit more than "she said". I'm not sure where the words "educated and very reasonable" decision came from, I do object to having words put in my mouth or the appearance thereof so I will thank you to clearly indicate when you are so doing. Meanwhile I think we're at an impass as far as reasonable discussion:

 

Rob: "the judge just went with what she said"

Hopeful: "but there were 11 hrs of testimony, including medical evidence and someone who was in the apartment and heard what was going on, that's a bit more than what she said"

No Saint and Rob: "oh, you're just deferential to authority".

 

Looks like a giant non-sequitor to me - as though anything but deferring to you guys is "deferential to authority".

 

It would have more credibility with me y'all started from a position of acknowledging the point that yes, in fact, 11 hrs of testimony and medical evidence is more than "she said" (whether or not you agree with the decision), and openly stating the "facts" Rob says he is going on.

 

The NFL sued to gain access to the evidence from the first trial. They were allowed access to the photographs submitted as evidence. The photographs are just flimsy "she said", right?

Well stated.

[NoSaint]

 

Actually I did see a lot of the testimony and accounts of the trial in several rather thorough reports last June and July.

 

any chance you could link some?i know it's been awhile so it's hard, but as ive said several times, im genuinely curious to learn more about the inside of this case/process. What i have seen available definitely lends itself towards hardy being a schmuck but i havent seen much definitive content. Edited April 23, 2015 by NoSaint

[truth on hold]

 

I'm sympathetic with the distrust of the NFL, and I have no strong opinion on the fairness of the 10 game suspension. But frankly, to summarize 11 hrs of testimony and a "guilty" finding in a court of law as "we went with her version of the story just because", seems like willful disregard of what appears to be substantial evidence. I don't think he paid her off to disappear (and thus rid himself of the jury trial) because he thought it was a "her version of the story just because" kind of case - if it's really all that, it should be easy to keep 12 jurors from agreeing.

 

I think bringing in the Ray Rice Sins card is specious. Hardy is paying for Hardy's sins. Whether the payment is just and consistent and administered fairly is very valid to question.

heres the problem with the "NFL player is always wrong in a domestic dispute with a female" disposition. What happens when its 2 females,like this lesbian WNBA couple?

 

Brittney Griner, fiancee Glory Johnson arrested after fight at home

 

http://espn.go.com/wnba/story/_/id/12747571/brittney-griner-phoenix-mercury-arrested-assault-disorderly-conduct

 

women can start it and cause harm too. And if they go about accusing each other with conflicting storied then clearly one woman is wrong. But if this involved an Nfl player the assumption is that he's the guilty party

Edited April 24, 2015 by JTSP

[YoloinOhio]

@SportsCenter: Cowboys DE Greg Hardy was involved in verbal altercation with teammate Davon Coleman today. (via @FOXSports) http://t.co/n8jByj4WHv

[NoSaint]

@SportsCenter: Cowboys DE Greg Hardy was involved in verbal altercation with teammate Davon Coleman today. (via @FOXSports) http://t.co/n8jByj4WHv

which is more worrisome? Hardy arguing with a teammate, or someone giving this to the press?

[FLbills]

 

I think bringing in the Ray Rice Sins card is specious. Hardy is paying for Hardy's sins. Whether the payment is just and consistent and administered fairly is very valid to question.

This seems a bit contradictory, IMO. Without having something or someone (R.R.) to compare payment to, you can't really question "Whether the payment is just and consistent and administered fairly".

[NoSaint]

any chance you could link some?i know it's been awhile so it's hard, but as ive said several times, im genuinely curious to learn more about the inside of this case/process. What i have seen available definitely lends itself towards hardy being a schmuck but i havent seen much definitive content.

Anybody?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Anybody?

 

Hey, Saint. Sorry, someone just pointed this out to me - I recused myself from this thread having said my bit.

 

Very fair question to ask for links. I've had a bit of a hunt, and am getting "404'd" on several that I thought were factual, fair accounts of the evidence and testimony for example

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/incoming/article10419572.htmlwas good but is now 404'd on the actual account.

 

I don't think any of the sports media did a very good job covering it, and there were some articles by "womens" pages that were rather bad IMO.

I will see if I can put some time into it this weekend and unearth one of the links I read at the time. They say nothing is gone for good on the internet so it must be there somewhere!!!!!

This seems a bit contradictory, IMO. Without having something or someone (R.R.) to compare payment to, you can't really question "Whether the payment is just and consistent and administered fairly".

 

Ha! Fair point. I guess my counterpoint is that unless a policy/consequences for violating it is spelled out so clearly that it's understood in advance with no need to reference other cases, the chances are very good that punishment is NOT just, consistent, and adminstered fairly. And IMO Goodell is reactive as h*** on this one. But then to be fair, I don't have a high opinion of Goodell overall so maybe I'm biased.

[NoSaint]

 

Hey, Saint. Sorry, someone just pointed this out to me - I recused myself from this thread having said my bit.

 

Very fair question to ask for links. I've had a bit of a hunt, and am getting "404'd" on several that I thought were factual, fair accounts of the evidence and testimony for example

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/incoming/article10419572.htmlwas good but is now 404'd on the actual account.

 

I don't think any of the sports media did a very good job covering it, and there were some articles by "womens" pages that were rather bad IMO.

I will see if I can put some time into it this weekend and unearth one of the links I read at the time. They say nothing is gone for good on the internet so it must be there somewhere!!!!!

 

 

Ha! Fair point. I guess my counterpoint is that unless a policy/consequences for violating it is spelled out so clearly that it's understood in advance with no need to reference other cases, the chances are very good that punishment is NOT just, consistent, and adminstered fairly. And IMO Goodell is reactive as h*** on this one. But then to be fair, I don't have a high opinion of Goodell overall so maybe I'm biased.

If you can, cool- but don't go wasting any significant time on in. I just felt like everything I read was pretty high level and broad strokes, so I was curious if there was some more detailed stuff. Not a huge deal either way though!

[aristocrat]

When the girl was cross examined about her injuries...she had none. Hardy's attorney jokingly asked her if she'd even broken a fingernail? She said she'd broken a toenail. I think if a huge guy is beating on you like she says she'd be broken in some way. She got them thrown out of the club that night and then was seen kicking his bentley outside the club. She was then seen at the club the night after this happened buying bottles and claiming she was gonna get paid.

[Rocky Landing]

When the girl was cross examined about her injuries...she had none. Hardy's attorney jokingly asked her if she'd even broken a fingernail? She said she'd broken a toenail. I think if a huge guy is beating on you like she says she'd be broken in some way. She got them thrown out of the club that night and then was seen kicking his bentley outside the club. She was then seen at the club the night after this happened buying bottles and claiming she was gonna get paid.

This is in stark contrast to the findings of the court, district attorney, and the NFL. Where did you get this information?

[aristocrat]

This is in stark contrast to the findings of the court, district attorney, and the NFL. Where did you get this information?

 

 

The court transcripts. The other info is just from a bartender who worked with her.

[Mr. WEO]

 

Hardy abandons Bentley after he realizes he can't drive it through a flood. He's just too stupid to work...

[Uffalo Ills]

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.

I dont see a whole lot of facts in what youre saying... and no need to get personal. The fact so so staunchly defend a person who is a bit shady in the lest might say something about you

[NoSaint]

I dont see a whole lot of facts in what youre saying... and no need to get personal. The fact so so staunchly defend a person who is a bit shady in the lest might say something about you

Robs been fairly consistent that the mobs get pitchforks instead of asking questions and that guys get over the top trying to prove who is "most against violence against women"

 

I think he's quite against hitting women and not being afraid to question situations isn't a negative quality.

[CardinalScotts]

I bet he's waived and out of the league