NFL Discussion Thread: Pats win SB XLIX. Offseason begins

Status
Not open for further replies.

I get what you are saying

Hardy appealed and the case was thrown out which is not guilty

Still saying he is guilty

It's like saying anybody who appeals an convinction is guilty

The NFL got him on "Conduct detrimental to league"

That's a broad term that basically means to "you embrassed us"
 
Last edited:
The legal system, and the NFL worked the case with more details than what you read in the report.

THEY all felt Hardy had done something wrong. Hardy himself agreed to pay her off.


Your defending him better than his damn lawyer did, trying to place blame on the victim. A woman, who was NO THREAT to Hardy, unless you can prove she had a weapon.

You and I are regular dudes, our wives aren't really a threat to us, in a fight. No matter how tough they might be.

Hardy IS NOT US. Dude could handle himself quite well. So it don't matter if she Tony Montana'd a mountain of cocaine, and slapped the hell out of him, he was in zero danger. Unless she pulled a gun, or a knife. Therefore, he has no business, or reason to put hands on her, whatsoever, and she is not at fault.

Stop defending the guy. We all get your idea, or theory about athletes can be targeted for money, etc, we hear it, it can apply at times, no doubt, but it is not as simple as you tryin to make it seem. He was investigated, and found to not be innocent. Thee end.
 
StillIn729 said:
Mister Friendly said:
You are misremembering again

I posted a link of reporters live tweets from the trial....It's the closest to a trial recap I could find

There is reasonable doubt after reading those
Click to expand...

so basically Hardy paid her off because he didn't do anything wrong
Click to expand...

The State if they had enough evidence besides her testimony they would pursue charges without her

There's no actual proof he paid her off

Let's say he did

Settlement doesn't not mean guilt

The legal process is a long and arduous process no matter about ones guilt or innocence

Sometimes it's better for someone who has money to pay to expedite the whole process
 
Mister Friendly said:
Hardy appealed and the case was thrown out which is not guilty

Still saying he is guilty

It's like saying anybody who appeals an convinction is guilty
 
Click to expand...
Everything else I agree, but he was found not guilty on appeal due to a technicality whether he really did it or not, and in the initial trial, he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do think the NFL punished him for hurting the image of the league, but in their report, they're also saying they found evidence that he did abuse her 4 times, and again, the judge also and convicted him for those crimes.
 
Belichick-daughter-Super-Bowl-kiss-9.jpg


Confirmed. Audibled when he saw the daughter run towards him. Ran a XY option route with his tongue. Man, hoody proally showers with Tom.

Probably the best Super Bowl ever. Winning on a key defensive interception.
 
Last edited:
Mister Friendly said:
The State if they had enough evidence besides her testimony they would pursue charges without her

There's no actual proof he paid her off

Let's say he did

Settlement doesn't not mean guilt

The legal process is a long and arduous process no matter about ones guilt or innocence

Sometimes it's better for someone who has money to pay to expedite the whole process
Click to expand...

kind of hard to pursue a trial when the main witness is MIA

No one is going to change your mind or make you see it any other way, Hardy did no wrong in your eyes and that's your opinion
 
StillIn729 said:
kind of hard to pursue a trial when the main witness is MIA
Click to expand...
Just wanted to point out, there might be some misunderstandings with what happened, from my understanding and from the words of someone more knowledgeable than me  "the state took it to trial, prosecuted him, and WON - the defendant appealed to a jury trial (vs. judge trial) and paid off the victim who then refused to cooperate further with the DA, who then had to drop the charges."

So the state did find him guilty and prosecuted him.
 
Last edited:
That's lame when your teammates do things like that, knowing you're not in the right place mentality after being hit with an additional 10 games the other day :smh: .. instead of trying to stoop so low, why not try to help and encourage the man? You already know Hardy is gonna take a beating from fans on the road/media, no need to low blow, especially in-house.

This is the guy you're about to do battle with in the trenches, when a bunch of OLinemen pile up on you, who you gonna be looking for when it comes to help?

If you feel like he's a "woman beater" that's cool, keep it to yourself. You don't have to like the man or the decision/mistake he made but as his current teammate, don't pile it on while the man is down :smh:
 
Last edited:
dontbelikethat said:
Mister Friendly said:
Hardy appealed and the case was thrown out which is not guilty


Still saying he is guilty


It's like saying anybody who appeals an convinction is guilty

 
Click to expand...
Everything else I agree, but he was found not guilty on appeal due to a technicality whether he really did it or not, and in the initial trial, he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do think the NFL punished him for hurting the image of the league, but in their report, they're also saying they found evidence that he did abuse her 4 times, and again, the judge also and convicted him for those crimes.
Click to expand...


Yes Hardy was found guilty intitally but he appealed the conviction and it was dismissed which is basically not guilty

I've never said if he did or didn't do it, I've maintained that there's reasonable doubt in his case

If the Charlotte prosecutors had enough evidence to continue with the case against Greg Hardy they would have. The majority of DV complaints recant their story but the prosecutors still continue in most cases

Their whole case was Holders testimony, if the photos were "damning" enough they would've pressed on.

They realized that it would be hard to get a jury to convict Hardy

Remember the initial trial was a bench trial
 
dontbelikethat said:
Just wanted to point out, there might be some misunderstandings with what happened, from my understanding and from the words of someone more knowledgeable than me  "the state took it to trial, prosecuted him, and WON - the defendant appealed to a jury trial (vs. judge trial) and paid off the victim who then refused to cooperate further with the DA, who then had to drop the charges."

So the state did find him guilty and prosecuted him.
Click to expand...

bingo

he paid her off so the appeal wouldn't find him guilty and she refused to return calls to the DA
 
Last edited:
Mister Friendly said:
Yes Hardy was found guilty intitally but he appealed the conviction and it was dismissed which is basically not guilty

I've never said if he did or didn't do it, I've maintained that there's reasonable doubt in his case

If the Charlotte prosecutors had enough evidence to continue with the case against Greg Hardy they would have. The majority of DV complaints recant their story but the prosecutors still continue in most cases

Their whole case was Holders testimony, if the photos were "damning" enough they would've pressed on.

They realized that it would be hard to get a jury to convict Hardy

Remember the initial trial was a bench trial
Click to expand...
Sounds fair to me and I think that's a very fair stance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom