Greg Hardy suspended 10 games; update: Reduced to 4

[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