James Hardy

[ax4782]

To actually respond to the original post concerning Hardy, you need to consider that a person is innocent until proven guilty. First off, Hardy was never convicted and never pled guilty to the charges concerning his girlfriend and his child. Thus, suggesting that he in fact did that, when there is no record of it actually happening is rather judgmental. Until Hardy comes out and states that it happened, or his girlfriend comes out and stands by the story she told the police in the first place, it is a bit judgmental to go after the guy. A lot has been made of that alleged incident, but without a conviction, no one knows what actually happened.

 

As to this incident, the fact is, no one knows the facts about what happened. The only persons who were in that backyard were James Hardy II, his "father" and another person the police are refusing to identify. What we know is that the father is not pressing charges and the police have indicated that they are not pursuing the investigation. What that means in legalese is that the police don't have enough evidence to meet even the probable cause standard to proceed. As a result, people suggesting that Hardy was a bad guy in this situation are being a bit judgmental and likely are the same people who didn't like him to begin with.

 

Pulling a gun on someone is a serious action and can be criminal in the right set of circumstances. We have no idea what happened in this case and from the reports it seems to have been a bit overblown. What we do know is that Hardy's father was gone for most of his life, and by gone I mean in jail with no way to help raise his son. Now, after his son has become a successful athlete ready to make it big, he shows up. I think that would be enough to make a lot of people angry. I'm not condoning the supposed action that he took, but if the police aren't charging him, it's got more to do with a lack of evidence and a very reluctant witness who probably realizes that he was at fault. I'm not condoning what Hardy may have done, but it seems like the situation may have been blown out of proportion. That being said, if there was enough evidence that he should have been charged, that's what should have been done.

[BenchBledsoe]

To actually respond to the original post concerning Hardy, you need to consider that a person is innocent until proven guilty. First off, Hardy was never convicted and never pled guilty to the charges concerning his girlfriend and his child. Thus, suggesting that he in fact did that, when there is no record of it actually happening is rather judgmental. Until Hardy comes out and states that it happened, or his girlfriend comes out and stands by the story she told the police in the first place, it is a bit judgmental to go after the guy. A lot has been made of that alleged incident, but without a conviction, no one knows what actually happened.

 

As to this incident, the fact is, no one knows the facts about what happened. The only persons who were in that backyard were James Hardy II, his "father" and another person the police are refusing to identify. What we know is that the father is not pressing charges and the police have indicated that they are not pursuing the investigation. What that means in legalese is that the police don't have enough evidence to meet even the probable cause standard to proceed. As a result, people suggesting that Hardy was a bad guy in this situation are being a bit judgmental and likely are the same people who didn't like him to begin with.

 

Pulling a gun on someone is a serious action and can be criminal in the right set of circumstances. We have no idea what happened in this case and from the reports it seems to have been a bit overblown. What we do know is that Hardy's father was gone for most of his life, and by gone I mean in jail with no way to help raise his son. Now, after his son has become a successful athlete ready to make it big, he shows up. I think that would be enough to make a lot of people angry. I'm not condoning the supposed action that he took, but if the police aren't charging him, it's got more to do with a lack of evidence and a very reluctant witness who probably realizes that he was at fault. I'm not condoning what Hardy may have done, but it seems like the situation may have been blown out of proportion. That being said, if there was enough evidence that he should have been charged, that's what should have been done.

You're probably "hoping" that this thing was blown out of proportion more than really believe it. My thoughts are that while no charges were filed, the fact that this story has surfaced cannot be good news for Hardy's future. The fact that he was even in this position is very possibly signs of things to come.

[John from Riverside]

In my family it is not all that uncommon to have get togethers where people are armed. My wifes side of the family is married into gang members, former gang members, motorcycle "clubs" etc. There are times when you see a noticible police presence around a picnic at the park without being asked!

 

Hardy did not grow up the same way a lot of you did....folks have to understand that. Does it give him a excuse to be a menace....no...but we also dont know what the circumstances were around what happened.....

 

Fact is....we dont know ANYTHING.....except that the police are not looking into it and nobody is pressing charges. When something real happens I will worry about it then.

 

My advice....James Hardy get your @ss up to Buffalo....NOW.....and put this all behind you start becoming the superstar WR that Buffalo can fall in love with. Your past is behind you look to the future. You have a kid to think about.

[Mikie2times]

I would argue about his right to be armed, but I am concerned about his logic to withdrawal the fire arm. Was he ever facing life threatening force? To me thats highly doubtful. What other situation is pulling a gun valid in?

 

Was he under the influence? If you say yes, then he had no business having the fire arm on him. If you say no, but conceded that he wasn't facing a life threatening situation he had no business pulling the gun.

 

I don't see many plausible scenarios in which this shouldn't go as a black mark against him.

[Dwight Drane]

I would argue about his right to be armed, but I am concerned about his logic to withdrawal the fire arm. Was he ever facing life threatening force? To me thats highly doubtful. What other situation is pulling a gone valid in?

 

Was he under the influence? If you say yes, then he had no business having the fire arm on him. If you say no, but conceded that he wasn't facing a life threatening situation he had no business pulling the gun.

 

I don't see many plausible scenarios in which this shouldn't go as a black mark against him.

 

I agree in full. Cowards pull guns and don't use them. It's a bluff, and of all the people to pull a gun on, your own dad. Here is a 6'6" professional athlete in his 20's needing to pull a gun on his 40 something dad.

 

Nothing amazes me anymore when it comes to reactions. You earn respect. The reason you wait for the full story to come out on a guy like Marvin Harrison is because he has been pretty classy the past decade and beyond, so I will extend him the benefit of the doubt. This Hardy is a kid who 3 weeks ago was being talked of as a guy who wacked his babymama and infant kid around, yet everything was behind him. Now he pulls a gun on his father. Sweet.

 

Mr Hardy....welcome to Buffalo, where there are plenty of savy football fans who are scuzball enough to draw your hothead into an altercation in order to get a piece of that signing bonus you have coming.

 

Marv must be rolling over in his driveway.

[Alaska Darin]

Once again, until they conclude on D.C. v. Heller, there is no constitutional individual right. I argued for an individual right in my paper and I'm well aware where the current justices stand on that interpretation. Your presumption that I am againist guns is about as flawed as the notion that we do have an individual right as of today consistent w/ the constitution. If The 2nd gave an individual fundamental right then all those case you alluded to would have to pass the strict scrutiny test not the rational basis test, you dunce!

Yeah, I wish I could be as smart as you. I presumed nothing about you other than you're an arrogant kid who thinks he's a hell of a lot more informed than he is. I'm really disappointed that I made that judgement. But thanks for writing one whole paper on the subject and pretending to be an expert. sh-- like than never gets old.

[eball]

I have a feeling that whatever did happen, did not die that same afternoon/evening. I just hope if it rears its ugly head again, it does not escalate to something much worse: a shooting (from either parties)

 

Is the young Hardy religious??

:lol:

 

Yes, inquiring minds want to know...because (a) it matters either way; and (b) those who have found God rarely resort to violence.

 

When are you people going to learn to "zip it?"

[Alaska Darin]

:lol:

 

Yes, inquiring minds want to know...because (a) it matters either way; and (b) those who have found God rarely resort to violence.

 

When are you people going to learn to "zip it?"

If we could just find him the right imaginary friend, he'd get it together...

[Zulu Cthulhu]

Yeah, I wish I could be as smart as you. I presumed nothing about you other than you're an arrogant kid who thinks he's a hell of a lot more informed than he is. I'm really disappointed that I made that judgement. But thanks for writing one whole paper on the subject and pretending to be an expert. sh-- like than never gets old.

 

Amen AD. Unfortunately law school (which I actually finished HeHateMe, chime in on Constitutional Law after you graduate, just a suggestion) is full of clowns like him: he probably took a 1 credit 2nd Amendment class and now he thinks he's the next Barack Obama. Don't be shy HeHateMe let us all know how DC v. Heller turns out, since its totally relevant to this particular case.

[colin]

I'm not sure where you went to law school, but you clearly didn't learn anything about the second amendment. The fact is that the wording of the amendment is ambiguous, not clearly defining under what circumstances a person may keep and bear arms. The question is not whether persons can own firearms. The individual state constitutions in 44 states have a much more clearly articulated individual right to keep and bear arms. As for the decision in U.S. v. Miller, the court neither stated affirmatively that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, or that the right was purely collective and only allowing for the right to be exercised only in the context of the militia. One should not that ten of the twelve circuit courts have determined that the right is exercised either collectively or under a "sophisticated collective rights model." Furthermore, even if the Second Amendment does in fact convey an individual right to keep and bear arms, there is nothing stopping the states or the federal government from placing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right. For example, it is likely that the Felon in Possession laws will be upheld, along with the CCW certification requirements.

 

A collective right to keep and bear arms would not mean that no one could own a firearm. What it means is that under the federal constitution, and thus only in territories or states that do not provide for a clearly articulated right in their own constitutions that provide for a more significant individual right, the Government could restrict more severely the types of weapons that the people could own and when they could have access to them. The fact is, anyone following the case currently in the Supreme Court, that being Heller v. United States, formerly Parker v. United States in the D.C. Circuit, knows the likely outcome. The court is likely to find an individual right, but is not likely to incorporate that right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. They are likely to uphold the reasonable restrictions that are currently in place and to find that a complete ban on handguns, like the one that is currently in place in the District of Columbia, simply goes too far.

 

The arguments that the history of the amendment clearly demonstrate that the right is individual are unfamiliar with the history of the amendment. The fact is the Senate hearings and debate of the amendment were conducted in a closed session and there is no record in existence as to the positions or findings of the Senate. The House reports are ambiguous as to the positions of all of the legislators. Further, you cited Aymette v. State from Tennessee for the proposition that there is an individual right. However, the historical positions of the states are not clear. Take a look at State v. Buzzard from the same time articulating exactly the opposite position. For a good synopsis of the positions presented by both sides I recommend Akhil Reed Amar's book "America's Constitution: A Biography" which has a good explanation of the logical positions concerning the position's of both sides.

 

As to U.S. v. Miller, the case does not cite a lot of cases that construe an individual right. The case is purposefully ambiguous, and fails to clearly support either position. The precedents that the court cites are to cases from the late 1800s that avoid the question of whether or not to find and individual right in the Constitution AND further, determine that any right construed in the Second Amendment that potentially belongs to the individual is not going to be incorporated to the states. There is a lot of ambiguity in the case law here. The fact is, if Miller were as clear as many on this board believed that it was, there would be no basis for the super majority of the Federal Circuit Court's to have found a collective right. For those who are curious some of the cases from those circuits are as follows:

 

U.S. v. Haney (10th Circuit)

Sklar v. Burns (7th Circuit)

 

There are also prominent cases from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits holding that the Amendment grants some form of a collective right. Many of these cases cite U.S. v. Miller for the proposition that the Amendment construes a collective right. Sorry, but I trust the opinions of 27 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' Judges over someone whom I don't even know has a law degree. People enjoy the right to bear arms, because their State constitutions allow them the right to do so. Many people don't realize that the states have the right to grant more protections to their citizens than are afforded by the United States Constitution. The right to own a gun in your individual capacity may be one of those additional protections, or it may not. The Supreme Court has yet to definitively take a position on the issue.

 

 

GUNS BAD!!!!11111

 

 

look, i'm canadian (living in the states tho) and one thing that really becomes obvious when you live and travel around the country is that america is of two minds (at least!).

 

you have new york city, the north east in general, and some (maybe most?) of the west coast saying guns are horrible. the limo liberal softy lefty type (who are like canadians but with more wealth and absolutely no shame in being ruthless and aggressive to earn more) pushing for health care, education, and more gun control solutions from the government (this is also true of conservative relgious types in these places as well as tat'd up hipsters).

 

then you have most of the rest of the country who own guns and have disagreements on who can CCW permit, and what kind of guns are over the line for ownership. these people also have varying views on economics and abortion and so on, but are just fine with gun ownership.

 

now you will read a story about a cop shooting someone to death who was unarmed (in nyc that happens and gets a lot of coverage). people who are saying the cops did bad will change their mind if the guy getting shot had a gun (and had it say in his glove box) but not if he is a convicted felon. this is really a strong point i think because people in this city and region consider owning a gun as a worse thing as being a convicted felon.

 

this (across political lines even) is just very very regional. guys like bill in nyc who is or was a cop is all pro law and cops, but anti gun ownership. johnny protest in the area hates the cops but is also anti gun ownership/pro gun control.

 

in the midwest and south it is just the opposite.

 

i really think the frontier mentallity that IMO made america great in many ways is really faded in "old" america where people act and think a lot like europeans but is alive and kicking in most of the nation.

[otisly00]

He probably collects them, just like people collect baseball cards, I know families with more than 50 guns, they collect them it's legal and there is nothing wrong with it. The people who own 20 or more guns aren't the people shooting other people on the streets fyi. Oh and another thing if the 2nd amendment is abolished guess what, I hate to tell you but the crime rate is just going to increase. Because criminals are not going to hand their guns over to the police, only law abiding citizens will and guess what, those people aren't commiting crimes!!!

 

I'm sorry, I did not realize that you were Mr. Know It All. With you barking about assumptions, gun laws etc; you just pulled a few blanket statements out of thin air

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

The reason they need body guards is because people HAVE guns!! You twit!

 

Actually they need guards because criminals have guns. That is the same reason I need one. That was the point, I thought you could have picked up on that. Guess not.

[Kelly the Dog]

“I realize what the public perception could be pertaining to this incident; however, that was not the reality of the situation,” Hardy said in his statement issued to Fort Wayne and Buffalo media. “This situation that has been blown out of proportion has been very hurtful and frustrating for me and my father. There was a misunderstanding and a misinterpretation of the situation.

 

“I would like to first apologize to the fans of Buffalo and the Bills organization for any distractions this may have caused. I would also like to apologize to my fans in Indiana and the children who look up to me because it has been hard on me and I know it’s been equally hard on them to hear something of this nature. I do understand that this opportunity with me being drafted by the Buffalo Bills is a blessing and a privilege and not a right. So I ask that my fans just continue to keep me in your prayers and I will continue to strive to be the best I can be on and off the field.”

 

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dl...40328/-1/SPORTS

[colin]

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dl...40328/-1/SPORTS

 

 

SUSPEND THAT ANIMAL!!11

 

perhaps the most reasonable reassuring possible thing to hear from him.

 

and the chicken littles will reply "TEH STATEMENT IS TEH PER PARED BY TEH AGENTZ!!111"

 

to which i reply yes it is. and that's a good thing, shows he's taking stuff seriously and getting professionals to do their jobs.

[eball]

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dl...40328/-1/SPORTS

My God, this kid needs help. I only hope there's still time, before he kills again.

[Grouse89]

I think counseling is the best way to go for now. If his father is a real threat then add in the restraining order.

 

 

 

 

I don't think it will be changed. The comment was to point out the idiocy of your comment saying they should deny themselves security because they don't agree with unlimited gun ownership. In fact it leads to the exact opposite of your argument. That's all I was saying.

 

 

Well maybe you'll eventually understand the Supreme Court decision on that.

I never saiud that lmao

[Grouse89]

I'm not sure where you went to law school, but you clearly didn't learn anything about the second amendment. The fact is that the wording of the amendment is ambiguous, not clearly defining under what circumstances a person may keep and bear arms. The question is not whether persons can own firearms. The individual state constitutions in 44 states have a much more clearly articulated individual right to keep and bear arms. As for the decision in U.S. v. Miller, the court neither stated affirmatively that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, or that the right was purely collective and only allowing for the right to be exercised only in the context of the militia. One should not that ten of the twelve circuit courts have determined that the right is exercised either collectively or under a "sophisticated collective rights model." Furthermore, even if the Second Amendment does in fact convey an individual right to keep and bear arms, there is nothing stopping the states or the federal government from placing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right. For example, it is likely that the Felon in Possession laws will be upheld, along with the CCW certification requirements.

 

A collective right to keep and bear arms would not mean that no one could own a firearm. What it means is that under the federal constitution, and thus only in territories or states that do not provide for a clearly articulated right in their own constitutions that provide for a more significant individual right, the Government could restrict more severely the types of weapons that the people could own and when they could have access to them. The fact is, anyone following the case currently in the Supreme Court, that being Heller v. United States, formerly Parker v. United States in the D.C. Circuit, knows the likely outcome. The court is likely to find an individual right, but is not likely to incorporate that right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. They are likely to uphold the reasonable restrictions that are currently in place and to find that a complete ban on handguns, like the one that is currently in place in the District of Columbia, simply goes too far.

 

The arguments that the history of the amendment clearly demonstrate that the right is individual are unfamiliar with the history of the amendment. The fact is the Senate hearings and debate of the amendment were conducted in a closed session and there is no record in existence as to the positions or findings of the Senate. The House reports are ambiguous as to the positions of all of the legislators. Further, you cited Aymette v. State from Tennessee for the proposition that there is an individual right. However, the historical positions of the states are not clear. Take a look at State v. Buzzard from the same time articulating exactly the opposite position. For a good synopsis of the positions presented by both sides I recommend Akhil Reed Amar's book "America's Constitution: A Biography" which has a good explanation of the logical positions concerning the position's of both sides.

 

As to U.S. v. Miller, the case does not cite a lot of cases that construe an individual right. The case is purposefully ambiguous, and fails to clearly support either position. The precedents that the court cites are to cases from the late 1800s that avoid the question of whether or not to find and individual right in the Constitution AND further, determine that any right construed in the Second Amendment that potentially belongs to the individual is not going to be incorporated to the states. There is a lot of ambiguity in the case law here. The fact is, if Miller were as clear as many on this board believed that it was, there would be no basis for the super majority of the Federal Circuit Court's to have found a collective right. For those who are curious some of the cases from those circuits are as follows:

 

U.S. v. Haney (10th Circuit)

Sklar v. Burns (7th Circuit)

 

There are also prominent cases from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits holding that the Amendment grants some form of a collective right. Many of these cases cite U.S. v. Miller for the proposition that the Amendment construes a collective right. Sorry, but I trust the opinions of 27 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' Judges over someone whom I don't even know has a law degree. People enjoy the right to bear arms, because their State constitutions allow them the right to do so. Many people don't realize that the states have the right to grant more protections to their citizens than are afforded by the United States Constitution. The right to own a gun in your individual capacity may be one of those additional protections, or it may not. The Supreme Court has yet to definitively take a position on the issue.

I have no idea what you are talking about dude I didn't cite sh--, you have the wrong person.

[Grouse89]

I agree in full. Cowards pull guns and don't use them. It's a bluff, and of all the people to pull a gun on, your own dad. Here is a 6'6" professional athlete in his 20's needing to pull a gun on his 40 something dad.

 

Nothing amazes me anymore when it comes to reactions. You earn respect. The reason you wait for the full story to come out on a guy like Marvin Harrison is because he has been pretty classy the past decade and beyond, so I will extend him the benefit of the doubt. This Hardy is a kid who 3 weeks ago was being talked of as a guy who wacked his babymama and infant kid around, yet everything was behind him. Now he pulls a gun on his father. Sweet.

 

Mr Hardy....welcome to Buffalo, where there are plenty of savy football fans who are scuzball enough to draw your hothead into an altercation in order to get a piece of that signing bonus you have coming.

 

Marv must be rolling over in his driveway.

So if he did pull it, which we have no idea he actually did, he should have !@#$ing used it. HEAR THAT JAMES use the moth-a !@#$ing thikng next time, if you don't you lose cred.

[Grouse89]

I'm sorry, I did not realize that you were Mr. Know It All. With you barking about assumptions, gun laws etc; you just pulled a few blanket statements out of thin air

really? you lose.

[Willis990]

So if he did pull it, which we have no idea he actually did, he should have !@#$ing used it. HEAR THAT JAMES use the moth-a !@#$ing thikng next time, if you don't you lose cred.

 

 

This guy should not have been drafted.