PFT: Photos of Greg Hardy domestic assualt victim emerge

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I'm not conflating anything. You, on the other hand, seem to think the NFL is obligated to take their cues from the NC court system in terms of an appropriate punishment. They're not. In the wake of Rice and AP, going soft on Hardy would have sent a terrible message to the game's female fan base, while inviting a media firestorm and a potential loss of advertising. The league can't sweep this stuff under the rug anymore.
The NFL only has so much control over their "message" their ability to punish is determined by the rights negotiated by the union. Much North Carolina can't just will a case into existence, without evidence, the NFL can't just make up severe unnegotiated punishments. If Hardy had been willing to keep fighting, he would have probably gotten off Scott free since, unlike Peterson he has no kind of conviction.

It is funny how Peterson. Who unquestionably committed a more severe crime, hasn't had to deal with a fraction of the outrage. Must be nice to play in a small market.



So-called "inconsistencies" in her story don't justify what he did to her. When you have that kind of size/weight advantage, there are ways to defuse a situation short of battery.
obviously DV is a huge issue, and it's never okay to assault anyone, that being said, if someone hurt me, like caused me physical pain, I don't know how easy it would be to "diffuse" a situation without excessive force.

I don't know if that's what happened, although it's what the phone call pointed to. It's fun that we expect men to be in complete control since they can cause more damage, but since women are harmless they're under no such obligations.
 
Last edited:

bbgun

please don't "dur" me
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
23,233
There's a big difference between justifying something and saying a lifetime ban isn't necessary. There's also understanding that both parties contributed to the situation and the outcome and one person losing at least 25 million in overall lost income, probably 50 since there still won't be as much bidding for his services, is enough punishment for the responsibility he still bears for the incident.

I'd probably feel different if he killed someone like Leonard Little, or if the woman suffered any permanent injuries but she didn't so I don't think an incident with no permanent damage should have permanent repercussions, like a lifetime ban from a person's occupation.
Unlike Pete Rose, Hardy never received a formal lifetime ban. He was lucky that Jerry, who cavorts with strippers and only cares about winning, took a shine to him. If he does well the rest of the season, other owners will too.
 

1bigfan13

Your favorite player's favorite player
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
27,122
This is a collection of easy targets pinpointing hot n' ready outrage into a lot of preconceived prejudices.

NFL players and the league itself are already seen as monsters by non-fans with progressive ideals.

Even among fans the Cowboys are the most hated franchise.

Even among Cowboy fans Jerry isn't particularly well liked.

Now everybody gets to have a good ol' time pretending to be sanctimonious and eating their own farts.
I said the same thing.

Well known athlete that's unlikable + Well known Owner who's unlikable + a polarizing franchise that everyone has a strong opinion about = Easy pickings for the faux outrage mob
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
obviously DV is a huge issue, and it's never okay to assault anyone, that being said, if someone hurt me, like caused me physical pain, I don't know how easy it would be to "diffuse" a situation without excessive force.

I don't know if that's what happened, although it's what the phone call pointed to. It's fun that we expect men to be in complete control since they can cause more damage, but since women are harmless they're under no such obligations.
Hardy is the one who called the cops, so clearly he did attempt to do something to diffuse the situation. It's not always so easy when you have someone who is drugged up in your home going crazy though.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Hardy is the one who called the cops, so clearly he did attempt to do something to diffuse the situation. It's not always so easy when you have someone who is drugged up in your home going crazy though.
The way deadspin paints it (which admittedly seems like a hatchet job) is that Hardy beat the shit out of her, and then made the call to cover his ass. Mostly I don't believe stories that depend on one side being an evil mastermind, but Roethlisberger is probably a free man thanks to some outstanding ass covering, so you never know how good NFL stars get at damage control. I'm sure some guys in the league have been learning how to make problems go away since they were raping in High School.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Unlike Pete Rose, Hardy never received a formal lifetime ban. He was lucky that Jerry, who cavorts with strippers and only cares about winning, took a shine to him. If he does well the rest of the season, other owners will too.
Hardy doesn't have a damned thing to do with Pete rose. Gambling on the game affects the game directly.
 

22cowboysfan22

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
2,987
I'm not conflating anything. You, on the other hand, seem to think the NFL is obligated to take their cues from the NC court system in terms of an appropriate punishment. They're not. In the wake of Rice and AP, going soft on Hardy would have sent a terrible message to the game's female fan base, while inviting a media firestorm and a potential loss of advertising. The league can't sweep this stuff under the rug anymore.



She wasn't a witness yet. You can cut a deal before the trial to make the problem go away. It's called "settling."



But no probation is better than any probation, right? Hence the motive for a payoff.



So-called "inconsistencies" in her story don't justify what he did to her. When you have that kind of size/weight advantage, there are ways to defuse a situation short of battery.
Wow. Did you eat paint chips as a kid, or were you just dropped on your head?
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
I guess it's technically possible to offer a settlement of any potential civil suit as long as there's no explicit instructions regarding the criminal trial.
Sure, but in no way can you restrict her ability to testify in a criminal trial. It's called witness tampering and in some states at least, that is considered a felony. You can settle a civil case all you want but it has no actual impact on a criminal trial.
 

22cowboysfan22

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
2,987
Sure, but in no way can you restrict her ability to testify in a criminal trial. It's called witness tampering and in some states at least, that is considered a felony. You can settle a civil case all you want but it has no actual impact on a criminal trial.
This is correct. Just one of the many facepalms in that bbgun post.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Sure, but in no way can you restrict her ability to testify in a criminal trial. It's called witness tampering and in some states at least, that is considered a felony. You can settle a civil case all you want but it has no actual impact on a criminal trial.
If she knows the actual cash won't be delivered until after the criminal case is settled, well she might get the message.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,483
If she knows the actual cash won't be delivered until after the criminal case is settled, well she might get the message.
Except that would rise to the level of witness tampering and would constitute a serious crime.
 

bbgun

please don't "dur" me
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
23,233
Not in criminal law. :picard
so he broke the law when he paid her off? he's a bigger criminal than I imagined. or maybe you cling to the fiction that she skipped town without getting paid for her troubles.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
So the civil suit is settled. Holder was given enough money that accounted for her injury and anguish. The criminal courts were unable to find sufficient evidence to convict him of a crime, the NFL and Panthers suspended him for the embarrassment this caused. Who else is there to satisfy?

How entitled is everyone else to also be outraged over a matter that was settled justly? How fucking stupid are people to get stirred up by some hack news site, that's selling someone else's pain for publicity?
 

22cowboysfan22

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
2,987
so he broke the law when he paid her off? he's a bigger criminal than I imagined. or maybe you cling to the fiction that she skipped town without getting paid for her troubles.
You seriously cannot be this dumb. He settled with her with the agreement that she wouldn't file a CIVIL suit against him. She then decided not to cooperate in the CRIMINAL trial (most likely because the money was all that she cared about). Do you not understand the difference between civil and criminal law?

It's very common for a prosecutor to continue with a domestic violence case even when the accuser no longer wishes to cooperate. They didn't with Hardy because their case against him wasn't strong enough:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article10422650.html
 
Last edited:

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
so he broke the law when he paid her off? he's a bigger criminal than I imagined. or maybe you cling to the fiction that she skipped town without getting paid for her troubles.
She got paid on the civil suit, I'm sure of that. So why didn't she then turn around and testify in the criminal trial. There was nothing stopping her?
 

bbgun

please don't "dur" me
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
23,233
You seriously cannot be this dumb. He settled with her with the agreement that she wouldn't file a CIVIL suit against him. She then decided not to cooperate in the CRIMINAL trial (most likely because the money was all that she cared about). Do you not understand the difference between civil and criminal law?

It's very common for a prosecutor to continue with a domestic violence case even when the accuser no longer wishes to cooperate. They didn't with Hardy because their case against him wasn't strong enough:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article10422650.html
yes, i realize the difference. i was just mocking people who raised the specter of witness tampering. at least you believe she was paid off, which puts you ahead of Genghis.
 
Top Bottom