Greg Hardy better appeal

Smitty · Sep 3, 2015

Clay_Allison said:
that retard NC court system is a key issue though. That "conviction" is meaningless. If you're not found guilty by a jury of you're peers you're still innocent until proven guilty under the constitution.

It's not even a "retard" system; people are taking a PFT talking point and acting like they have a clue about it.

People.... there is not a jurisdiction out there where you don't have the right to appeal a first level conviction. Then, the mere act of FILING the appeal renders the conviction void. It is called a "De Novo" trial and it's like the original conviction never happened. People are EXPECTED to appeal from those low levels. It's not some kind of weird loophole, it's how the system works.

Here in PA, it's basically the default for any non-misdemeanor or non-felony case.

On top of that, the county of Philadelphia operates under a completely different way than the rest of the state, and is even CLOSER to the NC system. In Philadelphia, with misdemeanors such as DUI or ASSAULT (sound familiar?), you do not get to go to a jury trial first, you MUST have a bench trial in front of a judge.

But, you know, there's that pesky issue of having a right to a jury trial in such cases, so after the bench trial is over, if defendants think they can do better, they can appeal -- and the original bench trial decision is voided. Crazy, just like "retard old NC!"

Durrr.

The ONLY reason it is set up this way is because its quicker and cheaper to have a bench trial, and because some cases are so clear cut that the defendants realize there is no reason to go further to a jury trial if they lose. Obviously, this case was NOT clear cut, and therefore the bench trial was basically a formality, a speed bump on the road to the actual determination.

I also want to say this.... No, Greg Hardy was not found guilty. His appeal renders that void. It never happened. People need to stop acting like "Well, the judge determined he did it, but crazy lawyer shenanigans got him off, but in reality the evidence was there for a conviction."

The judges at those low levels favor officers and the state, because they KNOW the appeal process is there to be used. Saying "he was convicted" in the absence of a jury trial where the defendant appealed and had the case thrown out is misleading, borderline outright dishonest. Half the time you don't even get all the evidence for low level trials like that.

At the current date and time, a true statement would be "Greg Hardy has never been convicted of a crime." You can't point to the bench trial because it no longer exists.

Clay_Allison · Sep 3, 2015

mschmidt64 said:
It's not even a "retard" system; people are taking a PFT talking point and acting like they have a clue about it.

People.... there is not a jurisdiction out there where you don't have the right to appeal a first level conviction. Then, the mere act of FILING the appeal renders the conviction void. It is called a "De Novo" trial and it's like the original conviction never happened. People are EXPECTED to appeal from those low levels. It's not some kind of weird loophole, it's how the system works.

Here in PA, it's basically the default for any non-misdemeanor or non-felony case.

On top of that, the county of Philadelphia operates under a completely different way than the rest of the state, and is even CLOSER to the NC system. In Philadelphia, with misdemeanors such as DUI or ASSAULT (sound familiar?), you do not get to go to a jury trial first, you MUST have a bench trial in front of a judge.

But, you know, there's that pesky issue of having a right to a jury trial in such cases, so after the bench trial is over, if defendants think they can do better, they can appeal -- and the original bench trial decision is voided. Crazy, just like "retard old NC!"

Durrr.

The ONLY reason it is set up this way is because its quicker and cheaper to have a bench trial, and because some cases are so clear cut that the defendants realize there is no reason to go further to a jury trial if they lose. Obviously, this case was NOT clear cut, and therefore the bench trial was basically a formality, a speed bump on the road to the actual determination.

I also want to say this.... No, Greg Hardy was not found guilty. His appeal renders that void. It never happened. People need to stop acting like "Well, the judge determined he did it, but crazy lawyer shenanigans got him off, but in reality the evidence was there for a conviction."

The judges at those low levels favor officers and the state, because they KNOW the appeal process is there to be used. Saying "he was convicted" in the absence of a jury trial where the defendant appealed and had the case thrown out is misleading, borderline outright dishonest. Half the time you don't even get all the evidence for low level trials like that.

At the current date and time, a true statement would be "Greg Hardy has never been convicted of a crime." You can't point to the bench trial because it no longer exists.

I think it's retarded because it's a way to armbar poorer defendants into signing plea deals by lengthening the process and making it too expensive to fight the prosecution. (Obviously that wasn't a problem for Hardy)

And I know you can't LEGALLY point to the bench trial because it no longer exists, but just like telling a jury to disregard a comment that's been properly objected to (conjecture or hearsay, for instance) they are still going to think about it. I think having a Judge, an "impartial" authority figure (in quotes because impartial judges exist in the same universe as dry canoe rides) say a defendant is guilty prejudices the jury toward a guilty verdict.

kidd · Sep 5, 2015

So...

Any word on whether he's going to appeal or not?

Cotton · Sep 6, 2015

kidd said:
So...

Any word on whether he's going to appeal or not?

My guess is we will hear something at the first to middle of next week.

GShock · Sep 6, 2015

If I'm the team, I'm kind of ticked he hasn't appealed yet. Every game counts. No idea why he wouldn't have moved on this yet.

L.T. Fan · Sep 7, 2015

GShock said:
If I'm the team, I'm kind of ticked he hasn't appealed yet. Every game counts. No idea why he wouldn't have moved on this yet.

Maybe Hardy doesn't want to play those 4 games

p1_ · Sep 7, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
Maybe Hardy doesn't want to play those 4 games

:confused:

Cotton · Sep 7, 2015

GShock said:
If I'm the team, I'm kind of ticked he hasn't appealed yet. Every game counts. No idea why he wouldn't have moved on this yet.

If he and the NFLPA feel really good about winning the appeal he won't miss any games, regardless. He will play while the appeal is being held and then if overturned he will keep playing. The risk he runs by doing that is missing games later in the season.

Cotton · Sep 7, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
Maybe Hardy doesn't want to play those 4 games

All reports are that Hardy has already demonstrated himself a leader. I highly doubt he is goldbricking it.

L.T. Fan · Sep 7, 2015

Iamtdg said:
All reports are that Hardy has already demonstrated himself a leader. I highly doubt he is goldbricking it.

I didn't say goldbricking. Maybe he had already structured his plans to not play the 4 games and may want to keep that agenda. If he doesn't appeal it would be because he prefers to go with prior planning rather than reset his schedule.

Cotton · Sep 7, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
I didn't say goldbricking. Maybe he had already structured his plans to not play the 4 games and may want to keep that agenda. If he doesn't appeal it would be because he prefers to go with prior planning rather than reset his schedule.

So, what, he had a vacation planned and doesn't want to disappoint his kids? :lol

jsmith6919 · Sep 7, 2015

L.T. Fan · Sep 7, 2015

Iamtdg said:
So, what, he had a vacation planned and doesn't want to disappoint his kids?

Who knows. If he doesn't appeal there will some reason for it. What would be your guess if he doesn't appeal?

Cotton · Sep 7, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
Who knows. If he doesn't appeal there will some reason for it. What would be your guess if he doesn't appeal?

He thinks he might lose and wants to take the suspension at the first of the year, and not chance having to take it later.

ravidubey · Sep 7, 2015

Iamtdg said:
He thinks he might lose and wants to take the suspension at the first of the year, and not chance having to take it later.

He probably wants it behind him ASAP, and on some level he's come to understand through this whole process that no matter how provoked he was his actions were fucked up and he's deserving of punishment.

Jiggyfly · Sep 7, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
I didn't say goldbricking. Maybe he had already structured his plans to not play the 4 games and may want to keep that agenda. If he doesn't appeal it would be because he prefers to go with prior planning rather than reset his schedule.

L.T. Fan · Sep 7, 2015

Jiggyfly said:

Totally juvenile.

NoDak · Sep 7, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
Maybe Hardy doesn't want to play those 4 games

WTF?

Carp · Sep 7, 2015

Hardy does not get paid for missing those 4 games...correct me if I am wrong. That would see to be a pretty good reason to want to play.

NoDak · Sep 7, 2015

Carp said:
Hardy does not get paid for missing those 4 games...correct me if I am wrong. That would see to be a pretty good reason to want to play.

No, he doesn't. That was part of the contract he signed, with nothing guaranteed to protect the team once his suspension was announced. Then they had to adjust the salary cap projection when his suspension was moved from ten games to four.

Greg Hardy better appeal

DCC 4Life

Old Bastard

DCC 4Life

One-armed Knife Sharpener

DCC 4Life

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

One-armed Knife Sharpener

One-armed Knife Sharpener

I'm Easy If You Are

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Honored Member - RIP

I'm Easy If You Are

One-armed Knife Sharpener

DCC 4Life

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

Hotlinking' sonofabitch

DCC 4Life

Hotlinking' sonofabitch