- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 125,579
You sonofa...I remember back in the day there was this shithole of a school where everyone was yelling about 'guns up'. Despicable.
You sonofa...I remember back in the day there was this shithole of a school where everyone was yelling about 'guns up'. Despicable.
Yeah, it's actually considered witness tampering to do it in a criminal trial, which is also a serious crime. It makes it extremely unlikely in a criminal case because she could literally accept the money from Hardy and turn around and still testify against him. The reason being because Hardy can't say anything about paying her off because it's illegal.The examples of compromise you presented are indeed civil lawsuits and is common practice. Corporations and municipalities don't use these practices in criminal matters. The last I recall physical abuse is criminal. The example isn't one of parity for practices because of the type of laws involved.
Those were back in the good ole days when Leach was a great coach.I remember back in the day there was this shithole of a school where everyone was yelling about 'guns up'. Despicable.
So she is an "alleged" crackhead but Hardy is guilty, even though he isn't?Hardy, by the alleged gold-digging crackhead.
Booze said she was a famous local skank, and I noted that skanks are victims of crimes all the time, usually because of the company they keep. And yes, a state court found him guilty of the alleged crimes. I can't believe it's controversial to note that Hardy is a bad person who needs to choose his words a little more carefully.So she is an "alleged" crackhead but Hardy is guilty, even though he isn't?
Would you agree that the media has glossed over all of the complications in the story to streamline the narrative of Hardy as a villain? That the little documented evidence we have has Hardy calling the police on the woman, and claiming that she initially assaulted him. That most of the accusations brought against him by his ex were inconsistent.Booze said she was a famous local skank, and I noted that skanks are victims of crimes all the time, usually because of the company they keep. And yes, a state court found him guilty of the alleged crimes. I can't believe it's controversial to note that Hardy is a bad person who needs to choose his words a little more carefully.
how come the judge wasn't swayed by these "complications"? why didn't Hardy's attorney exploit the inconsistencies? and if Hardy thought he was assaulted, he should have filed charges.Would you agree that the media has glossed over all of the complications in the story to streamline the narrative of Hardy as a villain? That the little documented evidence we have has Hardy calling the police on the woman, and claiming that she initially assaulted him. That most of the accusations brought against him by his ex were inconsistent.
All of these things could still point to Hardy as the bad guy. He clearly injured this woman, but it's a remarkably sexist notion that only men are to blame when physical abuse is happening on both sides. Wouldn't you agree the media is really eager to label anyone who is accused of domestic abuse as the next Ray Rice?
You're clearly uninformed. The defense is not allowed to speak at a bench trial. The judge was specifically gunning for perpetrators of domestic violence.how come the judge wasn't swayed by these "complications"? why didn't Hardy's attorney exploit the inconsistencies? and if Hardy thought he was assaulted, he should have filed charges.
Exactly. It amounts to political grandstanding.You're clearly uninformed. The defense is not allowed to speak at a bench trial. The judge was specifically gunning for perpetrators of domestic violence.
not true. the defense can object just as if it were a jury trial.You're clearly uninformed. The defense is not allowed to speak at a bench trial. The judge was specifically gunning for perpetrators of domestic violence.
They can object procedurally, they cannot present a defense. It's more like a grand jury hearing than a real trial. And the way the law is written, as soon as the appeal is made the "conviction" never happened. The Jury trial is a trial 'de novo' meaning the accused retains the full presumption of innocence. So you say he was convicted by a state court, but legally, he wasn't.not true. the defense can object just as if it were a jury trial.
Sadly, a lot of people are uninformed about this stuff, but insist on having opinions about it without knowing what they are talking about anyway.You're clearly uninformed. The defense is not allowed to speak at a bench trial. The judge was specifically gunning for perpetrators of domestic violence.
It's all part of the progressive backlash against DV. Because backlashes don't ever happen in half measures, anyone accused of anything is automatically the most guilty. Because there's nothing more progressive than assuming that black men accused of hurting white women are always guilty.Sadly, a lot of people are uninformed about this stuff, but insist on having opinions about it without knowing what they are talking about anyway.
Good for them I guess.
This is just NFL PR bullshit. That's exactly why they found a female to make the statements and of course her title is VP of social responsibility. I would like to know what specifically she disagree with in his comments. That Tom Brady's wife is beautiful? Or that Hardy wants to hit the field guns blazing. I remember when the NFL use to be manly and tough.“I couldn’t disagree more with Greg Hardy’s comments, and they do not reflect the values of the league,” NFL V.P. of social responsibility Anna Isaacson said. “We are working hard to bring attention to the positive role models many other players represent and also to continue our education with all members of the NFL family. . . .
“We spend a lot of time at the NFL educating our players on domestic violence and sexual assault. That’s what we control here, we control education. We control training, we control all the league does from a public perspective and public service, working with non-profit organizations. We can control that. So that everyone in the NFL family has the services and resources that they need if they need help.”