1. Yes, they would, y'all especially (Men's rights!!!!!)
2. We have the same troglodytes on here who currently using slut shaming to try to prove Greg's innocence calling Hardy a pussy for not "handling his business."
Lol. Are you seriously telling me that, if the roles were reversed, you would be defending Hardy just like you're defending Holder now? Somehow, I doubt that. I can tell you that, personally, if the roles were reversed I would be defending Holder just like I'm defending Hardy now. I would be calling for Hardy to be thrown in jail. Why? Because I don't base my judgment of the situation on who is the male and who is the female.
I don't support domestic violence, and I think women should be ashamed to align themselves with Nicole Holder and women like her. She is the one doing a disservice to women, not the men who dare to question her paper thin story in light of all we've seen and know. You want somebody to blame for the skepticism of men? Try Holder and the many other women who have taken advantage of our societal disgust for domestic violence to levy false accusations against thousands of men.
This whole thing is a witch hunt, and I'll be curious to see if there's any backtracking from the likes of you and Ashley Fox when the jury trial is over.
I wonder if Ashley Fox would have the same opinion of the situation if the roles were reversed?
Imagine if it was a coked up Hardy who wouldn't leave Holders apartment and blocked her from leaving. Imagine if Hardy got so violent that Holder had to have her bodyguard restrain him as she called the cops. Imagine Hardy then ran from the cops when they arrived on the scene. Would people be calling for Holder's head if Hardy pressed charges following the situation just described? If Hardy's story was as full of holes as Holders?
When you think about it like that, it's laughable.
I'll take it and keep it moving. Get it out the way, appealing stretch it longer and it's a misdemeanor. Learning experience, chalk it up and go on with life. If you dont learn from it, that's your dumbness
Depends. If I'm innocent, I'm saying fug that poo and trying to clear my name.
It would make zero sense, logically, to sign Roberts before you go after Lance Stephenson, if you planned to. Anyone should know that's true. That's what I was arguing.
For all we know, Roberts might have been in talks with more than just us and would have been off the market had we waited. To say that "it would make zero sense" to sign him before Stephenson is making a statement that you don't have sufficient information to make.