Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Hardy 911 call


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

I didnt read all 200 posts, but I read some of you sounding relieved, as if the girl was the problem. While that could turn out to be true, Just because Hardy called 911 and told his side of the story to the dispatcher, do not think that is evidence of innocence. It sounds convincing and is good news from that perspective, but the judge saw the bruises and marks on her body. The judge felt that the female was the victim. The legal expert who felt that the girl had been assaulted will not be a petty detail that can easily be overlooked.

She was drunk and high, and both his friend and Hardy were defending themselves. When a guy grabs a girl to restrain her bruises result. Hell some times when me and my girl are playing around I cause bruises by accident.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that irks me about the result from this is the judge ordered Hardy to go to AA meetings three times a week, as if he's already been deemed guilty of something.

Sent from my iPhone.

If she didn't his lawyer may have told him to go anyway. It is a way to proactively keep any punishment lower if this doesn't get dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was drunk and high, and both his friend and Hardy were defending themselves. When a guy grabs a girl to restrain her bruises result. Hell some times when me and my girl are playing around I cause bruises by accident.

 

There is also another 911 call that has a female voice saying that she saw him beating her. I want to give Hardy the benefit of the doubt, but nobody knows what happened.  Sure, Hardy may have restrained her at one point, but he could have thrown her around at another point.   Question:  Was he retraining her around her neck?

 

If you are saying that she was drunk and high, then I would have to ask, "Where are you getting that information?"  Was Hardy drunk and/or high and what does that prove anyway?

 

I hope you are right, Snake.  I really do.  However, if you are not, I want the truth to be told and the real victim cleared and protected.

 

Edited by MHS831
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also another 911 call that has a female voice saying that she saw him beating her. I want to give Hardy the benefit of the doubt, but nobody knows what happened.  Sure, Hardy may have restrained her at one point, but he could have thrown her around at another point. 

 

If you are saying that she was drunk and high, then I would have to ask, "Where are you getting that information?"  Was Hardy drunk and/or high and what does that prove anyway?

 

I hope you are right, Snake.  I really do.  However, if you are not, I want the truth to be told and the real victim cleared and protected.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it was reported that they were both intoxicated. I am not sure where that info came from exactly.

 

You can tell from the door mans call that he is fairly questioning of the drunk lady yelling over his phone call. She says one second she was in there and saw in and the next that she heard it from the hall or something to that affect.

Edited by csx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it was reported that they were both intoxicated. I am not sure where that info came from exactly.

 

Based on the 911 call, Hardy seemed a bit slurry in speech, but aware.  Funny how people assume that she is guilty because she was drunk/high but give GH, a known lunatic, credit for being sensible and proactive. They are basing that on Hardy's statement to the 911 dispatcher.   I do not buy it.  However, that is not enough to convict him on either.  If Snake is right, if it was just restraint, lets see where those bruises were.  I understand bruises above the elbow on the arms.  Maybe at the wrists.  But if they were around the throat, he has a unique way of dealing with angry women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the 911 call, Hardy seemed a bit slurry in speech, but aware.  Funny how people assume that she is guilty because she was drunk/high but give GH, a known lunatic, credit for being sensible and proactive. They are basing that on Hardy's statement to the 911 dispatcher.   I do not buy it.  However, that is not enough to convict him on either.  If Snake is right, if it was just restraint, lets see where those bruises were.  I understand bruises above the elbow on the arms.  Maybe at the wrists.  But if they were around the throat, he has a unique way of dealing with angry women.

 

We don't know anything about the true extent of the bruises. We know there was something and it was enough for there to be misdemeanor charges brought and an investigation should get to the bottom of it. 

 

i find it a little odd that she went to the courthouse during his appearance but did not actually appear in front of the judge. If she is terrified of him why be there? It's certainly a good image to show her in public with a sling and big dark sunglasses. Though she never said anything about having facial injuries.

 

Anything is possible but I am hoping our star player did not pummel a woman. The court will figure it out though.

Edited by csx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know anything about the true extent of the bruises. We know there was something and it was enough for there to be misdemeanor charges brought and an investigation should get to the bottom of it.

i find it a little odd that she went to the courthouse during his appearance but did not actually appear in front of the judge. If she is terrified of him why be there? It's certainly a good image to show her in public with a sling and big dark sunglasses. Though she never said anything about having facial injuries.

Anything is possible but I am hoping our star player did not pummel a woman. The court will figure it out though.

I question why weren't the bruises at the scene not good enough for a arrest at that point?

Why if he had thrown her on Loaded "weapons" was he allowed to go back in his house and not be arrested until 7 hours later??

We are talking about a drunk giant with loaded weapons right??

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know anything about the true extent of the bruises. We know there was something and it was enough for there to be misdemeanor charges brought and an investigation should get to the bottom of it. 

 

i find it a little odd that she went to the courthouse during his appearance but did not actually appear in front of the judge. If she is terrified of him why be there? It's certainly a good image to show her in public with a sling and big dark sunglasses. Though she never said anything about having facial injuries.

 

Anything is possible but I am hoping our star player did not pummel a woman. The court will figure it out though.

 

We know that the judge, a female judge, determined the bruises to be disturbing and put Hardy in jail. 

 

I am not trying to convict our top DE, but that means little to me if he was hitting a female.  There is evidence that suggests Hardy was not as innocent as he appears on the 911 call. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that the judge, a female judge, determined the bruises to be disturbing and put Hardy in jail. 

 

I am not trying to convict our top DE, but that means little to me if he was hitting a female.  There is evidence that suggests Hardy was not as innocent as he appears on the 911 call. 

We don't know that the judge found them disturbing. We know she found the evidence to be worth filing the charges. That doesn't take much in domestic violence cases does it? She could have had a scratch and it would have likely led to charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that the judge, a female judge, determined the bruises to be disturbing and put Hardy in jail.

I am not trying to convict our top DE, but that means little to me if he was hitting a female. There is evidence that suggests Hardy was not as innocent as he appears on the 911 call.

But she saw Bruises 4 or 5 hours later. The police at the scene didn't seem to think the bruises were enough to arrest anybody. Plus she refused medical help at the scene.

Where did she go after the police showed up at 4:18 when the couple were separated?

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that the judge, a female judge, determined the bruises to be disturbing and put Hardy in jail. 

 

I am not trying to convict our top DE, but that means little to me if he was hitting a female.  There is evidence that suggests Hardy was not as innocent as he appears on the 911 call. 

 

The judge didnt put Hardy in jail.  It is mandatory for Domestic abuse accused to stay in jail for 24 hours.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge didnt put Hardy in jail.  It is mandatory for Domestic abuse accused to stay in jail for 24 hours.

Exactly.

 

The magistrate/judge has no choice but to set a court date once the evidence is brought before the court by the arresting officers.  It is now the states job to prove Hardy is guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • See my previous post. You're also leaving out that T-Mac was likely hitting a rookie wall, like 95% of rookies do late in their first season, combined with the added attention on him by defenses, which in turn would be why Bryce looked Coker's way down the stretch.  With Coker playing like that to start next year, defenses will have to pay attention to it, which will then also make things easier for T-Mac. All of which is also ignoring that T-Mac will just be a better player next year than he was this year, assuming he works on his game this offseason, which we all know he will be.  If a player who was already your clear cut #1 comes back even better his next season, you're going to make sure you're throwing it his way more often, no matter who else you have. Again, Coker's added targets won't be at the expense of T-Mac's, they will BOTH be taking targets from the rest of the team.  Not to mention, we should be passing it more next year to begin with, seeing as we'll have both of them hopefully ready to go full speed Week 1, which again, will help both their target totals increase. Coker looks like a really good player, but even the most optimistic person can't say he looks like he has #1 potential, he has very solid to maybe even high end #2 potential.  You're not taking targets away from the reigning OROY who looks like a true Top 15 WR already to get your #2 targets, you increase both of them by taking from the others.
    • Need to crush the hawks tonight. A lose would really damage momentum 
    • Sorry, but this is a terrible breakdown that doesn't at all show what you're trying to say/project about T-Mac next year, as it leaves out key information that changes everything, it makes the opposite point that you're trying to. Chase missed 5 games that second season after playing all 17 as a rookie (and still saw more targets that second season). Puka it looks like you projected his stats out to a 17 game season (as he only played 11 games), but even still , when you have 160+ targets as a rookie, there isn't really much room to get any more the next year. Waddle saw an increase in yards, and sure, his targets went down, but he played on a team with a better WR that year who saw 170 targets for 1,710 yards during that 2nd season for Waddle... something T-Mac doesn't have to contend with on the same team (280+ targets for their top 2 WRs, if you don't think T-Mac would see more than 122 targets if him and Coker combined for 287, then you're nuts). Then Olave and Wilson both saw an increase of 19 targets in their second season. You basically just laid out the reasoning for why T-Mac should see at least 20 more targets next year, if not more, which would be a solid increase and put him easily into the Top 10 most targeted WR next season.
×
×
  • Create New...