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 found guilty

Cary Kollins

By Cary Kollins,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted

Guilty means having committed an offense. 

 

He's been found guilty by a judge, and that's a completely different thing. I am no conspiracy theorist, but I don't think he's guilty of the crimes he's been convicted. I do think there was a huge injustice based on what I've seen. And I don't think Holder provoking him would have any impact on the sentencing. Would it have mattered if he had killed her, or handicapped her, or permanently injured her in some way?

 

Anyone following this case, without a predetermined verdict, would find it difficult to believe Hardy was guilty. Rather he is or not, we don't know. But based on what we've been shown, he looks pretty vanilla. Not completely innocent. But surely he didn't attack this woman like she testified. Maybe he and his assistant were a little rough while detaining her, but they did not attack this woman with malice. 

 

And yes I think Hardy should be regularly tested for the rest of his career. 

Actually guilty means you have been convicted of committing an offense not that you actually committed it.  But lets be real here,most people who are convicted are guilty.  If he isn't guilty of assault he is surely guilty of hanging out with crazy people and showing a complete lack of judgement and restraint.

 

Being found guilty by a judge actually means that he is more likely guilty than if he were convicted or found innocent by a jury.  Juries don't actually know the law and are swayed by a number of things not related to the law.  Judges surely can be biased but typically they rule based on the law irrespective of the emotions and tangential points that hang up juries.

 

And yeah provocation does matter since there are often mitigating factors which do impact a trial.  Just like acting in self-defense changes a murder into a justified homicide.  Secondly he was not found guilty of battery which is what he would have been convicted of if he had beat here or even contacted her.  Assault doesn't require human contact,  All it requires is apprehension of another who you believe is going to commit a harmful, or offensive contact. So the argument that he attacked her is totally irrelevant.  You are arguing apples and oranges.  If he had attacked her with malice he would have been charged with Battery with intent to commit bodily harm.  As it stands all she had to prove was that she felt threatened by him and he communicated threats.

 

I think it was very easy to prove that based on the evidence.  As for detaining her against her will and subsequently threatening or terrorizing her, I saw cases where similar behavior was considered kidnapping.  Here is the statute.

 

http://law.justia.com/codes/north-carolina/2005/chapter_14/article_10.html

 

His appeal is based on everyone having the right to a trial by a jury not on whether he has a leg to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FuFuLamePoo Mentor

FuFuLamePoo

Posted
Posted

what a fuging idiot.  dude cost himself millions of dollars.

 

and if he truly did abuse a woman i no longer have any respect for him. yeah i'll continue to root for him to sack opposing qb's but that's it.  there is never any valid excuse to lay hands on a woman, well if there are they are VERY VERY rare.  i have no respect for hardy if he truly did this which it looks like he did.  so yeah, i won't be sad when this dude is done for the black and electric blue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iamhubby1 Veteran

iamhubby1

Posted
Posted

I am in no way condoning what Hardy did. But it is truly embarrassing how some of you are acting. Stupid azz jokes, using the situation to dis on Gman, unfounded speculations on Hardy's fate, and just plain overreacting. I guess civility and forgiveness are truly ancient concepts.

Yeah, let's kick the guy while he is down.

But then again, this is the Huddlez. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • toldozer
      Canales is holding us back

      By toldozer · Posted

      I don't think Dave touches the defense. That might be a mark against him but definitely a huge red flag for evero. He refuses to run anything other than soft zone and when you don't get pressure that's an awful scheme
    • frankw
      This Bryce Guy (General BY Discussion)

      By frankw · Posted

      You don't have to convince me. I think not picking up the option should absolutely be firmly on the table but I just do not see Tepper and Morgan doing that for previously stated reasons. Therefore I'm not going to bother entertaining the notion. Just hoping we actually get real viable competition. If that doesn't happen at the minimum then my perception of that is complete and utter professional malpractice.
    • Bama Panther
      NFL admits the TMac catch should not have been overturned

      By Bama Panther · Posted

      It was absolutely a catch, and I can’t believe how many folks were stating, before the NFL’s apology, that the overturn was the right call.  The ultimate question in this case is this: can a player complete a catch with only one hand? Of course, we all know the answer to that question, and it is an emphatic “Yes.” T-Mac maintained complete control with one hand (believe it was the right) while the other came off when the ball hit the ground. The ball was in the same position in the one hand (watch T-Mac’s fingers in relation to the NFL shield on the ball) after touching the ground as it was when it first went to the ground. Going back to the question above, if one hand can establish control, then there was no need for the other to stay on the ball, so long as the ball doesn’t move in that one hand that stays on it   It blew my mind that they overturned this in the first place. This should not be a “We got it wrong on the replay because there wasn’t clear and convincing evidence.” This should have been, “That was absolutely a catch.”
×
×
  • Create New...