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

Recommended Posts

i dont think our defence would suffer that much ,i dont think hardy is as good as he thinks he is

We are a front 7 driven D. It would matter.

Heck, just look at the difference in games when CJ got knocked out. Pressure changes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea whether he's guilty or not, but I'd agree the reaction from many here is sheer stupidity.  Especially the automatic 'gold digger' theory.

 

You don't know somebody just because you're a fan of the team they play for.

 

People here were quick to the same comment about all 7 women Darren Sharper raped, and it has nothing to do with the team he played for. It's American culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People here were quick to the same comment about all 7 women Darren Sharper raped, and it has nothing to do with the team he played for. It's American culture.

 

Really dude, you're bringing up a serial rapist to try to make your point? Come on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilty by a court of law is guilty. What other definition do you have? Or are you one of those conspiracy theorists who think that he was innocent and only found guilty because of some kind of bias because the judge was a woman?

For every innocent person who is found guilty, another 20 are guilty and are getting what they deserve. I think he wasn't given more of a penalty because she wasn't exactly totally innocent at all. She provoked him but he still showed poor judgement and overreacted.

How do you think the marijuana issue will play with the comissioner. Anyone think he gets drug tested regularly from now on.

Someone said bench trial was only guilty to pass the case up to a jury trail and a higher court. Kinda a litmus test to see if the case is valid enough to move up to a higher court. Guilty in court is a lot more subjective than your aware.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have made a ton of mistakes over the years but have never hit a woman.  That isn't a mistake that is being a bully and hurting someone who is smaller than you.  I have been married 37 years and have never hit my wife.  It isn't that hard.

 

ok but some of you are naive enough to believe guilty is guilty in a court system which is beyond true, i understand some want to speculate but there's a possibility that Greg isn't guilty......let it play out is all im saying

 

 

as far as hitting women everyone makes mistakes, you might weight that differently then others but np i can understand where your coming from

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok but some of you are naive enough to believe guilty is guilty in a court system which is beyond true, i understand some want to speculate but there's a possibility that Greg isn't guilty......let it play out is all im saying

Exactly. The system is so much more nuanced and complicated than people realize. Then again unless your a lawyer or criminal you prob wouldn't know that.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilty by a court of law is guilty.  What other definition do you have?  Or are you one of those conspiracy theorists who think that he was innocent and only found guilty because of some kind of bias because the judge was a woman?

 

For every innocent person who is found guilty, another 20 are guilty and are getting what they deserve.  I think he wasn't given more of a penalty because she wasn't exactly totally innocent at all.  She provoked him but he still showed poor judgement and overreacted.

 

How do you think the marijuana issue will play with the comissioner.  Anyone think he gets drug tested regularly from now on.

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to go, Hardy.

Now to see what the suspension will be.

Probably not the best use of 10% of our cap space, but oh well.

And the guy is guilty. Stop making stupid excuses cause you like the jersey he wears.

 

How can anything outside of an outright release by the Panthers be acceptable?

We are a class organization, or so we claim.

 

 

I expect Hardy to play very hard for his next contract.  That will work out well for the Panthers.  Long term, he is a risk.  Short term, DG may end up looking pretty smart.

 

I find it particularly disturbing female Huddlers anticipate Hardy's future with the Panthers acceptable, even look forward to his production on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was found guilty today. That makes him guilty.

Domestic violence is a reoccurring issue in the NFL......and no, all the women don't look like a 6 yr old that tangled with The Incredible Hulk. So saying the chicks should look mangled if it "really" happened isn't worth getting into.

Also, the chick being sketchy doesn't mean you can disregard his guilty verdict as bogus

 

No that makes him guilty based on a single judge's verdict. That doesn't mean he actually committed the act, thus being guilty of what he was convicted. 

 

I don't really care about her sketchy past, only her actions on the night of the offense. And domestic violence in the NFL should not factor in this case either. Based on what was presented, I can not agree that Greg Hardy is guilty of assaulting this woman. 

 

And if you don't think she should have more than a few bruises on the chest and arms after being beaten by Greg Hardy, then not sure what else to say. No swelling, no scars. Even if he just slapped her, her face would be swollen for days - at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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...