Going after hardy now is basically a witch hunt

[KakMan]

Can someone without a google law education break down the NC court process and the conviction/whatnot? 

 

I see a ton of people defending Hardy which is understandable if you don't think he did it, but I'm just looking to see why people are likening his earlier trial/preceding akin to kangaroo court.  

 

Well, basically the bench trial means nothing, several attorneys referred to Hardy's bench trial as a preseason game to put it in football terms. In NC, if you're accused of a misdemeanor, you have a bench trial first, if you're found guilty by the judge, you then appeal, the sentence is suspended by the judge and you move on to a jury trial, and from that point it's as if the bench trial never happened. There's no discovery allowed in the bench trials, so the defense is at huge disadvantage, and of course only the judge has to be convinced.

I would imagine that most judges are going to find guilt in bench trials for domestic violence if there is any possibility in their mind that violence may have occurred, that way the case moves to a jury to determine the final outcome.

Yes, he was technically found guilty as the media loves to point out, what they don't point out is that the sentence was suspended and he can still be found innocent and that this is all working exactly the way it should work within the legal system.

I would also imagine that there's a good chance Hardy can win with a jury, especially when you consider the erratic behavior of the accuser.

Keep in mind, the angry mob and witch hunt mentality doesn't concern itself with truth and facts, they see blood in the water and want heads to roll. In the end, if Hardy is found innocent, the witch hunt doesn't care.

We all care about this in part because we love the Panthers, but there's two more important issues here, domestic violence, and the seemingly total disregard of Hardy's legal rights by some people.

Think of this for a moment, if the NFL and or Panthers suspend Hardy now, what type of message does that send to the people who will eventually sit on his jury?

Punishing Hardy now isn't the right move by the NFL or Panthers despite the emotional plea from some to do just that.

As for the media, there's very little true journalism left in our society, it's mostly sensationalism from talking heads.

[Nate Dogg]

Well, basically the bench trial means nothing, several attorneys referred to Hardy's bench trial as a preseason game to put it in football terms. In NC, if you're accused of a misdemeanor, you have a bench trial first, if you're found guilty by the judge, you then appeal, the sentence is suspended by the judge and you move on to a jury trial, and from that point it's as if the bench trial never happened. There's no discovery allowed in the bench trials, so the defense is at huge disadvantage, and of course only the judge has to be convinced.

I would imagine that most judges are going to find guilt in bench trials for domestic violence if there is any possibility in their mind that violence may have occurred, that way the case moves to a jury to determine the final outcome.

Yes, he was technically found guilty as the media loves to point out, what they don't point out is that the sentence was suspended and he can still be found innocent and that this is all working exactly the way it should work within the legal system.

I would also imagine that there's a good chance Hardy can win with a jury, especially when you consider the erratic behavior of the accuser.

Keep in mind, the angry mob and witch hunt mentality doesn't concern itself with truth and facts, they see blood in the water and want heads to roll. In the end, if Hardy is found innocent, the witch hunt doesn't care.

We all care about this in part because we love the Panthers, but there's two more important issues here, domestic violence, and the seemingly total disregard of Hardy's legal rights by some people.

Think of this for a moment, if the NFL and or Panthers suspend Hardy now, what type of message does that send to the people who will eventually sit on his jury?

Punishing Hardy now isn't the right move by the NFL or Panthers despite the emotional plea from some to do just that.

As for the media, there's very little true journalism left in our society, it's mostly sensationalism from talking heads.

 

 

 

I've been trying to do more research on the trial all day. Is there any photos or anything that might remotely be considered as concrete evidence? I haven't found anything that would stick in court.

 

[Cat]

People who hold no stake in the game will say anything. I'm confident if Hardy is found not guilty there will be no aplogizes and mostly silence.

[KakMan]

I've been trying to do more research on the trial all day. Is there any photos or anything that might remotely be considered as concrete evidence? I haven't found anything that would stick in court.

 

 

It's a classic He Said, She Said case, unless there's some evidence that hasn't been made public. I only know what was testified to in the bench trial, which was fairly astonishing on it's own. Personally I don't find the accuser to be very credible for various reasons. She admitted to being on cocaine, she claimed Hardy choked her to point that she thought she was going to die, yet there were no bruises on her neck, she claimed that she feared for her life, yet testified that she took the time to try and fish jewelry out of the toilet. Not to mention that she didn't show up in court to get the requested restraining order. There are zero credible witnesses who saw anything,  and on and on it goes.

So I think the answer to your question is that as of now, there's no concrete evidence.

Unfortunately, there's plenty of evidence of stupidity on the part of both parties.

[Cyberjag]

So...  Does Hardy weight the same as a duck?

[Cyberjag]

So...  Does Hardy weigh the same as a duck?

[scpanther22]

PTI just had a segment talking about Hardy and the audio tapes

[Nate Dogg]

It's a classic He Said, She Said case, unless there's some evidence that hasn't been made public. I only know what was testified to in the bench trial, which was fairly astonishing on it's own. Personally I don't find the accuser to be very credible for various reasons. She admitted to being on cocaine, she claimed Hardy choked her to point that she thought she was going to die, yet there were no bruises on her neck, she claimed that she feared for her life, yet testified that she took the time to try and fish jewelry out of the toilet. Not to mention that she didn't show up in court to get the requested restraining order. There are zero credible witnesses who saw anything,  and on and on it goes.

So I think the answer to your question is that as of now, there's no concrete evidence.

Unfortunately, there's plenty of evidence of stupidity on the part of both parties.

 

That's basically what I got out of the readings as well. Why is the public trying to lynch Hardy now?

 

I'm pretty sure if a 290 pound professional football player actually beat this girl the way she claims she would've been knocked out or in the ICU.