Hardy found guilty

[Rules&Regulations]

Hardy found guilty of appearing as the male in a domestic violence case before a feminist judge who wouldn't want to upset her targeted voter demographic.

[csx]

While my gut says he didnt do what he was accused of my guy has always thought he was a significantly stupid person. Not that its a crime.

[PhillyB]

I'll withhold comment until after the trial

[CPF4LIFE]

Calling somebody 16 times the day after he beat your ass??? Yeah....sounds legit.

[PandaPancake]

Calling somebody 16 times the day after he beat your ass??? Yeah....sounds legit.

We're no longer accepting facts here.

Sent from my XT1080 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

[panthers55]

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.

[FuFuLamePoo]

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.  

[†William Moore†]

Can't believe you guys are in here really defending this psychopath

[†William Moore†]

"predetermined verdict"

 

lmao

[Jangler]

well at least he didn't kill dogs.

[†William Moore†]

You think we claim Vick? lol

[iamhubby1]

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.

[Panthers8969]

Judge is a saints fan

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

[Jangler]

You think we claim Vick? lol

 

no? There sure were plenty defending him at the time.. I bet a thread could get started tomorrow on the situation and defenders would come a running.