Peter King busted

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

it wasn't even ten years ago that i'd hang on every word of peter king's columns along with prisco and all those other guys just hoping to see so much as a paragraph granted to my panthers.  after all, they were the cream of the crop experts when it came to pro football and their opinions should be taken as if they fell out of heaven carved in granite.

 

glad things haven't been like that for a few years now and there are so many other sources for quality information and well researched opinions

 

 

[PntherPryd]

There's 10 pages of comments about court transcriptions.  When Peter King's article said court testimony (and nothing about court transcriptions).  It is well known what was said at the trial and has been reported to death.  People in this thread are acting like this is legally impossible since there is technically no court transcription.  The amount of semantics in this thread is hilarious especially when it has little to do with what Peter Kind said.

 

 

Again, thank you for noting the original purpose of the thread, which was to point out that a noted sports journalist "stretched the truth"  (your words).

 

As for the negative connotations of the word "semantics", I just don't get it.  How can the study of words and their meanings get anyone's panties in a wad when we are all on a message board debating and reporting these "semantics" 24/7?

 

I don't consider "semantics" a bad thing is perhaps where we disagree.

[CamandWilson]

Peter King and the media in a nutshell

 

 

[cgarsmoker]

You can call it semantics or whatever you want but Peter King is implying/misleading readers of his column that he has read the official facts/records of the case when all he's read is the same tweets as the rest of us. He's also implying that the "official testimony" he's had the privilege of reading offers some different set of circumstances that proves Hardy is unquestionably guilty, which isn't the automatic conclusion that's drawn from everyone who takes both sides of the accounts into consideration.

[rainwater]

You can call it semantics or whatever you want but Peter King is implying/misleading readers of his column that he has read the official facts/records of the case when all he's read is the same tweets as the rest of us. 

That may be true.  But the fact is, most of us here read the testimony from the reports and Peter King's original statement still stands.  What witnesses said Hardy did was pretty scary and people should be outraged if it is true.  I just think people here have blinders on and can't fathom the possibility that Greg did what was brought in front of the judge.

[ncrecordkeeper]

There are no court reporters of transcripts in district court unless, as in this case, the defendants attorney brings one in. This dumbass is talking about whatever he read on twitter or in the observer. There are court reporters and transcripts in superior court.

Even assuming hardy's attorney had a copy of the transcript why in the hell would he share it with the media.

If it's testimony in open court, as the trial would be, the reporter can sell it to whomever wants to pay for it. At least that's my belief without double checking.

Tons of variables. Can't remember when the trial was but am surprised it hasn't been produced yet if ordered. Length has a lot to do with it but this wasn't a two or three week trial.

Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

[cgarsmoker]

That may be true. But the fact is, most of us here read the testimony from the reports and Peter King's original statement still stands. What witnesses said Hardy did was pretty scary and people should be outraged if it is true. I just think people here have blinders on and can't fathom the possibility that Greg did what was brought in front of the judge.

Either you think he's misleading people or you don't. Pretty simple.....I do and apparently you don't....Fine, great, awesome....

The truth of what happened between Hardy and that girl will only be known between them. My guess it's probably somewhere in the middle and if Hardy is guilty after this process, then he should be punished. Colts owner Jim Irsay wasn't suspended or sent on paid leave until his case was resolved in court. That same level of fairness should be applied to Hardy. That process was agreed to in the latest CBA. The Ray Rice video doesn't allow the media, the NFL, or anyone else to change how discipline is enforced.

The only reason this is an issue now and not 3 weeks ago is because media flunkies like King want to tout their superior intellect by claiming/implying he knows more than the rest of us lowly uninformed tweet testimony readers. There were testimony tweets that said Hardy denied doing it but the denial doesn't matter...only the accusations.

[WUnderhill]

I understand it completely. I have read NC law and do understand the process. Others, like you, choose not to understand that the bench trial is not nothing. If no appeal is filed (again, it is not automatic), the conviction stands. It is an absolute, pure fact that Hardy was convicted. I do understand that with his appeal, there is a jury trial now so the conviction and any sentence (which was handed down) are suspended. Still does not negate the FACT that he was convicted. Now, I do also understand that the conviction has absolutely no relevance to the jury trial.

 

Men and women, the constitution of this country clearly states that a man has a right to be tried by a jury of his peers. The details of the United States Constitution are not frivolous ones. If you stand and beat your chest on this bench conviction, I say that is un-American. Our constitution and the reasons behind its tenets are not to be taken lightly.

 

A man gets a right to a jury of his peers because any one person can have any number of biases and prejudices which could lead to wrongful adjudication. What is more concerning is that this particular judge actually requested to preside over this case. This is not to say that Greg Hardy is not guilty; but has he been proven so as defined by our constitution? Hardly, and I would even go so far as to say that the reasons to dismiss this ruling entirely from our opinion of the situation far outweigh the reasons to consider it.

 

Now, I must admit that I am disturbed by the nature of these accusations: most notably the testimony of the woman who was in the other bedroom. But I am also disturbed by the lack of consistency between the physical evidence and the accusers story. I tell you, science should be studying this woman who can be strangled by a 300 pound man and show none of the typical bruising and markings associated with other such cases (if her story is to be believed). Moreover, though the woman in the other bedroom testified that she heard someone slammed against the wall, that is speculation on her part. Nobody knows exactly what that sound was, whether it was somebody slammed or, perhaps, a 300+ pound man backing into the wall away from an attacking woman (as his story might suggest). Considering the lack of eye-witnesses, should we not defer to what evidence does exist and how it matches up with the stories being told?

 

I would be very interested to know if there were any scratches on the woman's back from being thrown onto those guns. Assault rifles often have sharp or pointy metal parts, such as sightings. Being thrown onto a bed full of assault rifles would leave some scratches, I would think.

 

I think that, at the very least, it would be safe to say that the accuser lacks credibility at this point. After evading the police, missing court dates, and changing her story multiple times, how are we to take what she says seriously? I have great sympathy for her if she has been abused by this man, but I have difficulty taking her word over his in light of all that has happened.

[PandaPancake]

That may be true. But the fact is, most of us here read the testimony from the reports and Peter King's original statement still stands. What witnesses said Hardy did was pretty scary and people should be outraged if it is true. I just think people here have blinders on and can't fathom the possibility that Greg did what was brought in front of the judge.

How does King taste?

[Darth Biscuit]

That may be true.  But the fact is, most of us here read the testimony from the reports and Peter King's original statement still stands.  What witnesses said Hardy did was pretty scary and people should be outraged if it is true.  I just think people here have blinders on and can't fathom the possibility that Greg did what was brought in front of the judge.

 

You're doing an awful lot of assuming here.  You don't know what any of our motives are.  

 

My point all along is that the process needs to play out. If the Panthers or the NFL were going to do anything about Hardy, they should've done it before week one, not after all these talking heads in the media got worked up in the aftermath of the Rice video.

 

I won't necessarily be "outraged" if the accusations against Hardy are true, but I will say (and have said all along) that he should be punished and that the NFL/Panthers should suspend him IF those accusations are true.  We don't know right now whether they are or not.

 

 

The only reason this is an issue now and not 3 weeks ago is because media flunkies like King want to tout their superior intellect by claiming/implying he knows more than the rest of us lowly uninformed tweet testimony readers. There were testimony tweets that said Hardy denied doing it but the denial doesn't matter...only the accusations.

 

This should receive a lot of pie.

[ElkinPanthersFan]

Ok, I caved and clicked the link for the mmqb article. I was struck by:

"The only reason Greg Hardy hadn’t been suspended before coach Ron Rivera had the common sense (or the direction from embarrassed Panthers owner Jerry Richardson) is because—as Jon Wertheim and Emily Kaplan of SI and The MMQB wrote this weekend—there wasn’t a video, the way there was with Ray Rice. But read the trial testimony, and pore over the guilty verdict, and you’ll understand why so many people are outraged that Hardy played in Week 1, or will play at all for Carolina this season."

Read the trial testimony?

What trial testimony?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/15/transcript-doesnt-exist-for-hardys-first-trial-yet/

pore over that testimony like a stopped up pimple. People get paid to write this poo.

[Galvatron]

All the media is in this culture is a bunch of professional hand-wringers. Tumblr is going mainstream.

[CarolinaCoolin]

That may be true ... but those here who scream "but there's no transcript, so how does anybody know what was said," forget that reporters were there. The testimony is out there. I'm not defending King's or anyone else's journalistic skills ... just saying that what was said in the bench trial is not a secret.

He hasn't been convicted. That's pending. That is the fact you conveniently choose to ignore.

[Happy Panther]

He hasn't been convicted. 

Technically he was convicted. He just gets a re-do.