The Greg Hardy thread....for everything Hardy related

[Panthers_Lover]

I explained to you earlier how he was not convicted as defined by our constitution and to hold one persons opinion against him is simply un-American. You have chosen to ignore what was laid out before you and use this same argument again. At this point I can only assume you're trolling.

 

That I'm aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has not found N.C. law to be unconstitutional.

[jamos14]

 

. but some people are justifying him by comparing the situation to RR ... "how could he beat her without knocking her out, when it only took RR one left hook." That's ridiculous "logic" on its face.

You know who is comparing the situation to Ray Rice's?  ESPN and other media outlets.  That's why idiots like BillsFan has the opinion that Hardy should be thrown in jail without a key.

 

Hardy did not BEAT her.  Otherwise he would've been charged with aggravated assault (a felony) or battery.

 

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.  That's what Hardy was charged with.

[onehellUVAlife]

Damn you Perseus.

 

 

[smash_n_dash]

Just remembered that Beason was accused of assault a few years ago. What did the team do to him then?

[fjblair]

He wasn't.

As soon as he opted for a jury trial the conviction was thrown out, as in, never happened. Poof. Gone. Espn says he was convicted and is appealing which simply isn't true. In an appeals process, you are still going through with the original sentencing during appeals, which means he'd be doing 60 days in jail right now and be on 18 months probation. But he's not, he has no criminal record as of today, and won't until he is found guilty at his real trial in November.

The fact is the Panthers were trying to give due process to one of their players, and because of ESPN's grossly negligent representation of the facts of the case, millions of simple minded ninnies like you are calling for Greg Hardy's head.

None of this matters. Americans have such a tragically limited attention span that this will be forgotten when the next outrage shows on the news for ratings.

Nearly 3 dozen people, mainly young children, were massacred at Sandy Hook and the American public gave a poo for about a month and a half.

How long do you think Americans will care about a rich athlete removing his coked out, drunk, hysterical, gold-digging girlfriend from his apartment?

People can hashtag take a stand against domestic violence until they are blue in the face, but the sad reality is absolutely nobody will give a sh!t soon enough, your outraged self included.

 

Bullshit. He WAS convicted. There is no counter argument. The previous conviction is not vacated until the jury trial is completed. Poof, never happened is fantasy.

[WUnderhill]

That I'm aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has not found N.C. law to be unconstitutional.

 

 

Bullshit. He WAS convicted. There is no counter argument. The previous conviction is not vacated until the jury trial is completed. Poof, never happened is fantasy.

 

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.

[Montsta]

Just remembered that Beason was accused of assault a few years ago. What did the team do to him then?

It was against a man. Doesn't matter.

[greghardy'sAK-47]

Bullshit. He WAS convicted. There is no counter argument. The previous conviction is not vacated until the jury trial is completed. Poof, never happened is fantasy.

this michael crowell guy, with a harvard law degree, disagrees with you.

 

“it is as if the case had been brought there originally and there had been no previous trial.” State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507 (1970). 

 

The appeal to superior court, unlike an appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, is not an appeal on the record. It is not an appeal based on error in the district court; it is an appeal of right. The appeal is available even if the defendant pled guilty in district court. “It is a new trial as a matter of absolute right from the beginning to the end. It totally disregards the plea, trial, verdict, and judgment of the District Court.” State v. Brooks, 287 N.C. 392, 405 (1975).

 

http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4288

 

http://www.sog.unc.edu/user/42

 

do you have a harvard law degree?

[Panthers_Lover]

You know who is comparing the situation to Ray Rice's?  ESPN and other media outlets.  That's why idiots like BillsFan has the opinion that Hardy should be thrown in jail without a key.

 

Hardy did not BEAT her.  Otherwise he would've been charged with aggravated assault (a felony) or battery.

 

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.  That's what Hardy was charged with.

 

I do understand the difference. But in the end, we're still talking about DV/DA cases. Again, I'm good with GH's case going through the process.

[iamcline]

Should Greg Hardy be acquitted.  This should be Rivera at the Press Conference:

 

[LA_Panther]

this michael crowell guy, with a harvard law degree, disagrees with you.

 

“it is as if the case had been brought there originally and there had been no previous trial.” State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507 (1970). 

 

The appeal to superior court, unlike an appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, is not an appeal on the record. It is not an appeal based on error in the district court; it is an appeal of right. The appeal is available even if the defendant pled guilty in district court. “It is a new trial as a matter of absolute right from the beginning to the end. It totally disregards the plea, trial, verdict, and judgment of the District Court.” State v. Brooks, 287 N.C. 392, 405 (1975).

 

http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4288

 

http://www.sog.unc.edu/user/42

 

do you have a harvard law degree?

 

What's happening to Hardy is a travesty

[WUnderhill]

this michael crowell guy, with a harvard law degree, disagrees with you.

 

“it is as if the case had been brought there originally and there had been no previous trial.” State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507 (1970). 

 

The appeal to superior court, unlike an appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, is not an appeal on the record. It is not an appeal based on error in the district court; it is an appeal of right. The appeal is available even if the defendant pled guilty in district court. “It is a new trial as a matter of absolute right from the beginning to the end. It totally disregards the plea, trial, verdict, and judgment of the District Court.” State v. Brooks, 287 N.C. 392, 405 (1975).

 

http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4288

 

http://www.sog.unc.edu/user/42

 

do you have a harvard law degree?

 

QFT. If you believe in the constitution of the United States of America, then stop lynching this man over the opinion of one person. The jury of peers is not some frivolous detail. There are reasons we are all afforded this RIGHT. To use the bench trial as proof of guilt is dismissive of the reasons why a man is entitled to a jury of his peers and, I'll say it again, un-American.

[greghardy'sAK-47]

QFT. If you believe in the constitution of the United States of America, then stop lynching this man over the opinion of one person. The jury of peers is not some frivolous detail. There are reasons we are all afforded this RIGHT. To use the bench trial as proof of guilt is dismissive of the reasons why a man is entitled to a jury of his peers and, I'll say it again, un-American.

the problem i have is it doesn't take that long to research this stuff on the internet and i'm sure media folks could get a hold of any number of experts on nc law for clarification and/or quotes.  the fact that the stuff posted above is virtually going unreported goes to show exactly where the VAST majority of the media folk's heads are at.  it is lazy, dishonest, sleazy, any number of adjectives could be used to describe their tactics.  

[Mr. Scot]

Well, here's a new twist.

 

The Cardinals are putting Jonathan Dwyer on the "Reserve: Non-Football Illness" list.

 

Dwyer is reported to have headbutted his wife in the face and broken her nose.

 

Can you rightly define "stupid" as an illness?