NFL: Greg Hardy won't be reinstated because he hasn't been disciplined yet

[ctrcat]

The only fair thing to do is this-the morning of week 2 of the 2015 NFL season, the Panthers get to whack 10% of salary off of the other 31 in ways of our choosing, while we play with a full deck, until the trophy is handed out in February 2016. There is no other fair way. The injustice of this madness should never be forgotten and our cries should never stop until we get even and justice is served.

[MadHatter]

There would need to be some evidence of abuse. There wasn't in Hardy's case, otherwise the cops on the scene would've arrested him.

Yet a judge found that there was enough evidence to find him guilty.

I am not arguing that he is guilty under the law. Only that based on there being enough there for a judge to find him guilty there would LIKELY be more than enough evidence for Goodell to support a conduct detrimental claim .

[Snake]

I guess the nfls plan is to just hold him hostage. Sue there ass Greg for not releasing the kracken.

[t96]

Yet a judge found that there was enough evidence to find him guilty.

I am not arguing that he is guilty under the law. Only that based on there being enough there for a judge to find him guilty there would LIKELY be more than enough evidence for Goodell to support a conduct detrimental claim .

 

Based on how the dozens of lawyers who commented on the case explained how NC law makes a guilty verdict in the bench trial basically guaranteed to happen, I'd say that the outcome of that trial doesn't say anything at all about the evidence. Holder was the only "evidence" in the bench trial. If there was other actual evidence, the prosecution would've continued with the trial without her.

[CRA]

Yet a judge found that there was enough evidence to find him guilty.

I am not arguing that he is guilty under the law. Only that based on there being enough there for a judge to find him guilty there would LIKELY be more than enough evidence for Goodell to support a conduct detrimental claim .

Yep. Only other info NFL has to consider is that the girl was paid off to prevent the jury trial. While not an admission of guilt it does Hardy no favors in regards to the NFL looking at him.....nor does the way he carried himself during the first court appearance. Hardy from the public's perspective is lumped into this 2014 clump of poor behavior of players....and you can argue he was, even if innocent, by the company he elected to keep....

It isn't about what people think is fair. Hardy is getting punished bc NFL has wording to in it's policy to discupline and make examples of players in scenarios like this.

[top dawg]

ESPN business analyst Andrew Brandt said the Peterson ruling should work in favor ofHardy if the NFL tries to suspend him for six games, the minimum under the new policy.

Brandt said the ruling would favor Hardy getting at most a two-game suspension, which was the standard set by the initial Rice suspension before the new policy was adopted.

 

 

link

[CRA]

Based on how the dozens of lawyers who commented on the case explained how NC law makes a guilty verdict in the bench trial basically guaranteed to happen, I'd say that the outcome of that trial doesn't say anything at all about the evidence. Holder was the only "evidence" in the bench trial. If there was other actual evidence, the prosecution would've continued with the trial without her.

All your focus is on what it means from a legal perspective....

NFL perspective is a different conversation. NFL will and has punished without someone even being charged

[t96]

All your focus is on what it means from a legal perspective....

NFL perspective is a different conversation. NFL will and has punished without someone even being charged

 

No I'm looking at it from a facts standpoint. The NFL has shown that it doesn't use facts as a basis for punishment, and that it makes things up as it goes, so yes there will likely be punishment. I'm saying that it's not right or fair. 

[CRA]

No I'm looking at it from a facts standpoint. The NFL has shown that it doesn't use facts as a basis for punishment, and that it makes things up as it goes, so yes there will likely be punishment. I'm saying that it's not right or fair.

Well, I'm just talking about what is going to happen. What I think is fair and the NFL policy should be may be different....but my opinion on that is the NFL has always been soft on players unless it makes headlines. So they added the vague conduct detrimental junk to appease people when the press gets bad

[Captain Obvious]

if a woman is truely beaten and calls the policevyoy dont think the man should be arrested for her protection? It sucks if you are innocent but I think its pretty reasonable for protection of a very real and common problem.

See here's the rub, My cousin was hit repeatedly by his wife and had the marks and bloody nose to confirm it. He never struck her and this was witnessed by other people in the house. They called the Police. They came and took my cousin to jail for a night with DA charge. When asked why he had to go when she did all the hitting they said it was procedure. He had to go before a judge with his witnesses before it was dropped. Crazy world and yes she is now his ex.

[t96]

Well, I'm just talking about what is going to happen. What I think is fair and the NFL policy should be may be different....but my opinion on that is the NFL has always been soft on players unless it makes headlines. So they added the vague conduct detrimental junk to appease people when the press gets bad

 

We'll see what happens with him. There's 0 chance Hardy ends up with more than 2 games. He shouldn't get any, and it's possible he won't, but we'll see.

[t96]

See here's the rub, My cousin was hit repeatedly by his wife and had the marks and bloody nose to confirm it. He never struck her and this was witnessed by other people in the house. They called the Police. They came and took my cousin to jail for a night with DA charge. When asked why he had to go when she did all the hitting they said it was procedure. He had to go before a judge with his witnesses before it was dropped. Crazy world and yes she is now his ex.

 

It's completely fuged up. Gender bias in the courts is a major issue in the US that isn't getting the attention it should.

[Captain Obvious]

Yet a judge found that there was enough evidence to find him guilty.

I am not arguing that he is guilty under the law. Only that based on there being enough there for a judge to find him guilty there would LIKELY be more than enough evidence for Goodell to support a conduct detrimental claim .

The judge should have excused herself. read her bio.

 

http://www.judgetin.com/Tin_for_Judge/Bio.html

 

EDUCATION

1. Harvard Law School

   Doctor of Law (J.D.) • Graduated magna cum laude

   • Co-chair of Harvard's Battered Women's Advocacy Project

 

Pleas tell me how that is not from a biased judge. The prosecutors knew who they wanted for that sham and did their best to steer the trail to her. Dirty politics all the way.

[pantherj]