I'm glad the Kraken is gone

[C47]

If you understood anything about bench trials in this state, you'd know they are glorified grand juries. The trial is so insignificant they don't even keep court records of it. But facts don't fit your narrative.

I know exactly what bench trials are in this state. Thanks for picking out the one point of my argument you thought you could attack though. 

[CPF4LIFE]

I'm saying that some people will defend any man accused of a crime against a woman no matter the circumstance.

That was SEVEN women compared to Hardy and his girlfriend...ONE woman. Cant compare them to me, and Harper never called the police himself and reported and incident you cant even compare the cases. Harper= More than likely and guilty scumbag

[Qu1million]

I didn't follow that case as closely as I followed the Hardy case, but from my understanding Rice got off with pretty much no legal discipline. I believe that should not have been the case--he should've gotten jail time. And I don't believe the league should have suspended him at all. The Ravens as a team should've been the ones deciding what to do, and if they wanted to make the right choice they would've released him immediately after. But it should have been their choice to make. And if they wanted to let him play they should've been able to. If fans/viewers (the ones the team and league is making money off of) didn't want to watch a player like Rice play then they should've not only voiced their concerns but stopped contributing to the league. That would force the team to make a move or deal with the consequences of letting him play--their loss of profit.

Ray Rice either way got off...DVs in the state of NJ is not a joke...Hardy was blessed btw....and politics comes to play in this situation and sports should stay out of it

[rodeo]

Weird, maybe so. I'm certainly not that way.

 

 

 I want to win championships,  if a guy isn't convicted and he's good I want him on the field. Idk if Hardy did what she claims or not. I don't see a lot of evidence that he did but in the end they didn't have enough evidence to prosocute. I wish Jerry ran things differently, he hurts our chances to succeed. If the Lakers ran their organization the way Jerry does Kobe would have been let go and they wouldn't have won championships. 

I know you're not that way, wasn't referring to you at all, I didn't even see you in the convo cause I didn't read much of it. I just like to bring up the Darren Sharper thing cause it still amazes me.

[Mr. Scot]

I didn't follow that case as closely as I followed the Hardy case, but from my understanding Rice got off with pretty much no legal discipline. I believe that should not have been the case--he should've gotten jail time. And I don't believe the league should have suspended him at all. The Ravens as a team should've been the ones deciding what to do, and if they wanted to make the right choice they would've released him immediately after. But it should have been their choice to make. And if they wanted to let him play they should've been able to. If fans/viewers (the ones the team and league is making money off of) didn't want to watch a player like Rice play then they should've not only voiced their concerns but stopped contributing to the league. That would force the team to make a move or deal with the consequences of letting him play--their loss of profit.

And if the Ravens had decided that it was more important to win games, he'd have suffered no consequences at all. This is the flaw in your logic.

When you let someone with a vested interest make decisions like this, bad things happen.

[C47]

If you're calling not wanting a guy who allegedly assaulted a female (and then was subsequently convicted of said alleged assault by a judge all before paying the accuser to make the trial go away) a "narrative", you probably don't have much of an argument. 

[CarolinaCoolin]

That is completely wrong. 

Hardy was found guilty and convicted by a judge of beating Holder and making death threats.

Hardy was never found innocent and/or exonerated by a jury. There was no trial or hearing after the guilty verdict. It simply went away because he paid Holder off. 

how many times do you have to be proven wrong on this. Do you understand how NC law works?

 

show me the conviction on Hardys record, show me the evidence he paid holder off, show me a realiable witness who can back up holders claims, show me the records of holder calling the police first and not fleeing the scene, show me where holder was not high on Coke and acting crazy that night. 

 

There was no trial after the appeal because the case was dropped due to  insufficient evidence. Meaning they cant prove he is guilty, meaning in the great country of the USA you are innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty(something a lot guys seem to forget) 

like I said, he has been proven of 0 wrong doing. The judge trial never happened. 

[TN05]

I know exactly what bench trials are in this state. Thanks for picking out the one point of my argument you thought you could attack though. 

I picked it out because his 'conviction' is literally meaningless. It doesn't even exist any more.

FTR I think anyone actually convinced of any type of assault should be banned for one year. Second offenses should result in a permanent ban.

[C47]

I picked it out because his 'conviction' is literally meaningless. It doesn't even exist any more.
FTR I think anyone actually convinced of any type of assault should be banned for one year. Second offenses should result in a permanent ban.

The date still happened, and a court appointed judge reviewed the facts at the time an convicted him. I wouldn't call it meaningless being that the jury trial never happened due to Hardy paying a settlement. 

It's really here nor there for me though. The DV case was just the tip of the iceberg for me personally. Hardy isn't a guy you can trust with a huge long term deal. His history has shown that pretty clearly. 

[Mr. Scot]

It's really here nor there for me though. The DV case was just the tip of the iceberg for me personally. Hardy isn't a guy you can trust with a huge long term deal. His history has shown that pretty clearly. 

Bingo.

[CarolinaCoolin]

What happens to bench trial verdicts in NC when the defendant appeals the verdict? 

 

Can anyone answer that? 

[TN05]

The date still happened, and a court appointed judge reviewed the facts at the time an convicted him. I wouldn't call it meaningless being that the jury trial never happened due to Hardy paying a settlement. 

There is no record of it outside of the one Hardy payed for. The 'conviction' was thrown out immediately on appeal and couldn't even be used in a jury trial. It is the definition of meaningless trial. 

It's really here nor there for me though. The DV case was just the tip of the iceberg for me personally. Hardy isn't a guy you can trust with a huge long term deal. His history has shown that pretty clearly. 

[C47]

There is no record of it outside of the one Hardy payed for. The 'conviction' was thrown out immediately on appeal and couldn't even be used in a jury trial. It is the definition of meaningless trial. 

 

There's record that he was convicted on just about every single sports site you care to visit. There's no "legal" record and it doesn't register on his criminal record anymore. That doesn't mean the day didn't happen, and that he wasn't convicted at a bench trial. 

[CarolinaCoolin]

There's record that he was convicted on just about every single sports site you care to visit. There's no "legal" record and it doesn't register on his criminal record anymore. That doesn't mean the day didn't happen, and that he wasn't convicted at a bench trial. 

in the eyes of the law, and for his record it never happened. Which is the only thing that matters. Sport sites talking about a meaningless trial means jack poo. 

 

You know bench trials are like grand jury trials.

you know what no one does though, after a case goes from a grand trial to a real trial and then that said trial gets dropped you don't have people be like "well he was still  indicted in that grand jury trial so he's basically still guilty"

yet for Hardy the only thing that gets mentioned is the fact he was convicted by a judge in a pre trial format. That's a narrative. That's media demonization.