RIPPA Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I can't have the regular Offseason thread getting cluttered up and the NFL doesn't stop. Domestic Abuse Charges against Greg Hardy dropped because his accuser didn't show up to court this morning (the prosecutors had been unable to reach her several times so they probably knew something was a foot...) EDIT - Multiple reports are saying Hardy and the accuser reached a civil agreement thus her reluctance to participate in a trial trying to convict him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincey Greene Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 THE KRAKEN IS INNOCENT! EXTEND HIM RIGHT NOW! Sike. Don't do that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Shocked to see an nfl player buy himself out of legal trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wilson Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 This is the reason the NFL said they don't punish based on the court results - people can be bought. Hell so could I, I'd let someone beat my ass if they gave me a million dollars afterwards. Still expect him to get suspended for half a season anyway. But I still think the courts let the abusers off easy. They have the evidence already, they have statements, pictures, etc. They should be able to prosecute anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muhammedboehm Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Pretty sure no judge out side of Alabama would allow evidence without the witness that provided it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 So what kind of bullshit does Goodell make up in order to make this worse than it needs to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muhammedboehm Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 So what kind of bullshit does Goodell make up in order to make this worse than it needs to be? That since the case was finished without a conviction he has no grounds to punish Hardy and that's why the NFL and Teams have to wait till the players have there day in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 To be fair in this case - Hardy was found guilty by a judge at a bench trial. Hardy appealed and that is why it was going to a trial by jury. (NC is wacky) So the NFL isn't wrong per se to act in this case since a judge in a court of law did find him guilty. EDIT - Just to clarify, I am saying in the case of already suspending Hardy for last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincey Greene Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I gotta say, lotta Panthers fans want them to keep him, but even without the legal baggage, they have so many other holes and their defensive line was still clearly Good Enough without him that on a business level it's a bad look. Spend that money on Revis, I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 http://youtu.be/2MrcY9unVQo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 As someone who lives in Charlotte, I've got three things: 1.) I don't think there's any way Jerry Richardson lets him come back, even if he was willing to take a contract laden with incentives and morality clauses. 2.) From what I understand, him being found guilty in the bench trial basically meant the judge thought there was enough there to move forward to the jury trial. Now that that isn't going to happen, the "conviction" no longer exists from a legal standpoint. 3.) I've got no doubt in my mind he did something really bad that night. I kinda feel like they were both out of their minds on drugs and/or alcohol. But she was there, and she knows what happened. If she's ok with getting paid and that being the end of it, then so am I. Having said all that, I wouldn't be able to help but feel skeevy if we ended up bringing him back, so I guess I hope we don't...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 3.) I've got no doubt in my mind he did something really bad that night. I kinda feel like they were both out of their minds on drugs and/or alcohol. But she was there, and she knows what happened. If she's ok with getting paid and that being the end of it, then so am I. Just because she took the money doesn't mean that she is OK with what happened. Apparently that man held a gun to her and threatened to kill her, we shouldn't assume she is OK with any of this. With that said, the NFL is now in the position to punish or not punish a person who for all intents and purposes is not charged with a crime. The same way we can't assume that she is OK with what happened, we also can't assume that he actually committed the crime he was originally accused of, because there isn't going to be any testimony. Goodell is in a position to make a judgement call, and as we all know judgement calls are his kryptonite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Maybe I should've phrased it, "ok enough". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebbie Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Pretty sure no judge out side of Alabama would allow evidence without the witness that provided it. With that and gay marriage being legal now in Alabama, who would've thought 50 years ago the most racist state would be the most progressive? Fuck you California. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Pretty sure no judge out side of Alabama would allow evidence without the witness that provided it. With that and gay marriage being legal now in Alabama, who would've thought 50 years ago the most racist state would be the most progressive? Fuck you California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamp, broken circa 1988 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 liked even if it was supposed to be carolina. california can still sink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wilson Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 3.) I've got no doubt in my mind he did something really bad that night. I kinda feel like they were both out of their minds on drugs and/or alcohol. But she was there, and she knows what happened. If she's ok with getting paid and that being the end of it, then so am I. Just because she took the money doesn't mean that she is OK with what happened. Apparently that man held a gun to her and threatened to kill her, we shouldn't assume she is OK with any of this. With that said, the NFL is now in the position to punish or not punish a person who for all intents and purposes is not charged with a crime. The same way we can't assume that she is OK with what happened, we also can't assume that he actually committed the crime he was originally accused of, because there isn't going to be any testimony. Goodell is in a position to make a judgement call, and as we all know judgement calls are his kryptonite. A judge found him guilty after hearing 11 hours of testimony and sentenced him in a real trial, he just appealed it. In this particular case I don't see it as Goodell making a judgement call if they decide to punish him. He was found guilty in a trial, the woman just decided not to assist in the appeal after getting paid. Generally speaking I agree though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muhammedboehm Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 3.) I've got no doubt in my mind he did something really bad that night. I kinda feel like they were both out of their minds on drugs and/or alcohol. But she was there, and she knows what happened. If she's ok with getting paid and that being the end of it, then so am I. Just because she took the money doesn't mean that she is OK with what happened. Apparently that man held a gun to her and threatened to kill her, we shouldn't assume she is OK with any of this. With that said, the NFL is now in the position to punish or not punish a person who for all intents and purposes is not charged with a crime. The same way we can't assume that she is OK with what happened, we also can't assume that he actually committed the crime he was originally accused of, because there isn't going to be any testimony. Goodell is in a position to make a judgement call, and as we all know judgement calls are his kryptonite.A judge found him guilty after hearing 11 hours of testimony and sentenced him in a real trial, he just appealed it. In this particular case I don't see it as Goodell making a judgement call if they decide to punish him. He was found guilty in a trial, the woman just decided not to assist in the appeal after getting paid. Generally speaking I agree though.But the problem with that is because of how the law works in that state since he appealed that ruling and the second case never happen Hardy does not have a criminal record. So how do you punish someone the courts and law says never committed a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 3.) I've got no doubt in my mind he did something really bad that night. I kinda feel like they were both out of their minds on drugs and/or alcohol. But she was there, and she knows what happened. If she's ok with getting paid and that being the end of it, then so am I.Just because she took the money doesn't mean that she is OK with what happened. Apparently that man held a gun to her and threatened to kill her, we shouldn't assume she is OK with any of this. With that said, the NFL is now in the position to punish or not punish a person who for all intents and purposes is not charged with a crime. The same way we can't assume that she is OK with what happened, we also can't assume that he actually committed the crime he was originally accused of, because there isn't going to be any testimony. Goodell is in a position to make a judgement call, and as we all know judgement calls are his kryptonite.A judge found him guilty after hearing 11 hours of testimony and sentenced him in a real trial, he just appealed it. In this particular case I don't see it as Goodell making a judgement call if they decide to punish him. He was found guilty in a trial, the woman just decided not to assist in the appeal after getting paid. Generally speaking I agree though. But the problem with that is because of how the law works in that state since he appealed that ruling and the second case never happen Hardy does not have a criminal record. So how do you punish someone the courts and law says never committed a crime? Don't worry Goodell will find a way. . . . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APO Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Pretty sure no judge out side of Alabama would allow evidence without the witness that provided it.With that and gay marriage being legal now in Alabama, who would've thought 50 years ago the most racist state would be the most progressive?Fuck you California. Say what now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirFozzie Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 This is getting to “Grassy Knoll” level stuff. Folks are CONVINCED that the Pats cheated. Why? Because it FEELS true to them (yes, Colbert fans, we’re in the “Truthiness Zone”) Yesterday: “The Pats tried to sneak an unapproved ball into play” (Pats Haters: Ah-HA! We’ve found the smoking gun! Ban Belichick for life, Suspend Brady for 10 years!) Today: “League official handed ball to Pats to be put into play, officials under investigation for selling balls on the side” (Pats Haters: Um… THEY STILL CHEATED, THEY JUST COVERING IT UP!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 What it looks like to me is ESPN scrambling to find something, anything, that will support the story they were pushing hard (deflategate) that has since basically been discredited. You saw tons of false information coming from ESPN that supported their side with nary a peep of actual info that didn't (that ONE ball was way underinflated and it just happened to be the one the Colts handled). And now they're throwing anything at the wall again, hope something sticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirFozzie Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 The funny thing is that this is ESPN on ESPN stuff now, as one of their investigators went several weeks to come up with this story, and then the very next day, Adam Schefter just blows it the fuck up by saying "yeah, handed to them by a NFL official to cover up stealing balls to sell on the side" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 This is just such a great comedy. 99% of ESPN scrambling to smear the Patriots, Adam Schefter a beacon of integrity on this one, an NFL official stealing game balls (during multiple games, not just this one), the Colts probably tampering with a ball before turning it over, and all kinds of other twists and turns. All this story needs is a crazy finish in the Super Bowl to make it complete. Oh wait... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/02/kenner_woman_accuses_new_orlea.html Kenner prosecutors have dismissed the misdemeanor simple battery charge against New Orleans Saints linebacker Junior Galette, but the woman who purported to be the victim of that complaint sued the player on Thursday (Feb. 19), accusing him of physical and mental abuse during the time they lived together. The suit, filed in the 24th Judicial District Court in Gretna, also asserts that Galette drugged her and allowed other, unidentified Saints players to grope her during the two years they had a sexual relationship. The woman's suit alleges that Galette isolated her from her friends and family, and accuses him of false imprisonment and human trafficking. He "methodically cut off (her) ability to contact friends and even her own mother in his attempt to control (her) and make her totally dependent upon him for all her needs," her suit says. The woman says five other Saints team members witnessed the incident "and knowingly participated in this humiliating and illegal behavior." The suit assigns alphabetical letters to each of the players, in lieu of naming them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts