Around the League: Week 2

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I still think the Vikings are handling this situation better than the Ravens handled Ray Rice. I'm not saying they're doing a good job, but more like the lesser of two evils.

I wonder if the Vikings were making that decision or the NFL? I think the Vikings made their decision 24 hours before with reinstatement, what changed since to go back? Anheuser Busch change things maybe? I think this was the NFL saying, nope he doesnt play.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I wonder if the Vikings were making that decision or the NFL? I think the Vikings made their decision 24 hours before with reinstatement, what changed since to go back? Anheuser Busch change things maybe? I think this was the NFL saying, nope he doesnt play.

I still think it was Ziggy Wilf that reversed the decision. He had already lost his Raddison sponsor and then when Anheiser/Busch comes out and makes a statement, well it doesn't take long to understand these guys respond to bottom lines and nothing else.

Notice the Panthers did the same thing. I have respect for Jerry Richardson though, you can tell this has really bothered him because he actually got on the podium. (and broke down) I think the Panthers just wanted to give Hardy the due process he's deserved, and that's understandable when you don't have the tangible evidence like we saw with the Rice case.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I still think it was Ziggy Wilf that reversed the decision. He had already lost his Raddison sponsor and then when Anheiser/Busch comes out and makes a statement, well it doesn't take long to understand these guys respond to bottom lines and nothing else.

Notice the Panthers did the same thing. I have respect for Jerry Richardson though, you can tell this has really bothered him because he actually got on the podium. (and broke down) I think the Panthers just wanted to give Hardy the due process he's deserved, and that's understandable when you don't have the tangible evidence like we saw with the Rice case.

Wasn't Hardy already convicted? That seems like enough

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Wasn't Hardy already convicted? That seems like enough

He was convicted in June. He is in the process of appealing that decision.

If there is enough evidence for AP to be deactivated there was more than enough for Hardy.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by donofriose

He was convicted in June. He is in the process of appealing that decision.

If there is enough evidence for AP to be deactivated there was more than enough for Hardy.

If there were a Greg Hardy video, would Greg Hardy be playing Sunday? - NFL - SI.com

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Wasn't Hardy already convicted? That seems like enough

It was a bench trial, not a trial by peers. The thing about judges making these types of judgements, none of them want to be known as the guy who let's off some woman beater in case he goes and kills her after he's let go. I've sit in court and watched a judge let go a woman in a assault with another woman (and this woman had serious proof of an assault), and turn around and drop the guilty verdict on the next case where there really was no evidence. The difference is, one involved a man, the other a woman. I'm not saying that's the case here because I don't know the details, it's just saying I don't fully trust judgements made in these cases.

We've had situations in NC where judges were lenient on some DV cases and the man goes back and kills the wife. The judge took heat as well as the district attorney. Now, the DA won't even drop a DV case without charging the woman for filing a false report. Truthfully, Hardy should have asked for a trial by peers from the get go.


I agree though. He should be deactivated until his name is(or if) cleared in a trial by jury, since he's been found guilty in the first round.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It was a bench trial, not a trial by peers. The thing about judges making these types of judgements, none of them want to be known as the guy who let's off some woman beater in case he goes and kills her after he's let go. I've sit in court and watched a judge let go a woman in a assault with another woman (and this woman had serious proof of an assault), and turn around and drop the guilty verdict on the next case where there really was no evidence. The difference is, one involved a man, the other a woman. I'm not saying that's the case here because I don't know the details, it's just saying I don't fully trust judgements made in these cases.

We've had situations in NC where judges were lenient on some DV cases and the man goes back and kills the wife. The judge took heat as well as the district attorney. Now, the DA won't even drop a DV case without charging the woman for filing a false report. Truthfully, Hardy should have asked for a trial by peers from the get go.


I agree though. He should be deactivated until his name is(or if) cleared in a trial by jury, since he's been found guilty in the first round.

I agree with your point, but that should be irrelevant with what the NFL does.

The NFL shouldn't be in the business of choosing which convictions to uphold. That is up to the Judicial System. So I agree with you about deactivating him until he receives a new trail.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It was a bench trial, not a trial by peers. The thing about judges making these types of judgements, none of them want to be known as the guy who let's off some woman beater in case he goes and kills her after he's let go. I've sit in court and watched a judge let go a woman in a assault with another woman (and this woman had serious proof of an assault), and turn around and drop the guilty verdict on the next case where there really was no evidence. The difference is, one involved a man, the other a woman. I'm not saying that's the case here because I don't know the details, it's just saying I don't fully trust judgements made in these cases.

We've had situations in NC where judges were lenient on some DV cases and the man goes back and kills the wife. The judge took heat as well as the district attorney. Now, the DA won't even drop a DV case without charging the woman for filing a false report. Truthfully, Hardy should have asked for a trial by peers from the get go.


I agree though. He should be deactivated until his name is(or if) cleared in a trial by jury, since he's been found guilty in the first round.

Not trying to derail a thread, but former chief of police, for Baltimore City and the state of Maryland, Ed Norris recently said if you are innocent go with a judge trial if you are guilty always go with a jury.