NFL Suspends Greg Hardy 10 Games For Being Accused of a Crime

[BwareDWare94 723]

The NFL has absolutely no grounds for such a lengthy suspension considering that verdict was overturned and the case is closed.

 

This is absolutely ridiculous.

[theMileHighGuy 656]

None. Dude's lucky he wasn't suspected of smoking weed.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

https://twitter.com/DNewtonespn/status/590973003741159424

[theMileHighGuy 656]

NFL > our own judicial system?

[Packers Dynasty 2010 116]

Ya, it's pathetic that NFL is handing out bigger fines/penalties than the judicial system

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

Nobody cared when it was Ben and he got 6 games for being accused of rape.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Goodell totally botches the Ray Rice situation.

The league's solution? Give Goodell more power.

Awesome.

Edited April 22, 2015 by SteVo

[FartWaffles 1,857]

He was also on the exempt list for 15 weeks last year, so 25 games missed over this...

[theMileHighGuy 656]

He was also on the exempt list for 15 weeks last year, so 25 games missed over this...

 

That's honestly my only issue with it. Time served or something.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Thought this would be a 4-6 game suspension. But, 10?

[Thanatos 2,847]

A 10-game suspension is ridiculous.

 

Notice that they made sure to have him off suspension just in time for the Panthers game. Gotta get that drama folks.

 

Its a he said/she said situation. She was on cocaine. She was also lying as if what she said happened actually happened she'd have far worse injuries than she actually did.

 

Did something bad happen? Likely. We'll never know and this suspension is ridiculous on top of what he already served.

[Cherry 1,302]

Is Hardy suspended without pay? If so he may have a case to sue the NFL, correct?

[seanbrock 1,684]

Hardy's neighbors said he was "beating her ass" and they were afraid of him. A good lawyer can get you out of trouble. I don't really see how the neighbors have any reason to lie. Hardy's defenders are fucking morons.

[oochymp 2,393]

Weren't the charges dropped after a civil settlement? And his time off last year was with pay

[seanbrock 1,684]

Weren't the charges dropped after a civil settlement? And his time off last year was with pay

Does it matter? If I got my ass kicked by an NFL player I'd take the money and drop the charges too lol

[Thanatos 2,847]

Hardy's neighbors said he was "beating her ass" and they were afraid of him. A good lawyer can get you out of trouble. I don't really see how the neighbors have any reason to lie. Hardy's defenders are fucking morons.

 

Hardy's one neighbor, who was a good friend with the lady, said she heard this but she didn't see a thing and only heard people screaming at each other and eventually retracted her initial statement. She has no more clue what happened than anyone else.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Thanatos19

[seanbrock 1,684]

 

Hardy's one neighbor, who was a good friend with the lady, said she heard this but she didn't see a thing and only heard people screaming at each other and eventually retracted her initial statement. She has no more clue what happened than anyone else.

More than one neighbor called.

[oochymp 2,393]

Does it matter? If I got my ass kicked by an NFL player I'd take the money and drop the charges too lol

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I'll go ahead and elaborate on my post, which was in response to two previous posts.

 

In the OP Bware pointed out that the charges didn't go anywhere, so I pointed out that they were only dropped after a civil settlement so the dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

 

A few posts later Fart pointed out that he was on the exempt list for 15 games last year and combined the two to call it a 25 game suspension. I pointed out that he was still getting paid for those games so conflating the two doesn't really seem fair.

 

Having said that, I was expecting his punishment to be a short suspension and a huge fine to account for the fact that he sat for basically the entirety of last season but did get paid during that time.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The fact that they settled outside of court doesn't mean much to me. I think the NFL still has an obligation to punish him if there was wrong doing.

What I don't necessarily like is, as someone else brought up, he will be gone for 25 games because of it? That's a bit harsh. But then again, I guess him being on the exempt list wasn't the leagues doing but the Panthers? Is that the logic there?

The NFLPA has said they will appeal, of course.

[oochymp 2,393]

What I don't necessarily like is, as someone else brought up, he will be gone for 25 games because of it? That's a bit harsh. But then again, I guess him being on the exempt list wasn't the leagues doing but the Panthers? Is that the logic there?

My thought is that it has to do with the fact that he was still getting paid for the 15 games he missed last season, how much of a punishment is that in reality? Like I said, I think they could have settled that through a fine, but he's gonna lose almost $6M by missing ten games since Dallas put most of his money into per-game bonuses and he made over $13M last year while on the exempt list. I'm guessing the league figured either of those numbers would have looked incredibly excessive as a fine so they hid it in a suspension without pay. I could be completely off on that, but that's my thought.

 

Also, the exempt list is governed by the Commissioner, I'm guessing the team requests that a player be placed on it but it's ultimately the Commissioner's decision, so I'm not sure you can just put that on the Panthers (Source)

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Ya, the Commish gets the final say whether he goes on that list or not but I would definitely imagine the Panthers had a hand in it -- I can't much imagine a scenario where they weren't. From SB Nation, it also looks like the player has to consent to it as well.

Hmm, this is oging to be very interesting.

[Thanatos 2,847]

More than one neighbor called.

 

Only one neighbor gave a statement to the police.

 

And Hardy himself called. Hardy said she was the aggressor and she wouldn't get out of his apartment. Are we just assuming he's the one lying or is there any actual proof of this?

 

All the neighbors did was hear an altercation and assumptions were made. There are no eyewitnesses of what happened, and she did not have any major injuries according to the court itself.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I'll go ahead and elaborate on my post, which was in response to two previous posts.

 

In the OP Bware pointed out that the charges didn't go anywhere, so I pointed out that they were only dropped after a civil settlement so the dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

 

A few posts later Fart pointed out that he was on the exempt list for 15 games last year and combined the two to call it a 25 game suspension. I pointed out that he was still getting paid for those games so conflating the two doesn't really seem fair.

 

Having said that, I was expecting his punishment to be a short suspension and a huge fine to account for the fact that he sat for basically the entirety of last season but did get paid during that time.

 

I realize you're a lawyer here so I'll bow to your expertise, but isn't the bolded part untrue? The DA could have proceeded without her if they thought they had the evidence without her testimony. It's somewhat relevant.

 

Also, I figured out why NC's court system is the way it is. The law only requires that defendants be given a lawyer for the first trial- which is automatically a judge-only trial. Thus, if they want to get a jury trial they have to appeal and pay for their own lawyer.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12746952

I tend to agree with Golic and the clip in the link above.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Mike Golic is off his fucking rocker. There is NO PROOF that anything happened.

[oochymp 2,393]

I realize you're a lawyer here so I'll bow to your expertise, but isn't the bolded part untrue? The DA could have proceeded without her if they thought they had the evidence without her testimony. It's somewhat relevant.

 

Also, I figured out why NC's court system is the way it is. The law only requires that defendants be given a lawyer for the first trial- which is automatically a judge-only trial. Thus, if they want to get a jury trial they have to appeal and pay for their own lawyer.

To the first paragraph: while it's true in general that a case can go forward without a victim's testimony (otherwise you couldn't possibly try a murder case) you do need sufficient evidence without that victim's testimony. That gets really difficult with an uncooperative victim, which unfortunately happens a lot with domestic abuse cases. Very often the evidence can be very strong but still fall apart without testimony from the victim, particularly if the victim is going to work with the defense. In general, it's incredibly rare for a case to go forward without cooperation from the victim.

 

To the second paragraph: that's just not correct legally, the Constitutional right to an attorney applies to all significant stages of the prosecution, from interrogation through appeals. Usually the lowest court is designed to minimize jury trials and sort out basic cases so that the Circuit Court (or whatever NC refers to that level as) can focus on the larger, more time consuming cases.