Greg Hardy: domestic violence charges dropped
- Thread starter Devizier
- Start date
Quick and swift action by Humanitarian of the Year Jerry Richardson.
How sick will he be to sign that $700k+ check on Monday?
How sick will he be to sign that $700k+ check on Monday?
Pushing her on a bed full of guns? Sounds like a fetish...
I wonder where the NFL is going to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
I wonder where the NFL is going to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Fred in Lynn said:
The line probably gets drawn at the point where only one person in a couple is a willing participant in the fetish.
I will admit that I had not been paying close attention to this case, but now that I've read up on it, the details are stunning.
Hardy had previously been convicted in a bench trial (in front of a judge with no jury), but was allowed to request a jury trial. Where it gets interesting is that for reasons known only to them, North Carolina does not keep transcripts of bench trials. So the testimony of Nicole Holder (the victim) from the bench trial could not be used in a jury trial - she has to show up or the case will be dismissed.
Prosecutors indicated today that they have "reliable info" about a settlement between Hardy and Holder, and the strong suggestion is that in exchange for a cash payoff, Holder agreed not to testify in front of a jury. All of this made today's dismissal of the charges something of a formality, since prosecutors have known for some time that they could not find Ms. Holder.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/09/case-dismissed-against-greg-hardy/
To summarize: Greg Hardy used a loophole in the law to pay his accuser not to testify. And everyone seems to acknowledge this this is what happened and there's nothing that can be done about it.
I am astounded that this can happen in the open without any recourse.
Hardy had previously been convicted in a bench trial (in front of a judge with no jury), but was allowed to request a jury trial. Where it gets interesting is that for reasons known only to them, North Carolina does not keep transcripts of bench trials. So the testimony of Nicole Holder (the victim) from the bench trial could not be used in a jury trial - she has to show up or the case will be dismissed.
Prosecutors indicated today that they have "reliable info" about a settlement between Hardy and Holder, and the strong suggestion is that in exchange for a cash payoff, Holder agreed not to testify in front of a jury. All of this made today's dismissal of the charges something of a formality, since prosecutors have known for some time that they could not find Ms. Holder.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/09/case-dismissed-against-greg-hardy/
To summarize: Greg Hardy used a loophole in the law to pay his accuser not to testify. And everyone seems to acknowledge this this is what happened and there's nothing that can be done about it.
I am astounded that this can happen in the open without any recourse.
So, two big questions are whether or not the Ginger Hammer wants to levee any more discipline on Hardy. If that answer is no, I wonder what Hardy is worth on the market? I imagine most teams will try and get him at something like a 2/$24M with the first year guaranteed or something like that. I just can't see any team investing more than 1 year guaranteed in him after reading the allegations.
In terms of teams that could use him, if the Seahawks let Lynch go, they would have the money to make the above deal with Hardy, and he would be a monster in that defense.
In terms of teams that could use him, if the Seahawks let Lynch go, they would have the money to make the above deal with Hardy, and he would be a monster in that defense.
Average Reds said:
I'd have gone with depressing, but that's a good summary. Holder has been paid (I hope a lot) to not appear and Hardy is free-to-go.
At least Holder got paid. Lots of these are dropped because of sweet talk and promises of better behavior.
mauidano said:
I guess I assumed that blatantly paying a witness to disappear would (at the very least) rise to the level of obstruction of justice. But live and learn, I guess.
I think there's a pretty good chance Goodell does suspend Hardy. He suspended Roethlisberger even though charges were dropped, and Peterson and Rice even though they pleaded out. And he definitely doesn't want to look soft on domestic violence after mis-handling Ray Rice's case.soxfan121 said:
Sounds like she's having fun spending her settlement:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/09/d-a-couldnt-find-greg-hardys-accuser-as-she-was-out-of-town/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/09/d-a-couldnt-find-greg-hardys-accuser-as-she-was-out-of-town/
Average Reds said:
Victims get paid all the time to drop their charges; that's basically what she did.
soxfan121 said:
Respectfully disagree. The Peterson & Rice cases show that any domestic violence issue has to result in a team cutting or suspending the player. GMs are going to treat guys like Hardy as if they are one strike away in the substance abuse program or have had multiple Knee / concussion issues. I might be underestimating what he gets guaranteed next year, that could be up to ~$15M if JPP gets $14M+ and Suh breaks $20M, but I don't see any team giving him a second year.
Hardy's own personal interest is in going somewhere on a short deal as well. He is only 26, he can play somewhere for a year, get another 15 sacks, be "active" in the community and rehab his image. Once a fan base is loyal to him and can salve their moral issues with the whole "he was never" convicted line, then he can get a big deal.
Gunfighter 09 said:
I'm not including Peterson as a precedent for being cut; he's still a Viking for now and the Commish suspended him, not the team. I do agree the calculus has changed but I don't think it has changed as drastically as you postulate. I think the charges being dropped means Hardy gets back a "half-strike" and isn't going to be treated like Rice or Peterson or Dixon (all of whom were guilty in a court of law); I am cynical and believe teams will use the backdoor of "he wasn't convicted" to justify offering him a big contract...for exactly the reasons you lay out. 26 year old pass rushers aren't exactly 30+ year old RBs who'd already begun to show signs of decline.