Greg Hardy's charges were dropped...

[Rondas Pillow]

it’s all a trap. Hitting a woman is not the worst thing a person can do. There is a lot of worse shit. This is just some feminist bullshit to make their sex untouchable.

The feminists/sjw won’t be happy until all men are neutered at birth.

 

[tenniswhiz]

He is standing back and she is coming forward... slapping her might not be something that you or I would do but then I've got to ask (tongue in cheek) where's the equality for women's libbers? If a guy charged Rice like that, we would all be saying the guy got what he deserved.

And before you go full retard on me, I'm not saying that it is ok to hit women but I am going to ask you why YOU believe it isn't ok.

Tread lightly because we have a lot of "women are equal in every way to men" Sherdoggers on these forums these days.

At the end, she’s coming forward, and that’s because he just slapped her in the face.

Then he punches her in the face and knocks her out.

Then he drags her across the floor and out the elevator.

 

[TrueFightFan]

By having no female players, couldn't you infer that they're not equal. Men and women are different. That's why we don't call them all men or all women, because they're different by definition. Don't be misled by msm and sjw's. Men and women are different.

Oh, I agree, but we have the MSM misleading us on this case as well.

 

[Blayt7hh]

He sounds like a real asshole but what is the exact difference between him and Gustafsson? The latter was also a real piece of shit. Where do we draw a line in giving scumbags a second chance?

I don’t know the whole story about Hardy. Gus was a teenager though. That does make a difference

 

[Death By Samson]

You will have to look up what a bench trial consists of. Usually, someone who feels they've got an easy case to win accepts one. Sometimes it goes wrong and you need the full evidence and witness testimony to work with and show your side.

You say that the judge did not hear the full witness testimony and evidence. Well, it has been quite a while now and I am STILL waiting for that link that backs up your claim that evidence was suppressed and witnesses were withheld because it was "only a bench trial".

So where is that link. Or is that just some shit that you made up?

 

[nhbfan8080]

Now we are getting somewhere, in that you are doing your homework to confirm your opinion. However, the "he said / she said" crap has to be sifted through. How many times in your life have you ever said "I'll kill him/her" without being literal? The evidence would be pretty simple, to me, but I'm not the jury: No bruising on the throat, yet she has bruising on her neck, he called 911, she was on coke and drunk so her "recollection" might not be the most reliable. He has two witnesses and she has none. I don't know if you have ever been around coke-heads who are drunk but their "view" on events of the moment are a little "dicey" at best. So, the case is not cut and dry. Who knows, and we will probably never know but my whole point in the original post is this: The evidence could go either way but we, on Sherdog, KNOW everything and therefore, White is a scumbag for signing a scumbag. White IS a scumbag but that is beside the point.

Again nearly everything you have said to defend Hardy is refuted from the 1st page if you bothered to read the deadspin article which I've already quoted out in all my post.

I've already explained why she doesn't have bruising on her throat in the article links I've posted and which is different from the face/upper neck area.
Saying she was coked/drunk doesn't make sense since Hardy was coked and drunk as well.
She had a witness which was Christina Lawrence who was at the house and ran out of the house at the same time as Holder, so you are wrong about Holder not having a supporting witness.
One of Hardy's friends at the incident also changed his story to support Hardy, probably out of pressure to protect his friend.
Hardy's version of the events to the police had alot of holes as I've spelled out in my previous post. Hardy couldn't even concoct a simple story about how Holder ended up in his house when he lied about being alone with Holder but ended up with 3 or 4 other people. Hardy lied about the number of guns he had (2 vs 10) in the house. Hardy awkwardly lied about how he asked then tried to throw Holder out of his house but asked his friend Curtis to grab and restrain her in his 911 call. The police saw that Hardy was uninjured vs a much smaller Holder (290 vs 110) and came to the reasonable conclusion that Hardy's story about Holder 'assaulting' him was nonsense.
Considering that Hardy was already giving the feeling that he had a screw loose in his head due to questions about being bipolar from management/team the weight of the evidence doesn't favor Hardy at all.

The question is why do you persist on defending Hardy when mostly everything you've said is untrue and was refuted in the very first page of the thread?

 

[TrueFightFan]

Let's see, you read the "deadspin" artic

Again nearly everything you have said to defend Hardy is refuted from the 1st page if you bothered to read the deadspin article which I've already quoted out in all my post.

I've already explained why she doesn't have bruising on her throat in the article links I've posted and which is different from the face/upper neck area.
Saying she was coked/drunk doesn't make sense since Hardy was coked and drunk as well.
She had a witness which was Christina Lawrence who was at the house and ran out of the house at the same time as Holder, so you are wrong about Holder not having a supporting witness.
One of Hardy's friends at the incident also changed his story to support Hardy, probably out of pressure to protect his friend.
Hardy's version of the events to the police had alot of holes as I've spelled out in my previous post. Hardy couldn't even concoct a simple story about how Holder ended up in his house when he lied about being alone with Holder but ended up with 3 or 4 other people. Hardy lied about the number of guns he had (2 vs 10) in the house. Hardy awkwardly lied about how he asked then tried to throw Holder out of his house but asked his friend Curtis to grab and restrain her in his 911 call. The police saw that Hardy was uninjured vs a much smaller Holder (290 vs 110) and came to the reasonable conclusion that Hardy's story about Holder 'assaulting' him was nonsense.
Considering that Hardy was already giving the feeling that he had a screw loose in his head due to questions about being bipolar from management/team the weight of the evidence doesn't favor Hardy at all.

The question is why do you persist on defending Hardy when mostly everything you've said is untrue and was refuted in the very first page of the thread?

le t's see, you read teh "deadspin" article and so you are now an expert and "deadspin" wouldn't be biased in any way. Don't know what I was thinking.

 

[TrueFightFan]

You say that the judge did not hear the full witness testimony and evidence. Well, it has been quite a while now and I am STILL waiting for that link that backs up your claim that evidence was suppressed and witnesses were withheld because it was "only a bench trial".

So where is that link. Or is that just some shit that you made up?

http://www.civillawselfhelpcenter.o...age-your-day-in-court/249-overview-of-a-trial

Opening arguments and closing statements are seldomly used in Bench Trials whereas in Jury trials, they are extremely important to set the tone of the case.

Simple, stuff, man but why are you avoiding everything else I'm asking you about in regards to the evidence?

 

[TrueFightFan]

Again nearly everything you have said to defend Hardy is refuted from the 1st page if you bothered to read the deadspin article which I've already quoted out in all my post.

I've already explained why she doesn't have bruising on her throat in the article links I've posted and which is different from the face/upper neck area.
Saying she was coked/drunk doesn't make sense since Hardy was coked and drunk as well.
She had a witness which was Christina Lawrence who was at the house and ran out of the house at the same time as Holder, so you are wrong about Holder not having a supporting witness.
One of Hardy's friends at the incident also changed his story to support Hardy, probably out of pressure to protect his friend.
Hardy's version of the events to the police had alot of holes as I've spelled out in my previous post. Hardy couldn't even concoct a simple story about how Holder ended up in his house when he lied about being alone with Holder but ended up with 3 or 4 other people. Hardy lied about the number of guns he had (2 vs 10) in the house. Hardy awkwardly lied about how he asked then tried to throw Holder out of his house but asked his friend Curtis to grab and restrain her in his 911 call. The police saw that Hardy was uninjured vs a much smaller Holder (290 vs 110) and came to the reasonable conclusion that Hardy's story about Holder 'assaulting' him was nonsense.
Considering that Hardy was already giving the feeling that he had a screw loose in his head due to questions about being bipolar from management/team the weight of the evidence doesn't favor Hardy at all.

The question is why do you persist on defending Hardy when mostly everything you've said is untrue and was refuted in the very first page of the thread?

Here's the review on Deadspin, by the way, to help you understand why they may side with the "victim" against Hardy...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/deadspin/

 

[Death By Samson]

http://www.civillawselfhelpcenter.o...age-your-day-in-court/249-overview-of-a-trial

Opening arguments and closing statements are seldomly used in Bench Trials whereas in Jury trials, they are extremely important to set the tone of the case.

Simple, stuff, man but why are you avoiding everything else I'm asking you about in regards to the evidence?

That link says nothing to back up your claim that the judge did not receive the full witness testimony and evidence. Where is that link? I'm still waiting.


So you completely made up that shit about evidence being suppressed and witnesses being withheld in the Hardy trial. I'm shocked.

 

[TrueFightFan]

So you completely made up that shit about evidence being suppressed and witnesses being withheld. I'm shocked.

No, no one said anything about "suppressed evidence" or "witnesses being withheld", the point was made that a bench trial is an abbreviated trial whereas a jury trial is a full on undertaking. You keep trying to wrestle this one small point, all the while, ignoring the major points in evidence in the case. Look, it is ok to be right or wrong sometimes but don't try to weasel your way out by nitpicking one small item. A defendant would never agree to a bench trial if they didn't feel the evidence was compelling enough to win the case easily.

Here's a small piece on the judge who presided in the bench trial: http://judgetin.com/Tin_for_Judge/Bio.html

Co-chair for the "battered women's project" stands out and may hint at a little bit of bias. Just my two cents but you could see where a background like that may sway her opinion on the matter. Judges are not infallible.

 

[cevo]

He sounds like a real asshole but what is the exact difference between him and Gustafsson? The latter was also a real piece of shit. Where do we draw a line in giving scumbags a second chance?

Gustafsson was 18 so I think that's why people don't judge him

 

[Chagaev]

Black Beast beat a man and left him blind.

If he has a place in UFC- and I don't see why not- a guy who slapped a chick should not be a problem.

 

[Death By Samson]

No, no one said anything about "suppressed evidence" or "witnesses being withheld", the point was made that a bench trial is an abbreviated trial whereas a jury trial is a full on undertaking.

No, this is EXACTLY what you said.

Sometimes it goes wrong and you need the full evidence and witness testimony to work with and show your side.

You said that the judge did not receive the "full evidence and witness testimony" (because it was a bench trial). If the evidence wasn't withheld then the judge would have seen it all or seen the "full evidence". If the witnesses weren't suppressed then the judge would have heard them all or heard the "full witness testimony".

So where is the link that backs up your claim? You just made that shit up and I am calling you on it.

 

[TrueFightFan]

No, this is EXACTLY what you said.



You said that the judge did not receive the "full evidence and witness testimony" (because it was a bench trial). If the evidence wasn't withheld then the judge would have seen it all or seen the "full evidence". If the witnesses weren't suppressed then the judge would have heard them all or heard the "full witness testimony".

So where is the link that backs up your claim? You just made that shit up and I am calling you on it.

I understand that you want to avoid the real subject and not admit that you are wrong but if there is no "opening" or "closing" statements then a lot of the viewpoints of both sides are left out. If it is an abbreviated trial as everyone understands a bench trial to be then evidence may not be "left out" or "suppressed" but not expounded on. A judge can merely say "I've heard enough" and you cannot move forward or present any more facts towards your case. THIS IS A FACT. For a jury, you are allowed to expound as much as you feel you need to in order to get your point across.

I'm calling you out on not being able to admit that a bench trial and a jury trial are much different than you have surmised. If they were the same, then why not just pick one and make that one the only type of trial allowable? You are going full retard on me, here.

 

[wearetheromans]

Demostic violence in the combat alorts world???

Why are you acting like its acceptable kr should be tolerated?

"These things happen in mma"

 

[wearetheromans]

it’s all a trap. Hitting a woman is not the worst thing a person can do. There is a lot of worse shit. This is just some feminist bullshit to make their sex untouchable.

The feminists/sjw won’t be happy until all men are neutered at birth.

Lol, hitting a woman being bad is "feminist bullshit".

Honestly, this site.

 

[Death By Samson]

I understand that you want to avoid the real subject and not admit that you are wrong but if there is no "opening" or "closing" statements then a lot of the viewpoints of both sides are left out. If it is an abbreviated trial as everyone understands a bench trial to be then evidence may not be "left out" or "suppressed" but not expounded on. A judge can merely say "I've heard enough" and you cannot move forward or present any more facts towards your case. THIS IS A FACT. For a jury, you are allowed to expound as much as you feel you need to in order to get your point across.

I'm calling you out on not being able to admit that a bench trial and a jury trial are much different than you have surmised. If they were the same, then why not just pick one and make that one the only type of trial allowable? You are going full retard on me, here.

Again, you are just making shit up about the judge not receiving the full evidence and witness testimony. Show me the link that backs up your claim that this happened. Let's see it. Back up what you say. Did Hardy even make this claim? Did his lawyers even make this claim? The trial went on for 10+ hours ffs. That is exceptionally long for the trial of a misdemeanor. The judge went above and beyond in hearing the full case.

And you are also making some more shit up. Both sides were in fact allowed to make closing arguments. It is reasonable to assume that opening statements were also made if closing arguments were made. But if you are claiming that an opening statement would have changed the judge's verdict after 10+ hours of testimony then you are grasping at straws anyway.

"Assistant District Attorney Jamie Adams told Tin in her closing arguments that Holder told the truth when she described how Hardy erupted while the two were in his bedroom after a long night of drinking at some of the city’s most popular and exclusive nightspots."

"In his closing argument, defense attorney Fialko described Holder as an erratic young woman desperate to be back at Hardy’s side and in the limelight that commands."

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article9140591.html

And there is no point made in opening or closing statements that isn't made during the trial. The opening statement outlines you argument. The closing argument summarizes and reiterates your case.

A judge can merely say "I've heard enough" and you cannot move forward or present any more facts towards your case. THIS IS A FACT. For a jury, you are allowed to expound as much as you feel you need to in order to get your point across.

And no, you are wrong. The judge has the authority to cut off a line of questioning in a jury trial the same as in a bench trial.

 

[Mike]

Anyone that just takes a womans rape or abuse claim at face value, without strong evidence, is a fucking sucker.

We've seen over and over that some women aren't above lying to get a free check, or just to fuck someone over out of spite. We have a vocal group out there trying to redefine REAL shit like rape and abuse to mean "any time you had an icky feeling, even if it's years later"


Not saying that is or isn't the case here, but you white knights need to fucking wake up.

 

[Mike]

First of all, you're making an irrelevant argument that Hardy didn't beat her up by punching her in the face. Holder never claimed that Hardy punched in the face. Her statement said she was pushed, thrown, dragged, strangled by Hardy.

“I tried to get up, he pushed me,” she said, “then I started fighting back, he threw me into the bathroom, I hit the back of the shower wall and fell into the bathtub where he pulled me out.”
He dragged her out by her hair and picked her up again, she said, throwing her onto the futon, which had several weapons—what she described as “guns ...........he stood above her and strangled her with both his hands.......Hardy jumped off of her, reached into his pocket, pulled out a cell phone, screamed for Curtis to come into the room, and started filming..........Curtis came in, grabbed her from behind and, restraining her in something like a bear hug, moved her to the kitchen. Curtis, Holder said, didn’t say anything; he just did what Hardy told him. She struggled against him as Hardy called 911, claiming to have been the victim of an assault, before being let go​

https://deadspin.com/this-is-why-nfl-star-greg-hardy-was-arrested-for-assaul-1739117634

Why you would continue to insist that her uninjured face meant Hardy was innocent is perplexing unless you are just trying to blindly defend Hardy by making strawman arguments.

And in your earlier posts, you ignored to mention that there Holder was paid off and without her testimony at appeal, the case would be closed.

“The State further has reliable information that Ms. Holder has reached a civil settlement with the Defendant.”​

A big fucking dude choked her in a fit of rage and left no bruises on her neck?

Bullshit.