I see... well I see people posting that all the time like they believe it.. assumed you were another

i havent, no, because that kinda fluff makes me cringe. im pretty sure there are full videos, ive seen links posted but wasnt interested in watching, obviously news outlets arent showing the full thing

that wasnt the point though. substitute ISIS beheadings for one of the dozens of other ones you can find on the internet or popping up on facebook.

for the record, domestic violence can be as little as an argument between a couple,

yes, I've seen the video and agree with rice up to the final punch, but there are states where fluffing yelling is a god damned crime. I'm looking at you Missouri...

i run from most women because, well i just don't like getting beatup without being able to hit back. probably why "Run, Run, Run" by The Andrews Sisters is one of my favorite songs. course, my mom also had a sorority paddle that she may have used improperly...

why is greg hardy still playing football right now?

educate yourself. the legal process is not done with hardy

you want to suspend someone before they are found guilty or not guilty? you want the NFL to become the law? you want innocent till proven guilty to not exist for NFL players? get the fluff out commie.

ignorance makes situations like this worse. stop making situations like this worse.

the ray rice situation was different because there was no he said she said fluff, he admitted guilt, and pleaded down to some bullfluff prayer for judgment.

Greg Hardy has a court date in a trial by jury in November. till then the panthers and NFL are letting the legal system run its course. It is widely accepted that Jerry Richardson is one of he most honorable owners in this league, he is the first player/owner in the NFL, and he was a key mediator during the strike. Once the legal system has run its course, you better believe the panthers will act accordingly.

a relationship pretty much involves only two people, if they can't work it out between themselves, then they need to split up, not bring 20,000 screaming morons to the table to negotiate how the best to make it work out between them.

jabroni, he's already been found guilty in a court of law nearly 2 months ago.

http://espn.go.com/...-counts-domestic-violence

while your statement that the legal process isn't done with hardy is technically sorta correct, your next line that 'suspend people before they are found guilty' is completely retarded.

the point that i was trying to make is that there will be many many questions that'll need to be answered in regards to suspensions in the NFL. mike and mike were talking about it this morning. they mentioned that the idea that folks could be fired/suspended just upon the accusation of another person is crazy and the basis of innocent until proven guilty is one the main tenets of what our country is built upon. but they couldn't understand why hardy was still playing, he's already had his day in court. they also admitted that if one of them (M&M) were to be accused of 'insert crime here', they'd very likely be suspended until the thing gets resolved. there's a big difference between criminal matters and the law and employer/employee relations.

i understand you're a panthers fan, and i think that it's making you biased in your opinion, and also blinding you to facts.

to clarify - i think the NFL needs to set standards/rules in order to become more consistent with their decisions. when can the NFL suspend someone? on a mere accusation? on a guilty verdict? or only once the appeals process has been exhausted? thereshouldn't be different lines in the sand for different players.

he was found guilty by a bench judge, and the legal process allows an appeal and a trial by jury. it is kinda in the constitution. hardy could play for the dallas cowboys, and i would still stick up for the guy.

the legal system is not finished. period. stop acting like judge, jury, and executioner here.

comparing the hardy, and rice situation, one where guilt was admitted, and one that has to go to a jury trial, is stupid. stop acting stupid. the situations arnt the same, so trying to compare suspensions and using them as a baseline is by definition, logically impossible.

if you think that people should be suspended because they are accused of a crime, then i hope you arnt in a position of power anywhere in your life. that isnt the american way. the NFL is letting the legal system play out before handing down punishments.

i dont see any inconsistency in this aspect, rice wasnt suspended till the legal system was done with him either. you might be able to argue different players get different levels of punishment, but saying hardy and rice are being treated differently is kinda a no brainier. the situations are different. get a better platform and we can talk.

"you want to suspend someone before they are found guilty or not guilty?"

"he was found guilty by a bench judge, and the legal process allows an appeal and a trial by jury."

i'm so confused!

-----------------------

'if you think that people should be suspended because they are accused of a crime'

i never said anything close to that dumbass.

-----------------------

my point is that both ray rice and hardy have been found guilty in a court of law of DV charges. one was banned, yet the other one still plays to this day... why? it makes it seem like the NFL is sending mixed signals. they want to be tough on DV issues, but yet, they're letting hardy play despite him already having his day in court. they need to be more consistent on things and define their policies a lot better.

and just for a cheap shot parting blow, rae carruth anyone? :P

you are still comparing someone who admitted guilt, to someone who is contesting charges


why are you doing this? do you think the situations are the same? seriously?

you keep saying hardy had his day in court. he didnt really. he had a preliminary bench judge trial, and it is moving on to a trial by jury. the only reason he didnt have the trial by jury, something guaranteed in the constitution, first is because it is not feasible to give everyone charged of a crime a jury of their peers, only if a judge sees enough evidence to move it on basically. individual judges ca be biased, or have their own agendas. this is why a trial by jury is a right.

if you have a problem with the legal system, take that up with your congressman. the NFL is atleast consistent in letting legal systems play out on criminal matters. you have no point here.

i dont know who you are really, but im going to assume trife, because only that liburel tard would think like you do.

guess what someone who admitted guilt, and someone who was found guilty by a judge have in common?

dey both guilty, sonnnnn


and in regards to who i am. the braves suck more wang than republicans do :)

we're going to have to agree to disagree. i think that the NFL is being inconsistent with their policies/treatment/punishment of those with DV issues.

it's okay to disagree. i just ask that you don't stop your car in front of mine and have your buddies do a drive by shooting into my car. kthnx :P

the ray rice case was closed

the greg hardy case is not closed yet


just because he was found guilty by a bench judge, does not make him guilty. no sentencing has taken place, and his due process is not finished yet. it is really that simple. you want the NFL to sentence him before the court system does.

that is the only difference that matters. if you cant understand that, then there is no hope for you.


the panthers owner broke down in tears yesterday accepting an award when talking about this situation. you people are assholes, and are dragging a good mans name through the mud because of ignorance and knee jerk reactions based on hearsay and public opinion. it is pathetic imo. i dont care if this was the fluffing new england patriots. i will not accept a mob mentality when it comes to the US justice system.

if he is ultimately found guilty, then ill be the first person to show him the door. i didnt buy a hardy jersey this off season because im preparing for just that instance. but you need to let the legal system play itself out first. it hasnt. you saying it has doesnt change that fact.

yes, after you've been found guilty by a judge, you are guilty - until if/when you appeal the ruling successfully. he's guilty. sure, if the wins the appeal the decision will be reversed, but until that happens/if that does happen, he's guilty.

he hasn't been sentenced? you for real, son?

http://espn.go.com/...-counts-domestic-violence

"Mecklenburg County Judge Rebecca Thorn-Tin sentenced Hardy to 18 months' probation. A 60-day jail sentence was suspended."

again, once you're found guilty you're guilty until it's been successfully appealed. you don't get to call yourself not guilty after merely starting the appeals process. from now until probably sometime in 2015 (after the 2014 NFL season) when the actual appeal takes place and the appeal may be granted - that jabroni is guilty, bruh.

to recap

ray rice = guilty
greg hardy = guilty, appeal pending
ray mcdonald = being investigated for DV, assumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

fluff it

lets send him to jail them


becasue all these cases are clearly the same, lets give them all lifetime bans right now. fluff the court system, fluff due process, this is the NFL, we demand accountability!

there is a reason the NFL hasnt taken action yet. because the case isnt closed. the ray rice case was closed. period

not every domestic violence case is the same, just like every murder case isnt the same, or trespassing, or whatever you want to insert there. someone admitting guilt they give up their right to appeals. they end the case right there. this case isnt over, acting now is a risky precedent to set. it just opens the NFL up to more inconsistency, ironic because that is what you are arguing against.

you want to suspend the guy, then it turns out he was not guilty, then you open yourself up to a defamation lawsuit, not to mention lost wages. lets create a possibility for bigger problem because some sideline warriors like to show that they dont like domestic violence, regardless of the validity or status of the legal matter.

are you seriously stating that the NFL needs or is required to follow due process?

LOL

the NFL != united states court system

you'll probably be shocked to learn that the overwhelming majority of employers are not required to follow due process.

where did i say the NFL was required to follow due process? i said the NFL opens itself up to all sorts of fluff if they dont follow due process. punishing someone for something they can still be found not guilty of, is a dangerous precedent to set. especially when no pattern of behavior has been established.

there is a difference in violating internal policies, like failing drug tests, and deciding punishment based on legal troubles, especially legal situations that havnt concluded as of yet. semantics and fluff come into play, and setting precedents like what you are asking for can only end badly.

right thurrr, bruh

'punishing someone for something they can still be found not guilty of, is a dangerous precedent to set. especially when no pattern pf behavior has been set.'

unless there is an employment contract stating otherwise, it's not illegal for an employer to suspend/fire someone if they're merely accused of crime - even if they haven't been found guilty of a crime yet. is it fair? not in my opinion, but that's how things are. it's what at-will employment pretty much is. almost all states are like this. i believe 49 outta 50 states are at-will. being accused of a crime is not a federally protected class. neither is being a braves fan, a yankees fan, comic book collector or being a soccer player. you can be fired/suspended for any of those reasons, as long as you're not a protected class and there's not a employment contract/agreement stating otherwise.

huge difference between the court system and private employers, bruh. due process is required in a court of law. it is not required in the NFL.

you apparently arnt aware of the players union, and the lobbying power it possesses.

you ever seen a company try to fire a union employee without sufficient cause?

i never said due process was required, i said that the NFL opens a can of worms that doesnt need to be opened by jumping due process in this situation. i dont see the NFL opening itself up to legal action just because some knee jerk dumbasses changed their mind on the seriousness of domestic violence based on a video that has nothing to do with this case. the 2 cases are not the same, and they are being handled differently because of their differences.


i will agree with you that the NFL is inconsistent in its handling of suspensions, and goodell is a power hungry jackass. but what you are asking for is stupid from a business sense, and the NFL likes its money.

And that people is why cats are such dumb pets, did I say cats? I meant Trife

i'm well away of the NFLPA and the unions. i mentioned employment contracts/agreements quite a few times in my last post.

regarding it:

'Every NFL player, including Ray Rice, signs a contract with the league that includes an arbitration provision. The arbitration provision prevents players from filing lawsuits against the NFL or NFL franchises for disputes arising from their contracts. Instead, the players’ contracts and the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement require the players to participate in an arbitration proceeding to resolve their disputes. The NBA and MLB have similar arbitration provisions in their contracts and CBAs. The arbitration provision agreed to by the players gives up many of their Due Process rights with respect to disputes over their contracts––including termination.'

what i will NOT agree with, is people like you, trife, that are blaming the panthers owner, one of the best people in the NFL

http://www.wsoctv.com/...c-violence-ceremon/nhKjQ/

he virtually broke down into tears accepting an award for his actions against indifference. people have been attacking him, and his morals in this situation, and that fluff makes my blood boil. get the fluff off your horse, let the legal system do its thing, then criticize the NFL in its handling of the situation once it is resolved.

i dont think you quite understand what you just quoted there, a quote with no source i might add.

giving up due process in a dispute over why you are fired, does not equal giving up due process in an accused manner. it also says "many" not "all"

in addition, the union would still push for the players rights. if you think otherwise, you havnt watched the players union recently.

another lame post by crest23

also, in regards to hardy's sentence. under North Carolina law, that sentence is postponed until the jury trial in superior court takes place. so while a judge found him guilty, and sentenced him to whatever, neither takes effect till the guilty verdict is confirmed.

so you want the NFL to terminate an employee, a unioned employee, before this process is finished. and you think that is a good precedent to make. if that is what you truly believe, then i suppose we have nothing further to talk about here.

atleast you can admit that the ray rice, and the hardy cases, have nothing in common other than the initial charge. if you cant admit that, then you are just an idiot and i wasted an hour of my life here.

jabroni, i'm not blaming the panthers owner. i'm blaming the NFL for not being consistent in their punishments/suspensions. hardy and rice are both guilty (whether you want to admit it or not) and for the NFL who's claiming to be tough on DV, allowing someone who's already been found guilty to continue to play while appealing that verdict sends quite the mixed signal.

the legal system has already done it's thing. the NFL has done it's thing only in regards to one of the players. that's inconsistent

the legal system has NOT done its thing. how are you not getting this? he hasnt even attained his constitutional right to a trial by jurry.....wtf man are you trolling?

where do you want to draw the line?

when the charges are filed? GUILTY
bench judge makes a decision? GUILTY

fluff the constitution and citizens rights. he was already found guilty halfway through the legal process. lets string him up.

you are a communist i have decided. you hate justice, and you just want the appearance of justice.

That's what I asked at the beginning of my little spiel today. Should the NFL take action on the accusation? On a guilty verdict? Or only once the appeals process has been exhausted? The NFL needs to more clearly define this so that it treats all the players equally. None of his constitutional rights are being violated - his legal sentence is being suspended while his appeal is sought - which is how NC handles things. That's cool, nobody has a problem with him having his chance in court to appeal the verdict. I don't know why you keep huffing and puffing about WHARRRGARBL LIBRULS WANNA PEE ON THE CONSTITUTION HURRRRR. Makes you sound like Cerberus, bruh.

Again my point: For the NFL who's claiming to be tough on DV, allowing someone who's already been found guilty to continue to play while appealing that verdict sends quite the mixed signal to the public/it's fans, in my eyes.

And no, I'm not trolling.

if i'm a communist then i'm hereby labeling you a mouthbreathing, inbred, nascar watching, IQ lower than the room temperature, gun fellating, bible thumping redneck.

:D personal insults are fun!

he has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. that is our difference in opinion i suspect.

it might be different if this was a pattern of behavior with hardy, but it hasnt been. the NFL seems to agree with me in letting the legal process play itself out is the best case. i dont see this as not being harsh on domestic violence, i see it as letting the courts decide if he is guilty before handing out punishment of our own.

it is one thing to be harsh policy wise, but it is much easier to keep with a policy if you wait for the legal process to be finished, period. and that is what the NFL has been doing.

your argument is they arnt morally being consistent in your opinion. im arguing that they are being actually and factually consistent.

and the difference there is you are just basing your insults on stereotypes on southerners. im basing mine on the stupid fluff you have said in this particular thread. you need to be specific with your insults.

Mecklenburg County Judge Rebecca Thorn-Tin would beg to differ, Billy Ray

Question for you - would you be okay with Greg Hardy being suspended WITH pay until his appeal is concluded?

if that were the case there would be no direct appeals process and suspended sentence.

if you think bench judges, who see dozens of cases a day, are the principal of impartialness then you havnt had much experience with the court system. the NFL seems to agree with me. Maybe we just have different views on the legal system and the semantics of the levels.

i would be fine with that. but if you want consistency you keep fluffing about, he would be cut and suspended from football indefinitely.

which is it you want?

holy flying cat farts, Batman!

what do cat facts have to do with some beotch sitting on the nearest flying penis just so's they can pretend to be important enough to earn a living?

i want consistency :) i wouldn't be a fan of him getting paid while appealing his guilty verdict - it would encourage parties to drag out all legal proceedings as long as they possibly could. asked you that question merely to see how you'd feel about it

so, what would you say if a jury finds him not guilty?

anywhos, i'm outtie. regardless of who's right or wrong, thanks for helping me pass the time while on the clock on a boring slow day :)

have a swirvey day!

plz dont rae carruth me :P

you think im stupid enough to try to smuggle myself into Tennessee instead of mexico in the trunk of my friends car?

please.

Trife should focus on activators, lotions and affirmative action promotions. Real trife fluff, like wearing your pants hanging off your ass and keeping it real. Not debating logic.

hmm, y'all getting a bit looney over this, so, i do hereby forgive Ray Rice and his wife for the public disturbance that they created and do hereby grant them sanctuary in my living/dining room area provided that they don't get too noisy. the rest of you bozos can just go #theheckoff.

For this subject not important today, BUTTTTTTTTTT

People do claim guilt when they aren't guilty. We have some problems with this and they haven't been resolved. So while agree with the idea, disagree with it in practice. Found guilty is far more damning that saying it.