Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Return of the Gaucho

Pure Football
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Return of the Gaucho

  1. Holy extremism Batman. Not every woman who accuses a man of hitting her is a lying whore looking for attention. Not every man who puts his hands on a woman is totally unjustified. What if she's beating your kid? What if she has a weapon? What if you are breaking up a fight between two other people? DV is a very difficult, complicated subject. There is usually only one witness and that person has just as many reasons to drop it as they do to pursue it in most cases. What do you think happens when a woman is wholly dependent upon her husband financially and he beats the crap out of her? Who do you think always gets the benefit of the doubt in obvious mutual combat cases? Trying to boil this down to a black and white issue is how you end up with some stupid zero tolerance policy, which is probably where the NFL is headed seeing as they care more about PR than actually fixing the problem.

    Even if Hardy didn't actually do anything wrong, the franchise who signs him will be inviting a **** ton of media scrutiny and the wrath of the league if he steps one toe out of line. It's just not worth it.

    This. Exactly this.

  2. Thanks for restoring my faith that there are at least some people here with a sense of good common decency.

    You just agreed that it may be ok to sometimes lay hands on a woman. I thought you're simplistic absolutism called for the word never. Gritz is right, you are wrong. And a "real man" knows life is full of nuance, something you seem to willfully ignore.

  3. I'd grab the hand with the knife. I'd shield the child. Lot's of difference in that and striking a woman back because she's hitting on you. I'm just absolutely freakin appalled at the attitude of some posters on here. I know that. I brought the point up earlier in the evening that if this were just some average Joe making minimum wage that did what he's already been convicted of doing, people would think he got what he deserved. But, because he's a football player that some people think could help out our team then they think he deserves special considerations. " Oh yeah, he beat the living sh*t outta that girl but he can dang sure rush the QB....let's sign him!!" Disgraceful and disgusting.....Good night.

    You'd grab the hand with the knife.. rolleyes.gif You'd shield the child..rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

    I have never in my thirty something years on this planet found a reason to put my hands on a woman with anything other than her consent, but your internet white knighting is a bit much man. Stick to tumblr.

  4. Whatever....you really think I care about the opinion of someone who apparently would condone striking a woman? I've heard all these BS arguments and rationalizations before about how if a woman puts herself in the position of a man then she deserves to get hit. Ridiculous! Women may not like it being said but they are the weaker of the two sexes. If a man can't handle a woman hitting him without striking her back then he's nothing but a wimp. I've had a woman beating on me before, it's not a pleasnant experience but I put my hands and arms up over my face and head to protect myself till she quit. Never did I ever strike her or think about striking her. I protected myself without going on the offensive. It's called being a man, something you and Mr. Hardy obviously know very little about.

    Would you hit a woman who was charging at you with a knife? What about if she was about to kick a baby? Do you attack her then?

    I am guessing you don't let yourself or a baby die, so then it is not a matter of never, just a matter of degree of acceptable. Some people believe that if someone hits you you can hit them back. I don't subscribe to that, but if a woman (or a man) has a chance of causing you actual physical injury, I will defer to the victim on what the appropriate use of defensive force is...

  5. I mostly agree with you. The only reason I'm in this thread is to shed some light on the fact that most people only care about what his victim was rather than what he did.

    If he's found guilty by jury he should be gone. Not because of who his victim was but rather the nature of the crime.

    If he assaulted anyone who was more or less defenseless against him in a fistfight, he should be charged, regardless of the gender of his victim. Of course the public outrage is going to be worse because it was a woman, but that is the society we live in.

  6. Today I learned that nobody has ever been wrongfully convicted.

    Judges grant custody of children to unfit mothers and victimize great fathers every day in this country. Judges decisions get overturned by higher courts regularly. Being A judge dosent make you infallible. Especially in cases where emotion plays a part.

    People get wrongfully convicted all the time. That is why there is an appeals process. Even then it can fail. But I can tell you that, as someone who has actually defended people of criminal charges, in both bench and jury trials, it is the very rare exception when the judge lets their personal biases actually affect the outcome of a trial. For people to go out and immediately try to say that he could be innocent because the judge could have had some personal motivation to fry him is ridiculous.

    Every judge has a reputation, and I do not claim to know the reps of any judges in NC, but I can tell you that in California, the one thing even the most liberal and conservative judges can find common ground on is the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    In essence, you and others are asking that we believe that a guy with 150lbs on a woman was in such fear of his safety that he had to strike or choke a woman AND that he just happened to go in front of the judge with an axe to grind who would hang him on it? I mean anything is possible, but you don't have all the facts and your position is nearly absurd in its plausibility.

  7. You're welcome. My point was, is, and remains, that a judge heard 11 hours of testimony and found him guilty. But the case starts over and the jury will decide now.

    And because they do not know the law, they will use ad hominem arguments against the judge who found him guilty rather than try to figure out why she found the victim's testimony more credible than the defendant's story. I'm not sure why you are arguing with some of these guys honestly.

  • Create New...