The NFL still doesn't get it

[tommy]

Ok, it is certainly starting to look like Adrian Peterson is a serial child abuser. This is a terrible thing and I feel he should be punished severely for it. But I have a completely different situation to discuss...

I have APete in Fantasy Football. Should I waive him from my team? Should I trade him? Should I just bench him and leave him there for the entire season? I don't want to put myself in a situation where I would ever root for his success, so I don't want him on my roster.

-Jason "I also have the Carolina defense and had they kept Hardy active, I was going to waive them" Evans

Keep him and donate any fantasy winnings for the entire season to your local DV shelter.

[Chicago 1995]

Cut him Jason.

That's what I did.

[Highlander]

So Ron Rivera, the head coach of the Panthers said that the Panthers are trying to do the right thing with respect to Hardy's situation, but he acknowledged they aren't really sure what the right thing is. Opinions range from straight out releasing Hardy because he was convicted to no punishment whatsoever because he hasn't had a jury trial and is innocent until proven guilty. Calls for suspensions range from the entire season to a couple of games.

I'm not discounting what he's done, but given that this is a misdemeanor charge and that he is a first time offender, I think 2-3 games sounds about right to me. That lets the Panthers show that they aren't happy with his conduct and decisions that drug them into this mess, conviction or no conviction. Keep in mind that if he's convicted, the NFL will punish him for an additional 6 games over and above whatever the Panthers do to him. Also, his trial is currently scheduled for 11/15, but there is a good chance it could get pushed until 2015.

Some will say he should be benched until his trial, and they have good points. As do the people who say it's unfair to punish him at all until he's had a chance to plead his case.

Hardy's contract is guaranteed, so sitting him as punishment doesn't do anything to his pocketbook, as he gets paid over $770K per week whether he plays or not. That being said, I'm willing to bet this costs him a good bit off his next contract, as he'll likely be suspended to start the year.

[tommy]

So Ron Rivera, the head coach of the Panthers said that the Panthers are trying to do the right thing with respect to Hardy's situation, but he acknowledged they aren't really sure what the right thing is. Opinions range from straight out releasing Hardy because he was convicted to no punishment whatsoever because he hasn't had a jury trial and is innocent until proven guilty. Calls for suspensions range from the entire season to a couple of games.

I'm not discounting what he's done, but given that this is a misdemeanor charge and that he is a first time offender, I think 2-3 games sounds about right to me. That lets the Panthers show that they aren't happy with his conduct and decisions that drug them into this mess, conviction or no conviction. Keep in mind that if he's convicted, the NFL will punish him for an additional 6 games over and above whatever the Panthers do to him. Also, his trial is currently scheduled for 11/15, but there is a good chance it could get pushed until 2015.

Some will say he should be benched until his trial, and they have good points. As do the people who say it's unfair to punish him at all until he's had a chance to plead his case.

Hardy's contract is guaranteed, so sitting him as punishment doesn't do anything to his pocketbook, as he gets paid over $770K per week whether he plays or not. That being said, I'm willing to bet this costs him a good bit off his next contract, as he'll likely be suspended to start the year.

I don't understand the rationale of the procedure in the state in which Hardy committed his crime (was it North Carolina?) in the first place. What is the purpose of having a bench trial (some call it a court trial, or a non-jury trial) where the evidence is presented, the defense has the right to fully defend against the charges, and the prosecution has the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but if they do so, the defendant has the right to basically a do-over, but this time in front of a jury? What's the point of the court trial? Seems like a big waste of time and money to me. It would be one thing if, after the bench trial, a formal appeal was made and that appeal was ruled on by some sort of appellate body -- and some sort of meaningful error was found to have occurred in the bench trial which rendered the conviction faulty. Such a finding would/should entitle the defendant to a new trial. That's the way appeals normally work. But this? This is just the right to a brand new trial because he lost the first time.

OK rant over. But I do think it's important to realize that Hardy has had his day in court -- a day in court, anyway. This case has been proven, with witnesses under oath in the courtroom, and it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So found the judge. Innocent until proven guilty? Yes. But he has been proven guilty, and that's the point.

This is not a situation in which all that has happened thus far is the prosecution filed a case charging the defendant with a crime, and no neutral, independent body has had the chance to weigh in on its strength. The judge weighed in on it, and found the case to be extremely strong. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" strong.

Under these circumstances, not only do I think the Panthers can remove Hardy -- whether it be via cutting him, suspending him, or making him inactive -- but I think they have the moral obligation to do so. We can quibble about whether, if suspended, he should get paid or not (I don't think he should be) but with the case in the posture in which it sits, this guy should not be on the football field as if nothing has happened. He has been convicted of a crime of violence. Shame on the NFL and the Panthers organization. Shame.

[Olympic Fan]

My opinion about Hardy is that he should not play -- he has been found guilty in a court of law. But until the appeal process plays out -- and that means a jury trial in November -- the Panthers should not cut him. Suspend him without pay .. deactivate him with pay, I don't care. But he should not play until (and if) his conviction is reversed.

I want to talk about the Peterson case. The more I read about it, the more it disturbs me.

I had forgotten that Peterson's two-year old son died 11 months ago as a victim of child abuse. The son was killed by the baby-momma's boyfriend, who is turn was convicted of domestic abuse before killing the kid, but was let off with a slap on the wrist.

You'd think that after that, Peterson would be a bit more careful about beating his four-year-old son (note: Peterson apparently has something like seven sons from seven different women ... the child who was killed and the one who was brutalized were half-brothers and had different mothers).

There is no way Peterson should play and the frequent defense by those who assert that this is merely a case of corporal punishment is offensive to me. I have no problem with corporal punishment. But look at the pictures (which you can find on-line ... not on TV, they are too revolting to be shown on TV). This s not corporal punishment -- it's a brutal assault by a pro football player against a four-year-old child.

Yes, Peterson deserves to let the legal process play out before we determine if he should go to jail or not, but in this case, there is no debate about the facts -- Peterson beat his four-year-old with a stick, inflicting grevous injury to the child. He admits he did it.

Let the legal process play out, but while it does, he should not be in uniform.

Which brings me back to Ray Rice. I have problems with the way that issue was handled by a lot of people, but the more I read and reflect, I think the worst offender in this case was not Goodell (although his role was pretty bad), but the district attorney who gave him a slap on the wrist -- THIRD DEGREE domestic abuse. The DA saw the tape from the elevator. I don't understand why assaulting your fiancé is less of a crime than if he had done it to a stranger?

I heard an interview with the New Jersey lawmaker who wrote the law that was applied to Rice and he said the Third Degree charge was supposed to be applied in cases of threats and verbal abuse. I don't know, but the author of the law said it specifically did NOT apply in cases of violence. I think the district attorney went out of his way to protect a pro football star. If he treats every domestic abuser who assaults a woman like this, then he should be impeached in the next 10 minutes.

Rice should have gone to jail. And I hope Peterson does.

[Mal]

Yes, Peterson deserves to let the legal process play out before we determine if he should go to jail or not, but in this case, there is no debate about the facts -- Peterson beat his four-year-old with a stick, inflicting grevous injury to the child. He admits he did it.

Let the legal process play out, but while it does, he should not be in uniform.

Completely agree with the above. And I say that as a Vikings fan by birth, and one that hopes enough other Vikings fans feel the same way as to cause the team to reverse its position of yesterday and revert to last Friday's. I was proud of the franchise as of last Friday, but I'm utterly dismayed by its change of course the day after getting throttled by New England.

[tommy]

The Vikings have reversed course again, thankfully in my opinion, and placed Peterson on the "exempt" list. Not sure what that is exactly, but he won't be playing as long as he's on it, or be involved in any team activities.

[gus]

I'm starting to think the NFL should offer its players a come to Jesus moment here. Announce unequivocally that domestic violence is unacceptable and that any future incidents will be met with the harshest of penalties. Announce that any player who has committed an act of violence should come forward now, seek counseling and repay the community in some way.

And then the NFL should devote significant resources to continuing research into the link between head trauma, changed behavior and personal violence.

Or they can continue to just hope the problems fade away and they only have to deal with them wack-a-mole style.

[Highlander]

I don't understand the rationale of the procedure in the state in which Hardy committed his crime (was it North Carolina?) in the first place. What is the purpose of having a bench trial (some call it a court trial, or a non-jury trial) where the evidence is presented, the defense has the right to fully defend against the charges, and the prosecution has the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but if they do so, the defendant has the right to basically a do-over, but this time in front of a jury? What's the point of the court trial? Seems like a big waste of time and money to me. It would be one thing if, after the bench trial, a formal appeal was made and that appeal was ruled on by some sort of appellate body -- and some sort of meaningful error was found to have occurred in the bench trial which rendered the conviction faulty. Such a finding would/should entitle the defendant to a new trial. That's the way appeals normally work. But this? This is just the right to a brand new trial because he lost the first time.

OK rant over. But I do think it's important to realize that Hardy has had his day in court -- a day in court, anyway. This case has been proven, with witnesses under oath in the courtroom, and it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So found the judge. Innocent until proven guilty? Yes. But he has been proven guilty, and that's the point.

This is not a situation in which all that has happened thus far is the prosecution filed a case charging the defendant with a crime, and no neutral, independent body has had the chance to weigh in on its strength. The judge weighed in on it, and found the case to be extremely strong. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" strong.

Under these circumstances, not only do I think the Panthers can remove Hardy -- whether it be via cutting him, suspending him, or making him inactive -- but I think they have the moral obligation to do so. We can quibble about whether, if suspended, he should get paid or not (I don't think he should be) but with the case in the posture in which it sits, this guy should not be on the football field as if nothing has happened. He has been convicted of a crime of violence. Shame on the NFL and the Panthers organization. Shame.

IANAL, but Mike Florio is, and I learned a bit about the circumstances from him on the radio this morning. Hardy's "trial" was essentially a preliminary hearing. The purpose of it is for the defense to know exactly what evidence will be presented against them at a trial. It sounds to me like an indictment hearing where the defense gets to plead their case as well. If the witness testifies, as Hardy did, then he has the right to move to a full trial by jury. This second trial de novo is not an "appeal," it is a new trial. The "conviction" in this case is in no way admissible as evidence in the full trial. However, the testimony given in the initial hearing is admissible. Typically what happens is the lawyers try to get people to contradict themselves in sworn testimony to undermine their credibility. The mechanism is there to protect the defendant, as he has nothing to lose by going through the initial trial. It's quirky, but it's the same law for everyone in NC.

So it's wrong to say Greg Hardy was convicted in a court of law, and is now appealing that conviction. It would be more accurate to say that he was essentially indicted, but since this is a misdemeanor charge, they don't do indictments typically. From what Mike Florio said, there isn't an official transcript of the proceedings unless the lawyers hire their own court reporter.

Secondly, whether we think Hardy should or should not get paid is irrelevant. His contract says his payment is guaranteed under the terms of the CBA, so he gets paid, regardless of whether its deserved or not. Maybe the NFL or the Panthers have some other conduct clause somewhere that gives them an out, I don't know, but the franchise tag is there to protect the player who otherwise would have been a free agent by ensuring he gets compensated for losing that opportunity to test the free market.

I think a lot of the outrage over Hardy's case has come from the Ray Rice video. At the time, very few were outraged he played during week 1. It wasn't until the Rice video came out between W1 and W2 that everyone started calling for him to sit. If you called for the Panthers to bench Hardy prior to Week 1, then go ahead and shame them. However, if your calls only started after the Ray Rice video surfaced, IMO its a bit armchair to look back at decisions they made before the video was released and shame an organization based on new information you have now that they didn't.

I totally agree that the NFL should be shamed. They've given zero guidance to the teams on how to handle these situations, and everyone is trying to figure it out on their own while the commissioner hides under his desk hiring women to the front office in hopes this all blows over soon.

[tommy]

IANAL, but Mike Florio is, and I learned a bit about the circumstances from him on the radio this morning. Hardy's "trial" was essentially a preliminary hearing. The purpose of it is for the defense to know exactly what evidence will be presented against them at a trial. It sounds to me like an indictment hearing where the defense gets to plead their case as well. If the witness testifies, as Hardy did, then he has the right to move to a full trial by jury. This second trial de novo is not an "appeal," it is a new trial. The "conviction" in this case is in no way admissible as evidence in the full trial. However, the testimony given in the initial hearing is admissible. Typically what happens is the lawyers try to get people to contradict themselves in sworn testimony to undermine their credibility. The mechanism is there to protect the defendant, as he has nothing to lose by going through the initial trial. It's quirky, but it's the same law for everyone in NC.

So it's wrong to say Greg Hardy was convicted in a court of law, and is now appealing that conviction. It would be more accurate to say that he was essentially indicted, but since this is a misdemeanor charge, they don't do indictments typically. From what Mike Florio said, there isn't an official transcript of the proceedings unless the lawyers hire their own court reporter.

Not so sure you and/or Florio are correct about this. According to this article in Business Insider, which also quotes Florio, there in fact was a conviction -- not a finding of probable cause as happens in a preliminary hearing or an indictment -- but a conviction, and moreover, an actual sentence. That sentence included probation for 18 months, but sentencing in a criminal court, including when the defendant is granted probation as part of the sentence, does not occur until a conviction is obtained, either via the prosecution proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, or via a guilty or no contest plea.

The North Carolina procedures appear to allow an appeal of the judge's finding of guilt, which was a prerequisite to his sentencing of Hardy, and a trial de novo on the issues, but that doesn't erase the fact -- for purposes of determining the appropriate actions by the Panthers and the NFL -- that a neutral factfinder did find Hardy guilty of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That, to me, is more than enough to get him off the field, regardless of whether the laws in this particular state give him a second bite of the apple, a bite which is still pending.

I know there are a lot of attorneys on these boards. Any who practice criminal law in the State of North Carolina who could shed additional light on this from a procedural standpoint?

[cato]

Before Florio stopped practicing law, he was a West Virginia employment lawyer. I'm not sure why his "insight" into this peculiar aspect of North Carolina criminal law is particularly relevant.

At any rate, per the published reports, Hardy was convicted in a bench trial, and sentenced by the judge. He appealed, as is his right. He now gets a new jury trial. Seems pretty straight forward.

[DUKIECB]

I totally agree that the NFL should be shamed. They've given zero guidance to the teams on how to handle these situations, and everyone is trying to figure it out on their own while the commissioner hides under his desk hiring women to the front office in hopes this all blows over soon.

^This. 100% agree that this is entirely the problem. It's hard to fathom that the NFL, with all their stupid rules, has neglected to address what teams are supposed to do in these situations. It's almost comical to watch the teams try to figure out what to do. One day they're deactivating a player only to reactivate them the next only to reverse course again the next. The level of boneheadedness about this whole mess is unbelievable to me.

[Tom B.]

My opinion about Hardy is that he should not play -- he has been found guilty in a court of law. But until the appeal process plays out -- and that means a jury trial in November -- the Panthers should not cut him. Suspend him without pay .. deactivate him with pay, I don't care. But he should not play until (and if) his conviction is reversed.

I want to talk about the Peterson case. The more I read about it, the more it disturbs me.

I had forgotten that Peterson's two-year old son died 11 months ago as a victim of child abuse. The son was killed by the baby-momma's boyfriend, who is turn was convicted of domestic abuse before killing the kid, but was let off with a slap on the wrist.

You'd think that after that, Peterson would be a bit more careful about beating his four-year-old son (note: Peterson apparently has something like seven sons from seven different women ... the child who was killed and the one who was brutalized were half-brothers and had different mothers).

There is no way Peterson should play and the frequent defense by those who assert that this is merely a case of corporal punishment is offensive to me. I have no problem with corporal punishment. But look at the pictures (which you can find on-line ... not on TV, they are too revolting to be shown on TV). This s not corporal punishment -- it's a brutal assault by a pro football player against a four-year-old child.

Yes, Peterson deserves to let the legal process play out before we determine if he should go to jail or not, but in this case, there is no debate about the facts -- Peterson beat his four-year-old with a stick, inflicting grevous injury to the child. He admits he did it.

Let the legal process play out, but while it does, he should not be in uniform.

Which brings me back to Ray Rice. I have problems with the way that issue was handled by a lot of people, but the more I read and reflect, I think the worst offender in this case was not Goodell (although his role was pretty bad), but the district attorney who gave him a slap on the wrist -- THIRD DEGREE domestic abuse. The DA saw the tape from the elevator. I don't understand why assaulting your fiancé is less of a crime than if he had done it to a stranger?

I heard an interview with the New Jersey lawmaker who wrote the law that was applied to Rice and he said the Third Degree charge was supposed to be applied in cases of threats and verbal abuse. I don't know, but the author of the law said it specifically did NOT apply in cases of violence. I think the district attorney went out of his way to protect a pro football star. If he treats every domestic abuser who assaults a woman like this, then he should be impeached in the next 10 minutes.

Rice should have gone to jail. And I hope Peterson does.

I agree with all of this.

If anything, I'm even more disgusted by Adrian Peterson than Ray Rice. As reprehensible as Rice's actions were, they appear (so far, at least) to have been a one-time, heat-of-the-moment incident. Don't get me wrong -- I think that Rice deserves every bit of the condemnation he's getting, and the league deserves every bit of the criticism it's getting for how it handled the situation.

But Peterson, in my mind, is in a whole different circle of Hell. This wasn't a case of an argument between two adults that escalated until one party decided to end it with a violent act. This was a premeditated and lengthy assault against the most helpless of victims, a 4-year old child.

Look, I've got kids, and I know they can sometimes rub your last nerve raw. But it has never, ever, even occurred to me to hold my child down and hit him with a stick hard enough to flay open his skin.

And then do it again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

This wasn't discipline. A quick, open-handed swat to the bottom or slap on the hand to get a recalcitrant kid's attention is one thing, but what Peterson did was just pure bullying. It was the opposite of discipline, because all he's succeeded in doing is teaching his kid that brutal, heavy-handed violence against someone who's unable to fight back is an OK way to get what you want. His barely-literate chest-thumping text messages to the child's mother afterwards make it that much more revolting.

It surprises me not in the least that part of Peterson's defense is "That's how I was raised." It's not at all uncommon for victims of abuse to become abusers themselves, because that's all they know. Here's hoping it's not too late for the next generation of Petersons to break the cycle.

[Highlander]

Not so sure you and/or Florio are correct about this. According to this article in Business Insider, which also quotes Florio, there in fact was a conviction -- not a finding of probable cause as happens in a preliminary hearing or an indictment -- but a conviction, and moreover, an actual sentence. That sentence included probation for 18 months, but sentencing in a criminal court, including when the defendant is granted probation as part of the sentence, does not occur until a conviction is obtained, either via the prosecution proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, or via a guilty or no contest plea.

The North Carolina procedures appear to allow an appeal of the judge's finding of guilt, which was a prerequisite to his sentencing of Hardy, and a trial de novo on the issues, but that doesn't erase the fact -- for purposes of determining the appropriate actions by the Panthers and the NFL -- that a neutral factfinder did find Hardy guilty of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That, to me, is more than enough to get him off the field, regardless of whether the laws in this particular state give him a second bite of the apple, a bite which is still pending.

I know there are a lot of attorneys on these boards. Any who practice criminal law in the State of North Carolina who could shed additional light on this from a procedural standpoint?

I think we're splitting hairs a bit. Florio stated on the radio that referring to it as a "conviction" was not entirely accurate. I don't see anything he says in the article that contradicts that. From the article you link:

"Hardy’s case remains unresolved in the legal system. Sure, he was found guilty in a bench trial, before a judge. But that’s simply part of the convoluted criminal procedure in North Carolina, which gives him what the lawyers call a trial de novo before a jury. It all happens from scratch, a fresh bite at the apple. Innocent until proven guilty."

Later on, he says...

Eventually, Hardy will have his day in the NFL’s court of law. It can’t come until after Hardy has his day in a real court of law. While North Carolina procedure has caused some to mistakenly believed that’s happened, it hasn’t.

Full article is here

I disagree with Florio here (and agree with DukieCB) in that the league's conduct policy allows for the Panthers and the NFL to take action against Hardy without waiting for a criminal verdict if they believe his presence on Sundays hurts their bottom line. From what I saw on ESPN a few minutes ago, Hardy is no longer practicing with the team, and the Panthers are looking at putting him on the exempt list, similar to Adrian Peterson. So it sounds like that is where things are headed.
I'd welcome any input from an actual attorney; I'm just repeating what he said this morning.

[gus]

[Rice's actions] appear (so far, at least) to have been a one-time, heat-of-the-moment incident.

I realize you are not defending Rice at all, but I just want to highlight this statement and point out that this is very unlikely to be true.

[Tom B.]

I realize you are not defending Rice at all, but I just want to highlight this statement and point out that this is very unlikely to be true.

Understood. That's why I included the "so far, at least" qualifier. I absolutely recognize the possibility -- indeed, the likelihood -- that this wasn't just an isolated incident, given what we know about the dynamics of abusive relationships. It's just the only incident involving Rice that we know about to date, because it's the only one that was caught on video and resulted in criminal charges.

[cato]

I disagree with Florio here (and agree with DukieCB) in that the league's conduct policy allows for the Panthers and the NFL to take action against Hardy without waiting for a criminal verdict if they believe his presence on Sundays hurts their bottom line.

But there was a criminal verdict! If Hardy had not appealed, the sentence would have been imposed and the case would be closed. Because he appealed, he gets a new trial, and the sentence previously imposed is now moot. That does not mean that the prior trial did not happen.

[weezie]

Sorry, OT but what's with Jameis Winston getting all cuckoo, jumping up on a lunch table and caterwauling nasty stuff?

https://twitter.com/schadjoe/status/512271673916391424

Is he out of his gourd? Maybe the seafood in the pants caper was a cry for help?

[Tom B.]

Sorry, OT but what's with Jameis Winston getting all cuckoo, jumping up on a lunch table and caterwauling nasty stuff?

https://twitter.com/schadjoe/status/512271673916391424

Is he out of his gourd? Maybe the seafood in the pants caper was a cry for help?

Wow, Clemson might actually have a chance of staying within 30 this time.

[Highlander]

Because he appealed, he gets a new trial, and the sentence previously imposed is now moot. That does not mean that the prior trial did not happen.

In the eyes of the law, that's pretty much EXACTLY what it means.

My point was that the NFL doesn't NEED a criminal verdict (vacated or not) in order to take action. Typically they wait for sentencing, but they don't have to.