HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Mark Hardy Arrested Under Suspicion of Felony Sexual Abuse

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2010, 09:32 PM
  #251
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
So there are reports that say that Hardy was drunk and mistakenly got into bed with his daughter and molested her thinking it was his wife? Because that is what I was referring to. In diehards post he said that it was a case of (drunken) mistaken identity and I didn't know that this had been established as a fact and believed it to be hearsay based on what people who weren't present at the time of the alleged attack took place.

If this has already been established then why would there be a need for any further findings to be presented?

Just curious.


I'm obviously not a lawyer but I am an educated person and I thought that it was up to the two people (as far as I know only MH and his daughter were in the room at the time of the alleged attack) who were in the room in this case to determine the facts of what actually happened and that everything else was either testimony based on what each individual had seen or heard after the incident or was merely hearsay.

Like I said, if it has already been determined that MH was drunk and mistakenly climbed into bed with his daughter thinking it was his wife and then proceeded to attempt intercourse with her then all that is left is for a judge to determine what the correct punishment should be, I think.
You have taken what I "postulated" and assumed it was fact. And no one has said anything about intercourse. At this time all that is known is that there was a "touching" in the legal sense of the word, which could mean alot of things.

I only know what everyone else does from the reports Zad has posted and the news items (ok maybe a tad more, but not much). I was trying to respond to someone who said they couldn't fathom any reasonable situation in which this could happen mistakenly (i.e., without criminal intent).

I think it could rather easily have been a mistake, but that may be a professional bent on my part.

I also corrected someone on the "pressing charges" concept.

Bottom line is, if the police believe (interpret) that certain conduct is or could be criminal, even if there is a legitmate reason why it wasn't, they will often arrest, pass their reports to the prosecuting attorneys who will then file the charges and "let the courts sort it out."

The only additional facts we are ever likely to hear will come in at Prelim or at Trial, and some of what is admitted at Prelim will, as a procedural matter, be hearsay!


Last edited by DIEHARD the King fan: 06-07-2010 at 09:39 PM.
DIEHARD the King fan is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 09:44 PM
  #252
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Over ruled. I mean how is what I have written ambiguous?

You said "Of course. There are plenty of statements that are not hearsay or an exception to hearsay" in reference to what I had posted regarding DieHards posting where he said "Does the concept of drunken mistake of identity as to who the victim was sound unreasonable to you? Is it, to you, reasonably impossible that in a darkened room, Harpo got into a bed thinking he was with his wife, but it turned out to be his daughter?".

I then asked you if it had been established that MH had actually done what was posted by diehard and you said (paraphrasing) that it had indeed not happened with the exception that all parties present had admitted to have been drinking.

Is that not right?

If so, then again, over ruled as I am not being ambiguous or vague and absolutely am I nowhere near being "Unintelligible".

Just going by what you had said.

That is why I thought you would want me to disregard your previous posting.


Last edited by etherialone: 06-07-2010 at 09:51 PM.
etherialone is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 09:49 PM
  #253
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIEHARD the King fan View Post
You have taken what I "postulated" and assumed it was fact. And no one has said anything about intercourse. At this time all that is known is that there was a "touching" in the legal sense of the word, which could mean alot of things.

I only know what everyone else does from the reports Zad has posted and the news items (ok maybe a tad more, but not much). I was trying to respond to someone who said they couldn't fathom any reasonable situation in which this could happen mistakenly (i.e., without criminal intent).

I think it could rather easily have been a mistake, but that may be a professional bent on my part.

I also corrected someone on the "pressing charges" concept.

Bottom line is, if the police believe (interpret) that certain conduct is or could be criminal, even if there is a legitmate reason why it wasn't, they will often arrest, pass their reports to the prosecuting attorneys who will then file the charges and "let the courts sort it out."

The only additional facts we are ever likely to hear will come in at Prelim or at Trial, and some of what is admitted at Prelim will, as a procedural matter, be hearsay!
I actually knew that you were simply making a point with the previous poster and I never believed that you were trying to present your speculative position as being factual.

I was merely continuing the point by stating that we have no idea what the actual facts are yet nor will we until they are adjudicated in a court of law.

That was also why I asked if your post where you quoted my statement wasn't pretty much the exact same thing that I had just said. In my post I stated that all the evidence needed to be heard in a court of law by people who are trained to scrutinize all of the actual evidence without hearsay being allowed and only then will we know what really happened.

So everything you are saying I not only agree with but I have also said in previous posts though without anywhere near as much legal expertise.

etherialone is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 09:52 PM
  #254
Zad
HFB Partner
 
Zad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: OC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
Over ruled. I mean how is what I have written ambiguous?

You said "Of course. There are plenty of statements that are not hearsay or an exception to hearsay" in reference to what I had posted regarding DieHards posting where he said "Does the concept of drunken mistake of identity as to who the victim was sound unreasonable to you? Is it, to you, reasonably impossible that in a darkened room, Harpo got into a bed thinking he was with his wife, but it turned out to be his daughter?".

I then asked you if it had been established that MH had actually done what was posted by diehard and you said (paraphrasing) that it had indeed not happened with the exception that all parties present had admitted to been drinking.

Is that not right?

If so, then again, over ruled as I am not being ambiguous or vague and absolutely am I nowhere near being "Unintelligible".

Just going by what you had said.

That is why I thought you would want me to disregard your previous posting.
I have no idea what you are saying.

His daughter said X
Hardy said Y
Cops visually observed two very drunk people
Neither Hardy or his wife said that Hardy thought his daughter was his wife. However, Hardy's statements do indicate he didn't think it was his daughter.
Hardy's statements are likely not hearsay as they are "admissions" (note, I haven't even told you what his statements were)
His daughter's statements are likely not hearsay for different reasons (excited utterance, and two other exceptions to the rule)

That is what we know.

Zad is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 09:55 PM
  #255
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIEHARD the King fan View Post
You have taken what I "postulated" and assumed it was fact. And no one has said anything about intercourse. At this time all that is known is that there was a "touching" in the legal sense of the word, which could mean alot of things.

I only know what everyone else does from the reports Zad has posted and the news items (ok maybe a tad more, but not much). I was trying to respond to someone who said they couldn't fathom any reasonable situation in which this could happen mistakenly (i.e., without criminal intent).

I think it could rather easily have been a mistake, but that may be a professional bent on my part.

I also corrected someone on the "pressing charges" concept.

Bottom line is, if the police believe (interpret) that certain conduct is or could be criminal, even if there is a legitmate reason why it wasn't, they will often arrest, pass their reports to the prosecuting attorneys who will then file the charges and "let the courts sort it out."

The only additional facts we are ever likely to hear will come in at Prelim or at Trial, and some of what is admitted at Prelim will, as a procedural matter, be hearsay!
Hey diehard,

You are also taking what I had postulated and assumed that I was presenting it as fact. When I used the word intercourse I also prefaced it by saying " if it has been established" not saying that you or anyone else had said that it had been.

Just saying.

etherialone is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 10:01 PM
  #256
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zad View Post
I have no idea what you are saying.

His daughter said X
Hardy said Y
Cops visually observed two very drunk people
Neither Hardy or his wife said that Hardy thought his daughter was his wife. However, Hardy's statements do indicate he didn't think it was his daughter.
Hardy's statements are likely not hearsay as they are "admissions" (note, I haven't even told you what his statements were)
His daughter's statements are likely not hearsay for different reasons (excited utterance, and two other exceptions to the rule)

That is what we know.
You have no idea of what I am saying yet I quoted your exact words.

Wow, I guess there isn't any point in going any further. I mean, If you had read each of the posts exactly as they are written and not only mine, yours and every other posting on this page that are relevant before posting what you did then maybe it would be easier for you to understand but in leu of that I am at a loss.

You are explaining things that have already been established and that even I have written without your level of legal expertise as well.

So I guess this is a good place to end it, sorry you didn't understand though again, you responded to my post by saying something that I had already said so.........

etherialone is offline  
Old
06-08-2010, 04:53 AM
  #257
kingsholygrail
Interference = Cup
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 44,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIEHARD the King fan View Post
Really? I am wondering where you saw that tidbit of information, because I am under the impression that she did not, but that someone in hotel management did!
And how did someone in hotel management magically find out about it?

kingsholygrail is offline  
Old
06-08-2010, 09:32 PM
  #258
PSP
Couldn't Be Happier!
 
PSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
And how did someone in hotel management magically find out about it?
The drunk girl ran downstairs and, without considering any other option, assumed the worst?

PSP is offline  
Old
06-08-2010, 10:04 PM
  #259
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
God. The amount of people that will damn you based on hearsay is terrifying. Maybe i should stop weaseling out of jury duty, if for no other reason than just to balance the scales.

JDM is offline  
Old
06-08-2010, 10:13 PM
  #260
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
God. The amount of people that will damn you based on hearsay is terrifying. Maybe i should stop weaseling out of jury duty, if for no other reason than just to balance the scales.
I know not to judge books by covers, but I have afeeling most prosecutors would save a peremptory challenge (excuse without legal cause) for you if they couldn't find a way to bump you for cause.

But you are correct that many people just don't get the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. They say they do, but they really have no clue. My job, fighting the oft oppresive and always overwhelming weight of government prosecution and trying to open closed minds is harder than most people would care to admit

DIEHARD the King fan is offline  
Old
06-09-2010, 05:15 AM
  #261
kingsholygrail
Interference = Cup
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 44,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIEHARD the King fan View Post
I know not to judge books by covers, but I have afeeling most prosecutors would save a peremptory challenge (excuse without legal cause) for you if they couldn't find a way to bump you for cause.

But you are correct that many people just don't get the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. They say they do, but they really have no clue. My job, fighting the oft oppresive and always overwhelming weight of government prosecution and trying to open closed minds is harder than most people would care to admit
It's innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. Nothing about being innocent until proven guilty in public opinion.

So would you say you believe OJ Simpson did not commit murder simply because he was found not guilty?

kingsholygrail is offline  
Old
06-09-2010, 09:10 AM
  #262
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
"May it please the court (I never say that) The defense would like to THANK and EXCUSE prospective juror #12, Kingsholygrail, for cause."

You're right. Before a full and fair hearing by a jury of his peers to determine his guilt or innocence, nothing prevents you (and other like minded individuals) from jumping to conclusions based on far, far less than the full and complete stories of both victim and accused. Additionally, nothing stops people from using inference and insinuation, whether reasonable or not, derived from mere snippets of information, from forming public media lynch mobs to perform hatchet jobs to destroy a person's reputation whilst hiding behind the anonymity of an avatar, screen name or even a by-line in a newspaper tabloid on display at the checkout counter of your local grocery market. Nothing prevents any person nor every person from rushing to judgment and forming their own opinion. But as they say, opinions are like ******** (rectums, if you didn't get it). Everybody's got one, but it doesn't mean I care much about yours! Unless it impacts my cient's right to an impartial jury!

But thank GAWD, and our Founding Fathers, for establishing a judicial system, that while far from perfect in practice, affords people the right and ability to set forth a real defence and to be presumed innocent while the government is burdened with proving BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that a person accused is factually guilty before being punished. That is a right so cherished,and so important and of such high ideal, that it is enshrined forever in those documents upon which, worldwide, the concepts of liberty and freedom have emmanated from. It is a right so rare, it exists in very few other countries over this globe. A right so valuable and hallowed, that hundreds of thousands of Americans over two centuires have died to preserve it.

Now if you want to talk about OJ Simpson, maybe (and I'll assume so for your sake) you can grasp the distinction, that he has had a (more than) full airing, based on all the admissable facts and evidence, in open court (and often broadcasted) in both the civil and criminal courts, leaving all persons free to form their own opinions and air them (another right of liberty granted to us by our Founding Fathers logic and reason) about his guilt or innocence.

Now if you want to get technical (and we will end up splitting rhetorical hairs here) he is not a murderer, but was found liable for the deaths of Goldman and Brown. As you are not a lawyer those distinctions likely mean little to you, and you obviously don't care. But to most any lawyer who litigates civil or criminal matters, they mean alot.

But go ahead and grasp firmly to your rash judgments based on much less than all the facts. I'll rest comfortably knowing that I, and/or my capable colleagues, will find you or any similarly predisposed person, and will discover your prejudice and prejudicial pre-dispositions through the legal process known as voir dire which allows lawyers for each party to question and probe prospective jurors and to REMOVE, from the jury panel, those who rush to judgment based on less than all the facts, or those facts adduced somewhere other than in open court.


And as this thread so readily demonstrates, there are many here among us . . . who believe that their rush to judgment deosn't somehow impede their claimed impartiality.
I hope you are never wrongly accused and need the services of an attorney.


Last edited by DIEHARD the King fan: 06-09-2010 at 10:44 AM.
DIEHARD the King fan is offline  
Old
06-09-2010, 09:52 AM
  #263
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
It's innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. Nothing about being innocent until proven guilty in public opinion.

So would you say you believe OJ Simpson did not commit murder simply because he was found not guilty?
What a pitiful argument. It mean nothing and is not, at this point in time, comparable in any way.

Then again, I can't blame you. You are likely to young to remember how people felt at the time OJ was accused, which is very different than how 'public opinion' swayed by the end of the trial.

Let me put it to you this way. People wanted to believe OJ was innocent because people ducking LOVED him. It was only after seeing all the facts in trial that people said, 'wait a minute, it really seems like he is guilty', te rest, including the technicalities he got off on, are history.

That is a very big difference than you damning someone who has only been accused of a crime and nothing else. Rationalize your bias however you like. We if you turn out to be right about harpo when all is said and done, your snap judgements are still wrong, since you have not been presented with a single fact. You know what police at the scene said hapenned AFTER it had happened. And if you believe that police reports are factually correct, well like DH said, hopefully you never need to defend yourselves against cops who are as biased an unfairly judgmental as yourself.

JDM is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.