Mindy Drayer of NBC 4 Columbus has seen the video and is reporting Carlos Hyde slapped the victim in the face. Slapping a woman is enough to get you kicked off MTV's the Real World, but is it enough to get you kicked off the Buckeyes? Video Link: http://www.nbc4i.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9127622
Carlos Hyde Update (i know, i know)
uncoincidentally, the wooing call of the buckeye football players
I'm going to go and Hyde until its all over...
Then again if the position of the person is chosen by election, they might get rewarded. Ohio St. fans aren't exactly known for understanding the boundaries between life and sport.
Has there been any confirmation that Hyde isn't going to be charged. The story exonerating him was just based on a quote from an anonymous source who may well be proven wrong about everything.
Well, that's why I said "could", isn't it?
but "Whoever decided not to charge Hyde" says to me that you believe that someone has already chosen not to charge Hyde.
Yahoo's Charles Robinson reports that Ohio State running back Carlos Hyde is not expected to face charges for the alleged assault of a woman at a Columbus nightclub over the weekend.
but we seem to have completely different ideas about what "confirmation" means. Quoting the original Yahoo story doesn't do it for me.
indicating that he will not be charged, I'm assuming he won't be. I presume anything else to be wishful thinking at this point. Can you really confirm that something will not happen, in any case?
Yes. The police can say their investigation is closed. The district attorney can say that he is not going to prosecute. Hyde's lawyer or OSU can confirm those things. That happens all the time, especially in high profile situations. What is this latest news you speak of indicating he will not be charged? I've seen outlets quoting the original Yahoo story, but nothing else.
the same thing that you refuse to do in the Yahoo! story. Doesn't it make more sense to assume that he won't be charged, if the latest reports say that he won't be charged, rather than assuming he will be charged, even though no reports of that nature have surfaced?
when you're getting information from people directly involved in the situation?
that someone could be in "big trouble" for not charging Hyde. I have never made an assertion that he is going to be charged, only that assuming that he won't be is premature. Was your your first sentence a joke? I find it hard to believe you really think there is little difference between an official statement from the police, district attorney or OSU than an anonymous source cited by a single reporter.
It'll be interesting to see how Urban responds to these new allegations the rest of this weekend.
Cover up blown?! I'm no conspiracy theorist but this is getting weird.
A cover up makes a lot of sense... The police are upset that Mindy saw the video, Urban making vague statements, an absurd amount of misinformation. I believe Mindy 100%. She is the only person who claims to have seen the video first hand, and was very detailed in her account. The stakes are extremely high for Hyde (life altering) so it would make sense to try to sweep this under the rug. Wild.
Grammar. Buckeye Nation! can haz all of it...
So the Yahoo story (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--source--club-video-shows-ohio-state-...) is just wrong? Color me shocked
Contacts at the CPD are allegedly upset that a media memeber has seen the video and disputes what a "source familiar with the investigation" tells a Yahoo! Sports reporter?
I'm glad she made the map. Next time I am in Columbus, I will add Sugar Bar 2 to my sight seeing list. "Kid's, this is where RB Carlos Hyde slapped a girl. This very spot."
Please Brian, uncap the scores so a post like this can get a 25 or 30.
but that he slapped her instead. If true, charges sound unlikely as it seems like any decent lawyer could argue self-defense.
Especially when the person doing the self-defending is significantly stronger than his assailant?
I honestly don't know. My believe is that if an assailant initates contact than you have the right to defend yourself, regardless of the difference in strength.
Ideally, Hyde should've just taken her hit and walked away, but legally isn't this a case of self-defense? MGoLawyers?
Legal or not, Urban has to make the call (if he actually slapped her) on whether or not he should represent the buckeyes. Just bc he's not found guilty of a crime would you want someone like that on your team? How can you look your wife/daughter in the eye? Is football that important?
You're just as bad as Urban Meyer. You are making this all about football. These guys are bringing up some decent legal (as in shit that actually matters in real life) arguments/comments/questions.
Yet because they are not bashing the kid, they aren't allowed to voice an opinion?
Hitting a woman is wrong on all accounts. But I would think this is legally a much bigger deal than it is football-wise. No one ever said they shouldn't be kicked off the team. Just mentioned it may be a case of "self defense." Your assumptions are putting words in their mouths.
Should we discuss the ten thousand other cases of domestic violence that have occurred over the last couple of days, or just stick to the ones that relate to football?
Well, then to this point- the majority of this depends on eye witness testimony. If an overwhelming majority state that this woman was acting belligerent, then he's probably in decent shape. If folks are saying he's just as guilty in the confrontation, then they're both in trouble but he's got a lot more to lose.
Seriously, it all depends on the police report and eye witness testimony.
Not sure if your comments are justly aimed at me, but that's my $0.02 on the legality of it.
No, they we're not aimed just at you. I am sorry for not clarifying that.
[EDIT]: And thanks for your input.
the child? That's awfully Old Testament of you.
Defending yourself in this instance would be to block the slap, not to slap which is by nature an offensive act. I could understand such a response if the assailant was a man of roughly equal size or in possession of a weapon, but that was not the case here.
most kids are self-righteous assholes.
My favorite comment of the day!
This is the wrong month for discussions of self-defense.
defend against any attack by Person 1, regardless of the attributes of the assailant or the attack, as long as the defensive response is proportionate to the offensive attack. That's how I view self-defense law but I'm no lawyer. That's just how I think it should be ideally.
it is your belief that an adult has every right to punch the child?What if it was an mentally disabled person?
I fundamentally disagree with you. I happen to think the physical and mental state of the person should be considered. As my father always told me, walk away. Remove yourself from the situation--especially when the assailant is smaller than you.
In all likelihood, no. If no threat is posed, a defensive response is inherently non-existent and therefore any response is inherently offensive.
The same situation applies to mentally handicapped people. However, mental handicaps do not preclude the person from physical strength. A mentally handicapped person can still do physical damage to a person. A person has the right to self-defense if a threat is posed, regardless of the attributes of the assailant.
what about a threatening mentally disabled child?
but my wife works with a school board here in Nova Scotia. As a result of a human rights challange a number of years ago, all school age children have the right to an education with their peers and so inclusion was born (I won't speak about whether I agree or disagree with that).
Now we have kids of various age and size in our schools that pose a very real threat to the school population. My wife is one of those that puts plans in place to try to deal with those threats, but of course no plans are perfect.
It happens on a fairly frequent basis that PSA's (program support assistants who work with the children with special needs) are injured as a result of being hit, kicked, slapped, pinched, bit, etc. Given the environment the human rights tribunal made, we have had to come to terms with the fact that while violence toward employees is never acceptable, it isn't necessarily unexpected.
Now, you are trying to imply (but do not outright say) that self defense is a person not just defending themself, but hitting the other party back. I think that is key in these instances as we train our school staff in non-violent crisis intervention so that they can defend themselves without harming the person perpetrating the act.
Anyway, that was a long winded way of saying I disagree with you (and all others who shared the opinion) that slapping someone after you have avoided an attempted asault is self defense. You have already defended yourself by avoiding the contact from the slap, punch, kick, etc. I guess if the person was coming with hands flying in every direction that would change things, but there are many ways to defend yourself without being violent toward the other party.
... and then there's being a 242 pound semi-pro athlete slapping a woman at a bar. He may have been within his legal rights, but you just don't hit women. You just don't.
Of course, a man should never hit a woman. However, he may be legally protected in this case.