July 24th, 2013 at 8:07 PM ^

Wait - so am I going to have to issue an apology for my apology?  The ground is shifting in so many contradictory directions that as of this comment, I'm on Hyde hiatus.   


July 24th, 2013 at 10:40 PM ^

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? 

Mr Miggle

July 25th, 2013 at 7:00 AM ^

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.

Mr Miggle

July 25th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^

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.


July 24th, 2013 at 9:02 PM ^

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.


July 24th, 2013 at 8:25 PM ^


  1. NO! Mindy did see it 4x w her own eyes!

  2. Now how could she see it if no one else has Im sorry Im not buying this crap.they are going to show the media ? are you serious

  3. that's the million dollar question. I do know my contacts at CPD are upset that the video has been viewed by a member of the media.



July 24th, 2013 at 8:18 PM ^

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."


July 24th, 2013 at 8:19 PM ^

but that he slapped her instead. If true, charges sound unlikely as it seems like any decent lawyer could argue self-defense. 


July 24th, 2013 at 8:30 PM ^

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?


July 25th, 2013 at 7:31 AM ^

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. 


July 25th, 2013 at 10:45 AM ^

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.


July 24th, 2013 at 8:33 PM ^

This is one of the biggest misconceptions in criminal law.  You can't just start hitting someone because they hit you.  While I don't know the specific Ohio laws, typically the inquiry is based on reasonableness and whether the defender used force that was proportional to the initial attack and calculated to stop the conflict.  In my opinion, this sounds like an awful self-defense case. 


July 24th, 2013 at 8:39 PM ^

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.


July 24th, 2013 at 8:38 PM ^

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.


July 24th, 2013 at 9:16 PM ^

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.

Blue in Yarmouth

July 25th, 2013 at 8:22 AM ^

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.