Today at 3:00, Steve will be holding a press conference regarding the criminal investigation involving Tyreek Hill and Crystal Espinal. This will be held in our 4th floor conference room.
The DA was explicit that he wouldn't discuss whether others were in the home or around the kid. If there was family around or staying at the neighbors or whatever, that widens the pool of potentials considerably and makes "beyond a reasonable doubt" pretty much impossible
Originally Posted by In58men:
CAN WE UPDATE THE THREAD TITLE?!?!?
Just take out the press conference time and put (UPDATE: HE GOOD)
We did it gang!! Tyreek is in the clear! Want to thank everyone who contributed along the way! In8men played a huge part along with BleedingRed and Pugsnotdrugs with his logical takes behind this. Super Bowl!! #Chiefskingdom [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Two things:
1. I know you still think it was Tyreek's mom's hairdresser's uncle's mechanic who did it. Or was it Crystal's dad's barber's accountant's dogwalker? Your theories were always so vivid and colorful, FAX The Detective. You seem much more clued in than the DA.
2. There's a material difference between having an opinion on how something went down and convicting someone in a court of law. I am merely opining on the former.
1. No. But even if I did believe it was the mechanic, I reserve the right to speculate while allowing others to do the same. Meanwhile, I sense a disturbing double standard at work. As for being an aspiring DA, I read a bunch of Martha Grimes ... so there.
2. I'm all for having opinions. For example, I have the opinion that Presumption of Innocence separates us from the animals and the Rule Of Law isn't just a trope. That's as easy to understand as I can make it.
Lastly ...
If it's proven that Tyreek hurt his child, you would never see me defending the bastard. I don't operate like that. However, given all the family drama at work in this situation, it's perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that things may not be as "cut and dried" as you apparently prefer to believe.
To be clear, I don't fault you for having a personal perspective. In fact, I encourage stuff like that. I just wouldn't want you in a jury box judging me ... if it ever down came to it. Depending on the court, the defendant gets a few vetos during the selection process. No offense, but I think I'd use one of mine for you. Look on the bright side though; no dollar-a-day jury duty.
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
So any person can make a random allegation and the NFL is obligated to suspend the player? That's how it works even with no evidence?
Originally Posted by MAHOMO 4 LIFE!:
We did it gang!! Tyreek is in the clear! Want to thank everyone who contributed along the way! In8men played a huge part along with BleedingRed and Pugsnotdrugs with his logical takes behind this. Super Bowl!! #Chiefskingdom
Originally Posted by TravelingChiefs:
Did I miss the part where Hill was charged with a crime? Not being charged is a clean bill of health. The DA can literally say anything because no one will ever see whatever evidence there is.
Being charged with a crime has zero bearing on the NFL process.
Not being charged is not a clean bill of health, not in civil court and not in the NFL.
Or did you completely ignore the part about the ongoing CPS investigation? [Reply]
Originally Posted by FAX:
1. No. But even if I did believe it was the mechanic, I reserve the right to speculate while allowing others to do the same. Meanwhile, I sense a disturbing double standard at work. As for being an aspiring DA, I read a bunch of Martha Grimes ... so there.
2. I'm all for having opinions. For example, I have the opinion that Presumption of Innocence separates us from the animals and the Rule Of Law isn't just a trope. That's as easy to understand as I can make it.
Lastly ...
If it's proven that Tyreek hurt his child, you would never see me defending the bastard. I don't operate like that. However, given all the family drama at work in this situation, it's perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that things may not be as "cut and dried" as you apparently prefer to believe.
To be clear, I don't fault you for having a personal perspective. In fact, I encourage stuff like that. I just wouldn't want you in a jury box judging me ... if it ever down came to it. Depending on the court, the defendant gets a few vetos during the selection process. No offense, but I think I'd use one of mine for you. Look on the bright side though; no dollar-a-day jury duty.
FAX
If it turns out that Tyreek did not abuse his son and is only protecting someone that did, would you condone that? [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I'm simplifying it for the sake of discussion but you know how the NFL works.
The kids' broken arm is plenty enough evidence for the NFL to investigate. And Hill's apparent willingness to invoke to avoid charges could, in and of itself, be grounds for a suspension.
Kind of like the DOT taking your license if you refuse a field sobriety test.
LOL ... I was 100% with you until that sentence.
Conflating the Department of Transportation and the National Football League has my head a-spinning.
Because what I’ve heard is about injurIES far more egregious than a simple broken arm. Injuries that make what AD did to his son look like kids play. [Reply]
I would be willing to bet we all have had co workers that were under investigation for nearly the same thing and we never even knew it. The employer could but but no charges they better look for other reasons to get rid of them. [Reply]