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.
Originally Posted by tmax63:
Child suffered a broken arm/abuse supposedly. Accident or not even Tyreek and family know you circle the wagons when Child Protective Services gets involved. Sounds like they did a solid job of that and with some effort will get their child back if they haven't already. Nobody's going to jail. DA is pissed because nobody's going to jail. Now it's up to Goodell to decide what he can do on hearsay this time. TH is probably depressed because this will postpone his payday an undetermined length of time after just getting out from under the original black cloud from college.
I'd say he needs to be more worried about providing his wife and children with a safe environment so the cops and CPS never need to get involved in his life again. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chief Roundup:
His first strike came before he came into the NFL when choked and beat his pregnant girlfriend. The same women that he is in this current situation with and the child she was pregnant with.
Pretty sure it doesn’t work like that. Plus, that article stated it would on be a 2nd strike if he were charged. [Reply]
"Could" and "if" are the two biggest words in the English language.
Goodell "could" make a play for repeat offender status but, with no legal charges made, "if" he does the union would be all over it like flies.
I think Goodell is going to be a Goodell here, If giving Hunt the right to play again was punishment to the Chiefs, then Hill, and the Chiefs, will be feeling this in the lower intestines.
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
The Star actually weighs in on this, though they seem to indicate that Hill would be subject to the repeat offender clause given his prior conviction but won't be because charges weren't filed in the current case. I always thought this was at Goodell's discretion but I could easily be wrong.
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
I’m guessing he disciplines his kids like Adrian Peterson, but now his wife won’t speak against him so they can’t charge him with anything
You sure do like to jump to conclusions. You have no idea who did what in their home no one does. The DA should have filed charges and taken his lumps if he couldn't get a conviction. Howe held his own kangaroo court and you sound like the crowd shouting hang him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Pretty sure it doesn’t work like that. Plus, that article stated it would on be a 2nd strike if he were charged.
This one isn't resulting in a charge, so could get murky on how it'll all play out. He might get a suspension under conduct that's a detriment to the NFL instead of the DV policy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Pretty sure it doesn’t work like that. Plus, that article stated it would on be a 2nd strike if he were charged.
Well he pleaded guilty back in 2014 and when he came into the league with the Chiefs everything positive spin was that everyone deserves a 2cd chance. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chief Roundup:
Well he pleaded guilty back in 2014 and when he came into the league with the Chiefs everything positive spin was that everyone deserves a 2cd chance. :-)
I don’t even know what to say to that lmao
That has nothing to do with this. By second chance, they didn’t mean 2nd strike according to the rules. It’s a figure of speech. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
The DA made it clear that somebody abused his kid in his house, and that a crime was committed, but they didn’t have enough evidence to charge him.
I realize that I'm parsing words here, but lives are at stake (as is rep).
Did Baldy Upforelection say, "Someone abused the child."? Or, did he say, "A crime occurred."?
Those are different things. The "crime" Baldy referenced could be ... Lying To The Popo! ... or ... Withholding Evidence From The Popo! ... or something like that. Not necessarily child abuse, right?
If I was an attorney, I'd need to see the evidence that child abuse actually took place. It's the absence of such evidence that prohibits them from filing charges, correct? Alternatively, they need a witness willing to testify.
