Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY: I never used a belt on my boy. He got a couple spankings and then at like 9 he would just stay silent and looked at me like I was a total dick. That's when I started taking things he cared about instead. It actually works better. I hate spanking it actually hurts me. I guess I'm a puss.
I think this is going to be a pretty short suspension if this is all the information.
You and me both. The first time I spanked him - he just looked me straight in the yes and started crying. Hurt me so bad watching that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate:
Honestly, that's EXACTLY what I get from that tape on the first listen. And I'm not going to listen to it over and over because there's really no need to "scrutinize the nuances" because there ARE NONE.
Think about it Donger; you have a unique and personal way of communicating with your significant other that is based on time spent together, familiarity, cultural background, and the intimacy that you've established over X amount of years together.
And while you and I as outsiders could listen to that recording and come away thinking that Tyreek Hill is threatening his girlfriend, he does not for even ONE moment sound like a man who has lost control or is raging. In fact, his demeanor is about 100 times more calm than the current collection of CP harpies who are calling for his head.
AND, since we are not privy to the beginning of this conversation, or the whole call in its entirety, WE HAVE NO ****ING CONTEXT IN WHICH TO PLACE THAT STATEMENT. And it disturbs the **** out of me that knowing this, and having been through the Hunt incident, that we STILL have a gaggle of knee-jerk, emotional man-children on this forum who having NO investigative experience of their own to speak of, have already closed the case on this man!
Well, I'm not doing that. Unlike the Chiefs and the majority of this cursed fan base, I learned my lesson with Kareem Hunt. I was a knee-jerk idiot with him, but I will not be so with Tyreek.
We have an audio tape with no context and a DA who can't put a case together.
Not good enough.
This is likely about the court of public opinion now. Can the Chiefs keep a guy on the roster who everyone "believes" hurt is child on purpose? [Reply]
Originally Posted by God of Thunder:
This is likely about the court of public opinion now. Can the Chiefs keep a guy on the roster who everyone "believes" hurt is child on purpose?
Probably not but what they CAN do is not be stupid, release him outright, and let the other 31 vultures have ANY shot at picking up his services in a year.
You suspend him and you force the NFL to grow a set.
And FUCK "public opinion". Especially from what I've seen on this board. It would appear my old town of dwelling has become an unrecognizable bastion of overly emotional, knee-jerk idiots. The Chiefs don't go to your office and tell YOU how to run your business, so "the public" can piss and moan until the true courts and the league have had their say. [Reply]
Originally Posted by God of Thunder:
This is likely about the court of public opinion now. Can the Chiefs keep a guy on the roster who everyone "believes" hurt is child on purpose?
What is generally problematic for me, is that if the Chiefs cave
to the court of public opinion and release him, there will be a dozen other teams that will gladly pick him up. And for the most part, those fan bases, and the media will not bend over backwards to vilify the team, the man, and the decision. That's what bothers me. Taking the moral high ground and releasing Hill allows some other team to come in and claim him. This also allows that team the opportunity to look like a moral savior in the sense that they will allow Hill to serve out his suspension and then publicly advocate the fact that they are helping he'll get his life turned around. The Chiefs need to sit on this, let the NFL weigh in allow Hill to play the remainder of his contract and then make a decision. Unless the NFL issues a lifetime ban, then this is the Chiefs problem, and the Chiefs should be the team to help Hill " get his life together." Whatever the fuck that entails. Then make the decision once his contract has expired. Piece of shit or not, he needs to be our problem to deal with whether he plays another down under his current contract or not. Otherwise he'll be some other team's piece of shit and I guarantee he won't smell nearly as bad. [Reply]
Originally Posted by God of Thunder:
This is likely about the court of public opinion now. Can the Chiefs keep a guy on the roster who everyone "believes" hurt is child on purpose?
He's gonna get suspended. 8 games. Then he comes back.
If I'm the Chiefs, I stipulate that he no longer has anything to do with that crazy fucked up conniving bitch.
The ONLY time he's ever been in trouble is when she's been pregnant and hormonal.
And let's not overlook the fact that she's an admitted LIAR, who admits to perjury on the tape.
Hell, we don't know that she didn't lie when she accused him of beating her the first time, in Oklahoma.
Liar is as a liar does.
ok, help me understand something. If she is a lair and committed perjury, what did she lie about? Did she lie to DFS when she said Tyreek didn't do it? If you answer yes, that means Tyreek DID do it. If Tyreek DIDN'T do it, then where is the lie and perjury? [Reply]
