Full quote from Andy Reid on Willie Gay: "I decided he’d play. I’m not going to get into the conversations. I’m not going to do that. I decided that after just hearing some of the information that I heard." https://t.co/muFit5wkAn
There it is once again KCTV5 trying to make it more than it is. I am not surprised time to get back to beating the breaks off Bills on Sunday he is good.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
If the child was there in the house, that's a problem. The NFL policy specifically mentions the presence of a child as a mitigating factor, even if he didn't touch her at all.
The NFL can be very heavy-handed in situations like this. Here's to hoping that they let the legal process take care of it.
To me, in the presence means the child is there watching and not in a separate room. If it’s the latter he’s screwed though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by emaw1979:
To me, in the presence means the child is there watching and not in a separate room. If it’s the latter he’s screwed though.
Fortunately, we've seen no mention of the child at all. It could be as simple as the child being at a babysitter or a relative and wasn't there at all.
Originally Posted by chief4life:
There it is once again KCTV5 trying to make it more than it is. I am not surprised time to get back to beating the breaks off Bills on Sunday he is good.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Fortunately, we've seen no mention of the child at all. It could be as simple as the child being at a babysitter or a relative and wasn't there at all.
We just don't know but we can hope.
His reps statement said he was there visiting his child.
Originally Posted by arrwheader:
Just going by what's out there which is property damage, then no seriously doubt it.
Speculating that it is more than property damage like you're doing in stupid. There is so far nothing out there that says he did anything to a person.
There is a difference between taking the known and speculating vs, wildly speculating. There is no evidence or info that he hit a person.
Dude, have you read the reports?
He doesn't have to do anything to a person to be subject to the NFL's policy. There are specific mitigating circumstances that he could meet without ever touching her.
Let's make it clear:
I'm not talking about what will happen nor what I want to happen. Merely what CAN happen. The NFL has proven fickle in cases like this, sometimes doing nothing when action is warranted and sometimes acting with an iron fist when it isn't needed.
There's nothing wrong with talking about this - we all want to know if he'll play on Sunday. [Reply]
Originally Posted by arrwheader:
Seems it would be pretty big reach to charge DV on a broken vacuum...
In Kansas, cops can be charged with a misdemeanor themselves if they don’t arrest on DV charges. Broken wine glass in an arguement? Arrested. Threw a slice of pizza during a lovers quarrel? Arrested. So, yeah, a vacuum (wall and doorframe) is getting charged in Kansas. [Reply]
Originally Posted by emaw1979:
In Kansas, cops can be charged with a misdemeanor themselves if they don’t arrest on DV charges. Broken wine glass in an arguement? Arrested. Threw a slice of pizza during a lovers quarrel? Arrested. So, yeah, a vacuum (wall and doorframe) is getting charged in Kansas.