It seems like it was edited to make the tape look more incriminating about the kid's broken arm, not about anything about him abusing her in 2014.

KCTV's deceptive editing in this case looks a lot like what the media often does, which is to cut the facts they actually have with half-truths and lies in order to convey what they believe is true, and that they believe will eventually be borne out by the facts. Lying for a good cause, sts.
[Reply]

If you wanted to be a real fucking asshole.....someone could take all the stories they've done on criminal justice reform and exonerated prisoners, gather all of those links/stories and then email them to the whole sports department and simply ask "so you don't believe any of this shit either right? make sure you let all the people who did these pieces know your stance"
[Reply]

As if Tyreek pleading nolo contendre would have mattered compared to the plea bargain he did accept.
[Reply]

If the full audio makes him look worse, why the hell did KCTV5 edit it?

I’ve never seen a media outlet so openly and brazenly attack a hometown team before. They refuse to even discuss both sides of the story.

Embarrassing.

— Bozak Horseman (@BozakHorseman) July 12, 2019

Cunt #2 identified.


[Reply]

2014 didn't happen. His record was expunged. Like it or not, Hill wasn't arrested, nor did he abuse Espinal.

The next CBA should include a clause stating that disciplinary action for off-the-field incidents must be based on a conviction in the legal system. No conviction = no discipline from the NFL.
[Reply]

this colleen witch was a white house correspondent

keep your fucking politics out of my sports goddamn it
[Reply]

I wonder how much of this is that they really believe their source (espinals) or if it's just because they think in today's world if they refuse to backtrack everything will be ok because at least half the people reading will agree with them.
[Reply]

The latter.

The Espinals could prove themselves to be totally non-credible and they'd still take their word over all others in order to protect their narrative.
[Reply]

I don't know if there's a legal reason to not back off, too. Their lawyers may be telling them that they're open for a lawsuit if they back off, so they're doubling down.

In my previous consulting life, I distinctly remember a meeting where I was a consultant in the room, and there was a lawyer and a client talking. There was an error in a report that was obvious and agreed-on by all parties, but the lawyer's client didn't want to change the report because it would make the report more vulnerable to legal challenge, and the report was controversial. The conversation went something like this.

Client: We need to correct the report.

Lawyer: Nope. The report is done.

Client: But there's an error in it. It needs to be corrected.

Lawyer: Nope.

Client: But the report is recommending actions based on faulty data. Correcting the data changes the recommendations.

Lawyer: But the report is done and it's not being changed. Therefore, the recommendations stand.

Client: But we all agree that the analysis has an error in it, and we all agree that the report therefore contains recommendations that are incorrect as a result. And we paid for the report.

Lawyer: Doesn't matter. The report is done.

It was pretty eye-opening to watch. The consultant doing the report and their attorney didn't care about doing the right thing. They only cared about not admitting that they were wrong and having their work called into question, even though everyone in the room already knew their work was wrong.
[Reply]

And that's when you whipped out some sick kung-fu action on them?
[Reply]

There are certain circumstances where that's absolutely right. In those cases, the idea is that you can't unring the bell and by taking action to alter it, you're both bringing attention to the violation and tacitly conceding that there was violation in the first place (though there are some evidentiary rules that can sometimes keep out 'remedial acts' as evidence; there are ways around those).

Once some sort of violation has occurred, it's occurred. You have a couple of approaches - concede the violation and look to mitigate the damages, or double down on defending the violation itself in the hopes that you avoid damages outright.

The Star and TV5 are clearly going after the latter. The Star will probably face no legal consequences here because what they've done is shady, but doesn't rise to the level of actual malice, IMO. But TV5 has a pretty damn tough road in front of them. They knowingly published manipulated audio to paint a particular picture. Now they have their stooge out there calling it non-newsworthy and an editorial decision, but I don't think that'll stand.

I think they engaged in textbook defamation. And the moment they apologize for it, they'll have little in the way of a dispute even if it could mitigate some damages for them. But those damages are gonna be big numbers either way in the event defamation is found so rather than attempt to mitigate, they're gonna dig in and attempt to avoid defamation outright.
[Reply]

"On Thursday, Espinal filed a petition in Johnson County seeking a paternity test for their newborn twins."

What happens if/when the kids turn out to be ex-boo's? Asking for a friend.
[Reply]

Hill keeps a shitload of his money.
[Reply]

Then he good
[Reply]

Tyreek saves a fucking shit ton of money is what would happen.
[Reply]