Originally Posted by :
Now that the full 11-minute recording of Chiefs wide receiver Tyreek Hill and his now former fiancee, Crystal Espinal, talking about violence in their relationship has been aired, many fans are saying wow, this changes everything.
It does? That Hill, who didn’t know Espinal was taping him, denies ever hitting her or their son in what he thought was a private conversation is neither surprising nor exculpatory.
Abusers typically tell not only the police but friends, family, therapists, priests and even themselves they’ve never done anything wrong.
And if anything, the fact that Hill now says he didn’t hit punch or choke Espinal in 2014 makes him look worse rather than better. He pleaded guilty to those charges, publicly apologized, went through extensive therapy and declared himself reformed after probation. If he’s now back to saying that none of this ever happened, that’s not just a lie but a worrying one.
“I didn’t touch you in 2014,” he says on the tape. “And put that on everything I love, bro. That’s the real truth.”
That Espinal isn’t screaming at him that no, it’s not the truth, real or otherwise, is taken by some supporters as proof that he is innocent.
But why a woman who has been injured by him before and he’s threatening to hurt again might not do that should be obvious.
When she instead repeatedly asks him where her bruises came from if he never hit her, he doesn’t answer because there isn’t an answer that he likes well enough to repeat.
On Thursday, Espinal filed a petition in Johnson County seeking a paternity test for their newborn twins. She has full custody of them — they live with her — and she is asking for child support and only supervised visits for Hill. Her lawyer in the matter is legal counsel for SAFEHOME, a Johnson County group that supports survivors of domestic violence.
The NFL, meanwhile, seems ready to let Hill off with a brief suspension because the legal case against him isn’t going anywhere, but these things are still true:
Hill’s son was removed from his home after a child abuse investigation was launched. The Johnson County district attorney said the 3-year-old child had been hurt, but he didn’t have enough proof to prosecute.
On the tape, we heard Hill threaten the mother of his children with physical violence: “You need to be scared of me, too, dumb bitch.” He berates and belittles, calls her “bro” and “bitch” and of course, claims she ruined his life.
Denial of all wrongdoing is so standard in abuse cases that just a look at Thursday’s Star provides other examples, including that of Scott Hacker, the now former Parkville police officer charged with domestic violence after allegedly shooting his gun inside his home, throwing the woman who called 911 onto the couch, grabbing her by the throat and blaming her for “ending his career” by calling for help. Both before and after the cops arrived, he said he hadn’t shot the gun or touched her. But oops: A security camera in the living room apparently recorded the assault.
What Espinal was trying to get was the audio equivalent of that video.
If the NFL lets Hill back on the field this season, it will send the message that making threats and showing you’ve learned nothing from probation is no real problem, as long as you can run fast enough. The help he needs is not more denial, but just the opposite.
To the rest of you who are intent on seeing Hill as the victim, KCTV as a villain for not immediately releasing the full tape, and Espinal as a “manipulator” for wanting evidence to back her up in court, we could suggest some reading on the well-researched subject of abuse. But why, when you seem to prefer not to know?
This is honestly the most infuriating shit I’ve ever experienced as a fan. It should be really fucking simple. If the DA doesn’t have enough evidence to even charge the man, the local paper should be able to acknowledge that they have no idea what really happened and they fucked up trusting their sources and an edited audio clip. Why do they continue to pretend that they have some inside information that we and the DA don’t have? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Third Eye:
I would still be careful there. The structure of the sentence is:
If you don’t trust a paper when they A, B, or C, then changes are necessary.
I added the “then” to make it a more proper if/then. Looking at it in that structure, you see why you don’t need the first comma. In my previous edit, I combined B and C into a new clause essentially saying “they attack us yet can’t even get their own shit straight”. It’s stylistic for sure. I hate a lot of commas.
Originally Posted by staylor26:
JFC I’m just now seeing this.
This is honestly the most infuriating shit I’ve ever experienced as a fan. It should be really ****ing simple. If the DA doesn’t have enough evidence to even charge the man, the local paper should be able to acknowledge that they have no idea what really happened and they ****ed up trusting their sources and an edited audio clip. Why do they continue to pretend that they have some inside information that we and the DA don’t have?
Because they don’t break big news and they are trying to get anything possible to get clicks.
Dear @Ted_Crews, I respectfully request that you bar any current @KCStar and @KCTV5 reporter from any and all access to players or personnel until such time as they provide a full and clear apology OR fire the journalists that have been so biased in their coverage of @cheetah
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Don't. Fucking. Care.
Giving him a click is giving his corporate overlords a click.
He should be as dead to you as the rest of 'em are.
When The Star sends its people, they're not sending their best.
They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them. They're bringing agenda. They're bringing bias. They're SJWs.
All of 'em should. The whole Star should be cut off at the knees, as should TV5.
The ONLY reason you'd give any of them any access is to make your point even more firmly. You could argue that giving Mellinger and Welniak access after they handled this aftermath better than anyone else in their organizations does more to establish why they got that access than anything.
It's similar to giving a waiter a .01 tip if you're super pissed off. Flat out stiffing someone can be an oversight or a mistake; something that could lead them curious as to the motives. But actively giving them .01 leaves no questions - you're actively telling that person to get fucked. (Eds note: I was a waiter in HS, I have never done this but a co-worker had it done to her and I knew exactly why).
If you cut off the star, the message is pretty clear. But if you cut off everyone in the sports department except for the one guy that at least made a little effort at walking things back, the message is crystal clear.
But as consumers I still think we tell every last one of them to fuck themselves. [Reply]
