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?
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Pryor (surprise) dug up 'homophobic' Tweets from him back when he was !@#$ing 13 years old.
She's really a piece of shit.
Not that I want to white knight Pryor here, but ever since Hader and Trubisky, pro agents need to tell these dipshits to completely nuke their social media presences. [Reply]
That's who Brooke Pryor is, her first big break came from basically covering Joe Mixon being a piece of shit so she will always be looking for that...She probably has a lot of personal disdain for the Chiefs organization if you've ever listened to her personal views of womens issues. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
That's who Brooke Pryor is, her first big break came from basically covering Joe Mixon being a piece of shit so she will always be looking for that...She probably has a lot of personal disdain for the Chiefs organization if you've ever listened to her personal views of womens issues.
She has a personal disdain for the sport of football. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Not that I want to white knight Pryor here, but ever since Hader and Trubisky, pro agents need to tell these dipshits to completely nuke their social media presences.
Sure.
Because pondscum like Brooke Pryor will go looking to dig it up. [Reply]
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.
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]
Trust me, she’s doing her job my man - chill. KC sports fans are very lucky to have so many great reporters covering their teams.
Terez on Pryor SMH [Reply]
They want their pound of flesh, Pryor really does because I'm sure she thinks the Chiefs organization needs to be cleaned up. I bet if she was off the record she would likely tell you how fucked up it is we got rid of good guys like Houston and Berry to bring in a shithead like Clark..
I hope he is smart here because she is going to be sniffing around him constantly. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
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.
And that's when you whipped out some sick kung-fu action on them? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
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.
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]
Because pondscum like Brooke Pryor will go looking to dig it up.
I don't understand how you can publicly flog someone for stuff they said when they were 13.
But, we encourage this media culture by rewarding them with clicks, mentions, replies, threads on CP, etc.
Even if someone deleted their social media accounts there are still sites out there that catalog it all. For an athlete or a public figure, the only winning move with social media is not to play. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
That's great, buddy.
Heads need to roll.
I'm trying to inform you so you don't embarrass yourself -- this "I bet Brooke Pryor wrote this!" crap. Make your arguments more informed so they carry more weight.
It's like saying the Chiefs need to hit more home runs. [Reply]