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 Mecca:
You know the answer to that...because it doesn't. This just more bullshit spin to try to get people to read it and agree with them because they they made everyone think he broke his sons arm so why not this?
Of course. Just wanted to throw it out there.
Meanwhile, The Star is getting BBQ’d on Twitter. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
He plead guilty and paid the penalty for 2014, that matter from a legal standpoint is resolved. But CP can't go around claiming he was innocent back then when he said the opposite, even though we would all feel better if he hadn't abused her.
And with respect to the Star piece, they just pointed out that it's typical for even admitted abusers to later claim, and sometimes truly believe, that they never did anything wrong. Doesn't necessarily mean that describes Hill, but it's still true.
No one here is saying that this isn't true, so why do you keep fighting that straw man? The point is that the editorial board slanted the narrative without saying anything whatsoever about any of the factors that don't make Hill "look even worse." Because doing that would not generate a sexy, click-worthy headline. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
He plead guilty and paid the penalty for 2014, that matter from a legal standpoint is resolved. But CP can't go around claiming he was innocent back then when he said the opposite, even though we would all feel better if he hadn't abused her.
And with respect to the Star piece, they just pointed out that it's typical for even admitted abusers to later claim, and sometimes truly believe, that they never did anything wrong. Doesn't necessarily mean that describes Hill, but it's still true.
Plain and simple. The article is a character assassination on Hill to justify their overall bad reporting on the recent issue, which looks to not be anywhere close to everything they made it out to be or it wanted it to be. [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]
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]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
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.
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]
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath15:
Thought: If the full audio makes him look worse, why the **** did KCTV5 edit it?
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]
Whatever happened to just reporting the news and letting people decide how they feel about it? Why must they try to shape a bullshit narrative. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
Plain and simple. The article is a character assassination on Hill to justify their overall bad reporting on the recent issue, which looks to not be anywhere close to everything they made it out to be or it wanted it to be.
It's an opinion piece. The facts are correct. The rest is opinion. You can agree, disagree, be triggered by it, or disregard it. Up to you :-) [Reply]
