DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Tyreek Hill in trouble again

Right. You also have stated in this forum that it's ok to kick women on the ground as long as you don't kick them hard.

That video can be interpreted in different ways, especially considering about 6 minutes were not aired.

I think they both come across as sinister characters. I think he's dumb. I think she may have been trying to set him up by the things she said.

I get that we are supposed to think he is guilty after watching that video, but I'm pretty good at comprehending things and I'm just not sure.

Apparently, the prosecutors were not, either.

Also, I don't think this is about money. The NFL suspended Tom Freaking Brady and Zeke. Both are way bigger stars than Hill.

With all that said, Hill could be guilty. He does have a history. I'm just not sure.

When I hear "You need to be terrified of me too, b----.", I hear a physical threat, in this case, from a guy who punched his pregnant fiancée in the stomach and choked her in an earlier, separate incidence. IMO, Goodell had adequate cause for at least an 8 game suspension, based on Hill's history.

Yeah, I agree w/that. That is why I'm unsure.

I think her dialogue was contrived. She was trying to set him up and that made me suspicious. After all, she is the one who recorded it, right?

He seemed kinda confused for the most part and really dumb. But yeah, that sentence was damning and made me wonder. I think he may have just been threatening her, but it's hard to say for sure.

There is no doubt that he is a piece of crap for what he did to her before.

I also think that it is probably telling that the station did not air the rest of the recording. They did mention that Hill accused her of being the abuser, but the news station left all of that out when they played the recording. Remember, the video was actually 11 minutes in length.

I don't know, Dave.............I just don't think that video was enough for the prosecution to move forward and I am sure there is more information out there that they have and we are not privy to.

I am not defending HIll, but I can see how many folks could be fooled by that video.

I get that there's some room for doubt, but I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor, which states (paraphrased) that the obvious answer is almost always the correct one.

I wasn't asking anyone to agree w/me. I was just giving my opinion on the matter. He may be guilty and he may not be guilty of this particular crime.

I do think both of the parents are scum-bags. I also think he comes across as dumb as a box of rocks. I have very little doubt in my mind that she was playing him and trying to get him to admit to something he may or may not have done.

I still wonder why they did not show the entire video?

I will only say that I am not as gullible as some folks are. There's much more to that story than we are being told. But again, I think both are scum-bags and I'm not defending either one. I just can see why the prosecution thought that video was bogus.

bro what sucks is that let it be you or me or anyone else on this board, and nevermind worrying about suspension, we gotta worry about the next 5-10 year behind bars.

as we SHOULD, btw, it just sucks that once again, there's a system for the rich, and then there's a system for everyone else.

Tyreek Hill’s Verbal Threat Should Have Warranted an NFL Suspension

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/07/19/tyreek-hill-chiefs-child-abuse-investigation-avoids-nfl-suspension


By JENNY VRENTAS July 19, 2019

When the Chiefs report to training camp next Friday, Tyreek Hill will be there. The star receiver will be allowed to practice, and he will enter the 2019 season without any penalty for the child-abuse investigation or the threatening comments he made to the mother of his three children, Crystal Espinal, on a secret audio recording this offseason.

The NFL announced its decision Friday morning, stating that, “based on the evidence presently available, the NFL cannot conclude that Mr. Hill violated the Personal Conduct Policy.” The end of the statement left the door open for discipline “if further information becomes available through law enforcement, the pending court proceeding, or other sources.” NFL investigator Lisa Friel interviewed Hill for 8.5 hours in Kansas City in late June; the MMQB’s Albert Breer reports that the league made multiple attempts to interview Espinal, but she did not participate.

This case was always going to be a complicated one for the NFL to adjudicate—as many domestic violence cases are—because it was a complicated one for the district attorney to adjudicate. In April, Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe announced he would not press charges against Hill or Espinal for abuse of their young son. Howe added that “we believe a crime has occurred,” but the evidence did not “conclusively establish who committed the crime against this child.” Hill has denied these child-abuse allegations, calling them false in a statement he tweeted. The NFL said that its understanding is that the boy, who turned four this month, is safe and that his care is being directed and monitored by the Johnson County District Court and the Johnson County Department for Children and Families.

The NFL labeled its investigation “comprehensive,” but the statement makes clear that league investigators were not privy to all of the information surrounding the case. The NFL’s personal conduct policy states that it will make an effort not to interfere with local authorities’ investigations. In this case, the information the NFL was not able to obtain included the court proceedings, which are confidential, and the law enforcement records, which have been sealed. Regarding the abuse investigation, the NFL defaulted to the decision made by local authorities.

But what about the audio recording, in which Hill can be heard telling the woman he plead guilty to abusing in a 2014 assault, “You need to be terrified of me, too, dumb b----”? This threat, which Hill has admitted he made, constitutes a violation of the personal conduct policy as it is written. The first item in the policy’s list of prohibited behaviors is “actual or threatened physical violence against another person.” Last year, Ravens cornerback Jimmy Smith was suspended four games by the NFL for “evidence of threatening and emotional abusive behaviors … that showed a pattern of improper conduct.” This is one example of how players who may not face criminal charges can still be subject to league discipline.

The NFL’s statement regarding its decision did not address Hill’s threat. Asked to provide clarity as to why the recorded threat did not result in punishment for Hill, league spokesperson Brian McCarthy said it was viewed in the context of the full audio recording in addition to evidence gathered through the league's four-month investigation, which included speaking with family members on both sides and other electronic information from before and after the recording, as Pro Football Talk first reported.

The 11-minute audio recording, which Espinal secretly taped on a trip to Dubai with Hill in March and sent to a friend for safekeeping, was partially aired by a Kansas City TV station in April and released in full by a local radio station earlier this month. (The NFL had access to the full audio since April.) During the recording, Espinal asks Hill why their son says “Daddy did it,” regarding his broken arm, and says that the boy is terrified of him. That’s when Hill replies that she needs to be terrified of him, too. They also accuse each other of using a belt to discipline their son.

In the portion of the recording that was previously unreleased to the public, Hill denies abusing Espinal in 2014, when they were students at Oklahoma State, and accuses Espinal of lying and ruining his life. Espinal, who was then eight weeks pregnant with their son, told police Hill punched her in her face and stomach, busted her lip and choked her. According to the Stillwater Police Department incident report, the responding police officer observed bruises and markings in the areas she had described. Hill pleaded guilty in 2015 to domestic assault and battery by strangulation, signing a statement in which he acknowledged that he “wrongfully” put her in a headlock and compressed her airway, causing bodily injury.

When the Chiefs selected Hill in the fifth round of the NFL draft in 2016, the team defended its decision by explaining that Hill was remorseful for his actions, would continue to be in counseling and was trying to “right the wrong.” In his second meeting with local reporters, Hill apologized for “my mistake,” saying, “I did something wrong. I just let my emotions get the best of me, and I shouldn’t have did it.” Chiefs coach Andy Reid said at the time that he believed there would be a positive end. The remorsefulness that the Chiefs stated as a factor in their taking a chance on Hill three years ago stands in stark contrast to Hill’s comments on the audio recording, in which he blames Espinal for his assault and battery conviction.

The Chiefs will have their most explosive player, the one they were in talks with for a mega contract extension early this offseason, back in the fold for the 2019 season. But while the NFL chose to not suspend him, let’s be clear about what the statement does not say: It does not say that it has all of the information about the child-abuse investigation and the crime the D.A. believes was committed against Hill's son. And the it does not directly address why a player, who previously plead guilty to assault and battery by strangulation against the mother of his children, was not disciplined for telling her, “you need to be terrified of me, too, dumb b----.”

I tend to agree with this article. The NFL isn't the law, and their conduct policy is pretty wide. The threats he made against his baby momma should be enough for a suspension.

This is a dangerous situation. Hill is a very volatile personality who has been told, once again, that his actions really don't have consequences.

And "law and order" in the NFL - every time I think it can't possibly look more ridiculous, Roger says "hold my beer".

This was a genuine chance for the league to address an individual's issues before they get out of hand. Hope nobody gets hurt.

I don't think the NFL suspending Hill would help protect those around him. In fact, it probably would increase the chances of him lashing out in anger.

I wonder if the NFL or the team could make him go to counseling?

SMH

I feel sorry for the kid having to put up with both of his parents

It's not that I disagree with what you're saying, you're right. That video really doesn't reveal anything definitively, other than neither should be parents. What the thread kinda started in on is that other players were suspended over WAY flimsier evidence. Why would the NFL suddenly flip to lawyer speak as if NFL suspensions were conducted like an actual legal matter. Their zealousness in the Zeke case (and others mentioned above) was replaced by an abundance of caution. Why? Especially in this case where you have a kid getting his arm broken. Why now?

Could it be an olive branch being extended to the NFLPA in advance of upcoming CBA negotiations? I know in the past the NFLPA has been critical of what they thought were arbitrary and overly harsh disciplinary rulings by Goodell. To me it looks like Goodell has come full circle to his botch-job of the Ray Rice situation.

j/c

You know, these threads used to sound the opposite of this. You would hear people complaining that a player was not convicted of a crime so the NFL didn't have enough evidence to suspend that player. That the NFL had no right to suspend those players. That the NFL acted like they were above the law.

Now it seems the opposite is true. And what are some basing that on? A recorded tape from a source that is plainly trying to paint this story in one direction and does so by leaving out 6 minutes of an 11 minute video? An obviously slanted story that those 6 minutes probably wouldn't support?

One thing I can certainly tell you, the court system does everything possible to protect children. If there was any possible way they could convict Hill for child abuse they would.

Now I don't know what happened and I don't claim to. But it's about time the NFL stops suspending players upon accusations instead of evidence. It is odd how so many seem to be able to draw a conclusion even though a court system can't.

Heaven help anyone who has some of our posters on a jury. Because beyond a reasonable doubt certainly wouldn't apply.

I really don't want to defend Hill. I was just trying to add some balance to the conversation and provide some food for thought.

I know a con when I hear one and that woman was definitely trying to play Hill in that video. That doesn't mean Hill is innocent, but she might have been covering her own butt. I don't know.

The NFL was wrong for suspending Zeke. They railroaded him and I posted articles that proved that when it all went down.

I just think that we need to be very careful about taking away someone's employment due to allegations. I also think that we should expect employers to hand out punishment instead of law enforcement.

I do think Hill is a piece of crap and he might even be guilty. I just don't think it's wise to punish people due to allegations and/or when law enforcement decides to not pursue the matter.

I would like to bow out now because I don't want my points to be misconstrued and having people think I am defending Hill.

You seem to be confusing the victim with the suspect. I'm a firm believer in Justice. I'm also a firm believer in beyond a reasonable doubt.

Often times family and the public form a preconceived notion about someone's guilt to the point they actually want justice so badly that sometimes the innocent end up in their cross hairs.

I heard the exact same thing you are saying from all across the nation in the JonBenét Ramsey case and people were ready to crucify her parents. Well they ended up being wrong.

Now I'm not trying to profess Hill's innocence here. What I do know is there isn't even enough evidence to bring the case to trial much less get a conviction. And it may be wise for people to get their emotions out of it enough that they don't sound and act like judge, jury and executioner.

Hopefully due process will lead to justice. As of now, the child is being protected from those you presume to be guilty.

So you feel the NFL should take action on something that hasn't been proven?

That's been the problem all along. They've taken action against players who did little to nothing in the past.

And hasn't what's happened in the past already been addressed in the past?

So it's your assertion that people be judged on something now, based on what happened in their past?

I'm sure glad that's not how it's supposed to work. I was a real problem to some extent when I was younger. But all that has changed.

Totally agree. The police said they believe a crime did occur (which rules out an accident), but there's not enough evidence to determine who committed the crime. It was determined that the only people present were the parents. What this means is that Hill broke the little boy's arm, or at the very least he didn't protect the boy from the person that did it. Tell me that doesn't warrant a suspension.

Give it up ... Pitt can be a wee bit hard headed at times ...

He still thinks OJ is innocent ...

To him the amount of smoke here does not mean theres a fire ... the smoke just appeared out of thin air and tyreek is guilty of nothing in this he said/she said even though the child broke his arm and abuse is a re-occurring theme with him ... he’s just mis understood ...

There are different burdens of proof.

In aa criminal case there needs to be "Beyond a shadow of a doubt". However, in a civil case it only needs to be 50.1% to 49.9%

Just because the courts cannot prove beyound that shadow of doubt doesn't mean the NFL (or people on this board) can't be more than 50.1% certain.

Pulling down a woman’s top is inexcusable and I have no issues with Zeke’s punishment there, though it was likely for multiple actions as Zeke just can’t seem to stay out trouble.

Plaxico got 4 games for having a firearm in a restaurant, which is against the law in NY, or wherever he was. He got arrested for having the gun, not for shooting himself. Shooting himself is how he got caught with the gun.

That said, this Tyreek thing stinks. I also read somewhere how Goodell and the NFL want Josh Gordon on the field. Of course they do.

Good point Jester. Many people don’t quite get this concept. Civil cases are so much easier to win

No, you have to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt". Not beyond a "shadow of a doubt".

In this case they felt they didn't even have enough evidence to try the case. Much less get a conviction. And nobody is talking about trying this case in civil court. Which is called a preponderance of the evidence.



No, that certainly does not rule out an accident. They didn't say a crime did occur. They said they believe a crime did occur. You guys are quick to take what someone believes or feels as enough to prosecute someone.

Diam, No I don't think O.J. is innocent. You see, they actually felt they had enough evidence to take him to trial. I saw that evidence. In this case, they didn't even have enough evidence to take it to trial so all people are going on is a tape.

I don't even know if Hill is innocent or guilty. But I do know a lot of people are convicting him without so much as a trial.

It's a sign of the times in which we live.

I really wanted to leave this thread, but I don't think it is a good point in regards to this particular thread topic.

What does Civil Court have to do w/what the NFL should do? It is a fool's task to take away a person's right to work w/out proof of a criminal act.

Playing in the NFL isn't a job that requires high moral character. You don't want people w/questionable backgrounds in professions like teaching or the clergy, but it would be a colossal mistake to take away a person's right to work due to the allegation of a crime.

Some see the bigger picture and some want to crucify. Unless he played for the Browns, of course. LOL

J/C

People keep saying things like "beyond a shadow of doubt" and that he has a right to work unless its proven.

The NFL is not a court. The NFL is a business and employer, and they have th right to tell said employee, you are not wanted here after these allegations.

People lose their jobs for talking smack on social media, yet some think its an outrage he would get suspended for this? I don't get it.

If I recall, there wasn't much evidence against Zeke, yet he was suspended. Wasn't there a guy that was just suspended and his GF said it was all made up? I think with the Redskins - maybe I am wrong.

Fact is, the NFL has every right to suspend him - and should have. they acted with their wallets, not their heads.

J/c .... ... talk about struggling with 0 + 0 ...


JARRAN REED
DL, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS

NFL suspended Seahawks DT Jarran Reed six games for violating the league's personal conduct policy.

Reed was accused of domestic violence in 2017. He was never charged or even arrested, but unlike the Tyreek Hill situation, the league evidently found enough evidence of its own to hand down a ban. Since the incident, Reed has emerged as a disruptive interior presence. He exploded for 10.5 sacks in 2018. His loss will be massive for the fire-and-brimstone 'Hawks, especially since Frank Clark has been traded. 2019 is a contract year for the 26-year-old.

SOURCE: Ian Rapoport on Twitter
Jul 22, 2019, 1:08 PM ET

Hmm, don’t we play Seattle in Week 6?

Ya, we play them in week 6 ... and thats good ... it is a bummer that the stilers and rats play them while he’s suspended also ... oh well, guess u can’t have it all ...

jc

I still think this guy never should have been allowed in the league, based on the following incident/guilty plea:

Yup, and when the NFL office notices that, the suspension will be reduced to 5 games.

This is interesting. I wonder if the NFL investigated Hill's case and determined it was the mother who broke the boy's arm?

Well, if that is true, the NFL should forward their evidence to the cops.