Jump to content
ColtsBlueFL

Tyreek Hill being investigated / abuse involving minor

Recommended Posts

Spoiler alert: Patriots vs. NFC Team is your Super Bowl next year. AFC is just lulz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, buffalo34 said:

Spoiler alert: Patriots vs. NFC Team is your Super Bowl next year. AFC is just lulz.

If anyone takes them down it will be us with Luck healthy now. That would be fitting considering the rivalry we have had with them for the last 15 years. Luck is due. It won't be an Andy Reid led team that beats them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a minute......the guy who strangled and punched his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach is a bad guy?  Never would have guessed.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BOTT said:

What a minute......the guy who strangled and punched his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach is a bad guy?  Never would have guessed.

That prosecutor probably feels good about now lmao 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Just as Mahomes gets the cover of madden. Madden curse didn’t take long.

I told everyone it is a curse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crystal taped that without Tyreek knowing, I hope she keeps herself safe.

 

The prosecutor failed the child, neither of them should be raising the kid. Trying to get “respect” through intimidation and fear is abuser 101.  This goes beyond the NFL and my feelings for the Chiefs. I feel sad for that kid. 

 

Getting punched in the chest when he cries? Getting spanked with a belt when he “acts up.” Mysterious broken arm. Just no, no, no. :( 

  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26607772/hill-barred-chiefs-activities-wake-audio

 

After the release of the audio the Chiefs have barred Hill from all team activities. His days in Kansas City might be numbered.

 

Listening to that audio made me sick to my stomach. I have nothing against a parent disciplining their child, but how can anyone justify punching a 3 yr old in the chest and then using a belt on him? It sounds like this guy has some serious issues and is in need of some help.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I hope he never plays in the NFL again. It'd be funny because he hasn't really made much money yet. Next season was going to be his big payday. Assuming he is an * with his money, His bank account is well under $1 million at the moment. Not living in the streets by any means, but not living the life of a start NFL WR.

image.png.580afbc4d0d502578422f0541d2a04d4.png

 


I assume he would have signed a deal similar to some on this list. Probably not the top few, but with salaries still going up, he would have fallen in the $50 to $60 million range. 
 

image.thumb.png.afba28a05ed23b95865b39d15cf2ec1c.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Myles said:

 

 

I hope he never plays in the NFL again. It'd be funny because he hasn't really made much money yet. Next season was going to be his big payday. Assuming he is an * with his money, His bank account is well under $1 million at the moment. Not living in the streets by any means, but not living the life of a start NFL WR.

image.png.580afbc4d0d502578422f0541d2a04d4.png

 


I assume he would have signed a deal similar to some on this list. Probably not the top few, but with salaries still going up, he would have fallen in the $50 to $60 million range. 
 

image.thumb.png.afba28a05ed23b95865b39d15cf2ec1c.png

Some on this forum would've locked this guy into a 10 year 200M deal last year. Lol

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This “man” doesn’t deserve be cheered forever again!   Beating a child like that is just unforgivable! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the allegations are true, then someone needs to pull an Aaron Hernandez on him; I would have no complaints.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 5:37 PM, Chloe6124 said:

Hill supposedly wasn’t even home when this last incident happened. If there really was one. Looks like the KC media made some big mistakes in reporting this story. 

 

On 3/18/2019 at 8:44 PM, Chloe6124 said:

All I am saying be very careful of believing what you read. 

 

"Be very careful" of Hill, not the media. That is what I would tell the girlfriend. 

 

No one should be punching anyone, especially a child. That is insane.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

 

"Be very careful" of Hill, not the media. That is what I would tell the girlfriend. 

 

No one should be punching anyone, especially a child. That is insane.

Why were you quoting me? I clearly posted the updates. No where did I say it was ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Why were you quoting me? I clearly posted the updates. No where did I say it was ok.

 

I quoted you because you posted several comments stating that folks should not believe the accusations against Hill, going so far as writing to "be very careful" of what is reported in the media. It is that comment that I had a problem with. 

 

If a child comes to you and reports abuse by a parent/friend/neighbor, do you need audio or video to confirm it before you take the accusation seriously? That is a major problem in our society, especially nowadays. Kids are bullied and hazed and nothing is done about it. You see adults making excuses for the abusers all the time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hill looks guilty to me, the audio was very disturbing. If true he should be suspended for the whole year. Yeah you can't believe everything you read or hear from the media but this looks pretty convincing to me. He even told his GF that she should be afraid of him. Anyone that punches a 3 yr old kid needs to go to jail. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I quoted you because you posted several comments stating that folks should not believe the accusations against Hill, going so far as writing to "be very careful" of what is reported in the media. It is that comment that I had a problem with. 

 

If a child comes to you and reports abuse by a parent/friend/neighbor, do you need audio or video to confirm it before you take the accusation seriously? That is a major problem in our society, especially nowadays. Kids are bullied and hazed and nothing is done about it. You see adults making excuses for the abusers all the time.

That is not what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Hill looks guilty to me, the audio was very disturbing. If true he should be suspended for the whole year. Yeah you can't believe everything you read or hear from the media but this looks pretty convincing to me. He even told his GF that she should be afraid of him. Anyone that punches a 3 yr old kid needs to go to jail. 

No he should have an indefinite suspension.   If the NFL is doing that for people using drugs anything less for someone like this is just not right.  He (if the audio is not altered etc) sounded like he was right and justified to do this.. BUT when question denies he did/does this.. which shows he knows it’s wrong and doesn’t give a damn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

That is not what I said.

 

:scratch:  What did you not say (or write)? You wrote to "be very careful" what the media is reporting and wrote other comments giving Hill the benefit of the doubt. The posts I am referring to are all on the first page. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, JimJaime said:

No he should have an indefinite suspension.   If the NFL is doing that for people using drugs anything less for someone like this is just not right.  He (if the audio is not altered etc) sounded like he was right and justified to do this.. BUT when question denies he did/does this.. which shows he knows it’s wrong and doesn’t give a damn. 

Yeah if true, he should be banned for life for what he did here. Abusing a child like that is terrible. It is far worse than what Peterson did to his child IMO. It is said the kids arm is broken. I doubt anyone would pick him up if all is true anyway. I would hope the Colts wouldn't and pretty much know Irsay and Ballard wouldn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah if true, he should be banned for life for what he did here. Abusing a child like that is terrible. It is far worse than what Peterson did to his child IMO. It is said the kids arm is broken. I doubt anyone would pick him up if all is true anyway. I would hope the Colts wouldn't and pretty much know Irsay and Ballard wouldn't.

 

I never believe in banning anyone for life. People change. I think people should be punished so that they can learn. But he should get a stiff punishment like a year suspension. What he allegedly did is worse than anything Josh Gordon ever did and Gordon is out of the league. Yes, I agree that this is worse than what Peterson did. JMO

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I never believe in banning anyone for life. People change. I think people should be punished so that they can learn. But he should get a stiff punishment like a year suspension. What he allegedly did is worse than anything Josh Gordon ever did and Gordon is out of the league. Yes, I agree that this is worse than what Peterson did. JMO

I believe in 2nd chances too but he already beat up an ex GF in college, now this. I definitely agree in a year suspension which I posted above.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I believe in 2nd chances too but he already beat up an ex GF in college, now this. I definitely agree in a year suspension which I posted above.

It is the same woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

:scratch:  What did you not say (or write)? You wrote to "be very careful" what the media is reporting and wrote other comments giving Hill the benefit of the doubt. The posts I am referring to are all on the first page. 

I was talking about letting the FACTS come out before saying someone is guilty. The facts are out now. Everyone deserves the presumption of innocents until there are actual facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

It is the same woman.

I did not know that. Why would she put up with someone's behavior like that? It has probably happened more than once then and hasn't been reported, just a hunch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I was talking about letting the FACTS come out before saying someone is guilty. The facts are out now. Everyone deserves the presumption of innocents until there are actual facts. 

 

In a court of law, yes. This is not a court of law. It is rather silly for folks to continue throwing that "innocent until proven guilty" card when we know this is true only in a court of law. Here is one example: Don't folks get arrested all the time without a "presumption of innocence"? That's just one.

 

Anyway, at which point do we know the "actual facts" (in any situation)? Do we know the "facts" now in the Hill case? Some may argue that since no charges were brought, Hill must be innocent.  Is he? Hence, I ask "When is a fact an 'actual fact'?" Is video and auditory evidence needed for something to be an "actual fact"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

In a court of law, yes. This is not a court of law. It is rather silly for folks to continue throwing that "innocent until proven guilty" card when we know this is true only in a court of law. Here is one example: Don't folks get arrested all the time without a "presumption of innocence"? That's just one.

 

Anyway, at which point do we know the "actual facts" (in any situation)? Do we know the "facts" now in the Hill case? Some may argue that since no charges were brought, Hill must be innocent.  Is he? Hence, I ask "When is a fact an 'actual fact'?" Is video and auditory evidence needed for something to be an "actual fact"?

You can bet that with this tape coming out he will be prosecuted and could do some jail time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

You can bet that with this tape coming out he will be prosecuted and could do some jail time.

Yeah Football wise he may never play another down. This isn't like what Hunt did either if true. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

You can bet that with this tape coming out he will be prosecuted and could do some jail time.

 

Yes, for sure.

 

Since you did not answer the question directly, based on your reply, one can assume that  you believe that an accusation is an "actual fact" when there is video or auditory evidence. Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Chiefs learned a lot from the Kareem Hunt fiasco, and the Adrian Peterson fiasco.

 

Why should a team cut a star player when they know that another team is going to pick that player up as soon as they are eligible to play again? You don't see the Redskins catching flack for Peterson, and you don't really hear anyone saying how morally wrong the Browns are for signing Hunt. It's really crazy. As much as it sucks, If I'm the Chiefs, I wouldn't cut Hill. He's going to be playing somewhere, might as well be KC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nulled said:

I think the Chiefs learned a lot from the Kareem Hunt fiasco, and the Adrian Peterson fiasco.

 

Why should a team cut a star player when they know that another team is going to pick that player up as soon as they are eligible to play again? You don't see the Redskins catching flack for Peterson, and you don't really hear anyone saying how morally wrong the Browns are for signing Hunt. It's really crazy. As much as it sucks, If I'm the Chiefs, I wouldn't cut Hill. He's going to be playing somewhere, might as well be KC.

 

He shouldn't be playing this year at least though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 18to87 said:

 

He shouldn't be playing this year at least though

 

No doubt, but the crowd calling for the Chiefs to release Hill are silly. I get it, he messed up, but it's not like he will be banned from the NFL. Might as well keep him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nulled said:

 

No doubt, but the crowd calling for the Chiefs to release Hill are silly. I get it, he messed up, but it's not like he will be banned from the NFL. Might as well keep him.

 

 As long as suspension comes in timely. Being placed on the commissioners exempt list by itself doesn't absolve the team of having to pay him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 9:49 AM, NFLfan said:

In a court of law, yes. This is not a court of law. It is rather silly for folks to continue throwing that "innocent until proven guilty" card when we know this is true only in a court of law. Here is one example: Don't folks get arrested all the time without a "presumption of innocence"? That's just one.

 

I disagree.

 

The reason the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof is so high in criminal cases is because the penalty for guilt is severe. You're taking away a person's freedom, so we must determine to a reasonable degree that the person is guilty of what they're being accused of. Potentially severe consequences = high standard of proof and a presumption of innocence.

 

Even an arrest is not lawful without probable cause, or sufficient reason based upon facts to believe that a crime was committed. Suspicion, hunches, etc., are not probable cause, and while it's subjective, there is still a high standard to establish probable cause (at least, there should be).

 

When it comes to accusations against against an employee, or a public figure, there is no presumption of innocence, particularly among the public and on the Internet. Yet, if the public and media got their way, a lot of people would be dealt severe consequences without a reasonable determination of facts. There is now an environment, typified by so-called "cancel culture," that would strip individuals of their jobs, their livelihood, their status and reputation, even sometimes their family and their rights, mostly without regard for established fact. All it takes is an accusation, or a group of accusations, and people are ready to ride against the accused person, mostly on the basis of outrage and moral superiority.

 

These are severe consequences. 'He should never be allowed to play again,' or even 'he should be suspended for a long time' or 'the Chiefs should get rid of him' are severe responses. Before we can talk about whether the wrongdoing calls for such severity, shouldn't we determine as a matter of fact what actually happened, and whether the person accused is actually guilty?

 

The principle regarding a presumption of innocence and due process exists to protect people from being penalized as a result of wrong accusations (for a variety of very important reasons -- bias, financial motivations, revenge, honest mistakes, etc.) We've gotten to a point where the public and the media can orchestrate punishment against people, without any regard for due process. It's not as severe as being imprisoned, but there can still be serious consequences as a result of public accusations. 

 

So I disagree that it's silly to apply the presumption of innocence to situations like this. I'm not saying no one should have or state opinions about situations like this, but there's a line that's often crossed, where the general public 'decides' that a person who has been accused is scum, and deserves to be punished to the most severe degree possible. And that's inherently unfair, and contrary to the reason for a presumption of innocence and due process in the first place. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

I disagree...... 

 

^^^ This.. 

 

It's getting to the point that the media and the public has anointed itself judge, jury, and executioner. 

 

Even if you feel there is no doubt that a person is guilty letting the media and public opinion influence guilt and punishment without an assumption of innocence is a bad road to go down; a slippery slope that may one day infringe on everyone's rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have avoided this thread because I am not the judge, jury or the executioner.

I don't know all the facts and know in the back of my mind that the media is guilty of sensationalizing things at every opportunity.

I feel I am not in a position to judge at this point without knowing what is fact, or what is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know what the heck the nfl is taking so long for. That tape was enough. You don’t want someone like that in the league. It doesn’t even matter at this point if he is guilty of abusing his son. That tape was so bad he should be gone. This isn’t hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2019 at 11:04 AM, Nulled said:

I think the Chiefs learned a lot from the Kareem Hunt fiasco, and the Adrian Peterson fiasco.

 

Why should a team cut a star player when they know that another team is going to pick that player up as soon as they are eligible to play again? You don't see the Redskins catching flack for Peterson, and you don't really hear anyone saying how morally wrong the Browns are for signing Hunt. It's really crazy. As much as it sucks, If I'm the Chiefs, I wouldn't cut Hill. He's going to be playing somewhere, might as well be KC.

 

No, because Kareem Hunt lightly "kicked" a woman in the leg after SHE attacked him. Was it the right thing to do? Of course not. But is it anywhere near as bad as what Tyreek Hill did? Not even close. I'm not sure that another team will pick him up. The league will ban him anyways as soon as he is picked up. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 8:39 AM, NFLfan said:

 

 

"Be very careful" of Hill, not the media. That is what I would tell the girlfriend. 

 

No one should be punching anyone, especially a child. That is insane.

I'm good with someone punching Hill.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DaveA1102

      DaveA1102 1,864

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...