Hill Investigated for Battery. Oh no.

[jetlord 10,207]

Everything in this thread is pure speculation.  We don't know what happened in two separate cases, who was primarily involved, or even that the kid had a broken arm for sure.  It will all come out in due time.  Sure, it's frustrating to wonder whether Hill will be available to play for the Chiefs, especially with the draft only days away, but protecting the kid is most important and the process is hopefully working to do that.  Until we know the whole story, why even try to guess the outcome?

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

14 minutes ago, FANATIC said:

Must be nice to be an INSIDER?   Your Absolute Attitude/Take is.........😂 Laughable.

Statistics and facts, Mr. FANATIC.  Laugh all you want in a large font.   I am a physician and also was once a deputy coroner for a  judicial district with more than its share of crime. That may not be an "insider" in this case involving HIll, , but it carries a little knowledge and experience with it. Your reaction and attitude, frankly, is childish and ignorant.

[oldtimer 8,684]

7 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Everything in this thread is pure speculation.  We don't know what happened in two separate cases, who was primarily involved, or even that the kid had a broken arm for sure.  It will all come out in due time.  Sure, it's frustrating to wonder whether Hill will be available to play for the Chiefs, especially with the draft only days away, but protecting the kid is most important and the process is hopefully working to do that.  Until we know the whole story, why even try to guess the outcome?

common sense has not place in this thread

[jetlord 10,207]

2 minutes ago, Fmbl2187 said:

Statistics and facts, Mr. FANATIC.  Laugh all you want in a large font.   I am a physician and also was once a deputy coroner for a  judicial district with more than its share of crime. That may not be an "insider" in this case involving HIll, , but it carries a little knowledge and experience with it. Your reaction and attitude, frankly, is childish.

Would Hill have better odds than most abusers?  He's had the best treatments that money can buy, it's been a numbers of years since his big incident, and he has a huge incentive to stay straight plus the support of team and the glare of publicity.  How many of that 90% have those advantages?  An alcoholic may always be an alcoholic, but with help and something to live for such as family, career or religion, they can avoid drinking.  Does the same apply to domestic abusers?  Honest question and you have some experience in that area. 

[jetlord 10,207]

4 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

common sense has not place in this thread

Yeah, seems to be some spill over from the LR.  ☺️

[Thegoatee 1,780]

19 minutes ago, Fmbl2187 said:

Wishful thinking.  In the first episode, Tyreek tried to kill the baby in utero by punching his girlfriend in the stomach and trying to strangle her.   That is a little more serious than "neglect." Whether or not she is a complete witch is irrelevant, when it comes to the psychology of physical abuse in a domestic situation. It is a matter of impulse control and making good decisions about whether to divorce or not.

Again, statistics show that a domestic abuser repeats at some point 90% of the time.  I don't believe that anyone should get their hopes up over the long term, whether it is this incident or a future one. The Chiefs were well aware of this when they drafted him.  A quest for a Lombardi should not blind anyone to reality.

I am just speculating based on the detail of Tyreek not being listed on the second incident report, which seems like the catalyst here. If Tyreek committed an act of violence against the child, he will get far worse than Hunt and will be gone.

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

8 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Would Hill have better odds than most abusers?  He's had the best treatments that money can buy, it's been a numbers of years since his big incident, and he has a huge incentive to stay straight plus the support of team and the glare of publicity.  How many of that 90% have those advantages?  An alcoholic may always be an alcoholic, but with help and something to live for such as family, career or religion, they can avoid drinking.  Does the same apply to domestic abusers?  Honest question and you have some experience in that area. 

i don't know the answers to those questions, Jet. I only know that 90% of domestic abusers who end up in the court system repeat.  The statistic from what I recall does not address the quality and quantity of counseling.  Counseling, though, is most helpful for things in which decision-making is involved.  It doesn't much affect rage reactions. Those types of things run really deep.  They are at the level of emotional reactions in the midbrain, not reasoning decisions from the cortex.  The guy unfortunately will always be at risk. You are absolutely right about spiritual transfomations.  Those can and do occur and completely change deep emotional reactions. Spiritual transformations can, and do, arrest alcoholism.  That is well known.

[Handswarmer 645]

5 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Would Hill have better odds than most abusers?  He's had the best treatments that money can buy, it's been a numbers of years since his big incident, and he has a huge incentive to stay straight plus the support of team and the glare of publicity.  How many of that 90% have those advantages?  An alcoholic may always be an alcoholic, but with help and something to live for such as family, career or religion, they can avoid drinking.  Does the same apply to domestic abusers?  Honest question and you have some experience in that area. 

If the bolded type was true, the police would have never been called to his house. Never.

I do predict he will be suspended via the Personal Conduct policy: “Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person.”

If the judge DID NOT fell that someone/something "posed a genuine danger to safety and well being" of the 3yr old, he would have never been removed from the household. Period.

[jetlord 10,207]

2 minutes ago, Fmbl2187 said:

i don't know the answers to those questions, Jet. I only know that 90% of domestic abusers who end up in the court system repeat.  The statistic from what I recall does not address the quality and quantity of counseling.  Counseling, though, is most helpful for things in which decision-making is involved.  It doesn't much affect rage reactions. Those types of things run really deep.  They are at the level of emotional reactions in the midbrain, not reasoning decisions from the cortex.  The guy unfortunately will always be at risk.

Thanks.  Guess that makes sense.  I just hate to give up on anyone because of one mistake in the past.  You make it seem like there's little chance for redemption, but I respect your experience.

[reesebobby 5,661]

1 minute ago, Handswarmer said:

If the judge DID NOT fell that someone/something "posed a genuine danger to safety and well being" of the 3yr old, he would have never been removed from the household. Period.

That someone doesn't necessarily have to be Tyreek.  And it seems the focus is on the mother. 

[jetlord 10,207]

2 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

If the bolded type was true, the police would have never been called to his house. Never.

I do predict he will be suspended via the Personal Conduct policy: “Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person.”

If the judge DID NOT fell that someone/something "posed a genuine danger to safety and well being" of the 3yr old, he would have never been removed from the household. Period.

You're assuming that Hill was the cause of the incident and not just his fiance.  We don't know that. 

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

5 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Thanks.  Guess that makes sense.  I just hate to give up on anyone because of one mistake in the past.  You make it seem like there's little chance for redemption, but I respect your experience.

I'm not giving up.  Just passing along what I understand about this kind of stuff.

[FANATIC 852]

57 minutes ago, Fmbl2187 said:

Statistics and facts, Mr. FANATIC.  Laugh all you want in a large font.   I am a physician and also was once a deputy coroner for a  judicial district with more than its share of crime. That may not be an "insider" in this case involving HIll, , but it carries a little knowledge and experience with it. Your reaction and attitude, frankly, is childish and ignorant.

Oh NO Mr F Guy. I am so sorry that I must have offended you. My apologies. I meant it as a compliment. You are very entertaining. 

[Handswarmer 645]

57 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

That someone doesn't necessarily have to be Tyreek.  And it seems the focus is on the mother. 

 

56 minutes ago, jetlord said:

You're assuming that Hill was the cause of the incident and not just his fiance.  We don't know that. 

" Discipline– A player violates this policy when he has adisposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined), or if the league’s investigation demonstrates that he engaged in conduct prohibited by the Personal Conduct Policy. In cases where a player is not charged with a crime, or is charged but not convicted, he may still be found to have violated the Policy if the credible evidence establishes that he engaged in conduct prohibited by this Personal Conduct Policy. "

If Hill isn't the subject of the criminal investigation, the conduct to which he could be subject to discipline for would be by allowing his fiancee to beat the child/break his arm.

[Adamixoye 604]

Just now, Handswarmer said:

 

" Discipline– A player violates this policy when he has adisposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined), or if the league’s investigation demonstrates that he engaged in conduct prohibited by the Personal Conduct Policy. In cases where a player is not charged with a crime, or is charged but not convicted, he may still be found to have violated the Policy if the credible evidence establishes that he engaged in conduct prohibited by this Personal Conduct Policy. "

If Hill isn't the subject of the criminal investigation, the conduct to which he could be subject to discipline for would be by allowing his fiancee to beat the child/break his arm.

"Allowing"

[Handswarmer 645]

1 minute ago, Adamixoye said:

"Allowing"

= approval in many eyes

[reesebobby 5,661]

3 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

 

" Discipline– A player violates this policy when he has adisposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined), or if the league’s investigation demonstrates that he engaged in conduct prohibited by the Personal Conduct Policy. In cases where a player is not charged with a crime, or is charged but not convicted, he may still be found to have violated the Policy if the credible evidence establishes that he engaged in conduct prohibited by this Personal Conduct Policy. "

If Hill isn't the subject of the criminal investigation, the conduct to which he could be subject to discipline for would be by allowing his fiancee to beat the child/break his arm.

I think you'd have a pretty hard time making a suspension stick in a case where the fiancé of a player abuses a child. 

[Handswarmer 645]

Just now, reesebobby said:

I think you'd have a pretty hard time making a suspension stick in a case where the fiancé of a player abuses a child. 

No one knows what Rog is thinking....

[reesebobby 5,661]

1 minute ago, Handswarmer said:

No one knows what Rog is thinking....

I understand.  But one thing Rog is probably thinking is that Patrick Mahomes and the high flying Chiefs offense are good for the NFL.  Like it or not.  I'm sure he'd rather this not came up, but I also think he'd rather it go away quietly. 

[Adamixoye 604]

16 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

= approval in many eyes

Three points:

• It's still unknown what actually happened to the child and who did what, if anything
• Under the (very speculative) assumption that there was abuse by Hill's fianceé, we further don't have any evidence to suggest that Hill "allowed" that abuse to take place
• I would challenge you to come up with another case of NFL discipline where the player himself was merely an "accessory" rather than the active, primary participant

[Handswarmer 645]

2 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

Three points:

• It's still unknown what actually happened to the child and who did what, if anything
• Under the (very speculative) assumption that there was abuse by Hill's fianceé, we further don't have any evidence to suggest that Hill "allowed" that abuse to take place
• I would challenge you to come up with another case of NFL discipline where the player himself was merely an "accessory" rather than the active, primary participant

See Lewis, Jamal

See Lewis, Ray

[reesebobby 5,661]

4 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

See Lewis, Jamal

See Lewis, Ray

Ray Lewis pled guilty to obstruction.  And was charged with murder initially.  Jamal Lewis also pled guilty to drug charges.

[Adamixoye 604]

9 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

See Lewis, Jamal

See Lewis, Ray

Poor choice of words on my part, but your examples are bad as reesebobby pointed out.  Those dudes were legally guilty of something.  If Hill is not legally guilty of anything nor was the alleged primary perpetrator then there is not precedent for discipline.

[BroncoStud 3,253]

2 hours ago, Fmbl2187 said:

Statistics on that are not encouraging, and a child having broken his arm in a domestic dispute is NOT merely a domestic issue.

This is what I don't understand and I agree with you 100% Bil.  A 3 year old child had his arm broken by one of these two knuckleheads.  The child was removed from the home for his own safety.  Just imagine the injuries or mistreatment the public isn't aware of.  These people are tasked with feeding him, bathing him, taking care of him when he gets sick, when he cries - but both appear to have anger and domestic issues...  I get that fans want their best WR on the field, but there is a three year old living in said WR's house who has endured who knows what hell for three years.

[BroncoStud 3,253]

36 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

See Lewis, Jamal

See Lewis, Ray

Ray was close enough to a double homicide that he felt compelled to destroy the blood-soaked white tux he was wearing, that was covered in forensic evidence.  A very "Hillary" thing to do for someone who didn't participate...