Johnson Co. DA Press Conference on Tyreek HIll at 3:00

[Mloe68 1,521]

17 minutes ago, liquidfriend said:

The baseline is 8 based on the Kareem Hunt punishment.  He can slide the amount up or down as he sees fit.

June 29, 2018 press release from the NFL (I just read the entire conduct code and prior to this there was no baseline at all)

“Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense."

and then this about Kareem Hunt

Hunt is being investigated for another incident that happened at a resort in June, so he may be facing two separate suspensions, which would likely span longer than the baseline six-game suspension for violation of the league's personal conduct policy. The 23-year-old running back was released by the Chiefs on Friday.

 

 

[FANATIC 852]

2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

a lot of assuming he was the culprit here

Yes.....I refuse to not accept good news! 

[liquidfriend 1,151]

5 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

June 29, 2018 press release from the NFL (I just read the entire conduct code and prior to this there was no baseline at all)

“Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense."

and then this about Kareem Hunt

Hunt is being investigated for another incident that happened at a resort in June, so he may be facing two separate suspensions, which would likely span longer than the baseline six-game suspension for violation of the league's personal conduct policy. The 23-year-old running back was released by the Chiefs on Friday.

He didn't face anything from the other incidents in the end.  The baseline is whatever Roger decides it is that day lol

[liquidfriend 1,151]

8 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

a lot of assuming he was the culprit here

No, but he's not going to get the benefit of doubt because he has a history.  This isn't actual court and the judge here can do whatever he pleases.

[oldtimer 8,686]

Just now, liquidfriend said:

No, but he's not going to get the benefit of doubt because he has a history.  This isn't actual court and the judge here can do whatever he pleases.

oh I agree. Its a matter if Goodell wants the chiefs to go 12-4 or 10-6..yes I think TH is good for 2 wins

[Chiefmanzada 466]

4 minutes ago, FANATIC said:

Yes.....I refuse to not accept good news! 

Good news he didn't get charged bad news is the whole situation

If the coaches and teammates can move forward with this so can everyone else. I'm sure they will 

[FANATIC 852]

2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

oh I agree. Its a matter if Goodell wants the chiefs to go 12-4 or 10-6..yes I think TH is good for 2 wins

Maybe the DA is a Bronco Fan after all he did use the I think they did it but analogy. What did that accomplish? Why even ad that? Bronco Fan! 

[liquidfriend 1,151]

5 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

oh I agree. Its a matter if Goodell wants the chiefs to go 12-4 or 10-6..yes I think TH is good for 2 wins

If you want an idea how to gauge the result, ignore the evidence part.  Just see how much media attention this gets over the next few weeks because he is the talkshow commissioner.

The players need to scale this back in the next CBA, but I'm sure he'll fight like hell over it.

[Mloe68 1,521]

3 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

a lot of assuming he was the culprit here

Yep. They both had a lot more to lose by him being jettisoned from the NFL and facing criminal charges. So what do you think happened. They both tesitifed that the kid fell or something? Because offering much more than something simple like that would really implicate one of the two. 

[Adamixoye 604]

38 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

Even though Tyreek may not have even been present when this happened, the fact it happened in his home could be enough for him to levy the 6 game penalty.

I continue to not understand this line of reasoning.  Are you in complete 100% control of everything that happens in your home, even when you're not there?  Should you responsible and punished by your employer because of something your partner does?  And as ridiculous as the NFL is sometimes, do you think that is an actual justification they would give for a suspension?  I challenge anyone to come up with a similar precedent where an NFL player was suspended based on "something happening in their home."

There is less evidence here that Hill did something than pretty much any other case of NFL discipline that I can think of - including Brady, where you had texts that looked pretty bad.  I know it's popular to think of Goodell as an out-of-control lunatic, but he has his limits.

Having said that, before today I was more agnostic on the facts and that was the hill I wanted to die on, that we just didn't know.  Today changed that a little bit.  The DA was trying to avoid specifics but admitted the child had been hurt.  Obviously his office believes it was abuse/battery.  It was probably Hill or Espinal.  It's pretty easy to read between the lines that they aren't pressing charges because the child can't articulate what happened and Hill and Espinal aren't being forthcoming.  It's a long shot but maybe it was even a third party.

It seems to me more likely that Espinal is covering for Hill (to keep Hill from losing the big payday) than the other way around, but both are plausible (she's his pregnant fianceé after all).

I'm glad the child is safe and I hope it wasn't as bad as some of this may all imply.  I hope everyone gets the help they need.  I hope Hill didn't do it and continues to play for the Chiefs without suspension, but if he did it I'll understand if there are consequences.

[FANATIC 852]

7 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

Yep. They both had a lot more to lose by him being jettisoned from the NFL and facing criminal charges. So what do you think happened. They both tesitifed that the kid fell or something? Because offering much more than something simple like that would really implicate one of the two. 

Do you think a 3 year old can tell them what happened? I do. The DA is an absolute TWIT for leaving this idea open without proof. Hill does not get a chance to defend himself in court. He is now labeled. If I am Hill I might sue him for his summation as a character assassination costing him millions in future contracts. . 

Maybe I the FANATIC should sue him for costing KC wins which could lead to some suicides or worse. He was negligent.

[oldtimer 8,686]

3 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

Yep. They both had a lot more to lose by him being jettisoned from the NFL and facing criminal charges. So what do you think happened. They both tesitifed that the kid fell or something? Because offering much more than something simple like that would really implicate one of the two. 

I dont know. and you dont know what you dont know so why bother speculating?..its old news already

[Mloe68 1,521]

1 minute ago, liquidfriend said:

If you want an idea how to gauge the result, ignore the evidence part.  Just see how much media attention this gets over the next few weeks because he is the talkshow commissioner.

The players need to scale this back in the next CBA, but I'm sure he'll fight like hell over it.

I agree 100 percent with this and any debate over baseline penalties is almost thrown out the window because Goodell clearly does whatever he wants. The players tried to have Article 46 at least amended in the negotiations for the current CBA. But I read they caved to get their revenue share amount and not having to play an 18 game schedule.  Pretty sure this next CBA is going to WWIII over a bunch of things. 

[Adamixoye 604]

4 minutes ago, FANATIC said:

Do you think a 3 year old can tell them what happened? I do.

REALLY depends on the 3 year old

[liquidfriend 1,151]

7 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

I agree 100 percent with this and any debate over baseline penalties is almost thrown out the window because Goodell clearly does whatever he wants. The players tried to have Article 46 at least amended in the negotiations for the current CBA. But I read they caved to get their revenue share amount and not having to play an 18 game schedule.  Pretty sure this next CBA is going to WWIII over a bunch of things. 

We'll see.  I think they're going to prioritize more money and the end of weed testing.

Very hard to walk away from an entire season with TV deals exploding, but heck should they ever go for it all.

[FANATIC 852]

4 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

REALLY depends on the 3 year old

Of course: I bet 9 out of 10 could likely tell you.

[Adamixoye 604]

1 minute ago, FANATIC said:

Of course bet 9 out of 10 could likely tell you.

Not sure what numbers I would put on it but I wouldn't go that high.  Most would be able to have a conversation but many wouldn't be reliable narrators or able to articulate details clearly.

[FANATIC 852]

Just now, Adamixoye said:

Not sure what numbers I would put on it but I wouldn't go that high.  Most would be able to have a conversation but many wouldn't be reliable narrators or able to articulate details clearly.

OK I simply stated they could tell you who did it. BLAH BLAH BLAH....I am bored now...time to leave this misery thread. 

[Calichief 3,016]

11 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

I continue to not understand this line of reasoning.  Are you in complete 100% control of everything that happens in your home, even when you're not there?  Should you responsible and punished by your employer because of something your partner does?  And as ridiculous as the NFL is sometimes, do you think that is an actual justification they would give for a suspension?  I challenge anyone to come up with a similar precedent where an NFL player was suspended based on "something happening in their home."

There is less evidence here that Hill did something than pretty much any other case of NFL discipline that I can think of - including Brady, where you had texts that looked pretty bad.  I know it's popular to think of Goodell as an out-of-control lunatic, but he has his limits.

Having said that, before today I was more agnostic on the facts and that was the hill I wanted to die on, that we just didn't know.  Today changed that a little bit.  The DA was trying to avoid specifics but admitted the child had been hurt.  Obviously his office believes it was abuse/battery.  It was probably Hill or Espinal.  It's pretty easy to read between the lines that they aren't pressing charges because the child can't articulate what happened and Hill and Espinal aren't being forthcoming.  It's a long shot but maybe it was even a third party.

It seems to me more likely that Espinal is covering for Hill (to keep Hill from losing the big payday) than the other way around, but both are plausible (she's his pregnant fianceé after all).

I'm glad the child is safe and I hope it wasn't as bad as some of this may all imply.  I hope everyone gets the help they need.  I hope Hill didn't do it and continues to play for the Chiefs without suspension, but if he did it I'll understand if there are consequences.

He wasn’t even there. How much more guilt free can it get? He shouldn’t be given anything .

[Mloe68 1,521]

4 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

I continue to not understand this line of reasoning.  Are you in complete 100% control of everything that happens in your home, even when you're not there?  Should you responsible and punished by your employer because of something your partner does?  And as ridiculous as the NFL is sometimes, do you think that is an actual justification they would give for a suspension?  I challenge anyone to come up with a similar precedent where an NFL player was suspended based on "something happening in their home."

There is less evidence here that Hill did something than pretty much any other case of NFL discipline that I can think of - including Brady, where you had texts that looked pretty bad.  I know it's popular to think of Goodell as an out-of-control lunatic, but he has his limits.

Having said that, before today I was more agnostic on the facts and that was the hill I wanted to die on, that we just didn't know.  Today changed that a little bit.  The DA was trying to avoid specifics but admitted the child had been hurt.  Obviously his office believes it was abuse/battery.  It was probably Hill or Espinal.  It's pretty easy to read between the lines that they aren't pressing charges because the child can't articulate what happened and Hill and Espinal aren't being forthcoming.  It's a long shot but maybe it was even a third party.

It seems to me more likely that Espinal is covering for Hill (to keep Hill from losing the big payday) than the other way around, but both are plausible (she's his pregnant fianceé after all).

I'm glad the child is safe and I hope it wasn't as bad as some of this may all imply.  I hope everyone gets the help they need.  I hope Hill didn't do it and continues to play for the Chiefs without suspension, but if he did it I'll understand if there are consequences.

I think the one thing added here that is very relevant is that the DA said he strong believes a crime was committed. And there's only two possible suspects. So Goodell can say you were there or didn't cooperate or won't cooperate and act accordingly. 

Had the DA just simply said there will be no charges, answered a few questions and then walked away...Goodell would have been stonewalled with conventional logic. 

The players dug their own grave by signing a CBA that has Article 46 in it and a power hungry commissioner who seems to live by no rules. He has however made decisions and lost in the courts so his power is not completely unchecked. But its pretty close. 

I'll say it again. Even if Tyreek gets suspended he should be thanking his lucky stars because this could have been far worse. All that said, who's gonna volunteer to get the DA Steve Howe drunk so that he spills what he thinks happened. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

7 minutes ago, FANATIC said:

Of course: I bet 9 out of 10 could likely tell you.

I used to joke if I cheated on my wife and my 3 year old daughter saw the other woman, she'd talk. 3 year olds are not babies. They know whats going on, but can also be easily manipulated. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

8 minutes ago, liquidfriend said:

We'll see.  I think they're going to prioritize more money and the end of weed testing.

Very hard to walk away from an entire season with TV deals exploding, but heck should they ever go for it all.

Agree walking away from any part of the season is a mistake. But from what I hear its likely. I propose they add a stipulation to the salary cap which exempts the QBs contract from it. Aside from that I don't care what they decide just don't miss games. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

23 minutes ago, FANATIC said:

Do you think a 3 year old can tell them what happened? I do. The DA is an absolute TWIT for leaving this idea open without proof. Hill does not get a chance to defend himself in court. He is now labeled. If I am Hill I might sue him for his summation. 

Responding in reverse order here but yes. A 3 year old can absolutely tell you what happened. "Daddy was really mad I ate his HoHos and gave me a whoopin with a stick while he was smokin that stuff with the funny smell"... Question is did the 3 year old even have to talk? Steve Howe isn't dumb. He was clearly stonewalled by the rules as much as anything else.  

[Adamixoye 604]

You guys, I've met some VERY inarticulate / reserved 3 year olds.  And if the kid has been abused / neglected, the chances that he falls into that category are higher.

[liquidfriend 1,151]

On the flipside, the last Super Bowl MVP was suspended for an entire month.  Maybe the Chiefs can continue the trend?