Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Legal Landscape For Tyreek Hill - 7.8.19 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
suggestions and implies....hmmm...I was referring to what his attorneys had indicated.....I didn't hear him make any demands which is a big part of defining the word blackmail...the first word actually....just not sure blackmail is the right word to use in this situation.....thats all I'm saying...leverage might be a better word...but I really don't know/care....
Milkman
Footballguy
Good but that doesn't mean he's always right. Sonetimes he's right at the time and then something new comes into play. The thing about this situation is something new could come out that nobody knew about including Tyreek.
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
Well assuming nothing new comes out we can hopefully see if he has good information. Could be helpful in the future.
You didn’t hear him saying “I’ll release dirt on you,” but you’re choosing to believe that’s what he meant.
Fact is, he threatened her, clearly & plainly.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
well hopefully he doesn't get charged with blackmail on top of this for what he said cause that would really make a mess of this whole thing
Well, if you’re talking about the legal system, the courts will probably say “you better be afraid of me too b###h,” is a physical threat, and not accept some convoluted explanation that it was just a way of saying “I have dirt on you.”
I mean, if you’re going to bring it back to the legal system, that is.
Milkman
Footballguy
Lots of bad articles are going to come out saying Tyreek needs to be banned or suspended for the entire year despite the mounting evidence of his innocence. These articles are more about saving face than anything else. All the people that publicly convicted him can't let themselves be wrong.
That's why he'll be suspended. Just to appease those people.
That's why he'll be suspended. Just to appease those people.
This is pretty accurate. Goodell’s history (Zeke, AP, Rice, Brady, Hunt) suggests his decisions are based more on public perception & less on actual fairness/justice. There’s enough negative stuff out there, that RG will probably suspend Hill. IMO, this is another reason why less than 6 games is unlikely. The NFLs policy says 6 games. If Hill gets less than that, those same people will complain that he’s getting off too easy.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
The one x-factor here could be CBA negotiations. Not to say a deal wouldn’t get done if talks broke down in 2019, but there is legit money on the table and it seems like we’re starting to see some wiggle room regarding suspensions; albeit for substance abuse, but still.
Firing up the NFLPA which seems to be in a docile mood at the moment for whatever reason right now, might be counterproductive. And as we know in the NFL...money rules the roost.
Last edited by a moderator:
JamieMurphy
Footballguy
True, but I could see the NFL giving some on substance abuse (not PEDs), as they’ve done recently, but I don’t see the NFL giving much power up with regards to the commish’s power in issues of “conduct detrimental.” They’ve gone to court (& won) repeatedly over that issue.
Not saying it can’t happen, I just think it’s unlikely.
Young 8
Footballguy
There is no policy here and the final number will be close to ZERO than 6, I have no idea why people still can't accept that.
There is a policy. On pages 6 & 7, it clearly states:
With regard to violations of the Personal Conduct Policy that involve: (i) criminal assault or battery (felony); (ii) domestic violence, dating violence, child abuse and other forms of family violence; or (iii) sexual assault involving physical force or committed against someone incapable of giving consent, a first Personal Conduct offense will subject the offender to a baseline suspension without pay of six games.
I have no idea why you believe otherwise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Young 8
Footballguy
Mike Florio should be worried about his job or at least his bank account balance when this is over.
Young 8
Footballguy
I believe people who has knowledge of the situation, people who have been right all along for months.
But you can believe Mike Florio or the guy hired by Footballguys less than 2 weeks ago.
It's your choice.
I posted the link to the NFL’s policy. Has nothing to do with Florio or the FBG article. There is a policy, and if you click the link, you can see it for yourself.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
I think if you look back at Zeke, RG angered 1) NFLPA and 2) Jerry Jones. Clark Hunt isn’t JJ, but if evidence is lacking in this case...this could go sideways in terms of RG’s actions where both owners/players concerned.
It’s not the NFL giving up power, but Goodell himself...it’s clear he wants this CBA deal done now, because unlike the last CBA, with regard to broadcast rights, the landscape has increased exponentially. I suspect he sees this next deal as his true legacy maker, a deal in which he builds the next generation framework for how to bring the NFL to the world.
He survived Ray Rice...he survived Kaepernick...he survived Trump. I could see a scenario where he’s now singularly focused on the above.
Like I said before, I’m not saying it won’t happen, I just don’t think it’s likely.
Like you said, Hunt isn’t Jones. If RG wasn’t worried about angering Kraft or Jones, I don’t suspect he’s going to do things differently because he’s worried about getting on Hunts bad side.
joey
Footballguy
Mods (read: @Joe Bryant )
Respectfully, can you please merge this thread with the other main Tyreek Hill thread? Or lock this one. I still don't understand the value of splitting these conversations into separate topics since it ALWAYS devolves into repeating the same info in 2 places, and then requiring all the board members who are interested to now have to check TWO threads for new info.
thanks
Respectfully, can you please merge this thread with the other main Tyreek Hill thread? Or lock this one. I still don't understand the value of splitting these conversations into separate topics since it ALWAYS devolves into repeating the same info in 2 places, and then requiring all the board members who are interested to now have to check TWO threads for new info.
thanks
Thanks Joey.
I'm a big proponent of topical threads. I know some love the giant threads that go one for years but I'm not one. When we have a new topic like this, I always prefer a new thread to discuss the current issue.
Thanks for the feedback and I realize that's not answer you wanted to hear but I'd rather be honest. Thanks.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
He hasn't really done any of those things though. The closest we have is "maybe" he threatened her, but there's no way that meets felony level. There is zero evidence of any other violation. So it doesn't have to fall into the minimum 6 game criteria.
Last edited by a moderator:
Who says I don't believe you?
Can you tell me what your source does or why they're credible?
Milkman
Footballguy
I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I can't reveal my source though. I think he's pretty credible.
Last edited by a moderator:
King of the Jungle
Footballguy
Explaining what he is wouldn’t give away too much (part of organization, beat writer, cousin....etc.).
So you're saying you literally can't say one word about anything about the source? What they do. Why they're trusted. What connection they may have. What connection they are to you?
Milkman
Footballguy
No I can't. I can say they have been right in the past way more than they are wrong and I have used this source for 5 years. When they have been wrong in the past it's more because the situation changed than their info was wrong. I'm not trying to steer anybody wrong.
I'm not trying to do anything but give up info that might help the board without hurting my FF teams.
The whole situation is about a child abuse case. There’s NO WAY you can say this situation doesn’t fit within the parameters laid out in this policy.
If you want to argue that he didn’t do it, that’s a different argument (& irrelevant, since if RG decided Hill violated the policy, it doesn’t matter what proof there is/isn’t), but this situation definitely is covered by this policy, and therefore the 6-game baseline would apply.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I was going to post pretty much the exact same thing as Hankmoody....I think you need to realize bay hawks that other people may interpret it a little bit differently than you.... and that is okay.....you may be right, you may be wrong.....but you definitely don’t have the only point of view and interpretation.....puffing out your chest that your view is correct in all caps or something doesn’t make your interpretation correct....there has been no concrete indication or proof (but lets not get hung up on the word proof) that this child was abused by Hill.....in fact IIRC it was reported that the hospital determined his arm injury to an accident.....neither parent has been charged with child abuse......its obvious there are issues and dysfunction in this family unit but it is at least debatable if anything that we know so far falls into any of the categories of the policy...yes the child was removed temporarily from their custody but there can be many reasons for that to happen.....it doesn’t mean 100% child abuse...just IMO
Last edited by a moderator:
Hankmoody
Footballguy
It was a hastily strewn together allegation of child abuse with no actual evidence coming to light (yet). Think what you want of Goodell, he doesn't act on allegations alone. Zeke's suspension had a whole lot of actual evidence and testimony, including him being on film exposing that woman's chest. If there's more we don't know about then sure, it could end up fitting that. But it doesn't today based on what we know.
I’m not sure if you’ve actually read my posts. I’ve said, at least 5 times in my posts today that Hill might get no/a short suspension, or that RG could act differently than he has in the past, etc. I don’t think those things will happen, but I’ve been very specific in saying that is what I THINk will happen. Not that it will happen, but that it is my opinion about how it will play out.
I haven’t said Hill abused his son, either. What I’ve said is that this is the NFL policy that applies. If Hill is going to be punished by the NFL, it will be under this policy. He is being investigated by the NFL for a violation of this policy. Maybe they will determine he doesn’t deserve any punishment (which I think is what Hankmoody is saying), but IF the NFL punished him, it will be under the this policy. And IF that happens, the 6-game baseline applies.
Milkman
Footballguy
Just putting things together here. Tyreek cuts his fiancee and family off and that's when all hell broke loose. Now there us compelling evidence that he didn't hit her at all in 2014. A crime he pleaded guilty too........
If NFL investigators find out he was set up in 2014 and the family was trying to set him up again........I can see a scenario where he doesn't get suspended at all........
If NFL investigators find out he was set up in 2014 and the family was trying to set him up again........I can see a scenario where he doesn't get suspended at all........
Whether it was hastily thrown together or not, it is what the NFL is investigating. So, they are investigating if Hill violates the provisions of this policy. If RG decides he did, the 6-game baseline applies.
We can agree to disagree about RG not acting on allegations alone. But the NFL IS investigating a violation of this policy.
TheWinz
Footballguy
To come into this thread and say the words, "My source", then refuse to say anything about them is such a tease. Why don't you just send a PM to @Joe 8ryant?
NightStalkers
Footballguy
One question I have. If she is lying(I am listening now) about 2014 then why are they still living in the same house? If he got convicted for a crime because of her why would he let her back into his house? All I heard throughout the recording is her accusing him and him denying all of it. Why did he get convicted for the first offense if it was only her word against his? There must have been some physical evidence to support it. She may be a schemer of some sort or another but he seems to be his own worst enemy by keeping her around. And she is having twins? Lord help all their kids. Something seriously wrong with that relationship. Why hasn't he moved away from her permanetly? One of those 2 is massively lying. Either he has done most or all of these things or she is an expert at setting him up. In either case he bears some responsibility for what is going on. He could easily move out to another place and have visitation rights and pay his alimony/child support. He almost seemed to know there is a recording going on. I say again why is he putting himself at risk? His problem right now is he has a conviction on his record and is still putting himself into jeopardy with the same accuser of his conviction. The truth may never be fully revealed one way or another but something is wrong in that house and they keep adding kids to the mix.
The chiefs should either use 3 franchise tags and then let him walk or make any offer backloaded with tons of behavior conditions as I think that something new will come up, either him actually doing another violent act or her lying again. For suspension ramifications I don't see this as doing much to change things. If he has some proof this never happened then he can say I am innocent. But the burden of proof is on him not the league. The threat he said about her being terrified is his own words and he doesn't have a lot of defense for that. In the end I feel for the kids, as this is the poster child for a dysfunctional household.
The chiefs should either use 3 franchise tags and then let him walk or make any offer backloaded with tons of behavior conditions as I think that something new will come up, either him actually doing another violent act or her lying again. For suspension ramifications I don't see this as doing much to change things. If he has some proof this never happened then he can say I am innocent. But the burden of proof is on him not the league. The threat he said about her being terrified is his own words and he doesn't have a lot of defense for that. In the end I feel for the kids, as this is the poster child for a dysfunctional household.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
You said” There is NO WAY you can say this case does not fit within the parameters laid out in this policy.”....and IMO and the opinion of others....you can.....
as far as we know so far there is no criminal assault or battery....no domestic violence, no dating violence,....no child abuse or family violence....no sexual assault or physical force.....
could he still be suspended....sure, but it may not be for a violation of the things listed in this 6 game portion of the policy....
in fact the article this thread is referencing is saying that 2-4 is most likely.....so not failing under the automatic 6 you reference....
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Exactly. Anyone can come into a thread and spout a bunch of nonsense and say they have a source.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
To be fair.....Milkman has said several times he doesn’t care if you give any consideration to what his source says and whether you believe him or his source or not....I have a feeling even if he did give a little nugget about his source it still wouldn’t be good enough....just take it for whatever it is worth to you and move on....
cobalt_27
Footballguy
He posted his “source” info in a public forum. Fair to say he cares about its consideration.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
They are investigating a violation of the Personal Conduct Policy as a whole, yes. But they aren't ONLY investigating the parameters you specify. It's entirely possible that they determine he violated some other aspect of the Policy, one that doesn't rise to the level described in your quote. It's not only a "situation definitely is covered by this policy, and therefore the 6-game baseline would apply" in play.
Milkman
Footballguy
I just like helping people in the FF community if I can. People that don't like me or my info can pass it off as false if they want. It's ok. I've never worried about my rep here.
Milkman
Footballguy
TheWinz
Footballguy
If you read my post again, you will see that I suggested he PM @Joe 8ryant . I never said he should list his source in the thread.
@Milkmanteased us all with the word "source", which suggests his source knows information that others don't. If he doesn't want to reveal the source, don't reveal what the source said. Doing so just makes him look like he's seeking attention. Anytime you say the word "source" in here, you need to be prepared to be hounded by inquiring minds. And why not just PM Joe?
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Young 8
Footballguy
Well, instead of stressing out Milkman about his source, you can just check this forum daily
https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1
or these people on twitter and you'll always know everything you need to know about this case
https://twitter.com/ClayWendler
https://twitter.com/ArrowheadLive
https://twitter.com/1_chiefskingdom
https://twitter.com/mind_rhino
https://twitter.com/donhillarykc
https://twitter.com/ExposeClusterBs
joey
Footballguy
Biabreakable
Footballguy
As usual I do not care about all the rigmarole of the he said she said what the law decided was just who is morally corrupt (not enough hours in a day for that) and so on.
All I want to know is if he is suspended and for how long. Wake me up when there has been a decision. Speculation about these things is always ugly.
All I want to know is if he is suspended and for how long. Wake me up when there has been a decision. Speculation about these things is always ugly.
The only reason the NFL is investigating Hill is because child abuse questions were raised after his sons arm was broken. CPS removed the child from his parents’ care. They don’t do that if an NFL player violates a different part of the personal conduct policy.
Again, the NFLs investigation might reveal there was no child abuse, no domestic abuse, no violation of this policy. I’m not saying I know what it will reveal. What I am saying is this investigation started because Hill is involved in a situation where child abuse is possible. So the NFL is investigating whether he violated this policy, where a 6-game baseline suspension is specifically laid out.
You, and stinking ref, seem to think I’m saying “it’s 6 gsmes, end of story.” I’m not. I THINK it will be a minimum of 6 games, but that’s my opinion. You can disagree with that, it’s just my opinion. I can’t fathom how you’re disagreeing with the fact that the NFL investigation is looking into the possibility of child abuse.
Baeddel Moon
Footballguy
One of the pages you linked to is a twitter account demonizes those with mental illnesses (ExposeClusterBs). A common abuse tactic is to make the other person appear crazy or discredit them, when trauma is one of the main drivers of mental problems in the first place. It is exceedingly gross to watch this play out, no matter what happens to Tyreek Hill.Young 8 said:
