Chiefs release Kareem Hunt

[Elky]

Best fit would be Minnesota.

[thebestever6]

22 minutes ago, buno67 said:

They knew there was a video but when charges get dropped, police stop the investigation, and Hunt tells them what happen when he has zero past incident that say not to trust them, why go out of your way to get the video, especially when the hotel said they will only release it to police. 

They did the bare minimum for an NFL franchise  

[buno67]

Just now, thebestever6 said:

They did the bare minimum for an NFL franchise  

If Hunt has a record, yea but with his past mixed in with everything like charges being dropped and the prosecution not picking it up, and that it be extremely, extremely hard for them to get their hands on the video, what did you expect them to do. Like stated above, legally it would have been nearly impossible for them to get the video. 

[VigilantZombie]

Hunt likely wont even clear waivers and if he does he will be an FA four about 3 seconds.

[Broncofan]

56 minutes ago, buno67 said:

They knew there was a video but when charges get dropped, police stop the investigation, and Hunt tells them what happen when he has zero past incident that say not to trust them, why go out of your way to get the video, especially when the hotel said they will only release it to police. 

Because KC endorsed the NFL's statement that they would never let another Ray Rice incident happen.   And it's 100 percent understood since Zeke Elliott the police burden isn't the NFL's burden.    The NFL even acknowledged there's been an open investigation since February.   Just to be clear, the league and KC are in the same boat here together.

From a league/team's perspective, what killed BAL & the NFL was they knew there was a video with Ray Rice - but supposedly didn't get their hands on it.   Remember, that is the key part of what the public rightfully hammered the NFL & BAL for.   And the league swore a repeat would never happen - never again.   So,  as soon as there is knowledge there is a video with an assault case, especially involving a woman - the league & team have to see it, if the league (and KC stood right there with the league in drafting that statement) was serious in their position post-Rice.  That burden wouldn't apply if they were the first team this happened to - but it did happen, with Ray Rice.  And as others have mentioned, there are very clear mechanisms available to get that video.  But the NFL & KC consciously didn't pursue it.  And now that the video is out - it's Ray Rice all over again - not from K-Hunt's side - but from the league and team's perspective.

The ironic part is the actual infraction is nothing like Ray Rice.  It's not DV.   It's an altercation between very agitated parties, where it's clear there's responsibility on both sides.   Hunt doesn't get to walk from his part, but it's not even close to the typical re-occurence risk that DV cases pose.    BUT, from a league/team perspective, their stance was they would never let a repeat episode where no stone was left unturned in a case involving violence against women - and yet, they in all likelihood did.   

And all of that is before we get into Tyreek Hill.   KC swore all along when they drafted Hill they left every angle covered, didn't leave any stone unturned.    For them to not go the full step with pursuing the video (which there are very clear ways to proceed and are available to them), it damns them and the league even more than it damns K-Hunt - because it calls into question how much they really vetted Hill, if they weren't willing to go this far with K-Hunt.    The roster cut hurts KC way more than anyone else - and in any other circumstance, I'd have a lot of sympathy for that team.  But given they willingly turned a blind eye when they swore they were 110 percent all over vetting Tyreek Hill before drafting them, and the league swore no Ray Rice repeats would ever happen, and they stood behind that - I just find it more poetic they pay for that conscious decision (or non-decision) the most.  

K-Hunt likely will get claimed, and it wouldn't surprise me that K-Hunt will get multiple claims.   But that only happens if the teams do their research over the weekend, and figure out the cut as more of an issue of saving organization face and cover.    I do suspect that will be the case.   And again, K-Hunt deserves a suspension because you can't make that decision even if provoked or even assaulted, you have a greater burden.  But given this isn't at all like a typical DV case, the punishment doesn't fit the crime career-wise, from KC's perspective.   It's just that it's KC's only way out, they can't make an admission they and the NFL treated this like Ray Rice org-wise.   

[SBLIII]

7 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

Hunt likely wont even clear waivers and if he does he will be an FA four about 3 seconds.

Agreed. He will definitely play next season for a different team. He is one hell of a player and the NFL is a business. He will be on short leash going forward though.

[Broncofan]

 

2 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

On the video: The NFL contacted the hotel, was told the video was given to the police, the police said the video was given to the prosecuting authority, the prosecuting authority said that it was sent to legal team and so on.  The NFL made several attempts to get the video.  What people need to understand here is that the video was obtained illegally.  TMZ can do that and hide behind the 1st ammendment.  The NFL HAS to obtain the video LEGALLY.  They have no constitutional cause to hide behind, and would in fact be violating others constitutional rights if they did so. It's very plausible that the NFL nor the Chiefs never saw the video.

On the subject of Hunt lied: Did he or did his version of events not exactly match the video.  Seeing the video I could see a case in which he has asked about it and said that "some girl went crazy and we kicked her out the room and there was some pushing and shoving and we got her out eventually" That description would be truthful, but not fully accurate based on the video.

I'm torn on this bc, as a Bears fan Hint would be a great pickup and fill probably the Bears only offensive need and for cheap. But as the man I've been raised to be there is never cause to lay your hands on a woman.  To be clear this isnt DV, as if it were I would be 100% against Hunt being a Bear ever.  But even the lack of judgement in allowing this to happen, regardless of provocation, throws some questions that Hunt needs to answer.  The Bears are in somewhat a unique decision, as our owner is an 89 yo woman who has held to the feminist causes, but she also has shown that she will give 2nd chances.  Nagy has pretty good knowledge of who Kareem is. If Ms. McCaskey says ok,it's ok, I could see the Bears making a claim.

 

2 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

The Tyreke Hill stuff is completely unfair to everyone involved.  First of all the incident happened YEARS ago.  Secondly, Hill was punished both by the justice system and societally.  Hill and his now wife both underwent counseling. Hill has paid his debt.  He got a 2nd chance and hes made the most of it.  If Hill has another DV incident as a member of the chiefs then if they dont release him it would be hypocrisy, but saying bc the chiefs have a player on the roster who committed an incident before he came into the league and was a member of the team, doesnt deserve to be on the team bc of this shows a real lack of understanding.

Actually, there is a very clear mechanism to obtain a video - a court petition.  Anyone can make it, and while I'm just a layman, given K-Hunt is an employee of KC and the league, and they have a personal conduct policy, and they have latitude to investigate for discipline - there is a very clear reason for this to be allowed.   If the league takes this as seriously as they say it does - the statement they are powerless is completely false.   Again, before Ray Rice or Josh Brown, the league & teams could probably claim ignorance - but they certainly know now.   This isn't their first rodeo here.   So they get zero sympathy here.   

As for KC & Tyreke Hill, I have no issues with Hill now, but it's absolutely fair to take KC to task - because of the team's statements that they said they took EVERY possible step to vet Tyreek Hill.    Their past experience from Hill should have made them one of the top 3-4 teams in knowing how to vet someone completely, if what they said they did with Hill was as thorough as they portrayed.    Given the new info on an ongoing investigation being present since February, and the police obtaining the video, it damns them completely that their definition of every available step is probably nowhere near as thorough as they presented to the public.     

 

 

[CP3MVP]

51 minutes ago, Malik said:

It's not okay, but at some point everyone has to move forward and past it. Not saying people should forget or it doesn't make sense to hate them forever. 

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you I’m just curious that’s all.

People have said throughout this thread that Tyreek Hill is “different” because he was “honest” about it and was arrested. So as long as you get arrested and/or say I’m sorry it’s ok. There not cutting him because he assaulted a woman, they’re cutting him because he lied to them about it 

[SimbaWho]

Bengals will prolly pick this guy up. Not a slight either, just their history, etc.

Wow... Andy Reid man. Not putting up that ish. 

[Superman(DH23)]

1 hour ago, CP3MVP said:

So as long as you get arrested and/or apologize it’s ok?

No it's no ok, it's never ok, and its something he has to live with the rest of his life.  But it's been dealt with.  One of the reasons behind the founding principle of double jeopardy is that once you have served your punishment, you are free to return to a normal life.

[DoleINGout]

3 hours ago, Dan_Bali said:

Heroes like Kap can't get a game in the NFL...  what's the bet Hunt will be snapped up straight away by some morally bankrupt franchise.

except freakin kap sucks

[Superman(DH23)]

33 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

 

 

Actually, there is a very clear mechanism to obtain a video - a court petition.  Anyone can make it, and while I'm just a layman, given K-Hunt is an employee of KC and the league, and they have a personal conduct policy, and they have latitude to investigate for discipline - there is a very clear reason for this to be allowed.   If the league takes this as seriously as they say it does - the statement they are powerless is completely false.   Again, before Ray Rice or Josh Brown, the league & teams could probably claim ignorance - but they certainly know now.   This isn't their first rodeo here.   So they get zero sympathy here.   

As for KC & Tyreke Hill, it's absolutely fair to take KC to task - because of the team's statements that they said they took EVERY possible step to vet Tyreek Hill.    Their past experience from Hill should have made them one of the top 3-4 teams in knowing how to vet someone completely, if what they said they did with Hill was as thorough as they portrayed.    Given the new info on an ongoing investigation being present since February, and the police obtaining the video, it damns them completely that their definition of every available step is probably nowhere near as thorough as they presented to the public.     

 

 

You are a layman (as am I but I have some experience and knowledge in the field.  First of all, no the NFL could not just file a court order to get the video.  During an active investigation the evidence is kept from the public bc of tainting a jury pool.  Once the investigation is completed and the case is closed, you can submit a freedom of information act request, however that makes it fully public.  Which obviously is not in the NFLs best interest in terms of investigating.  Then you also have to look at privacy rights issues.  Hunt is an NFL employee, the woman the other men in the video are not, the NFL would have to demonstrate cause to supersede those privacy rights.  Finally, once the case is closed and no longer active, evidence is returned to its natural owner.  In this case the hotel.  The Hotel has a policy against their security footage becoming public.  What you have to understand is TMZ didnt jump thru any of these hoops.  They found an unscrupulous employee of the hotel with access to the video and paid an unknown amount of cash for the video.  And they believe they are shielded by the 1st amendment.  The worst part is they did this for clicks.  Go look at the titles for all the TMZ videos.  They all contain the words brutal and attack.  There is nothing in that video that is brutal and I cant see calling it an attack either.  I hope Hunt wins a lawsuit against TMZ bc imo 1st ammendment does not apply here.  There is nothing here to advance the public discourse.  Theres no "news" here, it's a blatant shaming campaign against Hunt and the NFL

[Broncofan]

20 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

You are a layman (as am I but I have some experience and knowledge in the field.  First of all, no the NFL could not just file a court order to get the video.  During an active investigation the evidence is kept from the public bc of tainting a jury pool.  Once the investigation is completed and the case is closed, you can submit a freedom of information act request, however that makes it fully public.  Which obviously is not in the NFLs best interest in terms of investigating.  Then you also have to look at privacy rights issues.  Hunt is an NFL employee, the woman the other men in the video are not, the NFL would have to demonstrate cause to supersede those privacy rights.  Finally, once the case is closed and no longer active, evidence is returned to its natural owner.  In this case the hotel.  The Hotel has a policy against their security footage becoming public.  What you have to understand is TMZ didnt jump thru any of these hoops.  They found an unscrupulous employee of the hotel with access to the video and paid an unknown amount of cash for the video.  And they believe they are shielded by the 1st amendment.  The worst part is they did this for clicks.  Go look at the titles for all the TMZ videos.  They all contain the words brutal and attack.  There is nothing in that video that is brutal and I cant see calling it an attack either.  I hope Hunt wins a lawsuit against TMZ bc imo 1st ammendment does not apply here.  There is nothing here to advance the public discourse.  Theres no "news" here, it's a blatant shaming campaign against Hunt and the NFL

Here's the problem with your premise - you're pointing to why the NFL wouldn't want to do those steps motivation-wise.  It's all a lip show service to what they try to portray publicly.  And that's all well and good in Feb/March/etc.  when the case is open.  But once the case is closed, all those arguments go away on why they can't apply initially, or to let the investigation play out.   Then it's just a case of why KC and NFL don't really want to look too deeply - which again, flies in the face of what they are trying to portray - they have zero tolerance, and "never again".  When their attitude and mindset definitely don't mirror the same.

Consider the counterpoints:

1.  Not wanting to make knowledge of video availability public - the case is ALREADY public knowledge.    So applying for access to the video doesn't violate her privacy, if the NFL has no plans to publicly disseminate it (and obviously they won't).    

2.  The video content either exonerates Hunt, best-case.  But if it's as problematic as it's turned out to be optics wise - it makes the league/KC look great for getting it out there.  And again, this is the position that NFL / KC took from the past.    It's fine to say they didn't really mean it - but then call it for what it is.

3.  Knowing there is video available - the NFL and KC were just stupid to think it wouldn't get out there eventually.   That's something any org should know by this stage, and certainly the NFL (Zay Jones incident should have hammered that message home).  And so sure, they can say "we didn't know what was on it" - but again, for a league that just went through Ray Rice, to do it 1x is forgiveable - a 2nd time, zero forgiveness.

4.  All of the above points you make are why the NFL might not get access - but they don't justify not applying.    And since the NFL has had an open investigation since February - it makes them look like they don't really want to find out what happened.   Which is probably the case.  

You've pointed all the reasons the NFL could say it was hard to apply - but the fact is, they chose not to.   And that was after saying  over & over again they would never leave a stone unturned.    Remember, this is a big part to how the NFL justifies its' own self-administered discipline process.    The league (and by extension, KC) put themselves in the position of being the judge, jury and executioner - and so to deliberately not pursue every available course, they left themselves completely open to this criticism.  And it's 100 percent earned.  

 

 

[Calvert28]

Guessing the tape that TMZ got had a return address from Boston.

[Calamity_Cometh]

Didn't think they would cut him. Hell, I wasn't even sure that he would get suspended. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't this incident surface in February? Isn't this the same one?

I won't get into the gory details about what went down. In terms of football, I believe the Chiefs will be fine. They've been very good at getting production out of running backs and Ware is pretty good when healthy.