Jump to content

Tyreek Hill under investigation for battery


.Buzz

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

The cops were called to investigate a child's well-being twice. Of course they were removed from the home. They'll always err on the side of caution in child safety situations.

That's what should happen. But in reality that is not always the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Danger said:

It's in the NFL's best interest to wait until close to the start of the regular season if not longer. Wait for this to play out. No sense in suspending him for 2-3 games if they find evidence for something that would warrant a longer suspension.

This. The investigation could give results that will exonerate him, give grounds to ban him, or something in between. This needs to play out in the legal system before anyone (NFL, Chiefs, fans, etc) make any harsh decisions.

In the mean time, the Chiefs should plan on both results. I'd look at them to draft a WR somewhere in round 1-3, depending on how the board falls. Even if Tyreek isn't suspended, Sammy Watkins will inevitably miss some games for an injury and will likely be cut after this year. So drafting a WR would be smart of them no matter what happens with Tyreek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

The cops were called to investigate a child's well-being twice. Of course they were removed from the home. They'll always err on the side of caution in child safety situations.

No, that's not the case at all. CFS operates independent to police investigations.  When the police are called, they do not have the authority to remove a child.  They call CFS, CFS then sends their worker to start an investigation on their end.  And even they do not have the authority to remove a child.  They then go to their supervisor with their preliminary findings.  That supervisor does not have the authority to remove the child.  The supervisor then takes it to the juvenile prosecutor who files an ex parte motion for a temporary removal which must be signed off by a judge.  Shortly thereafter (typically within 48 hours) a formal hearing is then held to determine whether to place the child as "in need of assistance".  All parties involved will have legal representation.  It takes more than just "erroring on the side of caution" for a child to be declared "in need of assistance"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

No, that's not the case at all. CFS operates independent to police investigations.  When the police are called, they do not have the authority to remove a child.  They call CFS, CFS then sends their worker to start an investigation on their end.  And even they do not have the authority to remove a child.  They then go to their supervisor with their preliminary findings.  That supervisor does not have the authority to remove the child.  The supervisor then takes it to the juvenile prosecutor who files an ex parte motion for a temporary removal which must be signed off by a judge.  Shortly thereafter (typically within 48 hours) a formal hearing is then held to determine whether to place the child as "in need of assistance".  All parties involved will have legal representation.  It takes more than just "erroring on the side of caution" for a child to be declared "in need of assistance"

I never suggested that the police removed the child. But for the record, under Missouri law a police officer (and others) can place a child under temporary protective custody if they deem the child is in an at risk situation. A judge makes then makes a decision within 72 hours on if they should remain that way but it is not nearly that stringent of a process to temporarily remove them, and in those situations the judge is often going to extend that protective custody while this kind of court case and/or investigation is going on. At least in Missouri. Laws around these things do vary greatly from state to state.

Additionally, a verdict hasn't been reached as to whether the child is in need of care. That's what these court cases are deciding. They may just have terms for Hill and/or his wife to regain permanent custody. They may remove the child long term. They may deem that nothing is wrong and move on. We just don't know enough, really.

 

EDIT: I'm realizing now after posting this that it actually occurred on the Kansas side, not the Missouri side. Not as familiar with things there. I know about some of the Missouri stuff from experience and living there for a chunk of my life. Kansas, I don't know. So maybe I am incorrect here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from a poster named Kyle Vinyard on Arrowhead Pride:

Quote

From the Johnson County District Attorney’s website, for those who didn’t click on the link:

In CINC cases, the court must first determine whether all parents and grandparents have been properly notified. Then the court must determine if the child is "in need of care" (meaning, that the child is without proper care or supervision, or has been abused, or is truant, or other statutory reasons). If the court finds the child to be a CINC, the court has tremendous authority to make orders for the child and family. The court may order the child and parents to obtain counseling or treatment. The court may order the child placed in the custody of a relative or in state custody.

All that is concrete fact from this report is that a judge made a finding that Hill’s son is a CINC. As the website suggests, the court has wide latitude in determining whether a child qualifies in a CINC case. It DOES NOT necessarily mean that the court found that Hill and/or his fiance actually abused their son, just that he needs care and/or safety.

The rest is up to speculation. Is Hill himself "under investigation"? If you take all of the publicly available documents that news outlets have obtained and released, the answer is "maybe." All that the authorities (the DA’s office and the Kansas Department for Children and Families) have said is that they are investigating incidents "involving" Hill. He’s also been listed in police reports as an "other persons" designation. That doesn’t mean he’s a suspect, but it definitely doesn’t exonerate him either. Given his past, it seems that news outlets have assumed that he is under investigation, which isn’t an entirely unfair assumption but from the facts available it’s not accurate, either.

Since Hill and his finance live together, the court could have found (or may eventually find after investigation), that one or both of Hill and/or his finance have abused their son. A court (likely, though I practice criminal law in Oregon, so Kansas isn’t my area of expertise) wouldn’t leave a child in a home where even one parent is abusing the child. But the general CINC finding is at least an implication that their home is not safe for the child, which is why he was removed. These are extremely complicated cases, and while we’re pretty far away from getting any concrete answers, it’s only looking worse.

But again, assumptions shouldn't be made without all of the facts.

From a team standpoint, I again say that WR was always a need with Watkins injury history/contract. If/when the Chiefs draft a WR next week I don't think that they're planning on a future without Hill just yet but rather a future without Watkins.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kingseanjohn said:

This is from a poster named Kyle Vinyard on Arrowhead Pride:

But again, assumptions shouldn't be made without all of the facts.

From a team standpoint, I again say that WR was always a need with Watkins injury history/contract. If/when the Chiefs draft a WR next week I don't think that they're planning on a future without Hill just yet but rather a future without Watkins.

Although you know taking a WR in round 1 with their defensive deficiencies will stir up this mess even moreso and they won’t be talking about Watkins either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chiefer said:

From everything ive heard, Tyreek was in California at the time of the incident.

If thats true then hes not likely to get suspended, banned or cut from the team.

Honestly, no matter what the ruling is I wouldn't rule out a suspension. They've done stupider things. All I care is that we don't cut the guy if he didn't actually do anything wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Honestly, no matter what the ruling is I wouldn't rule out a suspension. They've done stupider things. All I care is that we don't cut the guy if he didn't actually do anything wrong.

This was/is my fear with LeSean McCoy. Similar situation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • No charges will be filed but they think a crime was committed by someone. Not enough evidence to say who did it. (*Tyreek was out of town the second time police were called, so this makes me think the mother could be the potentially guilty party.)
  • Active investigation still ongoing for child protection. (5 year statute of limitations)
  • Two instances where police were called to the house.
  • "The child is safe" but wouldn't confirm if child was at home or elsewhere.
  • Wouldn't confirm that it was one of the parents that harmed the child, nor talk about if there were any other people in the house.
  • Records likely to be sealed due to it being a child protection investigation.
  • Reached conclusion of no charges a couple of days ago after receiving all information from law enforcement.
Edited by kingseanjohn
second, not first
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
 
3
6 minutes ago, kingseanjohn said:
  • No charges will be filed but they think a crime was committed by someone. Not enough evidence to say who did it. (*Tyreek was out of town the first time police were called, so this makes me think the mother could be the potentially guilty party.)
  • Active investigation still ongoing for child protection. (5 year statute of limitations)
  • Two instances where police were called to the house.
  • "The child is safe" but wouldn't confirm if child was at home or elsewhere.
  • Wouldn't confirm that it was one of the parents that harmed the child, nor talk about if there were any other people in the house.
  • Records likely to be sealed due to it being a child protection investigation.
  • Reached conclusion of no charges a couple of days ago after receiving all information from law enforcement.

Can you link the source?  It would seem that if he really can prove that point, he'd be cleared ASAP.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...