Tyreek Hill Investigation

[maust]

In all other “accusations” whether it’s a congresssional testimony or the dean or your college needs your account, under almost all judgments/investigations/informal trials require the accused to give their account of the story.

Only in civil litigation post criminal judgment is a defendant required to give testimony. There is a long and storied tradition of people taking the 5th in congressional hearings, search Kefauver hearings if you aren't familiar with them.

 

[Joker]

I've met Seacoast Fan..,.uh...take my word for it (or don't)...not only is he a great Patriots fan, he's also an extremely experienced and knowledgeable maven of the legal arts. I think he gave you a clear indication inferentially when he revealed his wife is a PROSECUTOR.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

No. My wife is a prosecutor and she’s far from what you described.
She’s won plenty of jury trials and put plenty of dirtbags in jail, and is a fine lawyer.
And by the way, there have been times when she’s prosecuted this type of situation, i.e., a spouse or significant other being the only witness as well as perhaps a perpetrator. Even if you grant one of them immunity, they’re extremely difficult cases to win. But sometimes you have to bring the case anyway just because the behavior has been so abhorent.

I was speaking in general terms about state prosecutors. I’m sure there are exceptions like your wife.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Someone please provide the actual basis for this legal tradition instead of making fun of me. It not obvious and counterintuitive to me. In all other “accusations” whether it’s a congresssional testimony or the dean or your college needs your account, under almost all judgments/investigations/informal trials require the accused to give their account of the story.

Dean of your college is a bogus comparison because college is not the government.

You cannot be forced to say anything in Congressional testimony that can incriminate yourself. You can take the 5th in Congressional testimony as well as in trials and the only way they can force you to talk is to give you immunity on whatever it is you're refusing to talk about. With the possibility of prosecution off the table they can then compel you to talk about it.

 

[patfanken]

Specifically I philosophically disagree with this part:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Or simply, I philosophically don’t agree that a defendant can avoid testifiying by choice, unless there are extenuating circumstances. I don’t know where this concept traces back to. I do agree with Miranda rights and sure as he11 would lawyer up and never talk to the police without an attorney. But at an actual criminal trial...different story.

So you're OK with the state torturing you into testifying against your self. Or how about having the state putting pressure on your family to get you to say what they want you to say.

The 5th is a sometimes inconvenient but ABSOLUTELY necessary facet of a free society.

As to this particular case, it is perfectly understandable why the DA's office didn't prosecute him. When the victim is that young and the both adults are not talking, it is a hard case to present to a jury when you are under the obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either party was guilty of a crime.

It is equally understandable why the mother is keeping quiet.

But while keeping quiet might keep the police at bay, it SHOULDN'T help them with the NFL. Keeping "quiet" SHOULDN'T be an effective defense for Hill. But then its Roger Goodell and we know for a fact that we can't count on any outcome from him. But I can't see how Hill plays this year. But I couldn't see how Brady could be suspended for playing football on a cold night.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

As to this particular case, it is perfectly understandable why the DA's office didn't prosecute him. When the victim is that young and the both adults are not talking, it is a hard case to present to a jury when you are under the obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either party was guilty of a crime.

Not to mention that ethical prosecutors are not supposed to prosecute a case they know they have little chance of winning.

 

[XLIX]

I think Florio has the right idea. If Goodell has an ounce of brains and integrity (which, unfortunately, he does not) then you put Tyreek under oath and ask him who assaulted the child. If he stays silent, you assume he’s guilty and throw the book at him (i.e. huge suspension). If he admits he’s guilty, you throw the book at him and notify law enforcement. If he says the woman did it, you notify law enforcement and have her prosecuted.

Of course, then if she is facing jail time, she just *might* start singing.

 

[supafly]

I think Florio has the right idea. If Goodell has an ounce of brains and integrity (which, unfortunately, he does not) then you put Tyreek under oath and ask him who assaulted the child. If he stays silent, you assume he’s guilty and throw the book at him. If he admits he’s guilty, you throw the book at him and notify law enforcement. If he says the woman did it, you notify law enforcement and have her prosecuted.

Of course, then if she is facing jail time, she just *might* start singing.

Whether it was her or not, she’s certainly got enough financial motivation to where she should face her punishment happily standing on her head. Chris Carter was right when he said to get a fall guy.

 

[XLIX]

Whether it was her or not, she’s certainly got enough financial motivation to where she should face her punishment happily standing on her head. Chris Carter was right when he said to get a fall guy.

Then fine. Let her go to jail.

And throw the book at Tyreek for allowing it to happen.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

So you're OK with the state torturing you into testifying against your self. Or how about having the state putting pressure on your family to get you to say what they want you to say.

How is this in any way relevant to requiring an accused murderer or pedophile to take the witness stand and answer questions about alibis, contradictions in their story, etc? And why couldn't all other witnesses face the same exact torture or pressure to give specific testimony?

Example in Making of a Murderer, I wanted to know why the accused defendant made a *67 (caller id blocked) call to the woman who murdered later that exact same day and found (in remains) at his farm house. And a whole lot of other stuff he said that didn't add up about his timeline. As I've said, I think people are confusing illegal confession tactics in dimly lit rooms to testifying in a court of law, whereby you have legal counsel. I'm not even saying confessions should be admissable (as many of them are later proven to be very weak evidence.) I'm just talking about the most important witness, the actual accused, having to answer questions that are completely pertinent to the jury's decision.

 

[goheels22002]

The nfl doesn’t mess around with **** like this. Given the optics and the Peterson mess. I say he will be put on the commissioners excempt list and will miss a year waiting for a six game suspension. The nfl can’t afford to look like they are going soft on a child beater.

Roger's too busy reviewing the Asian Orchid tapes to make sure it appears the NFL isn't going soft when it comes to massage parlor visits by owners on the way to the game. Taken as whole, the Tyreek Evans and Bob Kraft things can only mean one thing: Brady gets suspended for four games.

 

[supafly]

Roger's too busy reviewing the Asian Orchid tapes to make sure it appears the NFL isn't going soft when it comes to massage parlor visits by owners on the way to the game. Taken as whole, the Tyreek Evans and Bob Kraft things can only mean one thing: Brady gets suspended for four games.

Whew. At least we don’t lose another first round draft pick.

 

[PP2]

LOL... that’s called CYA. People are kidding themselves if they think the Chiefs didn’t know about this in its entirety when it first happened. If they didn’t, there would have been no reason to ask him about it in the first place. Nope, they were more than happy to play him as long as the public didn’t know about it. As soon as the public found out, in all its faux righteous indignation, they caved immediately. It’ll hurt them again this season. I’d love to know how that initial conversation went.

Andy Reid: Kareem, we’re hearing that you booted the absolute **** out of a woman’s head. Is this true?

Hunt: Nope.

Andy Reid (to Clark Hunt): Well... that’s good enough for me. I don’t see why he would lie.

If I'm not wrong, both Hill and Hunt had red flags coming into the draft, hence falling as far as they did- Chiefs are now paying for it. Karma.

 

[RobertWeathers]

You'd be better off banging your head on the nearest wall. Do you enjoy being abused or something? I lasted maybe two posts on that board during the playoffs before feeling dumber just being there.

I was just having some fun.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Can’t let golden boy Mahomes lose his main weapon. What a joke. Hill is scum

Huh? The DA and whether or not there is enough to charge him has nothing to do with the Chiefs.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

I’m not talking about an out of court interrogation. I’m talking about an actual trial. A normal sixth grader would often ask why OJ Simpson didn’t have to testify. I’d have trouble giving an explanation on this one. Once again I’m not talking about being forced to talk at the scene or a crime of during pre-trial questioning. I jus don’t get why murderers don’t need to account for their own alibis and/or contradictory statements.

Someone please provide the actual basis for this legal tradition instead of making fun of me. It not obvious and counterintuitive to me. In all other “accusations” whether it’s a congresssional testimony or the dean or your college needs your account, under almost all judgments/investigations/informal trials require the accused to give their account of the story.

I’m not making fun of you, I hope you understand that. The problem with your position is, you are looking at the issue through the lens modern day court systems. You have to go back to when the genesis of the fifth amendment arose, which is actually way back in the Magna Carta days and even before that. Back then, The concept of testifying against yourself did not mean taking the stand and answering questions in an orderly courtroom with your lawyer present. Back then, it could mean, literally, being tortured into a confession that the king wanted. If you died, oh well. If you have not read up on the magna Carter lately (!)... take a moment or two. It’s really where the beginning of our court system started, including the right to a jury of your peers, etc. And even today, keep in mind, the state controls criminal prosecutions and, theoretically in this country, and actually in other countries, could rig the system to force you to testify against yourself. If not for the fifth amendment.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

I've met Seacoast Fan..,.uh...take my word for it (or don't)...not only is he a great Patriots fan, he's also an extremely experienced and knowledgeable maven of the legal arts. I think he gave you a clear indication inferentially when he revealed his wife is a PROSECUTOR.

HEY....who you callin’ a maven??? LOL
I would trade my entire maven-ship in the legal profession for your personal friendships with.....and memoriesof...the Talking Heads!

 

[RobertWeathers]

Huh? The DA and whether or not there is enough to charge him has nothing to do with the Chiefs.

One has to wonder what the DA would do if the parents were Billy Bob and Billi Jo Trailerpark and not the most explosive WR in football and the key to the Chiefs' season

 

[maust]

How is this in any way relevant to requiring an accused murderer or pedophile to take the witness stand and answer questions about alibis, contradictions in their story, etc? And why couldn't all other witnesses face the same exact torture or pressure to give specific testimony?

A skilled prosecutor could twist the average person into knots on the stand, guilty or not. They wouldn't need the police to coerce a confession, they could do it themselves in the courtroom. Very few of us is the great debater we think we are, as is evidenced here at patsfans on a regular basis.

 

[PatsBoy12]

One has to wonder what the DA would do if the parents were Billy Bob and Billi Jo Trailerpark and not the most explosive WR in football and the key to the Chiefs' season

Okay, fair enough. I see what you're saying. Conversely, would any of us be wondering the same if this were the Pats? I think that's a fair question to ask as well.