Tyreek Hill Investigation

dreighver said:

No, she's not complicit. Complicit communicates active participation and intention. She has not actively participated in, nor intended for her own abuse, nor her child's abuse, to occur. Only Hill has done that (assuming the allegations are true).

Staying in a relationship with a known abuser and hoping he changes, only to be abused again, is not being complicit. Perhaps naive, some might argue stupid, but not complicit.

Should she have removed that child from the Hill situation entirely? Probably, but that's easy for us to say from afar. Can I blame her for hoping Hill would change? No. We've all been in toxic relationships before (hopefully not many that were physically abusive). It's easy to remember the good times and hope someone can change. If you're reliant on that person for emotional and financial support, it's extremely hard to leave.

The notion that she's a gold-digger, or intentionally endangered the child just to maintain financial security is quite a harsh judgment to pass. Perhaps she felt Hill could change and that the financial support he could provide would give the child a better chance to thrive than to walk away, and raise the kid without a financially lucrative/secure situation, and without a dad.

Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to reach clear, lucid conclusions about the best course of action to take when you're removed from a situation in terms of proximity. It's much less clear how to proceed when you're the person experiencing a given situation and you haven't had the time to reflect.

And just to be clear, after the second round of abuse that involved the broken arm, it's my understanding that she removed the kid from the household and he has not been around Hill since. I could be mistaken, but that's my understanding of the situation.

Click to expand...

com·plic·it
/kəmˈplisit/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: complicit

1. involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.

Click to expand...

dreighver said:

No, she's not complicit. Complicit communicates active participation and intention. She has not actively participated in, nor intended for her own abuse, nor her child's abuse, to occur. Only Hill has done that (assuming the allegations are true).

Staying in a relationship with a known abuser and hoping he changes, only to be abused again, is not being complicit. Perhaps naive, some might argue stupid, but not complicit.

Should she have removed that child from the Hill situation entirely? Probably, but that's easy for us to say from afar. Can I blame her for hoping Hill would change? No. We've all been in toxic relationships before (hopefully not many that were physically abusive). It's easy to remember the good times and hope someone can change. If you're reliant on that person for emotional and financial support, it's extremely hard to leave.

The notion that she's a gold-digger, or intentionally endangered the child just to maintain financial security is quite a harsh judgment to pass. Perhaps she felt Hill could change and that the financial support he could provide would give the child a better chance to thrive than to walk away, and raise the kid without a financially lucrative/secure situation, and without a dad.

Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to reach clear, lucid conclusions about the best course of action to take when you're removed from a situation in terms of proximity. It's much less clear how to proceed when you're the person experiencing a given situation and you haven't had the time to reflect.

And just to be clear, after the second round of abuse that involved the broken arm, it's my understanding that she removed the kid from the household and he has not been around Hill since. I could be mistaken, but that's my understanding of the situation.

Click to expand...

TommyBrady12 said:

She’s complicit by not cooperating with the NFL...

Click to expand...

KNUSNGH said:

I’ve been lurking around this board since 2010. Also, me defending a *person* on a sketchy court trial makes me not be a fan of the patriots? Nice deflection — “I’ll ignore all of your points about this debate and just deny that you’re a patriots fan - HA! I win!”

Click to expand...

KontradictioN said:

And, you know, putting her kid in harm’s way in the first place with a man who, allegedly, she knew to be violent.

Click to expand...

KNUSNGH said:

I’ve been lurking around this board since 2010. Also, me defending a *person* on a sketchy court trial makes me not be a fan of the patriots? Nice deflection — “I’ll ignore all of your points about this debate and just deny that you’re a patriots fan - HA! I win!”

Click to expand...

Clonamery said:

Really.

Click to expand...

SBLIII said:

Click to expand...

KNUSNGH said:

All of you clearly did not listen to the full 16 minute tape that was released later.

Hill did not know he was being recorded, yet he confronted his girlfriend about how she lied about his 2014 assault case. She deflected and refused to address it. If he actually did it, why would he be saying he didn’t in what he thought was a private conversation? And why would she not deny his claim?

The full audio paints a different picture: she is toxic and has blamed him for things in anger that he did not do.

I’d suggest listening to it before forming an opinion, especially considering he wasn’t aware it wasn’t a private conversation and therefore had no reason to lie to her about things only the two of them would know the truth about.

Click to expand...

KNUSNGH said:

Lol that’s the part you focus in on? A quick google can lead you to the entire recording if you care about commenting accurately on this topic.

You are basing your judgement based on parts of the released audio. I am presenting the parts that weren’t initially released.

Let me know when you have an argument to make against the part where she ignored his claim that she lied about the assault.

How can people complain that other fans ignored the full evidence of deflategate but then ignore the full evidence of a case relating to a different team? It’s hypocrisy — the same thing as people focusing in on one or two sentences in the entire deflategate report.

Click to expand...

KNUSNGH said:

Have you listened to the full recording?

Click to expand...

Clonamery said:

**** you and your self-righteous indignation. If anyone brought cliff notes to a post when their argument was that we only had a part of the story, I'd question it. It's not incumbent upon the audience to search for your argument so you bring the evidence, KHALFASS.

Click to expand...

KNUSNGH said:

Funny — now I’ve been told I’m a jets fan, a broncos fan, a chiefs fan… all except for the one team I actually follow and message boards I actually visit.

It’s pathetic that some posters here are so infantile that they ignore every argument and all they can respond with is “yoU aRe a FaN oF tHe OtHeR tEaM!!1!!1!!”

Click to expand...