Chiefs suspended Tyreek Hill

[TribalElder]

Channel 5 just busted in and showed veach saying Hill is suspended for now

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Uhhh. I knew him.

No comment.

But as far as I know he never beat any women, or any pregnant women, or anything violent off the field for that matter.

He liked to party.

who cares?

I definitely don't. But that wasn't the point. He said they didnt break the law. I at that

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Best22

DT was a fast living player from the early 90s. He was no choir boy

But he didn’t do what Tyreek did

Holy shit guys. I wasn't comparing the two. Just disagreeing on a point

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by tmax63

And if Mahomes or Kelce or any one of several Chiefs get hurt they're screwed as well. One player not named Mahomes will not make or break the season.

as long as Mahomes is upright and healthy to play, we can compete for a Super Bowl. He goes down, the season is lost.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Just amazing how gleefully the local media outlets are working together to **** over the area's most popular team when it is on the cusp of greatness.

This should not be overlooked or forgotten.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Just amazing how gleefully the local media outlets are working together to **** over the area's most popular team when it is on the cusp of greatness.

The water walking by 610 and 810 was sickening today. It's one thing to bash Reek and stand up against child abuse. It's another to start over playing it, telling stories about people you don't even know changing careers to be social workers or even blasing Andy Reid's personal life.

[kcpasco]

They are attacking Andy now?

[NJChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger

IF I WAS IN TYREEK'S CAMP THOUGH I WOULD SUGGEST HE CALLS A PRESS CONFERENCE OR DOES AN INTERVIEW AND JUST GIVE HIS SIDE OF THE STORY AND BE HONEST. IF HE IS INNOCENT AS HE SUGGESTS, IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR HIS IMAGE TO LAY IT OUT AND THEN JUST TELL THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE COMMITTED TO BECOMING A BETTER MAN AND A BETTER FATHER. I BELIEVE IT WOULD HELP TO TAKE SOME STEAM OUT OF THE SITUATION AND PUT LESS PRESSURE ON THE CHIEFS TOO.

Are you aware that when you make every word cap locks it is the same as making none cap locks? Like no words stand out in that paragraph. In fact it makes it less likely people are going to read it imo.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by petegz28

The water walking by 610 and 810 was sickening today. It's one thing to bash Reek and stand up against child abuse. It's another to start over playing it, telling stories about people you don't even know changing careers to be social workers or even blasing Andy Reid's personal life.

Pretty disgusting.

[mr. tegu]

I’m just going to restate some of what I have been saying. Hill clearly is not good with this woman (or perhaps any) and has issues with anger, control, and dominance. He also seems to have different views on parenting and has a lack of understanding of the impact he is having if he does get as excessive as it sounds like he might. Though it still doesn’t sound like he thinks belt usage or other force is bad in itself, and it’s important to understand that we don’t know how he might utilize it or the context. I know that can be frustrating though. So when considering circumstances of abuse, that aren’t from malice or neglect, but from poor upbringing or just getting too physical or underestimating the damage your discipline and punishment can do physically and psychologically, how do we respond? The knee jerk response seems to mostly be to one of completely destroying the person, personally, publicly, and professionally. But is that really right? Should every case automatically result in jail, loss of children forever, or loss of employment? Is there no gray area that we can operate in without being accused of protecting or defending abusers?

Hill needs to change but it also represents a larger issue with parenting in that many cultures and countries view things differently than one another. Normal is a very relative and tenuous term.

So how do you counter the poor parenting tactics in someone on an individual level in someone who does seem to perhaps think their intentions are good? You have to convince him that what he learned as a child wasn’t okay despite his likely beliefs that it helped him, therefore it should help his son. You will undoubtedly get resistance in the form of it shouldn’t be others business or not wanting to change just to please others. He is probably sorry his child was severely hurt whether directly or indirectly caused by him, but he still won’t see that as abuse as others might.

Hill probably needs major cognitive restructuring. He needs to find other ways to be confident and satisfied that his kid respects him and is learning so Hill doesn’t confuse fear with respect. He probably needs help seeing his son’s typical 3 year old behaviors (not listening, crying, etc) are not unacceptable misbehaviors or a sign that his kid is disrespecting him or is somehow failing him personally. If it’s evident he doesn’t morally or personally see anything wrong with his forms of excessive discipline then you have to show how if for nothing else to be able to be more employable he has to change behaviors (not even values) so he can provide for his kids.

There are just countless more hurdles and scenarios I could keep rattling off. All of these are part of the recovery process when involved with CPS or for any person with these sorts of identified issues. He has a right to try to get better and improve and identify the underlying causes contributing to his excessive anger and outbursts towards those close him with the hope that one day he will be a good father. His best option is probably to acknowledge his shortcomings (even if he doesn’t believe they are) and make a commitment to being a better father while still denying he ever did anything out of malice or intent to physically harm and maintaining that he will do whatever it takes to regain custody.

People won’t like it, but ultimately, if possible, the best thing for the family is that the parents both improve themselves as people, even if it means separating, and most importantly of all, improve themselves as parents. That is the best outcome, and something I think people are way to eager to take off the table.

[BrownRice]

Originally Posted by SAUTO

The GF said tyreek was down stairs "getting on" the child when the injury happened. Hill said he did nothing but never explained the broken arm.

The child didn't fall while playing

Yes. And it just dawned on me what she was trying to prove with that tape. She completely removed herself from the scene of the crime. She placed herself upstairs, telling the child he needed to go back down there or it’d just be worse for him if he didn’t. She made it clear they had walked upstairs. And then the child walked back down. Hill agreed. He 100% ruled her out as a suspect.

What she also proved though, by telling the child why he should go back downstairs, is that she willingly sent him downstairs to possibly face a lesser punishment than what is the “norm”, and she doesn’t GAF about her child. She sent him off alone to face whatever impending doom she thought he might suffer. Endangering the health, safety, and well being of her toddler. Who then wound up with a broken arm.

Where do they sell pitchforks?

[VAGOMO 4 LIFE!]

Originally Posted by BrownRice

Yes. And it just dawned on me what she was trying to prove with that tape. She completely removed herself from the scene of the crime. She placed herself upstairs, telling the child he needed to go back down there or it’d just be worse for him if he didn’t. She made it clear they had walked upstairs. And then the child walked back down. Hill agreed. He 100% ruled her out as a suspect.

What she also proved though, by telling the child why he should go back downstairs, is that she willingly sent him downstairs to possibly face a lesser punishment than what is the “norm”, and she doesn’t GAF about her child. She sent him off alone to face whatever impending doom she thought he might suffer. Endangering the health, safety, and well being of her toddler. Who then wound up with a broken arm.

Where do they sell pitchforks?

So who’s fault is it?

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Like partying in a motel off 87th & 435 with Neil Smith and a bunch of hoochie women doing cocaine?

NEVER!

Dont see a big deal with this. His body, his choice. If he wants to do drugs who gives a shit.

[BoxWine_Stouffers_TubeSock]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I’m just going to restate some of what I have been saying. Hill clearly is not good with this woman (or perhaps any) and has issues with anger, control, and dominance. He also seems to have different views on parenting and has a lack of understanding of the impact he is having if he does get as excessive as it sounds like he might. Though it still doesn’t sound like he thinks belt usage or other force is bad in itself, and it’s important to understand that we don’t know how he might utilize it or the context. I know that can be frustrating though. So when considering circumstances of abuse, that aren’t from malice or neglect, but from poor upbringing or just getting too physical or underestimating the damage your discipline and punishment can do physically and psychologically, how do we respond? The knee jerk response seems to mostly be to one of completely destroying the person, personally, publicly, and professionally. But is that really right? Should every case automatically result in jail, loss of children forever, or loss of employment? Is there no gray area that we can operate in without being accused of protecting or defending abusers?

Hill needs to change but it also represents a larger issue with parenting in that many cultures and countries view things differently than one another. Normal is a very relative and tenuous term.

So how do you counter the poor parenting tactics in someone on an individual level in someone who does seem to perhaps think their intentions are good? You have to convince him that what he learned as a child wasn’t okay despite his likely beliefs that it helped him, therefore it should help his son. You will undoubtedly get resistance in the form of it shouldn’t be others business or not wanting to change just to please others. He is probably sorry his child was severely hurt whether directly or indirectly caused by him, but he still won’t see that as abuse as others might.

Hill probably needs major cognitive restructuring. He needs to find other ways to be confident and satisfied that his kid respects him and is learning so Hill doesn’t confuse fear with respect. He probably needs help seeing his son’s typical 3 year old behaviors (not listening, crying, etc) are not unacceptable misbehaviors or a sign that his kid is disrespecting him or is somehow failing him personally. If it’s evident he doesn’t morally or personally see anything wrong with his forms of excessive discipline then you have to show how if for nothing else to be able to be more employable he has to change behaviors (not even values) so he can provide for his kids.

There are just countless more hurdles and scenarios I could keep rattling off. All of these are part of the recovery process when involved with CPS or for any person with these sorts of identified issues. He has a right to try to get better and improve and identify the underlying causes contributing to his excessive anger and outbursts towards those close him with the hope that one day he will be a good father. His best option is probably to acknowledge his shortcomings (even if he doesn’t believe they are) and make a commitment to being a better father while still denying he ever did anything out of malice or intent to physically harm and maintaining that he will do whatever it takes to regain custody.

People won’t like it, but ultimately, if possible, the best thing for the family is that the parents both improve themselves as people, even if it means separating, and most importantly of all, improve themselves as parents. That is the best outcome, and something I think people are way to eager to take off the table.

One of the best posts I've read in a long while. You're awesome.

[chargerstickum]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I’m just going to restate some of what I have been saying. Hill clearly is not good with this woman (or perhaps any) and has issues with anger, control, and dominance. He also seems to have different views on parenting and has a lack of understanding of the impact he is having if he does get as excessive as it sounds like he might. Though it still doesn’t sound like he thinks belt usage or other force is bad in itself, and it’s important to understand that we don’t know how he might utilize it or the context. I know that can be frustrating though. So when considering circumstances of abuse, that aren’t from malice or neglect, but from poor upbringing or just getting too physical or underestimating the damage your discipline and punishment can do physically and psychologically, how do we respond? The knee jerk response seems to mostly be to one of completely destroying the person, personally, publicly, and professionally. But is that really right? Should every case automatically result in jail, loss of children forever, or loss of employment? Is there no gray area that we can operate in without being accused of protecting or defending abusers?

Hill needs to change but it also represents a larger issue with parenting in that many cultures and countries view things differently than one another. Normal is a very relative and tenuous term.

So how do you counter the poor parenting tactics in someone on an individual level in someone who does seem to perhaps think their intentions are good? You have to convince him that what he learned as a child wasn’t okay despite his likely beliefs that it helped him, therefore it should help his son. You will undoubtedly get resistance in the form of it shouldn’t be others business or not wanting to change just to please others. He is probably sorry his child was severely hurt whether directly or indirectly caused by him, but he still won’t see that as abuse as others might.

Hill probably needs major cognitive restructuring. He needs to find other ways to be confident and satisfied that his kid respects him and is learning so Hill doesn’t confuse fear with respect. He probably needs help seeing his son’s typical 3 year old behaviors (not listening, crying, etc) are not unacceptable misbehaviors or a sign that his kid is disrespecting him or is somehow failing him personally. If it’s evident he doesn’t morally or personally see anything wrong with his forms of excessive discipline then you have to show how if for nothing else to be able to be more employable he has to change behaviors (not even values) so he can provide for his kids.

There are just countless more hurdles and scenarios I could keep rattling off. All of these are part of the recovery process when involved with CPS or for any person with these sorts of identified issues. He has a right to try to get better and improve and identify the underlying causes contributing to his excessive anger and outbursts towards those close him with the hope that one day he will be a good father. His best option is probably to acknowledge his shortcomings (even if he doesn’t believe they are) and make a commitment to being a better father while still denying he ever did anything out of malice or intent to physically harm and maintaining that he will do whatever it takes to regain custody.

People won’t like it, but ultimately, if possible, the best thing for the family is that the parents both improve themselves as people, even if it means separating, and most importantly of all, improve themselves as parents. That is the best outcome, and something I think people are way to eager to take off the table.

pfffffttttt!!!! this shitbag is a lost cause.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I’m just going to restate some of what I have been saying. Hill clearly is not good with this woman (or perhaps any) and has issues with anger, control, and dominance. He also seems to have different views on parenting and has a lack of understanding of the impact he is having if he does get as excessive as it sounds like he might. Though it still doesn’t sound like he thinks belt usage or other force is bad in itself, and it’s important to understand that we don’t know how he might utilize it or the context. I know that can be frustrating though. So when considering circumstances of abuse, that aren’t from malice or neglect, but from poor upbringing or just getting too physical or underestimating the damage your discipline and punishment can do physically and psychologically, how do we respond? The knee jerk response seems to mostly be to one of completely destroying the person, personally, publicly, and professionally. But is that really right? Should every case automatically result in jail, loss of children forever, or loss of employment? Is there no gray area that we can operate in without being accused of protecting or defending abusers?

Hill needs to change but it also represents a larger issue with parenting in that many cultures and countries view things differently than one another. Normal is a very relative and tenuous term.

So how do you counter the poor parenting tactics in someone on an individual level in someone who does seem to perhaps think their intentions are good? You have to convince him that what he learned as a child wasn’t okay despite his likely beliefs that it helped him, therefore it should help his son. You will undoubtedly get resistance in the form of it shouldn’t be others business or not wanting to change just to please others. He is probably sorry his child was severely hurt whether directly or indirectly caused by him, but he still won’t see that as abuse as others might.

Hill probably needs major cognitive restructuring. He needs to find other ways to be confident and satisfied that his kid respects him and is learning so Hill doesn’t confuse fear with respect. He probably needs help seeing his son’s typical 3 year old behaviors (not listening, crying, etc) are not unacceptable misbehaviors or a sign that his kid is disrespecting him or is somehow failing him personally. If it’s evident he doesn’t morally or personally see anything wrong with his forms of excessive discipline then you have to show how if for nothing else to be able to be more employable he has to change behaviors (not even values) so he can provide for his kids.

There are just countless more hurdles and scenarios I could keep rattling off. All of these are part of the recovery process when involved with CPS or for any person with these sorts of identified issues. He has a right to try to get better and improve and identify the underlying causes contributing to his excessive anger and outbursts towards those close him with the hope that one day he will be a good father. His best option is probably to acknowledge his shortcomings (even if he doesn’t believe they are) and make a commitment to being a better father while still denying he ever did anything out of malice or intent to physically harm and maintaining that he will do whatever it takes to regain custody.

People won’t like it, but ultimately, if possible, the best thing for the family is that the parents both improve themselves as people, even if it means separating, and most importantly of all, improve themselves as parents. That is the best outcome, and something I think people are way to eager to take off the table.

That's just downright...logical.

Maybe this suspension came along at a great time for Tyreek to get a new perspective. Let's hope he gets some help, and utilizes that help.