CHIEFS

[pissclams]

I thought he was a changed man, but now that I know that he isn't I don't like him anymore.

you don't know that he isn't changed, or is the person who committed the crime that occurred while he was at osu, or that a crime occurred in march

[bucket]

I thought he was a changed man, but now that I know that he isn't I don't like him anymore.

you don't know that he isn't changed, or is the person who committed the crime that occurred while he was at osu, or that a crime occurred in march

The child was removed from the home. He's a piece of crap.

[420seriouscat69]

I'm not defending whether he did this or not, especially with his spotty past, but there's been a crap ton of cases where kids were removed from their home after a simple accident. When the kids get to the hospital, they (nurses, docs, etc.) make a decision based on their perception if something happened due to force or accident. There's been many cases where they've been wrong. I'd just say if 1. You're not a parent 2. You don't know 100% what happened and 3. We don't even know if the kid is back home or not, maybe pump the breaks a bit on casting such a wide net already on this issue.

[8manpick]

I mean, your number #1 doesn’t matter either. Being a parent doesn’t make you qualified to comment

[wetwillie]

Is it true that the judge asked them what happened to the child and they both just ?

[pissclams]

Is it true that the judge asked them what happened to the child and they both just ?

what judge?

[420seriouscat69]

Is it true that the judge asked them what happened to the child and they both just ?

No. Not per TH latest statement from their legal team.

[kitten_mittons]

Is it true that the judge asked them what happened to the child and they both just ?

I don't think that happened, but it is sort of how the DA is making their report sound.  There also could be some confusion in his statement since his hands are so tied on what he can say.  I don't think he can say whether they have ruled out an accident or not, but it doesn't sound good from what he said.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[420seriouscat69]

I mean, your number #1 doesn’t matter either. Being a parent doesn’t make you qualified to comment

I think it would probably help you have a better understanding of if they could see an accident being in play. My mom use to work for the JC Court House and saw a crap ton of these cases. She's told me the good and the bad.

[Institutional Control]

I think if the DA thought it was an accident or could have been an accident, he would have said so.

[wetwillie]

Is it true that the judge asked them what happened to the child and they both just ?

what judge?

I thought they had a hearing of some sort in front of a judge in regards to the child being removed from the home.  Im pretty ignorant on how child removal stuff works though.

[kitten_mittons]

Pretty much the worst-case scenario is if a 3rd party hurt the child and his parents are protecting the 3rd party over their child.  I would say the most likely scenario is that it was one of the parents.  We will most likely never know, so I'm going to continue to assume Hill is garbage until he proves otherwise.

It also sounds like the child is still not back with his parents, which also does not bode well for their innocence.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[8manpick]

Pretty much the worst-case scenario is if a 3rd party hurt the child and his parents are protecting the 3rd party over their child.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It’s only a worst case scenario if you think the parents are continuing to allow the third party the possibility of harming their child. If they’ve taken care of it and don’t want the third-party to be prosecuted, so be it.   I don’t think that is a particularly likely scenario, but there sure is a lot of conclusion jumping going on.

[420seriouscat69]

I really wanna know who took the kid to the hospital.

[kitten_mittons]

Pretty much the worst-case scenario is if a 3rd party hurt the child and his parents are protecting the 3rd party over their child.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It’s only a worst case scenario if you think the parents are continuing to allow the third party the possibility of harming their child. If they’ve taken care of it and don’t want the third-party to be prosecuted, so be it.   I don’t think that is a particularly likely scenario, but there sure is a lot of conclusion jumping going on.

I don't think it's super likely, either, but some are saying, "We don't know if his parents were even involved!" Which is dumb, because they sure know who was responsible for him if they weren't, and if I knew of someone who harmed my child, causing child services to LITERALLY TAKE MY CHILD AWAY, I wouldn't just take care of it myself, I'd tell the authorities and get my child back.
Again, the most likely scenario is that it was one of the parents, and they themselves do not want to go to jail.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[8manpick]

Pretty much the worst-case scenario is if a 3rd party hurt the child and his parents are protecting the 3rd party over their child.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It’s only a worst case scenario if you think the parents are continuing to allow the third party the possibility of harming their child. If they’ve taken care of it and don’t want the third-party to be prosecuted, so be it.   I don’t think that is a particularly likely scenario, but there sure is a lot of conclusion jumping going on.

I don't think it's super likely, either, but some are saying, "We don't know if his parents were even involved!" Which is dumb, because they sure know who was responsible for him if they weren't, and if I knew of someone who harmed my child, causing child services to LITERALLY TAKE MY CHILD AWAY, I wouldn't just take care of it myself, I'd tell the authorities and get my child back.
Again, the most likely scenario is that it was one of the parents, and they themselves do not want to go to jail.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Yeah, it doesn’t make sense in the context of having their kid taken away. My theory was that grandpa or uncle or something beat the hell out of them and they just got them out of the picture instead of getting them thrown in jail.

[420seriouscat69]

Channel 5 is airing something at 5 on TH that says could change what happens in the draft tonight. 

[ChiComCat]

Just because kids have been falsely removed before does not mean it was the case here.

Hill has a violent past that indicates a lack of value for this very child's well being.
Hill and his fiance have been investigated multiple times for this child's well being.
The prosecutor came forward and put out a pretty damning statement against someone that he is not prosecuting.  I can't imagine it makes him look good because one side will be mad Hill's not prosecuted and the other will be mad the prosecutor is tarnishing a Chief's star.

Nobody should kid themselves on the likelihood of Hill's innocence.

[mocat]

Channel 5 is airing something at 5 on TH that says could change what happens in the draft tonight. 

are you 105 years old

[420seriouscat69]

Channel 5 is airing something at 5 on TH that says could change what happens in the draft tonight. 

are you 105 years old

I heard it on 810. They have some story that nobody else has. 

[ChiComCat]

Unless it is due to a team no longer being interested in a WR, I can't imagine it is Hill related.  I don't think anyone is trading a first rounder for him.

[420seriouscat69]

Story is at 6. They say it’s big. Criminal investigator for channel 5.

[420seriouscat69]

It’s a recorded conversation between Hill and his Fiancé on how their son broke his arm over the phone.

[star seed 7]

rough ridin' OPPD get a fisa warrant or something?

[420seriouscat69]

11 minute conversation between the two. Just got released to the courts today. Been through multiple steps to get here.