Thoughts on KC Star's Tyreek Hill op-ed?

So last Friday, the same day police launched an investigation "involving Tyreek Hill" on potential battery against a child, the KC Star editorial board ran an op-ed titled:

"If Tyreek Hill broke his son’s arm, the Kansas City Chiefs must break with their star."

You can read it here: If Tyreek Hill broke his son’s arm, the Kansas City Chiefs must break with their star

There has been debate on Twitter ever since, and remains a point of discussion. Some Star readers are criticizing the newspaper for publishing this If-he-did-it op-ed before charges have been brought against Hill, arguing that the op-ed could have waited until he's actually charged (technically, Hill is not even the focal point of the investigation; him and his fiancee are both listed on police reports).

Others are defending the Star, saying Tyreek Hill has lost the benefit of the doubt due to his past behavior, which includes assault against a pregnant woman. And also, this is a news story, and releasing or keeping Tyreek depending on what the investigation reveals will be part of the larger conversation at some point.

It is worth noting that on the day The Star ran this op-ed, they had a separate news story that stated the 3-year-old's arm broke as a result of an incident. They attributed this to sources and have stood by their reporting even as no other outlet has confirmed. However, the Star did NOT report who broke the kid's arm or when it happened, either because they don't know, or because it isn't solid enough yet to report. We aren't sure, and the Star's writers haven't clarified.

Anyway, would you have run the above-linked op-ed when they did? Would you have waited? Depending on how you answer, I'd be curious to know your thought process.

 

It's an opinion piece couched in the word "if". I have no issue with it, nor with the timing.

And frankly, they're right. If he did this, they must cut him. If he didn't, we all move on with our lives.

 

If judging without charges is good enough for Roger Goodell, I guess it's good enough for the KC Star.

 

I’m not a fan of the turn of phrase. Seems cheap and exploitative. But I agree with the general sentiment.

 

The turn of phrase is poor.

If Tyreek Hill broke his son's arm, the Chiefs will cut him. Won't be an if about it.

 

Too serious of an issue/accusation to get cute about it in the headline.

I'm not sure I would have ran that op-ed so quickly, the same day the reports came out. Plenty of time to do that as this plays out.

I'd bet we've seen the last of Hill in a Chiefs' uniform. They took a ton of heat for drafting him in the first place, after his abusing the pregnant woman in college who is now his wife. Sad situation, and even more to hear so many Chiefs' fans defending Hill/criticizing everybody else, just because he can run fast and score TDs.

 

Their sports columnist, Sam Mellinger, said on Twitter that they had begun reporting the story 10 days before the police report was released to the public. So it seems unlikely that they rushed out the op-ed on the same day.

Part of me wonders if the Star thought the Chiefs would instantly release him, and wanted to publish the op-ed before it was made official. Another part of me wonders if the op-ed was their way of letting the public know that they think strongly that Tyreek did it, but since they aren't certain, they could couch it in a series of "Ifs" and hypothetically write about it. (Their news article doesn't say who broke the kid's arm or when it happened, and apparently they don't feel comfortable enough in their reporting to print that yet.)

The op-ed itself seems obvious. If he did it, he's gone. Tyreek entering the NFL was his second chance and the Chiefs themselves made that clear upon drafting him. But if he didn't do it, the reader outrage is going to be intense beyond words. And it will also be interesting to see how Tyreek, who has not spoken publicly since this story broke, chooses to handle it with the Star - because he'll surely think their op-eds helped turn public opinion strongly against him.

 

Update.

The DA's office did not bring charges. Believes a crime occurred, but could not prove who did it. It is interesting that in announcing the press conference yesterday, the DA's office referred to the matter as the case "involving Tyreek Hill and Crystal Espinal," which is language that was not used basically at any point previously, either by the DA or media reports. It suggests that Tyreek's fiancee might have been responsible. If she wasn't -- and the DA's office knew that for certain -- surely she would have been cleared.

ProFootballTalk wrote an article saying invoking the 5th saved Tyreek from criminal prosecution, but won't save him from punishment by the NFL. However, in a statement released today, Hill's attorney stated he was innocent, cooperative and waived his 5th amendment rights.

Either way, ugly story, and no winners here.

 

Update #2. KCTV5 with an incredible scoop. Secured audio of Tyreek and fiancee discussing child abuse and obstructing investigation.

This almost surely puts an end to Tyreek's career in KC, and hopefully the NFL as well.

 

That's what happens when you haven't won a Super Bowl since the moon landing.

 

This story has more twists and turns than CandyLand.

WHB Exclusive: Tyreek Hill did not break son’s arm | WHB-AM