Peterson charged with reckless or negligent injury to a child? (1 Viewer)

[chinawildman]

Is there something wrong with being American? I'm proud of it."Physically disciplining a child", think about that. Only a ##### hits a kid or a woman, I don't care what culture you are from.

Is there anything wrong with being Singaporean? Because you're basically saying "Singapore and some Asian countries are made up of #####s."

Some cultures have different concepts of power distance and discipline in society. Try to learn more before casting judgment so quickly. Different opinions don't necessarily equate to wrong opinions.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Is there something wrong with being American? I'm proud of it.

"Physically disciplining a child", think about that. Only a ##### hits a kid or a woman, I don't care what culture you are from.

Is there anything wrong with being Singaporean? Because you're basically saying "Singapore and some Asian countries are made up of #####s."

Some cultures have different concepts of power distance and discipline in society. Try to learn more before casting judgment so quickly. Different opinions don't necessarily equate to wrong opinions.

Whipping a child is not ok. At some point all cultures will evolve to the point where they realize this. Just because it happens in other cultures doesn't make it ok.Eta: don't put words in my mouth like you did in your post above.

 

[chickensoup]

I'm not going to quote any specific person in this thread but I'm going to just leave this out there as philosophical questions for people to ponder (especially those who seem to condone corporeal punishment)

Why is it morally ok to use corporal punishment on one group of people (children) and not another group of people (adults)?

How is corporal punishment different than simple assault besides one is legal, another is not based solely on age?

We currently have anti-discrimination laws for the workplace but not assault. Those laws state that you cannot discriminate against someone in the workplace based on age. Why should that not be the standard for simple assault? Why should the legal protection against violence against you (or just the threat in some states) not apply to a person until they are 18?

Why is it good, moral, or just one 2 people (parents) are allowed to use violence against a minor, but it's bad, immoral, or unjust for another to do the same thing to said child?

 

[Daywalker]

I'm not going to quote any specific person in this thread but I'm going to just leave this out there as philosophical questions for people to ponder (especially those who seem to condone corporeal punishment)

Why is it morally ok to use corporal punishment on one group of people (children) and not another group of people (adults)?

How is corporal punishment different than simple assault besides one is legal, another is not based solely on age?

We currently have anti-discrimination laws for the workplace but not assault. Those laws state that you cannot discriminate against someone in the workplace based on age. Why should that not be the standard for simple assault? Why should the legal protection against violence against you (or just the threat in some states) not apply to a person until they are 18?

Why is it good, moral, or just one 2 people (parents) are allowed to use violence against a minor, but it's bad, immoral, or unjust for another to do the same thing to said child?

A lot of nuance I would say. Your 5-year-old continues to run out in the street without looking both ways I don't see it is as assault to grab them, spank them and drag them to their room.

 

[chinawildman]

Is there something wrong with being American? I'm proud of it.

"Physically disciplining a child", think about that. Only a ##### hits a kid or a woman, I don't care what culture you are from.

Is there anything wrong with being Singaporean? Because you're basically saying "Singapore and some Asian countries are made up of #####s."

Some cultures have different concepts of power distance and discipline in society. Try to learn more before casting judgment so quickly. Different opinions don't necessarily equate to wrong opinions.

Whipping a child is not ok. At some point all cultures will evolve to the point where they realize this. Just because it happens in other cultures doesn't make it ok.Eta: don't put words in my mouth.

Yes, Asian parents are just pining for the day when their governments can accrue massive debts and their children can say stuff like "#### you dad".

 

[IheartGuinness]

The latest update I saw said that he's currently in custody after turning himself in. Not sure if that's been posted or not.

 

[chinawildman]

Why is it morally ok to use corporal punishment on one group of people (children) and not another group of people (adults)?

In some countries it is. Different strokes for different folks (sorry couldn't resist).

 

[cheif]

The latest update I saw said that he's currently in custody after turning himself in. Not sure if that's been posted or not.

Found the link as well, thanks.

 

[chickensoup]

I'm not going to quote any specific person in this thread but I'm going to just leave this out there as philosophical questions for people to ponder (especially those who seem to condone corporeal punishment)

Why is it morally ok to use corporal punishment on one group of people (children) and not another group of people (adults)?

How is corporal punishment different than simple assault besides one is legal, another is not based solely on age?

We currently have anti-discrimination laws for the workplace but not assault. Those laws state that you cannot discriminate against someone in the workplace based on age. Why should that not be the standard for simple assault? Why should the legal protection against violence against you (or just the threat in some states) not apply to a person until they are 18?

Why is it good, moral, or just one 2 people (parents) are allowed to use violence against a minor, but it's bad, immoral, or unjust for another to do the same thing to said child?

A lot of nuance I would say. Your 5-year-old continues to run out in the street without looking both ways I don't see it is as assault to grab them, spank them and drag them to their room.

I guess I just don't understand why the spanking or grabbing them has to take place. The grabbing them is is universally accepting (preventing harm) but the other 2 are add ons that are acceptable simply because of the age of the person in question? Doesn't that seem silly?I guess I've never understood why people think it's acceptable to harm the very people least able to defend themselves. The whole "teaching them lessons" argument has been used for thousands of years against groups of people who are currently not legally allowed to be assaulted anymore

 

[SameSongNDance]

The latest update I saw said that he's currently in custody after turning himself in. Not sure if that's been posted or not.

Found the link as well, thanks.

Why does he look happy as ####?

 

[Daywalker]

I'm not going to quote any specific person in this thread but I'm going to just leave this out there as philosophical questions for people to ponder (especially those who seem to condone corporeal punishment)

Why is it morally ok to use corporal punishment on one group of people (children) and not another group of people (adults)?

How is corporal punishment different than simple assault besides one is legal, another is not based solely on age?

We currently have anti-discrimination laws for the workplace but not assault. Those laws state that you cannot discriminate against someone in the workplace based on age. Why should that not be the standard for simple assault? Why should the legal protection against violence against you (or just the threat in some states) not apply to a person until they are 18?

Why is it good, moral, or just one 2 people (parents) are allowed to use violence against a minor, but it's bad, immoral, or unjust for another to do the same thing to said child?

A lot of nuance I would say. Your 5-year-old continues to run out in the street without looking both ways I don't see it is as assault to grab them, spank them and drag them to their room.

I guess I just don't understand why the spanking or grabbing them has to take place. The grabbing them is is universally accepting (preventing harm) but the other 2 are add ons that are acceptable simply because of the age of the person in question? Doesn't that seem silly?I guess I've never understood why people think it's acceptable to harm the very people least able to defend themselves. The whole "teaching them lessons" argument has been used for thousands of years against groups of people who are currently not legally allowed to be assaulted anymore

It doesn't seem silly because you can't reason with a 5-year-old like you can with an adult. Running into the street without abandon is like touching something hot on the stove. They need to know how dangerous it is. Sometimes you can't reason with them and you need to be the hot plate on the stove.

 

[chinawildman]

I guess I've never understood why people think it's acceptable to harm the very people least able to defend themselves. The whole "teaching them lessons" argument has been used for thousands of years against groups of people who are currently not legally allowed to be assaulted anymore

I believe it's still legal in Texas for parents to authorize teachers in public schools to dole out corporal punishment to students. You don't have to understand. My parents don't understand how American parents let their children dispect them all the time. Different philosophies toward parenting, learn to deal with it.

 

[tone1oc]

The latest update I saw said that he's currently in custody after turning himself in. Not sure if that's been posted or not.

Found the link as well, thanks.

Why does he look happy as ####?

Because god.

 

[chinawildman]

From: http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/09/12/adrian-peterson-child-injury-case-minnesota-vikings

At first glance, Peterson’s indictment would seem to present a clear opportunity for NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to use the league’s new domestic violence policy for the first time. The policy calls for a six-game suspension for a first-time offense and potential lifetime ban for a second offense.

Upon closer inspection, however, Peterson’s situation is not necessarily the perfect fit.

First, Goodell has not clarified the meaning of “offense,” either in his letter outlining the policy to owners or in subsequent comments. This is meaningful for Peterson because while he has been indicted, he has not yet been convicted. It would be awkward forGoodell to suspend Peterson now but for Peterson to be found not guilty later. Goodell, it should be noted, has thus far declined to suspend San Francisco 49ers defensive lineman Ray McDonald, despite McDonald’s arrest for felony suspicion of domestic violence. Goodell’s reticence on McDonald could signal that he plans to wait until a conviction or guilty plea before punishing a player under the domestic violence policy.

Second, the domestic violence policy does not expressly apply to violence against children. In fact, in illustrating “the circumstances that would merit” sanction under the policy, Goodell stated, “a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.” Notice thatGoodell’s reference to children is committing an act in the presence of a child, not hitting a child. While Peterson hit his son in the presence of a child, Hardin could contend the policy only contemplates NFL players hitting their spouses or partners, not their children.

Third, the domestic violence policy is vulnerable to an antitrust challenge, which would require the NFL to show the policy advances competition more than it hurts competition. The domestic violence policy was not collectively bargained with the National Football League Players’ Association. Rather, it was invented in a memo authored by Goodell to owners. This is legally important, because league rules that impact players’ hours, wages or other working conditions can be challenged under antitrust law if they were not created through collective bargaining. A policy that authorizes a suspension of a player if certain conditions materialize — namely, the player committing a domestic violence “offense,” as defined by Goodell — clearly impacts a suspended player’s hours, wages and other working conditions. Before you argue the league’s domestic violence policy is simply an extension of the league’s personal conduct policy (which was collectively bargained), know that any extension of a collectively bargained policy must also be collectively bargained in order to obtain antitrust immunity.

Goodell, of course, could decline to punish Peterson under the domestic violence policy but punish him under the personal conduct policy. Goodell has essentially unlimited discretion under it, and Goodell would hear any appeal. Plus, Goodell has not always waited for a criminal conviction under the personal conduct policy before punishing players. The most notable example of Goodell issuing a punishment before a court occurred in 2010, when he suspended Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for six games for sexual assault accusations despite the fact that Roethlisberger was not charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.

Goodell could catch a break if the Vikings cut Peterson and no other team signs him. In that scenario, the marketplace of NFL teams would deny Peterson an opportunity to play in the league, which would have the same practical effect as a suspension. There is no indication at this point, however, that the Vikings will cut Peterson, and even if they do, it's very possible that another team would sign him. ​

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/09/12/adrian-peterson-child-injury-case-minnesota-vikings

 

[SameSongNDance]

Second, the domestic violence policy does not expressly apply to violence against children. In fact, in illustrating “the circumstances that would merit” sanction under the policy, Goodell stated, “a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.” Notice thatGoodell’s reference to children is committing an act in the presence of a child, not hitting a child. While Peterson hit his son in the presence of a child, Hardin could contend the policy only contemplates NFL players hitting their spouses or partners, not their children.

 

[chickensoup]

I guess I've never understood why people think it's acceptable to harm the very people least able to defend themselves. The whole "teaching them lessons" argument has been used for thousands of years against groups of people who are currently not legally allowed to be assaulted anymore

I believe it's still legal in Texas for parents to authorize teachers in public schools to dole out corporal punishment to students. You don't have to understand. My parents don't understand how American parents let their children dispect them all the time. Different philosophies toward parenting, learn to deal with it.

This is not a parenting thing. This is adults saying it's legal to assault non adults. It's no different on any moral ground than whites (the adults) saying it's ok to assault African Americans (children, the ones who are under the authority of the the adults)

Explain the difference without trying to sound like someone who just wants the ability to legally assault another human being. Is it different because they are "your kids"? (hey, they are our slaves!). If it's truly different then how? Why are kids the only unprotected group of people in the US when it comes to Simple Assault?

I don't understand because it's not logical in any way whatsoever. Children cannot protect themselves, especially very young children. Legally allowing the very people in charge of protecting them to harm them holds zero logical sense. You can't assault your grandma with Alzheimer's when she tries to run into the road, why your 5 year old?

I have 2 kids myself and the thought of spanking, hitting, shaking, switching or whatever else people do under the guise of discipline has never crossed my mind. I'm not so insecure about myself that I need my kids to fear violence for screwing something up though. I instead explain why they probably shouldn't do stuff like they are any other human being who makes mistakes and give them real life consequences when they perform badly.

 

[Neofight]

I'm not going to quote any specific person in this thread but I'm going to just leave this out there as philosophical questions for people to ponder (especially those who seem to condone corporeal punishment)

Why is it morally ok to use corporal punishment on one group of people (children) and not another group of people (adults)?

How is corporal punishment different than simple assault besides one is legal, another is not based solely on age?

We currently have anti-discrimination laws for the workplace but not assault. Those laws state that you cannot discriminate against someone in the workplace based on age. Why should that not be the standard for simple assault? Why should the legal protection against violence against you (or just the threat in some states) not apply to a person until they are 18?

Why is it good, moral, or just one 2 people (parents) are allowed to use violence against a minor, but it's bad, immoral, or unjust for another to do the same thing to said child?

A lot of nuance I would say. Your 5-year-old continues to run out in the street without looking both ways I don't see it is as assault to grab them, spank them and drag them to their room.

I guess I just don't understand why the spanking or grabbing them has to take place. The grabbing them is is universally accepting (preventing harm) but the other 2 are add ons that are acceptable simply because of the age of the person in question? Doesn't that seem silly?I guess I've never understood why people think it's acceptable to harm the very people least able to defend themselves. The whole "teaching them lessons" argument has been used for thousands of years against groups of people who are currently not legally allowed to be assaulted anymore

Fear is often a primary driver for much of the lesson teaching nonsense. And you're right, it's ridiculous.

 

[Widbil83]

We got a who's who of fishing expeditions going on in here. I'm in!

 

[Daywalker]

I guess I've never understood why people think it's acceptable to harm the very people least able to defend themselves. The whole "teaching them lessons" argument has been used for thousands of years against groups of people who are currently not legally allowed to be assaulted anymore

I believe it's still legal in Texas for parents to authorize teachers in public schools to dole out corporal punishment to students. You don't have to understand. My parents don't understand how American parents let their children dispect them all the time. Different philosophies toward parenting, learn to deal with it.

This is not a parenting thing. This is adults saying it's legal to assault non adults. It's no different on any moral ground than whites (the adults) saying it's ok to assault African Americans (children, the ones who are under the authority of the the adults)

Explain the difference without trying to sound like someone who just wants the ability to legally assault another human being. Is it different because they are "your kids"? (hey, they are our slaves!). If it's truly different then how? Why are kids the only unprotected group of people in the US when it comes to Simple Assault?

I don't understand because it's not logical in any way whatsoever. Children cannot protect themselves, especially very young children. Legally allowing the very people in charge of protecting them to harm them holds zero logical sense. You can't assault your grandma with Alzheimer's when she tries to run into the road, why your 5 year old?

I have 2 kids myself and the thought of spanking, hitting, shaking, switching or whatever else people do under the guise of discipline has never crossed my mind. I'm not so insecure about myself that I need my kids to fear violence for screwing something up though. I instead explain why they probably shouldn't do stuff like they are any other human being who makes mistakes and give them real life consequences when they perform badly.

Is grounding your child to their room imprisonment?

 

[chinawildman]

I guess I've never understood why people think it's acceptable to harm the very people least able to defend themselves. The whole "teaching them lessons" argument has been used for thousands of years against groups of people who are currently not legally allowed to be assaulted anymore

I believe it's still legal in Texas for parents to authorize teachers in public schools to dole out corporal punishment to students. You don't have to understand. My parents don't understand how American parents let their children dispect them all the time. Different philosophies toward parenting, learn to deal with it.

This is not a parenting thing. This is adults saying it's legal to assault non adults. It's no different on any moral ground than whites (the adults) saying it's ok to assault African Americans (children, the ones who are under the authority of the the adults)

Explain the difference without trying to sound like someone who just wants the ability to legally assault another human being. Is it different because they are "your kids"? (hey, they are our slaves!). If it's truly different then how? Why are kids the only unprotected group of people in the US when it comes to Simple Assault?

I don't understand because it's not logical in any way whatsoever. Children cannot protect themselves, especially very young children. Legally allowing the very people in charge of protecting them to harm them holds zero logical sense. You can't assault your grandma with Alzheimer's when she tries to run into the road, why your 5 year old?

I have 2 kids myself and the thought of spanking, hitting, shaking, switching or whatever else people do under the guise of discipline has never crossed my mind. I'm not so insecure about myself that I need my kids to fear violence for screwing something up though. I instead explain why they probably shouldn't do stuff like they are any other human being who makes mistakes and give them real life consequences when they perform badly.

Ironic that you keep using the word "logical", yet in a very opinionated context. You say it's not a parenting thing, then proceed to write about your parenting methods. Not sure where to begin...

Children do not simply KNOW the difference between right and wrong. They begin life essentially as sociopaths. You do see the inherent "logical" flaw in trying to reason and explain those concepts when no such foundation exists right? You can't teach algebra to a kid who doesn't understand basic arithmetic. Further compounding the issue is the lack of language during a child's early formative years. What explanation can you offer a child who's yet to understand words that they did was wrong when they have no idea what "wrong" actually is? That's why you rarely see corporal punishment used with older kids.

Perhaps your particular style of parenting works for you. But IMO it's presumptuous to denounce alternate methods incorporating physical means of discipline as somehow "illogical" when neither you nor your children have been exposed to alternative socioeconomic or family situations. Read a little about AP's upbringing, then decide for yourself whether that would perhaps change your outlook on parenting or life. One of main issues I have with many posts in this thread is the prideful ignorance used in pontificating about "superior" parenting methods.

Nobody just WANTS to assault a child, you make it sound like people who support corporal punishment are sadistic freaks. If we condemn physical punishment and discipline then what's next? Would raising your voice to a child be in the future considered "terrorizing" a child or "emotional battery"? Sounds like a slippery slope pattern of middle to upper middle class families imposing their "superior" parenting principles onto those with less resources and different environments.

TL;DR: There is no right way or wrong way to parent when life comes in shades of gray.

 

[AAABatteries]

Derrick Borte ‏@derrickborte

After this week, it's hard to believe that people around the NFL thought Michael Sam would be a distraction.

I have no doubt in my mind that many of the same people who were the most disgusted by Michael Sam are among the biggest defenders of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson.

There does appear to be sort of a common theme here. The one value LHUCKS brought to this board was articulating the common denominator. Granted, it was the only thing. But, he was spot on.

Wait, wut?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

This will fall on deaf ears but I thought it worth posting. I have a good friend and fellow FF owner who lives in TX and the other in the NW section of LA and they both are social workers for the state and they both said the following...cases far worse than this come up every day and it feels like th prosecuter here wants to have their 15 minutes of fame and use this as a platform for their own personal gains.

I said to them "Have you seen the photos?"

Their response were "You should see the ones from all the other cases we work."

Now that doesn't forgive ADP in any way but both social workers said folks in their neck of the woods down in the South use switches, very common. They said ADP on any normal day would simply be enrolled in some parenting classes and perhaps a little community service time but outside of that, the both felt this was being way overpublicized.

Just thought I would share some feedback from folks who work in this field in the actual state or region where this happened. Now others might talk to different social workers with differeing opinions but neither one of them felt this was anything close to the Ray Rice incident.

 

[chinawildman]

This will fall on deaf ears but I thought it worth posting. I have a good friend and fellow FF owner who lives in TX and the other in the NW section of LA and they both are social workers for the state and they both said the following...cases far worse than this come up every day and it feels like th prosecuter here wants to have their 15 minutes of fame and use this as a platform for their own personal gains.

I said to them "Have you seen the photos?"

Their response were "You should see the ones from all the other cases we work."

Now that doesn't forgive ADP in any way but both social workers said folks in their neck of the woods down in the South use switches, very common. They said ADP on any normal day would simply be enrolled in some parenting classes and perhaps a little community service time but outside of that, the both felt this was being way overpublicized.

Just thought I would share some feedback from folks who work in this field in the actual state or region where this happened. Now others might talk to different social workers with differeing opinions but neither one of them felt this was anything close to the Ray Rice incident.

Doesn't surprise me too much. I'm actually surprised that a second grand jury actually chose to indict where the first one had failed. My guess is AP gets a slap on the wrist, takes up some counseling and anti-child abuse causes to appease the state and the Vikings organization and is back in week 5 after a 4 game suspension from the Vikes (retroactively counting wk 2).

The case itself will likely not be resolved until the season is over so Goodell won't dare smite him with the domestic abuse policy any time soon with the NFLPA looming. Vikings will have some damage control to do with the media but the good news for them is that public sentiment does seem to be somewhat divided in this case. Had it been a Texas team that he was on it would have likely been business as usual in a week.

 

[Fariq]

Is there something wrong with being American? I'm proud of it.

"Physically disciplining a child", think about that. Only a ##### hits a kid or a woman, I don't care what culture you are from.

Is there anything wrong with being Singaporean? Because you're basically saying "Singapore and some Asian countries are made up of #####s."

Some cultures have different concepts of power distance and discipline in society. Try to learn more before casting judgment so quickly. Different opinions don't necessarily equate to wrong opinions.

Whipping a child is not ok. At some point all cultures will evolve to the point where they realize this. Just because it happens in other cultures doesn't make it ok.Eta: don't put words in my mouth.

Yes, Asian parents are just pining for the day when their governments can accrue massive debts and their children can say stuff like "#### you dad".

Maybe they need to spend money on speech therapists. If they do that, then they might be able to stop saying, "Ruck you, dad."

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Has anyone started calling him Adrian Beaterson yet?

 

[BassNBrew]

Is there something wrong with being American? I'm proud of it.

"Physically disciplining a child", think about that. Only a ##### hits a kid or a woman, I don't care what culture you are from.

Is there anything wrong with being Singaporean? Because you're basically saying "Singapore and some Asian countries are made up of #####s."

Some cultures have different concepts of power distance and discipline in society. Try to learn more before casting judgment so quickly. Different opinions don't necessarily equate to wrong opinions.

Whipping a child is not ok. At some point all cultures will evolve to the point where they realize this. Just because it happens in other cultures doesn't make it ok.Eta: don't put words in my mouth.

Yes, Asian parents are just pining for the day when their governments can accrue massive debts and their children can say stuff like "#### you dad".

Maybe they need to spend money on speech therapists. If they do that, then they might be able to stop saying, "Ruck you, dad."

I don't agree with him, but this was totally uncalled for.

 

[BoltzNBrew]

I haven't read the whole thread but doe anyone think there has to be at least pictures taken by the mother or doctor?

 

[beerbuff]

The thing is the NFL just announced what the punishment would be for domestic abuse. I don't see why this wouldn't fall under those guidlines. 6 games for first offense and then lifetime ban. Domestic Violence is never pretty.

Imo, the NFL has to stick to a specified punishment. Maybe that punishment could be increased to like 1 year then lifetime but these indefinite bans just don't work IMO and probably aren't even legal.

The one cavaet I have to put out there is I do think you have to let the courts decide whether these allegations are true before any punishment comes down. I could see disgruntled EX's making up abuse allegations against NFL players in the future to exort players because they know the punishment is so tough.

Did the Patriots let due process takes its course with Aaron Hernandez or Carolina with Rae Carruth? No.

Now don't get in to that murder is worse than child abuse because that won't hold up after the Ray Rice situation. The fact is that Peterson has already admitted to beating his 4 year old defenseless child. Due process does not need to run its course. The Vikings and the NFL will not let Peterson play this year at a minimum and will have a hard time letting a child abuser ever play in the NFL again.

 

[93_Confirmed]

How long do we expect him to be out for? Predictions?

 

[Bamac]

How is a parent using a switch supposed to know the exact amount of force and number of times he can hit a child before the bruising and bleeding happens? That's what is so ####ed up about switches being legal to use.

I don't know, but the kid started bleeding and he kept hitting

Prove that he saw bleeding and didn't stop.

Irrelevant. Ignorance is not a legal defense.

Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.

Whether Peterson knew the child was bleeding is quite probative of Peterson's mental state.

 

[dparker713]

The thing is the NFL just announced what the punishment would be for domestic abuse. I don't see why this wouldn't fall under those guidlines. 6 games for first offense and then lifetime ban. Domestic Violence is never pretty.

Imo, the NFL has to stick to a specified punishment. Maybe that punishment could be increased to like 1 year then lifetime but these indefinite bans just don't work IMO and probably aren't even legal.

The one cavaet I have to put out there is I do think you have to let the courts decide whether these allegations are true before any punishment comes down. I could see disgruntled EX's making up abuse allegations against NFL players in the future to exort players because they know the punishment is so tough.

I believe the NFL said 6 games plus more for other factors. They gave as an example if children were involved in the domestic abuse situation, I think.

The state of Texas won't label this abuse. So now the NFL is supposed to substitute it's views for those of the state with jurisdiction?

 

[Brewtown]

Here is a different take on these recent issues:

As a child - let's say your Dad whooped you with a switch. Let's say people generally say that it is wrong and your an ##### for doing that. Isn't it better for everybody to handle things internally? I would think that the child loves his Dad and would want him to be able to make a living. Making a better living in turn will create a better life for the child and the baby momma. So Daddy got carried away whipping me once - let's handle it internally (without police)....

As a wife/husband - let's say your wife is abusing you or vice-versa. You love her/she loves you. Yeah it would be great to have everything in your relationship be puppies and rainbows, but for whatever reason it just isn't perfect. Husband/wife makes a bad choice and gets arrested in a domestic dispute. Aren't things going to work out better for everybody if everything is done to minimize the action (stand by your man/woman to get the least possible punishment-getting the least possible punishment will allow the couple to get through the situation better). If he/she is going to stay with the person who is in question - who is anybody to say anything? Now I understand that the Ray Rice situation is a little different. Knocking someone out cold is getting way out of hand and is over the top. But she did choose to stay with him and marry him...

I realize that this type of thought may offend man-haters and rights activists - but calling the cops or getting the cops involved has a huge impact. I say handle things internally or leave the situation - better results all around for everybody involved.

 

[Bamac]

The thing is the NFL just announced what the punishment would be for domestic abuse. I don't see why this wouldn't fall under those guidlines. 6 games for first offense and then lifetime ban. Domestic Violence is never pretty.

Imo, the NFL has to stick to a specified punishment. Maybe that punishment could be increased to like 1 year then lifetime but these indefinite bans just don't work IMO and probably aren't even legal.

The one cavaet I have to put out there is I do think you have to let the courts decide whether these allegations are true before any punishment comes down. I could see disgruntled EX's making up abuse allegations against NFL players in the future to exort players because they know the punishment is so tough.

I believe the NFL said 6 games plus more for other factors. They gave as an example if children were involved in the domestic abuse situation, I think.

The state of Texas won't label this abuse. So now the NFL is supposed to substitute it's views for those of the state with jurisdiction?

Yeah, the NFL never does that.

 

[dparker713]

Is there something wrong with being American? I'm proud of it.

"Physically disciplining a child", think about that. Only a ##### hits a kid or a woman, I don't care what culture you are from.

Is there anything wrong with being Singaporean? Because you're basically saying "Singapore and some Asian countries are made up of #####s."

Some cultures have different concepts of power distance and discipline in society. Try to learn more before casting judgment so quickly. Different opinions don't necessarily equate to wrong opinions.

Whipping a child is not ok. At some point all cultures will evolve to the point where they realize this. Just because it happens in other cultures doesn't make it ok.Eta: don't put words in my mouth like you did in your post above.

Your viewpoint has been popular for about 50 years in a few regions of the planet. The opposing viewpoint has been popular the remainder of human history. Maybe your viewpoint will win out over time, but its not even the consensus in your own country.

 

[dparker713]

I'm not going to quote any specific person in this thread but I'm going to just leave this out there as philosophical questions for people to ponder (especially those who seem to condone corporeal punishment)

Why is it morally ok to use corporal punishment on one group of people (children) and not another group of people (adults)?

How is corporal punishment different than simple assault besides one is legal, another is not based solely on age?

We currently have anti-discrimination laws for the workplace but not assault. Those laws state that you cannot discriminate against someone in the workplace based on age. Why should that not be the standard for simple assault? Why should the legal protection against violence against you (or just the threat in some states) not apply to a person until they are 18?

Why is it good, moral, or just one 2 people (parents) are allowed to use violence against a minor, but it's bad, immoral, or unjust for another to do the same thing to said child?

Parents have both dominion over and a responsibility for their children. And what do you suppose child labor laws are but discrimination against minors based upon age?

 

[Bad_Mo]

Belichick has to be involved with this timing somehow.

 

[golfguy]

whole lot of judge, jury and executioner going on in here. there is a reason we have due process of law in this country as well.

and spanking a child is not child abuse. Did he go overboard? maybe. I am not sure of those pics being unaltered.

but this whole thing is making me realize why we have a whole generation of narcissistic young adults.

intent to me is the big deal here. did he purposefully intend to harm the kid? he used a switch and seems to me if you do that, it's not going to take much to get a few cuts from it. I wouldn't use a switch on a kid, but that's my choice and my parenting style.

but some serious overboard people in here calling for his head.

 

[pantherclub]

whole lot of judge, jury and executioner going on in here. there is a reason we have due process of law in this country as well.

and spanking a child is not child abuse. Did he go overboard? maybe. I am not sure of those pics being unaltered.

but this whole thing is making me realize why we have a whole generation of narcissistic young adults.

intent to me is the big deal here. did he purposefully intend to harm the kid? he used a switch and seems to me if you do that, it's not going to take much to get a few cuts from it. I wouldn't use a switch on a kid, but that's my choice and my parenting style.

but some serious overboard people in here calling for his head.

wow

 

[Franknbeans]

This thread needs a lot more posts to catch the Gordon one

 

[bagger]

Hitting a child is never acceptable.

Surprised how many people still use this antiquated and overall ineffective technique of discipline.

 

[Tool]

whole lot of judge, jury and executioner going on in here. there is a reason we have due process of law in this country as well.

and spanking a child is not child abuse. Did he go overboard? maybe. I am not sure of those pics being unaltered.

but this whole thing is making me realize why we have a whole generation of narcissistic young adults.

intent to me is the big deal here. did he purposefully intend to harm the kid? he used a switch and seems to me if you do that, it's not going to take much to get a few cuts from it. I wouldn't use a switch on a kid, but that's my choice and my parenting style.

but some serious overboard people in here calling for his head.

Actually, it's not your choice wheter or not you abuse your kid. It's wrong and it's against the law.

 

[Ghost Rider]

whole lot of judge, jury and executioner going on in here. there is a reason we have due process of law in this country as well.

and spanking a child is not child abuse. Did he go overboard? maybe. I am not sure of those pics being unaltered.

but this whole thing is making me realize why we have a whole generation of narcissistic young adults.

intent to me is the big deal here. did he purposefully intend to harm the kid? he used a switch and seems to me if you do that, it's not going to take much to get a few cuts from it. I wouldn't use a switch on a kid, but that's my choice and my parenting style.

but some serious overboard people in here calling for his head.

Beating a child to where they have bruises like the ones we have seen IS child abuse. Big difference between a spanking and a beating.

 

[jon_mx]

What is wrong with these people who have everyting? Very sad IF true.

If? There are some questions about specifics but I don't think there is much if involved.

 

[cstu]

This will fall on deaf ears but I thought it worth posting. I have a good friend and fellow FF owner who lives in TX and the other in the NW section of LA and they both are social workers for the state and they both said the following...cases far worse than this come up every day and it feels like th prosecuter here wants to have their 15 minutes of fame and use this as a platform for their own personal gains.

I said to them "Have you seen the photos?"

Their response were "You should see the ones from all the other cases we work."

Now that doesn't forgive ADP in any way but both social workers said folks in their neck of the woods down in the South use switches, very common. They said ADP on any normal day would simply be enrolled in some parenting classes and perhaps a little community service time but outside of that, the both felt this was being way overpublicized.

Just thought I would share some feedback from folks who work in this field in the actual state or region where this happened. Now others might talk to different social workers with differeing opinions but neither one of them felt this was anything close to the Ray Rice incident.

 

[Jerry Curl]

Adrian Peterson turned himself in to Montgomery County, Texas authorities early Saturday morning.
Peterson was booked and charged by police before being released on $15,000 bond. Peterson is accused of reckless or negligent injury to a child stemming from an incident in which Peterson allegedly caused cuts to his 4-year-old son's legs while spanking him with a "switch." Peterson will not play on Sunday, and will likely face further discipline from both the Vikings and the NFL.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

I'm sure many will disagree, but I don't have any problem with spanking as a form of punishment or to promote behavior modification in kids. Obviously, I think there are factors and limits, such as the age of the child, frequency of spanking... but I don't see any reason for the need of any additional instrument beyond an open palm to the butt.

I would never use a switch, but I'm not surprised some do. However, looking at the pictures were depressing and IMO child abuse. If AP had hit the boy with a switch (or whatever) and broke the skin, making the child bleed, he needed to stop immediately because at that point, it had already gone from punishment to potential child abuse. The fact he obviously continued and struck the boy multiple times, drawing blood, tells me he let his anger get the best of him and he hurt that boy.

 

[fourd]

I guess I've never understood why people think it's acceptable to harm the very people least able to defend themselves. The whole "teaching them lessons" argument has been used for thousands of years against groups of people who are currently not legally allowed to be assaulted anymore

I believe it's still legal in Texas for parents to authorize teachers in public schools to dole out corporal punishment to students. You don't have to understand. My parents don't understand how American parents let their children dispect them all the time. Different philosophies toward parenting, learn to deal with it.

This is not a parenting thing. This is adults saying it's legal to assault non adults. It's no different on any moral ground than whites (the adults) saying it's ok to assault African Americans (children, the ones who are under the authority of the the adults)

Explain the difference without trying to sound like someone who just wants the ability to legally assault another human being. Is it different because they are "your kids"? (hey, they are our slaves!). If it's truly different then how? Why are kids the only unprotected group of people in the US when it comes to Simple Assault?

I don't understand because it's not logical in any way whatsoever. Children cannot protect themselves, especially very young children. Legally allowing the very people in charge of protecting them to harm them holds zero logical sense. You can't assault your grandma with Alzheimer's when she tries to run into the road, why your 5 year old?

I have 2 kids myself and the thought of spanking, hitting, shaking, switching or whatever else people do under the guise of discipline has never crossed my mind. I'm not so insecure about myself that I need my kids to fear violence for screwing something up though. I instead explain why they probably shouldn't do stuff like they are any other human being who makes mistakes and give them real life consequences when they perform badly.

Ironic that you keep using the word "logical", yet in a very opinionated context. You say it's not a parenting thing, then proceed to write about your parenting methods. Not sure where to begin...

Children do not simply KNOW the difference between right and wrong. They begin life essentially as sociopaths. You do see the inherent "logical" flaw in trying to reason and explain those concepts when no such foundation exists right? You can't teach algebra to a kid who doesn't understand basic arithmetic. Further compounding the issue is the lack of language during a child's early formative years. What explanation can you offer a child who's yet to understand words that they did was wrong when they have no idea what "wrong" actually is? That's why you rarely see corporal punishment used with older kids.

Perhaps your particular style of parenting works for you. But IMO it's presumptuous to denounce alternate methods incorporating physical means of discipline as somehow "illogical" when neither you nor your children have been exposed to alternative socioeconomic or family situations. Read a little about AP's upbringing, then decide for yourself whether that would perhaps change your outlook on parenting or life. One of main issues I have with many posts in this thread is the prideful ignorance used in pontificating about "superior" parenting methods.

Nobody just WANTS to assault a child, you make it sound like people who support corporal punishment are sadistic freaks. If we condemn physical punishment and discipline then what's next? Would raising your voice to a child be in the future considered "terrorizing" a child or "emotional battery"? Sounds like a slippery slope pattern of middle to upper middle class families imposing their "superior" parenting principles onto those with less resources and different environments.

TL;DR: There is no right way or wrong way to parent when life comes in shades of gray.

If we condemn physical punishment we get people less likely to use physical punishment. And where has anyone said we should condemn discipline?

 

[JohnnyU]

Didn't know it was a 4 year old, that changes everything. You should be able to handle someone that young differently.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

This will fall on deaf ears but I thought it worth posting. I have a good friend and fellow FF owner who lives in TX and the other in the NW section of LA and they both are social workers for the state and they both said the following...cases far worse than this come up every day and it feels like th prosecuter here wants to have their 15 minutes of fame and use this as a platform for their own personal gains.

I said to them "Have you seen the photos?"

Their response were "You should see the ones from all the other cases we work."

Now that doesn't forgive ADP in any way but both social workers said folks in their neck of the woods down in the South use switches, very common. They said ADP on any normal day would simply be enrolled in some parenting classes and perhaps a little community service time but outside of that, the both felt this was being way overpublicized.

Just thought I would share some feedback from folks who work in this field in the actual state or region where this happened. Now others might talk to different social workers with differeing opinions but neither one of them felt this was anything close to the Ray Rice incident.

Agree. I think you can classify what Peterson did as child abuse. I think you could claim child abuse had he even struck the boy once with an object that caused an injury; I.e., bruises and drawing blood in this case.However, for those of us that live in the real world and know everything isn't black and white, I'd venture to guess this is on the milder side of what the average social worker in those areas probably see every day. It's sad, mainly for the child, but I agree the fact it's AP influenced the decision to prosecute and the manner in which this being handled by the legal system.

 

[TheFanatic]

Didn't know it was a 4 year old, that changes everything. You should be able to handle someone that young differently.

This is exactly how I see it. When I went to bed last night the last I heard it was an 11 year old. I have a 4 year old. I cant imagine using a switch on him. Totally changes my view on this.