Adrian Peterson's turn to get the boot from the NFL (2 Viewers)

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Well, if somebody already posted it, oh well. Peterson tweeted a photograph yesterday, of the following Bible verses (I have bolded the part he highlighted:

Come to me and rest. Give your mind a break from it's habitual judging. You form judgments about this situation, that situation, this person, that person, yourself, even the weather- as if judging were your main function in life. But I created you first and foremost to KNOW ME and to live in rich communication with Me. When you become preoccupied with passing judgment, you usurp My role.

Relate to me as creature to Creator, sheep to Shepherd, subject to King, clay to Potter. Allow Me to have My way in your life. Rather than evaluating My ways with you, accept them thankfully. The intimacy I offer you is not an invitation to act as if you were My equal. Worship me as KING OF KINGS while walking hand in hand with Me on the path of Life.

Matthew 7:1, John 17.3, Romans 9:20-21, Timothy 6:15

Curious that a guy who judged the hell out of a 4 year old would post this.

The comments on the tweet are pretty great.

My favorites:

brianmeatmeadmetal ‏@bkrasmanmmmetal Sep 14

@AdrianPeterson Jesus just puked ########

JL Bigby ‏@ProsFB Sep 14

Worst highlighter ever. #judging RT @AdrianPeterson: pic.twitter.com/QJv6Nulfpp

Paul Dawkins ‏@Paul__Dawkins Sep 14

@AdrianPeterson "When you become preoccupied with passing judgment, you usurp My role." Ironic, considering you just beat your kid bloody.

brianmeatmeadmetal ‏@bkrasmanmmmetal 24h

@AdrianPeterson Remember when Jesus called together all those children and then beat the #### out of them? ########

 

[timschochet]

That's fine. I don't care. Then change my statement by Goodell to read, "he admitted to disciplining his child." Because of those photos, I would still suspend him indefinitely.

On what basis - within the CBA, would you suspend indefinitely?

let them take me to court if they want. I'd have the public on my side, which is all that counts in this situation. I don't think either the Owners or the players union would dare to challenge this , but if they did, Goodell would emerge the winner in the only court that matters .

Um, you are aware that the NFLPA is backing Ray Rice's appeal, aren't you?

No I wasn't, but who cares? The public doesn't. I don't. Perhaps you do.

 

[StrikeS2k]

That's fine. I don't care. Then change my statement by Goodell to read, "he admitted to disciplining his child." Because of those photos, I would still suspend him indefinitely.

On what basis - within the CBA, would you suspend indefinitely?

let them take me to court if they want. I'd have the public on my side, which is all that counts in this situation. I don't think either the Owners or the players union would dare to challenge this , but if they did, Goodell would emerge the winner in the only court that matters .

Um, you are aware that the NFLPA is backing Ray Rice's appeal, aren't you?

No I wasn't, but who cares? The public doesn't. I don't. Perhaps you do.

You said the NFLPA wouldn't challenge a suspection of AP. I'm suggesting that they would, and their support of Ray Rice would suggest so too. Just trying to help you out there good buddy. No need to be a d*** about it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I am not sure he would characterize it that way - I think he has acknowledged disciplining his child, and that in the process of discipling him with a switch he caused injuries such a bruising and broken skin.

Yeah, I'm not sure it matters what words he uses to characterize it. Is there any dispute about what he did?Nobody's gonna give me a lot of slack if I rape somebody and call it a hug. "That's how we did hugs when I was growing up."

The problem was with Tim's statement. He wanted Goodell to say AP admitted beating the kid, which AP did not do. If he wants Goodell to make his own judgment of AP's actions that's fine, but putting words in AP's mouth is wrong.

your distinction is irrelevant, absurd, and completely typical of you.

What about all the other people who agreed with me in this thread?

 

[Fennis]

9/11 was the 9/11 of terrorist attacks

 

[SIDA!]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Yes. Exactly black and white like that. You obviously win the title of being the most perfect human being in the world.

Nah, I'm worse than Hitler.

Sorry your distinction makes no sense though.

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engaged in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right? Is that what you are saying? And if so, then I am assuming you believe that all child abusers should be stripped of their children, right?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Yes. Exactly black and white like that. You obviously win the title of being the most perfect human being in the world.

Nah, I'm worse than Hitler.

Sorry your distinction makes no sense though.

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engaged in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right? Is that what you are saying? And if so, then I am assuming you believe that all child abusers should be stripped of their children, right?

You don't?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The vending machine in my office is out of Skittles, so I had to settle for peanut M&Ms instead. It's like 9/11 all over again.

 

[Plorfu]

The vending machine in my office is out of Skittles, so I had to settle for peanut M&Ms instead. It's like 9/11 all over again.

You have this wrong. You aim for peanut M&M's and "settle" for Skittles. Your reaction is the Holocaust of reactions.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engages in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right?

Yes.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Yes. Exactly black and white like that. You obviously win the title of being the most perfect human being in the world.

I agree with Disco Stu. Child abuser has a definition. If you abuse a child, you are one.

If your point was just that maybe he's not a bad guy, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I think there are shades of grey. There is a difference between someone who murders another human being in cold blood and someone who got drunk and killed another person or persons in an accident. I think there is a difference between someone who abuses a child (e.g. child abuser) and someone who is heavy handed with punishment and discipline.

If you guys think that he is a child abuser, then should you not be calling for him to lose custody and visitation of his child, forever? Should the mom lose custody and the kid be put into the custody of another family member or adopted because she apparently condoned/enabled the abuse?

For the most part, I think he seems like a pretty good guy who cares about his family and needs to be educated with respect to better techniques for punishing a 4 year old child. I reserve judgment if some of these crazy reports about a whooping room are true.

From last year:

ESPN showed what looked like a headline from TMZ about Peterson having another secret child. Salters reported, “Peterson has two children who live with him and his fiancée. But he won’t say how many children he has in total.”Peterson: “I know the truth, and I’m comfortable with that knowledge.”

Salters did not ask Peterson about accuracy of TMZ.com, which speculated that he had seven children. But she did ask if such speculation hurt.

“Not really, you know,” Peterson said. “It really don’t hurt because I try to avoid it. I’m able to be strong and walk around with a smile on my face.”

Not sure if this kid he beat on was one he's been involved with much or not, but I'm not thinking he's some kind of family man based on his history. The one that was murdered he barely knew.

 

[encaitar]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Murder implies intent, which is exactly his point. You can kill a man and not commit murder(negligent homicide etc.), which is how he believes you can harm a child and not be a child abuser.

 

[Christo]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Yes. Exactly black and white like that. You obviously win the title of being the most perfect human being in the world.

Nah, I'm worse than Hitler.

Sorry your distinction makes no sense though.

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engaged in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right? Is that what you are saying? And if so, then I am assuming you believe that all child abusers should be stripped of their children, right?

It seems you believe that one must engage in a constant stream of abuse in order to be an abuser. That is untrue. If you abuse a child you are a child abuser.

Why would you make the assumption in your last question?

 

[SIDA!]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Yes. Exactly black and white like that. You obviously win the title of being the most perfect human being in the world.

Nah, I'm worse than Hitler.

Sorry your distinction makes no sense though.

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engaged in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right? Is that what you are saying? And if so, then I am assuming you believe that all child abusers should be stripped of their children, right?

You don't?

So, you believe that every parent who oversteps on the punishment of a child should be stripped of their child?

 

[SIDA!]

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engages in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right?

Yes.

I am not sure what your position is based on the text you have stricken.

My position is that a parent can cross the line when punishing a child. That does not mean they are a some child abusing monster. The intent is to raise the kid properly. Many of you act like spanking a child is akin to a parent or guardian of a child who engages in some sort of sadistic and torturous behavior with malicious intent.

 

[Christo]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Yes. Exactly black and white like that. You obviously win the title of being the most perfect human being in the world.

Nah, I'm worse than Hitler.

Sorry your distinction makes no sense though.

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engaged in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right? Is that what you are saying? And if so, then I am assuming you believe that all child abusers should be stripped of their children, right?

You don't?

So, you believe that every parent who oversteps on the punishment of a child should be stripped of their child?

WTF does this have to do with anything?

 

[Disco Stu]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Murder implies intent, which is exactly his point. You can kill a man and not commit murder(negligent homicide etc.), which is how he believes you can harm a child and not be a child abuser.

Ah, yes... I forgot it was an accident. He whipped the boy repeatedly with a switch but of course didn't mean to hurt him. Just plain bad luck.

 

[Christo]

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engages in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right?

Yes.

I am not sure what your position is based on the text you have stricken.

My position is that a parent can cross the line when punishing a child. That does not mean they are a some child abusing monster. The intent is to raise the kid properly. Many of you act like spanking a child is akin to a parent or guardian of a child who engages in some sort of sadistic and torturous behavior with malicious intent.

Link to where anyone in here called AD a monster, sadistic or behaving with torturous and malicious intent?

 

[Ignoramus]

RIP NFL.

 

[jonessed]

9/11 was the 9/11 of terrorist attacks

That seems a bit extreme.

 

[timschochet]

Does it matter, SIDA? If you cross the line into abuse, even if you intentions were good, you still ought to be punished for it.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engages in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right?

Yes.

I am not sure what your position is based on the text you have stricken.

My position is that a parent can cross the line when punishing a child. That does not mean they are a some child abusing monster. The intent is to raise the kid properly. Many of you act like spanking a child is akin to a parent or guardian of a child who engages in some sort of sadistic and torturous behavior with malicious intent.

I just removed the fluff you added in. He abused his child therefore he is a child abuser. It isn't difficult.

Call me crazy, but I'd call someone who repeatedly strikes a 4 year old with a stick , shoves leaves in his mouth and lacerates his scrotum a child abusing monster. Maybe I'm just weird like that.

 

[Guest]

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engages in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right?

Yes.

I am not sure what your position is based on the text you have stricken.

My position is that a parent can cross the line when punishing a child. That does not mean they are a some child abusing monster. The intent is to raise the kid properly. Many of you act like spanking a child is akin to a parent or guardian of a child who engages in some sort of sadistic and torturous behavior with malicious intent.

Link to where anyone in here called AD a monster, sadistic or behaving with torturous and malicious intent?

I called him borderline psychotic if the leaf stuffing talk is true.

 

[SIDA!]

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engages in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right?

Yes.

I am not sure what your position is based on the text you have stricken.

My position is that a parent can cross the line when punishing a child. That does not mean they are a some child abusing monster. The intent is to raise the kid properly. Many of you act like spanking a child is akin to a parent or guardian of a child who engages in some sort of sadistic and torturous behavior with malicious intent.

Link to where anyone in here called AD a monster, sadistic or behaving with torturous and malicious intent?

Are you intentionally trying to distort my position or am I simply not articulating it very well? I am being serious and not trying to turn this into some lame zinger fest as if were "clones" on the Jim Rome Show.

Encaitar touched on it in what I thought was a pretty concise summary of my position. It seems like many here are trying to equate tough corporal punishment with malicious, torturous child abuse. There is a distinction to be made between someone who oversteps with their hand, belt or switch and a person who literally derives pleasure or enjoyment out of abusing another human being.

There seems to be a group of people who think that overstepping on corporal punishment is child abuse and that anyone who engages in child abuse is a child abuser. Thus, doesn't it logically follow that each one of these child abusers should be stripped of their children?

I am trying to figure out how many millions of children the government should be taking out of homes and raising.

 

[SIDA!]

Does it matter, SIDA? If you cross the line into abuse, even if you intentions were good, you still ought to be punished for it.

"Shut the #### up, Donnie! You are out of your element."

If you actually read the thread instead of hitting "reply" repeatedly, you would see that I wrote that his actions should be condemned and there should be punishment for it.

 

[encaitar]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Murder implies intent, which is exactly his point. You can kill a man and not commit murder(negligent homicide etc.), which is how he believes you can harm a child and not be a child abuser.

Ah, yes... I forgot it was an accident. He whipped the boy repeatedly with a switch but of course didn't mean to hurt him. Just plain bad luck.

Never said it was, but you want to view it as a black or white incident. It clearly isn't. Adrian Peterson went too far with his punishment. No one in today's world with a sane mind will argue that. But your position puts him on the same level as someone who pushes his kid down the stairs when he's pissed off. I don't see them as the same thing, so I have trouble calling them the same thing.

 

[Doug B]

I am trying to figure out how many millions of children the government should be taking out of homes and raising.

This is a losing argument: "Since all perpetrators can't be caught and punished, no one perpetrator should."

...

As far as mischaracterizing your position, the dividing line is simple: you think the nuances and grey areas matter. Others do not agree.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

am I simply not articulating it very well?

The problem is that you are all over the place. All we're saying is that somebody who abuses a child is a child abuser. You keep trying to bring up all these other things about child custody, etc. Most people here haven't taken a position on those more complicated issues. We're still just commenting on the ridiculousness of saying that sometimes you can abuse a child without being a child abuser.

 

[SIDA!]

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engages in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right?

Yes.

I am not sure what your position is based on the text you have stricken.

My position is that a parent can cross the line when punishing a child. That does not mean they are a some child abusing monster. The intent is to raise the kid properly. Many of you act like spanking a child is akin to a parent or guardian of a child who engages in some sort of sadistic and torturous behavior with malicious intent.

I just removed the fluff you added in. He abused his child therefore he is a child abuser. It isn't difficult.

Call me crazy, but I'd call someone who repeatedly strikes a 4 year old with a stick , shoves leaves in his mouth and lacerates his scrotum a child abusing monster. Maybe I'm just weird like that.

This is one of the reasons why I have grown old and tired of the FBG debates. There is an element on this board that would rather be pithy, self-righteous, etc. instead of actually delving into the nuance of an issue. For you it is obviously, black and white (except you refuse to really explain where the line separates the black and the white). I am trying to have a genuine, sincere and thoughtful discussion about punishment, abuse and so forth and instead, you think its just fluff.

 

[Disco Stu]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Murder implies intent, which is exactly his point. You can kill a man and not commit murder(negligent homicide etc.), which is how he believes you can harm a child and not be a child abuser.

Ah, yes... I forgot it was an accident. He whipped the boy repeatedly with a switch but of course didn't mean to hurt him. Just plain bad luck.

Never said it was, but you want to view it as a black or white incident. It clearly isn't. Adrian Peterson went too far with his punishment. No one in today's world with a sane mind will argue that. But your position puts him on the same level as someone who pushes his kid down the stairs when he's pissed off. I don't see them as the same thing, so I have trouble calling them the same thing.

There are many different types of abuse, which all fall under the "child abuse" umbrella. You're of course free to consider some worse than others, but the term doesn't change.

 

[comfortably numb]

PRAISE THE LORD!

 

[gianmarco]

Here's what I would say, if I were Goodell:

"Adrian Peterson has not been found guilty of any crime. But we have his admission that he beat the child, we have the testimony of the child, and we have these photographs, which are absolutely sickening. So I am overriding the Vikings and suspending Adrian Peterson indefinitely. When and if he has either been found not guilty or served his sentence, then I will reinstate him. Not before then."

So the NFL should lie re: AP's admissions? Wow.

Peterson admitted he beat his son.

Link? And I specifically want to see him say he "beat" his son. AFAIK he has admitted to disciplining him. The worst word I've heard him use is "whoop" which, while not a great word, has a specific connotation that is not anything like beating.

And Ray was just disciplining his wife, right?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engages in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right?

Yes.

I am not sure what your position is based on the text you have stricken.

My position is that a parent can cross the line when punishing a child. That does not mean they are a some child abusing monster. The intent is to raise the kid properly. Many of you act like spanking a child is akin to a parent or guardian of a child who engages in some sort of sadistic and torturous behavior with malicious intent.

I just removed the fluff you added in. He abused his child therefore he is a child abuser. It isn't difficult.

Call me crazy, but I'd call someone who repeatedly strikes a 4 year old with a stick , shoves leaves in his mouth and lacerates his scrotum a child abusing monster. Maybe I'm just weird like that.

This is one of the reasons why I have grown old and tired of the FBG debates. There is an element on this board that would rather be pithy, self-righteous, etc. instead of actually delving into the nuance of an issue. For you it is obviously, black and white (except you refuse to really explain where the line separates the black and the white). I am trying to have a genuine, sincere and thoughtful discussion about punishment, abuse and so forth and instead, you think its just fluff.

What are you trying to debate? He abused his kid therefore he is a child abuser. He crossed the line from punishment to abuse.

 

[SIDA!]

am I simply not articulating it very well?

The problem is that you are all over the place. All we're saying is that somebody who abuses a child is a child abuser. You keep trying to bring up all these other things about child custody, etc. Most people here haven't taken a position on those more complicated issues. We're still just commenting on the ridiculousness of saying that sometimes you can abuse a child without being a child abuser.

I am not all over the place. I am taking things to the logical extension.

It is quite easy to sit back and say, oh, anyone who oversteps on punishment is a child abuser. Well, if you think that way, then you must also believe that the parents should be stripped of their kids, right? Or wait a minute...does it get a little more complicated. Because then...if you are saying it really his child abuse...how do you reconcile allowing the parents to keep their kids?

I am not all over the place. I am just not living in a black and white world like many of you in this thread. I can almost state with absolute certainty that each of us has done something or somethings that we regret. Some things that we are glad that nobody else even knows about or only a few. And I am not talking about spanking or anything to do with a child. I am just talking about the course of life.

Maybe we cheated on a partner. Maybe we drove home drunk. Maybe we drove home drunk and hurt somebody. Maybe we used a racial epithet in anger. Maybe we stole some money from work one time. I dunno. There is a whole gamut of things anyone of us could have done or said. Does that mean we are that person. Does that mean that the person who called someone the "N" word while drunk is a racist? Is the kid who stole something at work while in college forever a thief?

I am kind of done talking about it.

You guys want to believe that every parent who crossed the line while punishing their child is a child abuser then have at it. Don't know how you can reconcile that with allowing a parent to keep custody of the kid.

Truth be told, if I look in the mirror and be honest with myself, there was probably two instances where I crossed that line with my older boy. I guess that makes me a child abuser in your eyes.

I don't think it is rocket science to understand that there is a difference in the intent and purpose of the punishment inflicted on a child and how there is a difference between someone who is legitimately a child abuser and someone who engaged in an act that many, but not all, believe was abusive to a child.

I will leave you all with the last word.

 

[Da Guru]

Goodell just announced that he has hired 4 women to be in charge of the NFLs domestic abuse policy. All 4 were former heads of domestic violence organizations. Look out.....

Maybe Peterson will spend some time in the Whooping Room...

Hmm, how do you think that would go over in the next CBA - instead of suspensions, the players will get caned/whipped?

Maybe that is the imagery that Peterson needs to imagine when he wants to spank his kids...

It would be like getting a DUI and learning that your judge that is also the head of MADD.

 

[shader]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

People have abortions all the time and aren't considered murderers. It all depends on what the law allows. If the law finds Peterson guilty of child abuse, he's a child abuser. If the law finds him not guilty, he's not.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

People have abortions all the time and aren't considered murderers. It all depends on what the law allows. If the law finds Peterson guilty of child abuse, he's a child abuser. If the law finds him not guilty, he's not.

I was just thinking that what this NFL discipline/corporal punishment discussion needed was a little abortion debate. Really well done.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Pretty much.

 

[Plorfu]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

People have abortions all the time and aren't considered murderers. It all depends on what the law allows. If the law finds Peterson guilty of child abuse, he's a child abuser. If the law finds him not guilty, he's not.

I was just thinking that what this NFL discipline/corporal punishment discussion needed was a little abortion debate. Really well done.

Abortion doesn't kill babies - doctors do.

 

[Christo]

So, you believe that any parent who overstepped the line while punishing their child engages in child abuse and is thus a child abuser, right?

Yes.

I am not sure what your position is based on the text you have stricken.

My position is that a parent can cross the line when punishing a child. That does not mean they are a some child abusing monster. The intent is to raise the kid properly. Many of you act like spanking a child is akin to a parent or guardian of a child who engages in some sort of sadistic and torturous behavior with malicious intent.

Link to where anyone in here called AD a monster, sadistic or behaving with torturous and malicious intent?

Are you intentionally trying to distort my position or am I simply not articulating it very well?

I've bolded the words you used.

 

[Christo]

There seems to be a group of people who think that overstepping on corporal punishment is child abuse and that anyone who engages in child abuse is a child abuser. Thus, doesn't it logically follow that each one of these child abusers should be stripped of their children?

That conclusion is not at all logical.

 

[johnnycakes]

I just saw the photos of the results of the Peterson kid's switching by AP. First thought: My ex-wife is from the south and was switched as a kid. During the divorce process, she took a switch to our oldest daughter, resulting in injuries very similar to what the Peterson kid presents. I took photos and showed it to the GAL. Conclusion: I was the bad guy for making mommy look bad.

This is just one big brouhaha that wouldn't result in any intervention of any sort if AP weren't a public figure. Big double standard for people in the public spotlight compared to private citizens.

 

[Zow]

Kind of like how a person can commit murder, but not be a murderer. Wait.

Murder implies intent, which is exactly his point. You can kill a man and not commit murder(negligent homicide etc.), which is how he believes you can harm a child and not be a child abuser.

FWIW, I don't believe murder and child abuse have the same heightened level of mens rea.

 

[Fennis]

I just saw the photos of the results of the Peterson kid's switching by AP. First thought: My ex-wife is from the south and was switched as a kid. During the divorce process, she took a switch to our oldest daughter, resulting in injuries very similar to what the Peterson kid presents. I took photos and showed it to the GAL. Conclusion: I was the bad guy for making mommy look bad.

This is just one big brouhaha that wouldn't result in any intervention of any sort if AP weren't a public figure. Big double standard for people in the public spotlight compared to private citizens.

who made that conclusion?

 

[Guest]

I just saw the photos of the results of the Peterson kid's switching by AP. First thought: My ex-wife is from the south and was switched as a kid. During the divorce process, she took a switch to our oldest daughter, resulting in injuries very similar to what the Peterson kid presents. I took photos and showed it to the GAL. Conclusion: I was the bad guy for making mommy look bad.

This is just one big brouhaha that wouldn't result in any intervention of any sort if AP weren't a public figure. Big double standard for people in the public spotlight compared to private citizens.

Well sure. I could get a bj in my office and it wouldn't make the local paper. But if the POTUS gets one from an intern?

 

[johnnycakes]

I just saw the photos of the results of the Peterson kid's switching by AP. First thought: My ex-wife is from the south and was switched as a kid. During the divorce process, she took a switch to our oldest daughter, resulting in injuries very similar to what the Peterson kid presents. I took photos and showed it to the GAL. Conclusion: I was the bad guy for making mommy look bad.

This is just one big brouhaha that wouldn't result in any intervention of any sort if AP weren't a public figure. Big double standard for people in the public spotlight compared to private citizens.

who made that conclusion?

The GAL.

 

[Fennis]

I just saw the photos of the results of the Peterson kid's switching by AP. First thought: My ex-wife is from the south and was switched as a kid. During the divorce process, she took a switch to our oldest daughter, resulting in injuries very similar to what the Peterson kid presents. I took photos and showed it to the GAL. Conclusion: I was the bad guy for making mommy look bad.

This is just one big brouhaha that wouldn't result in any intervention of any sort if AP weren't a public figure. Big double standard for people in the public spotlight compared to private citizens.

who made that conclusion?

The GAL.

Unless you're talking about e-mail or a term for a woman, I don't know what the GAL is.

 

[johnnycakes]

I just saw the photos of the results of the Peterson kid's switching by AP. First thought: My ex-wife is from the south and was switched as a kid. During the divorce process, she took a switch to our oldest daughter, resulting in injuries very similar to what the Peterson kid presents. I took photos and showed it to the GAL. Conclusion: I was the bad guy for making mommy look bad.

This is just one big brouhaha that wouldn't result in any intervention of any sort if AP weren't a public figure. Big double standard for people in the public spotlight compared to private citizens.

who made that conclusion?

The GAL.

Unless you're talking about e-mail or a term for a woman, I don't know what the GAL is.

Guardian ad-litem.

 

[Fennis]

I just saw the photos of the results of the Peterson kid's switching by AP. First thought: My ex-wife is from the south and was switched as a kid. During the divorce process, she took a switch to our oldest daughter, resulting in injuries very similar to what the Peterson kid presents. I took photos and showed it to the GAL. Conclusion: I was the bad guy for making mommy look bad.

This is just one big brouhaha that wouldn't result in any intervention of any sort if AP weren't a public figure. Big double standard for people in the public spotlight compared to private citizens.

who made that conclusion?

The GAL.

Unless you're talking about e-mail or a term for a woman, I don't know what the GAL is.

Guardian ad-litem.

A guardian ad litem (GAL) is an individual appointed by the court to represent the best interests of a child or incapacitated person involved in a case in superior court.

I am sure there is more to it, but based on that your GAL didn't seem to be doing their job.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Someone wrote a statement for Adrian:

https://twitter.com/AdrianPeterson/status/511586600346599424/photo/1