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

[chinawildman]

District attorney: Adrian Peterson 'exceeded' standards

"It appears there's been a significant leak of very sensitive information regarding this case," Grant said. He said his office is working to find out the source of that leak and will prosecute it.

He said the evidence was presented to the grand jury over several weeks and was presented to only one grand jury. "It was not shopped around to multiple grand juries," Grant said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/vikings/2014/09/13/adrian-peterson-child-abuse-district-attorney-press-conference/15581419/

Interesting. "Shopping" a case to multiple grand juries for the same indictment isn't allowed anyway, similar to the concept of double jeopardy. However materially this changes little about the situation as long as the information regarding the official indictment is still accurate.

The leak of information will hurt the prosecution's case though, as evidence in the case prematurely viewed by public eyes will allow the defense to argue that any jury will be tainted (if this case even gets that far).

It will be equally interesting to see if any perceived taint will be counteracted by Peterson's glibness.

Huh? Has he made a statement regarding the situation?

 

[Neofight]

District attorney: Adrian Peterson 'exceeded' standards

"It appears there's been a significant leak of very sensitive information regarding this case," Grant said. He said his office is working to find out the source of that leak and will prosecute it.

He said the evidence was presented to the grand jury over several weeks and was presented to only one grand jury. "It was not shopped around to multiple grand juries," Grant said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/vikings/2014/09/13/adrian-peterson-child-abuse-district-attorney-press-conference/15581419/

Interesting. "Shopping" a case to multiple grand juries for the same indictment isn't allowed anyway, similar to the concept of double jeopardy. However materially this changes little about the situation as long as the information regarding the official indictment is still accurate.

The leak of information will hurt the prosecution's case though, as evidence in the case prematurely viewed by public eyes will allow the defense to argue that any jury will be tainted (if this case even gets that far).

It will be equally interesting to see if any perceived taint will be counteracted by Peterson's glibness.

Huh? Has he made a statement regarding the situation?

Are you being serious?

 

[chinawildman]

District attorney: Adrian Peterson 'exceeded' standards

"It appears there's been a significant leak of very sensitive information regarding this case," Grant said. He said his office is working to find out the source of that leak and will prosecute it.

He said the evidence was presented to the grand jury over several weeks and was presented to only one grand jury. "It was not shopped around to multiple grand juries," Grant said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/vikings/2014/09/13/adrian-peterson-child-abuse-district-attorney-press-conference/15581419/

Interesting. "Shopping" a case to multiple grand juries for the same indictment isn't allowed anyway, similar to the concept of double jeopardy. However materially this changes little about the situation as long as the information regarding the official indictment is still accurate.

The leak of information will hurt the prosecution's case though, as evidence in the case prematurely viewed by public eyes will allow the defense to argue that any jury will be tainted (if this case even gets that far).

It will be equally interesting to see if any perceived taint will be counteracted by Peterson's glibness.

Huh? Has he made a statement regarding the situation?

Are you being serious?

Uh yea. All we have thusfar is a statement from his attorney that he believed he was reasonably disciplining his child. Unless I missed something?

 

[ShamrockPride]

District attorney: Adrian Peterson 'exceeded' standards

"It appears there's been a significant leak of very sensitive information regarding this case," Grant said. He said his office is working to find out the source of that leak and will prosecute it.

He said the evidence was presented to the grand jury over several weeks and was presented to only one grand jury. "It was not shopped around to multiple grand juries," Grant said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/vikings/2014/09/13/adrian-peterson-child-abuse-district-attorney-press-conference/15581419/

Interesting. "Shopping" a case to multiple grand juries for the same indictment isn't allowed anyway, similar to the concept of double jeopardy. However materially this changes little about the situation as long as the information regarding the official indictment is still accurate.

The leak of information will hurt the prosecution's case though, as evidence in the case prematurely viewed by public eyes will allow the defense to argue that any jury will be tainted (if this case even gets that far).

It will be equally interesting to see if any perceived taint will be counteracted by Peterson's glibness.

Huh? Has he made a statement regarding the situation?

Are you being serious?

Uh yea. All we have thusfar is a statement from his attorney that he believed he was reasonably disciplining his child. Unless I missed something?

No, you're correct. The dude is just assuming things based off Peterson smiling in his mug.

 

[RichInOrlando]

District attorney: Adrian Peterson 'exceeded' standards

"It appears there's been a significant leak of very sensitive information regarding this case," Grant said. He said his office is working to find out the source of that leak and will prosecute it.

He said the evidence was presented to the grand jury over several weeks and was presented to only one grand jury. "It was not shopped around to multiple grand juries," Grant said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/vikings/2014/09/13/adrian-peterson-child-abuse-district-attorney-press-conference/15581419/

Interesting. "Shopping" a case to multiple grand juries for the same indictment isn't allowed anyway, similar to the concept of double jeopardy. However materially this changes little about the situation as long as the information regarding the official indictment is still accurate.

The leak of information will hurt the prosecution's case though, as evidence in the case prematurely viewed by public eyes will allow the defense to argue that any jury will be tainted (if this case even gets that far).

It will be equally interesting to see if any perceived taint will be counteracted by Peterson's glibness.

Huh? Has he made a statement regarding the situation?

Are you being serious?

Uh yea. All we have thusfar is a statement from his attorney that he believed he was reasonably disciplining his child. Unless I missed something?

No, you're correct. The dude is just assuming things based off Peterson smiling in his mug.

Correct. A smiling mug isn't a smoking gun. Prob not the best to do in this situation, but any scenario could have happened ... (I.E. Police photographer could have been a fan of AP and was friendly (happens more often than we would think with celebrities) and thus smile in picture.

 

[Neofight]

Not the picture gents.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

 

[tone1oc]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

How many shares do you own? Start there and work your way back.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

How many shares do you own? Start there and work your way back.

My FF team is not what's important here

 

[chinawildman]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

 

[treat88]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

I don't know man. There may be a discussion about corporal punishment in theory to be had. But, as a father, I don't think it is very complicated to know what Peterson did to his child was very wrong. There is a line where discipline becomes brutality and he unquestionably crossed it. I don't think an intelligent argument can be made to refute that.

In the big scheme what he did probably warrants a minimal punishment both from the league and the law. There's far worse things happening in this world, no doubt. I'll leave it to the legal scholars and powers that be to debate the correct responses to what he did. But there is really no debate that what he did was reprehensible.

 

[fourd]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

No, there is no universal way to raise children. But universally what AP did here was wrong.

 

[chinawildman]

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

I don't know man. There may be a discussion about corporal punishment in theory to be had. But, as a father, I don't think it is very complicated to know what Peterson did to his child was very wrong. There is a line where discipline becomes brutality and he unquestionably crossed it. I don't think an intelligent argument can be made to refute that.

In the big scheme what he did probably warrants a minimal punishment both from the league and the law. There's far worse things happening in this world, no doubt. I'll leave it to the legal scholars and powers that be to debate the correct responses to what he did. But there is really no debate that what he did was reprehensible.

I'm not refuting it. Simply stating that your line and my line may not fall in the same place. We can parley to no end about the existence or legitimacy of objective morality, but the fact is there are cultures and laws in other countries where what Peterson did is considered acceptable.

The concept of righteousness is a moving target and ebbs and flows with social attitudes. Social attitudes toward homosexuality and racism have changed drastically in 50 years. Yet there are so many here willing to claim that "My line is the TRUE LINE and Adrian Peterson crossed it!". Seems a bit arrogant no?

 

[SharkBait]

I grew up in Houston. I sure as heck know what a switch is. I didn't get that too many times (switch, belt, etc). Didn't have to because a "whupping" pretty much did the trick and I knew I didn't want it. I'd hop around like a jumping bean while I was being punished. But here's the thing. I bet I never received more than 5 lashes at a time. And they NEVER left a mark. It was effective punishment. It kept me from acting out and pulling the crap so many kids pull. And again, it never left a mark. Any good parent knows you can get your point across to your child without leaving those kinds of marks. My opinion is that at this point it's gone well beyond simple discipline. And yeah it does make a difference if the child is 4 or 11 years old.

ETA: Not that I condone those kinds of marks on any age child, but no way a belt or "switch" was used on me as a 4 year old. A pop on the butt with the hand was plenty...

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

No, there is no universal way to raise children. But universally what AP did here was wrong.

There are people in Texas who want to know what the boy did before they decide.

 

[qimqam]

If his name were not Adrian Peterson, would anyone care? That is the sadness in all this. Domestic and child abuse is now taking a national stand because it effects our fantasy teams, not because it was an important issue before. Let that sink in a moment. Some, not all, now care because it effects them. Upsetting.

He left physical scars on his kid, how can that be defended? By anyone. This wasnt spankings or discipline, it was abuse of parental power on a 4 year old defenseless child. The child should be protected and shown right from wrong by their parents, not physically hurt. I spank my daughter on the bottom with my hand but its more of a pat not a full on spank. It is not intended to inflict pain but show that I am disappointed in what she did if her action warranted it. I am not the worlds best parent and will never claim to be, that being said, I can reasonably say any kid that suffers punishment that leaves scares emotionally or physically is suffering abuse.

When Peterson is punished enough to make people happy it will still be legal to use a switch on a 4 year old.

No one will take to Twitter or Facebook and no one will protest. On to the next story to ##### about.

It's not legal to use a switch on a 4 year old.

Texas

Abuse does not include reasonable discipline by a parent/guardian/managing or possessory conservator if child not exposed to substantial risk of harm. Family Code Sec. 261.001.[Ci.] Parent/stepparent/person standing in loco parentis to child is justified to use non-deadly force against a child under 18 when and to degree the actor reasonably believes necessary to discipline, or safeguard or promote child's welfare. Penal Sec. 9.61.[Cr.]

Apparently the Grand Jury did not feel that this was reasonable discipline and that's why he is being indicted. What could a 4 year old possibly do to deserve to be whipped that many times and until he bleeds

What could an 11 year old do to "deserve" that? The "OMG, he's only 4 years old, not 11" narrative has also gotten out of control.

I heard that the 4 year old was going around the house pulling protectors off of electrical sockets, and attempting to stick his tongue in the and lick them every chance he got.

Is it now ok how Peterson handled this?

No and you obviously don't have kids.

Everybody that has kids has had to keep them away from the electric outlets and most have done it without beating the #### out of their kids

No parent should beat any kid of any age that's pretty obvious but there is a big difference physically and mentally between a 4 year old and an 11 year old

 

[treat88]

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

I don't know man. There may be a discussion about corporal punishment in theory to be had. But, as a father, I don't think it is very complicated to know what Peterson did to his child was very wrong. There is a line where discipline becomes brutality and he unquestionably crossed it. I don't think an intelligent argument can be made to refute that.

In the big scheme what he did probably warrants a minimal punishment both from the league and the law. There's far worse things happening in this world, no doubt. I'll leave it to the legal scholars and powers that be to debate the correct responses to what he did. But there is really no debate that what he did was reprehensible.

I'm not refuting it. Simply stating that your line and my line may not fall in the place. We can parley to no end about the existence or legitimacy of objective morality, but the fact is there are cultures and laws in other countries where what Peterson did is considered acceptable.

The concept of righteousness is a moving target and ebbs and flows with social attitudes. Social attitudes toward homosexuality and racism have changed drastically in 50 years. Yet there are so many here willing to claim that "My line is the TRUE LINE and Adrian Peterson crossed it!". Seems a bit arrogant no?

At the risk of sounding a little insular, no.

I do believe in some instances objective morality exists.

I'm not going to claim any expertise in the field or make a list of those instances because I'm not making a claim to have all the answers here.

I do think that regardless of how widely culturally accepted it may be that when a father does that to a son, or any parent to any child, they know on a personal level that they have done something morally reprehensible regardless of how they are viewed and irrespective of consequences. I guess if that is arrogant, so be it.

 

[pizzatyme]

I am a product of serious child abuse. I'm the oldest of 5 boys and we were all subject to belts, switches, hands, shoes, etc. I had many days with open wounds and/or couldn't sit from welts. Some of you should be more aware of the effects of such abuse and temper your words.

What Peterson did is inexcusable. It doesn't matter 4 or 14 for the age. Peterson will gets his and I hope the league and team hold him accountable for his actions as well.

Prior to today I was a Peterson fan. Both of my oldest boys are huge Sooner fans due to AP. We are let down in a big way.

I hope the boy gets better and forgets this. Domestic abuse sucks in any form!

 

[qimqam]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

No, there is no universal way to raise children. But universally what AP did here was wrong.

There are people in Texas who want to know what the boy did before they decide.

The boy got AP angry

 

[fourd]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

No, there is no universal way to raise children. But universally what AP did here was wrong.

There are people in Texas who want to know what the boy did before they decide.

So it could be the 4-year old's fault. He deserved it based on his actions. Well, I'm sure he'll never do whatever he did again. I guess he also deserves to live with the fear that his dad could punch him in the mouth. Or knowing that he may have to put leaves in his mouth. Yep, let's wait to find out exactly what he did.

 

[chinawildman]

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

I don't know man. There may be a discussion about corporal punishment in theory to be had. But, as a father, I don't think it is very complicated to know what Peterson did to his child was very wrong. There is a line where discipline becomes brutality and he unquestionably crossed it. I don't think an intelligent argument can be made to refute that.

In the big scheme what he did probably warrants a minimal punishment both from the league and the law. There's far worse things happening in this world, no doubt. I'll leave it to the legal scholars and powers that be to debate the correct responses to what he did. But there is really no debate that what he did was reprehensible.

I'm not refuting it. Simply stating that your line and my line may not fall in the place. We can parley to no end about the existence or legitimacy of objective morality, but the fact is there are cultures and laws in other countries where what Peterson did is considered acceptable.

The concept of righteousness is a moving target and ebbs and flows with social attitudes. Social attitudes toward homosexuality and racism have changed drastically in 50 years. Yet there are so many here willing to claim that "My line is the TRUE LINE and Adrian Peterson crossed it!". Seems a bit arrogant no?

At the risk of sounding a little insular, no.

I do believe in some instances objective morality exists.

I'm not going to claim any expertise in the field or make a list of those instances because I'm not making a claim to have all the answers here.

I do think that regardless of how widely culturally accepted it may be that when a father does that to a son, or any parent to any child, they know on a personal level that they have done something morally reprehensible regardless of how they are viewed and irrespective of consequences. I guess if that is arrogant, so be it.

I appreciate your well thought out response. Cooler heads do not often prevail in culturally laced threads on this forum.

From what I've seen thusfar, I personally do not condone what Peterson has done. But we are far from learning all the facts in this case. However most seem ready to crucify him as a result of leaked information from a police report. This urgency to lambast Peterson befuddles me. If a statement from his attorney were all we needed to get his side of the story, then why even have courts and trials?

This public condemnation of AP unfortunately makes me feel that it has become a by-product of people seeking to validate their own moral statures -- A proud proclamation that cowards that beat children should never see the football field again! And yet it also has the unfortunate effect of trampling the 5th amendment and due process rights of the accused.

In this context, I feel uneasy about the extremely polarized cries for justice from armchair judges in the twitterverse. This isn't 17th century Salem.

 

[dgreen]

I always enjoy the "you must not have kids" argument. The interesting thing is both sides are using it in this thread.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

I am a product of serious child abuse. I'm the oldest of 5 boys and we were all subject to belts, switches, hands, shoes, etc. I had many days with open wounds and/or couldn't sit from welts. Some of you should be more aware of the effects of such abuse and temper your words.

What Peterson did is inexcusable. It doesn't matter 4 or 14 for the age. Peterson will gets his and I hope the league and team hold him accountable for his actions as well.

Prior to today I was a Peterson fan. Both of my oldest boys are huge Sooner fans due to AP. We are let down in a big way.

I hope the boy gets better and forgets this. Domestic abuse sucks in any form!

I'm sorry for your experiences and having to endure abuse as a child. People aren't even really considering the psychological impact that has.I grew up with parents that were raised in poor, rural (nearly Northern backwoods) conditions; they were physically disciplined, but never abused to my knowledge. I grew up in an era and environment much more lax in regards to discipline techniques. The open hand spanking was used now and then and I even took a belt to my butt a few times. However, I never have thought twice about the way my folks disciplined as being extreme, or anywhere near abuse.

Without knowing the full story, I still hold a smidgen of reservation to say that AP is a child abuser, but those pictures are proof to me he definitely went too far and made a serious mistake. Marks like that are not consistent with acceptable physical disciplining of a child, at age , in any culture in America, at any point in time.

 

[SameSongNDance]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

No, there is no universal way to raise children. But universally what AP did here was wrong.

There are people in Texas who want to know what the boy did before they decide.

Those people are dumb ####s.

 

[menobrown]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

No, there is no universal way to raise children. But universally what AP did here was wrong.

There are people in Texas who want to know what the boy did before they decide.

So it could be the 4-year old's fault. He deserved it based on his actions. Well, I'm sure he'll never do whatever he did again. I guess he also deserves to live with the fear that his dad could punch him in the mouth. Or knowing that he may have to put leaves in his mouth. Yep, let's wait to find out exactly what he did.

I'd hold off on what a 4 year old recollects as being how it went down. They don't tend to be the best at accurately describing what took place and sometimes take things out of context but don't let that slow you down in your rush to judgement.

 

[kd1]

I grew up in Houston. I sure as heck know what a switch is. I didn't get that too many times (switch, belt, etc). Didn't have to because a "whupping" pretty much did the trick and I knew I didn't want it. I'd hop around like a jumping bean while I was being punished. But here's the thing. I bet I never received more than 5 lashes at a time. And they NEVER left a mark. It was effective punishment. It kept me from acting out and pulling the crap so many kids pull. And again, it never left a mark. Any good parent knows you can get your point across to your child without leaving those kinds of marks. My opinion is that at this point it's gone well beyond simple discipline. And yeah it does make a difference if the child is 4 or 11 years old.

ETA: Not that I condone those kinds of marks on any age child, but no way a belt or "switch" was used on me as a 4 year old. A pop on the butt with the hand was plenty...

Your parents smacked you in your ### with their hands?? That's reprehensible Sorry you were abused as a child. Please don't pass down physical violence to your kids.

 

[ang12]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

No, there is no universal way to raise children. But universally what AP did here was wrong.

There are people in Texas who want to know what the boy did before they decide.

So it could be the 4-year old's fault. He deserved it based on his actions. Well, I'm sure he'll never do whatever he did again. I guess he also deserves to live with the fear that his dad could punch him in the mouth. Or knowing that he may have to put leaves in his mouth. Yep, let's wait to find out exactly what he did.

I'd hold off on what a 4 year old recollects as being how it went down. They don't tend to be the best at accurately describing what took place and sometimes take things out of context but don't let that slow you down in your rush to judgement.

The kid said his dad hit him. Peterson said he hit the kid. There are photos of the injuries. Where is the gray area here?

 

[ghostguy123]

I love how we continue to argue 10 billion different discplinary scenarios with a couple comments. Seriously, love it.

A pat on the butt is the same as 400 lashings apparently.

Bascially, I am and will always be a firm believer than some physical discpline can be VERY effective with raising children. However, I also am a firm believe that it will only work if the person doing it knows what the heck they are doing. Does not appear AP knows what he is doing. Clearly went too far.

 

[qimqam]

I always enjoy the "you must not have kids" argument. The interesting thing is both sides are using it in this thread.

You must not have kids

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

his side of the story

Are you implying that there's some other side to the story that would somehow excuse his actions? It seems he's already admitted to beating the 4 year old, it's not like it's a big mystery and we're waiting to hear his account of what happened to find out if it was self defense or something.

A proud proclamation that cowards that beat children should never see the football field again! And yet it also has the unfortunate effect of trampling the 5th amendment and due process rights of the accused.

The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from public disgrace, nor does it protect you from losing your job. People seem to keep conflating the possible legal ramifications with the other possible repercussions. No one's saying he should go to prison without having his day in court. But whether a Texas jury finds him guilty is very different than what the NFL has to consider.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

i don't have kids so maybe i'm talking out of my ###, but if it would be considered assault against any other person why would he get a pass because it's his kid?

 

[SameSongNDance]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

No, there is no universal way to raise children. But universally what AP did here was wrong.

There are people in Texas who want to know what the boy did before they decide.

So it could be the 4-year old's fault. He deserved it based on his actions. Well, I'm sure he'll never do whatever he did again. I guess he also deserves to live with the fear that his dad could punch him in the mouth. Or knowing that he may have to put leaves in his mouth. Yep, let's wait to find out exactly what he did.

I'd hold off on what a 4 year old recollects as being how it went down. They don't tend to be the best at accurately describing what took place and sometimes take things out of context but don't let that slow you down in your rush to judgement.

The kid said his dad hit him. Peterson said he hit the kid. There are photos of the injuries. Where is the gray area here?

Menobrown needs a pic of the kid chewing on leaves.

 

[kd1]

I love how we continue to argue 10 billion different discplinary scenarios with a couple comments. Seriously, love it.

A pat on the butt is the same as 400 lashings apparently.

Bascially, I am and will always be a firm believer than some physical discpline can be VERY effective with raising children. However, I also am a firm believe that it will only work if the person doing it knows what the heck they are doing. Does not appear AP knows what he is doing. Clearly went too far.

And some people think it's disgusting to use physical discipline of any kind. Some would say that makes you a sick monster. "It's ok to cause as much pain as I think is appropriate" (which is exactly what you're saying), is a demented stance to take, and all you are really doing is throwing stones in a glass house when you (specifically) are judging him.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Peterson is going down for 6, folks, but probably not until next year.

What he's charged with is a state jail felony which carries a 6 month minimum sentence (up to two years). He could try to beat the charge but there's too much risk and will need to plea down to domestic assault - a misdemeanor that carries no mandatory jail time - and get off with probation.

If he takes that plea then he's certain to get a 6 game suspension under the new domestic violence policy.

 

[skinsrule05]

I keep coming up with reasons or points that I feel might be relevent but then I ask myself does any of this excuse Peterson or lessen what he actually did? And the answer is 100% NO. Not being able to get over that question makes it very difficult to argue or even mildly debate with folks who are adamently pissed off about the entire situation and want Peterson banished from the league. I don't quite share those views but it's very difficult to offer up reasons as to why.

I share similar sentiments. Though much of my frustration has more to do with the subconscious biases and prejudices in this witchhunt. For many it seems the question of how to raise your children has an universal answer. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the public's reaction thusfar. The NFL is in similarly uncomfortable shoes as they will ultimately have to take an official stance on parenting at some point, without the qualifications to do so.

It's a deeply complicated constitutional issue much like debates surrounding the extension of first amendment rights. I will tell you one thing though, the answer isn't going to come from a fantasy football message board.

No, there is no universal way to raise children. But universally what AP did here was wrong.

There are people in Texas who want to know what the boy did before they decide.

That is disgusting. Years ago beating women was accepted. Now at least in this country it is not. It amazes me that beating kids is still partially accepted. I like that a good part of America has evolved past this. I look forward to a time when beating on anyone weaker then you is considered morally wrong.

 

[ghostguy123]

I love how we continue to argue 10 billion different discplinary scenarios with a couple comments. Seriously, love it.

A pat on the butt is the same as 400 lashings apparently.

Bascially, I am and will always be a firm believer than some physical discpline can be VERY effective with raising children. However, I also am a firm believe that it will only work if the person doing it knows what the heck they are doing. Does not appear AP knows what he is doing. Clearly went too far.

And some people think it's disgusting to use physical discipline of any kind. Some would say that makes you a sick monster. "It's ok to cause as much pain as I think is appropriate" (which is exactly what you're saying), is a demented stance to take, and all you are really doing is throwing stones in a glass house when you (specifically) are judging him.

No, I said it's ok to punish to a level that is appropriate for that exact situation. Not what some people THINK is appropriate, which is why I said that the person doing it needs to know what they are doing with good rationale for the EXACT situation.

There is a pretty definite cutoff point where changes form discipline that works to something worse, and needless.

I generally wouldnt judge anyone for this kind of thing, but in EVERY case there is a point where it was too much. This case, those marks, thats too much.

Do I think AP needs to go to jail?? No. I think a slap on the wrist (no pun intended) type of legal punishment will be just fine, with some mandated parenting courses.

I also don't particularly think AP should be suspended for a long time in the NFL, either. In fact, I am pretty sick of the NFL suspending players for legal matters the way they have been. But that's a whole other debate that I dont care to get into.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

i don't have kids so maybe i'm talking out of my ###, but if it would be considered assault against any other person why would he get a pass because it's his kid?

Parents have the right to hit their kids within reason.

 

[ang12]

Controlling a kid with pain, fear, and humiliation is not "discipline". There's no evidence supporting it as a successful long term technique while there's plenty of studies stating that even just spanking can lead to anti-social behavior, aggression, etc. It's cowardly and barbaric.

 

[ghostguy123]

Peterson is going down for 6, folks, but probably not until next year.

What he's charged with is a state jail felony which carries a 6 month minimum sentence (up to two years). He could try to beat the charge but there's too much risk and will need to plea down to domestic assault - a misdemeanor that carries no mandatory jail time - and get off with probation.

If he takes that plea then he's certain to get a 6 game suspension under the new domestic violence policy.

SInce when does it matter what happens with the courts? Rice got the equivalent of no punishment from the courts and he is out indefinitely.

 

[chinawildman]

A proud proclamation that cowards that beat children should never see the football field again! And yet it also has the unfortunate effect of trampling the 5th amendment and due process rights of the accused.

The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from public disgrace, nor does it protect you from losing your job. People seem to keep conflating the possible legal ramifications with the other possible repercussions. No one's saying he should go to prison without having his day in court. But whether a Texas jury finds him guilty is very different than what the NFL has to consider.

Yes that is exactly my point. That in the internet age, due process can no longer protect someone from public defamation due to the speed at which information travels IS a problem.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

That is disgusting. Years ago beating women was accepted. Now at least in this country it is not. It amazes me that beating kids is still partially accepted. I like that a good part of America has evolved past this. I look forward to a time when beating on anyone weaker then you is considered morally wrong.

Sweden has banned spanking completely since 1979 and parents are able to raise their children without hitting them.

 

[ghostguy123]

i don't have kids so maybe i'm talking out of my ###, but if it would be considered assault against any other person why would he get a pass because it's his kid?

Parents have the right to hit their kids within reason.

Legally, you are correct.

ANd if people don't see a difference between what is acceptable and what isnt acceptable when it's your own child as opposed to another child, well, there just is, sorry.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Peterson is going down for 6, folks, but probably not until next year.

What he's charged with is a state jail felony which carries a 6 month minimum sentence (up to two years). He could try to beat the charge but there's too much risk and will need to plea down to domestic assault - a misdemeanor that carries no mandatory jail time - and get off with probation.

If he takes that plea then he's certain to get a 6 game suspension under the new domestic violence policy.

SInce when does it matter what happens with the courts? Rice got the equivalent of no punishment from the courts and he is out indefinitely.

Rice not only committed a crime of which there's no reasonable excuse but he lied about it and most importantly there was video. Remember he got only 2 games before the video went public.

 

[chinawildman]

On another note what is with the degree to which people like to announce their disapproval? Why do we keep seeing broad sweeping declarations of righteousness like: "This behavior is not acceptable in any modern society" vs. more realistic and relevant statements like "I don't agree with what AP did"?

It's the same issue I have with reviews on Yelp that proclaim "Best burger in town!"... Really? You went to every single burger joint in town and this was the best? What's with all the self-important declarations? Nobody cares about what your ideas of ideal social norms are, so why get all dramatic about it?

 

[ghostguy123]

Controlling a kid with pain, fear, and humiliation is not "discipline". There's no evidence supporting it as a successful long term technique while there's plenty of studies stating that even just spanking can lead to anti-social behavior, aggression, etc. It's cowardly and barbaric.

If it reaches that point, pretty clear indication it is going to far.

Also, it's not like anyone is saying (at least I hope not) that you should spank your kids for every tiny little misbehaving that occurs. It would definitely need to be age appropriate.

BUt, again, too many people trying to throw 500 arguments into 1 sentence. Not working.

All I can say is, I think AP went too far, he should get probation and some parenting classes, and not be suspended by the NFL...............but appropriate use of some types of spanking is totally fine by me......mind you, APPROPRIATE use. If you want to know if it is appropriate or not, give me a specific example and I will tell you what I think

 

[dgreen]

i don't have kids so maybe i'm talking out of my ###, but if it would be considered assault against any other person why would he get a pass because it's his kid?

Parents have the right to hit their kids within reason.

Yeah, but he's asking "Why?"

I think the answer is basically that we consider kids to be, in a way, the property of their parents. Obviously a kid has more rights than other property, like a car or TV or even a dog.

 

[kd1]

I love how we continue to argue 10 billion different discplinary scenarios with a couple comments. Seriously, love it.

A pat on the butt is the same as 400 lashings apparently.

Bascially, I am and will always be a firm believer than some physical discpline can be VERY effective with raising children. However, I also am a firm believe that it will only work if the person doing it knows what the heck they are doing. Does not appear AP knows what he is doing. Clearly went too far.

And some people think it's disgusting to use physical discipline of any kind. Some would say that makes you a sick monster. "It's ok to cause as much pain as I think is appropriate" (which is exactly what you're saying), is a demented stance to take, and all you are really doing is throwing stones in a glass house when you (specifically) are judging him.

No, I said it's ok to punish to a level that is appropriate for that exact situation. Not what some people THINK is appropriate, which is why I said that the person doing it needs to know what they are doing with good rationale for the EXACT situation.

Yeah...you're trying to write the rules and be the arbiter of what level of physical beating is appropriate.

You are in favor of inflicting pain upon children as a means of discipline. You seem to be having a hard time grasping the fact that many people find that alone to be disgusting. What if your kid's pain tolerance is 1/100th of Peterson's? Do you know for a fact that it isn't? Do you know for a fact that the pain that you put on your kid hurt him less than the pain that Peterson caused his kid??

Somebody with your views on the matter shouldn't be judging Peterson.

 

[ghostguy123]

Peterson is going down for 6, folks, but probably not until next year.

What he's charged with is a state jail felony which carries a 6 month minimum sentence (up to two years). He could try to beat the charge but there's too much risk and will need to plea down to domestic assault - a misdemeanor that carries no mandatory jail time - and get off with probation.

If he takes that plea then he's certain to get a 6 game suspension under the new domestic violence policy.

SInce when does it matter what happens with the courts? Rice got the equivalent of no punishment from the courts and he is out indefinitely.

Rice not only committed a crime of which there's no reasonable excuse but he lied about it and most importantly there was video. Remember he got only 2 games before the video went public.

WHich was stupid. He got punished more for lying than for the act itself. Dumb.

But still................there is no legal action taken against him, and he is out.

What happened to "first offense is 6 games"?????? He isnt even in legal trouble and he is out for a long long time it seems.

 

[Johnny Blood]

Controlling a kid with pain, fear, and humiliation is not "discipline". There's no evidence supporting it as a successful long term technique while there's plenty of studies stating that even just spanking can lead to anti-social behavior, aggression, etc. It's cowardly and barbaric.

It's Texas. They look it up in their gut. They don't need some egghead scientists, who probably never even were beaten by their parents, telling them what the evidence supports.

 

[ghostguy123]

I love how we continue to argue 10 billion different discplinary scenarios with a couple comments. Seriously, love it.

A pat on the butt is the same as 400 lashings apparently.

Bascially, I am and will always be a firm believer than some physical discpline can be VERY effective with raising children. However, I also am a firm believe that it will only work if the person doing it knows what the heck they are doing. Does not appear AP knows what he is doing. Clearly went too far.

And some people think it's disgusting to use physical discipline of any kind. Some would say that makes you a sick monster. "It's ok to cause as much pain as I think is appropriate" (which is exactly what you're saying), is a demented stance to take, and all you are really doing is throwing stones in a glass house when you (specifically) are judging him.

No, I said it's ok to punish to a level that is appropriate for that exact situation. Not what some people THINK is appropriate, which is why I said that the person doing it needs to know what they are doing with good rationale for the EXACT situation.

Yeah...you're trying to write the rules and be the arbiter of what level of physical beating is appropriate.

You are in favor of inflicting pain upon children as a means of discipline. You seem to be having a hard time grasping the fact that many people find that alone to be disgusting. What if your kid's pain tolerance is 1/100th of Peterson's? Do you know for a fact that it isn't? Do you know for a fact that the pain that you put on your kid hurt him less than the pain that Peterson cause his kid??

Somebody with your views on the matter shouldn't be judging Peterson.

I am not having a hard time grasping anything, just an FYI.

You are welcome to give me a specific example and I will tell you what I think. Because after all, these are all case by case basis.

Not trying to write the rules. There ARE rules already.