Peterson charged with reckless or negligent injury to a child? (3 Viewers)

[Dippa]

I honestly thought if he did it once more would follow.

as did the reasonable ppl in this thread. but petersons defenders had been vehemently arguing that it was simply a one-off incident that went too far. of course, any logical person would infer from the report and the text messages how full of isht such a stance is.

It happened over a year ago with no charges filed. Honestly, I don't like defending the guy, but so many are jumping to conclusions and stating wrong "facts", that it's hard not to.

 

[Raider Nation]

This guy leads the league in 4-year-old kids. He probably has ten more he doesn't even know about.

 

[cvnpoka]

I honestly thought if he did it once more would follow.

as did the reasonable ppl in this thread. but petersons defenders had been vehemently arguing that it was simply a one-off incident that went too far. of course, any logical person would infer from the report and the text messages how full of isht such a stance is.

It happened over a year ago with no charges filed. Honestly, I don't like defending the guy, but so many are jumping to conclusions and stating wrong "facts", that it's hard not to.

just bc no charges were filed does not mean that peterson didnt beat a 4 yr old kid resulting in a ghastly scar on his head. just bc he did technically break the law does not mean that his actions were proper.

read the report. read the text messages. look at the picture.

also, use some critical thinking ability when considering if a car seat could do that much damage.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I'm making low ball offers for AP.

Choo choo

 

[SameSongNDance]

I honestly thought if he did it once more would follow.

as did the reasonable ppl in this thread. but petersons defenders had been vehemently arguing that it was simply a one-off incident that went too far. of course, any logical person would infer from the report and the text messages how full of isht such a stance is.

It happened over a year ago with no charges filed. Honestly, I don't like defending the guy, but so many are jumping to conclusions and stating wrong "facts", that it's hard not to.

Yeah, the justice system likely failed that kid. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. As a direct result of the "whooping" AP gave that kid, he now has a permanent scar above his right eye. I don't give a #### if the kid got it trying to avoid a back hand from his 6'1 220 lb "dad", it was still the direct result of AP's archaic view of discipline. I feel bad for him (AP), because I truly think he thinks there's some strong correlation between beating the #### out of your kids and them becoming a man. Regardless, it doesn't excuse any of it. It's all is so obviously wrong it boggles my mind that anyone could defend it.

 

[Smack Tripper]

This guy leads the league in 4-year-old kids. He probably has ten more he doesn't even know about.

Didn't he tear his acl four years ago? Busy during the time off

 

[Smack Tripper]

This guy leads the league in 4-year-old kids. He probably has ten more he doesn't even know about.

Didn't he tear his acl four years ago? Busy during the time off

 

[Raider Nation]

This guy leads the league in 4-year-old kids. He probably has ten more he doesn't even know about.

Didn't he tear his acl four years ago? Busy during the time off

I think your baby-math is off a bit.

 

[Avery]

Just in case missed:

• NFL.com
• Published: Sept. 15, 2014 at 08:28 p.m.
• Updated: Sept. 15, 2014 at 10:06 p.m.

• Email
• Print

KHOU-TV in Houston reported Monday night that Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was accused of injuring another son in June 2013. According to the report, Peterson allegedly disciplined his son for "cussing to a sibling," resulting in an injury to the 4-year-old boy's head.

The boy's mother reportedly filed a report with Texas Child Protective Services. The results of any investigation are unclear and no charges have been filed in the case.

In a text to NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport, Peterson's lawyer Rusty Hardin wrote, "The allegations were made over a year ago to CPS and law enforcement and no action was taken. Plus there was an adult witness present in the car and she flatly denied that Adrian caused any injury to the boy."

Hardin also released a statement: "The allegation of another investigation into Adrian Peterson is simply not true. This is not a new allegation, it's one that is unsubstantiated and was shopped around to authorities in two states over a year ago and nothing came of it. An adult witness adamantly insists Adrian did nothing inappropriate with his son. There is no ongoing or new investigation."

Later Monday night, the Vikings released a statement of their own: "As part of the information we have gathered throughout this process, we were made aware of an allegation from 2013 in which authorities took no action against Adrian. We will defer any further questions to Adrian's attorney Rusty Hardin."

Peterson was indicted Friday on a charge of reckless or negligent injury to a child -- a different 4-year-old son -- and faces up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted. He flew to Texas and turned himself in early Saturday morning to the Montgomery County (Texas) Sheriff's Office and was released after posting a $15,000 bond.

It wasn't missed, and an investigation also didn't result in any charges, it is also not an ongoing investigation or going to be reopened.

but it shows a pattern/

I don't know how it works in every state, but I know in some states you need exactly zero evidence to file a report a start an investigation - just your statement.Not looking to be a "child abuse apologist" but generally speaking, to have a report filed against you that results in an investigation can have nothing to do with a pattern of behavior or anything that may have actually happened.

Well, for someone who doesn't want to look like a "child abuse apologist", you are certainly doing a bad job of it.Let's just review the facts (the ones we know about right now):

1. AP admits hitting 4 year old child in a car seat and the result is a permananent scar on his head.

2. AP admits "whooping" another 4 year old child with a stick and leaving noticeable welts and cuts a week later.

3. AP's son is also on record as saying he was scared of talking for fear that "Dddy Peterson" would hit him in the head AGAIN.

4. On the heels of all this, there is the tragic story of another one of AP's children who was killed last year from an apparent head injury by a repeat child abuse offender. This man, Joseph Patterson, had a similarly documented history of leaving welts on children's butts. But apparently prior behavior is irrelevant.

And with all this information, you choose as your point to make that anyone can have a report filed against them without anything actually having happened?

I choose as a point that what happens in the Rice and Peterson cases sets a precedent for future suspensions.

I choose as a point that justice is best served with all the facts evidenced in a court rather than with mod mentality.

I choose as a point that because I'd prefer that procedure rule the day rather then emotional fervor doesn't mean I'm for child abuse.

I choose as a point that one should understand justice is not always quick and shouldn't be reactionary.

I choose as a point that your name calling means nothing to me.

Fair enough. I appreciate your honest response. So by that logic, if Aaron Hernandez was eligible for bail it would be ok with you that he continues playing in the NFL. Do I have that right?

I guess it is in the extremes of the margins that we are tested on our convictions so that is a fair test. It's a tough question that is far more difficult for those of us that believe in procedure and due process rather than acting and punishing by our guts and emotions. It's much easier and simpler to "convict" or "acquit" on a case by case basis from the gut.

Although I understand that playing in the NFL is a privilege and not a right, I also think that the NFL shouldn't take away that privilege before all the facts are heard. From my point of view, I have no faith in Goodell and the NFL to act judiciously. They have proven to be reactionary. I have no faith in them to evaluate the facts and resolve what happened in any given case. Given that, I would rather wait for the court of law to levy their judgement and then the NFL could levy their punishment (hopefully based on a well laid out conduct policy) once all the facts are in and the case is decided.

Having said that I am going to have to say "yes" in your conviction testing question. If Hernandez was free, and if he could find a team to employ him, he should be allowed to play football. (Although I doubt any team would choose to employ him and in that the free market would have it's say) until his in convicted of a crime. (If he hasn't been already. I'm honestly not up to date on his case(s)).

I guess that makes me a procedural purist and extremist. Much in the way that I think that even the most heinous criminals amongst us deserves a vigorous defense and shouldn't be strung up in the village square before their day in court.

Back to Peterson. If he is guilty of abusing his children, as it appears he is, he should be convicted in a court of law. He should serve the penalty of the law as well as the penalty of the league. But I feel we should let that happen rather than convict him based on public outcry based on partial information and ESPN talking heads' diatribes. We can always take away later but we can never give back what we have taken away. For the lawyers amongst us, I'll refer to the idealistic proclamation of Blackstone's formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Also, to be clear, I have people who are very close to me who have been victim's of physical parental abuse and I have no pity for the abusers. I see to this day the ripples of these crimes. This fact tests my convictions here and makes it harder to believe in due process but I believe the system needs to be bigger than any one player and any one lynch mob.

I hope that answered your question.

 

[Dippa]

I honestly thought if he did it once more would follow.

as did the reasonable ppl in this thread. but petersons defenders had been vehemently arguing that it was simply a one-off incident that went too far. of course, any logical person would infer from the report and the text messages how full of isht such a stance is.

It happened over a year ago with no charges filed. Honestly, I don't like defending the guy, but so many are jumping to conclusions and stating wrong "facts", that it's hard not to.

just bc no charges were filed does not mean that peterson didnt beat a 4 yr old kid resulting in a ghastly scar on his head. just bc he did technically break the law does not mean that his actions were proper.

read the report. read the text messages. look at the picture.

also, use some critical thinking ability when considering if a car seat could do that much damage.

It doesn't mean that he did beat him either, which is my point. I've made the point that I'd like the legal system decide these things. And per my critical thinking abilities, I don't have a child, but I don't think it's unreasonable that a child could cut his head on a hard piece of a car seat. If you think it's unreasonable, please explain.

 

[Avery]

Just in case missed:

• NFL.com
• Published: Sept. 15, 2014 at 08:28 p.m.
• Updated: Sept. 15, 2014 at 10:06 p.m.

• Email
• Print

KHOU-TV in Houston reported Monday night that Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was accused of injuring another son in June 2013. According to the report, Peterson allegedly disciplined his son for "cussing to a sibling," resulting in an injury to the 4-year-old boy's head.

The boy's mother reportedly filed a report with Texas Child Protective Services. The results of any investigation are unclear and no charges have been filed in the case.

In a text to NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport, Peterson's lawyer Rusty Hardin wrote, "The allegations were made over a year ago to CPS and law enforcement and no action was taken. Plus there was an adult witness present in the car and she flatly denied that Adrian caused any injury to the boy."

Hardin also released a statement: "The allegation of another investigation into Adrian Peterson is simply not true. This is not a new allegation, it's one that is unsubstantiated and was shopped around to authorities in two states over a year ago and nothing came of it. An adult witness adamantly insists Adrian did nothing inappropriate with his son. There is no ongoing or new investigation."

Later Monday night, the Vikings released a statement of their own: "As part of the information we have gathered throughout this process, we were made aware of an allegation from 2013 in which authorities took no action against Adrian. We will defer any further questions to Adrian's attorney Rusty Hardin."

Peterson was indicted Friday on a charge of reckless or negligent injury to a child -- a different 4-year-old son -- and faces up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted. He flew to Texas and turned himself in early Saturday morning to the Montgomery County (Texas) Sheriff's Office and was released after posting a $15,000 bond.

It wasn't missed, and an investigation also didn't result in any charges, it is also not an ongoing investigation or going to be reopened.

but it shows a pattern/

I don't know how it works in every state, but I know in some states you need exactly zero evidence to file a report a start an investigation - just your statement.Not looking to be a "child abuse apologist" but generally speaking, to have a report filed against you that results in an investigation can have nothing to do with a pattern of behavior or anything that may have actually happened.

Well, for someone who doesn't want to look like a "child abuse apologist", you are certainly doing a bad job of it.Let's just review the facts (the ones we know about right now):

1. AP admits hitting 4 year old child in a car seat and the result is a permananent scar on his head.

2. AP admits "whooping" another 4 year old child with a stick and leaving noticeable welts and cuts a week later.

3. AP's son is also on record as saying he was scared of talking for fear that "Dddy Peterson" would hit him in the head AGAIN.

4. On the heels of all this, there is the tragic story of another one of AP's children who was killed last year from an apparent head injury by a repeat child abuse offender. This man, Joseph Patterson, had a similarly documented history of leaving welts on children's butts. But apparently prior behavior is irrelevant.

And with all this information, you choose as your point to make that anyone can have a report filed against them without anything actually having happened?

I choose as a point that what happens in the Rice and Peterson cases sets a precedent for future suspensions.

I choose as a point that justice is best served with all the facts evidenced in a court rather than with mob mentality.

I choose as a point that because I'd prefer that procedure rule the day rather then emotional fervor doesn't mean I'm for child abuse.

I choose as a point that one should understand justice is not always quick and shouldn't be reactionary.

I choose as a point that your name calling means nothing to me.

This is all very grand and sweeping, but it has little to do with some guy toting a rock for big dollars.They will have their day in court. Or, if they are lucky (as in the case of Rice), they will avoid seeing the inside of a courtroom altogether because, wait for it, they carry a football for millions of dollars working in a multi-billion dollar industry. These individuals need your platitudes like the NFL needs another tax exemption.

I also think they deserve due process but I appear to be the minority in that opinion.

 

[Johnny Blood]

I honestly thought if he did it once more would follow.

as did the reasonable ppl in this thread. but petersons defenders had been vehemently arguing that it was simply a one-off incident that went too far. of course, any logical person would infer from the report and the text messages how full of isht such a stance is.

It happened over a year ago with no charges filed. Honestly, I don't like defending the guy, but so many are jumping to conclusions and stating wrong "facts", that it's hard not to.

just bc no charges were filed does not mean that peterson didnt beat a 4 yr old kid resulting in a ghastly scar on his head. just bc he did technically break the law does not mean that his actions were proper.

read the report. read the text messages. look at the picture.

also, use some critical thinking ability when considering if a car seat could do that much damage.

It doesn't mean that he did beat him either, which is my point. I've made the point that I'd like the legal system decide these things. And per my critical thinking abilities, I don't have a child, but I don't think it's unreasonable that a child could cut his head on a hard piece of a car seat. If you think it's unreasonable, please explain.

They can, but only when they're flailing in terror during a beating or car accident.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The fact that I don't understand how anyone can justify this type of beating on a four-year-old tells me I was a lot luckier growing up than many folks. It's beyond the scope of my understanding that someone can see that and think it's acceptable.

I hope I never (and nobody in my family ever) gets so "enlightened" as to see that and think "it's not that bad," or "a little over the line."

Very sad.

Exactly. Your parents sound like humans and not animals. AP is an animal. I don't wanna hear about culture and upbringing. He's a low life who should do jail time.

It needs to be said again. AP said the beatings he took as a kid made him the man he is today. A man who doesn't know how many kids he has. A man who let his own kid, that he never knew about, get beat to death by his child's mothers boyfriend. A man who beats his own kid enough to make him bleed, sees nothing wrong with it, and smirks in his mugshot. He's a weirdo and a piece of trash.

And I was spanked as a child. Not with the intent to hurt me, but with the intent to get my attention that this was a serious problem or issue. There was no blood or scars or anger (except anger on my part). And Jesus, I had my clothes on. The sting was more to my ego than my body.

I can't imagine someone who's supposed to love you and protect you being the one administering such a beating that you bleed or have scars, and it's considered "good parenting" to some people.

I have no problem with parents spanking a child as a form of discipline. I just no longer have confidence that people understand what "spanking" and "discipline" are supposed to mean to healthy people.

Not that anyone cares, but I think less of the Vikings organization today. I wouldn't drop him from a fantasy team as some misguided protest that doesn't affect anyone. But if I lived in the area with my family, I wouldn't take anyone to see the team while he's playing. I'm not supporting his salary and lifestyle directly by purchasing a ticket. Not even sure I'd support the team anyway since they took this stance. But I'm not a fan, so maybe a lifelong die-hard would feel differently. Not judging them for that part.

 

[Avery]

Just in case missed:

• NFL.com
• Published: Sept. 15, 2014 at 08:28 p.m.
• Updated: Sept. 15, 2014 at 10:06 p.m.

• Email
• Print

KHOU-TV in Houston reported Monday night that Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was accused of injuring another son in June 2013. According to the report, Peterson allegedly disciplined his son for "cussing to a sibling," resulting in an injury to the 4-year-old boy's head.

The boy's mother reportedly filed a report with Texas Child Protective Services. The results of any investigation are unclear and no charges have been filed in the case.

In a text to NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport, Peterson's lawyer Rusty Hardin wrote, "The allegations were made over a year ago to CPS and law enforcement and no action was taken. Plus there was an adult witness present in the car and she flatly denied that Adrian caused any injury to the boy."

Hardin also released a statement: "The allegation of another investigation into Adrian Peterson is simply not true. This is not a new allegation, it's one that is unsubstantiated and was shopped around to authorities in two states over a year ago and nothing came of it. An adult witness adamantly insists Adrian did nothing inappropriate with his son. There is no ongoing or new investigation."

Later Monday night, the Vikings released a statement of their own: "As part of the information we have gathered throughout this process, we were made aware of an allegation from 2013 in which authorities took no action against Adrian. We will defer any further questions to Adrian's attorney Rusty Hardin."

Peterson was indicted Friday on a charge of reckless or negligent injury to a child -- a different 4-year-old son -- and faces up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted. He flew to Texas and turned himself in early Saturday morning to the Montgomery County (Texas) Sheriff's Office and was released after posting a $15,000 bond.

It wasn't missed, and an investigation also didn't result in any charges, it is also not an ongoing investigation or going to be reopened.

but it shows a pattern/

I don't know how it works in every state, but I know in some states you need exactly zero evidence to file a report a start an investigation - just your statement.Not looking to be a "child abuse apologist" but generally speaking, to have a report filed against you that results in an investigation can have nothing to do with a pattern of behavior or anything that may have actually happened.

Well, for someone who doesn't want to look like a "child abuse apologist", you are certainly doing a bad job of it.Let's just review the facts (the ones we know about right now):

1. AP admits hitting 4 year old child in a car seat and the result is a permananent scar on his head.

2. AP admits "whooping" another 4 year old child with a stick and leaving noticeable welts and cuts a week later.

3. AP's son is also on record as saying he was scared of talking for fear that "Dddy Peterson" would hit him in the head AGAIN.

4. On the heels of all this, there is the tragic story of another one of AP's children who was killed last year from an apparent head injury by a repeat child abuse offender. This man, Joseph Patterson, had a similarly documented history of leaving welts on children's butts. But apparently prior behavior is irrelevant.

And with all this information, you choose as your point to make that anyone can have a report filed against them without anything actually having happened?

I choose as a point that what happens in the Rice and Peterson cases sets a precedent for future suspensions.

I choose as a point that justice is best served with all the facts evidenced in a court rather than with mob mentality.

I choose as a point that because I'd prefer that procedure rule the day rather then emotional fervor doesn't mean I'm for child abuse.

I choose as a point that one should understand justice is not always quick and shouldn't be reactionary.

I choose as a point that your name calling means nothing to me.

Cmon man, I'm running out of likes to give you.

first off, both of you guys should read up on what a "false dichotomy" is.

I get that, but what is the other option between letting him play until trial and not letting him play?

 

[chinawildman]

Yeah, the justice system likely failed that kid. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. As a direct result of the "whooping" AP gave that kid, he now has a permanent scar above his right eye. I don't give a #### if the kid got it trying to avoid a back hand from his 6'1 220 lb "dad", it was still the direct result of AP's archaic view of discipline. I feel bad for him (AP), because I truly think he thinks there's some strong correlation between beating the #### out of your kids and them becoming a man. Regardless, it doesn't excuse any of it. It's all is so obviously wrong it boggles my mind that anyone could defend it.

Sounded like his dad beat the crap out of him. And it's likely he feels that somehow contributed to him becoming a beast of a running back.

I still don't think you get it. Nobody is defending Peterson the person or his actions. Speaking for myself I am defending the tenets of due process, trying to correct factual inaccuracies that are being propagated in this thread, and speaking out against irresponsible journalism and the mob frenzy it creates. That it so happens to rebut the assertions of people denouncing Peterson has nothing to do with how I feel personally about his actions, which I find repugnant.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

And I was spanked as a child. Not with the intent to hurt me, but with the intent to get my attention that this was a serious problem or issue. There was no blood or scars or anger (except anger on my part). And Jesus, I had my clothes on. The sting was more to my ego than my body.

I can't imagine someone who's supposed to love you and protect you being the one administering such a beating that you bleed or have scars, and it's considered "good parenting" to some people.

I have no problem with parents spanking a child as a form of discipline. I just no longer have confidence that people understand what "spanking" and "discipline" are supposed to mean to healthy people.

Not that anyone cares, but I think less of the Vikings organization today. I wouldn't drop him from a fantasy team as some misguided protest that doesn't affect anyone. But if I lived in the area with my family, I wouldn't take anyone to see the team while he's playing. I'm not supporting his salary and lifestyle directly by purchasing a ticket. Not even sure I'd support the team anyway since they took this stance. But I'm not a fan, so maybe a lifelong die-hard would feel differently. Not judging them for that part.

I'm glad people are finally waking up to this.

 

[cvnpoka]

I get that, but what is the other option between letting him play until trial and not letting him play?

dont see how this is relevant to that long post chain. regardless, there are a ton of options, from cutting him or from 1 game to 6 games or whatever in between. the vikings and the nfl have the option of blocking a child abuser from seeing the field in their service and representing the team and league. if i ran the vikings i surely would not want this guy representing my team.

 

[SameSongNDance]

I believe it was on ESPN but one of the reports said Pepsi was threatening to revoke sponsorship if the NFL didn't act.

 

[cvnpoka]

Yeah, the justice system likely failed that kid. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. As a direct result of the "whooping" AP gave that kid, he now has a permanent scar above his right eye. I don't give a #### if the kid got it trying to avoid a back hand from his 6'1 220 lb "dad", it was still the direct result of AP's archaic view of discipline. I feel bad for him (AP), because I truly think he thinks there's some strong correlation between beating the #### out of your kids and them becoming a man. Regardless, it doesn't excuse any of it. It's all is so obviously wrong it boggles my mind that anyone could defend it.

Sounded like his dad beat the crap out of him. And it's likely he feels that somehow contributed to him becoming a beast of a running back.

I still don't think you get it. Nobody is defending Peterson the person or his actions. Speaking for myself I am defending the tenets of due process, trying to correct factual inaccuracies that are being propagated in this thread, and speaking out against irresponsible journalism and the mob frenzy it creates. That it so happens to rebut the assertions of people denouncing Peterson has nothing to do with how I feel personally about his actions, which I find repugnant.

what has been irresponsible about the reporting of this situation? its as cut and dry as can be. there are pictures and text messages that provide a clear picture of what happened and that peterson has even admitted they were accurate.

 

[Dippa]

I honestly thought if he did it once more would follow.

as did the reasonable ppl in this thread. but petersons defenders had been vehemently arguing that it was simply a one-off incident that went too far. of course, any logical person would infer from the report and the text messages how full of isht such a stance is.

It happened over a year ago with no charges filed. Honestly, I don't like defending the guy, but so many are jumping to conclusions and stating wrong "facts", that it's hard not to.

just bc no charges were filed does not mean that peterson didnt beat a 4 yr old kid resulting in a ghastly scar on his head. just bc he did technically break the law does not mean that his actions were proper.

read the report. read the text messages. look at the picture.

also, use some critical thinking ability when considering if a car seat could do that much damage.

It doesn't mean that he did beat him either, which is my point. I've made the point that I'd like the legal system decide these things. And per my critical thinking abilities, I don't have a child, but I don't think it's unreasonable that a child could cut his head on a hard piece of a car seat. If you think it's unreasonable, please explain.

They can, but only when they're flailing in terror during a beating or car accident.

None of you know anything of what actually happened. I don't either, but at least I'm willing to admit it.

 

[Raider Nation]

I believe it was on ESPN but one of the reports said Pepsi was threatening to revoke sponsorship if the NFL didn't act.

What action would they find satisfactory?

 

[SameSongNDance]

Yeah, the justice system likely failed that kid. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. As a direct result of the "whooping" AP gave that kid, he now has a permanent scar above his right eye. I don't give a #### if the kid got it trying to avoid a back hand from his 6'1 220 lb "dad", it was still the direct result of AP's archaic view of discipline. I feel bad for him (AP), because I truly think he thinks there's some strong correlation between beating the #### out of your kids and them becoming a man. Regardless, it doesn't excuse any of it. It's all is so obviously wrong it boggles my mind that anyone could defend it.

Sounded like his dad beat the crap out of him. And it's likely he feels that somehow contributed to him becoming a beast of a running back.

I still don't think you get it. Nobody is defending Peterson the person or his actions. Speaking for myself I am defending the tenets of due process, trying to correct factual inaccuracies that are being propagated in this thread, and speaking out against irresponsible journalism and the mob frenzy it creates. That it so happens to rebut the assertions of people denouncing Peterson has nothing to do with how I feel personally about his actions, which I find repugnant.

what has been irresponsible about the reporting of this situation? its as cut and dry as can be. there are pictures and text messages that provide a clear picture of what happened and that peterson has even admitted they were accurate.

The "2nd abuse allegation" was reported as if it had just occurred even though it was old news.

 

[SameSongNDance]

I believe it was on ESPN but one of the reports said Pepsi was threatening to revoke sponsorship if the NFL didn't act.

What action would they find satisfactory?

Do I look like Indra Nooyi to you?

 

[whiskey7]

What I am finding increasingly interesting (or perhaps peculiar) is the text exchanges with the mothers. They both seem concerned but in neither case do they seem as angry as I would anticipate nor do they seem very surprised. Reading this thread, totally random people who don't know these kids at all are genuinely angry and expressing outrage. I am not sure what to make of that. Most women I know would go ballistic if they thought someone was harming their kids (even if it was the father). Are these women afraid of AP, too? Are they not entirely against his methods except the couple times it appears he took it too far? If AP was really putting a beating on these kids regularly I would think most caring mothers would keep their kids away from him. How much more to the stories are we not aware of at this point?

Like others have said, I am trying to refrain from passing complete judgement until I know more. I will say its tough, though, because it certainly does not look good at this point.

 

[Neofight]

Just in case missed:

• NFL.com
• Published: Sept. 15, 2014 at 08:28 p.m.
• Updated: Sept. 15, 2014 at 10:06 p.m.

• Email
• Print

KHOU-TV in Houston reported Monday night that Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was accused of injuring another son in June 2013. According to the report, Peterson allegedly disciplined his son for "cussing to a sibling," resulting in an injury to the 4-year-old boy's head.

The boy's mother reportedly filed a report with Texas Child Protective Services. The results of any investigation are unclear and no charges have been filed in the case.

In a text to NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport, Peterson's lawyer Rusty Hardin wrote, "The allegations were made over a year ago to CPS and law enforcement and no action was taken. Plus there was an adult witness present in the car and she flatly denied that Adrian caused any injury to the boy."

Hardin also released a statement: "The allegation of another investigation into Adrian Peterson is simply not true. This is not a new allegation, it's one that is unsubstantiated and was shopped around to authorities in two states over a year ago and nothing came of it. An adult witness adamantly insists Adrian did nothing inappropriate with his son. There is no ongoing or new investigation."

Later Monday night, the Vikings released a statement of their own: "As part of the information we have gathered throughout this process, we were made aware of an allegation from 2013 in which authorities took no action against Adrian. We will defer any further questions to Adrian's attorney Rusty Hardin."

Peterson was indicted Friday on a charge of reckless or negligent injury to a child -- a different 4-year-old son -- and faces up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted. He flew to Texas and turned himself in early Saturday morning to the Montgomery County (Texas) Sheriff's Office and was released after posting a $15,000 bond.

It wasn't missed, and an investigation also didn't result in any charges, it is also not an ongoing investigation or going to be reopened.

but it shows a pattern/

I don't know how it works in every state, but I know in some states you need exactly zero evidence to file a report a start an investigation - just your statement.Not looking to be a "child abuse apologist" but generally speaking, to have a report filed against you that results in an investigation can have nothing to do with a pattern of behavior or anything that may have actually happened.

Well, for someone who doesn't want to look like a "child abuse apologist", you are certainly doing a bad job of it.Let's just review the facts (the ones we know about right now):

1. AP admits hitting 4 year old child in a car seat and the result is a permananent scar on his head.

2. AP admits "whooping" another 4 year old child with a stick and leaving noticeable welts and cuts a week later.

3. AP's son is also on record as saying he was scared of talking for fear that "Dddy Peterson" would hit him in the head AGAIN.

4. On the heels of all this, there is the tragic story of another one of AP's children who was killed last year from an apparent head injury by a repeat child abuse offender. This man, Joseph Patterson, had a similarly documented history of leaving welts on children's butts. But apparently prior behavior is irrelevant.

And with all this information, you choose as your point to make that anyone can have a report filed against them without anything actually having happened?

I choose as a point that what happens in the Rice and Peterson cases sets a precedent for future suspensions.

I choose as a point that justice is best served with all the facts evidenced in a court rather than with mob mentality.

I choose as a point that because I'd prefer that procedure rule the day rather then emotional fervor doesn't mean I'm for child abuse.

I choose as a point that one should understand justice is not always quick and shouldn't be reactionary.

I choose as a point that your name calling means nothing to me.

This is all very grand and sweeping, but it has little to do with some guy toting a rock for big dollars.They will have their day in court. Or, if they are lucky (as in the case of Rice), they will avoid seeing the inside of a courtroom altogether because, wait for it, they carry a football for millions of dollars working in a multi-billion dollar industry. These individuals need your platitudes like the NFL needs another tax exemption.

I also think they deserve due process but I appear to be the minority in that opinion.

Who is saying he doesn't deserve due process?

 

[chinawildman]

Yeah, the justice system likely failed that kid. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. As a direct result of the "whooping" AP gave that kid, he now has a permanent scar above his right eye. I don't give a #### if the kid got it trying to avoid a back hand from his 6'1 220 lb "dad", it was still the direct result of AP's archaic view of discipline. I feel bad for him (AP), because I truly think he thinks there's some strong correlation between beating the #### out of your kids and them becoming a man. Regardless, it doesn't excuse any of it. It's all is so obviously wrong it boggles my mind that anyone could defend it.

Sounded like his dad beat the crap out of him. And it's likely he feels that somehow contributed to him becoming a beast of a running back.

I still don't think you get it. Nobody is defending Peterson the person or his actions. Speaking for myself I am defending the tenets of due process, trying to correct factual inaccuracies that are being propagated in this thread, and speaking out against irresponsible journalism and the mob frenzy it creates. That it so happens to rebut the assertions of people denouncing Peterson has nothing to do with how I feel personally about his actions, which I find repugnant.

what has been irresponsible about the reporting of this situation? its as cut and dry as can be. there are pictures and text messages that provide a clear picture of what happened and that peterson has even admitted they were accurate.

Just scroll back to the top of this page and the couple of pages before and read all the reactions to this supposed "new implication" that came out earlier this evening.

It was refuted in a matter of hours, and yet people are still hanging onto the original story as the entire truth.

 

[tone1oc]

What I am finding increasingly interesting (or perhaps peculiar) is the text exchanges with the mothers. They both seem concerned but in neither case do they seem as angry as I would anticipate nor do they seem very surprised. Reading this thread, totally random people who don't know these kids at all are genuinely angry and expressing outrage. I am not sure what to make of that. Most women I know would go ballistic if they thought someone was harming their kids (even if it was the father). Are these women afraid of AP, too? Are they not entirely against his methods except the couple times it appears he took it too far? If AP was really putting a beating on these kids regularly I would think most caring mothers would keep their kids away from him. How much more to the stories are we not aware of at this point?

Like others have said, I am trying to refrain from passing complete judgement until I know more. I will say its tough, though, because it certainly does not look good at this point.

People/Things whose fault this is..

1) The 4 year old child

2) Twitter

3) Media

4) Mother

 

[Avery]

Just in case missed:

• NFL.com
• Published: Sept. 15, 2014 at 08:28 p.m.
• Updated: Sept. 15, 2014 at 10:06 p.m.

• Email
• Print

KHOU-TV in Houston reported Monday night that Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was accused of injuring another son in June 2013. According to the report, Peterson allegedly disciplined his son for "cussing to a sibling," resulting in an injury to the 4-year-old boy's head.

The boy's mother reportedly filed a report with Texas Child Protective Services. The results of any investigation are unclear and no charges have been filed in the case.

In a text to NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport, Peterson's lawyer Rusty Hardin wrote, "The allegations were made over a year ago to CPS and law enforcement and no action was taken. Plus there was an adult witness present in the car and she flatly denied that Adrian caused any injury to the boy."

Hardin also released a statement: "The allegation of another investigation into Adrian Peterson is simply not true. This is not a new allegation, it's one that is unsubstantiated and was shopped around to authorities in two states over a year ago and nothing came of it. An adult witness adamantly insists Adrian did nothing inappropriate with his son. There is no ongoing or new investigation."

Later Monday night, the Vikings released a statement of their own: "As part of the information we have gathered throughout this process, we were made aware of an allegation from 2013 in which authorities took no action against Adrian. We will defer any further questions to Adrian's attorney Rusty Hardin."

Peterson was indicted Friday on a charge of reckless or negligent injury to a child -- a different 4-year-old son -- and faces up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted. He flew to Texas and turned himself in early Saturday morning to the Montgomery County (Texas) Sheriff's Office and was released after posting a $15,000 bond.

It wasn't missed, and an investigation also didn't result in any charges, it is also not an ongoing investigation or going to be reopened.

but it shows a pattern/

I don't know how it works in every state, but I know in some states you need exactly zero evidence to file a report a start an investigation - just your statement.Not looking to be a "child abuse apologist" but generally speaking, to have a report filed against you that results in an investigation can have nothing to do with a pattern of behavior or anything that may have actually happened.

Well, for someone who doesn't want to look like a "child abuse apologist", you are certainly doing a bad job of it.Let's just review the facts (the ones we know about right now):

1. AP admits hitting 4 year old child in a car seat and the result is a permananent scar on his head.

2. AP admits "whooping" another 4 year old child with a stick and leaving noticeable welts and cuts a week later.

3. AP's son is also on record as saying he was scared of talking for fear that "Dddy Peterson" would hit him in the head AGAIN.

4. On the heels of all this, there is the tragic story of another one of AP's children who was killed last year from an apparent head injury by a repeat child abuse offender. This man, Joseph Patterson, had a similarly documented history of leaving welts on children's butts. But apparently prior behavior is irrelevant.

And with all this information, you choose as your point to make that anyone can have a report filed against them without anything actually having happened?

I choose as a point that what happens in the Rice and Peterson cases sets a precedent for future suspensions.

I choose as a point that justice is best served with all the facts evidenced in a court rather than with mob mentality.

I choose as a point that because I'd prefer that procedure rule the day rather then emotional fervor doesn't mean I'm for child abuse.

I choose as a point that one should understand justice is not always quick and shouldn't be reactionary.

I choose as a point that your name calling means nothing to me.

This is all very grand and sweeping, but it has little to do with some guy toting a rock for big dollars.They will have their day in court. Or, if they are lucky (as in the case of Rice), they will avoid seeing the inside of a courtroom altogether because, wait for it, they carry a football for millions of dollars working in a multi-billion dollar industry. These individuals need your platitudes like the NFL needs another tax exemption.

I also think they deserve due process but I appear to be the minority in that opinion.

Who is saying he doesn't deserve due process?

I don't mean this as snarky, but have you read this thread?

People want him suspended (some for life) and released immediately.

That <> due process.

 

[ericttspikes]

Due process? Ray Rice didn't go to trial. Donald Sterling was forced out of the NBA for racist remarks. It's perfectly legal to be a racist, but it was clear the league didn't want anything to do with an owner who was one. The NFL didn't like the image of one of their players beating up a woman. Now the get to decide if they like the image of one of their superstars beating up a kid. Due process has nothing to do with being suspended or forced out of the league and everything to do with the image of the league. Peterson will get his day in court, that is a separate issue.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

What I am finding increasingly interesting (or perhaps peculiar) is the text exchanges with the mothers. They both seem concerned but in neither case do they seem as angry as I would anticipate nor do they seem very surprised. Reading this thread, totally random people who don't know these kids at all are genuinely angry and expressing outrage. I am not sure what to make of that. Most women I know would go ballistic if they thought someone was harming their kids (even if it was the father). Are these women afraid of AP, too? Are they not entirely against his methods except the couple times it appears he took it too far? If AP was really putting a beating on these kids regularly I would think most caring mothers would keep their kids away from him. How much more to the stories are we not aware of at this point?

Like others have said, I am trying to refrain from passing complete judgement until I know more. I will say its tough, though, because it certainly does not look good at this point.

People/Things whose fault this is..

1) The 4 year old child

2) Twitter

3) Media

4) Mother

That's not even close to what he's saying. The mothers think his discipline is generally ok, except in these couple of situations. Maybe, just maybe, he's not the child abusing demon he's being made out to be.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Due process? Ray Rice didn't go to trial. Donald Sterling was forced out of the NBA for racist remarks. It's perfectly legal to be a racist, but it was clear the league didn't want anything to do with an owner who was one. The NFL didn't like the image of one of their players beating up a woman. Now the get to decide if they like the image of one of their superstars beating up a kid. Due process has nothing to do with being suspended or forced out of the league and everything to do with the image of the league. Peterson will get his day in court, that is a separate issue.

They were both recorded.

If Peterson was on video doing what he did he'd be punished by the NFL right now. However, without the video they are giving him the benefit of the doubt just as they did with Rice's original 2 game suspension.

 

[Neofight]

Just in case missed:

• NFL.com
• Published: Sept. 15, 2014 at 08:28 p.m.
• Updated: Sept. 15, 2014 at 10:06 p.m.

• Email
• Print

KHOU-TV in Houston reported Monday night that Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was accused of injuring another son in June 2013. According to the report, Peterson allegedly disciplined his son for "cussing to a sibling," resulting in an injury to the 4-year-old boy's head.

The boy's mother reportedly filed a report with Texas Child Protective Services. The results of any investigation are unclear and no charges have been filed in the case.

In a text to NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport, Peterson's lawyer Rusty Hardin wrote, "The allegations were made over a year ago to CPS and law enforcement and no action was taken. Plus there was an adult witness present in the car and she flatly denied that Adrian caused any injury to the boy."

Hardin also released a statement: "The allegation of another investigation into Adrian Peterson is simply not true. This is not a new allegation, it's one that is unsubstantiated and was shopped around to authorities in two states over a year ago and nothing came of it. An adult witness adamantly insists Adrian did nothing inappropriate with his son. There is no ongoing or new investigation."

Later Monday night, the Vikings released a statement of their own: "As part of the information we have gathered throughout this process, we were made aware of an allegation from 2013 in which authorities took no action against Adrian. We will defer any further questions to Adrian's attorney Rusty Hardin."

Peterson was indicted Friday on a charge of reckless or negligent injury to a child -- a different 4-year-old son -- and faces up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted. He flew to Texas and turned himself in early Saturday morning to the Montgomery County (Texas) Sheriff's Office and was released after posting a $15,000 bond.

It wasn't missed, and an investigation also didn't result in any charges, it is also not an ongoing investigation or going to be reopened.

but it shows a pattern/

I don't know how it works in every state, but I know in some states you need exactly zero evidence to file a report a start an investigation - just your statement.Not looking to be a "child abuse apologist" but generally speaking, to have a report filed against you that results in an investigation can have nothing to do with a pattern of behavior or anything that may have actually happened.

Well, for someone who doesn't want to look like a "child abuse apologist", you are certainly doing a bad job of it.Let's just review the facts (the ones we know about right now):

1. AP admits hitting 4 year old child in a car seat and the result is a permananent scar on his head.

2. AP admits "whooping" another 4 year old child with a stick and leaving noticeable welts and cuts a week later.

3. AP's son is also on record as saying he was scared of talking for fear that "Dddy Peterson" would hit him in the head AGAIN.

4. On the heels of all this, there is the tragic story of another one of AP's children who was killed last year from an apparent head injury by a repeat child abuse offender. This man, Joseph Patterson, had a similarly documented history of leaving welts on children's butts. But apparently prior behavior is irrelevant.

And with all this information, you choose as your point to make that anyone can have a report filed against them without anything actually having happened?

I choose as a point that what happens in the Rice and Peterson cases sets a precedent for future suspensions.

I choose as a point that justice is best served with all the facts evidenced in a court rather than with mob mentality.

I choose as a point that because I'd prefer that procedure rule the day rather then emotional fervor doesn't mean I'm for child abuse.

I choose as a point that one should understand justice is not always quick and shouldn't be reactionary.

I choose as a point that your name calling means nothing to me.

This is all very grand and sweeping, but it has little to do with some guy toting a rock for big dollars.They will have their day in court. Or, if they are lucky (as in the case of Rice), they will avoid seeing the inside of a courtroom altogether because, wait for it, they carry a football for millions of dollars working in a multi-billion dollar industry. These individuals need your platitudes like the NFL needs another tax exemption.

I also think they deserve due process but I appear to be the minority in that opinion.

Who is saying he doesn't deserve due process?

I don't mean this as snarky, but have you read this thread?People want him suspended (some for life) and released immediately.

That <> due process.

That's not snarky. But it also has nothing to do with due process. People are conflating the role of the court (due process) with the role of the employer (contract agreements and stipulations). The NFL has every right to sit this guy if they deem it appropriate. And the public, sponsors, the Pope and your momma have every right to pressure them to do so.So again, who is saying he doesn't deserve due process? Of course he does; and he will likely get a smoking deal. Then all those who think he is currently getting the shaft can thump their chests and say how right they were to not jump the gun.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

What I am finding increasingly interesting (or perhaps peculiar) is the text exchanges with the mothers. They both seem concerned but in neither case do they seem as angry as I would anticipate nor do they seem very surprised. Reading this thread, totally random people who don't know these kids at all are genuinely angry and expressing outrage. I am not sure what to make of that. Most women I know would go ballistic if they thought someone was harming their kids (even if it was the father). Are these women afraid of AP, too? Are they not entirely against his methods except the couple times it appears he took it too far? If AP was really putting a beating on these kids regularly I would think most caring mothers would keep their kids away from him. How much more to the stories are we not aware of at this point?

Like others have said, I am trying to refrain from passing complete judgement until I know more. I will say its tough, though, because it certainly does not look good at this point.

People/Things whose fault this is..

1) The 4 year old child

2) Twitter

3) Media

4) Mother

That's not even close to what he's saying. The mothers think his discipline is generally ok, except in these couple of situations. Maybe, just maybe, he's not the child abusing demon he's being made out to be.

Or maybe it's $mart to stay on his good side.

And in my book, when you catch a child on the scrotum with a switch, you're a child-abusing demon. When you don't notice that it's whipping around the child's leg and you don't even know how many times you hit him (and leave marks like that eight days later) you're a child-abusing demon.

Show me a kid whose genitalia is in real danger where there's a whipping, and I'll show you an abused four year old. No ifs, ands or buts.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I honestly thought if he did it once more would follow.

as did the reasonable ppl in this thread. but petersons defenders had been vehemently arguing that it was simply a one-off incident that went too far. of course, any logical person would infer from the report and the text messages how full of isht such a stance is.

It happened over a year ago with no charges filed. Honestly, I don't like defending the guy, but so many are jumping to conclusions and stating wrong "facts", that it's hard not to.

just bc no charges were filed does not mean that peterson didnt beat a 4 yr old kid resulting in a ghastly scar on his head. just bc he did technically break the law does not mean that his actions were proper.

read the report. read the text messages. look at the picture.

also, use some critical thinking ability when considering if a car seat could do that much damage.

It doesn't mean that he did beat him either, which is my point. I've made the point that I'd like the legal system decide these things. And per my critical thinking abilities, I don't have a child, but I don't think it's unreasonable that a child could cut his head on a hard piece of a car seat. If you think it's unreasonable, please explain.

They can, but only when they're flailing in terror during a beating or car accident.

Like Peterson said, if you hold still during your whipping, it's less likely to leave a permanent scar. It's the kid's fault, I guess. he should know better, right? He's four. Gotta make a man out of him.

(Can't actually live with the kid or his mother to be there for his family, but he can make a man out of him with a few whippings).

 

[Neofight]

I honestly thought if he did it once more would follow.

as did the reasonable ppl in this thread. but petersons defenders had been vehemently arguing that it was simply a one-off incident that went too far. of course, any logical person would infer from the report and the text messages how full of isht such a stance is.

It happened over a year ago with no charges filed. Honestly, I don't like defending the guy, but so many are jumping to conclusions and stating wrong "facts", that it's hard not to.

just bc no charges were filed does not mean that peterson didnt beat a 4 yr old kid resulting in a ghastly scar on his head. just bc he did technically break the law does not mean that his actions were proper.

read the report. read the text messages. look at the picture.

also, use some critical thinking ability when considering if a car seat could do that much damage.

It doesn't mean that he did beat him either, which is my point. I've made the point that I'd like the legal system decide these things. And per my critical thinking abilities, I don't have a child, but I don't think it's unreasonable that a child could cut his head on a hard piece of a car seat. If you think it's unreasonable, please explain.

They can, but only when they're flailing in terror during a beating or car accident.

None of you know anything of what actually happened. I don't either, but at least I'm willing to admit it.

Nobody knows is right.Except for his 4 year old sons.

And their moms, who he texted.

And the people that read those texts.

Plus the folks who listened to his admissions.

So a few people.

 

[Dippa]

I honestly thought if he did it once more would follow.

as did the reasonable ppl in this thread. but petersons defenders had been vehemently arguing that it was simply a one-off incident that went too far. of course, any logical person would infer from the report and the text messages how full of isht such a stance is.

It happened over a year ago with no charges filed. Honestly, I don't like defending the guy, but so many are jumping to conclusions and stating wrong "facts", that it's hard not to.

just bc no charges were filed does not mean that peterson didnt beat a 4 yr old kid resulting in a ghastly scar on his head. just bc he did technically break the law does not mean that his actions were proper.

read the report. read the text messages. look at the picture.

also, use some critical thinking ability when considering if a car seat could do that much damage.

It doesn't mean that he did beat him either, which is my point. I've made the point that I'd like the legal system decide these things. And per my critical thinking abilities, I don't have a child, but I don't think it's unreasonable that a child could cut his head on a hard piece of a car seat. If you think it's unreasonable, please explain.

They can, but only when they're flailing in terror during a beating or car accident.

None of you know anything of what actually happened. I don't either, but at least I'm willing to admit it.

Nobody knows is right.Except for his 4 year old sons.

And their moms, who he texted.

And the people that read those texts.

Plus the folks who listened to his admissions.

So a few people.

It seems that after the authorities read those texts, they decided not to charge him. He also has a witness saying he acted appropriately. The story is just a few hours old, but feel free to think you know exactly what happened. I'll stick with waiting until all of the facts come out.

 

[cvnpoka]

What I am finding increasingly interesting (or perhaps peculiar) is the text exchanges with the mothers. They both seem concerned but in neither case do they seem as angry as I would anticipate nor do they seem very surprised. Reading this thread, totally random people who don't know these kids at all are genuinely angry and expressing outrage. I am not sure what to make of that. Most women I know would go ballistic if they thought someone was harming their kids (even if it was the father). Are these women afraid of AP, too? Are they not entirely against his methods except the couple times it appears he took it too far? If AP was really putting a beating on these kids regularly I would think most caring mothers would keep their kids away from him. How much more to the stories are we not aware of at this point?

Like others have said, I am trying to refrain from passing complete judgement until I know more. I will say its tough, though, because it certainly does not look good at this point.

People/Things whose fault this is..

1) The 4 year old child

2) Twitter

3) Media

4) Mother

That's not even close to what he's saying. The mothers think his discipline is generally ok, except in these couple of situations. Maybe, just maybe, he's not the child abusing demon he's being made out to be.

Or maybe it's $mart to stay on his good side.

And in my book, when you catch a child on the scrotum with a switch, you're a child-abusing demon. When you don't notice that it's whipping around the child's leg and you don't even know how many times you hit him (and leave marks like that eight days later) you're a child-abusing demon.

Show me a kid whose genitalia is in real danger where there's a whipping, and I'll show you an abused four year old. No ifs, ands or buts.

when you continue beating a child after leaving multiple marks bc "he hasnt started crying yet" and interpret that as some sort of defiance then ya, you're a child-abusing demon.

when you blame the kid for a massive gash on his head bc, he "didnt keep still" when a muscle bound raging goon is beating him then you're indeed a child-abusing demon.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

I can truly see your point but I don't view it as that black and white. I had a drunk no-gray-area abusive step-father so I'm a little more aware of what real abuse is (head slammed through drywall for saying the wrong thing and black and blue belt marks up and down my legs and butt 10x what you saw in those photos).

What Peterson has done constitutes abuse, maybe not in legal terms, but I still think it's abuse. However, none of his words and actions give me the impressive that he enjoys being abusive or thinks he's doing anything wrong. That tells me he needs education, not jail time.

As for being suspended, I'm fine no matter what happens to him. I'd rather see him get punished after the legal process is done and all the facts are out.

 

[Neofight]

I honestly thought if he did it once more would follow.

as did the reasonable ppl in this thread. but petersons defenders had been vehemently arguing that it was simply a one-off incident that went too far. of course, any logical person would infer from the report and the text messages how full of isht such a stance is.

It happened over a year ago with no charges filed. Honestly, I don't like defending the guy, but so many are jumping to conclusions and stating wrong "facts", that it's hard not to.

just bc no charges were filed does not mean that peterson didnt beat a 4 yr old kid resulting in a ghastly scar on his head. just bc he did technically break the law does not mean that his actions were proper.

read the report. read the text messages. look at the picture.

also, use some critical thinking ability when considering if a car seat could do that much damage.

It doesn't mean that he did beat him either, which is my point. I've made the point that I'd like the legal system decide these things. And per my critical thinking abilities, I don't have a child, but I don't think it's unreasonable that a child could cut his head on a hard piece of a car seat. If you think it's unreasonable, please explain.

They can, but only when they're flailing in terror during a beating or car accident.

None of you know anything of what actually happened. I don't either, but at least I'm willing to admit it.

Nobody knows is right.Except for his 4 year old sons.

And their moms, who he texted.

And the people that read those texts.

Plus the folks who listened to his admissions.

So a few people.

It seems that after the authorities read those texts, they decided not to charge him. He also has a witness saying he acted appropriately. The story is just a few hours old, but feel free to think you know exactly what happened. I'll stick with waiting until all of the facts come out.

Do we know that the authorities read the texts? I thought you didn't know anything. This is news to me.

 

[zilladog]

Due process? Ray Rice didn't go to trial. Donald Sterling was forced out of the NBA for racist remarks. It's perfectly legal to be a racist, but it was clear the league didn't want anything to do with an owner who was one. The NFL didn't like the image of one of their players beating up a woman. Now the get to decide if they like the image of one of their superstars beating up a kid. Due process has nothing to do with being suspended or forced out of the league and everything to do with the image of the league. Peterson will get his day in court, that is a separate issue.

this.

I think it's important to point out the differences between a court of law and a court of public opinion. The law has a procedure (due process) which will decide whether AP is guilty of a crime. Due process is governed by the laws of the land and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

The court of public opinion is governed by free speech (the media). For better or worse, the 'mob', the media and the individual act as a check on due process and help to shape the nature of the laws. To ask an individual to reserve all judgment with AP until he has had his day in court makes little sense. We've all seen the pictures, read the reports and testimony. To judge rashly and without facts is not wise. But to not judge at all goes against our very nature as judgmental and emotional animals.

If the 'mob' and the media force the hand of the NFL and it's sponsors to do something about AP regardless of the courts...Then I say so be it. That's well within the rights and responsibilities of the public. These dark truths about our society and culture come to light because of espn, twitter and message boards like this one.

 

[gradin123]

Big Ben was suspended for 6 games under the personal conduct policy of the NFL but was never actually convicted of a crime.

Not sure why the league couldn't do something similiar here.

 

[dparker713]

Big Ben was suspended for 6 games under the personal conduct policy of the NFL but was never actually convicted of indicted for a crime.

Not sure why the league couldn't do something similiar here.

Fixed

 

[chinawildman]

That's not snarky. But it also has nothing to do with due process. People are conflating the role of the court (due process) with the role of the employer (contract agreements and stipulations). The NFL has every right to sit this guy if they deem it appropriate. And the public, sponsors, the Pope and your momma have every right to pressure them to do so.

I actually think that because you lump everyone that isn't totally anti-Peterson into one crowd... the conflation is kinda on you.

The points stated regarding due process are more or less people stating that, for them PERSONALLY, they prefer to let all the facts sort out in an official manner a la "innocent until proven guilty". As a result they hope the NFL will conduct their investigation with similar tact. No surprise since the only thing consistent in this thread appears to be that everyone wants the NFL to do what THEY FEEL LIKE should be done. I could say that your stance conflates the opinion of a guy on a message board with the financial strategy of a public company, but what would that prove?

There are lots of opinions in here on what the NFL should do, I've simply provided my perspective on what the NFL likely WILL do. Not an apologist, but a constitutionalist and a realist.

 

[chinawildman]

Big Ben was suspended for 6 games under the personal conduct policy of the NFL but was never actually convicted of a crime.

Not sure why the league couldn't do something similiar here.

Likely because the public has a mixed reaction to the issue of physical discipline for children, whereas sexual assault is much more black and white.

 

[RenegadeRoy]

This guy leads the league in 4-year-old kids. He probably has ten more he doesn't even know about.

He's killin' it in my PP4YO league.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

Big Ben was suspended for 6 games under the personal conduct policy of the NFL but was never actually convicted of a crime.

Not sure why the league couldn't do something similiar here.

Likely because the public has a mixed reaction to the issue of physical discipline for children, whereas sexual assault is much more black and white.

So they can't do something similar here?

Also, corporal punishment for children in general and beating a restrained 4-year old may be judged differently by the public.

 

[Neofight]

That's not snarky. But it also has nothing to do with due process. People are conflating the role of the court (due process) with the role of the employer (contract agreements and stipulations). The NFL has every right to sit this guy if they deem it appropriate. And the public, sponsors, the Pope and your momma have every right to pressure them to do so.

I actually think that because you lump everyone that isn't totally anti-Peterson into one crowd... the conflation is kinda on you.

The points stated regarding due process are more or less people stating that, for them PERSONALLY, they prefer to let all the facts sort out in an official manner a la "innocent until proven guilty". As a result they hope the NFL will conduct their investigation with similar tact. No surprise since the only thing consistent in this thread appears to be that everyone wants the NFL to do what THEY FEEL LIKE should be done. I could say that your stance conflates the opinion of a guy on a message board with the financial strategy of a public company, but what would that prove?

There are lots of opinions in here on what the NFL should do, I've simply provided my perspective on what the NFL likely WILL do. Not an apologist, but a constitutionalist and a realist.

I feel you man. Claim that I lump if it eases your frustration. That's fine. I didn't, however, call you an apologist, pro-Peterson or anything else along those lines. And what exactly is anti-Peterson (and who comprises this sect)?None of this changes what due process is though. Just stop using the term in regards to the league actions or the court of public opinion and you're fine. That way we understand we are talking about the same thing.

And you'd be wrong about the conflation of Joe Schmoe and the NFL. The only thing that would prove is you have no idea what the hell I think on that matter.

 

[chinawildman]

I feel you man. Claim that I lump if it eases your frustration. That's fine. I didn't, however, call you an apologist, pro-Peterson or anything else along those lines. And what exactly is anti-Peterson (and who comprises this sect)?

antipeterson. noun. - One that demands Adrian Peterson be released/suspended indefinitely and immediately due to the egregious nature of photos and/or details gleaned from the internet with little regard for factual details.

Steve: Man did you read that article tonight about how Peterson smacked his kid against the car? What a scumbag he should never play football again!

Dan: That actually proved to be false in another article which came out an hour later.

Steve: Whatever. Not to get all antipeterson, but that just tells me he does that crap all the time. I hope he rots in jail even more now.

Maybe I'll add it to urban dictionary?

 

[cvnpoka]

Dan: That actually proved to be false in another article which came out an hour later.

oh wait, i must have missed something. so that kid did not get a massive gash on his head as a result of a "whoopin" by peterson? that was proven false?

 

[Neofight]

I feel you man. Claim that I lump if it eases your frustration. That's fine. I didn't, however, call you an apologist, pro-Peterson or anything else along those lines. And what exactly is anti-Peterson (and who comprises this sect)?

antipeterson. noun. - One that demands Adrian Peterson be released/suspended indefinitely and immediately due to the egregious nature of photos and/or details gleaned from the internet with little regard for factual details.

Steve: Man did you read that article tonight about how Peterson smacked his kid against the car? What a scumbag he should never play football again!

Dan: That actually proved to be false in another article which came out an hour later.

Steve: Whatever. Not to get all antipeterson, but that just tells me he does that crap all the time. I hope he rots in jail even more now.

Maybe I'll add it to urban dictionary?

Give it a whirl. I'd keep the hyphen, but I'm partial to them.