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

[KellysHeroes]

I just wonder if New England got away with not paying Hernandez after he was charged with a crime. I wonder if the Vikings can follow that precedent if ADP does get convicted. It quite the burden to have his salary changed against the cap while not being allowed to play him.

New England hasn't legally gotten out of paying AH, their just refusing too. AH is going to have to sue them for it.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Still holding... Idk what the right answer is.

Agreed. I'm hoping for a 8 game suspension, including time served and a million dollar fine. Returning after the bye.

 

[KellysHeroes]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal. Depending on the terms of the deal I think he would get the 6 to 8 games with time served. If he reachs a deal I don't see how they can keep him exempt (suspended) for the rest of the yr.

Now he might say screw the NFL and clear his name, and lets face it this is an easy case to beat in Texas. Once hes found not guilty I don't see how the NFL could give him more of time off after he sit 15 or games... Vick only got 8 and he was charged with a federal crime.

 

[chinawildman]

Vikings still selling AP jerseys at the stadium.

http://deadspin.com/the-vikings-are-still-prominently-selling-adrian-peters-1640129768

 

[Joe Summer]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.

Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

 

[Gopher State]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.

Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Good posting, A P would be foolish to cut a deal and then get suspended by the NFL without pay this year, he's making about 14m this year, Vikings have agreed to pay him until the case is settled. Next year he be 30, his contract calls for about 12m not guaranteed so the Vikes will cut him. This is his last year to make super bucks, Vikings have their new stadium under construction, so their ready to move on from A P. I think he has a few kids to take care of so I think he wants to make the full 14m this year

 

[cstu]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.

Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Good posting, A P would be foolish to cut a deal and then get suspended by the NFL without pay this year, he's making about 14m this year, Vikings have agreed to pay him until the case is settled. Next year he be 30, his contract calls for about 12m not guaranteed so the Vikes will cut him. This is his last year to make super bucks, Vikings have their new stadium under construction, so their ready to move on from A P. I think he has a few kids to take care of so I think he wants to make the full 14m this year

The only way he cuts a deal is if the league agrees to count his missed games as his suspension. They want to be tough on this stuff so I don't expect that to happen.

I fully expect the Cowboys to sign him if he's cut by the Vikings, whether or not his trial is completed. If the Cowboys sign him I don't think the prosecution has a chance in hell of convincing a jury to convict him.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

If he gets an 8 game suspension (time served) and is fined 8 game checks, is that enough?

 

[KellysHeroes]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.

Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Good posting, A P would be foolish to cut a deal and then get suspended by the NFL without pay this year, he's making about 14m this year, Vikings have agreed to pay him until the case is settled. Next year he be 30, his contract calls for about 12m not guaranteed so the Vikes will cut him. This is his last year to make super bucks, Vikings have their new stadium under construction, so their ready to move on from A P. I think he has a few kids to take care of so I think he wants to make the full 14m this year

AP seems like the type that wants to play because he loves it... this isnt Randy Moss

 

[kingmalaki]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.

Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Because he has a limited amount of time to play this game and he may not want to waste it off the field.

 

[kingmalaki]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.

Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Good posting, A P would be foolish to cut a deal and then get suspended by the NFL without pay this year, he's making about 14m this year, Vikings have agreed to pay him until the case is settled. Next year he be 30, his contract calls for about 12m not guaranteed so the Vikes will cut him. This is his last year to make super bucks, Vikings have their new stadium under construction, so their ready to move on from A P. I think he has a few kids to take care of so I think he wants to make the full 14m this year

If the Vikings won't pay AP next year other teams will line up for the chance, starting with one in his home state.

 

[KellysHeroes]

If he gets an 8 game suspension (time served) and is fined 8 game checks, is that enough?

IMO it should be... what else would people want, blood?

 

[KellysHeroes]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.

Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Good posting, A P would be foolish to cut a deal and then get suspended by the NFL without pay this year, he's making about 14m this year, Vikings have agreed to pay him until the case is settled. Next year he be 30, his contract calls for about 12m not guaranteed so the Vikes will cut him. This is his last year to make super bucks, Vikings have their new stadium under construction, so their ready to move on from A P. I think he has a few kids to take care of so I think he wants to make the full 14m this year

The only way he cuts a deal is if the league agrees to count his missed games as his suspension. They want to be tough on this stuff so I don't expect that to happen.

I fully expect the Cowboys to sign him if he's cut by the Vikings, whether or not his trial is completed. If the Cowboys sign him I don't think the prosecution has a chance in hell of convincing a jury to convict him.

Gotta think Dallas is happy with Murray and they gotta pay Dez. Now the Texans on the other hand will be moving on from Foster sooner than we think.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.

Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Good posting, A P would be foolish to cut a deal and then get suspended by the NFL without pay this year, he's making about 14m this year, Vikings have agreed to pay him until the case is settled. Next year he be 30, his contract calls for about 12m not guaranteed so the Vikes will cut him. This is his last year to make super bucks, Vikings have their new stadium under construction, so their ready to move on from A P. I think he has a few kids to take care of so I think he wants to make the full 14m this year

If the Vikings won't pay AP next year other teams will line up for the chance, starting with one in his home state.

Houston? The Cowboys have a really good thing going with Murray, who is 3 years younger. I personally think Peterson is done in the NFL. He's going to be a pariah and distraction wherever he goes, and with the way the running game has taken a backset to the passing game in today's NFL, the market for 30 year old RBs isn't there; unless he's willing to pull a Chris Johnson, sign with a team for non-superstar money and split time in the backfield on a non-contender.

If he retires now, he gets paid for 2014 and rides off into the sunset without the stigma or hanging around too long or falling apart. Then again, he may need all the money he can make with so many kids and the impending legal troubles.

 

[cstu]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.

Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Good posting, A P would be foolish to cut a deal and then get suspended by the NFL without pay this year, he's making about 14m this year, Vikings have agreed to pay him until the case is settled. Next year he be 30, his contract calls for about 12m not guaranteed so the Vikes will cut him. This is his last year to make super bucks, Vikings have their new stadium under construction, so their ready to move on from A P. I think he has a few kids to take care of so I think he wants to make the full 14m this year

The only way he cuts a deal is if the league agrees to count his missed games as his suspension. They want to be tough on this stuff so I don't expect that to happen.

I fully expect the Cowboys to sign him if he's cut by the Vikings, whether or not his trial is completed. If the Cowboys sign him I don't think the prosecution has a chance in hell of convincing a jury to convict him.

Gotta think Dallas is happy with Murray and they gotta pay Dez. Now the Texans on the other hand will be moving on from Foster sooner than we think.

All depends on Murray's asking price - he's going to be highly demanded free agent if he stays healthy. The Cowboys could get AP at a discount because of this fiasco.

 

[KellysHeroes]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.

Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Good posting, A P would be foolish to cut a deal and then get suspended by the NFL without pay this year, he's making about 14m this year, Vikings have agreed to pay him until the case is settled. Next year he be 30, his contract calls for about 12m not guaranteed so the Vikes will cut him. This is his last year to make super bucks, Vikings have their new stadium under construction, so their ready to move on from A P. I think he has a few kids to take care of so I think he wants to make the full 14m this year

The only way he cuts a deal is if the league agrees to count his missed games as his suspension. They want to be tough on this stuff so I don't expect that to happen.

I fully expect the Cowboys to sign him if he's cut by the Vikings, whether or not his trial is completed. If the Cowboys sign him I don't think the prosecution has a chance in hell of convincing a jury to convict him.

Gotta think Dallas is happy with Murray and they gotta pay Dez. Now the Texans on the other hand will be moving on from Foster sooner than we think.

All depends on Murray's asking price - he's going to be highly demanded free agent if he stays healthy. The Cowboys could get AP at a discount because of this fiasco.

excellent point, anyone that thinks AP is done in the NFL is nuts (barring something horrific). He maybe old for an RB but he still runs like hes in his prime and plus he'll be injury free if he sits all yr.

 

[Koya]

He's the face of their new stadium.

He stopped being "the face" of anything when he WAS CAUGHT REDHANDED beat(ing) a little kid.

Corrected.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

Well I see the literal police have arrived.

He was caught, admitted it, photo evidence. He has not disputed using a switch to do this to a kid. He has now had multiple text exchanges with various baby mommas about how "bad" he felt while he was beating his kids. Poor AP.

So fone, not red handed, but beyond any reasonable doubt including clear admissions.

 

[cstu]

Well I see the literal police have arrived.

He was caught, admitted it, photo evidence. He has not disputed using a switch to do this to a kid. He has now had multiple text exchanges with various baby mommas about how "bad" he felt while he was beating his kids. Poor AP.

So fone, not red handed, but beyond any reasonable doubt including clear admissions.

What Peterson has to prove in court is his intent and the 'reasonableness' of his discipline. Leaving marks or him texting about feeling 'bad' after is not enough to convict him.

Peterson is going to challenge two things in court:

- that his discipline was reasonable given the accepted methods of discipline in Texas

- that the marks left were not as severe as has been claimed

If I were a juror and was convinced that Peterson didn't intend to injure his child then I would find him not guilty. Based on the images I've seen, I personally don't find it warranted to convict a first time offender of a felony with mandatory jail time if I felt they believed what they were doing was for the good of their child. I would want him to take parenting classes but don't agree with jail time.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Are people dropping Peterson? Already dropped?

So close to dropping him. Andre Williams is on my wire in a deep league. If McKinnon were out there I would have dropped ap for him yesterday. (We have open add/drop).

Doesn't help I'm burning a spot for Gordon too.

 

[Joe Summer]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Because he has a limited amount of time to play this game and he may not want to waste it off the field.

You don't think it's a waste of time to risk injury without getting paid for it? Because that's what Peterson would be doing if he came back this year.

 

[chinawildman]

AP obviously wants to play again this year, all reports so far have indicated as much.

The Vikings want AP to play again this year (especially if Bridgewater manages to keep them winning and in contention).

Just a matter of whether Joe Public wants AP to play again.

Good thing we all feel like Joe Public agrees with us.

 

[Smack Tripper]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Because he has a limited amount of time to play this game and he may not want to waste it off the field.

You don't think it's a waste of time to risk injury without getting paid for it? Because that's what Peterson would be doing if he came back this year.

I think he's wired differently. This guy came back in record time from an ACL injury, and he's still texting his team on game days in absentia. I'm sure for realistic intents and purporses, AP has in theory all the money he'll ever need. What he doesn't have is time.

He's also 8000 yards behind Emmitt, and I have to think thats not outside of his mind.

 

[kingmalaki]

its going to come down to what Peterson wants to do... if he wants to play football again this yr then he pretty much has to reach a deal.

Why would he want to do that, though? Right now he's getting paid his full salary to do nothing.Why would he want to make a deal that A) costs him money, and B) adds wear-and-tear to his body?

Because he has a limited amount of time to play this game and he may not want to waste it off the field.

You don't think it's a waste of time to risk injury without getting paid for it? Because that's what Peterson would be doing if he came back this year.

How so? If he comes back then he will be paid for each game he plays. He will forfeit salary for suspended games, which he can't get injured in since he would not have played in them.

 

[davearm]

Peterson Traded!!!

Yankees say they needed a switch hitter.

 

[towney]

Does anyone really think Peterson is going to play again for the Vikes this year?

 

[chinawildman]

Does anyone really think Peterson is going to play again for the Vikes this year?

Based on current information, no.

But current information becomes obselete when new information surfaces. If you're stashing Peterson, you're basically betting on new information surfacing in his favor in the next 2 months. Did anyone think Gordon was going to play one week before the season started?

In FF we often make the mistake of assuming what happened in the first quarter of the season projects for the rest of the season. It's no different here.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

I don't want to give away subscriber content , but the upgrade/downgrade from FBG has interesting advice on Peterson.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

http://espn.go.com/blog/minnesota-vikings/post/_/id/9538/around-the-horns-vikings-running-game-changes-shape-without-adrian-peterson

Interesting excerpt, (bolded by me):

In any case, the Vikings' running game will take on a different feel than the relatively traditional setup it's had with Peterson in the backfield. Until (or unless) the Vikings get Peterson back, their adjusted approach might work.

"We will worry about next year as we go from [here]," Zimmer said. "Being a defensive coach, when you have two different types of backs come in there it changes your mindset on some of your calls and also the players, they have to think a little bit differently. It’s not necessarily different plays all of the time -- it’s one guy can get to the perimeter faster, one guy can be a little bit more physical."

 

[chinawildman]

Here's an interesting article claiming that Peterson was indicted based on "made up" additions to blackletter Texas law. If this claim is true, Hardin should be all over this trying to get the case dismissed.

"We asked Ligon’s First Assistant DA Phil Grant if he was familiar with PC 9.61. From his response it was not clear if he was. After a few seconds he found the section and read it out loud. He then repeated word for word the statement from the press conference.

When I asked for clarification between the clear text of the state statute and his words regarding “exceeding some community standard” he said the “case law” had in essence changed the law to match his statement. When I asked for a case citation we could use for the story, he became flustered and hung up. As a journalist, having an interviewee hang up or walk out is a good sign you’re on the right track."

http://dallasexaminer.com/news/2014/sep/29/new-york-times-schooled-adrian-peterson/

 

[CR69]

Well I see the literal police have arrived.

He was caught, admitted it, photo evidence. He has not disputed using a switch to do this to a kid. He has now had multiple text exchanges with various baby mommas about how "bad" he felt while he was beating his kids. Poor AP.

So fone, not red handed, but beyond any reasonable doubt including clear admissions.

What Peterson has to prove in court is his intent and the 'reasonableness' of his discipline. Leaving marks or him texting about feeling 'bad' after is not enough to convict him.

Peterson is going to challenge two things in court:

- that his discipline was reasonable given the accepted methods of discipline in Texas

- that the marks left were not as severe as has been claimed

If I were a juror and was convinced that Peterson didn't intend to injure his child then I would find him not guilty. Based on the images I've seen, I personally don't find it warranted to convict a first time offender of a felony with mandatory jail time if I felt they believed what they were doing was for the good of their child. I would want him to take parenting classes but don't agree with jail time.

I don't care what his intentions were, putting leaves in your 4 year olds mouth while you whip him hard enough with a stick to cause him to bleed is abuse. If he made the kid drink bleach because he thought it was a good form of discipline, you'd be OK with that? What about locking him in a closet for a few days?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[kd1]

I don't want to give away subscriber content , but the upgrade/downgrade from FBG has interesting advice on Peterson.

pretty sure you can allude to one little piece of advice and give the gist of it without ruffling any feathers.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

I don't want to give away subscriber content , but the upgrade/downgrade from FBG has interesting advice on Peterson.

pretty sure you can allude to one little piece of advice and give the gist of it without ruffling any feathers.

They make the call to drop him in redraft... I found that surprising when they never seem to make a hard call like this...

 

[nastynate]

People actually think this guy is going to retire?

Zero chance. He's got a few good ones left. He's also been through a ton in his life and always picked himself up and kept moving forward...in addition to being one of the most competitive guys around.

He'll be back somewhere next year and be looking to show people that he's still the best.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Well I see the literal police have arrived.

He was caught, admitted it, photo evidence. He has not disputed using a switch to do this to a kid. He has now had multiple text exchanges with various baby mommas about how "bad" he felt while he was beating his kids. Poor AP.

So fone, not red handed, but beyond any reasonable doubt including clear admissions.

What Peterson has to prove in court is his intent and the 'reasonableness' of his discipline. Leaving marks or him texting about feeling 'bad' after is not enough to convict him.

Peterson is going to challenge two things in court:

- that his discipline was reasonable given the accepted methods of discipline in Texas

- that the marks left were not as severe as has been claimed

If I were a juror and was convinced that Peterson didn't intend to injure his child then I would find him not guilty. Based on the images I've seen, I personally don't find it warranted to convict a first time offender of a felony with mandatory jail time if I felt they believed what they were doing was for the good of their child. I would want him to take parenting classes but don't agree with jail time.

He's being charged with negligence or recklessness. That he "intended" to injure his child does not have to be proven. You could do what you want as a juror ultimately, but that decision would not be consistent with your instructions.

 

[RichInOrlando]

Nothing of substance to add: I knew I should have avoided reading the latest discussions on this thread. I was ready. To move on from AP. But some of the hard believers in here giving me that (false?) hope again. Argh!

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Here's an interesting article...

Adrian Peterson Indicted reads The New York Times online story by Steve Eder and Pat Borziof, Sept. 12.

Elder and Borziof wove a powerfully emotional story that probably signaled the end of the $100 million career of one of the most productive NFL running backs ever. Furthermore it fit nicely into the meme of violent football players and in particular violent Black men.

In short, it was a great story, in fact, too great a story to fact check.

What were they supposed to "fact check," exactly? They reported that Peterson was indicted. He was. It's not like the Times issued a verdict in the case.

Over the next week the Times ran no fewer than eight stories pounding on the criminal indictment that could send Adrian to prison for 20 years, but not one journalist of the Newspaper of Record bothered to read the indictment and then read the underlying Texas law.

Montgomery County District Attorney Brett Ligon released a statement, Obviously parents are entitled to discipline their children as they see fit except for when that discipline exceeds what the community would say is reasonable. The Grey Lady ran with that theme over and over without bothering to determine if it were true.

It turns out it was not. The Texas Penal Code section 9.61 clearly states:

The use of force, but not deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified:

(1) if the actor is the childs parent or stepparent or is acting in loco parentis to the child; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare.

None of the words following except exist in Texas statute. The DA made them up.

So I'm not a lawyer, but I took up this guy's challenge and did a few minutes' worth of googling, and it looks to me like he's not even citing the right part of Texas law. Peterson was indicted on charges of injury to a child, which appears to be covered by Penal Code 22.04, per a few different sources. And even if he was citing the right statute, relevant case law would inform how it's to be interpreted and applied, as the DA indicated.

In any case, the whole editorial reads like a nut with an axe to grind against various parties. The very next paragraph after the part you quoted continues:

The DAs behavior is ironically similar to that of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, who secured an indictment of the Texas governor for performing a duty clearly described in the Texas Constitution, vetoing a spending bill. Lehmberg is an openly lesbian Democrat partisan with a substantial drinking problem and a video record of her drunk behavior. Furthermore, she is the head of the Travis County Public Integrity Division responsible for policing the propriety of public officials.

He then goes on to opine that this whole thing is some kind of tea party plot to financially ruin a "good Black man" or something to that effect. I'm not sure what this guy's opinion really adds to the discussion.

 

[cstu]

Well I see the literal police have arrived.

He was caught, admitted it, photo evidence. He has not disputed using a switch to do this to a kid. He has now had multiple text exchanges with various baby mommas about how "bad" he felt while he was beating his kids. Poor AP.

So fone, not red handed, but beyond any reasonable doubt including clear admissions.

What Peterson has to prove in court is his intent and the 'reasonableness' of his discipline. Leaving marks or him texting about feeling 'bad' after is not enough to convict him.

Peterson is going to challenge two things in court:

- that his discipline was reasonable given the accepted methods of discipline in Texas

- that the marks left were not as severe as has been claimed

If I were a juror and was convinced that Peterson didn't intend to injure his child then I would find him not guilty. Based on the images I've seen, I personally don't find it warranted to convict a first time offender of a felony with mandatory jail time if I felt they believed what they were doing was for the good of their child. I would want him to take parenting classes but don't agree with jail time.

I don't care what his intentions were, putting leaves in your 4 year olds mouth while you whip him hard enough with a stick to cause him to bleed is abuse.If he made the kid drink bleach because he thought it was a good form of discipline, you'd be OK with that? What about locking him in a closet for a few days?

Where do you draw the line?

Using a switch is legal and the issue is to what degree is legal and to what degree is a crime. I don't know the truth behind the leaves thing.

Making a kid drink bleach or locking a kid in a closet isn't legal anywhere as far as I know.

 

[cstu]

Well I see the literal police have arrived.

He was caught, admitted it, photo evidence. He has not disputed using a switch to do this to a kid. He has now had multiple text exchanges with various baby mommas about how "bad" he felt while he was beating his kids. Poor AP.

So fone, not red handed, but beyond any reasonable doubt including clear admissions.

What Peterson has to prove in court is his intent and the 'reasonableness' of his discipline. Leaving marks or him texting about feeling 'bad' after is not enough to convict him.

Peterson is going to challenge two things in court:

- that his discipline was reasonable given the accepted methods of discipline in Texas

- that the marks left were not as severe as has been claimed

If I were a juror and was convinced that Peterson didn't intend to injure his child then I would find him not guilty. Based on the images I've seen, I personally don't find it warranted to convict a first time offender of a felony with mandatory jail time if I felt they believed what they were doing was for the good of their child. I would want him to take parenting classes but don't agree with jail time.

He's being charged with negligence or recklessness. That he "intended" to injure his child does not have to be proven. You could do what you want as a juror ultimately, but that decision would not be consistent with your instructions.

I posted this before:

Reckless - means he did this knowing using the switch would have this result.

Criminal negligence - means he lacked the foresight to know a kid could be seriously hurt from a switch. If he knew that a switch can do this and tried not to seriously injure his son then he's not criminally negligent.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Reckless - means he did this knowing using the switch would have this result.

Not a lawyer so take it for what it's worth, but I'm under the impression that reckless would mean he did this knowing using the switch COULD have this result. If he did this knowing that the switch WOULD have this result, then he'd be doing it knowingly/intentionally.

So the way I understand it, Peterson could be convicted of recklessness because a reasonable person understands that a little child could be injured if you beat him repeatedly with a stick, even if causing injury wasn't his intention.

 

[chinawildman]

Reckless - means he did this knowing using the switch would have this result.

Not a lawyer so take it for what it's worth, but I'm under the impression that reckless would mean he did this knowing using the switch COULD have this result. If he did this knowing that the switch WOULD have this result, then he'd be doing it knowingly/intentionally.

So the way I understand it, Peterson could be convicted of recklessness because a reasonable person understands that a little child could be injured if you beat him repeatedly with a stick, even if causing injury wasn't his intention.

That's more or less the gist of it... there are 4 different levels of mens rea (mental state)

Intentionally means that there is an explicit and conscious desire to commit a dangerous or illegal act.

Knowingly means that you knew your actions could produce certain results but ignored that fact and proceeded with your action.

Criminal negligence means failing to meet a reasonable standard of behavior for the circumstances.

Reckless means making a decision to commit a certain action despite knowing about the associated risks.

If I recall correctly AP is being charged with reckless child injury? So basically the least severe of the injury to child charges.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Well I see the literal police have arrived.

He was caught, admitted it, photo evidence. He has not disputed using a switch to do this to a kid. He has now had multiple text exchanges with various baby mommas about how "bad" he felt while he was beating his kids. Poor AP.

So fone, not red handed, but beyond any reasonable doubt including clear admissions.

What Peterson has to prove in court is his intent and the 'reasonableness' of his discipline. Leaving marks or him texting about feeling 'bad' after is not enough to convict him.

Peterson is going to challenge two things in court:

- that his discipline was reasonable given the accepted methods of discipline in Texas

- that the marks left were not as severe as has been claimed

If I were a juror and was convinced that Peterson didn't intend to injure his child then I would find him not guilty. Based on the images I've seen, I personally don't find it warranted to convict a first time offender of a felony with mandatory jail time if I felt they believed what they were doing was for the good of their child. I would want him to take parenting classes but don't agree with jail time.

He's being charged with negligence or recklessness. That he "intended" to injure his child does not have to be proven. You could do what you want as a juror ultimately, but that decision would not be consistent with your instructions.

I posted this before:

Reckless - means he did this knowing using the switch would have this result.

Criminal negligence - means he lacked the foresight to know a kid could be seriously hurt from a switch. If he knew that a switch can do this and tried not to seriously injure his son then he's not criminally negligent.

Negligence would be that he didn't know that what he was doing would inflict the injuries that it did to the child, but he should have been. The law imposes a duty on him to know.

Recklessness would be he knew it would, but didn't care.

Neither of them require that he intended to injure the child to the point of bleeding, etc.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Asiata and McKinnon are showing how much of a product of the system Peterson was. No reason to bring the kiddie beater back.

 

[cloppbeast]

Asiata and McKinnon are showing how much of a product of the system Peterson was. No reason to bring the kiddie beater back.

 

[LawFitz]

Peterson is getting arraigned formally on Oct 8. Assuming he pleads guilty, how long will it take in TX to hold an evidentiary hearing to sentence him? A couple weeks? More? Thought I read somewhere that AP's team is trying to expedite the process.

If he pleads and is sentenced to probation, I think there's a chance the Vikings reinstate. At that point he'd have missed 6-8 games already. Would the NFL then just give him an additional suspension at that point, ending his 2014 season?

 

[andyk803]

I think i'm probably the only one that is still hanging on to him lol

I'm 2-2 in my PPR league with a RB depth. The guy that is currently in 1st place has absolutely no RB whatsoever. His starting RBs are Kniles Davis and MJD lol. I might just trade him Peterson for his Josh Gordon since I have no WRs

My RBs:

Ball

Gio

Bradshaw

Vereen

Asiata

McKinnon

AP

 

[KellysHeroes]

Peterson is getting arraigned formally on Oct 8. Assuming he pleads guilty, how long will it take in TX to hold an evidentiary hearing to sentence him? A couple weeks? More? Thought I read somewhere that AP's team is trying to expedite the process.

If he pleads and is sentenced to probation, I think there's a chance the Vikings reinstate. At that point he'd have missed 6-8 games already. Would the NFL then just give him an additional suspension at that point, ending his 2014 season?

if he reaches a plead deal (and you figure it would be him agreeing to some form of counseling) I find it very hard to believe that they suspended him for the yr or keep him on this list.

 

[LawFitz]

If he pleads and is sentenced to probation, I think there's a chance the Vikings reinstate. At that point he'd have missed 6-8 games already. Would the NFL then just give him an additional suspension at that point, ending his 2014 season?

if he reaches a plead deal (and you figure it would be him agreeing to some form of counseling) I find it very hard to believe that they suspended him for the yr or keep him on this list.

Latest NFL rule is 6 games for first-time domestic abusers. question is... Would the NFL count the six+ games deactivated as games served for the suspension, or would they add a new, additional six games as of the sentencing date?

 

[snogger]

If he pleads and is sentenced to probation, I think there's a chance the Vikings reinstate. At that point he'd have missed 6-8 games already. Would the NFL then just give him an additional suspension at that point, ending his 2014 season?

if he reaches a plead deal (and you figure it would be him agreeing to some form of counseling) I find it very hard to believe that they suspended him for the yr or keep him on this list.

Latest NFL rule is 6 games for first-time domestic abusers. question is... Would the NFL count the six+ games deactivated as games served for the suspension, or would they add a new, additional six games as of the sentencing date?

IMO.. has to be 6 games going forward since suspension = no pay and he is currently getting paid..

 

[cstu]

If he pleads and is sentenced to probation, I think there's a chance the Vikings reinstate. At that point he'd have missed 6-8 games already. Would the NFL then just give him an additional suspension at that point, ending his 2014 season?

if he reaches a plead deal (and you figure it would be him agreeing to some form of counseling) I find it very hard to believe that they suspended him for the yr or keep him on this list.

Latest NFL rule is 6 games for first-time domestic abusers. question is... Would the NFL count the six+ games deactivated as games served for the suspension, or would they add a new, additional six games as of the sentencing date?

IMO.. has to be 6 games going forward since suspension = no pay and he is currently getting paid..

He could work out a deal with a league to repay the money for 6 games. However, I think the league is content to allow him to keep getting paid and let him work it out through the legal system during the offseason.

My gut tells me that if he works out a deal for a lesser misdemeanor charge that doesn't give him jail time they will count the missed year as his 6 game suspension. Really impossible to say though.

 

[KellysHeroes]

If he pleads and is sentenced to probation, I think there's a chance the Vikings reinstate. At that point he'd have missed 6-8 games already. Would the NFL then just give him an additional suspension at that point, ending his 2014 season?

if he reaches a plead deal (and you figure it would be him agreeing to some form of counseling) I find it very hard to believe that they suspended him for the yr or keep him on this list.

Latest NFL rule is 6 games for first-time domestic abusers. question is... Would the NFL count the six+ games deactivated as games served for the suspension, or would they add a new, additional six games as of the sentencing date?

IMO.. has to be 6 games going forward since suspension = no pay and he is currently getting paid..

I would say he and the union would appeal that and attempt to get those games to count which would probably come to 8 games anyway. But who knows, the NFLPA is just letting Goodell do what he wants and hasn't really challenged him on anything.