Peterson charged with reckless or negligent injury to a child? (2 Viewers)

[RhymesMcJuice]

Never saw this text message posted before.

That gives me the impression that Peterson doesn't normal use the switch that much and thought his son was being defiant by not crying so he gave him so extra lashes.

 

[jonessed]

Why do people keep conflating the role of the court with that of the employer?

I haven't seen anyone conflate the roles. They obviously can be directly or indirectly linked though.

 

[VaTerp]

"I caused an injury". Those pictures showed more than "an injury".

In the text messages that were posted in the TMZ article, he not only failed to show any remorse but was bragging about how could he was with the switch. This statement is a joke. Standard cookie-cutter language for someone who was caught doing something wrong.

False. He said he "felt so bad" about it and didnt realize the switch was wrapping around to the front of his legs. And he didn't brag about how good he was with it either.

But people will continue to make things up and interpret things to fit their predetermined analysis.

"I got kinda good wit the tail end of the switch". - Implying that he's gotten better from using it so much in previous occurances.

"...I'm all tearing that butt up when needed." - He felt bad but continued on anyway.

"Never do I go overboard". - So what we see in the photos isn't going overboard?

I'm not making anything up to fit my pre-determined analysis. I viewed the photos, read the texts, read the child's comments, etc.

No, those are your interpretations and completely inconsistent with my interpretations of the the texts.

 

[davearm]

I remember seeing a poll on a SB Nation Vikings post on whether Peterson should be given a second chance. It was overwhelmingly in favor of AP (around 77% at the time). Yes I realize they're Vikings fans, but this just shows that his actions are publicly viewed by most as more forgivable than that of Rice's. No matter how personally outraged you are, this is the state of public opinion.

There is already a discussion regarding church vs. state regarding government intervention with parental discipline. I really don't see Goodell putting the NFL into the ring as well. Sure there is a question of morality here, but there is also a cultural question as well. Just because the NFL isn't doing what you agree with, doesn't mean it's doing the wrong thing.

Oh really? What percentage of Ravens fans think Rice should be given a second chance?

Roughly 41% according to this BaltimoreSun poll.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-ray-rice-cut-from-ravens-poll,0,2264363,post.poll

Pretty sure you realize those polls are asking different questions.

 

[Henry Ford]

Never saw this text message posted before.

That gives me the impression that Peterson doesn't normal use the switch that much and thought his son was being defiant by not crying so he gave him so extra lashes.

"He got about five more pops than normal" indicates to you that he doesn't use a switch that much?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

"I caused an injury". Those pictures showed more than "an injury".

In the text messages that were posted in the TMZ article, he not only failed to show any remorse but was bragging about how could he was with the switch. This statement is a joke. Standard cookie-cutter language for someone who was caught doing something wrong.

False. He said he "felt so bad" about it and didnt realize the switch was wrapping around to the front of his legs. And he didn't brag about how good he was with it either.

But people will continue to make things up and interpret things to fit their predetermined analysis.

"I got kinda good wit the tail end of the switch". - Implying that he's gotten better from using it so much in previous occurances.

"...I'm all tearing that butt up when needed." - He felt bad but continued on anyway.

"Never do I go overboard". - So what we see in the photos isn't going overboard?

I'm not making anything up to fit my pre-determined analysis. I viewed the photos, read the texts, read the child's comments, etc.

Let me translate:

- The first one means he hurt him with the end of the switch

- The second means he's willing to discipline his kids with a switch when they act bad

- He thinks he never goes overboard

This

 

[CalBear]

Why do you think the photos are illegally leaked? The person who took them can send them to whomever they want.

Who took the pictures? I was under the impression they were taken by the police.

If they're evidentiary photos, they're likely public records unless they're protected by attorney-client privilege, or if evidence has been explicitly sealed by the judge.

 

[chinawildman]

Never saw this text message posted before.

That gives me the impression that Peterson doesn't normal use the switch that much and thought his son was being defiant by not crying so he gave him so extra lashes.

"He got about five more pops than normal" indicates to you that he doesn't use a switch that much?

"Much" as in frequency or degree? My interpretation of his texts are that he likely uses it frequently, but not to this degree.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Never saw this text message posted before.

That gives me the impression that Peterson doesn't normal use the switch that much and thought his son was being defiant by not crying so he gave him so extra lashes.

"He got about five more pops than normal" indicates to you that he doesn't use a switch that much?

"Much" as in frequency or degree? My interpretation of his texts are that he likely uses it frequently, but not to this degree.

That is what I meant.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

No specific to the Peterson case, but there are cases that seem clear cut that turn out to be far more convoluted than we thought.

I think that in all cases, the NFL (and the teams by association) should let the legal process in any case run it's course before suspending/disciplining a player for off the field conduct.

It seems the easiest and clearest course of action instead of imposing suspensions based on the volume of the public outcry.

So it's okay then for Aaron Hernandez to play? He's not been convicted of anything right?

Obviously that is not reasonable, so there is a line there somewhere.

IMO and many others, Peterson has crossed that line. There is photographic evidence, admission by Peterson himself, text messages etc. The NFL is a powerful organization. They can verify these things with the DA/Police in Texas. If they are true, I don't think it's unreasonable for the NFL to suspend Peterson until he is found innocent, or has served his time. As a matter of fact, I think that is THE perfectly reasonable thing to do.

First of all, Hernandez is in jail. He can't play.

Second of all, it is through the "court" of public opinion that he has crossed the line. What if, theoretically, he "whooped" his kid but so did his baby momma's boyfriend and his that guy caused the injuries? I'm NOT saying it is the case, but sometimes what you think is a foregone conclusion via all the evidence gathered via TMZ might not be correct. That is why we have courts and trials. Isn't it better to figure out what actually happened before we punish somebody?

It's the theory of procedural justice vs mob mentality lynchings.

I prefer the former.

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.

Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

 

[VaTerp]

Why do you think the photos are illegally leaked? The person who took them can send them to whomever they want.

Who took the pictures? I was under the impression they were taken by the police.

If they're evidentiary photos, they're likely public records unless they're protected by attorney-client privilege, or if evidence has been explicitly sealed by the judge.

According to the DA there was evidence, including the photos, that was leaked illegally.

"Grant said “very sensitive information” gathered during the investigation was apparently leaked, including images of the child’s injuries that have been circulating online. He said child abuse investigations in Texas are confidential, and that his office is trying to find the source of the leak."

http://nypost.com/2014/09/13/adrian-peterson-detained-after-child-abuse-charges/

 

[Sinn Fein]

No specific to the Peterson case, but there are cases that seem clear cut that turn out to be far more convoluted than we thought.

I think that in all cases, the NFL (and the teams by association) should let the legal process in any case run it's course before suspending/disciplining a player for off the field conduct.

It seems the easiest and clearest course of action instead of imposing suspensions based on the volume of the public outcry.

So it's okay then for Aaron Hernandez to play? He's not been convicted of anything right?

Obviously that is not reasonable, so there is a line there somewhere.

IMO and many others, Peterson has crossed that line. There is photographic evidence, admission by Peterson himself, text messages etc. The NFL is a powerful organization. They can verify these things with the DA/Police in Texas. If they are true, I don't think it's unreasonable for the NFL to suspend Peterson until he is found innocent, or has served his time. As a matter of fact, I think that is THE perfectly reasonable thing to do.

First of all, Hernandez is in jail. He can't play.

Second of all, it is through the "court" of public opinion that he has crossed the line. What if, theoretically, he "whooped" his kid but so did his baby momma's boyfriend and his that guy caused the injuries? I'm NOT saying it is the case, but sometimes what you think is a foregone conclusion via all the evidence gathered via TMZ might not be correct. That is why we have courts and trials. Isn't it better to figure out what actually happened before we punish somebody?

It's the theory of procedural justice vs mob mentality lynchings.

I prefer the former.

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.

Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

[chinawildman]

I remember seeing a poll on a SB Nation Vikings post on whether Peterson should be given a second chance. It was overwhelmingly in favor of AP (around 77% at the time). Yes I realize they're Vikings fans, but this just shows that his actions are publicly viewed by most as more forgivable than that of Rice's. No matter how personally outraged you are, this is the state of public opinion.

There is already a discussion regarding church vs. state regarding government intervention with parental discipline. I really don't see Goodell putting the NFL into the ring as well. Sure there is a question of morality here, but there is also a cultural question as well. Just because the NFL isn't doing what you agree with, doesn't mean it's doing the wrong thing.

Oh really? What percentage of Ravens fans think Rice should be given a second chance?

Roughly 41% according to this BaltimoreSun poll.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-ray-rice-cut-from-ravens-poll,0,2264363,post.poll

Pretty sure you realize those polls are asking different questions.

Do you not have Google where you live?

1) If it is for the sake of helping him understand what he did wrong, and to help him be a better father, should the Vikings keep Peterson to try and do so?

77% Yes 19% No 4% Other

from http://www.dailynorseman.com/2014/9/13/6144797/does-adrian-peterson-deserve-a-second-chance

2) The Ravens cut Ray Rice on Sept. 8 after new video surfaced. Do you agree with this decision?

55% Yes 41% No 4% Unsure

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-ray-rice-cut-from-ravens-poll,0,2264363,post.poll

No, they are not literally the same question. But c'mon put two and two together and realize that semantics and little details in the wording aren't going to make up for a difference of OVER 35%.

 

[Avery]

No specific to the Peterson case, but there are cases that seem clear cut that turn out to be far more convoluted than we thought.

I think that in all cases, the NFL (and the teams by association) should let the legal process in any case run it's course before suspending/disciplining a player for off the field conduct.

It seems the easiest and clearest course of action instead of imposing suspensions based on the volume of the public outcry.

So it's okay then for Aaron Hernandez to play? He's not been convicted of anything right?

Obviously that is not reasonable, so there is a line there somewhere.

IMO and many others, Peterson has crossed that line. There is photographic evidence, admission by Peterson himself, text messages etc. The NFL is a powerful organization. They can verify these things with the DA/Police in Texas. If they are true, I don't think it's unreasonable for the NFL to suspend Peterson until he is found innocent, or has served his time. As a matter of fact, I think that is THE perfectly reasonable thing to do.

First of all, Hernandez is in jail. He can't play.

Second of all, it is through the "court" of public opinion that he has crossed the line. What if, theoretically, he "whooped" his kid but so did his baby momma's boyfriend and his that guy caused the injuries? I'm NOT saying it is the case, but sometimes what you think is a foregone conclusion via all the evidence gathered via TMZ might not be correct. That is why we have courts and trials. Isn't it better to figure out what actually happened before we punish somebody?

It's the theory of procedural justice vs mob mentality lynchings.

I prefer the former.

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.

Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

It's a valid opinion but yes, I personally think it's unreasonable.

It isn't hard to get an indictment (as others have said in this thread). Can you imagine a situation where someone is extorting an NFL player for money and files false charges to get an indictment and puts they game days in jeopardy? I sure can.

I get that the legal system and the NFL "system" are different but the legal system works like it does because, although it has it's flaws, it has proven more effective than any other system as of yet imagined. Part of that system is "innocent until proven guilty". I think the NFL should take that model into they own punishment system.

 

[chinawildman]

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.


Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Do you know what a Grand Jury does and how it works?

Grand juries are presided over strictly by the prosecution to meet the burden of evidence sufficient to justify a trial. This means if I'm sitting in my home watching football on a Sunday afternoon by myself, and the prosecution manages to find a witness that swears that someone fitting my description committed a crime during that time, it's very possible that I can be indicted, with no opportunity given to defend myself during these proceedings.

Should I be fired from my job as a result?

 

[comfortably numb]

btw

there's something special about a person who has fathered 7 kids with 4 women using the bible as his public defense in a child abuse matter.

i think there is one rod he certainly should have spared a time or two

Amen

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.


Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Do you know what a Grand Jury does and how it works?

Grand juries are presided over strictly by the prosecution to meet the burden of evidence sufficient to justify a trial. This means if I'm sitting in my home watching football on a Sunday afternoon by myself, and the prosecution manages to find a witness that swears that someone fitting my description committed a crime during that time, it's very possible that I can be indicted, with no opportunity given to defend myself during these proceedings.

Should I be fired from my job as a result?

More on a Texas Grand Jury.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.


Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Do you know what a Grand Jury does and how it works?

Grand juries are presided over strictly by the prosecution to meet the burden of evidence sufficient to justify a trial. This means if I'm sitting in my home watching football on a Sunday afternoon by myself, and the prosecution manages to find a witness that swears that someone fitting my description committed a crime during that time, it's very possible that I can be indicted, with no opportunity given to defend myself during these proceedings.

Should I be fired from my job as a result?

I am not saying Peterson should be fired from his job. Its called a suspension. Whether or not the Vikings choose to keep him under contract would be up to the Vikings.

Peterson is now charged with a felony. I don't feel it's unreasonable to say that players charged with felonies are not eligible to play until they are cleared or have served their time.

I guess I'm just crazy like that. Don't think guys charged with a felony belong on the field representing my home team/your home team.

 

[Henry Ford]

Never saw this text message posted before.

That gives me the impression that Peterson doesn't normal use the switch that much and thought his son was being defiant by not crying so he gave him so extra lashes.

"He got about five more pops than normal" indicates to you that he doesn't use a switch that much?

"Much" as in frequency or degree? My interpretation of his texts are that he likely uses it frequently, but not to this degree.

That is what I meant.

Gotcha. Makes more sense - but doesn't help his court battle.

 

[Avery]

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.


Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Do you know what a Grand Jury does and how it works?

Grand juries are presided over strictly by the prosecution to meet the burden of evidence sufficient to justify a trial. This means if I'm sitting in my home watching football on a Sunday afternoon by myself, and the prosecution manages to find a witness that swears that someone fitting my description committed a crime during that time, it's very possible that I can be indicted, with no opportunity given to defend myself during these proceedings.

Should I be fired from my job as a result?

I am not saying Peterson should be fired from his job. Its called a suspension. Whether or not the Vikings choose to keep him under contract would be up to the Vikings.

Peterson is now charged with a felony. I don't feel it's unreasonable to say that players charged with felonies are not eligible to play until they are cleared or have served their time.

I guess I'm just crazy like that. Don't think guys charged with a felony belong on the field representing my home team/your home team.

Anyone can be charged with a felony. It doesn't mean your guilty of anything.

Again, beyond this situation, you think anyone charged with a felony shouldn't be allowed to play? In many states theft of over $500 is a felony. If a player takes his big screen TV back from an ex, but that ex said he stole her TV, he could be charged with a felony. Should that guy not be allowed to play until he has been exonerated?

I know. That is far and away different than Peterson beating his kid, but rules should be equally applicable in all cases and again I think the easiest way and best to do that fairly would be to let justice, in a court of law not on Twitter, run it's course.

 

[Rooster]

No specific to the Peterson case, but there are cases that seem clear cut that turn out to be far more convoluted than we thought.

I think that in all cases, the NFL (and the teams by association) should let the legal process in any case run it's course before suspending/disciplining a player for off the field conduct.

It seems the easiest and clearest course of action instead of imposing suspensions based on the volume of the public outcry.

So it's okay then for Aaron Hernandez to play? He's not been convicted of anything right?

Obviously that is not reasonable, so there is a line there somewhere.

IMO and many others, Peterson has crossed that line. There is photographic evidence, admission by Peterson himself, text messages etc. The NFL is a powerful organization. They can verify these things with the DA/Police in Texas. If they are true, I don't think it's unreasonable for the NFL to suspend Peterson until he is found innocent, or has served his time. As a matter of fact, I think that is THE perfectly reasonable thing to do.

First of all, Hernandez is in jail. He can't play.

Second of all, it is through the "court" of public opinion that he has crossed the line. What if, theoretically, he "whooped" his kid but so did his baby momma's boyfriend and his that guy caused the injuries? I'm NOT saying it is the case, but sometimes what you think is a foregone conclusion via all the evidence gathered via TMZ might not be correct. That is why we have courts and trials. Isn't it better to figure out what actually happened before we punish somebody?

It's the theory of procedural justice vs mob mentality lynchings.

I prefer the former.

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.

Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Having any job is a privilege, not a right. Make no mistake, the NFL choosing to suspend a player for a crime has nothing to do with justice and right/privilege, they've got a brand to protect. They don't want to be thought of as abusers of women, children, murderers so they choose to punish people like Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice and Aaron Hernandez so that it fits that image/brand. I suspect other crimes might not be viewed the same way. If Drew Brees got accused of insider trading tomorrow, I doubt a suspension would come before the legal process played out (if a suspension would happen at all). Why? Because I don't think the NFL is concerned about there being a rash of insider trading incidents that damage the brand.

The NFL has been taken to the woodshed over this Ray Rice domestic violence issue. They're extremely sensitive right now and the perception that another one of their players beats their kids (whether or not it's true - just the perception hurts them right now) is taking them in exactly the opposite direction they need to go right now. There is public outrage, there are pictures (Ray Rice's issue became much more serious with the video), and there are text messages floating around that indicate this is standard operating procedure in his household. I haven't seen it liked yet (I'm not reading a ton on it), but I can only imagine there's a little bit more outrage since one of his children died last year in a domestic violence situation. I would be really surprised if Peterson doesn't get a suspension, just so the NFL can show it's serious about domestic violence. If this had happened before the Ray Rice thing, I'd say they'd have the goodwill with the public to take a "let's see how the legal case plays out" approach (and I generally see that as a good approach), I'm just not sure I see that happening now with the heat they've taken and the domestic violence microscope they're under right now.

 

[cheif]

Based on AP's admissions so far, I predict the NFL will suspend him six games and that it will happen this week.

again, hes only admitted to discipline not abuse.

he's admitted to actions

which he has admitted went to far and injured his child

According to you. How about letting a jury with all of the information decide?

or letting his employer decide

again, there is no god given right in america to only be fired or disciplined at work when a jury of your peers decides you are guilty of a crime

if i get drunk and take a #### on my bosses hood i am going to get fired regardless of any legal process.

You're right. God didn't give us the "basic right". "We" created it and called it the due process clause within the 5th amendment of our Constitution.

TMZ and all of those that seem vehemently opposed to upholding these Constitutional rights may want to look at the sixth amendment too, that's what they'll be #####ing about next.

 

[SameSongNDance]

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.


Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Do you know what a Grand Jury does and how it works?

Grand juries are presided over strictly by the prosecution to meet the burden of evidence sufficient to justify a trial. This means if I'm sitting in my home watching football on a Sunday afternoon by myself, and the prosecution manages to find a witness that swears that someone fitting my description committed a crime during that time, it's very possible that I can be indicted, with no opportunity given to defend myself during these proceedings.

Should I be fired from my job as a result?

If you admit to doing the crime? Yeah.

 

[Neofight]

The Ray Rice situation is much more black and white than Adrian Peterson's situation, no matter how much people in this thread fail to recognize it. I don't pretend to know the numbers but there are A LOT more people willing to give Adrian Peterson the benefit of the doubt over Rice based solely on the difference in how they view the situations. And I'm one of them.

I gave Rice the benefit of the doubt because many things could have happened to justify what he did. When the video came out that was the end.

For Peterson I believe like everyone else that what he did was wrong but it's a gray area because of the law in Texas.

Name one.

What if she had repeated punched him the face during arguments, and finally he just had enough?

You don't think a man of his strength should be able to restrain her without resorting to a right hook?

Technically it was a left, and two at that. But I'm getting a kick out of the wildman and his unique brand of justice.

 

[ImTheScientist]

"I caused an injury". Those pictures showed more than "an injury".

In the text messages that were posted in the TMZ article, he not only failed to show any remorse but was bragging about how could he was with the switch. This statement is a joke. Standard cookie-cutter language for someone who was caught doing something wrong.

False. He said he "felt so bad" about it and didnt realize the switch was wrapping around to the front of his legs. And he didn't brag about how good he was with it either.

But people will continue to make things up and interpret things to fit their predetermined analysis.

Well said. Such is the unfortunate side effect of the internet. We make up our minds about things, then go seek information reinforcing those conclusions. Probably one reason why political discussions are so polarized and stupid these days.

 

[dparker713]

For Peterson I believe like everyone else that what he did was wrong but it's a gray area because of the law in Texas.

Corporal punishment in the home is legal in every state, it's not a Texas issue. On the other hand going overboad is not legal in any state.

Except Delaware, which has banned any punishment that causes 'pain'. I hope after this more states will change their laws.

Texas' law is open to a great deal of interpretation:

Abuse does not include reasonable discipline by a parent/guardian/managing or possessory conservator if child not exposed to substantial risk of harm.

The definition of "reasonable discipline" and "substantial risk of harm" is at the heart of this case.

Isn't a time out designed to inflict emotional pain?

 

[Johnny Blood]

I was certainly wrong about the Vikings' reaction. I was about to say I couldn't have been more wrong, but the Vikings just set a new standard for that.

 

[Neofight]

Just watch Sal Palantonio report on this from Minneapolis.

Palantonio said the Vikings thought they should let the legal process play out. Also said football was part of the decision. Team couldn't run the ball without Peterson. Also said the new stadium was part of the decision. 1.024 billion dollar stadium with 500 million in taxpayer dollars. Using Petersons' image to promote that. Using Petersons image on the front of their team program, tickets etc.

Also said the league and Vikings have been in communication all along the way. He thought the league was part of this decision process. Wasn't sure about that.

Sounds like the almighty dollar wins again.

Perhaps some enterprising Minnesotan will start peddling purple and gold switches outside the stadium. Might come in handy for the occasional unruly opposition in the stands.

 

[dparker713]

Based on AP's admissions so far, I predict the NFL will suspend him six games and that it will happen this week.

again, hes only admitted to discipline not abuse.

he's admitted to actions

which he has admitted went to far and injured his child

According to you. How about letting a jury with all of the information decide?

hes admitted to hitting the child as a form of discipline. Hes not guilty of anything until the legal system says he is, that is how it works in this country.

Do I think he abused his child / children, YES!!! Do I want to see him punished, YES!!!

Once the system takes it course he will be punished.

His employer does not have to wait to punish him

if you punched your boss in the face, would they wait till your assault case was adjudicated before firing you?

How about if you got caught having sex with the 16 year old daughter of a client? Until such time as you are convicted you'd still be gainfully employed?

In this case if the NFL deems his conduct was wrong, and more importantly to them deems that his presence is a black mark on their league that could impact their bottom line, they have every right to discipline him, regardless of what Texas ultimately decides.

The NLF will not determine if his conduct was wrong. They will determine if it makes financial sense to punish him.

 

[chinawildman]

The Ray Rice situation is much more black and white than Adrian Peterson's situation, no matter how much people in this thread fail to recognize it. I don't pretend to know the numbers but there are A LOT more people willing to give Adrian Peterson the benefit of the doubt over Rice based solely on the difference in how they view the situations. And I'm one of them.

I gave Rice the benefit of the doubt because many things could have happened to justify what he did. When the video came out that was the end.

For Peterson I believe like everyone else that what he did was wrong but it's a gray area because of the law in Texas.

Name one.

What if she had repeated punched him the face during arguments, and finally he just had enough?

You don't think a man of his strength should be able to restrain her without resorting to a right hook?

Technically it was a left, and two at that.But I'm getting a kick out of the wildman and his unique brand of justice.

You apparently either don't like to, or cannot read. Believe it or not a man CAN actually argue self-defense against a woman, my "unique" brand of justice happens to be the law in this case. I'm glad you're enjoying the education though, I'll be here all night...

 

[Neofight]

The Ray Rice situation is much more black and white than Adrian Peterson's situation, no matter how much people in this thread fail to recognize it. I don't pretend to know the numbers but there are A LOT more people willing to give Adrian Peterson the benefit of the doubt over Rice based solely on the difference in how they view the situations. And I'm one of them.

I gave Rice the benefit of the doubt because many things could have happened to justify what he did. When the video came out that was the end.

For Peterson I believe like everyone else that what he did was wrong but it's a gray area because of the law in Texas.

Name one.

What if she had repeated punched him the face during arguments, and finally he just had enough?

You don't think a man of his strength should be able to restrain her without resorting to a right hook?

Technically it was a left, and two at that.But I'm getting a kick out of the wildman and his unique brand of justice.

You apparently either don't like to, or cannot read. Believe it or not a man CAN actually argue self-defense against a woman, my "unique" brand of justice happens to be the law in this case. I'm glad you're enjoying the education though, I'll be here all night...

Popcorn?ETA: since you clearly do read, pick up a dictionary and look up the definition of justice. There you'll find a few different entries, one of which I was referring to. As a bonus double entendre, one entry is that of a blindfolded woman. Could not be more appropriate.

 

[chinawildman]

Funny how the pitchforkers want AP dealt with according to an employer/business's "higher" standards, but then grovel when a decision is made in favor of the almighty dollar. You guys do realize that these are businesses right? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Have you guys ever considered looking at it from a business angle? The issue of child discipline touches upon differences in culture, religion, and according to Charles Barkley, even race. To make a judgment call right now based on what they feel is "right", the NFL would essentially be issuing a moral edict that ostracizes particular demographics of people, many of whom are football fans.

This situation is extremely sensitive and about as gray as it gets, yet some folks seem to think the answer is so black and white.

 

[chinawildman]

The Ray Rice situation is much more black and white than Adrian Peterson's situation, no matter how much people in this thread fail to recognize it. I don't pretend to know the numbers but there are A LOT more people willing to give Adrian Peterson the benefit of the doubt over Rice based solely on the difference in how they view the situations. And I'm one of them.

I gave Rice the benefit of the doubt because many things could have happened to justify what he did. When the video came out that was the end.

For Peterson I believe like everyone else that what he did was wrong but it's a gray area because of the law in Texas.

Name one.

What if she had repeated punched him the face during arguments, and finally he just had enough?

You don't think a man of his strength should be able to restrain her without resorting to a right hook?

Technically it was a left, and two at that.But I'm getting a kick out of the wildman and his unique brand of justice.

You apparently either don't like to, or cannot read. Believe it or not a man CAN actually argue self-defense against a woman, my "unique" brand of justice happens to be the law in this case. I'm glad you're enjoying the education though, I'll be here all night...

Popcorn?ETA: since you clearly do read, pick up a dictionary and look up the definition of justice. There you'll find a few different entries, one of which I was referring to. As a bonus double entendre, one entry is that of a blindfolded woman. Could not be more appropriate.

ooh an English lesson, figured it was only a matter of time before it went there. Wanna highlight some "misspelings" while you're at it? Stick to the subject dude... oh wait, nevermind. You didn't actually have a point, just some snarky comment.

Next.

 

[Neofight]

The Ray Rice situation is much more black and white than Adrian Peterson's situation, no matter how much people in this thread fail to recognize it. I don't pretend to know the numbers but there are A LOT more people willing to give Adrian Peterson the benefit of the doubt over Rice based solely on the difference in how they view the situations. And I'm one of them.

I gave Rice the benefit of the doubt because many things could have happened to justify what he did. When the video came out that was the end.

For Peterson I believe like everyone else that what he did was wrong but it's a gray area because of the law in Texas.

Name one.

What if she had repeated punched him the face during arguments, and finally he just had enough?

You don't think a man of his strength should be able to restrain her without resorting to a right hook?

Technically it was a left, and two at that.But I'm getting a kick out of the wildman and his unique brand of justice.

You apparently either don't like to, or cannot read. Believe it or not a man CAN actually argue self-defense against a woman, my "unique" brand of justice happens to be the law in this case. I'm glad you're enjoying the education though, I'll be here all night...

Popcorn?ETA: since you clearly do read, pick up a dictionary and look up the definition of justice. There you'll find a few different entries, one of which I was referring to. As a bonus double entendre, one entry is that of a blindfolded woman. Could not be more appropriate.

ooh an English lesson, figured it was only a matter of time before it went there. Wanna highlight some "misspelings" while you're at it? Stick to the subject dude... oh wait, nevermind. You didn't actually have a point, just some snarky comment.

Next.

Dear Christ, you miss the point often. And why such thin skin? To be quite honest, I have no idea where you come from or what your first language is. You strike me as more "American" than most on this board.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

For Peterson I believe like everyone else that what he did was wrong but it's a gray area because of the law in Texas.

Corporal punishment in the home is legal in every state, it's not a Texas issue. On the other hand going overboad is not legal in any state.

Except Delaware, which has banned any punishment that causes 'pain'. I hope after this more states will change their laws.

Texas' law is open to a great deal of interpretation:

Abuse does not include reasonable discipline by a parent/guardian/managing or possessory conservator if child not exposed to substantial risk of harm.

The definition of "reasonable discipline" and "substantial risk of harm" is at the heart of this case.

Isn't a time out designed to inflict emotional pain?

Sure, but anything you do to kids to change their behavior causes emotional pain to some extent. If you don't want inflict emotional pain then give your kid everything they want.

The goal should be to promote good behavior with the least amount of pain (physical or emotional) as possible. On the spectrum of harmful actions to change behavior, time outs are at the bottom of the list.

 

[chinawildman]

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.


Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Do you know what a Grand Jury does and how it works?

Grand juries are presided over strictly by the prosecution to meet the burden of evidence sufficient to justify a trial. This means if I'm sitting in my home watching football on a Sunday afternoon by myself, and the prosecution manages to find a witness that swears that someone fitting my description committed a crime during that time, it's very possible that I can be indicted, with no opportunity given to defend myself during these proceedings.

Should I be fired from my job as a result?

If you admit to doing the crime? Yeah.

I'll play.

Suppose I am in an empty bar and a drunk guy confronts me insisting that we fight because I slept with his wife. I tell him he's got the wrong guy, but he won't take no for an answer and attacks me. To defend myself I take the nearest beer bottle I find and crack it over his head, knocking him out and cutting his face in several places. I am then indicted days later for assault and battery with a deadly weapon because the prosecution produces witnesses saying that I attacked the man with a beer bottle. I do not deny hitting the man on the head with a bottle.

Should I be fired from my job?

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Just watch Sal Palantonio report on this from Minneapolis.

Palantonio said the Vikings thought they should let the legal process play out. Also said football was part of the decision. Team couldn't run the ball without Peterson. Also said the new stadium was part of the decision. 1.024 billion dollar stadium with 500 million in taxpayer dollars. Using Petersons' image to promote that. Using Petersons image on the front of their team program, tickets etc.

Also said the league and Vikings have been in communication all along the way. He thought the league was part of this decision process. Wasn't sure about that.

Sounds like the almighty dollar wins again.

Perhaps some enterprising Minnesotan will start peddling purple and gold switches outside the stadium. Might come in handy for the occasional unruly opposition in the stands.

Would probably sell well in Green Bay.

 

[whiskey7]

You're right of course. Those of us that believe players that have been INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY (the first and only grand jury in this case btw), should lose their right to play on Sundays are akin to a lynch mob.


Is it really that unreasonable to take the position that once a player meets the threshold of being indicted, that they need to either prove their innocence or serve their time before being allowed back on the field?

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Do you know what a Grand Jury does and how it works?

Grand juries are presided over strictly by the prosecution to meet the burden of evidence sufficient to justify a trial. This means if I'm sitting in my home watching football on a Sunday afternoon by myself, and the prosecution manages to find a witness that swears that someone fitting my description committed a crime during that time, it's very possible that I can be indicted, with no opportunity given to defend myself during these proceedings.

Should I be fired from my job as a result?

If you admit to doing the crime? Yeah.

I'll play.

Suppose I am in an empty bar and a drunk guy confronts me insisting that we fight because I slept with his wife. I tell him he's got the wrong guy, but he won't take no for an answer and attacks me. To defend myself I take the nearest beer bottle I find and crack it over his head, knocking him out and cutting his face in several places. I am then indicted days later for assault and battery with a deadly weapon because the prosecution produces witnesses saying that I attacked the man with a beer bottle. I do not deny hitting the man on the head with a bottle.

Should I be fired from my job?

If there was beer left in the bottle, yes. Clear case of alcohol abuse.

JK. I know what you're saying.

 

[Jerry Curl]

I'm disgusted at the tone on ESPN right now. Ditka and Carter almost saying its better for ADP to be around the team and go through due process. What about Ray Rice, wasnt it better to be around his team, he went through due process and already received a suspension.

Rice is gone for the year and Peterson gets a pass and will play. Everyone was up in arms about an adult who could have possibly knowingly tried to anger someone to punch them, even though she may not have deserved it, but a kid from the evidence we have is scared of him and is four years old and as his mother says is not trying to play mind games, gets overlooked?

#### the NFL and how they handle all suspensions, it is a bias system and is as unfair as it gets from how they enforce rules on the field to how they handle suspensions off of it. Where is the NFLPA in all this? Allowing people in their union who act like this.

They act as if they care about domestic violence and respond harshly because the media asked for it, now they sit by and do nothing to a child abuser. What the?

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

I'm disgusted at the tone on ESPN right now. Ditka and Carter almost saying its better for ADP to be around the team and go through due process. What about Ray Rice, wasnt it better to be around his team, he went through due process and already received a suspension.

Rice is gone for the year and Peterson gets a pass and will play. Everyone was up in arms about an adult who could have possibly knowingly tried to anger someone even though she may not have deserved it, a kid from the evidence we have is scared of him and is four years old and as his mother says is not trying to play mind games.

#### the NFL and how they handle all suspensions, it is a bias system and is as unfair as it gets from how they enforce rules on the field to how they handle suspensions off of it. Where is the NFLPA in all this? Allowing people in their union who act like this.

They act as if they care about domestic violence and respond harshly because the media asked for it, now they sit by and do nothing to a child abuser. What the?

Have you read none of this thread?

 

[chinawildman]

The Ray Rice situation is much more black and white than Adrian Peterson's situation, no matter how much people in this thread fail to recognize it. I don't pretend to know the numbers but there are A LOT more people willing to give Adrian Peterson the benefit of the doubt over Rice based solely on the difference in how they view the situations. And I'm one of them.

I gave Rice the benefit of the doubt because many things could have happened to justify what he did. When the video came out that was the end.

For Peterson I believe like everyone else that what he did was wrong but it's a gray area because of the law in Texas.

Name one.

What if she had repeated punched him the face during arguments, and finally he just had enough?

You don't think a man of his strength should be able to restrain her without resorting to a right hook?

Technically it was a left, and two at that.But I'm getting a kick out of the wildman and his unique brand of justice.

You apparently either don't like to, or cannot read. Believe it or not a man CAN actually argue self-defense against a woman, my "unique" brand of justice happens to be the law in this case. I'm glad you're enjoying the education though, I'll be here all night...

Popcorn?ETA: since you clearly do read, pick up a dictionary and look up the definition of justice. There you'll find a few different entries, one of which I was referring to. As a bonus double entendre, one entry is that of a blindfolded woman. Could not be more appropriate.

ooh an English lesson, figured it was only a matter of time before it went there. Wanna highlight some "misspelings" while you're at it? Stick to the subject dude... oh wait, nevermind. You didn't actually have a point, just some snarky comment.

Next.

Dear Christ, you miss the point often. And why such thin skin? To be quite honest, I have no idea where you come from or what your first language is. You strike me as more "American" than most on this board.

Hmmm, awkward... that's not what I was saying at all. I was referencing to the common trivial practice on message boards of resorting to pointing out spelling errors or semantic fallacies in the absence of a legitimate argument. Anyways, feel free to get the last word in if you'd like, though I'd prefer reasonable debate.

 

[Jerry Curl]

I'm disgusted at the tone on ESPN right now. Ditka and Carter almost saying its better for ADP to be around the team and go through due process. What about Ray Rice, wasnt it better to be around his team, he went through due process and already received a suspension.

Rice is gone for the year and Peterson gets a pass and will play. Everyone was up in arms about an adult who could have possibly knowingly tried to anger someone even though she may not have deserved it, a kid from the evidence we have is scared of him and is four years old and as his mother says is not trying to play mind games.

#### the NFL and how they handle all suspensions, it is a bias system and is as unfair as it gets from how they enforce rules on the field to how they handle suspensions off of it. Where is the NFLPA in all this? Allowing people in their union who act like this.

They act as if they care about domestic violence and respond harshly because the media asked for it, now they sit by and do nothing to a child abuser. What the?

Have you read none of this thread?

Yes, just wanted to get it off my chest if that is OK?

 

[Disco Stu]

Never saw this text message posted before.

That gives me the impression that Peterson doesn't normal use the switch that much and thought his son was being defiant by not crying so he gave him so extra lashes.

That's the first time I've seen the mother's reply. She's absolutely correct. Reading that exchange and thinking of this little boy terrified of his father makes me sick to my stomach. :X

But yeah... keep defending him. He's a good football player.

 

[dparker713]

For Peterson I believe like everyone else that what he did was wrong but it's a gray area because of the law in Texas.

Corporal punishment in the home is legal in every state, it's not a Texas issue. On the other hand going overboad is not legal in any state.

Except Delaware, which has banned any punishment that causes 'pain'. I hope after this more states will change their laws.

Texas' law is open to a great deal of interpretation:

Abuse does not include reasonable discipline by a parent/guardian/managing or possessory conservator if child not exposed to substantial risk of harm.

The definition of "reasonable discipline" and "substantial risk of harm" is at the heart of this case.

Isn't a time out designed to inflict emotional pain?

Sure, but anything you do to kids to change their behavior causes emotional pain to some extent. If you don't want inflict emotional pain then give your kid everything they want.

The goal should be to promote good behavior with the least amount of pain (physical or emotional) as possible. On the spectrum of harmful actions to change behavior, time outs are at the bottom of the list.

Physical pain subsides pretty quickly though. Emotional pain can last quite some time. Just seems odd to acknowledge that pain of some kind is required to modify behavior of children, yet we're only allowing a select few forms of pain to be used.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

For Peterson I believe like everyone else that what he did was wrong but it's a gray area because of the law in Texas.

Corporal punishment in the home is legal in every state, it's not a Texas issue. On the other hand going overboad is not legal in any state.

Except Delaware, which has banned any punishment that causes 'pain'. I hope after this more states will change their laws.

Texas' law is open to a great deal of interpretation:

Abuse does not include reasonable discipline by a parent/guardian/managing or possessory conservator if child not exposed to substantial risk of harm.

The definition of "reasonable discipline" and "substantial risk of harm" is at the heart of this case.

Isn't a time out designed to inflict emotional pain?

No. Why would you even think that?

 

[Neofight]

Hmmm, awkward... that's not what I was saying at all. I was referencing to the common trivial practice on message boards of resorting to pointing out spelling errors or semantic fallacies in the absence of a legitimate argument. Anyways, feel free to get the last word in if you'd like, though I'd prefer reasonable debate.

Reasonable is fine. So we are back to justice then? I'd love to hear your reasons for cold-cocking a woman in that case. Let's debate that reasonably, sans equivocation.

 

[RUSF18]

#KHOU #ITEAM Adrian Peterson investigated for another abuse accusation involving another one of his sons. More at 6! pic.twitter.com/dH4tad2ovk

-----

Apparently this one left a scar on (another) 4 year old's face.

 

[93_Confirmed]

#KHOU #ITEAM Adrian Peterson investigated for another abuse accusation involving another one of his sons. More at 6! pic.twitter.com/dH4tad2ovk

-----

Apparently this one left a scar on (another) 4 year old's face.

Que the FBG Peterson defense team to further defend this clown.

 

[nastynate]

He hits his kids with switches. If it's abuse on one, it's abuse on them all, right?

Interested to hear about the bandaid on the head.

 

[ImTheScientist]

CBS 11 Houston reports Adrian Peterson is being investigated for another child abuse accusation involving one of his other sons.

According to the news station, one of Peterson's four-year-old son's was disciplined by Peterson for cursing at one of his siblings. The boy sustained a scar over his right eye. Peterson has at least five children with multiple different women, and is believed to have as many as seven kids out of wedlock. If more information comes to light, the Vikings could discipline Peterson yet again.

scum.