What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

jonessed said:
KellysHeroes said:
the NFL shouldn't have given into the public like this, they develop a new harsh policy for domestic violence and then don't even follow it by giving out even harsher penalties.
He gets paid until he pleads out the case and eats the 6-game suspension (which will likely end up being made up largely of the games he missed anyway). That seems like a good result for everybody. The media gets their pound of flesh, AP gets the monkey off of his back, and the Vikings keep their player.
Since the Vikings deactivated, and the league didn't suspend him, would the games missed count as time served? My guess would be no, unless a deal is struck, which I could definitely see happening to get AP back as soon as possible. And isn't there also the possibility that he gets more than 6 games since the policy provides for harsher punishments if children are involved?
Doubt it if he's getting paid for the time that he's away. The "children" clause in the policy does not specifically address children as victims so that part is very gray.
AFAIK, the NFL will apply the personal conduct policy, not the domestic abuse policy.

 
jonessed said:
KellysHeroes said:
the NFL shouldn't have given into the public like this, they develop a new harsh policy for domestic violence and then don't even follow it by giving out even harsher penalties.
He gets paid until he pleads out the case and eats the 6-game suspension (which will likely end up being made up largely of the games he missed anyway). That seems like a good result for everybody. The media gets their pound of flesh, AP gets the monkey off of his back, and the Vikings keep their player.
"I will see you again... but not yet.... not yet."

 
jonessed said:
KellysHeroes said:
the NFL shouldn't have given into the public like this, they develop a new harsh policy for domestic violence and then don't even follow it by giving out even harsher penalties.
He gets paid until he pleads out the case and eats the 6-game suspension (which will likely end up being made up largely of the games he missed anyway). That seems like a good result for everybody. The media gets their pound of flesh, AP gets the monkey off of his back, and the Vikings keep their player.
Since the Vikings deactivated, and the league didn't suspend him, would the games missed count as time served? My guess would be no, unless a deal is struck, which I could definitely see happening to get AP back as soon as possible. And isn't there also the possibility that he gets more than 6 games since the policy provides for harsher punishments if children are involved?
Doubt it if he's getting paid for the time that he's away. The "children" clause in the policy does not specifically address children as victims so that part is very gray.
AFAIK, the NFL will apply the personal conduct policy, not the domestic abuse policy.
I think the domestic abuse policy is included as part of the personal conduct policy, they are not exclusive of one another.

 
KellysHeroes said:
the NFL shouldn't have given into the public like this, they develop a new harsh policy for domestic violence and then don't even follow it by giving out even harsher penalties.
The NFL hasn't taken any action at all yet.

What I recall reading is that an investigation was being launched by the NFL, led by a former Manhattan prosecutor whose name escapes me.

 
Neofight said:
In the grand scheme of things, those conversations hardly matter. People will say things, misremember and misstate the facts; none of it will matter much.As far as Peterson's case, as we know the evidence and per his own admission, the league did the right thing in offering the exemption and Minnesota did the right thing in accepting it. They had no other choice. As for Peterson's legal case, that looks to be a really tough go for Peterson based on recent Texas case history (assuming he doesn't cop a plea: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/09/16/adrian-petersons-indefensible-abuse-of-a-4-year-old-likely-violates-texas-law/.) Then again, Rice got PTI on an aggravated assault charge in New Jersey, which is no small feat.
This will come down to the DA wanting a quick and easy win (domestic assault plea) vs. dragging this through court and making a name for himself.

 
fourd said:
Shutout said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Shutout said:
If Peterson sits and loses this season and then the legal system basically says "Ok, you're ok. Nothing going on here", then Peterson will go from being the perpetrator to a victim
Oh stop it. He beat a four year old child. Remember, that's not in any doubt. Peterson admitted to doing it, there are pictures, etc. In that way, this case is fairly unusual. If Peterson denied the allegations, I'd be right there with those who say he should have his day in court. But he admitted to beating the child, he just doesn't think it was wrong to do so.

Whether or not a Texas jury finds him guilty of a crime has little bearing on whether he should represent the NFL. He may very well be acquitted in court, but he still beat a four year old child. In terms of how the NFL should handle the case, I really couldn't possibly care less about what verdict he gets in Texas. That's a separate issue.

Calling him a victim in this context is a huge stretch. Perhaps he's a victim of a ####ty upbringing. Perhaps he's a victim of a culture that never taught him that beating toddlers is wrong. You can make excuses for him but people are still responsible for their actions, and he's a grown man - an elite athlete - who used physical violence on a little kid. Let's not lose sight of who the victims really are.
I don't really want to get into arguing beliefs and I, myself, am very neutral at this point, but there IS doubt. You say several times that he BEAT his child. Peterson says he DISCIPLINED his child and that is what is in doubt. Maybe not in the eyes of public opinion for some, but in the legal system.

And that is the point lying behind what I posted. IF (and we don't know yet), he sits out and then the legal system says "go home Mr. Peterson, you have not beat your child and you're not going to jail" then you absolutely will hear about the "what if" of this for the rest of your life. Ten, twenty years from now, you will watch some "Top 10 RBs of all time" and there will be some guy on there talking about Peterson with his asterisk. On talk shows, you absolutely will hear the sports media discussing things like what would the Vikes season had been like had they let this innocent man play. What would his numbers have been had he not missed X amount of time.

That's all I'm saying. Not arguing for or against something. Just saying that this scenario actually feeds the fire for down the road.
What do you think the child receiving this discipline will be thinking 10, 20 years down the road? What will his kids be thinking?
Unfortunately, they are probably the ones that will get forgotten in the wash of all this and that's sad.

 
Shutout said:
And that is the point lying behind what I posted. IF (and we don't know yet), he sits out and then the legal system says "go home Mr. Peterson, you have not beat your child and you're not going to jail" then you absolutely will hear about the "what if" of this for the rest of your life. Ten, twenty years from now, you will watch some "Top 10 RBs of all time" and there will be some guy on there talking about Peterson with his asterisk. On talk shows, you absolutely will hear the sports media discussing things like what would the Vikes season had been like had they let this innocent man play. What would his numbers have been had he not missed X amount of time.

That's all I'm saying. Not arguing for or against something. Just saying that this scenario actually feeds the fire for down the road.
I don't really want to get into arguing beliefs and I, myself, am very neutral at this point, but there IS doubt. You say several times that he BEAT his child. Peterson says he DISCIPLINED his child and that is what is in doubt. Maybe not in the eyes of public opinion for some, but in the legal system.
It's been mentioned before in this thread, but folks need to separate the legal system from the NFL, from the Vikings, from the court of public opinion.

Each of those entities will have their own process, their own standards, their own rules of evidence, their own punishments, etc. Peterson may well ultimately be exonerated by the legal system. That really doesn't have much bearing on his disposition in any of these other venues. The NFL, the Vikings, and certainly the general public will form their own conclusions independently of the courts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neofight said:
In the grand scheme of things, those conversations hardly matter. People will say things, misremember and misstate the facts; none of it will matter much.As far as Peterson's case, as we know the evidence and per his own admission, the league did the right thing in offering the exemption and Minnesota did the right thing in accepting it. They had no other choice. As for Peterson's legal case, that looks to be a really tough go for Peterson based on recent Texas case history (assuming he doesn't cop a plea: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/09/16/adrian-petersons-indefensible-abuse-of-a-4-year-old-likely-violates-texas-law/.) Then again, Rice got PTI on an aggravated assault charge in New Jersey, which is no small feat.
This will come down to the DA wanting a quick and easy win (domestic assault plea) vs. dragging this through court and making a name for himself.
Less than 10% of cases ever go to trial, and given the circumstances as it stands now I assume they will push hard for a plea.

That's a cute little article, but neglects to factor in other important aspects surrounding this case. Ultimately pleas result in both sides putting their chips on the table and negotiating something that throws the least amount of mud on each other's faces. For the DA, they will likely want to avoid a privacy violation countersuit on the part of the Peterson family for the leaked photos and police report. For AP I suspect they will want the most favorably sentence to allow him to play football again. (I suspect Hardin will check with the NFL first on what they deem "acceptable" terms).

This is Texas after all and despite the fact that Peterson plays for the Vikings, he is seen as "one of our own". It won't take too many nudges and winks and back scratches from Jerry Jones and other public figures to get the DA on their side. Any jail time would surprise me at this point. I mean Nate Newton got caught with 175 pounds of weed on a second offense I believe and only got 30 months.

 
Someone needs to put a stop to this blood bath of a press conference. Vikings couldnt be more clear this decision was about money. All they keep saying is "Get it right." Disaster.

 
If I were Peterson, first play back for the Vikings I would take the handoff, turn around and gently toss the ball. I'd continue to do that until they cut me.

 
They have said got it right already over 20 times in 10 minutes of a press conference. Mark Wilf couldnt be more clueless, the lawyer is defensive and Rick is trying to bob and weave.

 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
Right, because that's exactly what he did.

For the umpteenth time I agree that what Peterson did was wrong but people need to stop sensationalizing everything.
Are you saying he didn't do that? You know he admitted it, right?
He admitted to catching him on the nuts one time because he didnt realize the tail end of the switch was wrapping around the child's legs.

Your post, and others, suggest that he intentionally hit his kid directly in his scrotum. Someone in this thread or one of the others even went as far as to basically suggest he's a pedophile.

It's sensationalizing to portray things in the most negative light possible.

 
That Adrian Peterson, such a charitable fellow.. what a guy

Outside the Lines examined IRS forms for Peterson's charity for the years 2008 through 2011 and found discrepancies between the All Day Foundation's stated mission of helping at-risk children and where much of its grants landed.

For the foundation's first four years, 2008 through 2011, its single largest beneficiary was Straight From The Heart Ministries (a ministry devoted to opposing gay rights) . More than 50 percent ($207,081 out of $414,130 in grants) was given by the All Day Foundation to Straight From The Heart. More recent IRS forms were not available for review.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11540237/status-adrian-peterson-charity-foundation-unclear?addata=module-b
Prescient move by All Day. This solidifies him as a Tony Dungy reclamation project.
 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
The last one knocked his wife out, or have you forgotten that already?
No. What's your point?
The lynchings are not confined to players using a switch on their children. The lynchings are done whenever rich white people decide to get indignant.
Or, when black athletes get uppity - advertisers can't have that.

 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
The last one knocked his wife out, or have you forgotten that already?
No. What's your point?
The lynchings are not confined to players using a switch on their children. The lynchings are done whenever rich white people decide to get indignant.
Many people seem to lack the ability to see beyond their righteous indignation about Peterson. They seem to like the "I know wrong, when I see wrong" type of justice and punishment.

The mayhem of mob justice looks at each incident as it happens and applies the punishment that their anger sees fit to implement whereas a set of rules and law has punishments codified so that the accused gets a fair shake and their "day in court" regardless of who they are.

Again, what happens here (and with Rice) is beyond these crimes as these players. The reasons we as a society have rule of law and the NFL has a code of conduct and (supposedly) clearly laid out punishments for violating the policy is to take into account future incidents and future punishments that we do not yet know.

I may not like the crimes or the people who did them but I fear the precedent this sets.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jerry Curl said:
Bojang0301 said:
What a crock of ####... I'm about to turn away from the NFL. I do not condone or justify these men being punished actions but the NFL did not care when Jerramy Stevens protected their shield. Donte Stallworth got some due process. Ray Lewis was the face of the NFL and is now commenting about these situations in away that makes you want to blow up your mind. The poster that said stop and hit reset as a joke every few threads was right. Goodell is a cowardly man that he can't even face the media anymore. That's part of your job man.
So does not watching the game of football that you loved for years fix the problem?
He should start watching pro wrestling or the WNBA.

 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
The last one knocked his wife out, or have you forgotten that already?
No. What's your point?
The lynchings are not confined to players using a switch on their children. The lynchings are done whenever rich white people decide to get indignant.
You think Ray Rice was lynched? How?

 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
The last one knocked his wife out, or have you forgotten that already?
No. What's your point?
The lynchings are not confined to players using a switch on their children. The lynchings are done whenever rich white people decide to get indignant.
You think Ray Rice was lynched? How?
The league knew what happened and gave him two games.

Their changed the code of conduct after there was public outcry to give similar incidents 6 games.

There was more public outcry after the video tape was released so he got "indefinite" games.

That seems like a figurative lynching by the mob.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
Right, because that's exactly what he did.

For the umpteenth time I agree that what Peterson did was wrong but people need to stop sensationalizing everything.
Are you saying he didn't do that? You know he admitted it, right?
He admitted to catching him on the nuts one time because he didnt realize the tail end of the switch was wrapping around the child's legs.

Your post, and others, suggest that he intentionally hit his kid directly in his scrotum. Someone in this thread or one of the others even went as far as to basically suggest he's a pedophile.

It's sensationalizing to portray things in the most negative light possible.
So you now admit that's exactly what he did? Good.

Maybe you care that he claims it was an accident. I think you're missing the point. If a whipping puts a four year old's genitals in danger, that's the problem -- not whether he injured them this time, or the next time, or 15 times from now.

The problem is that the kid's scrotum was even in jeopardy. The problem is that Peterson didn't realize, after hitting the kid 10 or 15 times, that the switch was wrapping around the child's legs. How did he not know? Was he watching television? Texting a friend? How do you not see what the hits are doing as you're hitting?

This is negative. No special light is necessary.

 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
The last one knocked his wife out, or have you forgotten that already?
No. What's your point?
The lynchings are not confined to players using a switch on their children. The lynchings are done whenever rich white people decide to get indignant.
You think Ray Rice was lynched? How?
The league knew what happened and gave him two games.

Their changed the code of conduct after there was public outcry to give similar incidents 6 games.

There was more public outcry after the video tape was released so he got "indefinite" games.

That seems like a figurative lynching by the mob.
The NFL is not adhering to its own policy. I agree. That's not a lynching, literally or figuratively.

 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
Right, because that's exactly what he did.

For the umpteenth time I agree that what Peterson did was wrong but people need to stop sensationalizing everything.
Are you saying he didn't do that? You know he admitted it, right?
He admitted to catching him on the nuts one time because he didnt realize the tail end of the switch was wrapping around the child's legs.

Your post, and others, suggest that he intentionally hit his kid directly in his scrotum. Someone in this thread or one of the others even went as far as to basically suggest he's a pedophile.

It's sensationalizing to portray things in the most negative light possible.
So you now admit that's exactly what he did? Good.

Maybe you care that he claims it was an accident. I think you're missing the point. If a whipping puts a four year old's genitals in danger, that's the problem -- not whether he injured them this time, or the next time, or 15 times from now.

The problem is that the kid's scrotum was even in jeopardy. The problem is that Peterson didn't realize, after hitting the kid 10 or 15 times, that the switch was wrapping around the child's legs. How did he not know? Was he watching television? Texting a friend? How do you not see what the hits are doing as you're hitting?

This is negative. No special light is necessary.
No, that's not exactly what he did and I'm not missing any point.

I said repeatedly what he did was wrong. But to further sensationalize and mischaracterize what happened in order to feed the mob mentality is wrong. And I'm going to continue pointing that out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
The last one knocked his wife out, or have you forgotten that already?
No. What's your point?
The lynchings are not confined to players using a switch on their children. The lynchings are done whenever rich white people decide to get indignant.
You think Ray Rice was lynched? How?
The league knew what happened and gave him two games.

Their changed the code of conduct after there was public outcry to give similar incidents 6 games.

There was more public outcry after the video tape was released so he got "indefinite" games.

That seems like a figurative lynching by the mob.
The NFL is not adhering to its own policy. I agree. That's not a lynching, literally or figuratively.
I think we're arguing about semantics, but how is ignoring the rules to appease the angry public so their can get their pound of flesh not a figurate lynching?

(Obivously this isn't a literal lynching... no rope... no tree.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm just waiting for the lawsuit angle from Peterson's side....Too many helmet to helmet hits have clouded his judgement and was unable to function as a responsible parent. Rage has taken over his non-football life and therefore rendered him unfit for certian family situations.

 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
The last one knocked his wife out, or have you forgotten that already?
No. What's your point?
The lynchings are not confined to players using a switch on their children. The lynchings are done whenever rich white people decide to get indignant.
You think Ray Rice was lynched? How?
The league knew what happened and gave him two games.

Their changed the code of conduct after there was public outcry to give similar incidents 6 games.

There was more public outcry after the video tape was released so he got "indefinite" games.

That seems like a figurative lynching by the mob.
The NFL is not adhering to its own policy. I agree. That's not a lynching, literally or figuratively.
I think we're arguing about semantics, but how is ignoring the rules to appease the angry public so their can get their pound of flesh not a figurate lynching?

(Obivously this isn't a literal lynching... no rope... no tree.)
Not to mention that the Vikings knew about these cases and they we're fine with celebrating Peterson and his achievements. Once the lynch mob started banging on the door they held back for a day but then they gave him up to the mob to save their own tails.

 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
Right, because that's exactly what he did.

For the umpteenth time I agree that what Peterson did was wrong but people need to stop sensationalizing everything.
Are you saying he didn't do that? You know he admitted it, right?
He admitted to catching him on the nuts one time because he didnt realize the tail end of the switch was wrapping around the child's legs.

Your post, and others, suggest that he intentionally hit his kid directly in his scrotum. Someone in this thread or one of the others even went as far as to basically suggest he's a pedophile.

It's sensationalizing to portray things in the most negative light possible.
So you now admit that's exactly what he did? Good.

Maybe you care that he claims it was an accident. I think you're missing the point. If a whipping puts a four year old's genitals in danger, that's the problem -- not whether he injured them this time, or the next time, or 15 times from now.

The problem is that the kid's scrotum was even in jeopardy. The problem is that Peterson didn't realize, after hitting the kid 10 or 15 times, that the switch was wrapping around the child's legs. How did he not know? Was he watching television? Texting a friend? How do you not see what the hits are doing as you're hitting?

This is negative. No special light is necessary.
No, that's not exactly what he did and I'm not missing any point.

I said repeatedly what he did was wrong. But to further sensationalize and mischaracterize what happened in order to feed the mob mentality is wrong. And I'm going to continue pointing that out.
He took a switch to a four year old's scrotum. That's exactly what he did. He admitted it. You can mitigate it by saying he did it on accident. But he still did it. It happened.

It's not sensationalized nor is it mischaracterized. Whether he meant to do it or not, his brand of "discipline" puts a young child's genitals in danger. That's how rough his discipline is on a four year old. And I will continue to point that out, no matter how many people try to claim it's "mischaracterized."

 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
The last one knocked his wife out, or have you forgotten that already?
No. What's your point?
The lynchings are not confined to players using a switch on their children. The lynchings are done whenever rich white people decide to get indignant.
You think Ray Rice was lynched? How?
The league knew what happened and gave him two games.

Their changed the code of conduct after there was public outcry to give similar incidents 6 games.

There was more public outcry after the video tape was released so he got "indefinite" games.

That seems like a figurative lynching by the mob.
The NFL is not adhering to its own policy. I agree. That's not a lynching, literally or figuratively.
I think we're arguing about semantics, but how is ignoring the rules to appease the angry public so their can get their pound of flesh not a figurate lynching?

(Obivously this isn't a literal lynching... no rope... no tree.)
The only figurative "lynching" comes from the NFL being hypocritical and not following a policy they just put in place. The public is naturally disgusted and appalled by what they saw on the elevator video. That's not a mob.

Blame the league for not suspending him for six games per their own rules. But he should have been suspended and the public should be disgusted.

 
Probably is time to move this to the FFA and since I don't venture there I'll offer a few last thoughts on the situation.

What Adrian Peterson did was wrong. But as wrong as I think he was I am not going to demonize him. I take him at his word that it was a misguided attempt to discipline his child. Moving forward I hope that he learns from this and completely eliminates switches and belts from his discipline practices. But I don't think punitive measures--to the length that most here advocate--- solve any problems or help anybody in this case. I disagree with the Vikings decision to place him on the exempt list as well as the pandering and grandstanding from politicians and business executives though I certainly understand why they arrived at their decisions.

Many have talked about how culture relates to this situation. Some have suggested it as an excuse for Peterson's behavior while most have dismissed it entirely. I have to agree with many of the thought provoking points made by chinwildman, avery, and others in this thread. Adrian Peterson grew up with this sort of discipline as a child. As parents many of us revert back to things that our parents did--whether our parents were saints or not--- and other things that we observed or experienced while growing up. I think he genuinely believes that by instilling discipline in his children he is helping them as a parent and the fact that he does not live with all of his kids maybe even factors in his going overboard with discipline during the time he does spend with them. However misguided and poorly executed his actual practice of discipline may be, I truly believe that his heart is in the right place. And the fact of the matter is that there are sub-cultures, particularly among more rural black families in the south where "whoopin" kids as an act of discipline is common place. This is the culture that Peterson was raised in and what he believes instilled certain things in him that have enabled him to achieve what he has as an athlete. So again, culture is not an excuse for his behavior but it does help explain it and put it in context for me.

Others have dismissed culture entirely as part of this equation. They've compared it to slavery or segregation or discrimination against women and others. But the thing is, I was raised in the suburbs outside of Richmond, VA where throughout my time in school I was taught that people like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson---who went to war in large part to protect the right to enslave people who look like me---were some of the greatest men who ever lived. Culture and the times in which they lived are indeed used to excuse deplorable behavior for many of the founding fathers of this country. It's why Andrew Jackson is on the $20 bill despite leading some of the greatest atrocities in the history of this country. It's why there is a street in my hometown lined with statutes and monuments of Confederate leaders--the same street where controversy erupted less than 20 years ago when city officials dared to place a statue of Aurther Ashe there.

So why is it that culture is an excuse for the abhorrent behaviors of some but not for others? It's because we are socialized to accept or forgive the cultural transgressions of the dominant group and to chastise, ridicule, and punish those of the non-dominant groups. That's what makes it so easy and convenient to call him a P.O.S. and dehumanize him and jump to the worst possible assumptions or characterizations of everything related to this situation.

Adrian Peterson was obviously wrong here. But I refuse to sit by idly and watch the mob mentality demonize and dehumanize the man. He's a man. An imperfect man like the rest of us who is suffering from the consequences of his actions. My hope is that he makes amends with his children and works earnestly to become a better father, husband, and man as he declared in his statement. I hope that the legal process in Texas does deliver justice and that his kids, his family, and he himself end up the better for it. And I do sincerely hope that people who practice physical discipline of their children will re-examine that decision and switches probably no longer have a place in today's society. But I don't think Peterson needs to lose so much that he's worked for to prove that point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatness said:
The sponsors listened to the public (their customers). The league listened to the sponsors.
This is the key. Make no mistake, the almighty dollar, not morals or ethics, is what moved the needle here.

America's a consumerist culture, what are u gonna do? :shrug:

 
KellysHeroes said:
who are we lynching next?
Whoever takes a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
The last one knocked his wife out, or have you forgotten that already?
No. What's your point?
The lynchings are not confined to players using a switch on their children. The lynchings are done whenever rich white people decide to get indignant.
You think Ray Rice was lynched? How?
The league knew what happened and gave him two games.

Their changed the code of conduct after there was public outcry to give similar incidents 6 games.

There was more public outcry after the video tape was released so he got "indefinite" games.

That seems like a figurative lynching by the mob.
The NFL is not adhering to its own policy. I agree. That's not a lynching, literally or figuratively.
English isn't your first language, is it?

 
Probably is time to move this to the FFA and since I don't venture there I'll offer a few last thoughts on the situation.

What Adrian Peterson did was wrong. But as wrong as I think he was I am not going to demonize him. I take him at his word that it was a misguided attempt to discipline his child. Moving forward I hope that he learns from this and completely eliminates switches and belts from his discipline practices. But I don't think punitive measures--to the length that most here advocate--- solve any problems or help anybody in this case. I disagree with the Vikings decision to place him on the exempt list as well as the pandering and grandstanding from politicians and business executives though I certainly understand why they arrived at their decisions.

Many have talked about how culture relates to this situation. Some have suggested it as an excuse for Peterson's behavior while most have dismissed it entirely. I have to agree with many of the thought provoking points made by chinwildman, avery, and others in this thread. Adrian Peterson grew up with this sort of discipline as a child. As parents many of us revert back to things that our parents did--whether our parents were saints or not--- and other things that we observed or experienced while growing up. I think he genuinely believes that by instilling discipline in his children he is helping them as a parent and the fact that he does not live with all of his kids maybe even factors in his going overboard with discipline during the time he does spend with them. However misguided and poorly executed his actual practice of discipline may be, I truly believe that his heart is in the right place. And the fact of the matter is that there are sub-cultures, particularly among more rural black families in the south where "whoopin" kids as an act of discipline is common place. This is the culture that Peterson was raised in and what he believes instilled certain things in him that have enabled him to achieve what he has as an athlete. So again, culture is not an excuse for his behavior but it does help explain it and put it in context for me.

Others have dismissed culture entirely as part of this equation. They've compared it to slavery or segregation or discrimination against women and others. But the thing is, I was raised in the suburbs outside of Richmond, VA where throughout my time in school I was taught that people like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson---who went to war in large part to protect the right to enslave people who look like me---were some of the greatest men who ever lived. Culture and the times in which they lived are indeed used to excuse deplorable behavior for many of the founding fathers of this country. It's why Andrew Jackson is on the $20 bill despite leading some of the greatest atrocities in the history of this country. It's why there is a street in my hometown lined with statutes and monuments of Confederate leaders--the same street where controversy erupted less than 20 years ago when city officials dared to place a statue of Aurther Ashe there.

So why is it that culture is an excuse for the abhorrent behaviors of some but not for others? It's because we are socialized to accept or forgive the cultural transgressions of the dominant group and to chastise, ridicule, and punish those of the non-dominant groups. That's what makes it so easy and convenient to call him a P.O.S. and dehumanize him and jump to the worst possible assumptions or characterizations of everything related to this situation.

Adrian Peterson was obviously wrong here. But I refuse to sit by idly and watch the mob mentality demonize and dehumanize the man. He's a man. An imperfect man like the rest of us who is suffering from the consequences of his actions. My hope is that he makes amends with his children and works earnestly to become a better father, husband, and man as he declared in his statement. I hope that the legal process in Texas does deliver justice and that his kids, his family, and he himself end up the better for it. And I do sincerely hope that people who practice physical discipline of their children will re-examine that decision and switches probably no longer have a place in today's society. But I don't think Peterson needs to lose so much that he's worked for to prove that point.
awesome, awesome post

 
Probably is time to move this to the FFA and since I don't venture there I'll offer a few last thoughts on the situation.

What Adrian Peterson did was wrong. But as wrong as I think he was I am not going to demonize him. I take him at his word that it was a misguided attempt to discipline his child. Moving forward I hope that he learns from this and completely eliminates switches and belts from his discipline practices. But I don't think punitive measures--to the length that most here advocate--- solve any problems or help anybody in this case. I disagree with the Vikings decision to place him on the exempt list as well as the pandering and grandstanding from politicians and business executives though I certainly understand why they arrived at their decisions.

Many have talked about how culture relates to this situation. Some have suggested it as an excuse for Peterson's behavior while most have dismissed it entirely. I have to agree with many of the thought provoking points made by chinwildman, avery, and others in this thread. Adrian Peterson grew up with this sort of discipline as a child. As parents many of us revert back to things that our parents did--whether our parents were saints or not--- and other things that we observed or experienced while growing up. I think he genuinely believes that by instilling discipline in his children he is helping them as a parent and the fact that he does not live with all of his kids maybe even factors in his going overboard with discipline during the time he does spend with them. However misguided and poorly executed his actual practice of discipline may be, I truly believe that his heart is in the right place. And the fact of the matter is that there are sub-cultures, particularly among more rural black families in the south where "whoopin" kids as an act of discipline is common place. This is the culture that Peterson was raised in and what he believes instilled certain things in him that have enabled him to achieve what he has as an athlete. So again, culture is not an excuse for his behavior but it does help explain it and put it in context for me.

Others have dismissed culture entirely as part of this equation. They've compared it to slavery or segregation or discrimination against women and others. But the thing is, I was raised in the suburbs outside of Richmond, VA where throughout my time in school I was taught that people like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson---who went to war in large part to protect the right to enslave people who look like me---were some of the greatest men who ever lived. Culture and the times in which they lived are indeed used to excuse deplorable behavior for many of the founding fathers of this country. It's why Andrew Jackson is on the $20 bill despite leading some of the greatest atrocities in the history of this country. It's why there is a street in my hometown lined with statutes and monuments of Confederate leaders--the same street where controversy erupted less than 20 years ago when city officials dared to place a statue of Aurther Ashe there.

So why is it that culture is an excuse for the abhorrent behaviors of some but not for others? It's because we are socialized to accept or forgive the cultural transgressions of the dominant group and to chastise, ridicule, and punish those of the non-dominant groups. That's what makes it so easy and convenient to call him a P.O.S. and dehumanize him and jump to the worst possible assumptions or characterizations of everything related to this situation.

Adrian Peterson was obviously wrong here. But I refuse to sit by idly and watch the mob mentality demonize and dehumanize the man. He's a man. An imperfect man like the rest of us who is suffering from the consequences of his actions. My hope is that he makes amends with his children and works earnestly to become a better father, husband, and man as he declared in his statement. I hope that the legal process in Texas does deliver justice and that his kids, his family, and he himself end up the better for it. And I do sincerely hope that people who practice physical discipline of their children will re-examine that decision and switches probably no longer have a place in today's society. But I don't think Peterson needs to lose so much that he's worked for to prove that point.
Culture absolutely plays a role here. But it's an explanation, not an excuse. There is no excuse for abusing children under the guise of discipline, and that message needs to come through loud and clear... not only to Peterson, but especially to the millions of folks following this story.

Hopefully, some cultural change away from the acceptance of this sort of "discipline" will be effected by this ordeal.

I don't think that message gets sent, or that change can happen, if Peterson gets off with the proverbial slap on the wrist. In fact that result would serve to justify this sort of thing, which would make an already horrible situation even worse.

 
He took a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
He took a switch to a four year old's butt. He has not admitted to directly striking the child in the scrotum. HTH.
He has admitted that he hit the kid in "the nuts."
He took a switch to a four year old's butt. He has not admitted to directly striking the child in the scrotum. HTH.
Then why did he feel bad about hitting him there?

 
He took a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
He took a switch to a four year old's butt. He has not admitted to directly striking the child in the scrotum. HTH.
He has admitted that he hit the kid in "the nuts."
He took a switch to a four year old's butt. He has not admitted to directly striking the child in the scrotum. HTH.
Then why did he feel bad about hitting him there?
Cause it was an accident. He felt bad for hitting him there and was not aware (his words) that the switch was wrapping around the kids leg

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He took a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
He took a switch to a four year old's butt. He has not admitted to directly striking the child in the scrotum. HTH.
He has admitted that he hit the kid in "the nuts."
He took a switch to a four year old's butt. He has not admitted to directly striking the child in the scrotum. HTH.
Then why did he feel bad about hitting him there?
I'll take "Questions That Have Nothing to Do with the Topic" for 100 Alex.

 
He took a switch to a four year old's scrotum.
He took a switch to a four year old's butt. He has not admitted to directly striking the child in the scrotum. HTH.
He has admitted that he hit the kid in "the nuts."
He took a switch to a four year old's butt. He has not admitted to directly striking the child in the scrotum. HTH.
Then why did he feel bad about hitting him there?
I'll take "Questions That Have Nothing to Do with the Topic" for 100 Alex.
Ha, he didn't mean to. Yet he did, didn't he. I've learned where you're coming from after your whole dog training exercise.

 
Culture absolutely plays a role here. But it's an explanation, not an excuse. There is no excuse for abusing children under the guise of discipline, and that message needs to come through loud and clear... not only to Peterson, but especially to the millions of folks following this story.

Hopefully, some cultural change away from the acceptance of this sort of "discipline" will be effected by this ordeal.

I don't think that message gets sent, or that change can happen, if Peterson gets off with the proverbial slap on the wrist. In fact that result would serve to justify this sort of thing, which would make an already horrible situation even worse.
Fair response.

I don't think waiting on the legal process though, as the Vikings originally intended to do, justifies anything or makes anything worse. And Peterson is still spending tons of money in legal defense, losing millions more in lost endorsements, and has permanently stained his once highly regarded reputation. I don't think that's a proverbial slap on the wrist and I think he, the Vikings, and the NFL could use the ordeal as a platform to truly educate people on corporal punishment and using better judgement in disciplining young children. I guess they still can to a certain degree but now it just looks like trying to cut their losses solely for the sake of pandering and giving the angry mob it's pound of flesh.

ETA- And what do you think would be the appropriate discipline here?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top