Peterson charged with reckless or negligent injury to a child? (4 Viewers)

[Franknbeans]

The silver lining in both Adrian's and Ray's cases is the light it shines on domestic and child abuse, not only in the NFL community, but also in our society. Sad to say but if it were not for such high profile athletes doing this, these problems would continue to be swept under the carpet. The only way true behavioral change will be enacted is when the spotlight burns bright on these problems and our society rallies to finally, do the right thing.

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

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.

Wait, what? What exactly is being mischaracterized here?

 

[Devine Intervention]

I do understand he took it too far but this witch hunt mentality is getting annoying. The guy was mislead in his attempts at being a good dad. Let him go through the process and get out of his personal business. That is between his family and the courts. I don't get how we as fans find it to be our right to know about their lives as human beings. Its gross. How can a guy do so many WONDERFUL things for his community and charity and we could give two ####s about its but he has a questionable moment where his parenting methods are wrong, and not only do we forget any good he did but we turn this guy into a monster. Everyone of you overreacting, you should be ashamed of yourselves. No, this doesn't mean Im for child abuse, Im more for the idea that people make mistakes and on top of that, it is not our place to be involved in their family affairs.

Also, where do we draw the line on child abuse. You see trashy families who smoke in the house with their children and that has proof that it effects the health of your children. Lazy parents who feed their children Mcdonalds and creating obese children with serious health risks. Where is the witch hunt on parents who endanger their children with their own laziness??? Adrian Peterson used poor parenting, but I would assume he did it because he CARED about what he thought was best for his kid. That is easily fixed by him learning proper parenting skills. Id much rather that than a lazy parent or careless parent who puts their child at a MUCH higher risk by doing things like smoking, proper handling or poor nutrition. But let the lynch mob mentality continue and everyone can sit up on their pedestal and act like they are perfect human beings. Get real

 

[snogger]

The silver lining in both Adrian's and Ray's cases is the light it shines on domestic and child abuse, not only in the NFL community, but also in our society. Sad to say but if it were not for such high profile athletes doing this, these problems would continue to be swept under the carpet. The only way true behavioral change will be enacted is when the spotlight burns bright on these problems and our society rallies to finally, do the right thing.

Wish this was true.. unfortunately it will be quickly forgotten and "swept under the rug" again.. Glaring example was the KC player in 2012 killing his girlfriend and then killing himself.. The light was shown very brightly( heck he shot himself right in front of coaches) and yet it is an after thought now.. :(

 

[matuski]

Every parent in this world has done countless things to their children that could be characterized as "abuse" by others.

Get over it.

 

[Run It Up]

Every parent in this world has done countless things to their children that could be characterized as "abuse" by others.

Get over it.

Excellent commentary.

People do bad things all the time, stop caring that people do bad things.

 

[chinawildman]

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.

Well put.

The 14th amendment allows we, the people, equal protection and rights under the law. That degree of protection is not up to the mob to decide. The human race has been there, done that before. It wasn't pretty, regardless of whether you're throwing real or virtual tomatoes at the accused. That is why we have a constitution in the first place, to provide stability against the potential downfalls of an outright democracy where the mob rules. That is also the reason why the word "democracy" is not mentioned a single time in our constitution. The founding fathers crafted this document with the intention of establishing a republic, and therefore a state that governs based on its laws. The Constitution is not perfect, nor are our ideas of wrong and right, but it's the best thing we've got going.

For Adrian Peterson, public opinion ultimately decided his fate. For me, whether this was the right or wrong decision is of little importance compared to the manner in which it happened. The mob, via its influence on commercial sponsors, won the day. Some may perceive this victory to be at the expense of dollars for the Vikings organization or the NFL. While this may be true, we cannot disregard that it was also at the expense of individual rights, no matter how egregious his acts, and the solidity of the Constitution. Perhaps the "right thing" was done, but at what cost?

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

He indirectly struck the kid in the scrotum? Did the switch hit something that then hit the kid?

 

[fourd]

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.

Well put.

The 14th amendment allows we, the people, equal protection and rights under the law. That degree of protection is not up to the mob to decide. The human race has been there, done that before. It wasn't pretty, regardless of whether you're throwing real or virtual tomatoes at the accused. That is why we have a constitution in the first place, to provide stability against the potential downfalls of an outright democracy where the mob rules. That is also the reason why the word "democracy" is not mentioned a single time in our constitution. The founding fathers crafted this document with the intention of establishing a republic, and therefore a state that governs based on its laws. The Constitution is not perfect, nor are our ideas of wrong and right, but it's the best thing we've got going.

For Adrian Peterson, public opinion ultimately decided his fate. For me, whether this was the right or wrong decision is of little importance compared to the manner in which it happened. The mob, via its influence on commercial sponsors, won the day. Some may perceive this victory to be at the expense of dollars for the Vikings organization or the NFL. While this may be true, we cannot disregard that it was also at the expense of individual rights, no matter how egregious his acts, and the solidity of the Constitution. Perhaps the "right thing" was done, but at what cost?

Where has his fate been decided? And where have his Constitutional rights been trampled?

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

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?

You would agree, wouldn't you, that the two (morals and dollars) are not mutually exclusive?

Besides, the were plenty of people without a profit motive who were outraged by the Viking's reinstatement that wrote the team, state reps, vented on message boards, called in on radio stations, editorialized in the newspaper or tv, etc. .. A lot of folks made it pretty clear how disgusted they were with the Vikings for marginalizing and excusing child abuse in favor of wins and profits.

Yet, now we are outraged by companies who view their reputation and public image to be incompatible with child abuse and join the chorus of dissent, putting their money where their mouths are in asserting that position? Why in all your moral relativity would this upset you?

 

[Run It Up]

For those who are nitpicking.

How much less serious is it that while disciplining his son with a switch he incidentally hit him in the scrotum?

How much less serious is it that while disciplining his son in the car, the kid somehow was injured enough to leave a scar on his face?

I wanna know exactly how dumb this argument is sooner than later.

 

[VaTerp]

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.

Wait, what? What exactly is being mischaracterized here?

If you can't see the difference between Peterson saying he felt bad when he noticed he accidentally caught the kid in the nuts because he didn't realize the tail end of the switch was wrapping around his legs to statements like---

"he beat a bare 4 year old in his scrotum until it was bloody" or "he took a switch to a his four year old's scrotum" which suggest that he intentionally hit the kid directly in his nuts then I view your judgement as only marginally better than Peterson's judgement in his discipline tactics.

If you are spanking a 4 year old from behind with a switch then it would be easy to accidentally catch him on the front side if you didnt realize the switch was wrapping around. A good reason not to spank a 4 year old with a switch? Absolutely. And I've repeatedly said it was wrong.

But it makes you wonder why people feel the need to imply that he intentionally hit the kid directly in the nuts with a stick.

Then again I don't know why I'd expect anything less from the leaders of the lynch mob. No time to put down their pitch forks and discuss the situation honestly. They've got more hysteria and outrage to whip up. Pun intended.

 

[Neofight]

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.

Well put.

The 14th amendment allows we, the people, equal protection and rights under the law. That degree of protection is not up to the mob to decide. The human race has been there, done that before. It wasn't pretty, regardless of whether you're throwing real or virtual tomatoes at the accused. That is why we have a constitution in the first place, to provide stability against the potential downfalls of an outright democracy where the mob rules. That is also the reason why the word "democracy" is not mentioned a single time in our constitution. The founding fathers crafted this document with the intention of establishing a republic, and therefore a state that governs based on its laws. The Constitution is not perfect, nor are our ideas of wrong and right, but it's the best thing we've got going.

For Adrian Peterson, public opinion ultimately decided his fate. For me, whether this was the right or wrong decision is of little importance compared to the manner in which it happened. The mob, via its influence on commercial sponsors, won the day. Some may perceive this victory to be at the expense of dollars for the Vikings organization or the NFL. While this may be true, we cannot disregard that it was also at the expense of individual rights, no matter how egregious his acts, and the solidity of the Constitution. Perhaps the "right thing" was done, but at what cost?

Where has his fate been decided? And where have his Constitutional rights been trampled?

Let him go, this is good stuff...I'm going to go say the pledge and maybe take a stab at the anthem. Wonder what my dogs will think.

 

[chinawildman]

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?

You would agree, wouldn't you, that the two (morals and dollars) are not mutually exclusive?

Besides, the were plenty of people without a profit motive who were outraged by the Viking's reinstatement that wrote the team, state reps, vented on message boards, called in on radio stations, editorialized in the newspaper or tv, etc. .. A lot of folks made it pretty clear how disgusted they were with the Vikings for marginalizing and excusing child abuse in favor of wins and profits.

Yet, now we are outraged by companies who view their reputation and public image to be incompatible with child abuse and join the chorus of dissent, putting their money where their mouths are in asserting that position? Why in all your moral relativity would this upset you?

They're not, you're correct, in fact I would say the money often gravitates toward the moral needle of the public. The entertainment industry is a perfect example of this. Marijuana in pop culture is much more prevalent these days than it ever was in the 80' during the war on drugs.

I suppose it comes down to whether it matters for you whether the companies themselves made a "moral judgment call" or whether they were simply following public sentiment (essentially a financial decision). I choose to believe the latter due to the timing and sequence of events (An exception could possibly made for Radisson, which is a family and privately owned business). So for me they are not putting their money where THEIR mouth is, they're putting their money where OUR mouths are.

Why is this a problem? See my response to VaTerps in the post above yours.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

Well put.

The 14th amendment allows we, the people, equal protection and rights under the law. That degree of protection is not up to the mob to decide. The human race has been there, done that before. It wasn't pretty, regardless of whether you're throwing real or virtual tomatoes at the accused. That is why we have a constitution in the first place, to provide stability against the potential downfalls of an outright democracy where the mob rules. That is also the reason why the word "democracy" is not mentioned a single time in our constitution. The founding fathers crafted this document with the intention of establishing a republic, and therefore a state that governs based on its laws. The Constitution is not perfect, nor are our ideas of wrong and right, but it's the best thing we've got going.

For Adrian Peterson, public opinion ultimately decided his fate. For me, whether this was the right or wrong decision is of little importance compared to the manner in which it happened. The mob, via its influence on commercial sponsors, won the day. Some may perceive this victory to be at the expense of dollars for the Vikings organization or the NFL. While this may be true, we cannot disregard that it was also at the expense of individual rights, no matter how egregious his acts, and the solidity of the Constitution. Perhaps the "right thing" was done, but at what cost?

Melodramatic much? I feel like my head's going to explode if I see one more reference to "the Nth Amendment" in these discussions. Peterson is going to have his day in court. That is a totally separate issue from his employment status, no matter how badly you try to conflate the two.

This is not the end of individual rights and the downfall of America. This is about a corporation deciding that they don't want someone who admitted to beating a child be the face of their organization. Of course that decision was made largely based on public sentiment. The NFL isn't a government, it's a business.

 

[VaTerp]

For those who are nitpicking.

How much less serious is it that while disciplining his son with a switch he hit him in the scrotum?

How much less serious is it that while disciplining his son in the car, the kid somehow was injured enough to leave a scar on his face?

I wanna know exactly how dumb this argument is sooner than later.

Thanks for acknowledging that you're not really interested in having an honest discussion. But I'll play along anyway.

If it were proven that Peterson intentionally hit his kids directly in the nuts with the switch then that would change the situation entirely. If people think there's no difference and that's nitpicking then, frankly, they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

As for the 2nd situation your referring since I wasnt there and don't know what happened I'll trust the judgement of the professionals who investigated the situation. Peterson was cleared of any wrongdoing and the case was closed. People see a blurred out picture of a kid with 2 band aids and read some texts and it's like they were in the car when it happened.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

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.

He indirectly struck the kid in the scrotum? Did the switch hit something that then hit the kid?

speculation on twitter of a second switch

 

[Sabertooth]

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.

It makes very little difference what his intention was. My intention might be to drive my car to the store, but if I run somebody over accidentally, I'm still at fault.

 

[VaTerp]

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.

It makes very little difference what his intention was. My intention might be to drive my car to the store, but if I run somebody over accidentally, I'm still at fault.

So why is Tony Stewart racing this weekend?

 

[dparker713]

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.

Generally, each word in a sentence is included for a reason. HTH.

 

[dparker713]

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.

He indirectly struck the kid in the scrotum? Did the switch hit something that then hit the kid?

The switch hit the kid, before it hit the kid.

 

[fourd]

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.

Generally, each word in a sentence is included for a reason. HTH.

Would the child have been hit in the scrotum if AP wasn't beating his ###? Did AP ever consider that something like that could happen? Did AP also notice he was hitting him in the back and on the thighs? If not, why not? Was he in control at the time? So how reasonable was the punishment?

 

[chinawildman]

Let him go, this is good stuff...I'm going to go say the pledge and maybe take a stab at the anthem. Wonder what my dogs will think.

I know you're just having your fun and there is no offense taken, but allow me to address your glibness...

My father and grandfather were persecuted by the mob during the Cultural Revolution. I grew up in a country where its government massacred its own citizens in its own capital and to this day still deny any of it. So you will understand if I think the Constitution is kinda cool. It appears some of us truly don't appreciate what we have until we go without. I don't presume to know your story or the reason for your cheeky responses. I am curious however, what is it that you hope to achieve with this mockery?

 

[VaTerp]

Would the child have been hit in the scrotum if AP wasn't beating his ###? Did AP ever consider that something like that could happen? Did AP also notice he was hitting him in the back and on the thighs? If not, why not? Was he in control at the time? So how reasonable was the punishment?

It's a good thing there are professionals investigating the case, prosecuting the case, and providing a legal defense to get answers to some of these, and many more, pertinent questions.

But I know it's much more fun to look at illegally leaked evidence and automatically jump to the worst assumptions.

 

[Run It Up]

For those who are nitpicking.

How much less serious is it that while disciplining his son with a switch he hit him in the scrotum?

How much less serious is it that while disciplining his son in the car, the kid somehow was injured enough to leave a scar on his face?

I wanna know exactly how dumb this argument is sooner than later.

Thanks for acknowledging that you're not really interested in having an honest discussion. But I'll play along anyway.

To be clear, the honest discussion took place days ago. This thread should have been moved to the FFA yesterday, its the same people spewing the same crap over and over. We get it, no one is going to change their opinion on either side.

Also, I mistakenly left out "incidentally" from the first example (edited earlier) - I seriously just wanna know how much less serious this is to you guys that it he just happened to hit him in the scrotum, and that the kid just happened to get hurt enough to leave a scar on his face.

 

[Sabertooth]

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.

It makes very little difference what his intention was. My intention might be to drive my car to the store, but if I run somebody over accidentally, I'm still at fault.

So why is Tony Stewart racing this weekend?

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.

It makes very little difference what his intention was. My intention might be to drive my car to the store, but if I run somebody over accidentally, I'm still at fault.

So why is Tony Stewart racing this weekend?

Not sure. I do know that Stewart didn't kill a man because he was killed the same way when he was a kid.

 

[VaTerp]

For those who are nitpicking.

How much less serious is it that while disciplining his son with a switch he hit him in the scrotum?

How much less serious is it that while disciplining his son in the car, the kid somehow was injured enough to leave a scar on his face?

I wanna know exactly how dumb this argument is sooner than later.

Thanks for acknowledging that you're not really interested in having an honest discussion. But I'll play along anyway.

To be clear, the honest discussion took place days ago. This thread should have been moved to the FFA yesterday, its the same people spewing the same crap over and over. We get it, no one is going to change their opinion on either side.

Also, I mistakenly left out "incidentally" from the first example (edited earlier) - I seriously just wanna know how much less serious this is to you guys that it he just happened to hit him in the scrotum, and that the kid just happened to get hurt enough to leave a scar on his face.

I answered the question in the same post you just partially quoted and chose to leave the answer out.

 

[Neofight]

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.

Wait, what? What exactly is being mischaracterized here?

If you can't see the difference between Peterson saying he felt bad when he noticed he accidentally caught the kid in the nuts because he didn't realize the tail end of the switch was wrapping around his legs to statements like---

"he beat a bare 4 year old in his scrotum until it was bloody" or "he took a switch to a his four year old's scrotum" which suggest that he intentionally hit the kid directly in his nuts then I view your judgement as only marginally better than Peterson's judgement in his discipline tactics.

If you are spanking a 4 year old from behind with a switch then it would be easy to accidentally catch him on the front side if you didnt realize the switch was wrapping around. A good reason not to spank a 4 year old with a switch? Absolutely. And I've repeatedly said it was wrong.

But it makes you wonder why people feel the need to imply that he intentionally hit the kid directly in the nuts with a stick.

Then again I don't know why I'd expect anything less from the leaders of the lynch mob. No time to put down their pitch forks and discuss the situation honestly. They've got more hysteria and outrage to whip up. Pun intended.

There's hysteria and hyperbole on both sides of this argument, and you are guilty of some in that last paragraph. The reaction of the average Joe and Jill public to those pictures was perfectly natural and wasn't about money, demonization of Peterson or being out for blood, a lynching, a pound of flesh or a pounding of Peterson himself; some were just genuinely horrified (more than a few individuals I know were in tears). Now that Peterson gets a paid leave of absence we are seeing the equal but opposite reaction. Some of it is thoughtful, some intelligent, some completely over the top. To be expected.

I can see why you have a problem with people saying Peterson hit his son in the scrotum on purpose, but I'm not sure many people are really claiming this is true. Most are just pointing out that, regardless of intent, that's pretty ####### deplorable. And it is.

What I find interesting is that the same people up in arms over others pointing this out-and supposedly demonizing Adrian Peterson by doing so-are, by and large, the same group claiming to know his intent. I have no idea what was in Peterson's heart or in his head during the moments he was administering those switch lashings to his kids; he may have been crying, he may have been yelling, he may have been completely dissociated from the actual act. He may have been singing gospel and doing Gods work in his mind. It's possible he was laughing. Maybe he thought his kid just needed a good whooping. I just don't know.

So my question to you and other anti-demonizers is simply this: how do you know? Benefit of the doubt is one thing, but knowing what's in a mans heart is another entirely. I am talking about this in the sense of the public outrage to the photos and the backlash rage about the public judgement of Peterson based on those photos and his admission. We can agree to let the courts decide (if it comes to that, and I agree it's not likely) about the test of intention (he doesn't come close to passing that in my mind).

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

But I know it's much more fun to look at illegally leaked evidence and automatically jump to the worst assumptions.

It's also fun to invoke phrases like "illegally leaked evidence" as if that changes anything at all. You complain about people sensationalizing and mischaracterizing things, yet here you are again doing the same exact thing.

What are the "worst assumptions" people are jumping to? Peterson beat a little boy with a switch. He admitted it and we've seen the photos. Are there some better assumptions we could make about what happened? Maybe, despite his admission, he really just dropped the switch on the ground by accident and it bounced up and hit the kid 15 times?

 

[chinawildman]

Melodramatic much? I feel like my head's going to explode if I see one more reference to "the Nth Amendment" in these discussions. Peterson is going to have his day in court. That is a totally separate issue from his employment status, no matter how badly you try to conflate the two.This is not the end of individual rights and the downfall of America. This is about a corporation deciding that they don't want someone who admitted to beating a child be the face of their organization. Of course that decision was made largely based on public sentiment. The NFL isn't a government, it's a business.

If you keep seeing references to constitutional amendments, then maybe consider that is actually some sentiment that express concern with that issue. Public sentiment is what it is, whether you agree with it or not.

I don't have to try and conflate anything because the simple fact is: Public opinion ultimately decided whether a man was going into work today. If you set aside due process, there is still the subject of labor and employment law, which happens to be one of the larger branches of the legal field.

Call me melodramatic if you'd like. While you prefer to see things for what they are, I like to see things for what they could be. Neither is better than the other, just different.

 

[Gustavo Fring]

For those who are nitpicking.

How much less serious is it that while disciplining his son with a switch he hit him in the scrotum?

How much less serious is it that while disciplining his son in the car, the kid somehow was injured enough to leave a scar on his face?

I wanna know exactly how dumb this argument is sooner than later.

Thanks for acknowledging that you're not really interested in having an honest discussion. But I'll play along anyway.

To be clear, the honest discussion took place days ago. This thread should have been moved to the FFA yesterday, its the same people spewing the same crap over and over. We get it, no one is going to change their opinion on either side.

Also, I mistakenly left out "incidentally" from the first example (edited earlier) - I seriously just wanna know how much less serious this is to you guys that it he just happened to hit him in the scrotum, and that the kid just happened to get hurt enough to leave a scar on his face.

Agreed - this needs to be moved to the FFA. I thought the Shark Pool was for fantasy news/advice?

To be honest, all I care about is whether Adrian Peterson suits up on Sunday's or not for fantasy purposes...not that I support child abuse in any way, but I come here for fantasy information. All the other stuff belongs in a different forum, imo.

 

[Run It Up]

Also, I mistakenly left out "incidentally" from the first example (edited earlier) - I seriously just wanna know how much less serious this is to you guys that it he just happened to hit him in the scrotum, and that the kid just happened to get hurt enough to leave a scar on his face.

I answered the question in the same post you just partially quoted and chose to leave the answer out.

Except you didn't.

If it were proven that Peterson intentionally hit his kids directly in the nuts with the switch then that would change the situation entirely. If people think there's no difference and that's nitpicking then, frankly, they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

As for the 2nd situation your referring since I wasnt there and don't know what happened I'll trust the judgement of the professionals who investigated the situation. Peterson was cleared of any wrongdoing and the case was closed. People see a blurred out picture of a kid with 2 band aids and read some texts and it's like they were in the car when it happened.

 

[Neofight]

Let him go, this is good stuff...

I'm going to go say the pledge and maybe take a stab at the anthem. Wonder what my dogs will think.

I know you're just having your fun and there is no offense taken, but allow me to address your glibness...

My father and grandfather were persecuted by the mob during the Cultural Revolution. I grew up in a country where its government massacred its own citizens in its own capital and to this day still deny any of it. So you will understand if I think the Constitution is kinda cool. It appears some of us truly don't appreciate what we have until we go without. I don't presume to know your story or the reason for your cheeky responses. I am curious however, what is it that you hope to achieve with this mockery?

To gain an understanding of why you are so over the top and seem to harp on aspects of this story, even when that aspect might not seem applicable to the discussion at hand. I find humor is often a useful conversation tactic. No offense intended (but then you already knew that).

Thanks for the candid response. I'm sure it sheds a lot of light on where you're coming from for more posters than just myself (is that too optimistic?).

 

[chinawildman]

But I know it's much more fun to look at illegally leaked evidence and automatically jump to the worst assumptions.

It's also fun to invoke phrases like "illegally leaked evidence" as if that changes anything at all. You complain about people sensationalizing and mischaracterizing things, yet here you are again doing the same exact thing.

What are the "worst assumptions" people are jumping to? Peterson beat a little boy with a switch. He admitted it and we've seen the photos. Are there some better assumptions we could make about what happened? Maybe, despite his admission, he really just dropped the switch on the ground by accident and it bounced up and hit the kid 15 times?

Texas Rangers investigate leak of Adrian Peterson police file

It is just that, I don't see how he's exaggerating anything.

And the reason it's relevant is because Peterson can likely bring a countersuit for right of privacy violations against the state. This will give them a bargaining chip in the criminal proceedings.

 

[chinawildman]

Let him go, this is good stuff...

I'm going to go say the pledge and maybe take a stab at the anthem. Wonder what my dogs will think.

I know you're just having your fun and there is no offense taken, but allow me to address your glibness...

My father and grandfather were persecuted by the mob during the Cultural Revolution. I grew up in a country where its government massacred its own citizens in its own capital and to this day still deny any of it. So you will understand if I think the Constitution is kinda cool. It appears some of us truly don't appreciate what we have until we go without. I don't presume to know your story or the reason for your cheeky responses. I am curious however, what is it that you hope to achieve with this mockery?

To gain an understanding of why you are so over the top and seem to harp on aspects of this story, even when that aspect might not seem applicable to the discussion at hand.I find humor is often a useful conversation tactic. No offense intended (but then you already knew that).

Thanks for the candid response. I'm sure it sheds a lot of light on where you're coming from for more posters than just myself (is that too optimistic?).

Fair enough. I actually would prefer this be moved to FFA as well especially considering there are like 5 more AP threads out there and this one has more or less turned into a political science vs. morality argument.

 

[VaTerp]

But I know it's much more fun to look at illegally leaked evidence and automatically jump to the worst assumptions.

It's also fun to invoke phrases like "illegally leaked evidence" as if that changes anything at all. You complain about people sensationalizing and mischaracterizing things, yet here you are again doing the same exact thing.

What are the "worst assumptions" people are jumping to? Peterson beat a little boy with a switch. He admitted it and we've seen the photos. Are there some better assumptions we could make about what happened? Maybe, despite his admission, he really just dropped the switch on the ground by accident and it bounced up and hit the kid 15 times?

Please tell me what I'm sensationalizing. Illegaly leaked is not a fun phrase to use, it's the words of the district attorney in the case.

it's relevant here for several reasons. The unlawful release of evidence damages the prospects of a fair trial as well as the privacy of the victims in the case. There's a reason those laws are in place. I mean we might as well have trials like American Idol now where all evidence is put on TMZ or a half hour show and then people text into vote guilty or not guilty.

And the worst assumptions that people are jumping to are clear. The heavily quoted hit him in the scrotum exchange being a prime example.

 

[VaTerp]

Also, I mistakenly left out "incidentally" from the first example (edited earlier) - I seriously just wanna know how much less serious this is to you guys that it he just happened to hit him in the scrotum, and that the kid just happened to get hurt enough to leave a scar on his face.

I answered the question in the same post you just partially quoted and chose to leave the answer out.

Except you didn't.

If it were proven that Peterson intentionally hit his kids directly in the nuts with the switch then that would change the situation entirely. If people think there's no difference and that's nitpicking then, frankly, they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

As for the 2nd situation your referring since I wasnt there and don't know what happened I'll trust the judgement of the professionals who investigated the situation. Peterson was cleared of any wrongdoing and the case was closed. People see a blurred out picture of a kid with 2 band aids and read some texts and it's like they were in the car when it happened.

You asked how much less serious it was and I replied that it changed the situation entirely if he intentionally hit him directly in the nuts.

Sorry it's not quite the answer you're looking for but I answered the question.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If you keep seeing references to constitutional amendments, then maybe consider that is actually some degree of sentiment that are concerned with that issue. Public sentiment is what it is, whether you agree with it or not.

For one, I keep seeing it from the same three people or so, so I'm not sure how representative it is. And as I'm sure you would agree, sometimes public sentiment is wrong. Lots of people might think Peterson's employment status is a Constitutional issue. That doesn't mean it is.

I don't have to try and conflate anything because the simple fact is: Public opinion ultimately decided whether a man was going into work today.

No, his employers decided that. Their decision, of course, was largely based on public sentiment because they are in the entertainment business and Peterson was one of their most prominent employees. He's a public figure, and he admitted to beating a child with a stick. It shouldn't be surprising that his employers no longer want him representing their brand when his actions outraged a large percentage of their customers.

If you set aside due process, there is still the subject of labor and employment law, which happens to be one of the larger branches of the legal field.

If deactivating Peterson somehow violated his rights as an employee of the NFL, he'll sue. I'm sure the league and the Vikings considered those issues when they made their decision.

Call me melodramatic if you'd like. While you prefer to see things for what they are, I like to see things for what they could be. Neither is better than the other, just different.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. I like to see things for what they are and what they could be. I like to think this incident has raised public awareness about proper parenting, so maybe fewer kids get beat with sticks by the people who are supposed to be caring for them. I think the NFL, while not at all obligated to be the morality police, is uniquely positioned to be an agent of change in these areas.

Maybe the poor Southerner who whips his kids just like his dad did and his granddad did didn't go to college, doesn't read a lot of books, doesn't associate with people who find this treatment abhorrent, etc. But maybe he tunes in on Sundays to watch football. Maybe the world could be a better place precisely by having an organization like the NFL take a strong stand against this form of discipline.

 

[njherdfan]

Melodramatic much? I feel like my head's going to explode if I see one more reference to "the Nth Amendment" in these discussions. Peterson is going to have his day in court. That is a totally separate issue from his employment status, no matter how badly you try to conflate the two.This is not the end of individual rights and the downfall of America. This is about a corporation deciding that they don't want someone who admitted to beating a child be the face of their organization. Of course that decision was made largely based on public sentiment. The NFL isn't a government, it's a business.

If you keep seeing references to constitutional amendments, then maybe consider that is actually some sentiment that express concern with that issue. Public sentiment is what it is, whether you agree with it or not.

I don't have to try and conflate anything because the simple fact is: Public opinion ultimately decided whether a man was going into work today. If you set aside due process, there is still the subject of labor and employment law, which happens to be one of the larger branches of the legal field.

Call me melodramatic if you'd like. While you prefer to see things for what they are, I like to see things for what they could be. Neither is better than the other, just different.

But what's your point? Public sentiment also made that company fire its CEO that was seen beating the crap out of a dog. There are some things the Constitution addresses, and there are many, many more things it doesn't address. If Adrian Peterson was thrown in jail without a trial, then there would be a Constitutional issue, but consistently repeating the words "DUE PROCESS" is as silly as saying a kid's First Amendment rights are being violated when his parents make him go to church.

 

[Neofight]

Let him go, this is good stuff...

I'm going to go say the pledge and maybe take a stab at the anthem. Wonder what my dogs will think.

I know you're just having your fun and there is no offense taken, but allow me to address your glibness...

My father and grandfather were persecuted by the mob during the Cultural Revolution. I grew up in a country where its government massacred its own citizens in its own capital and to this day still deny any of it. So you will understand if I think the Constitution is kinda cool. It appears some of us truly don't appreciate what we have until we go without. I don't presume to know your story or the reason for your cheeky responses. I am curious however, what is it that you hope to achieve with this mockery?

To gain an understanding of why you are so over the top and seem to harp on aspects of this story, even when that aspect might not seem applicable to the discussion at hand.I find humor is often a useful conversation tactic. No offense intended (but then you already knew that).

Thanks for the candid response. I'm sure it sheds a lot of light on where you're coming from for more posters than just myself (is that too optimistic?).

Fair enough. I actually would prefer this be moved to FFA as well especially considering there are like 5 more AP threads out there and this one has more or less turned into a political science vs. morality argument.

Yeah, it's not about football at this point.

 

[VaTerp]

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.

It makes very little difference what his intention was. My intention might be to drive my car to the store, but if I run somebody over accidentally, I'm still at fault.

Good grief- I told myself I would not do this today but I've again wasted entirely too much time in this thread. I need to do some actual work in the office but I would REALLY like an answer to this question, Sabertooth or someone else.

If intent makes very little difference and we are going to go with driving your car as an example then WHY THE HELL IS TONY STEWART RACING THIS WEEKEND???

 

[chinawildman]

Where has his fate been decided? And where have his Constitutional rights been trampled?

I won't really get into it, but labor & employment laws are based on many tenets of the constitution and bill of rights... one of which being the pursuit of happiness. Yep time to move this puppy into FFA...

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

But I know it's much more fun to look at illegally leaked evidence and automatically jump to the worst assumptions.

It's also fun to invoke phrases like "illegally leaked evidence" as if that changes anything at all. You complain about people sensationalizing and mischaracterizing things, yet here you are again doing the same exact thing.What are the "worst assumptions" people are jumping to? Peterson beat a little boy with a switch. He admitted it and we've seen the photos. Are there some better assumptions we could make about what happened? Maybe, despite his admission, he really just dropped the switch on the ground by accident and it bounced up and hit the kid 15 times?

Texas Rangers investigate leak of Adrian Peterson police file

It is just that, I don't see how he's exaggerating anything.

I didn't say he was exaggerating. He's using the phrase "illegally leaked photos" because that phrasing implies that they're somehow less legitimate because of the way they were brought to our attention. We had this discussion, remember? They're not "facts," they're facts. Referring to the photos as "illegally leaked" is an irrelevant red herring in that context. The photos still display abuse, regardless of how we got our hands on them.

And the reason it's relevant is because Peterson can likely bring a countersuit for right of privacy violations against the state. This will give them a bargaining chip in the criminal proceedings.

That's relevant to Peterson and his lawyers. It's totally irrelevant in the context of the discussion about what he did to the child.

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

He indirectly struck the kid in the scrotum? Did the switch hit something that then hit the kid?

The switch hit the kid, before it hit the kid.

I guess you're using a different meaning of "directly" than I am. The object that Peterson swung came directly into contact with the genitals of a four year old. We can agree on that, right?

 

[VaTerp]

But I know it's much more fun to look at illegally leaked evidence and automatically jump to the worst assumptions.

It's also fun to invoke phrases like "illegally leaked evidence" as if that changes anything at all. You complain about people sensationalizing and mischaracterizing things, yet here you are again doing the same exact thing.What are the "worst assumptions" people are jumping to? Peterson beat a little boy with a switch. He admitted it and we've seen the photos. Are there some better assumptions we could make about what happened? Maybe, despite his admission, he really just dropped the switch on the ground by accident and it bounced up and hit the kid 15 times?

Texas Rangers investigate leak of Adrian Peterson police file

It is just that, I don't see how he's exaggerating anything.

I didn't say he was exaggerating. He's using the phrase "illegally leaked photos" because that phrasing implies that they're somehow less legitimate because of the way they were brought to our attention. We had this discussion, remember? They're not "facts," they're facts. Referring to the photos as "illegally leaked" is an irrelevant red herring in that context. The photos still display abuse, regardless of how we got our hands on them.

And the reason it's relevant is because Peterson can likely bring a countersuit for right of privacy violations against the state. This will give them a bargaining chip in the criminal proceedings.

That's relevant to Peterson and his lawyers. It's totally irrelevant in the context of the discussion about what he did to the child.

No, I'm using the phrase illegally leaked because that, is in fact, what they are and how they were referenced by the D.A.

And one of the reasons it matters is that evidence needs to be viewed in it's entirety. I don't argue that the images aren't graphic and ample evidence that Peterson acted irresponsibly. But the images need to be examined in FULL. Along with the FULL testimony of the doctors, the child, the mother, Adrian Peterson himself and all of the other evidence before a final judgement is made and the extent to which Mr. Peterson's actions were wrong and understanding fully what happened with him and his son.

You are free to form your own conclusions based on what has been made available. But that is not the full scope of the evidence and the public is not supposed to have any of the evidence at this time any way and for good reason.

 

[fourd]

Where has his fate been decided? And where have his Constitutional rights been trampled?

I won't really get into it, but labor & employment laws are based on many tenets of the constitution and bill of rights... one of which being the pursuit of happiness. Yep time to move this puppy into FFA...

Of course you won't, since there's nothing to get into. What labor or employment laws have been violated here? None.

 

[VaTerp]

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.

It makes very little difference what his intention was. My intention might be to drive my car to the store, but if I run somebody over accidentally, I'm still at fault.

So why is Tony Stewart racing this weekend?

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.

It makes very little difference what his intention was. My intention might be to drive my car to the store, but if I run somebody over accidentally, I'm still at fault.

So why is Tony Stewart racing this weekend?

Not sure. I do know that Stewart didn't kill a man because he was killed the same way when he was a kid.

And I know that Adrian Peterson didn't kill anybody and Tony Stewart did. Good point.

 

[chinawildman]

But what's your point? Public sentiment also made that company fire its CEO that was seen beating the crap out of a dog. There are some things the Constitution addresses, and there are many, many more things it doesn't address. If Adrian Peterson was thrown in jail without a trial, then there would be a Constitutional issue, but consistently repeating the words "DUE PROCESS" is as silly as saying a kid's First Amendment rights are being violated when his parents make him go to church.

That is a gross misunderstanding and oversimplification of laws in our country.

As stated in the 5th and 14th amendments: "[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

One could easily argue that Peterson has been deprived of the liberty of pursuing his career and passion of playing football. While no attorney will likely argue that directly, there are labor and employment laws based on the 4th and 15th amendments to protect individuals from undue persecution and discrimination in the work place.

If public sentiment were able to dictate who plays or who doesn't, then Jackie Robinson would have never picked up a bat for the Dodgers.

 

[chinawildman]

Of course you won't, since there's nothing to get into. What labor or employment laws have been violated here? None.

You've gotten really good at answering your own questions. Even an attorney cannot precisely answer that question give a few days, yet you've managed to crack the code in a matter of minutes. Genius. When when this gets moved to FFA, the casual trolls will disperse.

 

[njherdfan]

But what's your point? Public sentiment also made that company fire its CEO that was seen beating the crap out of a dog. There are some things the Constitution addresses, and there are many, many more things it doesn't address. If Adrian Peterson was thrown in jail without a trial, then there would be a Constitutional issue, but consistently repeating the words "DUE PROCESS" is as silly as saying a kid's First Amendment rights are being violated when his parents make him go to church.

That is a gross misunderstanding and oversimplification of laws in our country.

As stated in the 5th and 14th amendments: "[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

One could easily argue that Peterson has been deprived of the liberty of pursuing his career and passion of playing football. While no attorney will likely argue that directly, there are labor and employment laws based on the 4th and 15th amendments to protect individuals from undue persecution and discrimination in the work place.

If public sentiment were able to dictate who plays or who doesn't, then Jackie Robinson would have never picked up a bat for the Dodgers.

No attorney will argue that directly because it's an absurd argument. There are labor and employment laws; had the Vikings broken any of them, then don't you think that would be something Peterson's attorneys would have pointed out?

If you're being serious with your argument, please tell me this: when the Vikings released A.J. Jefferson three hours after he was arrested for domestic violence, were Jefferson's due process rights violated? Why or why not?