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

[KellysHeroes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

As long as Ray Rice and Peterson are out of the news the NFL is happy... mean while people are running right by the Secret Service into the White House with a knife and nobody cares...

 

[cstu]

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

Well I see the literal police have arrived.

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

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

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

Peterson is going to challenge two things in court:

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

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

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

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

I posted this before:

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

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

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

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

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

Reckless - I don't consider what he did to be reckless since he knew it was possible to use a switch without seriously injuring a child. For it to be reckless it would mean he didn't care about the consequences. I think he did care and it was an accident.

Negligence - this comes down to the 'reasonable person' test. I feel a 'reasonable person' could have used a switch for discipline and left marks by accident since every switch is different.

He'll be found not guilty by a jury.

 

[cloppbeast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

As long as Ray Rice and Peterson are out of the news the NFL is happy... mean while people are running right by the Secret Service into the White House with a knife and nobody cares...

I bet the president cares.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Reckless - I don't consider what he did to be reckless since he knew it was possible to use a switch without seriously injuring a child. For it to be reckless it would mean he didn't care about the consequences. I think he did care and it was an accident.

He'll be found not guilty by a jury.

It doesn't seem that it matters if he knew it was possible to use a switch without causing injury. Peterson (presumably) knew that beating a child repeatedly with a stick could cause injury (unless his defense is that he's completely ######ed). So even if he didn't intend to cause injury, even if he's beaten children with sticks in the past without causing injury, what he did was still reckless.

This is from Wikipedia so feel free to dispute it, but:

Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt. The accused is a social danger because they gamble with the safety of others, and the fact they might have acted to try to avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)

Don't get me wrong, I would not at all be surprised if a jury of twelve Texans acquits him. And I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did care and didn't intend to hurt the boy. But he should've known that a little kid can be seriously injured if you beat him with a stick (even if you're trying not to hurt him), and that's what makes it reckless.

 

[LawFitz]

If he pleads guilty next week, and then gets sentenced to probation a couple weeks later, what happens then?

 

[Joe Summer]

If he pleads guilty next week, and then gets sentenced to probation a couple weeks later, what happens then?

One of two possible outcomes:1. he is suspended for the next 6 games and would be eligible to play no sooner than Week 13.

2. he is fined 6 game checks and would be eligible to play as soon as Week 8.

I doubt that either one of those scenarios will happen, though. Peterson and his lawyer are adamant about proving his innocence.

 

[B-Deep]

i see no way he suits up for the vikes again

 

[streamkeeper]

He will be a Patriot within a month

 

[cstu]

Reckless - I don't consider what he did to be reckless since he knew it was possible to use a switch without seriously injuring a child. For it to be reckless it would mean he didn't care about the consequences. I think he did care and it was an accident.

He'll be found not guilty by a jury.

It doesn't seem that it matters if he knew it was possible to use a switch without causing injury. Peterson (presumably) knew that beating a child repeatedly with a stick could cause injury (unless his defense is that he's completely ######ed). So even if he didn't intend to cause injury, even if he's beaten children with sticks in the past without causing injury, what he did was still reckless.

This is from Wikipedia so feel free to dispute it, but:

Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt. The accused is a social danger because they gamble with the safety of others, and the fact they might have acted to try to avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)

Don't get me wrong, I would not at all be surprised if a jury of twelve Texans acquits him. And I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did care and didn't intend to hurt the boy. But he should've known that a little kid can be seriously injured if you beat him with a stick (even if you're trying not to hurt him), and that's what makes it reckless.

Here's the definition of 'bodily injury' by Texas code:

Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:

(8) "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

However at the same time Texas allows a parent 'reasonable' and 'necessary' discipline ("physical pain" type of bodily injury) that doesn't expose a child to 'substantial' risk of harm:

Abuse does not include reasonable discipline by a parent/guardian/managing or possessory conservator if child not exposed to substantial risk of harm. Family Code § 261.001.

[Civil Code] Parent/stepparent/person standing in loco parentis to child is justified to use non-deadly force against a child under 18 when and to degree the actor reasonably believes necessary to discipline, or safeguard or promote child's welfare. Penal § 9.61. [Criminal Code]

What this comes down to for jurors will be the words 'reasonable' and 'substantial'. Considering that using a switch is legal I believe the 'reasonable' part will be accepted and he'll be able to make a case that it was 'necessary'.

Then the jurors will have to decide on whether he committed 'substantial' harm to his son and that's where it will be tough to get all of them to find him guilty.

 

[cloppbeast]

i see no way he suits up for the vikes again

Cowardly on Vikings part; but you're probably right.

 

[B-Deep]

i see no way he suits up for the vikes again

Cowardly on Vikings part; but you're probably right.

they are a business, they do not owe him courage they are looking at their bottom line

 

[RichInOrlando]

As of right now, most AP owners are holding onto thin line of hope. I am. But in reality, we may just be holding dead weight the whole season. Got to be brave to cut him if the opportunity comes. Holding onto AP for the playoffs doesn't mean anything if you pass on a better player because you couldn't let go and don't make the playoffs.

 

[mozzy84]

he got cut in all three of my redraft leagues, I don't think he's going to play this year.

One league is a keep one player league and I am wondering how long I let him sit there. I could keep him next year for a 10th rounder if I picked him up off waivers.

does anyone think he's done for good?

 

[iamkoza]

he got cut in all three of my redraft leagues, I don't think he's going to play this year.

One league is a keep one player league and I am wondering how long I let him sit there. I could keep him next year for a 10th rounder if I picked him up off waivers.

does anyone think he's done for good?

if his PR people are any good he should be able to fix the image problem... or at least get it to a point that a team can sign him without being killed by the social mediaverse to sign somewhere in 2015

 

[Henry Ford]

he got cut in all three of my redraft leagues, I don't think he's going to play this year.

One league is a keep one player league and I am wondering how long I let him sit there. I could keep him next year for a 10th rounder if I picked him up off waivers.

does anyone think he's done for good?

I think what he did was abhorrent. I don't think there's any way he's done for good.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

If he pleads guilty next week, and then gets sentenced to probation a couple weeks later, what happens then?

One of two possible outcomes:1. he is suspended for the next 6 games and would be eligible to play no sooner than Week 13.

2. he is fined 6 game checks and would be eligible to play as soon as Week 8.

I doubt that either one of those scenarios will happen, though. Peterson and his lawyer are adamant about proving his innocence.

Hard to prove innocence when he freely and publicly admitted to whooping his son.

 

[Joe Summer]

Peterson's lawyer is indicating that he will be pleading not guilty and asking for a trial.

link

season

 

[Joe Summer]

If he pleads guilty next week, and then gets sentenced to probation a couple weeks later, what happens then?

One of two possible outcomes:1. he is suspended for the next 6 games and would be eligible to play no sooner than Week 13.

2. he is fined 6 game checks and would be eligible to play as soon as Week 8.

I doubt that either one of those scenarios will happen, though. Peterson and his lawyer are adamant about proving his innocence.

Hard to prove innocence when he freely and publicly admitted to whooping his son.

And yet somehow parents do it all the time, every day, in courts throughout Texas and elsewhere.

 

[msommer]

Reckless - I don't consider what he did to be reckless since he knew it was possible to use a switch without seriously injuring a child. For it to be reckless it would mean he didn't care about the consequences. I think he did care and it was an accident.

He'll be found not guilty by a jury.

It doesn't seem that it matters if he knew it was possible to use a switch without causing injury. Peterson (presumably) knew that beating a child repeatedly with a stick could cause injury (unless his defense is that he's completely ######ed). So even if he didn't intend to cause injury, even if he's beaten children with sticks in the past without causing injury, what he did was still reckless.

This is from Wikipedia so feel free to dispute it, but:

Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt. The accused is a social danger because they gamble with the safety of others, and the fact they might have acted to try to avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)

Don't get me wrong, I would not at all be surprised if a jury of twelve Texans acquits him. And I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did care and didn't intend to hurt the boy. But he should've known that a little kid can be seriously injured if you beat him with a stick (even if you're trying not to hurt him), and that's what makes it reckless.

Here's the definition of 'bodily injury' by Texas code:

Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:

(8) "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

However at the same time Texas allows a parent 'reasonable' and 'necessary' discipline ("physical pain" type of bodily injury) that doesn't expose a child to 'substantial' risk of harm:

Abuse does not include reasonable discipline by a parent/guardian/managing or possessory conservator if child not exposed to substantial risk of harm. Family Code § 261.001.

[Civil Code] Parent/stepparent/person standing in loco parentis to child is justified to use non-deadly force against a child under 18 when and to degree the actor reasonably believes necessary to discipline, or safeguard or promote child's welfare. Penal § 9.61. [Criminal Code]

What this comes down to for jurors will be the words 'reasonable' and 'substantial'. Considering that using a switch is legal I believe the 'reasonable' part will be accepted and he'll be able to make a case that it was 'necessary'.

Then the jurors will have to decide on whether he committed 'substantial' harm to his son and that's where it will be tough to get all of them to find him guilty.

Plus he didn't hurt any dogs, so he's got that going for him!

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Peterson's lawyer is indicating that he will be pleading not guilty and asking for a trial.

link

season

trial? what a moron.

plea it down, go to some counciling and go on probation.

#######

 

[cstu]

Peterson's lawyer is indicating that he will be pleading not guilty and asking for a trial.

link

season

He can still plea out of it if the DA wants to get a win instead of having it go to trial.

 

[cstu]

Peterson's lawyer is indicating that he will be pleading not guilty and asking for a trial.

link

season

trial? what a moron.

plea it down, go to some counciling and go on probation.

#######

He hasn't been offered a plea deal yet. There's no reason for the DA to offer one before he's plead innocent.

 

[menobrown]

The lowest plea offer they could make him is to reduce the charge to a Class A misdemeanor and he could get off with probation.

If he actually accepted this does everyone think he'd still get a 6 game suspension? Which of course is only part of the problem, the Vikes would have to be willing to take him back or get rid of him.

Let's say Peterson pleads not guilty. Does anyone know if he can fight what amounts to a paid suspension and force the Vikings to allow him back or get rid of him? Because if this is an option it's one I think he's going to take, just don't know that it is. I just don't think he's going to be be waiting until potentially October of 2015 to go to trial before he can even think about playing again, not at his age.I know he could not have been placed on the NFL excempt list without giving his permission, just not sure if he can revoke that permission and if so the Vikings could suspend him a maximum of 4 games for conduct detrimental to the team, which I'm sure AP would fight. I'm just not 100% convinced a not guilty plea will rule him out from playing this season but I don't really know all of his options either.

 

[Joe Summer]

Peterson's lawyer is indicating that he will be pleading not guilty and asking for a trial.

link

season

trial? what a moron.plea it down, go to some counciling and go on probation.

#######

Actually, he is being very smart by going to trial.If he accepts a plea deal, then he potentially loses $4.4 million dollars of his 2014 salary.

But if he restructures his 2015 salary and goes to trial next year, then he could reduce the impact of a suspension.

Plus, he has a fighting chance of being found not guilty, which would mean that he wouldn't get suspended and wouldn't lose any salary at all.

 

[Joe Summer]

The lowest plea offer they could make him is to reduce the charge to a Class A misdemeanor and he could get off with probation.

If he actually accepted this does everyone think he'd still get a 6 game suspension?

If he accepted a misdemeanor plea deal, I don't think he would get a full 6-game suspension. But Goodell is on the hot seat right now so he would probably suspend Peterson for at least 1 game just to save face.

The Vikings would take him back in a heartbeat, assuming that Peterson does the typical "pubic apology tour" routine.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Peterson does the typical "pubic apology tour" routine.

That might get a little hairy.

 

[Dizzy]

he got cut in all three of my redraft leagues, I don't think he's going to play this year.

One league is a keep one player league and I am wondering how long I let him sit there. I could keep him next year for a 10th rounder if I picked him up off waivers.

does anyone think he's done for good?

Could be. If we see him back on the field this season I would be very surprised... and he's no spring chicken (come next season).

I'm not sure the Adrian Peterson's, Ray Rice's of the NFL world understand that they are entertainers and subject to the Court of Public opinion. These situations aren't as clean as do the crime, do the time, and get back to business. I honestly believe that Peterson thinks he can be out of court by noon and he'll be back on the practice field an hour later. Any additional delays are beyond his comprehension right now.

 

[Johnny Blood]

Peterson's lawyer is indicating that he will be pleading not guilty and asking for a trial.

link

season

trial? what a moron.

plea it down, go to some counciling and go on probation.

#######

It doesn't seem moronic from a financial perspective. He's going to make his full salary this year if this drags out. If he pleads guilty he doesn't get his full salary this year.

His odds of getting his full salary next year were already less than certain BEFORE all of this.

 

[chinawildman]

Peterson's lawyer is indicating that he will be pleading not guilty and asking for a trial.

link

season

Pleading not guilty at your initial hearing doesn't mean the case is going to trial. In fact, very few cases ever make it to the courtroom.

 

[Joe Summer]

I honestly believe that Peterson thinks he can be out of court by noon and he'll be back on the practice field an hour later.

If Peterson ever thought that, his lawyer set him straight weeks ago. Peterson knows exactly what's going on.

 

[Gopher State]

Peterson's lawyer is indicating that he will be pleading not guilty and asking for a trial.

link

season

Agreed, he take his 14m this season and stay at home. Goes to trial next year or cuts a deal right before the trial, Vikes cut him because they don't want to pay him the big salary, he signs somewhere else for about 4m, gets suspended with no pay at the 4m rate, better then the 14m rate

 

[KellysHeroes]

and Hope Solo plays on

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/u-s--soccer-misses-chance-to-make-a-point-by-including-hope-solo-for-world-cup-qualifying-232522386.html

 

[LittlePhatty]

and Hope Solo plays on

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/u-s--soccer-misses-chance-to-make-a-point-by-including-hope-solo-for-world-cup-qualifying-232522386.html

Wrong forum, you're looking for footballgals.com

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

and Hope Solo plays on

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/u-s--soccer-misses-chance-to-make-a-point-by-including-hope-solo-for-world-cup-qualifying-232522386.html

Hope Bunghole

 

[Dizzy]

I honestly believe that Peterson thinks he can be out of court by noon and he'll be back on the practice field an hour later.

If Peterson ever thought that, his lawyer set him straight weeks ago. Peterson knows exactly what's going on.

Don't be so sure. I wonder if he's figured out that using TripAdvisor to track the cities he's visited would be far less complicated than siring a child in each one. I only have his interviews, etc. to draw from, but he always struck me as being very likeable, and also dumb as a bag of hammers.

 

[jimmykick]

What is the likliehood that we'll know more about his chances for coming back this season after today's hearing? I'm holding AP but am sooo close to dropping him for another FA. Just wondering if I may as well wait until hearing or if that makes no difference.

 

[Isotopes]

What is the likliehood that we'll know more about his chances for coming back this season after today's hearing? I'm holding AP but am sooo close to dropping him for another FA. Just wondering if I may as well wait until hearing or if that makes no difference.

In this same boat. Still holding, but with the plethora of seemingly interesting waiver wire running backs this week, I don't want to miss out. My fear is that I play it safe and hang onto him, only to hear after our waivers run that he will go to trial in December.

 

[menobrown]

He got his trial expedited to early December. So at best, assuming he's found not guilty and the Vikings want him back he could probably get in a few fantasy games. Week 14 would seem optimistic so I'm thinking if all goes well you get 2 games.

ETA-this gives him hope to play this season and probably good news for dynasty owners but this is bad news to me. Not sure using a roster spot on a guy who might play 2 games is worth it, especially considering the team I have him on probably won't have anything to play for in week 14. So personally disappointed and only league I have him does not allow trades but I'd think he would be someone who has value to a contending team who feels strong about making the playoffs.

I would have preferred he either reached a plea bargain or plead not guilty and than challenged the NFL on playing immediately.

Albert Breer @AlbertBreer · 3m 3 minutes ago
Hardin says 12/1 trial date isn't set in stone, and that he's asked for "a quick, speedy trial".

0 replies



Albert Breer @AlbertBreer · 5m 5 minutes ago
Rusty Hardin said the Peterson case is on the docket for Dec. 1. "Adrian is chomping at the bit to publicly talk." Has been advised not to.

 

[Sabertooth]

I would not be holding out any hope for even a game's worth of production this year.

 

[towney]

Looks like he is droppable in redraft leagues....Thought I got a steal drafting him 1.11.

 

[Jimbo Slice]

Let's say this is all over next year and he enters training camp Vikings #1 rb again. Does he still go top 3? 2nd round? Banished from your league?

 

[menobrown]

Let's say this is all over next year and he enters training camp Vikings #1 rb again. Does he still go top 3? 2nd round? Banished from your league?

I did not have him as a top 3 option coming into this year, but if he's active week one of next season and cleared of any suspensions I'd consider him no worse than a late first rounder no matter what team he plays on. It's not like he was surrounded by greatness on the Vikings so don't see any place I'd consider to be substantially worse and while he'll be a year older I think the time off might actually be good for him.

I'd banish any fantasy league that banished him.

I don't own him in any dynasty leagues but big question to me is what his value is in those leagues. He's obviously an older back and it's still highly possible he either gets suspended or if found guilty might be to volatile for any team to want to deal with.

 

[cstu]

CONROE, Texas – Minnesota Vikings star running back Adrian Peterson's arraignment on a felony child abuse charge was delayed here Wednesday after the prosecution said it would file a motion to recuse the judge from hearing the matter.

Peterson, a Texas native, who is expected to plead not guilty, could not do so until a resolution was reached on the motion and his attorney, Rusty Hardin, said no plea would be entered Wednesday. Judge Kelly Case set a tentative trial date of Dec. 1, though that could change if a different judge is presiding.

The motion to recuse was not filed yet, but Hardin told reporters he expected it to be filed Wednesday. The motion to recuse will be heard by another judge. A hearing date of Nov. 4 was set.

Regardless, proceeding to trial could be a lengthy process that could cause Peterson to miss the rest of the NFL regular season – it ends Dec. 28 – unless he reaches a plea deal in the interim that could lead to a quicker return to the field. After a grand jury indicted Peterson last month, the Vikings announced he will stay away from all team activities until the legal proceedings are resolved.

Is this normal or is the prosecutor ####ing with Peterson to delay the trial?

 

[cstu]

I think I want to try to be like the coach of the New England Patriots for a time. Instead of 'on to Cincinnati,' we're on to trial.

Rusty Hardin

 

[cstu]

A spokesman for Peterson told ESPN's Michele Steele: "Adrian is going to trial -- he is not looking for a deal."

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Can he plea between now and 12/1?

 

[menobrown]

Can he plea between now and 12/1?

I don't think he can do anything until the judge hearing is resolved but I think it's a moot point in terms of a plea deal, don't get the sense he was ever looking to do that and strong likelihood his case is going to be heard early is even more reason not to work out a plea.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I don't think they want to make a deal because that implies guilt. His image is destroyed and he'll never get an endorsement deal again, plus he may get suspended by the league. Lawyer must think he has a good chance of being found not guilty, which is his only hope to restore any semblance of popularity/viability again. And if that drags out, what does he care? He's getting paid a ton of money to not play. What's his impetus to roar back onto the field as quickly as possible, long-term consequences be damned?

 

[Isotopes]

Sounds like week 14 is best case scenario. Lots of 'what ifs' that could extend this timeline, but nothing that seems to be able to contract it.

I think this is the news I need to drop him.

 

[cstu]

I don't think they want to make a deal because that implies guilt. His image is destroyed and he'll never get an endorsement deal again, plus he may get suspended by the league. Lawyer must think he has a good chance of being found not guilty, which is his only hope to restore any semblance of popularity/viability again. And if that drags out, what does he care? He's getting paid a ton of money to not play. What's his impetus to roar back onto the field as quickly as possible, long-term consequences be damned?

This is all about clearing his name and his lawyer - who is a celebrity himself in Texas - believes he can get him off. Hardin is going to work the jury and the prosecutor doesn't stand a chance.