menobrown said:
The bolded part is only part of what you wrote that has anything to do with what I wrote and it's actually agreeing with me. The courts will decide if he went to far but people need to stop pretending this is some Texas or southern thing. It's not looked at any different in the these states than other states. That was my point which again you basically seem to agree with.
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but everything you're writing reads like willful ignorance to me. A Texas jury will decide if what Peterson did is a crime under Texas law. I don't know where you got the impression that I agree with the idea that this is not looked at any different across states. It sounds like he has a vastly higher chance of being acquitted in Texas than he would in, say, Massachusetts. More importantly, the NFL is not beholden to the opinions of Texas jurors. There is a large amount of national outrage over this case (evidenced by the outspokenness of major sponsors and the Vikings flipflopping on their decision to reinstate him, etc.) which won't be quelled by a Texas verdict.
No it's not considered child abuse in almost any state to hit a kid with a stick. See above. People who say he admitted to child abuse are simply wrong. Again the courts will decide if he went to far and passed the line of discipline into child abuse but to say AP admitted to abuse is flat incorrect.
If you don't think Peterson would be convicted of abuse for what he did in a lot of states, then again, you're just willfully ignoring reality. In a lot of places, what he did is absolutely considered child abuse. From the perspective of people living in those places, it's reasonable to say AP admitted to child abuse (as shorthand for, "Peterson admitted to doing something which, where I'm from, is considered child abuse").
Because if he's found not guilty the courts will have decided he just disciplined his kid.
And you're still conflating the legal outcome with the league's action. "The courts" aren't deciding anything - a Texas jury is deciding one thing. A jury in many other states would likely decide differently. The court of public opinion will reach its own verdict. And the NFL will reach their own decision. They're not in the business of law, they're in the business of entertainment, and beating a child with a stick is a PR nightmare.
And as far as I know the league has never suspended a player over an action that led that player going to court and being found not guilty. Ray Rice settled. Ben settled out of court with one victim and was able to not get charged with the other account. Can you name me a player in the history of the NFL who was found not guilty in a court of a law and was yet suspended for what he went to trial for? Can you? I'm guessing no. Which is why the league has no ground to stand on.
You said it yourself - Roethlisberger ended up not even being
charged with a crime IIRC, AND HE STILL GOT SUSPENDED. The person conduct policy of the NFL doesn't require a conviction in a court of law. A lot of you guys seem really hung up on this idea that Goodell cares what a Texas jury thinks about this case. I'm reasonably certain that their decision is not very high up on his list. Sure, it will make things less messy if he's found guilty in court, since Goodell can just point to that as justification for a suspension. But to think the league won't, or can't, take disciplinary action if Peterson is acquitted is silly.
