Vikings RB Adrian Peterson indicted for child abuse; deactivated for Pats game at Minnesota

shmessy said:

Straight question: While this runs its course in the legal system, should Adrian Peterson be allowed to make millions of dollars playing in a league with a federal antitrust exemption and a team that is getting $498 million in public money for its new stadium?

Or should the public be allowed to make their voice heard about a man who has texted what he texted about what he did to TWO of his 4 year old sons?

Click to expand...

Honestly that's difficult to answer. You can't say suspend him now because the evidence proves his guilt because there will be similar cases (including domestic violence or other crimes) where the evidence isn't clear. So you have to decide who is the judge of whether the evidence is clear or shaky and would be doing so without a formal examination of both sides of the facts.
Perhaps suspending the accused WITH pay until resolved in court is the best route.

SB39 said:

Well the primary reason listed was his disgust with the Vikings for reinstating Peterson.

At least that was his first reason. Now all you see when you click on that website is the word:

"what?"

So maybe you're right.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's that Snowden kid......


.

SB39 said:

So Ray Rice shouldn't have gotten any punishment since technically all that happened was they dropped charges?

Can't say I agree with you there.

Click to expand...

I was referring only to Peterson. Of course, there must be leeway for exceptional circumstances.

PATS16N0 said:

Great. So I'll string those things together, broadcast pieces of it on CNN, and label you a Homer Simpson that represents everything that is wrong with America today. Might not be true, but it would certainly be easy, and it would become reality in the minds of people watching it on television, and I doubt you would enjoy it much when the armies of social media started ripping your very existence to pieces for it, despite them all doing the same. For acting no differently than anyone else, I could make you the absolute laughing stock of the country based on what you told me, absolutely unfairly.

That is the power of media and it is power to be RESPECTED, which is what I do, which is why I do not rush to immediate judgement. I'm souring on Adrian Peterson's defense of "discipline" more and more by the second, but I have NO REGRETS about my willingness to wait.



How many times have I called it clearly excessive? 10? 20? 30?
I said it was AT LEAST excessive, but would opt to wait before labeling him a "child abuser."

You just keep spinning it anyway you need to, though. Maybe by the end you'll have Patsfans convinced I'm the one who took a switch to Adrian's kid.

Click to expand...

I think it had already been proven that he abused his child. The evidence is clear and there is no need to wait and see what the lawyers do to know that little kid was abused.

What the Vikings should of done is left him deactivated for the time being with the option to release. Reactivating him after NOTHING happened but a Patriot beat down was about the dumbest thing they could do. It's not like he was exonerated today, so absolutely nothing changed between the time they deactivated him and reactivated him BUT the Patriot game.

They just set themselves up for a Ray Rice repeat which is pretty amazing considering the Ray Rice fiasco hasn't even left the airwaves yet

SB39 said:

I think people in here think that was some sort of official forum when it sure looks to me as if it was just an exasperated admin of a fansite none of us ever heard of and therefore have no idea how widely used it was.

Click to expand...

I think it was the largest Vikings forum on the net. At least, when I was searching for Vikings forums to lurk pre-game and see how they felt about the matchup, it was the first that came up and was clearly a very active community (much more active than the others I checked out). Was it official? No, I assumed not, just like Patsfans isn't. I don't think anyone's claiming it was, though.

My stomach literally feels ill being accused of defending child abuse. This conversation has taken a lot of twists and turns since it started, and opinions have been thrown out on a lot of different things regarding the physical disciplining of a child. I'm not sure what got lost in those twist and turns, but for the record, I want to reiterate one more time, as simply as possible, what my position has been.

When this story first broke, it was possible stern parenting was being reported as child abuse. I wanted to make sure that wasn't the case before passing judgement on a man, his home, and his family. As I said, growing up in the sticks, I know a lot of kids that got some serious whuppings on their farm, and considering how they turned out in life, I just can't consider it child abuse.

I wanted to be sure that this wasn't that through the lens of media before condemning a father.

I think the public (the law, and the government) should always be certain of these things before intruding on a man and woman's home and taking their children or throwing a parent in prison.

If we don't take that responsibility serious, and get into permitting that intrusion on a whim based on a parental disagreements, we move into dangerous, dangerous ground, and that is where my patience comes from in waiting to be positive that this is this before climbing on board with that.

That's it.

BradyFTW! said:

I think it was the largest Vikings forum on the net. At least, when I was searching for Vikings forums to lurk pre-game and see how they felt about the matchup, it was the first that came up and was clearly a very active community (much more active than the others I checked out). Was it official? No, I assumed not, just like Patsfans isn't. I don't think anyone's claiming it was, though.

Click to expand...

I wasn't sure if people were thinking it was official so I was just clarifying things for the record. :-D

If it was indeed the biggest Vikes forum, then that's quite a statement the admin is making.

I'm surprised. It was the ugliest forum I've ever seen. I don't know what the new JI looks like, but it can't be much more horrid than that. Black background with barely readable purple text? Why not just discuss the Vikings on an geocities page?

PATS16N0 said:

As I said, growing up in the sticks, I know a lot of kids that got some serious whuppings on their farm, and considering how they turned out in life, I just can't consider it child abuse.

Click to expand...

This isn't necessarily aimed at you specifically, but at a general misunderstanding of how abuse trauma manifests: A person can evolve from an abusive upbringing to appear "successful" in outward appearances. But make no mistake, abuse trauma takes its toll in unforeseen ways -- especially if abiding shame and pain goes unaddressed therapeutically. I can all but guarantee you those kids who got "serious whuppings" are haunted by subconscious demons they probably don't understand because, hey -- those whuppings were "normal" and they "deserved" them.

Tunescribe said:

This isn't necessarily aimed at you specifically, but at a general misunderstanding of how abuse trauma manifests: A person can evolve from an abusive upbringing to appear "successful" in outward appearances. But make no mistake, abuse trauma takes its toll in unforeseen ways -- especially if abiding shame and pain goes unaddressed therapeutically. I can all but guarantee you those kids who got "serious whuppings" are haunted by subconscious demons they probably don't understand because, hey -- those whuppings were "normal" and they "deserved" them.

Click to expand...

Maybe, I'm sure that's the case with some people, and it probably changes from person to person.
The kids I knew also weren't 4 years old, so that's a lot different.

Part of my hesitance here is in knowing that I do not know what is best, especially with only having a little window into their lives, troubling as it may look. If Peterson generally just administers physical discipline, and this one night he went overboard, what does that mean?

Does that mean he is a "child abuser?"

Does it mean he should go to prison for two years, lose his job in the NFL, the millions his children would one day inherit, and be forever separated from his children? Maybe, but to make that judgement on a quick whim is potentially reckless, with no respect for the concept of `family`

But I am in no position at all to really have the insight here to know if that is best. I mean, when you're dealing with a father who does something like press hot clothes hangers to their children's skin, or something equally horrific and disturbing, you're obviously dealing with a whole different level of abuse, and there is no question that, in that situation, the person should do FIFTY years in jail, and never be allowed to see his children again.

On the other hand, what do you do to a father who uses a belt, however distasteful some might find it, and one night uses it for 30 seconds too long? Do we give the concept of family a one strike and you're out rule? Do we throw him in prison, bust up the family, take away his livelihood, and that's just that?

I don't know Adrian. I have no idea if he's an otherwise loving father with a very, very old school style of parental discipline, or if he's a crazy thug that regularly beats the living hell out of his children. With that in mind, it's hard for me to go all in on taking everything away from him (and, in the long term, his sons) with only having a picture and a text message and a story.

The judge that gets all the information, and gets a very clear window into the Peterson home, is just in a much better position to make that judgement than I am, and that judgement isn't just going to be punishment for Peterson, but will have significant ramifications for the entire family.

Ironically we have another situation where the victim is reliant upon the alleged for financial support (I'm assuming he pays child support and is not a deadbeat), so going overboard punishing him would also punish the victim.

yeah...and the other kids by four different women...

http://nypost.com/2013/10/17/adrian-peterson-could-have-7-kids-ex/

"
But another woman has come forward to say she is the mother of another Peterson child — a 4-year-old boy — and that the running back has fathered enough children to run offense on seven-on-seven drills.

“To my knowledge he takes care of them all,” Erica Syion, a former gentlemen’s-club dancer from Dallas, told TMZ, “but I only found out about the other two this week.”

Syion said Peterson pays child support but doesn’t spend as much quality time with his children as he should. “He gets my son in the summertime,” Syion said, “but he could do better.”

SAVE THE CHILDREN...LET A.P. PLAY!!!!

This is where mandatory sentences seem like bureaucratic rubbish. They're lazy.

If Adrian Peterson went overboard with his `switch` this one time, resulting in those welts all across his sons thigh, I'd probably give him three months in jail, being the first offense. He would be able to return for the 2015 season, mom could give the "things will be different speech", Adrian can learn a lesson, and the family is potentially salvaged, with the possibility of returning to the league meaning he can continue to provide an upper-class life and future full of opportunities for his children.

If it happens again, serious problem, serious jail time.

I don't know. Is that fair or overly lenient?

PATS16N0 said:

If Adrian Peterson went overboard with his `switch` this one time, resulting in those welts all across his sons thigh, I'd probably give him three months in jail, being the first offense.

Click to expand...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...terson-case-involves-alleged-head-wound-scar/

supafly said:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...terson-case-involves-alleged-head-wound-scar/

Click to expand...

Your inappropriate use of facts will not stand!

When somebody is judged in a literal court, the burden of proof is always heavily on the accusers.
When somebody is judged in the workplace or in the court of public opinion, the burden of proof should almost always be heavily on the accusers.

But there a few cases when that flips. We already know Peterson hit a kid way too hard once, didn't think it was a big deal, and has a "whoopin room". I think that now, in terms of consequences to his career, the burden of proof has shifted to him to show that there isn't a pattern of greatly excessive punishment.

PATS16N0 said:

If Adrian Peterson went overboard with his `switch` this one time, resulting in those welts all across his sons thigh ...

Click to expand...

There you go again, minimizing the damage.

Welts on his thighs, back, arms, and scrotum. As well as hitting him in the face and, just for fun, stuffing leaves into the kid's mouth.

And do we even know he's "providing an upper class life" for his kids? He didn't even have custody of this one. He probably pays child support, but that doesn't mean the kid's living high on the hog. Especially because there's like six more where that one came from.

This is why people think you're a Peterson apologist, because you keep acting like one, propping AP up as a loving father who provides a magnificent life for his children, even while proclaiming, "I hate child abusers!"

PATS16N0 said:

Maybe, I'm sure that's the case with some people, and it probably changes from person to person. The kids I knew also weren't 4 years old, so that's a lot different.

Click to expand...

No, abuse trauma has no age limit.

PATS16N0 said:

Part of my hesitance here is in knowing that I do not know what is best, especially with only having a little window into their lives, troubling as it may look. If Peterson generally just administers physical discipline, and this one night he went overboard, what does that mean?

Does that mean he is a "child abuser?"

Click to expand...

YES! Just as when a man who hits a woman might protest that he didn't mean to cause serious harm, just "teach the ***** a lesson." Because that's what he observed growing up and "didn't know any better."

I am not suggesting, though, that the likes of Rice and Peterson should be banned forever and locked away. If a criminal like Michael Vick can be "rehabbed" and resume his career, so can they. But they must pay a price.

"But he only abused that boy one time that we currently know of! Does that make him an abuser?"

I can't believe this is a serious question.

"Hey, he only raped that one chick! Does that make him a rapist?"