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

[PatsFanSince74]

Just to clarify, corporal punishment is legal in Texas.

So for them to bring charges against AP indicates that they feel this goes way beyond corporal punishment. I would be flabbergasted if he escaped punishment of any kind.

...

Yes, that is why the presumption of innocence, while always dominant, can reasonably be tempered here in the court of public opinion as well as in the actions of Peterson's employer and the League, as long as it is upheld in the legal process itself.

Grand Juries in the Northeast, in the immortal words of someone whose name I forget at the moment "will indict a ham sandwich." In Texas, not so much, especially when the behavior falls along a spectrum that, under State law, could be considered "legal."

So, putting aside all the pictures that are surfacing on the internet, the evidence presented to the Jury must have been quite compelling to rise to a charge of abuse in a legal context that permits "corporal punishment."

 

[OhExaulted1]

I am nowhere near as big of a Goodell supporter as some people say. I defended the guy a couple times and the hyperbole we see from other people is that I am a big apologist and never criticize him. All I have ever said about the guy is that when you consider what his job is and what his role is within that position, he has done a great job. I've also said he gets a lot of blame for things that are really the owners' fault - but, of course, that's part of his job.

I honestly wouldn't care one bit if he was fired (or resigned), but people act like if that happened, someone would step in and fix all the NFL's ills. Controversies like Ray Rice would never arise. Rules changes like increased protection for QB's an WR's would go back to the way they used to be. Unpopular initiatives like 18 games schedules and London games would disappear. None of those things would happen.

I actually respect that opinion SB. I don't agree that he's done a great job, but at 40+ million a year i think he better get it right or you can expect backlash from Joe-Blow the fan. It's deserved, especially when you hammer my team for a 1st rd pick over some stupid bulls*%t taping crap that everyone in the world can see anyway.
Then you go soft on a guy who knocks his wife out? Lie about seeing the evidence? Quick, hide. That child abusing POS RB was on the cover of Madden! I hope that high horse he rolled in on tramples his high-and-mighty ass to death.

 

[Christiancat]

You're not talking about physical discipline. You're talking about abuse. They aren't the same thing. There's a very clear line in the sand to cross between physical discipline and abuse and Peterson not only crossed that line, he blew past it in a monster truck with his middle finger out the window and firing an AK-47 through the sun roof. No discipline should ever break the skin. His kid's did. It was excessive.

And there's no need for me to forgive my parents. They did a masterful job with me.

I feel that Physical Discipline is abusive in some way. I also feel a parent should never have to lay their hands on a child to get their point across in regards to their bad behavior, disobedience etc. The parent is the adult and the child is the child.

No one is denying that your parents did a great job raising you. I am saying that you forgave them for the few times that they got physical with you as a means to discipline you. I have no doubt that they wanted what was best for you. I am sure they are glad that they took a stand and disciplined you by talking with you when you did wrong, grounding you, taking your video games away etc. It helped shape you into the person you are today.

Nonetheless, you are doing well now which is great.

The point I am making is that being physical is NOT the way to discipline because it creates fear and sends a message that violence is okay.

Take shmessy post which I will put in quotations is a great example of the point I am making:

"When I was very little, I thought it would be hilarious to use a pretty bad curse word on my mom. My dad spanked me. That did zilch except create resentment that went away within hours. What stays with me right to this day, is the look on my mom's face when I dropped that bomb. Ive never forgotten it."

"Physical force doesn't teach. A parent's love and example does".

 

[Seacoast Fan]

The fact that a jury finds a person not guilty does not require me to believe that person didn't commit a crime. It requires me to believe the person was found not guilty (I'm not entitled to my own facts), not that he is not guilty.

Agreed. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and that includes agreeing or disagreeing with a verdict. Like i said i didnt agree with the OJ verdict.
The problem, as your other post recognizes i think, is keeping everyone's personal opinion from stripping a person of his or her constitutional rights including the presumption of innocence and a fair trial.

 

[primetime]

The presumption of innocence applies in the courtroom, on the street, and in fact anywhere else you care to name in this country. It's a constitutional right. That means, we don't get to pick and choose which cases it applies to or which person gets to use it.

Constitutional rights protect you from the government, they do not protect you from the public. Adrian Peterson is in no danger of having his constitutional rights stripped from him by the public.

Nor are law and justice (or what is right) necessarily the same thing, as the OJ trial very clearly showed.

 

[Nikolai]

If true, he's done and should be. Disgusting. I don't identify with this ****...but he'll be dealt with by the law appropriately. I feel confident of that.

Even at this stage, given the overwhelming evidence, an indefinite suspension from the NFL would be appropriate. I can't say I'm holding my breath anymore for the NFL to do the right thing.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Constitutional rights protect you from the government, they do not protect you from the public. Nor are law and justice (or what is right) necessarily the same thing.

In a perfect world law and justice and what is right would all coincide but we do not live in a perfect world i am afraid.
You and i differ as to the scope of the Constitution. But as this is (allegedly) a football forum i will leave it at that.

 

[OhExaulted1]

I feel that Physical Discipline is abusive in some way. I also feel a parent should never have to lay their hands on a child to get their point across in regards to their bad behavior, disobedience etc. The parent is the adult and the child is the child.

No one is denying that your parents did a great job raising you. I am saying that you forgave them for the few times that they got physical with you as a means to discipline you. I have no doubt that they're glad that they took a stand disciplining you by talking with you when you did wrong, grounded you, took your video games away etc.

Nonetheless, you are doing well now which is great.

The point I am making is that being physical is NOT the way to discipline because it creates fear and sends a message that violence is okay.

Take shmessy post which I will put in quotations is great example of the point I am making:

"When I was very little, I thought it would be hilarious to use a pretty bad curse word on my mom. My dad spanked me. That did zilch except create resentment that went away within hours. What stays with me right to this day, is the look on my mom's face when I dropped that bomb. Ive never forgotten it."

"Physical force doesn't teach. A parent's love and example does".

Don't know if you have kids, but I do. And I agree. My dad never laid a hand on me. I saw him put his fist thru sheetrock to get his point across. I just remember thinking "he's pissed!" He would explain to me in a rational manner after the fact what I did wrong.

Kids can be incredibly irritating. Take the time to put your hand on their back and let them know in short stories you're not perfect either. They need to know that. There is no "perfect". I hate the "Your the adult, he's the child" rationalization. They need to understand you're not perfect. Don't hold them to a standard you can't uphold yourself. That's coming from a Dad.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The presumption of innocence applies in the courtroom, on the street, and in fact anywhere else you care to name in this country. It's a constitutional right. That means, we don't get to pick and choose which cases it applies to or which person gets to use it.

No, it does not. It only applies to the defendant in a criminal trial.

It does not apply to the defendant in a civil trial.

And it sure as hell doesn't apply to any private entity in any way (and neither does anything else in the US Constitution).

 

[Seacoast Fan]

I thought the context was clear that the discussion was about the criminal justice system.
Having made that clarification. My earlier post is correct in all regards.
Your statement that the US Constitution does not apply to private entities is not entirely correct. Try being a private entity that is engaged in interstate commerce and then start discriminating against blacks or women or any other protected class, and see how that works out for you.
The topic was about a criminal defendant and the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Those constitutional rights apply anywhere within the United States. If an individual is employed by a private entity, that individual does not lose his or her constitutional rights.
As I said to another poster, however, perhaps you and I can just agree to disagree on the scope of the Constitution. I will say, however, as I've said before, if you are ever unfortunate enough to face criminal charges, you will want the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Don't know if you have kids, but I do. And I agree. My dad never laid a hand on me. I saw him put his fist thru sheetrock to get his point across. I just remember thinking "he's pissed!" He would explain to me in a rational manner after the fact what I did wrong.

Kids can be incredibly irritating. Take the time to put your hand on their back and let them know in short stories you're not perfect either. They need to know that. There is no "perfect". I hate the "Your the adult, he's the child" rationalization. They need to understand you're not perfect. Don't hold them to a standard you can't uphold yourself. That's coming from a Dad.

Indeed, and let's all keep in mind that we are dealing with a 4 year old child here who did nothing more than push another. One need ask themselves if a neanderthal mentality, including a physical beating with a stick upon ones testicles and with such force that body parts are lacerated, is anywhere near appropriate? I guess AP's options to ground the child from watching Sesame Street or grounding him to his room for a couple days or to take away his football or baseball glove, was not an option.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Agreed. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and that includes agreeing or disagreeing with a verdict. Like i said i didnt agree with the OJ verdict.
The problem, as your other post recognizes i think, is keeping everyone's personal opinion from stripping a person of his or her constitutional rights including the presumption of innocence and a fair trial.

That and more.

I'm also referring to the fact that some members of society get a much greater presumption of innocence than others.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I thought the context was clear that the discussion was about the criminal justice system.
Having made that clarification. My earlier post is correct in all regards.
Your statement that the US Constitution does not apply to private entities is not entirely correct. Try being a private entity that is engaged in interstate commerce and then start discriminating against blacks or women or any other protected class, and see how that works out for you.

Congress can ban discrimination in that case because the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and Congress passed a statute exercising that power.

That still doesn't mean the Constitution applies to private entities. Good luck trying to sue a business for a Fourteenth (equal protection) Amendment violation. Or a First Amendment violation, etc.

I will say, however, as I've said before, if you are ever unfortunate enough to face criminal charges, you will want the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

I'll want it in court, but I'm not going to whine that media or people on the street who think I am guilty are violating said presumption. And I'm not going to whine that when my employer fires me he somehow violated my right to be presumed innocent.

 

[basement zombie]

The problem with that premise is that when a parent disciplines their kid through physical punishment, they are teaching their kid that violence solves problems.

I'd add aggression and dominance to the list, as well as this concise list of issues:

• It teaches your child that violence is an acceptable way to express anger and deal with conflict. This contradicts the rest of how you are trying to raise your child.
• It is painful. Deliberately instilling pain on your child is cruel (even if you believe it's “for their own good”). The slogan, “No pain, no gain” does not apply to child rearing.
• It's harmful emotionally for you. Have you ever felt wonderful after hitting a child? Spanking often leads to remorse, guilt, and doubts about the quality of your own parenting skills. Avoid the agony-resist the urge to smack. It's a very unpleasant sensation to feel like a bully.
• It's harmful emotionally for the child. Spanking is traumatic, makes a child feel as though there's something wrong with her (instead of something wrong with her behavior), creates resentment, and can lead to body image and self image problems.
• Spanking tells a child she is powerless. A powerless person will act out, leading to more problems.
• Spanking is disrespectful to the child, and it doesn't help teach respectful values or standards.
• It breaks trust and invades a child's sense of security.
• It halts effective communication.
• Where do you go from there? Once you resort to physical discipline, the only steps “up” are more, or stronger physical discipline. Don't start down that path.
• It doesn't work! In the very, very short term, you may stop the misbehavior. The backlash is not worth the very, very short term.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

I suspect anger management runs in their entire family.

Had a job getting cars to people at the airport.

Last year Nathan Peterson's flight came in an hour early, and we had difficulty getting it too him without him waiting long. Keep in mind that day we had to deliver 1,500 vehicles to the customers at the scheduled time. I repeat, the airline came an hour early on short notice - we can't control that.

I was driving his pickup, and it was full of stuff of his brother - Adrian. Dropped it off and with his daughter, Nathan was chewing out co-workers for being "late." I can understand jocks having an attitude, but from "I'm the brother of Adrian?...didn't you know who I am?"

We have other celbs/jocks, but generally they don't act as entitled or stiff us to that degree.

 

[primetime]

As I said to another poster, however, perhaps you and I can just agree to disagree on the scope of the Constitution. I will say, however, as I've said before, if you are ever unfortunate enough to face criminal charges, you will want the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

Presumption of innocence isn't even in the Constitution. It's a universally acknowledged fundamental of jurisprudence in both common and civil law, and you could say that a "right to a fair trial" certainly includes it (especially considering it is, for example, expressly written in the UN Declaration on Human Rights), but it's not specifically protected by the Constitution.

And if you're saying public opinion undermines the ability to a fair trial, that would pretty much undermine the entire criminal law system where guilt is determined by a jury of peers.

 

[rochrist]

The presumption of innocence applies in the courtroom, on the street, and in fact anywhere else you care to name in this country. It's a constitutional right. That means, we don't get to pick and choose which cases it applies to or which person gets to use it.
And, interesting you say that everyone thought OJ was guilty. Well, everyone except for the twelve people on the jury. For the record, I didn't agree with the verdict, but like I said, I don't get to pick and choose who gets the benefit of the presumption and who does not.
If you read my post as asking people to think less or not use common sense, then I think you have mis-understood me. To the contrary, I am asking people to think a bit more.

In a courtroom, yes. On the street, no. That would be ridiculous. People form opinions all the time, and it's/their/ constitutional right to do so. There's is no burden on them to maintain a presumption of innocence unless, and until they are serving on a jury.

 

[Captain Cliche]

There was no doubt from the onset this would end up with a side discussion about differing opinions on parenting.

I don't know how to tell my story w/o being long winded but....
I raised my daughter as a single dad from the oilfield (2 weeks on 2weeks off) with the help of a hired nanny and her husband...a lovely older couple. They were from the South and we knew what a switch was. My daughter got a few spankings from both of us. I don't think she ever got the switch. The spankings were more ritual than painful, but she knew they were there if all else failed....never in anger. IMHO time outs, bribes, threats, politicking only get you so far. I read a wonderful article that said don't be a politician and don't micromanage. You're the parent, they're the kid. You set the rules and they have fun and do dumb things. One time my daughter came back from playing with the neighbor's daughter with mud smeared on her face. They were playing "makeup" with a mud puddle. I told her "I love you when you're purdy and I love you wen you're dirty." You could see her just expand, knowing I loved her unconditionally. That's the 'don't micromanage' part.
When she got older she told me, "Dad, I like how you do it. You tell me what to do or not do and that's the end of it." That's the 'don't politic' part. Not total dictator, but ultimately I'm the parent, you're the kid.
Where is she now? She's an airman first class on the carrier George H W Bush. This is an A student who declined an interview with MIT because she wanted to serve her country. "Dad, all those college kids do is drink and smoke pot every weekend." This is a kid who watched her mother suck **** for crack. Who was left alone all night and wandered the neighborhood knocking on doors at 2 in the morning in her PJ's. Who slept all night in unchanged diapers and got up alone to eat dry cereal. When saw her, her hair was so dirty it looked like dread locks (I did not know that this was my child at the time). I fell in love with this pluckly little girl before I found out she was mine. I offered to take her in until her mother was done wih her current binge.
So what's my point?

1. I resent anyone's smarmy and self rightteous assertion that their 'hands off' approach is superior. I did not elect you as my moral police. Not all kids get the perfect start in life. All I lacked as a youth was a good kick in the ass. The worst behaved children I have encountered are the ones that have never been spanked. I hold my council and respect their right to raise a child as they see fit...despite the fact that these kids appear exceptionally disrespectful and immature.

2. AP has no right as a part time dad to inject his mis-guided attempt at disipline. My kid's mother would blow in from time to time and demand rights she did not deserve nor have. It only served to upset what was already in place and give her small relief from her guilty feelings as a failed parent. She never had her daughter's best interests in mind. As far as excessive force by AP...that seems pretty obvious. That's for the system to decide.

 

[Joker]

I resent anyone's smarmy and self rightteous assertion

You know, CC...me too. THAT is probably my greatest fault(out of innumerable ones). When I read the smarm, the self righteous posts,the chest thumping "I'm better than everybody" dissertations in broken English, using poor syntax I admit I have to slap myself in the head and realize that this thing, this construct we call the net, the world wide web, is the bastard progeny of Andy Warhol's proclamation in 1968..

In the future, everybody will be world famous for 15 minutes. In the future everyone will have their fifteen minutes of fame.

This IS the Smarmternet now....entropy will run its course, to where only God knows...

 

[basement zombie]

Captain - thanks for sharing your wonderful story. She's a lucky young woman, and sounds like you count yourself among the most lucky of fathers, as well. So special.

I respectfully just want to add that my take/previous post regarding the reasons why hitting/laying hands on your kids in anger and/or to discipline is not good was done in the spirit of highlighting what are 'best practices,' so to speak, of parenting. In no way am I intending to indict you or any other parents who have chosen to parent that way. On the flip side, I think that a child turning out wonderfully while having been spanked is not necessarily a validation of spanking as the most effective parenting practice.