Adrian Peterson Indicted for Negligent Injury to a Child

[mosscarter]

you say he needs to be punished by society? at least you can do is discuss the reality of the situation. there is a 95 percent chance NOTHING will happen to him. he'll likely plea the charge down and never even see trial. this is the ugliness, but truth of the world we live in. athletes and actors play by a different set of rules. it goes to show you that teachers get paid like garbage, and if any one of them would have been accused by this they would have been fired. he has one of the best attorneys in the country who will make sure this is handled with the least bit of distractions. i don't agree with what he did at all, but at least discuss the way it is.

[PurpleKoolaid]

The sad thing was seeing so many children at the game with 28 jerseys.

Not suggesting that this doesn't disturb me, but I remember my dad telling me to admire the worth ethic, sportsmanship, and things of that nature, but don't use him (or her) as a model. The same thing with rock bands. Bruce Willis. You get my point.

I have a few godsons, and nephews that I bought #28 jerseys for. I hope I don't see them wearing it.

[frosted]

This situation sucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chicagopurple]

mike Vick hung dogs from trees by wires around their necks then electrocuted them and slowly beat and cut them up till they died. This is not a "sub-culture" this is the behavior of a sociopath. He is a sick excuse for a human being. I could care less if he EVER got a second chance. It would be Karma if one day HE was a victim of a physical attack. It was reasonable that he served jail time. If some one now wants him on their team, in their home, playing with their kids...thats their choice. He did a crime, he paid his time. But don't be a fool and trust him much. Those who abuse animals and chilren RARELY change their ways. i work in the field with abused children. Abusers almost ALWAYS cry when caught and claim to change their ways...but later the kid ends up injured again or dead. NEVER trust an abuser.
Sadly, AP now has chosen to be a part of this sick "subculture"......but, HEY, he knows Jesus....all is well according to him.

[allday1991]

mike Vick hung dogs from trees by wires around their necks then electrocuted them and slowly beat and cut them up till they died. This is not a "sub-culture" this is the behavior of a sociopath. He is a sick excuse for a human being. I could care less if he EVER got a second chance. It would be Karma if one day HE was a victim of a physical attack. It was reasonable that he served jail time. If some one now wants him on their team, in their home, playing with their kids...thats their choice. He did a crime, he paid his time. But don't be a fool and trust him much. Those who abuse animals and chilren RARELY change their ways. i work in the field with abused children. Abusers almost ALWAYS cry when caught and claim to change their ways...but later the kid ends up injured again or dead. NEVER trust an abuser.
Sadly, AP now has chosen to be a part of this sick "subculture"......but, HEY, he knows Jesus....all is well according to him.

J.w the source of your information? both version of the Peterson case and the Vick case. I never recall hearing about marks on scrotum and that Vick hung dogs by wires on trees and electrocuted them.

[Mothman]

I'm posting this reluctantly because I really don't want to re-start the heated debate that led to so much trouble for this board. In other words, please be civil and respectful to others if you respond.

That said, I felt this powerful article should be shared. It has nothing to do with football but it does provide some insight, from a professor of sociology at Georgetown, on the psychology involved in the way some black parents discipline their children. It's nuanced and insightful, as a discussion of such a sensitive subject should be, and regardless of where someone stands on the issues at hand, I would hope this article would enrich their understanding of the bigger picture:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/opini ... .html?_r=0

[Purple Reign]

J.w the source of your information? both version of the Peterson case and the Vick case. I never recall hearing about marks on scrotum and that Vick hung dogs by wires on trees and electrocuted them.

I'm not sure about the Vick case, but here is a quote from an article on CBS (emphasis mine): "The beating allegedly resulted in numerous injuries to the child, including cuts and bruises to the child’s back, buttocks, ankles, legs and scrotum, along with defensive wounds to the child’s hands.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/09/12/ ... t-charges/

[Slick Rick]

Tried to comment yesterday but I had server troubles. Anyways, AP has to find a better solution for disciplining a 4-year-old. I think that spankings can be useful for some parents, but even if you believe that spankings can be useful for discipline, it has to be done in the right way.

Personally, I would never physically punish my children. If they misbehave then it's up to me to illustrate to them what they did, why it's wrong, and why it should never be done again and I simply don't think that swatting someone's rear-end is going to accomplish that.

There's no excuse for the extent of the damage that we do know about, but I don't think that's the only way that you can look at this issue. I know some people might not want to forgive him, but I think any human should wait for all of the facts to come out before we make a complete assessment of what exactly our level of reaction should be. Did he actually force the kid to eat grass and leaves, did he hit the kid in his face, etc. and many of those things that came out after the substantiated claims have really no basis.

So far, I still think AP's a good man and that I wouldn't classify this as abuse. By law it probably is, but I usually identify abuse as being more persistent than the one incident that we know about. I also identify it with a certain level of sadism. I think it's much more likely that AP got carried away and didn't think much of the extent of what had happened simply because he was raised to think that that sort of punishment is routine and even necessary.

[Texas Vike]

I'm posting this reluctantly because I really don't want to re-start the heated debate that led to so much trouble for this board. In other words, please be civil and respectful to others if you respond.

That said, I felt this powerful article should be shared. It has nothing to do with football but it does provide some insight, from a professor of sociology at Georgetown, on the psychology involved in the way some black parents discipline their children. It's nuanced and insightful, as a discussion of such a sensitive subject should be, and regardless of where someone stands on the issues at hand, I would hope this article would enrich their understanding of the bigger picture:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/opini ... .html?_r=0

Thanks for sharing that link. Very good read.

[Just Me]

Tried to comment yesterday but I had server troubles. Anyways, AP has to find a better solution for disciplining a 4-year-old. I think that spankings can be useful for some parents, but even if you believe that spankings can be useful for discipline, it has to be done in the right way.

Personally, I would never physically punish my children. If they misbehave then it's up to me to illustrate to them what they did, why it's wrong, and why it should never be done again and I simply don't think that swatting someone's rear-end is going to accomplish that.

I could use an example that I had as a kid that worked for me and my brother (I wasn't even the one who got the physical end of the punishment) but I really wanted to compliment your 'even handedness' on your opinion. I would like all of these discussions to go this way. One can disagree with a viewpoint without denigrating the opposite view. I had spanked my daughter in the past, but found later that a specific method of non-corporal punishment (if that's even a term) was more effective for achieving my goal. I discontinued corporal punishment (not because I believed (or even believe now) that it was wrong) but because I found a more effective way to train my daughter. So my question for you is: If you have 'explained' why one shouldn't commit an act or action, and your child continues to commit that action (perhaps even endangering their own safety) would the act of administering physical pain (as an inducement to not commit dangerous acts) still be an option that is "off-the-table?" I tread carefully here, and in full disclosure I believe it is 'inadvisable' (is my best sounding neutral term) to strike a child with any implement. At least with an open hand, there is a tactile sensation to help one gauge how hard the spanking is being administered. IMHO you lose that with a belt, switch, wooden spoon, or any other 'object' that I've heard (or witnessed) being used. I think this went too far (the idea is to inflict pain as a 'motivator' not to 'injure'). Clearly this falls into the latter category.

There's no excuse for the extent of the damage that we do know about, but I don't think that's the only way that you can look at this issue. I know some people might not want to forgive him, but I think any human should wait for all of the facts to come out before we make a complete assessment of what exactly our level of reaction should be. Did he actually force the kid to eat grass and leaves, did he hit the kid in his face, etc. and many of those things that came out after the substantiated claims have really no basis.

To me the leaves are just...weird. In reality, I struggle with this. Part of me thinks it was the worst part of the 'incident' because I can't see how that's accomplishing anything. Upon further reflection, I struggle with the fact that the leaves would have left no permanent physical scars, so is it just because I'm accustomed to a "spanking" being "normal" and so I can understand (if Peterson unintentionally - not say it was or it wasn't intentional - just looking at all the options - so assuming for the sake of argument it was unintentional) how a "spanking" could result in an injury. I just "don't get" the "leaves thing" assuming it's true.

So physically Peterson's kid would be better just "spitting leaves" out of his mouth, but mentally? IDK. The whole thing seems surreal. The court system will judge Peterson, but I'm really struggling with the fact that I have a hard time believing Peterson could administer that kind of a beating and NOT know it was over the top.

So far, I still think AP's a good man and that I wouldn't classify this as abuse. By law it probably is, but I usually identify abuse as being more persistent than the one incident that we know about. I also identify it with a certain level of sadism. I think it's much more likely that AP got carried away and didn't think much of the extent of what had happened simply because he was raised to think that that sort of punishment is routine and even necessary.

You know I kind of feel the same way, but I've been struggling with my own internalizing of this incident for a few days regarding that: If it was Richard Sherman that had been accused of this same incident, would I be so slow to condemn. (That's not meant to indict you, it's just relating my own discomfort sometimes with the man I see in the mirror every morning.)

[Mothman]

@ acousticrock.....

you ignore the matter of degrees....and keep tryin to play a race card......

it makes no difference if you used a paddle, a hand or a stick.....a morally capable adult would use corporal punishment very carefully on a child they love, ie NOT tearing a bunch of lacerations in there buttocks and scrotum!!......Stop making excuses for AP. HE acted like a real dirtbag, He needs to be punished by society and everyone associated with him needs to shame him until he reaches a point where he will never do this to another child. Period. Stop implying that because he started out poor and black, we just dont understand him and he has a shred of an excuse. He does NOT. No one has an excuse in their life to justify child abuse.

There's a difference between an excuse and an explanation. Cultural differences, upbringing, etc, play a role in this. The NYTimes article at the link I posted above addresses that point far more eloquently than I could but these forces shape what each of us believes is appropriate behavior and appropriate punishment. For example, I strongly disagree that everyone associated with Peterson "needs to shame him until he reaches a point where he will never do this to another child". On the contrary, I think those associated with him should try to help him understand why what he did was absolutely wrong, help educate him regarding what's right and do what they can to guide him down a path that will make him a better person and perhaps even enable him to have a good relationship with his children down the road. That view doesn't make me right or you wrong but I think it does illustrate that people can differ on the right thing to do and differ on what constitutes an appropriate response to a punishable offense.

Don't misunderstand me: I don't excuse what Peterson did at all. He should face the legal consequences of his actions and he's already facing other consequences. As far as I'm concerned, he should never, ever do what he did again and it was wrong to do in the first place. However, I don't think pointing to his personal history or cultural background excuses his actions. It's a way to help those of us with dramatically different backgrounds to understand why he may have felt he was doing the right thing, to still see him as a person and not just a perpetrator. Trying to reach that kind of understanding isn't the same as justifying what Peterson did.

[Mothman]

To me the leaves are just...weird. In reality, I struggle with this. Part of me thinks it was the worst part of the 'incident' because I can't see how that's accomplishing anything. Upon further reflection, I struggle with the fact that the leaves would have left no permanent physical scars, so is it just because I'm accustomed to a "spanking" being "normal" and so I can understand (if Peterson unintentionally - not say it was or it wasn't intentional - just looking at all the options - so assuming for the sake of argument it was unintentional) how a "spanking" could result in an injury. I just "don't get" the "leaves thing" assuming it's true.

I'm dubious about the veracity of the claim regarding the leaves. It may be true but i think the 4 year old is the reported source of that information and the testimony of a 4 year old is extremely unreliable. Young children are easily led by questions (even unintentionally), eager to please and prone to confabulation.

[Just Me]

I'm dubious about the veracity of the claim regarding the leaves. It may be true but i think the 4 year old is the reported source of that information and the testimony of a 4 year old is extremely unreliable. Young children are easily led by questions (even unintentionally), eager to please and prone to confabulation.

Absolutely correct. When interviewing children, it's extremely critical not to 'suggest' and control your own facial expressions and reactions just to ensure that innate 'desire to please' that most kids have will not 'run amuck'. That is one of the most difficult interviews to do simply because the best way is to develop a rapport with the child, but investigators are usually under time constraints. The would be one of the aspects of the incident I would want to know more about before I would make the leap from an "assumption" to a "determination."

[Demi]

How could they lead a kid to saying he put leaves in his mouth? That seems like an awfully odd place to end up through any line of questioning. If it was a soap in the mouth, bite down on this type of thing maybe?

[Mothman]

How could they lead a kid to saying he put leaves in his mouth? That seems like an awfully odd place to end up through any line of questioning. If it was a soap in the mouth, bite down on this type of thing maybe?

Maybe... if it happened, I'm guessing that was the idea behind it.

In terms of leading... I know what you mean but as I understand it, with children, it can sometimes be as simple as pushing them for too much information. Because they can be eager to please an adult authority figure, they may exaggerate or make up answers because that's what they actually think is expected of them. They provide an answer to please the adult.

Eyewitness testimony from young children is just fraught with potential issues.