Adrian Peterson Indicted in Texas for "swatting son with a switch"

[LedRush]

If Adrian Peterson is found guilty of a crime, then, and only then, we can talk about the appropriate suspension.

 

If you were the CEO of my company, I'd do anything I could to get you fired. Willful blindness to facts is simply not acceptable, nor is abdicating your responsibilities to the government.

 

The responsibility to deliver justice is not the NFL's, and the responsibility to decide the facts of a criminal investigation isn't either.

 

Rushing to judgment over a matter which is neither openly apparent or clearly settled is not acceptable; and from a business standpoint, making a bold stand over a matter that is so divided, only draws negative attention to your company. Even if you try to appease the side with the greatest numbers, the loyalty gained will never benefit your business more than the backlash from the alienated party will hurt you. Inaction is the safe policy- at least until a verdict is reached.

 

As the owner of a company, you don't have a responsibility to deliver justice, but you do have a responsibility to enforce your own code of conduct and to protect the interests of your stakeholders. Whether or not an act is illegal, when an employee is accused of breaking the code of conduct, a company will conduct its own investigation, come to its own finding of facts, and administer what it considers to be appropriate disciplinary action. It seems that with Rice and Peterson, you are advocating for a perverse system in which either:

 

1. a company can/should follow this standard practice when the violation is one that doesn't involve allegations of illegal conduct, but when the allegation does involve illegal conduct (which generally indicates that the stakes for the company and the violation of company is greater), you would abdicate your responsibility and instead allow a court of law to determine how you should run your company. That kind of thinking is not only perverse in its logic, but it is extremely bad business; or

 

2. a company can never take disciplinary action against its employees unless they are found guilty in a court of law. This would do away with all drug policies, all code of conduct policies, all ethics policies, and basically make any corporate code of conduct and related agreements moot. This could be more consistent logically, but is even dumber than the other option as it makes a company impotent to protect itself and its interests. If I think a person is sexually harassing everyone else at work, I'd have to report it to the police and hope that it rises to a level of criminal liability regarding the person, but not about the company. And of course, continuing to employ such a person after you had reason to believe that he was sexually harassing others but before he is convicted will ensure that you will be liable yourself.

 

 

Furthermore, the legal processes and the burdens of proof in a criminal case, a civil case, and a company internal investigation are all different. And for good reason. Generally, in a criminal case we are concerned that people can be unjustly accused and punished and have high hurdles for presenting evidence and finding of guilt. In a civil case where the stakes are generally merely monetary between two individual parties, the standards are still rigorous to ensure equal treatment, but the burden of proof for determining liability or fault are much lower. In the case of a company dealing with an employee, the company is given much more leeway in creating and maintaining its process. That's because the primary obligation of the company is to the shareholders, and a risk analysis of what can help or hurt the company is not contingent on a protracted legal process or a finding a fault beyond reasonable doubt.

 

In a situation like this, a company should be following the same protocol they do for all allegations of misconduct against their employees. They should conduct their investigation, determine the facts, and take appropriate disciplinary action. And here, the stakes are much higher because the employee is basically the product of the company. The longer you allow your product to taint the reputation of your brand, the more damage is caused.

[Finding IT]

If Adrian Peterson is found guilty of a crime, then, and only then, we can talk about the appropriate suspension.

 

If you were the CEO of my company, I'd do anything I could to get you fired. Willful blindness to facts is simply not acceptable, nor is abdicating your responsibilities to the government.

 

The responsibility to deliver justice is not the NFL's, and the responsibility to decide the facts of a criminal investigation isn't either.

 

Rushing to judgment over a matter which is neither openly apparent or clearly settled is not acceptable; and from a business standpoint, making a bold stand over a matter that is so divided, only draws negative attention to your company. Even if you try to appease the side with the greatest numbers, the loyalty gained will never benefit your business more than the backlash from the alienated party will hurt you. Inaction is the safe policy- at least until a verdict is reached.

 

So long as we realize this is your opinion. This isn't how business works.

[LedRush]

If Adrian Peterson is found guilty of a crime, then, and only then, we can talk about the appropriate suspension.

 

Where in the hell do you get this, Ken? His contract and his collective bargaining agreement are the documents that govern whether of not he can be suspended. A criminal finding may not be required. It's all in the legal agreements under which he is employed.

 

No more privately contracted legal agreements for Ken. Now the government is in charge of my decisions on whether to hire, fire, or take disciplinary actions regarding my employees.

[Finding IT]

If Adrian Peterson is found guilty of a crime, then, and only then, we can talk about the appropriate suspension.

 

If you were the CEO of my company, I'd do anything I could to get you fired. Willful blindness to facts is simply not acceptable, nor is abdicating your responsibilities to the government.

 

The responsibility to deliver justice is not the NFL's, and the responsibility to decide the facts of a criminal investigation isn't either.

 

Rushing to judgment over a matter which is neither openly apparent or clearly settled is not acceptable; and from a business standpoint, making a bold stand over a matter that is so divided, only draws negative attention to your company. Even if you try to appease the side with the greatest numbers, the loyalty gained will never benefit your business more than the backlash from the alienated party will hurt you. Inaction is the safe policy- at least until a verdict is reached.

 

As the owner of a company, you don't have a responsibility to deliver justice, but you do have a responsibility to enforce your own code of conduct and to protect the interests of your stakeholders. Whether or not an act is illegal, when an employee is accused of breaking the code of conduct, a company will conduct its own investigation, come to its own finding of facts, and administer what it considers to be appropriate disciplinary action. It seems that with Rice and Peterson, you are advocating for a perverse system in which either:

 

1. a company can/should follow this standard practice when the violation is one that doesn't involve allegations of illegal conduct, but when the allegation does involve illegal conduct (which generally indicates that the stakes for the company and the violation of company is greater), you would abdicate your responsibility and instead allow a court of law to determine how you should run your company. That kind of thinking is not only perverse in its logic, but it is extremely bad business; or

 

2. a company can never take disciplinary action against its employees unless they are found guilty in a court of law. This would do away with all drug policies, all code of conduct policies, all ethics policies, and basically make any corporate code of conduct and related agreements moot. This could be more consistent logically, but is even dumber than the other option as it makes a company impotent to protect itself and its interests. If I think a person is sexually harassing everyone else at work, I'd have to report it to the police and hope that it rises to a level of criminal liability regarding the person, but not about the company. And of course, continuing to employ such a person after you had reason to believe that he was sexually harassing others but before he is convicted will ensure that you will be liable yourself.

 

 

Furthermore, the legal processes and the burdens of proof in a criminal case, a civil case, and a company internal investigation are all different. And for good reason. Generally, in a criminal case we are concerned that people can be unjustly accused and punished and have high hurdles for presenting evidence and finding of guilt. In a civil case where the stakes are generally merely monetary between two individual parties, the standards are still rigorous to ensure equal treatment, but the burden of proof for determining liability or fault are much lower. In the case of a company dealing with an employee, the company is given much more leeway in creating and maintaining its process. That's because the primary obligation of the company is to the shareholders, and a risk analysis of what can help or hurt the company is not contingent on a protracted legal process or a finding a fault beyond reasonable doubt.

 

In a situation like this, a company should be following the same protocol they do for all allegations of misconduct against their employees. They should conduct their investigation, determine the facts, and take appropriate disciplinary action. And here, the stakes are much higher because the employee is basically the product of the company. The longer you allow your product to taint the reputation of your brand, the more damage is caused.

 

I've had these debates with Ken in the past. I can never be sure if we are debating what is or what we think should be.

[LedRush]

If Adrian Peterson is found guilty of a crime, then, and only then, we can talk about the appropriate suspension.

 

If you were the CEO of my company, I'd do anything I could to get you fired. Willful blindness to facts is simply not acceptable, nor is abdicating your responsibilities to the government.

 

The responsibility to deliver justice is not the NFL's, and the responsibility to decide the facts of a criminal investigation isn't either.

 

Rushing to judgment over a matter which is neither openly apparent or clearly settled is not acceptable; and from a business standpoint, making a bold stand over a matter that is so divided, only draws negative attention to your company. Even if you try to appease the side with the greatest numbers, the loyalty gained will never benefit your business more than the backlash from the alienated party will hurt you. Inaction is the safe policy- at least until a verdict is reached.

 

As the owner of a company, you don't have a responsibility to deliver justice, but you do have a responsibility to enforce your own code of conduct and to protect the interests of your stakeholders. Whether or not an act is illegal, when an employee is accused of breaking the code of conduct, a company will conduct its own investigation, come to its own finding of facts, and administer what it considers to be appropriate disciplinary action. It seems that with Rice and Peterson, you are advocating for a perverse system in which either:

 

1. a company can/should follow this standard practice when the violation is one that doesn't involve allegations of illegal conduct, but when the allegation does involve illegal conduct (which generally indicates that the stakes for the company and the violation of company is greater), you would abdicate your responsibility and instead allow a court of law to determine how you should run your company. That kind of thinking is not only perverse in its logic, but it is extremely bad business; or

 

2. a company can never take disciplinary action against its employees unless they are found guilty in a court of law. This would do away with all drug policies, all code of conduct policies, all ethics policies, and basically make any corporate code of conduct and related agreements moot. This could be more consistent logically, but is even dumber than the other option as it makes a company impotent to protect itself and its interests. If I think a person is sexually harassing everyone else at work, I'd have to report it to the police and hope that it rises to a level of criminal liability regarding the person, but not about the company. And of course, continuing to employ such a person after you had reason to believe that he was sexually harassing others but before he is convicted will ensure that you will be liable yourself.

 

 

Furthermore, the legal processes and the burdens of proof in a criminal case, a civil case, and a company internal investigation are all different. And for good reason. Generally, in a criminal case we are concerned that people can be unjustly accused and punished and have high hurdles for presenting evidence and finding of guilt. In a civil case where the stakes are generally merely monetary between two individual parties, the standards are still rigorous to ensure equal treatment, but the burden of proof for determining liability or fault are much lower. In the case of a company dealing with an employee, the company is given much more leeway in creating and maintaining its process. That's because the primary obligation of the company is to the shareholders, and a risk analysis of what can help or hurt the company is not contingent on a protracted legal process or a finding a fault beyond reasonable doubt.

 

In a situation like this, a company should be following the same protocol they do for all allegations of misconduct against their employees. They should conduct their investigation, determine the facts, and take appropriate disciplinary action. And here, the stakes are much higher because the employee is basically the product of the company. The longer you allow your product to taint the reputation of your brand, the more damage is caused.

 

I've had these debates with Ken in the past. I can never be sure if we are debating what is or what we think should be.

 

I know what is, so I'm assuming he's arguing what should be. It's just that his argument is staggeringly illogical.

[Aikenrooster]

If Adrian Peterson is found guilty of a crime, then, and only then, we can talk about the appropriate suspension.

 

If you were the CEO of my company, I'd do anything I could to get you fired. Willful blindness to facts is simply not acceptable, nor is abdicating your responsibilities to the government.

 

The responsibility to deliver justice is not the NFL's, and the responsibility to decide the facts of a criminal investigation isn't either.

 

Rushing to judgment over a matter which is neither openly apparent or clearly settled is not acceptable; and from a business standpoint, making a bold stand over a matter that is so divided, only draws negative attention to your company. Even if you try to appease the side with the greatest numbers, the loyalty gained will never benefit your business more than the backlash from the alienated party will hurt you. Inaction is the safe policy- at least until a verdict is reached.

 

As the owner of a company, you don't have a responsibility to deliver justice, but you do have a responsibility to enforce your own code of conduct and to protect the interests of your stakeholders. Whether or not an act is illegal, when an employee is accused of breaking the code of conduct, a company will conduct its own investigation, come to its own finding of facts, and administer what it considers to be appropriate disciplinary action. It seems that with Rice and Peterson, you are advocating for a perverse system in which either:

 

1. a company can/should follow this standard practice when the violation is one that doesn't involve allegations of illegal conduct, but when the allegation does involve illegal conduct (which generally indicates that the stakes for the company and the violation of company is greater), you would abdicate your responsibility and instead allow a court of law to determine how you should run your company. That kind of thinking is not only perverse in its logic, but it is extremely bad business; or

 

2. a company can never take disciplinary action against its employees unless they are found guilty in a court of law. This would do away with all drug policies, all code of conduct policies, all ethics policies, and basically make any corporate code of conduct and related agreements moot. This could be more consistent logically, but is even dumber than the other option as it makes a company impotent to protect itself and its interests. If I think a person is sexually harassing everyone else at work, I'd have to report it to the police and hope that it rises to a level of criminal liability regarding the person, but not about the company. And of course, continuing to employ such a person after you had reason to believe that he was sexually harassing others but before he is convicted will ensure that you will be liable yourself.

 

 

Furthermore, the legal processes and the burdens of proof in a criminal case, a civil case, and a company internal investigation are all different. And for good reason. Generally, in a criminal case we are concerned that people can be unjustly accused and punished and have high hurdles for presenting evidence and finding of guilt. In a civil case where the stakes are generally merely monetary between two individual parties, the standards are still rigorous to ensure equal treatment, but the burden of proof for determining liability or fault are much lower. In the case of a company dealing with an employee, the company is given much more leeway in creating and maintaining its process. That's because the primary obligation of the company is to the shareholders, and a risk analysis of what can help or hurt the company is not contingent on a protracted legal process or a finding a fault beyond reasonable doubt.

 

In a situation like this, a company should be following the same protocol they do for all allegations of misconduct against their employees. They should conduct their investigation, determine the facts, and take appropriate disciplinary action. And here, the stakes are much higher because the employee is basically the product of the company. The longer you allow your product to taint the reputation of your brand, the more damage is caused.

This is spot on, on the $. This is one of the greatest posts, ever, on this forum. Thanks for eloquently making my point. It very articulate and astute, and precisely what I've been preaching.

 

To hell with waiting for a "disinterested" entity to take their time and possibly screw it all up, which happens all the time. The facts are out there, and, like you said, we, the people, need to quit abdicating our responsibilities to uphold what is right and wrong.

[Aikenrooster]

Could someone please tell me what charges would be levied against A.P. if he had done this to a random guy or gal??? I want to know in order to contrast it with the charges that are being levied against an innocent, defenseless, 4 year old, who a lot of people deem to be his property.

[LedRush]

Could someone please tell me what charges would be levied against A.P. if he had done this to a random guy or gal??? I want to know in order to contrast it with the charges that are being levied against an innocent, defenseless, 4 year old, who a lot of people deem to be his property.

 

I'm not a criminal attorney, but there would almost definitely be a charge for kidnapping (which is holding anyone against their will, even if just with the threat of force) and torture. This would very obviously go beyond simple assault and battery.

[Rick N. Backer]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

[Aikenrooster]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

[troutman]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

 

I heard that there might be another charge against him. Different child though.

Edited September 16, 2014 by troutman

[Principled Man]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

 

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

 

I also agree that what Peterson did was way beyond "disciplining" his boy. It was 100% abusive.

 

This incident is definitely not a simple case of the NFL regulating players' behavior with their families, but it could lead to the NFL doing so in the future. That is a legitimate concern, IMO.

 

This incident has created a debate over corporal punishment for a very clear reason: Peterson, his family and friends, and many people who live down South openly state how whippings were and still are a "normal part" of child discipline. Such whippings have been an open secret in this country for generations. Now that they're being broadcast to everyone, the debate is getting prime time exposure.

 

Check out this very good article from USA Today about Peterson and his upbringing. Here's a photo of his childhood friend, David Cummings, showing the switches that were used to whip them when they were kids.

 

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f18504171e788efdc7a3084979e991dce97695f1/c=0-85-480-446&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/09/15/1410827928000-c01%20cummings%2016.jpg

 

http://www.usatoday....t-son/15696169/

[Aikenrooster]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

 

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

 

I also agree that what Peterson did was way beyond "disciplining" his boy. It was 100% abusive.

 

This incident is definitely not a simple case of the NFL regulating players' behavior with their families, but it could lead to the NFL doing so in the future. That is a legitimate concern, IMO.

 

This incident has created a debate over corporal punishment for a very clear reason: Peterson, his family and friends, and many people who live down South openly state how whippings were and still are a "normal part" of child discipline. Such whippings have been an open secret in this country for generations. Now that they're being broadcast to everyone, the debate is getting prime time exposure.

 

Check out this very good article from USA Today about Peterson and his upbringing. Here's a photo of his childhood friend, David Cummings, showing the switches that were used to whip them when they were kids.

 

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f18504171e788efdc7a3084979e991dce97695f1/c=0-85-480-446&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/09/15/1410827928000-c01%20cummings%2016.jpg

 

http://www.usatoday....t-son/15696169/

Yes, and most of the Warhawks in the US and a lot of the military bases in the US are in the South East.

 

You see, there is a connection between kids getting beat and then becoming monsters themselves.

 

.....the bomb in the brain

[troutman]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

 

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

 

I also agree that what Peterson did was way beyond "disciplining" his boy. It was 100% abusive.

 

This incident is definitely not a simple case of the NFL regulating players' behavior with their families, but it could lead to the NFL doing so in the future. That is a legitimate concern, IMO.

 

This incident has created a debate over corporal punishment for a very clear reason: Peterson, his family and friends, and many people who live down South openly state how whippings were and still are a "normal part" of child discipline. Such whippings have been an open secret in this country for generations. Now that they're being broadcast to everyone, the debate is getting prime time exposure.

 

Check out this very good article from USA Today about Peterson and his upbringing. Here's a photo of his childhood friend, David Cummings, showing the switches that were used to whip them when they were kids.

 

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f18504171e788efdc7a3084979e991dce97695f1/c=0-85-480-446&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/09/15/1410827928000-c01%20cummings%2016.jpg

 

http://www.usatoday....t-son/15696169/

Yes, and most of the Warhawks in the US and a lot of the military bases in the US are in the South East.

 

You see, there is a connection between kids getting beat and then becoming monsters themselves.

 

.....the bomb in the brain

 

Really,

 

Your going down that road?

[Lost In Xanadu]

Well, looks like AR is determined to get this moved to SOCN

[Lost In Xanadu]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

 

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

 

I also agree that what Peterson did was way beyond "disciplining" his boy. It was 100% abusive.

 

This incident is definitely not a simple case of the NFL regulating players' behavior with their families, but it could lead to the NFL doing so in the future. That is a legitimate concern, IMO.

 

This incident has created a debate over corporal punishment for a very clear reason: Peterson, his family and friends, and many people who live down South openly state how whippings were and still are a "normal part" of child discipline. Such whippings have been an open secret in this country for generations. Now that they're being broadcast to everyone, the debate is getting prime time exposure.

 

Check out this very good article from USA Today about Peterson and his upbringing. Here's a photo of his childhood friend, David Cummings, showing the switches that were used to whip them when they were kids.

 

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f18504171e788efdc7a3084979e991dce97695f1/c=0-85-480-446&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/09/15/1410827928000-c01%20cummings%2016.jpg

 

http://www.usatoday....t-son/15696169/

Dunno if anyone saw 12 Years a Slave, but this mentality makes me sick, and after seeing that movie, how can black families continue that sort of capital punishment? Edited September 16, 2014 by Lost In Xanadu

[alphseeker]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

 

I heard that there might be another charge against him. Different child though.

Heard this too. NFL and Vikings need to take him off the field until a thorough investigation by the league is complete, an investigation led by the three women Goodell just hired to deal with domestic violence.

[Narps]

Good Lord. No golf for him either any time soon I bet... Edited September 16, 2014 by Narpski

[Rick N. Backer]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

 

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

 

I also agree that what Peterson did was way beyond "disciplining" his boy. It was 100% abusive.

 

This incident is definitely not a simple case of the NFL regulating players' behavior with their families, but it could lead to the NFL doing so in the future. That is a legitimate concern, IMO.

 

This incident has created a debate over corporal punishment for a very clear reason: Peterson, his family and friends, and many people who live down South openly state how whippings were and still are a "normal part" of child discipline. Such whippings have been an open secret in this country for generations. Now that they're being broadcast to everyone, the debate is getting prime time exposure.

 

Check out this very good article from USA Today about Peterson and his upbringing. Here's a photo of his childhood friend, David Cummings, showing the switches that were used to whip them when they were kids.

 

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f18504171e788efdc7a3084979e991dce97695f1/c=0-85-480-446&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/09/15/1410827928000-c01%20cummings%2016.jpg

 

http://www.usatoday....t-son/15696169/

Dunno if anyone saw 12 Years a Slave, but this mentality makes me sick, and after seeing that movie, how can black families continue that sort of capital punishment?

 

You mean corporal.

[Aikenrooster]

Well, looks like AR is determined to get this moved to SOCN

No, we can keep it here. But, please tell me, what kind of person do you think the kid will become, who has taken beatings of this nature?

[Narps]

[Lost In Xanadu]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

 

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

 

I also agree that what Peterson did was way beyond "disciplining" his boy. It was 100% abusive.

 

This incident is definitely not a simple case of the NFL regulating players' behavior with their families, but it could lead to the NFL doing so in the future. That is a legitimate concern, IMO.

 

This incident has created a debate over corporal punishment for a very clear reason: Peterson, his family and friends, and many people who live down South openly state how whippings were and still are a "normal part" of child discipline. Such whippings have been an open secret in this country for generations. Now that they're being broadcast to everyone, the debate is getting prime time exposure.

 

Check out this very good article from USA Today about Peterson and his upbringing. Here's a photo of his childhood friend, David Cummings, showing the switches that were used to whip them when they were kids.

 

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f18504171e788efdc7a3084979e991dce97695f1/c=0-85-480-446&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/09/15/1410827928000-c01%20cummings%2016.jpg

 

http://www.usatoday....t-son/15696169/

Dunno if anyone saw 12 Years a Slave, but this mentality makes me sick, and after seeing that movie, how can black families continue that sort of capital punishment?

 

You mean corporal.

dammit....

[Lost In Xanadu]

Well, looks like AR is determined to get this moved to SOCN

No, we can keep it here. But, please tell me, what kind of person do you think the kid will become, who has taken beatings of this nature?

Apparently it'll likely go 1 of 2 ways.

 

In Adrian Peterson's case - he was whooped like that, so he continues doing it.

In my cousin's case... he was beat by his father and swore never to continue that behavior.

[troutman]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

 

I heard that there might be another charge against him. Different child though.

Heard this too. NFL and Vikings need to take him off the field until a thorough investigation by the league is complete, an investigation led by the three women Goodell just hired to deal with domestic violence.

 

Yep!!!

[Narps]

Hearing that the Vikings are deactivating Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots. Now employers are punishing 'criminals' before they're even convicted... super. :sarcastic:

 

What a joke.

 

Yeah. It's crazy that after your employee admits to creating welts and cuts on the legs, back and genitals of a child that are so bad, the photo taken after a week of healing still looks painful that you'd want to take action to protect your company. Crazy, I say.

 

Well,

 

You all know my stance on this. There is abuse and a well deserved whoopin'. I think it's a really bad move by the Vikings this early.

 

Just my opinion, but I think the Vikings and the NFL will try to make this go away as quickly as possible. This could cause a lot more trouble for the League than Ray Rice's incident. For decades, players have been convicted of violence towards other adults, but Peterson's case opens up a whole new and very large can of worms.

 

It's a very well-known rule in NFL clubhouses: You don't ask a teammate about 1) his money, 2) his woman, and 3) his kids.

 

If the NFL wants to get into the business of regulating players' behavior with their families, it's gonna cause a lot of trouble. We can be sure that there are a lot of players who were brought up just like Peterson was - with the switch. They might just come to Peterson's defense on this matter.

 

Also, there is the matter of NFL players having lots of kids via different mothers. If more light is shone onto Peterson's and other players' multiple families, then that could give the League even more trouble. The League could find itself really deep in Public Relations shit!! :o

 

I don't agree this is simply about "regulating players' behavior with their families" any more than a player who raped his daughter would be. I'm sorry for using such a shocking analogy, but the extent of the boy's (or really, as we now know boys') injuries is really shocking itself. If Peterson had simply hit his son, even with a belt or a switch, I might agree with you. Beating him badly enough to leave injuries that were still there 1 week later, on his scrotum and forearms (the defensive injuries), is not just disciplining your child.

Agree. It is sickening that people have turned this into a corporal punishment debate. This is a criminal act under any objective standard.

 

I heard that there might be another charge against him. Different child though.

Heard this too. NFL and Vikings need to take him off the field until a thorough investigation by the league is complete, an investigation led by the three women Goodell just hired to deal with domestic violence.

 

Yep!!!

Three women? Thats sexist! O wait a sec....