What happened to that kid is criminal.
The kid will heal and when he's older, he will be talking about how much he loves his father, and will probably be speaking fondly of his father as well... as has happened for generation after generation. Now if it comes out that there is a history of abuse with the child, then I'll change my views. I went to a private school where they paddled kids, and I got it once because I walked out of class to meet my mother outside, instead of waiting to be called, because she had mystenia gravis and being kept in a hot car for too long was bad for her health. Of course I had to be spanked, even though my mother was on my side. They said to her that if I wasn't punished, I'd be kicked out, so she did it. Unfortunately, her muscles decided that was the time to pop, and instead of a light swat, I had a mark that lasted for a week.
Look we can argue whether or not it was an effective punishment, and at that age, we can argue that point. But I'm not going to argue malicious intent on AP's behalf, which is what I believe is more important when determining child abuse.
Come on, man!!!
Look...lots of parents make in the moment bad decisions that result in charges of abuse. This indict has stuck. Whether the charges will result in a conviction or plea...I dont know. But judge the photos by what they are. We dont have to sit on the jury but we do sit on the court of public opinion. That was abuse.
I had a foster mother that used to tear into me (literally) with anything at hand. Her weapon of choice was a high heeled shoe. She was by and large a good person and hell...I dont mind saying I have fond thoughts for her. In many ways she was the closest I ever came to having a real parent. Her violent attacks didnt change that, but it was no less abusive.
The evidence of bloody wounds on the child's body and eyewitness testimony and Peterson's admission .. all is sufficient to indict on child abuse.
One does not inflict wounds on a child.
Frequently when such wounds are inflicted, the parent is not providing correction but is venting emotion, and it is the venting of emotion that causes the striking to be excessive sufficient to cause such wounds. When such venting of emotion occurs, the parent is out of control.
So, according to our laws, Peterson needs to be indicted, etc.
But, The Vikings and the NFL are, once again, out of line depriving Peterson of his paycheck.
This is a public matter, the realm of our legal justice system.
This is not a private (enterprise) matter, the realm of the Vikings and the NFL.
Peterson should remain with the team, innocent until PROVEN guilty, and, if he's proven guilty and his punishment still allows him the freedom to play for the Vikings, he should be allowed to do so.
There is no excuse for preventing anyone from earning a living in such a situation as this other than because that person is compelled by our legal justice system to be unavailable.
If the Vikings want to make him "invisible" for a while, then, if that's justified, they may do so.
But, not without pay!
The court of public opinion is looking to punish Peterson, especially the liberal "justices".
But the court of public opinion is, without question, not a court at all.
Those wanting to deprive Peterson of his paycheck because they seek vengeance for what was done to them in the past by taking that out on others .. should just shut up and go away, back to their therapist.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
Isn't he divorced? Just give mom full custody.
I bet 1:2 he doesn't play Sunday this evening.
Last edited by ecofarm; 09-15-14 at 10:29 PM.