Adrian Peterson is a piece of shit

[Orange]

Believe what you want..I'm still thankful for my parents spanking me. There are many cases of adults thanking their parents for doing that to them as well.

 

Hopefully your kids will say the same thing about you.

 

Edit: when the parents did the spanking, they never cut the skin at all.

 

So much is explained by this sentence.

[Orange]

I do agree with you and org...you cut the skin, it's abuse. Spanking can be done effectively without cutting the skin.

 

Bruising, cutting, leaving red marks.

 

It's all abuse under the law, and requires mandatory reporting  by numerous professions, chief among them pediatricians.  You don't need to cut the child's skin to be committing abuse.  My understanding is AP shoved leaves down his kid's throat.  That probably didn't leave scars, but that sure as shit is abuse.

 

How about some dude comes up to you for failing to chew with your mouth closed and pulls down your pants and swats your rear-end with a wooden spoon?  Jail?  Probation?  Should he get away scot-free?

 

Why is it okay to do it to someone 1/5th your size who happens to share DNA with you?

 

You're fucked up if you believe the shit you say.

[utenation]

that bad eh?

 

What you're not trolling the OU boards too? I would have thought you were trying to stir up shit on that board and get other boards to get involved.

[PAC MAN]

Bruising, cutting, leaving red marks.

 

It's all abuse under the law, and requires mandatory reporting  by numerous professions, chief among them pediatricians.  You don't need to cut the child's skin to be committing abuse.  My understanding is AP shoved leaves down his kid's throat.  That probably didn't leave scars, but that sure as shit is abuse.

 

How about some dude comes up to you for failing to chew with your mouth closed and pulls down your pants and swats your rear-end with a wooden spoon?  Jail?  Probation?  Should he get away scot-free?

 

Why is it okay to do it to someone 1/5th your size who happens to share DNA with you?

 

You're fucked up if you believe the shit you say.

 

Parents never left any bruises, cuts, etc.  It's still a good thing that there are laws in place to protect children because there are still parents out there who will overdo that unfortuantely.

 

Believe all you want about spanking.

 

What AD did went too far and he needs to be punished.  Nowhere in this thread did I ever condone AD's treatment of his four year old son.

[mysfit]

I have been trading posts with some of the people on this board for over 13 years (on now defunct boards) and I will continue to do so. I will however do the board a favor and stick you back on ignore where you belong.

[glduck]

the sooner scout board is great because at any random point you can still stop by and see a thread complaining about the onside kick game, which we are now a full eight years removed from.

[utenation]

Bruising, cutting, leaving red marks.

 

It's all abuse under the law, and requires mandatory reporting  by numerous professions, chief among them pediatricians.  You don't need to cut the child's skin to be committing abuse.  My understanding is AP shoved leaves down his kid's throat.  That probably didn't leave scars, but that sure as shit is abuse.

 

How about some dude comes up to you for failing to chew with your mouth closed and pulls down your pants and swats your rear-end with a wooden spoon?  Jail?  Probation?  Should he get away scot-free?

 

Why is it okay to do it to someone 1/5th your size who happens to share DNA with you?

 

You're fucked up if you believe the shit you say.

 

I think it's safe to say, this kid is already messed up.. Especially emotionally.. It will be interesting to see if he falls into the pattern or Alcoholism, depression, Anxiety etc..  The first problems of socializing with other kids and adults has probably already began..

[PAC MAN]

the sooner scout board is great because at any random point you can still stop by and see a thread complaining about the onside kick game, which we are now a full eight years removed from.

 

LOL...those OU fans haven't let go of that 2007 game in Boulder either.  It's an Okie thing.

 

I think it's safe to say, this kid is already messed up.. Especially emotionally.. It will be internesting to see if he falls into the pattern or Alcoholism, depression, Anxiety etc..  The first problems of socailizing with other kids and adults has probably already began..

 

I sure hope not in this case but you are probably going to be right about that.

[mysfit]

the sooner scout board is great because at any random point you can still stop by and see a thread complaining about the onside kick game, which we are now a full eight years removed from.

They are still whining about  that????

[mysfit]

Well

 

He's saying the right things. Well almost. Education is probably the best outcome here but I still am at a loss how someone could beat their 4 year old drawing blood and think that was ok. I don't get it.

 

 

NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport obtained the following statement from Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson:

My attorney has asked me not to discuss the facts of my pending case. I hope you can respect that request and help me honor it. I very much want the public to hear from me but I understand that it is not appropriate to talk about the facts in detail at this time. Nevertheless, I want everyone to understand how sorry I feel about the hurt I have brought to my child.

I never wanted to be a distraction to the Vikings organization, the Minnesota community or to my teammates. I never imagined being in a position where the world is judging my parenting skills or calling me a child abuser because of the discipline I administered to my son.

I voluntarily appeared before the grand jury several weeks ago to answer any and all questions they had. Before my grand jury appearance, I was interviewed by two different police agencies without an attorney. In each of these interviews I have said the same thing, and that is that I never ever intended to harm my son. I will say the same thing once I have my day in court.

I have to live with the fact that when I disciplined my son the way I was disciplined as a child, I caused an injury that I never intended or thought would happen. I know that many people disagree with the way I disciplined my child. I also understand after meeting with a psychologist that there are other alternative ways of disciplining a child that may be more appropriate.

I have learned a lot and have had to reevaluate how I discipline my son going forward. But deep in my heart I have always believed I could have been one of those kids that was lost in the streets without the discipline instilled in me by my parents and other relatives. I have always believed that the way my parents disciplined me has a great deal to do with the success I have enjoyed as a man. I love my son and I will continue to become a better parent and learn from any mistakes I ever make.

I am not a perfect son. I am not a perfect husband. I am not a perfect parent, but I am, without a doubt, not a child abuser. I am someone that disciplined his child and did not intend to cause him any injury. No one can understand the hurt that I feel for my son and for the harm I caused him. My goal is always to teach my son right from wrong and thatâs what I tried to do that day.

I accept the fact that people feel very strongly about this issue and what they think about my conduct. Regardless of what others think, however, I love my son very much and I will continue to try to become a better father and person.

[KUGRDON]

PLaying in the NFL is a privilege, not a right

 

Employment in this country is AT WILL and employers can and do end employment for no reason all the time.

 

Or for reasons which impact their bottomline. All the time. Furloughs and layoffs.

 

This is no different and the team and NFL have every right to  sanction their employees without a court finding.

 

They just don't have the balls to do it and are whimping out. That's bullshit................

 

I have already posted statutes that say in some jurisdictions an employer may not fire an employee for either their arrest or conviction record.  So its not that clear cut.

 

Moreover, union employees have protections built into their contracts that effectively rule out the "employee at will" provision.

 

Ironically, I am the conservative and I am the one standing up for the civil liberties of those accused but not convicted of crimes.  Moreover, what constitutes child abuse is not that clear cut under the law, "leaving marks" is not necessarily criminal.  The following is informative, if not authritative:

 

 

Standing on the sidewalk with your three-year-old, she pulls away from you and starts running toward a busy street. To her, it is a game, but to you, it is a life-threatening situation. You grab her just as she heads into the street and deliver a swift smack on the bum with an admonition, “No running in the street!†Startled, she stops. Have you just committed a crime?

People disagree on whether spanking is good or bad. Many European countries have banned spanking outright. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has outlawed all physical discipline, even within families. However, the vast majority of American parents spank their young children at some point, and most Americans believe that spanking is a legitimate form of discipline. Although less common than it used to be, spanking is pervasive in our society. However, anyone who spanks a child should know that sometimes spanking has criminal consequences.

While all states currently permit spanking at home, some states have outlawed spanking is schools and daycares, and most states discourage or outlaw spanking in foster homes and institutions for children.

For more information, see Criminal Consequences of Spanking in Schools.

What is Spanking?

Spanking, also called corporal punishment, is a discipline method in which a person inflicts pain on a child without inflicting injury and with the intent to modify the child’s behavior. Forms of corporal punishment include hitting a child’s bottom, slapping, grabbing, shoving, or hitting a child with a belt or paddle.

A Parent’s Limited Right to Spank

Currently, parents in all states have a limited right to spank their children. Courts have decided that parents have a constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit, including using whatever method of discipline they think is best. Whether by statute or by legal opinion, states permit parents to use physical discipline against their children as long as it is done in moderation and does not cause injury.

Under Georgia’s laws, for example, physical discipline may be used as long as the child is not injured. (Ga. Code. Ann. §§ 19-7-5, 19-15-1.) In California, parents are allowed to use “reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the buttocks†as long as there is no serious physical injury to the child. (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(a).)

For example, spanking a six-year-old child twice on the bottom, where the spanking causes no injury and only fleeting discomfort, would probably be considered lawful under Georgia’s and California’s laws, as well as in other states. However, striking the same six-year-old numerous times with a belt, causing lacerations, bruising, and pain that lasted for days, could be considered child abuse.

The Line Between Spanking and Abuse

The line between spanking and abuse is not always a clear one, and state prosecutors and judges generally decide on a case-by-case basis whether discipline crosses the line. Using physical force against your child may constitute assault, battery, child abuse, or domestic violence when:

• the discipline causes injury, not just discomfort
• the amount of force used is unreasonable, or
• it’s purpose is something other than correcting inappropriate or dangerous behavior.

For more information on these crimes, see Assault and Battery, Domestic Violence Laws and Penalties, and Child Abuse: Laws & Criminal Penalties.

 

I don't think an employer should be allowed to terminate an employee because the employee struck a child and left red marks on a child.  Such marks are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to demonstrate child abuse.

[mysfit]

They can sure has heck suspend them

 

And if they do it WITH PAY while the courts sort it out then the employee really should'nt be able to whine

 

In cases where there is evidence of behavior (video, pics, admission of yeah I did that) that the public at large would find objectionable sit their asses down.

 

Do it with pay.

 

And wait and see what the courts say.

[KUGRDON]

It is not that simple for a small employer to continue to pay an employee who is not working.  On the other hand, if an employer mistakenly assumes guilt and cuts off pay, the very child the employer was seeking to protect may be forced out of its home and go without food while the "courts sort it out."  Even in the NFL, a team that wrongly suspends a player may end up paying millions of dollars while the courts sort it out.

 

The judicial system was created for a reason, to provide protection to both victims and the accused.  It should take more than moral outrage, misplaced or not, to throw that out the window.

[mysfit]

It is not that simple for a small employer to continue to pay an employee who is not working.  The judicial system was created for a reason, to provide protection to both victims and the accused.  It should take more than moral outrage to throw that out the window.

We aren't talking a small employer

 

We're talking about the NFL

 

The judicial system is about criminal law

 

The NFL is not bound by the criminal system. They need to do more than 'say' they want to do the right thing on issues like Domestic Violence they need to SHOW IT

 

In cases where there is evidence of behavior not consistent with their policy of player conduct, and it doesn't have to be evidence that would hold up in court, they sit these guys out, with pay if needed, while the courts figure it out

 

Because right now a whole lot of people think the NFL and teams talk the talk only if it doesn't hit their bottom line or on field performance. And a lot of people are not happy about that. Not a majority but enough that they really should think about making some changes.

[KUGRDON]

Fans certainly have the right to complain and boycott if the NFL is not comporting itself as they wish.  I am afraid the principles you and others are advocating can be dangerous assaults on civil liberty.  For what crimes should the NFL suspend without conviction, for what moral failures, as determined solely by the NFL, which are not crimes (you state the NFL should not be bound by criminal law) should the NFL be able to suspend or terminate.  Should the NFL be granted legal protection in cases where it suspends without pay and a court later determines it had no right to so suspend?  Should popular opinion be the judge?  Should employers who make a lot of money be held to a different standard than employers who do not?  What is the financial cut off point?

 

One can reasonably assume that the NFL is already going to be sued by Rice for wrongful termination and perhaps by the NFLPA for breach of contract.  Will those who wanted the NFL to terminate him pay the legal defense costs and any resulting judgment?  Should the government provide immunity to the NFL from such suits?

 

One of my partners in one of my businesses wants to drug test and fire people who use pot.  I have resisted him because I feel like its none of my business as long as an employee is not under the influence while working.  Its legal to use pot under Washington State law.  Since you assert that an employer should not be bound by criminal law, should an employer fire someone for pot use, for alcohol use, for cigarette use, for jay walking?  Should it depend on the employer's moral code?  Should it depend on the collective moral code of the employer's customers?

[Mano]

I have already posted statutes that say in some jurisdictions an employer may not fire an employee for either their arrest or conviction record.  So its not that clear cut.

 

Moreover, union employees have protections built into their contracts that effectively rule out the "employee at will" provision.

 

Ironically, I am the conservative and I am the one standing up for the civil liberties of those accused but not convicted of crimes.  Moreover, what constitutes child abuse is not that clear cut under the law, "leaving marks" is not necessarily criminal.  The following is informative, if not authritative:

 

 

I don't think an employer should be allowed to terminate an employee because the employee struck a child and left red marks on a child.  Such marks are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to demonstrate child abuse.

 

In this case, I am pretty certain that there is no problem firing or suspending Peterson, the NFL has done so for far less. The NFL players union certainly has the right to try and appeal any ruling, and the club and the NFL would probably prefer that and try to put it on the evil union rather than having to take responsibility, but I doubt the union touches this one, and it is apparent that the Ravens feel the same. If this was some backup rather than one of the premiere NFL players, he would already be gone, AP's talent and value to the team is the only reason the Ravens are tolerating this.

[KUGRDON]

In this case, I am pretty certain that there is no problem firing or suspending Peterson, the NFL has done so for far less. The NFL players union certainly has the right to try and appeal any ruling, and the club and the NFL would probably prefer that and try to put it on the evil union rather than having to take responsibility, but I doubt the union touches this one, and it is apparent that the Ravens feel the same. If this was some backup rather than one of the premiere NFL players, he would already be gone, AP's talent and value to the team is the only reason the Ravens are tolerating this.

 

I tend to agree with you in the Rice case.  However, none of that means the NFL won't expend millions in defense costs.  My point is 1) that there could be unintended consequences associated with employers taking such action and 2) that the moral outrage is misplaced and should be directed at a. politicians for not legislating protections and mandatory sentencing and b. prosecutors and judges for letting folks like Rice walk.  If Rice was in jail, we wouldn't be talking about the NFL.

[RogueDuck]

What you're not trolling the OU boards too? I would have thought you were trying to stir up shit on that board and get other boards to get involved.

Hey I make it a point to never post on other teams boards, but I will lurk when someone lost a link to something so crazy.

[Mano]

I tend to agree with you in the Rice case.  My point is 1) that there could be unintended consequences associated with employers taking such action and 2) that the moral outrage is misplaced and should be directed at a. politicians for not legislating protections and mandatory sentencing and b. prosecutors and judges for letting folks like Rice walk.  If Rice was in jail, we wouldn't be talking about the NFL.

 

I agree that there should be more outrage about the legal systems treatment of domestic abuse, but you are glossing over the points for Peterson, who has been indicted. Our society has progressed passed the point where it is ok to hit your wife and beat your children, and if they feel that they will lose money/fans/viewers over keeping such players employed, they will act in their best interest. It is up to the fans to show the NFL that these players will not be tolerated, whether they are starting running backs or backup punters.

[KUGRDON]

I am not arguing that it is ok to hit your wife or beat your children and your post unfairly states that I gloss over anything with regard to Peterson.  I stated above that I think he is a piece of shit.  I earlier stated that what he did is worse than what Rice did.

 

I am stating that it is my preference for employers to wait until there has been a conviction to take action.  I tend to defend civil liberties.  Every one is entitled to a position though.