Thread: Adrian Peterson's arrest ordered

Originally Posted by Slick

I think you think Joel is condoning Peterson's actions but the more I read his posts I get confused on where he stands.

I definitely don't condone what Peterson did. I come from a family of divorce. My Mom's choice of disclipline was to ground me or send me to my room. My Dad's method of choice was a wooden paddle. Needless to say, my Mom's methods weren't very effective but my Dad's were.

If I ever have kids I'm not sure how I will handle discipline. Probably more like most of you. A time out corner or in extreme cases a bare handed swat on the butt, and only when they're old enough to understand it.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I read Joel as justifying what Peterson did because of his upbringing, beliefs, and area where he grew up. Perhaps he doesn't condone it to the point that he'd do this action to his child, but there is no reason he has pointed out that justifies what Peterson did.

Originally Posted by King87

Joel, I read the first sentence of your post and I just stopped. I literally sighed and rolled my eyes. I'm done with you, your posts in this thread make you look like you're either out of touch with reality or a sociopath.

YOU insisted on precise language: I simply provided it where you failed; it was never MY point, because I agreed Peterson crossed a line—I just doubt a dozen East Texas jurors would ALSO agree UNANIMOUSLY. That's why the fact it took TWO grand juries just to indict is QUITE relevant: If they needed two tries to get just a trial, how many would a CONVICTION need...?

Originally Posted by aberdien

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/beat

a. To strike repeatedly.
b. To subject to repeated beatings or physical abuse; batter.
c. To punish by hitting or whipping; flog.

This is what happens when you argue semantics, Joel.

P.S. don't respond with a long post discussing why Whip is still different than Beat, because I frankly DGAF because they are for all intents and purposes the same goddamn thing. AP beat his child with a whip-like object. AP whipped his child. That is not okay no matter what verbage you use.

The injuries were severe, both physically AND mentally. To suggest otherwise is idiotic. You don't get a pass because you didn't mean to beat your kid a bunch of times with a whip-like object (in the balls no less!).

Whether the injuries were severe's a matter of opinion, but, IMHO, severe injuries require more than bandaids. The guy who KILLED one of Petersons other kids inflicted SEVERE injuries; the injuries Peterson inflicted were minor in terms of harm but major in terms of behavior, because even minor injuries to a child are inexcusable when easily avoided, whether or not they were intentional. He doesn't get a pass, but the fact the kid wasn't kept at the hospital manifestly mitigates Petersons actions enough the court accepted a misdemeanor reckless assault plea rather than insisting on a trial for felony injury to a child.

Originally Posted by GEM

You don't call the marks left on that child a beating? What do you call it?

A whipping; we just covered this. Slashing rather than concussive force; that's not OK, by any means, but someone wanted to correct nomenclature incorrectly, so I just finished the job he started.

Originally Posted by Nomad

I don't know if this makes sense, but I read Joel as justifying what Peterson did because of his upbringing, beliefs, and area where he grew up. Perhaps he doesn't condone it to the point that he'd do this action to his child, but there is no reason he has pointed out that justifies what Peterson did.

I'm not trying to justify what he did; how many times must I say, "he went too far" before that's clear? I'm trying to explain why a dozen East Texans might disagree (the FIRST dozen sworn in certainly did) and to MITIGATE over the top (and generally disingenuous) hysterical outrage that Peterson "beat his son with a tree branch," which did NOT what happen. What he DID do was still excessive and inexcusable, but not the ne plus ultra of brutality claimed by so many people, most of whom know better.

The true tragedy's the kid's in a no-win situation: Now he's away from the vicious, savage, child-brutalizing monster he calls "Daddy Peterson"—but his OTHER most recent "daddy" STRANGLED HIS SIBLING TO DEATH, which ain't exactly better. It's perplexing people can't see the difference between Petersons inexcusable violence and SEVERE physical violence when there's such a clear example in the same family. At least indicting dad for felony injury to a child takes the spotlight off mom picking up a child MURDERER; guess she keeps custody.

Originally Posted by Joel

Peterson "beat his son with a tree branch," which did NOT what happen.

No, that is exactly what happened. If you believe otherwise you are part of the problem

Joel: Is a "switch" somehow a more compassionate weapon to beat your child with than a stick or a tree branch?