fridge Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 never implied that. certainly there's cross over - me for one. but there is a sizable demographic that watches one and not the other. There's nothing wrong with that.
IDBillzFan Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 In the real world, there's a difference between "swat," "hit," and "beat." In the modern "zero tolerance" justice system, not so much. In a world where kids get suspended for biting their Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun, I wouldn't be surprised if Peterson was indicted for giving his son a really, really, really stern look.
Fan in San Diego Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 "Disciplining" could be anything from a whack across the behind to smacking him about the head for half an hour, so I'm withholding judgement for now... He used a switch supposedly, when he returned the child to the mother she noticed the injuries and took him to a doctor.
Fadingpain Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 I love the sentiments here casting doubt on the validity of the crime. It's like the default assumption on the part of many here is to assume the child is at fault, or Rice's girlfriend was at fault. She must have made Rice hit her. Nevermind the animal knocking her out or the child abuser beating the child to the point where criminal charges are being brought. You people are kind of sickening. Meatheads.
Braedenstearns Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 What's this switch? I'm confused?.. was this thing like a machine?
Fan in San Diego Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) What's this switch? I'm confused?.. was this thing like a machine? A switch is a thin tree branch, like from a willow tree. Hurts like a B word by the way and leaves marks. Personal experience. Edited September 12, 2014 by Fan in San Diego
section122 Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 I love the sentiments here casting doubt on the validity of the crime. It's like the default assumption on the part of many here is to assume the child is at fault, or Rice's girlfriend was at fault. She must have made Rice hit her. Nevermind the animal knocking her out or the child abuser beating the child to the point where criminal charges are being brought. You people are kind of sickening. Meatheads. Tbh yours is just as bad. Nobody knows what happened just that charges were filed. My reaction is wow I wonder what happened. I haven't seen anyone in this thread blame the child here... A switch is a thin tree branch, like from a willow tree. Hurts like a B word by the way and leaves marks. Personal experience. Yup it's an old school one for sure. Pick your switch was the worst. Small ones hurt bc they move fast big ones hurt bc they're big. Learn your lesson quick though lol.
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 So who started hitting you? Probably me. That's usually the way it works with newbies.
Braedenstearns Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 A switch is a thin tree branch, like from a willow tree. Hurts like a B word by the way and leaves marks. Personal experience. okay. Thanks!
HalftimeAdjustment Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 There's quite a bit of *alleged* detail here - sorry if already posted: http://deadspin.com/report-adrian-peterson-indicted-in-child-injury-case-1634160368
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 I love the sentiments here casting doubt on the validity of the crime. It's like the default assumption on the part of many here is to assume the child is at fault, or Rice's girlfriend was at fault. She must have made Rice hit her. Nevermind the animal knocking her out or the child abuser beating the child to the point where criminal charges are being brought. You people are kind of sickening. Meatheads. I have a pretty solid and secure definition for what I consider "child abuse." "Hit with a switch" isn't necessarily it, no matter what a grand jury says. It's simply not enough for me to go on. I don't automatically bow to the justice system for my own determination of right and wrong. I wait for the facts and judge for myself. If you chose to be an overreactive crybaby incapable of independent thought, then I suggest with no pretense of humility or politeness that you're the problem, not me.
Best Player Available Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 deactivated by Vikes per ESPN
QCity Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 Vikings announced they have deactivated RB Adrian Peterson
Pneumonic Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 A 4 year old kid? If true, AP's a bigger ass than RR. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/12/report-peterson-admitted-to-whooping-son-with-a-switch/
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 A 4 year old kid? If true, AP's a bigger ass than RR. http://profootballta...-with-a-switch/ No. Rice is a predator. Peterson is just an idiot. He thought he was disciplining his kid...but if you're breaking the skin, you're doing it very, very wrong.
Chandler#81 Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 I have a pretty solid and secure definition for what I consider "child abuse." "Hit with a switch" isn't necessarily it, no matter what a grand jury says. It's simply not enough for me to go on. I don't automatically bow to the justice system for my own determination of right and wrong. I wait for the facts and judge for myself. If you chose to be an overreactive crybaby incapable of independent thought, then I suggest with no pretense of humility or politeness that you're the problem, not me. Bravo
Pneumonic Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) No. Rice is a predator. Peterson is just an idiot. He thought he was disciplining his kid...but if you're breaking the skin, you're doing it very, very wrong. Whatever, they are both disgusting excuses of a human being. Edited September 12, 2014 by Pneumonic
FireChan Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) No. Rice is a predator. Peterson is just an idiot. He thought he was disciplining his kid...but if you're breaking the skin, you're doing it very, very wrong. He's an idiot because the kid is four. This wouldn't be a case if the kid was 11. Also, are we allowed to ask what the kid did? As far as I know, Texas legal code allows the hitting of the child to reprimand and promote their welfare. Maybe he did something really bad. Edit: Does anyone remember when we were outraged by Incognito bullying? Seems like a far-cry from the issues now, huh? Edited September 12, 2014 by FireChan
nucci Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 1m Arrest of Adrian Peterson (reported by @MarkBermanFox26) stems from the disciplining of a son with a switch, source says. He’s been indicted When I was a kid my father smacked me with a belt on many occasions. Times have changed What's this switch? I'm confused?.. was this thing like a machine?
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 He's an idiot because the kid is four. This wouldn't be a case if the kid was 11. Also, are we allowed to ask what the kid did? As far as I know, Texas legal code allows the hitting of the child to reprimand and promote their welfare. Maybe he did something really bad. Pushed another kid away from a video game. He's an idiot because if you hit a kid to inflict pain, you've gone overboard. At 4 years old, kids don't respond to reason, they respond to positive and negative reinforcement. To enforce discipline, you sometimes do have to give a 4 year old a swat on the behind to provide physical reinforcement of the discipline. But when that "swat" inflicts actual pain, or even injury, you've gone beyond mere discipline. The reason Pneumonic's wrong in equating him to Rice is because intent actually matters. Rice intended to abuse a woman. Peterson didn't intend to abuse a kid, he intended to discipline the kid. You know what else is probably going to happen? Peterson injured the kid's scrotum. I don't know about Texas, but in many jurisdictions, that means he's now a registered sex offender - in some jurisdictions, even if he's cleared of all charges.
Recommended Posts