Adrian Peterson Indicted for Negligent Injury to a Child

[Raptorman]

Putting leaves in a 4 year olds mouth to boot. Wow.

The leaves in the mouth almost sounds made up to me. But I could be wrong. I am pretty sure this case will never make it to trial. It will be a plea deal. I hope people are ready for that. Most will be outraged. But I suspect it will be bargained down to a minor child neglect charge with no time served and anger management classes.

[S197]

Thing is, it's not about intent, it's about the result of your actions. For example, two drivers leave a bar intoxicated. The first driver swerves off the road and hits a tree, the second driver swerves off the road and runs over a person. Did either person intend to kill someone when they got into the car? Will the charges for both drivers be the same? No. The penalty will correspond with the outcome of your actions.

It doesn't matter if you've been beaten once or fifty times, sometimes people drive drunk and they make it home, other times they hit trees, and sometimes they hit people. The point is when you put yourself in that position, you're rolling the dice on the potential harm you can inflict. That's why it's called negligence. When AD picked up a switch, to hit a toddler, he rolled the dice and so far it looks like he crapped out.

The bottom line is it doesn't matter how much its done, once you cross the line it's time to pay the piper. Some people are lucky enough that they may get away with it more than others, but that doesn't mean you condone their actions. And that's the real big thing here, is to not condone this type of behavior. You want to forgive the guy, I can understand that, but you still have to acknowledge that it happened when it shouldn't. There's a big difference between forgiveness and defending something that is flat out wrong.

[DK Sweets]

Thing is, it's not about intent, it's about the result of your actions. For example, two drivers leave a bar intoxicated. The first driver swerves off the road and hits a tree, the second driver swerves off the road and runs over a person. Did either person intend to kill someone when they got into the car? Will the charges for both drivers be the same? No. The penalty will correspond with the outcome of your actions.

It doesn't matter if you've been beaten once or fifty times, sometimes people drive drunk and they make it home, other times they hit trees, and sometimes they hit people. The point is when you put yourself in that position, you're rolling the dice on the potential harm you can inflict. That's why it's called negligence. When AD picked up a switch, to hit a toddler, he rolled the dice and so far it looks like he crapped out.

The bottom line is it doesn't matter how much its done, once you cross the line it's time to pay the piper. Some people are lucky enough that they may get away with it more than others, but that doesn't mean you condone their actions. And that's the real big thing here, is to not condone this type of behavior. You want to forgive the guy, I can understand that, but you still have to acknowledge that it happened when it shouldn't. There's a big difference between forgiveness and defending something that is flat out wrong.

Excellent post. I was trying to say the same thing, and as usual, you said it better.

[Raptorman]

Americans are a society that forgives. For the most part, we want to forgive people for their transgressions. The only thing we ask is that you own up to it. We may not every forget what you did, but we will, most of the time, forgive you. It may take time and it depends on you and how you deal with it. How you put forth the effort to be a better person and not make the same mistake. What Adrian does and says in the next week will go a long way in how the public treats him down the line. What he did was not right. I think he knows that now. I don't think he ever thought about it until after he did it. How he comes to terms with that will either make him a better person or it won't.

Disciplining a child is one thing. But you can discipline a child with being physical. I remember being spanked once by my father on the bear butt with a wire flyswatter. I later learned it was one of the hardest things he ever did. Because he had been abused as a child by his father. Learning to break that cycle of physical abuse is tough. Hopefully more people will learn from this than just Peterson. Because everyone here knows, it happens every day in households across the US. Usually we don't hear about it on the news until a kid dies.

[Crax]

Brian Hall ‏@MNBrianHall 1m
Peterson's case will be reviewed by the NFL under the personal conduct policy, the league announced.

Arif Hasan ‏@ArifHasanNFL 23s
Personal Conduct instead of DV policy means NFL has more leeway for punishment. Also, they don't have to worry about language of policy.
Expand

Looks like it won't be under the new policy. Just personal conduct one.

[Raptorman]

I thought this story was relevant, "He" below speaking is the District Attorney Grant:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/n ... /15581419/

So maybe we shouldn't know some of the details and maybe that includes the pictures as well.

As it is, I admit, there is the proverbial "rush to judgement" in this case, rightfully or wrong.

If this was a Grand Jury leak it makes it tough to prosecute. Any evidence presented to a grand jury is considered secret. Because not all of it will necessarily be used by the prosecution. By someone on the grand jury releasing information they have will be considered to be "tainting" the jury pool making it difficult to seat an impartial jury. That makes a huge impact on the prosecution.

[Raptorman]

I respect the law surely but this is so serious in turn. We will see how this develops. A jury may still be able to be found in Texas where the story is not as big though this is a big national story undoubtedly.

When sitting on a Grand Jury you take an oath to never reveal what you heard in the jury room. Not even after the case is over. And they make it a point to let you know if you do you will be prosecuted. Not everything put forth in a grand jury is admissible in court. And not everything put forth is used by he prosecutor in court.

[Just Me]

What I'm trying to say is a lot of people are trying to justify his actions by saying he didn't mean to injure the boy as much as he did. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter what he meant to do, by the evidence we have so far he DID abuse the boy. He put himself in a position he shouldn't have and used poor judgement. Whether this stuff happens all the time, in a certain region of the country, etc. etc., is all irrelevant.

I agree with this, with one qualifier: His intentions are relevant to the charge(s) that will be filed. But in this case, the "intention" is already factored into the charge. If he intended to harm the child, Peterson (I assume) would be charged with child abuse. Since he was charged with 'Negligent Injury' there is no requirement that he intended to harm the child. The fact that he engaged in an action that caused harm and was negligent in his action (presumably to ensure the child wasn't injured) he would seem to be guilty of that offense. Your analogy of 'rolling the dice' may be the best way to put it. I believe corporal punishment has its place to discipline children, and I understand those who are opposed to it. I never used an 'implement' to administer the discipline, simply because I wanted to know exactly how hard I was spanking when I used that form of discipline. As I posted earlier, I found out that my daughter actually responded better to other (non-physical) punishment. I do believe children are different and a 'cookie cutter' approach to discipline will not always be successful.

As an example, my daughter was (and still is) a very social person. I found that my discipline was most effective when I limited her social interaction with others, including the family, for a defined period of time. (A form of solitary confinement, if you will). This worked for her. It was painful enough, (for her) that she didn't want to repeat whatever precipitated the discipline. If you know your kid(s), I believe you'll find out the most effective way to train them. Discipline comes from disciple, meaning to train. It can (IMHO), but does not necessarily have to, involve the infliction of physical pain. The end goal is to train the child, and parents should not lose sight of that goal.

Unfortunately for Peterson's son, and Peterson, he chose to use an implement to inflict physical pain, and it went too far. (By Peterson's own admission/texts, this would not seem to be in dispute). That act has violated the law, and Peterson should be held accountable for it, regardless of his intentions. I can appreciate the fact that he didn't mean to injure his child, but it doesn't mitigate the situation in this case.

It's a sad situation on so many levels...

[Purple bruise]

I think that AD's attorneys might fall back on this concept as a course of defending him . AD admittedly caused bodily harm to his child (a horrible thing to be sure) but was his intent to injure his child or discipline him. I would like to take the high ground and believe that his intent was to discipline him.
Word out is that the court case will not go to trial, if it even does, for at least one year.
My thoughts and prayers are for the child but also go out to AD.

"In Criminal Law the concept of criminal intent has been called mens rea, which refers to a criminal or wrongful purpose. If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks mens rea and, under this concept, should not be criminally prosecuted.
Although the concept of mens rea is generally accepted, problems arise in applying it to particular cases. Some crimes require a very high degree of intent, whereas others require substantially less. Larceny, for example, requires that the defendant intentionally take property to which the person knows he or she is not entitled, intending to deprive the rightful owner of possession permanently. On the other hand, negligent homicide requires only that the defendant negligently cause another's death."

[Just Me]

I think that AD's attorneys might fall back on this concept as a course of defending him . AD admittedly caused bodily harm to his child (a horrible thing to be sure) but was his intent to injure his child or discipline him. I would like to take the high ground and believe that his intent was to discipline him.
Word out is that the court case will not go to trial, if it even does, for at least one year.
My thoughts and prayers are for the child but also go out to AD.

"In Criminal Law the concept of criminal intent has been called mens rea, which refers to a criminal or wrongful purpose. If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks mens rea and, under this concept, should not be criminally prosecuted.
Although the concept of mens rea is generally accepted, problems arise in applying it to particular cases. Some crimes require a very high degree of intent, whereas others require substantially less. Larceny, for example, requires that the defendant intentionally take property to which the person knows he or she is not entitled, intending to deprive the rightful owner of possession permanently. On the other hand, negligent homicide requires only that the defendant negligently cause another's death."

That was the only thing I would point out: this is similar to Reckless Homicide (the term in Illinois statutes - basically the same as 'Negligent Homicide') where intent to do harm is not required. The DUI example used by S197 would accurate here. Depending on how the Texas statute is interpreted, (and I'm assuming the 'reckless' part of the charge is what will be the focus here) Peterson may have had very noble intentions, but if a jury will conclude that he 'recklessly' caused the injury, mens rea really will not help Peterson in this case. It helps from the standpoint of him not being charged with child abuse, (since it would be a difficult burden of proof to establish), but I don't think that is going to get the case tossed.

[Hunter Morrow]

God, I hope that leaves in the mouth thing isn't true. That is just really weird. That is disturbing.
Making a 4 year old pick his own stick to get beaten with and then putting the leaves off it in his mouth. God, that is just creepy!

Edit: Sorry, but I'm not buying the culture thing, either. This seems like lower class, low IQ Rick the Hick from the Sticks (Literally!)
level stuff to me. This isn't what I'd expect from a well-educated multimillionaire in a First World nation. But Daddy Peterson beat
Adrian with an extension cord so he got to pass on that fine "culture" of beating illegitimate kids with objects. Disturbing all round.

[mansquatch]

There isn't anyting to say about hitting a kid that hasn't already been said. It is a terrible thing.

However, I have to comment that this season has so far been the least enjoyable NFL season I can remember. The past week nobody in the media has been talking about NFL football, they've been talking about Ray Rice, the league, and it's disciplinary policies. (Gee, let's all tailgate in anticipation of that!) Now similar issues are coming to our Vikings.

I agree that the individual behaviors are reprehenisble. However, could someone please explain to me what any of it has to do with the quality of the product the NFL puts on TV? This is in many ways like what happened to Mike Vick with the dog fighting thing. That behavior was also abhorrent. However, he served his debt to society and then he was back in the league and even competitive for a few years. The legal system did it's job.

I've never understood this popular obsession with perfect morale character. I will humbly submit that no individual is without flaws, including myself. Seeking perfection is a noble pursuit, but anyone who strives for this knows that it is the impossible effort that is of the most value, because the result will always come up short in some way. Humanity is flawed, it always has been. Thus, if we demand perfection from our athletes then we'll quickly be either watching robots or we will no longer have sports. Again, what does their moral character have to do with their ability on the field? IMO, it has nothing to do with their ability to play football.

I'm sure some will think this is cold and callous, and maybe it is. But the NFL is entertainment. Mel Gibson has shown himself to be an anti-semite, I still enjoy Braveheart. That is but one example, but there are many, many more. Pick your poison, everyone has flaws, often those with the most success often have some of the worst. I am fine watching high quality football with the finest athletes in the world. The competitive meat grinder of the NFL is what makes it great, not whether or not all of it's players are upstanding members of society.

I'm glad the legal system is going to handle Mr. Peterson's offense. That is the proper channel for such things. I fail to see why the NFL is now expected to double (or triple) down on our legal process. Do we the people feel that the legal system is somehow insufficient? Or is it that we somehow feel as if we should also punish him? Obviously the NFL is reacting to negative PR, they are protecting their brand. However, that should cause of all of you fear and trepidation. This is mob rule at it's absolute worst. Where does it all end? We are going into week 2 and hardly anyone in the media is actually talking about football. Is this really better? Are Sports Reporters really the best people to have telling us what is right and what is wrong?

I fear my time as an NFL fan may be dwindling and not because I dislike the game, but because the PR and media surrounding the game are tarnishing and poisoning the entire experience. The purity of competition was already on life support with all the new passing rules. This is just another nail in the coffin.

[Arjuna]

I am both a parent and a pediatrician. For what thats worth.....and a 40 yr viking fan. I am disgusted by AP. He whipped a 4 yr old little boy so hard that he caused LACERATIONS through his skin!!!! This was not a little spanking. That is child abuse. Its sick. If he stays on the team, and this is true.... I am done. No 4 yr old child deserves to be cut up.

This is pretty much how I feel about it. To me it's pretty cut and dry, beating a kid til they bleed and welt is child abuse not discipline and that's regardless of generation. Just because your Dad did it to you and you turned out ok is irrelevant. Whether he meant it as discipline doesn't change the fact that it was abuse. I bet a lot of abusers are ignorant to what they're doing, that doesn't make it ok. I don't think he deserves hard prison time but I hope he takes some parenting classes and learns some humility because those texts don't seem very remorseful. If he does that and becomes the face of an anti abuse campaign and admits his ignorance, then perhaps I could respect him as a person some day. I love the football player that is Adrian Peterson but I have no respect for him as a person anymore.

[DK Sweets]

It bums me out that we've heard so many people say their love for the NFL is dwindling lately. I think most of them have had a point, but it just doesn't bode well for the only thing I follow with passion. I take solace in the fact that many people who say this are still not only watching the games, but active on fan forums, but I just wish these feelings didn't exist.

At no way am I saying their concerns are illegitimate, I just wish it wasn't that way.

[allday1991]

This recent news upsets me very much. It's probably not hard to tell A.D is my favorite player and idol in a way. I will remain neutral on my opinion until the court has made there decision.

I myself I have found myself in some legal trouble you could say, I often asked myself why? I didn't think I was a bad person, in fact a lot of times id go out of my way to be a extremely nice person and was always genuinely happy. So when I was called in one time for a warrant for my arrest the cop started up a conversation with me, i chatted back and eventually asked him why he was being nice to me? (prior experience weren't so pleasant). He looked at me right away with a dead serous look and said "most people in there life would be lying if they said they haven't done something that would have landed them in jail at least once in there life, the difference is they just didn't get caught so does that make you a bad person and them a good person just because they didn't get caught, I could of been in your shoes once or twice"?

Just something to thing about, in no way do i support any kind of abuse and i am not trying to defend A.D ill be the first to change my name is this turns out to be true.