Vikings Message Board.Com

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/corpo ... --nfl.html


I thought this was an interesting neutral take on the issue. One thing I want to clarify in all of it that's been misreported, a switch comes from a Bush and is in no way shape form or fashion a tree limb. I'm from Alabama and it was used on me as a child and is continuing to be used by family members on their children grandchildren etc. So as much as some people are appalled by this it is a continued practice where I'm from. I don't agree with the severity of punishment that he used but I will pop my little girl from time to time if she acts out.i do draw the line at intentionally drawing blood on a child though. If my family were on the jury it wouldn't be a long trial because he would be not guilty early on and you have to wonder if that's the culture in Texas as well because it took 2 grand juries because the first didn't believe the injuries were sufficient enough to warrant charges.

YESSSSSSSss until AP is found guilty in court, I'll be fine with him playing

According to NBC Sports on 09/12/14:

According to KPRC in Houston, the charges of injuring his 4-year-old son were first presented to a grand jury, and then no-billed (meaning no charges were filed).

BUT

According to ESPN on 09/14/14:

[Montgomery County first assistant district attorney Phil] Grant said only one grand jury reviewed Peterson's case, refuting a report that an initial grand jury rejected the case and it took a second grand jury to indict Peterson. He said the grand jury "was provided lots of evidence over a significant number of weeks, and at the conclusion of that evidence presentation and an explanation of the law in this particular matter, they chose to indict Mr. Peterson."

720pete wrote: What if he is found not guilty or the jury do not believe there are strong enough evidence and dismiss the case? Would it still be hiding behind the due process shield then?

You didn't quote me but I will add my 2 cents.

IMO no. That's why I have always said the best course of action for the Vikings would be to deactivate him until it's all played out.

Peterson gets paid but doesn't have to "work". Just like happens in other aspects of life. People get suspended with pay until there situation gets resolved. Than when it is resolved they go back to there daily job.

If he is Guilty than he is guilty. Courts get to decide his fate than. If he is innocent he is innocent. Than you have him come back and play than. Sure you can say he was unduly punished by missing games, when/if he was found innocent, but this case has to do with ABUSE OF A CHILD. I would rather error on the side of caution when it comes to this situation.

720pete wrote: What if he is found not guilty or the jury do not believe there are strong enough evidence and dismiss the case? Would it still be hiding behind the due process shield then?

What if Ray Rice had gone to trial and was acquitted? Would it change your opinion of what Ray Rice did and whether his actions deserved a suspension?

There already is enough information in Peterson's case to warrant keeping him off the field and he has admitted to causing the injuries which were enough for a doctor in Minnesota to contact the police.

As I said ... I don't think the verdict in Peterson's case is going to matter much for most people. Not after seeing the photos. Not after reading Peterson's own words from his police interview that was released by the DA in Montgomery County. And not after reading the statement issued by Peterson's lawyer.

AJ Jefferson was charged with domestic violence last November. The Vikings released him a couple hours later. He wasn't a very good player so I guess "due process" wasn't as important as it is now.

I'm fine with this move as well.

To me this is no where near as bad as Ray Rice knocking his girlfriend out. Ray Rice clearly got extremely angry, lost all composure, and his intent was to do as much damage to her as possible. For me it all comes down to intent, and Peterson's wasn't to hurt his son, so yes he made a massive mistake and yes what he did was wrong, and yes he crossed the line but all in all if this is joe shmoe from texas disciplining his kids with a switch it's a non story all together. I know that doesn't make it right or change anything but this is not something that really concerns me about Peterson as a person or his behavior / ethics.

If he takes the right classes, gets educated on the matter, and works hard to be a better parent than I think it will be best for all parties involved, including the Vikings. If they just cut him like Ray Rice we can never move forward on the issue (which has now been brought to light in the public eye!) and no good comes from it.

To me it's kind of like when someone with mental illness shoots up their school or bombs a building or whatever. We look at them as monsters and they certainly made monstrous actions, but as a society it would be best if we were able to help them before it got that bad, to take preventative action rather than reacting to it once the "bad thing" happens. I don't see Peterson as a monster here, I think he did a monstrous thing, and it would have been best if we could have prevented it with education of the parent but we didn't. All too often society want's to disown or "get rid" of the "dark spot" when really we can fix it rather than just ignore it.

#### the spineless wilfs, and #### Peterson. Chris Cook had a season long suspension prior to his "due process."

HardcoreVikesFan wrote:It is a lose-lose situation regardless of what the team did.

At the end of the day, this is the NFL. It is a business. The objective of the NFL's employees (coaches, GMs, Players), is to win games. This was clearly a decision in order to execute the business side of the NFL.


I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but I certainly understand it. Besides, who am I to be judge, jury, and executioner?

I agree about the business part of it. The Vikings have decided losing AP on the field is more damaging to the organization than dealing with public fallout.

The Ravens made the opposite decision. Ray Rice's due process hasn't played out yet, either. He's out of a job.

This is about perception. The Vikings have decided they will take the PR hit, which will be significant. The photos of Adrian's child, coupled with his own admission, are as damning in the public eye as the Rice video. A LOT of people are very upset at Adrian Peterson, and with good reason.

On the football side, I wonder how AP's teammates will react.

mondry wrote:I'm fine with this move as well.

To me this is no where near as bad as Ray Rice knocking his girlfriend out. Ray Rice clearly got extremely angry, lost all composure, and his intent was to do as much damage to her as possible.

You're comparing the whipping of a four year old, repeatedly, to the point of causing multiple lacerations and bruises to Ray Rice's left hook. I'd say both are extremely disgusting, but I don't see any point in getting into a debate over the degrees of awfulness.

How do you know Peterson wasn't just as angry as Rice was? And how do you know what Peterson's intent was? Because he said so?

For purposes of determining discipline from either the league or the Vikings, I don't think intent matters that much. He caused the injuries.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: This is about perception. The Vikings have decided they will take the PR hit, which will be significant.

Indeed. It's already started. People have already started saying things like "Cutting him and losing 15 in a row > implicit organizational support of child abuse #Vikings" on twitter. I don't necessarily agree with that, but the perception is there now. I own a whole bunch of Vikings gear and wear it regularly. I had no problem wearing it on Sunday and didn't feel ashamed to be a vikings fan as I thought the Vikings did the right thing with the deactivation. Now, I'm not sure how I feel about it.

I've seen a few people saying the are no longer Vikings fans due to this.

Pseudo Everything wrote: You're comparing the whipping of a four year old, repeatedly, to the point of causing multiple lacerations and bruises to Ray Rice's left hook. I'd say both are extremely disgusting, but I don't see any point in getting into a debate over the degrees of awfulness.

How do you know Peterson wasn't just as angry as Rice was? And how do you know what Peterson's intent was? Because he said so?

For purposes of determining discipline from either the league or the Vikings, I don't think intent matters that much. He caused the injuries.

There are two major differences, in my opinion.

First; public perception. People view hitting a woman like that as worse than spanking a child on the legs (even if marks like that are left). When the story broke many people started in with the 'this generation needs to toughen up' and 'I was treated like that and came out fine' lines. I don't recall reading anything similar to that about Ray Rice ... at least not anywhere near the amount I'm seeing people siding with Peterson. Nobody saying something like 'well, she hit him first, women want equal treatment ... well there it is!'

Right or wrong, a lot of people don't seem to view Peterson's action on the same level.

Second, there aren't any videos of the actual act taking place. Even in the case of Ray Rice; everybody knew what happened. He knocked her out in the elevator. Nobody was really outraged and no significant action took place until they actually saw it happening. Something about actually seeing it take place, and not just seeing the result, is much more powerful.

I'll tell you this much though; it's very much causing me some internal conflict about watching the team. I will never feel like I once did about Peterson ... that's for sure.

Interesting take by Barkley and I agree.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... d%3D529470

Tom Pelissero ‏@TomPelissero 54s

One of the NFL's new special advisors, Lisa Friel, will assist with review of Adrian Peterson situation under personal conduct policy.

Looks like the NFL may still step in with something on this.

mondry wrote:I'm fine with this move as well.

To me this is no where near as bad as Ray Rice knocking his girlfriend out. Ray Rice clearly got extremely angry, lost all composure, and his intent was to do as much damage to her as possible. For me it all comes down to intent, and Peterson's wasn't to hurt his son, so yes he made a massive mistake and yes what he did was wrong, and yes he crossed the line but all in all if this is joe shmoe from texas disciplining his kids with a switch it's a non story all together. I know that doesn't make it right or change anything but this is not something that really concerns me about Peterson as a person or his behavior / ethics.

Wow. I usually agree with you, but I just can't here.

For one thing, this is a 4-year-old. Even if you believe in this sort of punishment, to administer it to a preschooler is incredibly cruel. And Adrian had time to think about it. He put leaves in the kid's mouth. He texted that he gave the kid "about five more licks than usual," which means this is a pattern of behavior. And for what? Because the boy acted like a 4-year-old and threw a video game controller? How is that better than Ray Rice?

As for the Joe Schmo comparison, cry me a river. Charles Barkley made the same comparison on the Dan Patrick Show today, and it infuriated me. The man has a NINE-FIGURE-CONTRACT. He's a star with immeasurable privilege. Same with Barkley, who gets invited to play golf at the Pebble Beach Pro Am with Tiger Woods, even though Charles is the worst golfer on the planet. These guys live a life of incredible privilege. As such, AP is a public figure. He's in the limelight. It's the life he chose. Yes, he worked hard to get it, but as a result, he reaps benefits that you and I can't even dream of. We'll guess what? When he screws up, it's in the public eye. If you're gonna take the glamor, then you gotta deal with the garbage.

The real tragedy in your scenario is Joe Schmo's kid, not Adrian Peterson.

tnvikesfan wrote:I'm not sure what to think about this. Obviously, the judicial system has to run it's course. I don't know what the league policy is about playing while under indictment, if there is a difference between misdemeanor or felony charges, or if it comes down to whether or not the individual is found guilty. What is the league's policy for discipline in such charges? I think this is a first for injury to a child, either in the child abuse or negligent injury format?

Legally, can the league or the team discipline/suspend a player who has not been convicted of a personal (non-drug/alcohol) charge until it is settled? I'm sure the contracts have stipulations for each player.

Under the CBA a team can suspend a player for up to four games at their discretion regardless of any legal action against that player (and players have the right to file grievances if they think the suspension is unjust). A team cannot suspend a player for drug use as that is specifically covered under the CBA and is handled by the league.

There is a distinction made between a suspension and a deactivation. Peterson wasn't suspended for yesterday's game. He was deactivated so he still collected his game check.

Several years ago the Eagles permanently deactivated Terrell Owens for acting like a jerk and banned him from their facilities. In other words they paid him not to play (as a way of getting around the suspension limitations). The NFLPA tightened this up during the last CBA agreement and teams can no longer do that.

Initially the Vikings suspended Chris Cook but they then reinstated him but deactivated him (he was out for 10 games total). It was understood at the time that they were able to do this without running afoul of the CBA because Cook agreed to it.

As for the league ... under their new Personal Conduct Policy they can suspend players without a legal conviction but its limited to certain circumstances and has other restrictions. That doesn't mean that the NFLPA is always going to go along with a decision to suspend a player (for personal conduct outside of drug use). They can fight it through the grievance process.