Posted on 09/17/2014 3:49:13 AM PDT by fatima
MINNEAPOLIS -- After a day of public pressure from angry fans and concerned sponsors, the Minnesota Vikings have reversed course and placed star running back Adrian Peterson on the exempt-commissioner's permission list, which means he will have to stay away from the team while he addresses child abuse charges in Texas.
The move comes less than 48 hours after the Viking said Peterson would play this coming Sunday, in the third week of the National Football League season.
Peterson has been indicted in Texas on felony charges of "reckless or negligent injury to a child" -- a four-year-old son -- for using a wooden switch to spank his 4-year-old son. He is scheduled to make his first court appearance Oct. 8.
After the indictment, the Vikings deactivated Peterson for their game this past Sunday, which turned out to be a 30-7 loss to the New England Patriots.
Then came word of Peterson's reinstatement, which drew heavy criticism from many quarters.
Several sponsors responded by either suspending their deals with the Vikings or severing ties with Peterson.
"While we were trying to make a balanced decision yesterday, after further reflection we have concluded that this resolution is best for the Vikings and for Adrian," owners Zygi and Mark Wilf said in a statement. "We want to be clear: We have a strong stance regarding the protection and welfare of children, and we want to be sure we get this right. At the same time we want to express our support for Adrian and acknowledge his seven-plus years of outstanding commitment to this organization and this community."
The stunning reversal comes after a harrowing day on Tuesday that included the Radisson hotel chains suspending its sponsorship with the Vikings. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/adrian-peterson-banned-by-minnesota-vikings-from-all-team-activities/
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Said he from the Land of Ozero. Thanks for your input. “SNORT”
Good work in providing this "rest of the story". Would the media be so comprehensive in its reportage as you.
Leni
Disturbing text messages between Adrian Peterson and child's mother
Details on Adrian Peterson Indictment Charges
The text messages, which are quoted in the indictment, can be found throughout the reporting on this story. If you search, you'll find one in which Peterson says he hit the boy about five times more than he should have.
Texas law allows a parent to administer 'reasonable' corporal punishment to a charge. However, Texas law also makes it a felony to intentionally or negligently cause bodily harm or severe bodily harm to a child, elderly person, or disabled individual. The issue here is whether the punishment was 'reasonable' or not. That decision is not left to the parent administering the punishment, but to the DA, the grand jury, and the jury. Also, the first grand jury no-billed this charge.
Beating your kid til they bleed isn’t discipline its assault. If Peterson took a tree branch and beat you til you bled what do you think would happen to him?
I'm not a kid, he would get shot. Stupid question.
stupider answer, by orders of magnitude
You just shot yourself in the foot. You just acknowledged Peterson committed assault on his child. If its assault on you with a penalty of getting shot then its assault on a four year child. Sadly children have no way to defend themselves.
Exactly - that is clearly one of the stupidest statements to be posted at FR - and I read the religion posts...A violence to a four-year-old equates to a learning experience. The same violence to an alleged adult is suddenly worthy of capitol punishment. That can only come from one vacuous head.
"He offered up information that the police didnt have and was incredulous when asked if some of the numerous wounds and marks on the child were from an extension cord, saying, Oh, no, Id never hit my child with an extension cord. I remember how it feels to get whooped with an extension cord. Id never do that.
The marks show it was excessive, but I'm not sure it rises to felony level. It may depend on if one believes the child, or if the child is being encouraged by the mom in prep for a civil case...$$$.
your argument get’s more and more absurd by the moment.
I am not a child, I don’t get spanked. As an adult, I can tell you most clearly, if you try to hit me with a branch, a tree, a board or anything else, I will re=serve the right to use whatever force I deem necessary to prevent it from happening.
Now, as for spanking my children, it is none of your business, just as how you coddle yours is none of my business. Nor is it your business if you get elected, God forbid, to any office.
You obviously decided to raise your children according to the leftist, the govt, and dr, spock, my wife and I decided to raise ours according to God’s word, the holy Bible.
Thanks for continuing to back up my argument. Just keep digging that hole. :-)
Better still, why don’t you read God’s word, the Holy Bible for yourself and come to your own conclusion.
Can you really be so foolish as to think you are winning oour little debate?
someone needs to better clarify to that goof what exactly Jesus meant when He said “Suffer the little children”
“Can you really be so foolish as to think you are winning oour little debate”
Uh well Yes. Thanks for playing. :-)
:-) Snicker!
I do, most every day for the past 40 years. I read in Luke 17:
It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble
I've got nothing against corporal punishment (the rod) and, in fact, applied it with all 3 of my kids when they were growing up. What the pictures from HPD show isn't an application of discipline, it's a criminal assault on a child.
So, take your misguided, self righteous, interpretation of God's word back into that whitewashed sepulcher you live in.
beautiful; and God bless!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.