I agree with your comments about the physical nature of using a tree branch to hit a child. However, that makes it all the more incumbent on the assailant to be extraordinarily careful to limit the scope of the assault. Else, it is merely wanton cruelty.
It is clear that boy was stripped or nearly so when the tree branch was applied to him. If one is familiar with the action of a tree branch when using it to commit assault, and one is NOT trying to commit child abuse, one might have the child uncover only his rear end, rather than the entirely of his legs, arms, etc.
To fail to take these protective actions suggests that the punishment was meted out as an act of unthinking rage rather than a carefully-considered punishment of limited duration and harm. If this is the case, then Mr. Peterson is guilty of a form of child abuse that ranges more toward child endangerment, failing to provide a safe environment during the punishment.
If he was fully aware of the potential effects, and was NOT acting out of rage, but rather was engaged in a premeditated beating of a nearly-naked four year-old, that he had constructive knowledge that he would injure the boy across his entire body, including his genitalia, this suggests that perhaps Mr. Peterson is a hardened sadist who might be best served by a sufficiently-long prison sentence that he will not be released until the boy is old enough and strong enough to fight back when his father next assaults him.
Beating a four year-old pretty much across his entire body is not appropriate discipline. Sorry, but this just falls into the category of, "Things a Two-Hundred Lb-Plus Man Doesn't Do to a Four Year-Old."
sitetest
I agree with the general assessment of Peterson’s beating. But I must make a comment because we do not know the facts and should not make assumptions.
The boy apparently pushed his brother(?) off a video game (may have been the fancy full-size accessory kind of “ride”) which apparently was at home.
Thus, knowing some people, the boy very well could already have been half-naked on his own, along with the others. He didn’t necessarily strip the boy to do this. Sounded like he wanted the swift action I was talking about.
Just trying to stop the assumptions from spreading as fact, that’s all.
I think what you’re seeing is the normal method of punishment...get mad, get a switch, and start swinging. The kid starts jumping around and the blows land randomly here and there.
I’m talking reality. This is what happens. This is how it falls out in so many cases.
It sounds to me like you’re looking at a side of life that you are unfamiliar with. I can see with so many how that would be the case, and especially with those 40 and younger.
But, Peterson is a product of a couple of different cultures with different methods and mores. And ‘gettin’ a switchin’ was part of what he grew up with (and part of what I grew up with.)
So, I’m cutting him some slack until I see something that is different than an angry parent whalin’ away at the kids.
If I recall correctly, it wasn’t the mother, but the doctor, that turned this in. If correct, how do you think that factors in? Was she protecting a meal ticket, was she trying to get someone else to do the reporting, or was she also accepting of it, if only marginally. (Or some other answer.)
So far as firm discipline not necessarily meaning corporal punishment, sure. But that’s a 2 way street. Firm discipline doesn’t necessarily mean no corporal punishment.