Just my humble opinions here. Adrienne Peterson appears to have injured a child who was too young to learn any lesson from such punishment. Probably severely enough that he should have been charged.
But he also appears to have believed it was the right thing to do. Was it malice or just ignorance? I think the latter.
As for the NFL I think it’s barely their business, and it’s really upsetting that people think it’s appropriate to destroy these people’s incomes so their families (the victims) will suffer.
Where did this idea come from that it is in any way good to stop a domestic abuser from having a job?
Thanks! You saved me some time!!!!
Surely you jest. Of course it is the NFL's and the owner's business. Peterson is an employee whose conduct reflects poorly on the enterprise. No doubt his contract has a moral's clause. When you violate the conditions of employment, the employer has the right to discipline or fire you.
Where did this idea come from that it is in any way good to stop a domestic abuser from having a job?
Peterson can apply for any job he wants. His present employer can deem him a liability and fire him. Why should the employer tolerate someone who tarnishes their product?
Damned if you do or don’t:
You handle it and the kid calls the cops-you go to jail.
You call the cops and a family member gets shot or tased.
FWIW,what AP did was child abuse.
So how would you handle DUIs? People who lose the ability to drive often lose their jobs,too.
The NFL’s product is its players. If any other company’s product maimed and disfigured 4 year-old children, they’d stop producing it.