And now in the NFL

[Ardwen]

Its yet another major issue, NFL is falling apart at the seems

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24706732/report-adrian-peterson-indicted-in-child-injury-case-in-texas

Adrian Peterson indicted by a grand jury for punishing a child with a switch....

[waywardgs]

Goddammit...


(Vikings fan)

[Jace Solo]

Its yet another major issue, NFL is falling apart at the seems

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24706732/report-adrian-peterson-indicted-in-child-injury-case-in-texas

Adrian Peterson indicted by a grand jury for punishing a child with a switch....

I don't have time to read this yet BUT...a switch? Are you fucking kidding me? Is it that the entire state of TEXAS is getting indicted in some sort of class-action-state-action lawsuit?

FFS It's a flimsy stick. Half the terror of the dreaded switch is when you make the child go pick it from the yard.
I used to spend 15-20 minutes wandering around, picking them up, testing flexibility verses width. I knew one would sting worse but the other would hurt longer. Hell, on narrow occasions my parents would just let me wallow in my misery stick picking until I returned with one and they would just look at me and say, "You have enough time to think about it?"

WHICH OPENED UP ANOTHER DOOR. Now, on my journeys, I no longer only had to think only about the girth of punishment but also that slight glimmer of hope in which parol might be granted. Oh GOD! Flash backs!

Anyway, this is a joke of a case unless he was spec'd for Precision for puncture and was only aiming for the eyes.

I reserve the right to amend my post on thorough examination of the article.

[Ardwen]

theres a further article that seems a lot more damning of Peterson, anf the Vikings apparently agree.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24706814/adrian-petersons-attorney-adrian-never-intended-to-harm-his-son

[Latrinsorm]

I don't have time to read this yet BUT...a switch? Are you fucking kidding me? Is it that the entire state of TEXAS is getting indicted in some sort of class-action-state-action lawsuit?

FFS It's a flimsy stick. Half the terror of the dreaded switch is when you make the child go pick it from the yard.
I used to spend 15-20 minutes wandering around, picking them up, testing flexibility verses width. I knew one would sting worse but the other would hurt longer. Hell, on narrow occasions my parents would just let me wallow in my misery stick picking until I returned with one and they would just look at me and say, "You have enough time to think about it?"

WHICH OPENED UP ANOTHER DOOR. Now, on my journeys, I no longer only had to think only about the girth of punishment but also that slight glimmer of hope in which parol might be granted. Oh GOD! Flash backs!

Anyway, this is a joke of a case unless he was spec'd for Precision for puncture and was only aiming for the eyes.

I reserve the right to amend my post on thorough examination of the article.According to the article he hit his child in the face with a belt, so go right ahead.

[JackWhisper]

I am not against punishing my son *in this sense*. I AM against hitting my son hard enough with anything that it leaves a mark. A simple sting will teach a child proper manners and etiquette. There is no need to whap the shit out of your offspring. That's just cruel.

[Kembal]

Considering this is Texas and that's a suburban county, I'm going to say that he probably did a lot more than just spank a kid with a switch. The paddle is still legal in certain school districts here.

[Androidpk]

It's alleged that he forced his son to be born black. Completely irresponsible.

[Wrathbringer]

It's alleged that he forced his son to be born black. Completely irresponsible.

What a monster.

[Gompers]

Breaking news: Peyton Manning is leader of ISIS

[Tgo01]

When is all of this going to die down so NFL players can get back to beating their wives and children in peace?

Geez!

[Methais]

theres a further article that seems a lot more damning of Peterson, anf the Vikings apparently agree.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24706814/adrian-petersons-attorney-adrian-never-intended-to-harm-his-son

On Friday evening, the Vikings announced that they had deactivated Peterson for Sunday's game against the Patriots.

What is he, a protocol droid?

[Wrathbringer]

Well, release and ban, right? Hardly seems fair to rice to give ap a second chance under the new policy.

[Ker_Thwap]

Well, release and ban, right? Hardly seems fair to rice to give ap a second chance under the new policy.

We're about to learn the difference between someone coming back from injury with uncertain value to a team, and a superstar at the height of his value to the team.

[Astray]

Hide yo wife, hide yo kids.

[Jace Solo]

According to the article he hit his child in the face with a belt, so go right ahead.

Where does it say he hit is son with a belt in the face? I'm totally getting on board with the other side here... I at least see the devil's advocate but FFS Latrinsorm, don't be SO LEFT WING you just make stuff up. This is the ONLY mention of belts in the article and NOWHERE does it say he hit him in the face with a belt.

According to police reports, the child, however, had a slightly different story, telling authorities that “Daddy Peterson hit me on my face.” The child also expressed worry that Peterson would punch him in the face if the child reported the incident to authorities. He also said that he had been hit by a belt and that “there are a lot of belts in Daddy's closet.” He added that Peterson put leaves in his mouth when he was being hit with the switch while his pants were down. The child told his mother that Peterson “likes belts and switches” and “has a whooping room.”

Let's look at somethings here BESIDES the idea that a BELT is far normal "whooping" material than a switch... which is pretty freaking normal.
1) Children never think they should be punished for anything.
2) They tend to embellish details that takes the blame away from them when they get in trouble.
3) Hitting him in the face was likely a slap. I doubt AP "Ray Rice'd" this kid. I doubt a four year old could take a hit like that.
4) Children often taunt their parents when "switching" doesn't hurt as much in an attempt to get them to stop the form of punishment. In the text AP sent his baby momma said the kid didn't even tear up. For instance, when I was 6 or 8, my mother spanked me while my father was at work. I laughed at her and told her it didn't hurt. I spent the next two hours in my room dreading for my father to come home... who made it hurt, with a belt. He didn't go over board, it hurt, I cried and I threatened to call child services. He laughed at me and told me if I wanted to go live somewhere else with foster parents over a spanking I could go right ahead.
5) His "whooping" room is likely whatever room he has a chair at the right height to place the kid over his knee. I doubt he's the Christian Grey of child abuse.


Definitely investigate it. Definitely make sure that he was within his bounds. The evidence will be there if it is there. No need to MAKE SHIT UP LATRINSORM in order to push public opinion in your direction.

Also, he went and turned himself in, paid bail and is cooperating.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24707390/adrian-peterson-released-from-jail-on-15k-bond-after-turning-himself-in

Usually, when people know they've done something egregious, they aren't going out of their way to bring it to light.

[Latrinsorm]

Where does it say he hit is son with a belt in the face? I'm totally getting on board with the other side here... I at least see the devil's advocate but FFS Latrinsorm, don't be SO LEFT WING you just make stuff up. This is the ONLY mention of belts in the article and NOWHERE does it say he hit him in the face with a belt.

According to police reports, the child, however, had a slightly different story, telling authorities that “Daddy Peterson hit me on my face.” The child also expressed worry that Peterson would punch him in the face if the child reported the incident to authorities. He also said that he had been hit by a belt and that “there are a lot of belts in Daddy's closet.” He added that Peterson put leaves in his mouth when he was being hit with the switch while his pants were down. The child told his mother that Peterson “likes belts and switches” and “has a whooping room.”You're right, I misread it. His son was hit in the face with an unspecified object. If that really sounds like exculpatory evidence to you there's nothing more to discuss.
Definitely investigate it. Definitely make sure that he was within his bounds. The evidence will be there if it is there. No need to MAKE SHIT UP LATRINSORM in order to push public opinion in your direction.

Also, he went and turned himself in, paid bail and is cooperating.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24707390/adrian-peterson-released-from-jail-on-15k-bond-after-turning-himself-in

Usually, when people know they've done something egregious, they aren't going out of their way to bring it to light.What people know is irrelevant, only what people believe is relevant. AD looked at the marks he left on his child and thought it was fine. If you can do so too, again, there's nothing more to discuss.

[Jace Solo]

I appreciate you redacting "part" of what you said. However, you're still reading more into it than you should be to make it worse than it is, for whatever grandstand you're pushing.


You're right, I misread it. His son was hit in the face with an unspecified object.

Article quote "...the child, however, had a slightly different story, telling authorities that “Daddy Peterson hit me on my face.”

There's not even a reference of an "object" and the "face" in the same breath. My guess is likely the palm of the hand.
From the other specific references to items through the article, the kid likely would have explicitly stated, "Daddy hit me in the face with an XBOX ONE controller" or something.

Forget the case, Latrinsorm...
You're a pretty factual guy.
I admire the amount of research you put into things. Your sports threads should be on ESPN.
I wasn't pointing these things out to be a dick as I take a lot of what you say to heart because you put a lot of research behind your words.
Even to the point of assuming I was wrong and needed to thoroughly read the article after your initial post.
It baffled me that you would let your views get in the way and skew facts to meet your conclusions instead of the other way around.

Also, grammar police. I don't care. I am not even close to the worst on these forums or the interwebs. I doubt if I really cause you consternation. You just have no better rebottle. Know that this is the internet and if you have nothing better to do than play english teacher on a forum... well, that makes up for your lack of footing on the topic I suppose. Perhaps you should have pursued your real calling of being a dick in a class room!
Red rep away! Obviously, it didn't hurt enough for you to stop reading... cause you made it all the way to the end. Damn it, that was just palatable enough.

[JackWhisper]

I've had an XBOX controller thrown at me before. Shit hurts.

[JackWhisper]

BTW... what the hell kind of kid calls their father, "Daddy LastName"?

[Gompers]

BTW... what the hell kind of kid calls their father, "Daddy LastName"?
Mind your tongue boy!

[Thondalar]

I appreciate you redacting "part" of what you said. However, you're still reading more into it than you should be to make it worse than it is, for whatever grandstand you're pushing.



Article quote "...the child, however, had a slightly different story, telling authorities that “Daddy Peterson hit me on my face.”

There's not even a reference of an "object" and the "face" in the same breath. My guess is likely the palm of the hand.
From the other specific references to items through the article, the kid likely would have explicitly stated, "Daddy hit me in the face with an XBOX ONE controller" or something.

Forget the case, Latrinsorm...
You're a pretty factual guy.
I admire the amount of research you put into things. Your sports threads should be on ESPN.
I wasn't pointing these things out to be a dick as I take a lot of what you say to heart because you put a lot of research behind your words.
Even to the point of assuming I was wrong and needed to thoroughly read the article after your initial post.
It baffled me that you would let your views get in the way and skew facts to meet your conclusions instead of the other way around.

Dude, really? You're giving him entirely too much credit. I'll totally give him props for his sports stats, but anything beyond that is suspect at best. I've pointed out numerous occasions where he's only taken the data he wants to use and ignores all the parts that don't fit his agenda. This is par for the Latrin course.

[Niexist]

I think the most disturbing part of this story to myself isn't that he hit his child with a switch, but that he shoved leaves in the kids mouth while he did it. I don't think the rest really qualifies as abuse, but that certainly does in my book.

[Androidpk]

“Got him in nuts once I noticed. But I felt so bad, n I’m all tearing that butt up when needed! I start putting them in timeout. N save the whooping for needed memories!”

In further text messages, Peterson allegedly said, “Never do I go overboard! But all my kids will know, hey daddy has the biggie heart but don’t play no games when it comes to acting right.”


Reading this guys texts makes me cringe.

[Latrinsorm]

Article quote "...the child, however, had a slightly different story, telling authorities that “Daddy Peterson hit me on my face.”

There's not even a reference of an "object" and the "face" in the same breath. My guess is likely the palm of the hand.I was using object in the grammatical sense. We know the subject (AD), verb (hit), direct object (his kid). Hit with a hand, hit with a pillow, hit with a belt... we don't know, the indirect object is unspecified. If any child walked up to me in the street and told me their parent hit them in the face, I would report it to the authorities at a minimum. What kind of parents let their children talk to strangers? No but seriously, I think you see what I mean.
Forget the case, Latrinsorm...
You're a pretty factual guy.
I admire the amount of research you put into things. Your sports threads should be on ESPN.
I wasn't pointing these things out to be a dick as I take a lot of what you say to heart because you put a lot of research behind your words.
Even to the point of assuming I was wrong and needed to thoroughly read the article after your initial post.
It baffled me that you would let your views get in the way and skew facts to meet your conclusions instead of the other way around.I appreciate your compliments. It could be that for the first time ever (ask Thondalar!) I intentionally skewed facts, or it could be that I just made a mistake. I'm confident it's the latter.

(For the record, I included that parenthetical before reading Thondalar's post in this thread. I didn't ask for these powers.)

[Jace Solo]

I was using object in the grammatical sense. We know the subject (AD), verb (hit), direct object (his kid). Hit with a hand, hit with a pillow, hit with a belt... we don't know, the indirect object is unspecified. If any child walked up to me in the street and told me their parent hit them in the face, I would report it to the authorities at a minimum. What kind of parents let their children talk to strangers? No but seriously, I think you see what I mean.I appreciate your compliments. It could be that for the first time ever (ask Thondalar!) I intentionally skewed facts, or it could be that I just made a mistake. I'm confident it's the latter.

(For the record, I included that parenthetical before reading Thondalar's post in this thread. I didn't ask for these powers.)

Oh good. Well you're at least confident in the latter!

"Well, just cause if doesn't say he didn't hit him with a belt doesn't mean he didn't have the belt in his hand when he hit him in the face. We have no way of knowing if he was actually holding a belt because the article didn't explicitly say he wasn't."

That's your track of logic? You know good and well that the way your stating it implies there was an object in his hand. Don't hide behind double talk.

[Latrinsorm]

I really don't get why people think I'm implying things all the time. When I thought he hit him in the face with a belt, what did I say? I explicitly said he hit him in the face with a belt. I was incorrect, but the point is I didn't leave it implied, I came out and said it.

In the same way, I'm not implying anything by object. The word means what it means. You might use it some other way, and I'm not telling you that way is wrong, I'm just telling you how I use it. You can infer whatever you like, it's still a free country no thanks to Obama, but my intended meaning stands.

[Kembal]

BTW... what the hell kind of kid calls their father, "Daddy LastName"?

Kid who doesn't live with his biological father, and his mother has a boyfriend at home that he's supposed to call Daddy also?

[Archigeek]

Kid who doesn't live with his biological father, and his mother has a boyfriend at home that he's supposed to call Daddy also?

I'm starting to wonder how many baby mamas AP has. My theory, and it is only that, is that this is the case of a mostly absentee father who felt like he has to assert his fatherly discipline to show he's the father even though he's rarely there. He's not present enough to have a more traditional father/son relationship, so the kid doesn't think dad is his authority figure, etc.

Also, I know this sounds petty (because it is), but as a Vikings fan, this blows.

[Back]

I think it is pretty progressive and good that we are now more culturally aware.

[Androidpk]

I think it is pretty progressive and good that we are now more culturally aware.

Are you drunk

[Kembal]

I'm starting to wonder how many baby mamas AP has. My theory, and it is only that, is that this is the case of a mostly absentee father who felt like he has to assert his fatherly discipline to show he's the father even though he's rarely there. He's not present enough to have a more traditional father/son relationship, so the kid doesn't think dad is his authority figure, etc.

Also, I know this sounds petty (because it is), but as a Vikings fan, this blows.

I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was something ridiculous like 5.

[~Rocktar~]

I'm starting to wonder how many baby mamas AP has. My theory, and it is only that, is that this is the case of a mostly absentee father who felt like he has to assert his fatherly discipline to show he's the father even though he's rarely there. He's not present enough to have a more traditional father/son relationship, so the kid doesn't think dad is his authority figure, etc.

Also, I know this sounds petty (because it is), but as a Vikings fan, this blows.

Hey now, let's not mention the divorce or illegitimacy rate among African Americans as a possible contributing factor, that would be racist.

[Jace Solo]

I really don't get why people think I'm implying things all the time. When I thought he hit him in the face with a belt, what did I say? I explicitly said he hit him in the face with a belt. I was incorrect, but the point is I didn't leave it implied, I came out and said it.

In the same way, I'm not implying anything by object. The word means what it means. You might use it some other way, and I'm not telling you that way is wrong, I'm just telling you how I use it. You can infer whatever you like, it's still a free country no thanks to Obama, but my intended meaning stands.


Perhaps if people think you are implying things all the time, it has something to do with the way that you phrase your statements. Perhaps check to see if you leave anything open to implication as opposed to including only the things that have been sited/proven in the article.

What you are implying in your statement is that there was an unspecified object, not a simple barehand. By adding the word object your statement implies what the article didn't intended, that there is an object present at the time of contact. I feel as if I'm telling you how you know it will be interpreted by the majority of people. I think you planned it this way, again, to skew to your point of view and are now playing semantics to back-peddle ala Clinton over the definition of "is". Let me break it down for you:

It is an entirely different thing to say the kid was hit in the face, as opposed to saying he was hit in the face by an unspecified object... "oh, well, I just meant a hand is sometimes considered an object." Doesn't quite fly. I'm not inferring one way or the other, I'm being told there was an object present by your statement.

A human being is an object too, but when football players collide you say "The Cornerback hit the Halfback" not "The Cornerback hit the Halfback with an named object" because, while technically, a body can be an object and you're implying that the Cornerback pulled something out of his jock and hit the Halfback with it. The indirect object isn't just unspecified, it's unmentioned. Except by your adding the implicating phrase, with an unspecified object.

Hopefully, now you understand why others might think you're implying things all the time. I still think you already knew this... you're too smart not to.

[Archigeek]

Hey now, let's not mention the divorce or illegitimacy rate among African Americans as a possible contributing factor, that would be racist.

Not at all what I was getting at.

[Back]

Are you drunk

A beer or two I may have drunk... but within the context of the thread I am in favor of deleting domestic (a horrible term because it is not domestic) abusers from professional sports.

[Latrinsorm]

Perhaps if people think you are implying things all the time, it has something to do with the way that you phrase your statements. Perhaps check to see if you leave anything open to implication as opposed to including only the things that have been sited/proven in the article.

What you are implying in your statement is that there was an unspecified object, not a simple barehand. By adding the word object your statement implies what the article didn't intended, that there is an object present at the time of contact. I feel as if I'm telling you how you know it will be interpreted by the majority of people. I think you planned it this way, again, to skew to your point of view and are now playing semantics to back-peddle ala Clinton over the definition of "is". Let me break it down for you:

It is an entirely different thing to say the kid was hit in the face, as opposed to saying he was hit in the face by an unspecified object... "oh, well, I just meant a hand is sometimes considered an object." Doesn't quite fly. I'm not inferring one way or the other, I'm being told there was an object present by your statement.

A human being is an object too, but when football players collide you say "The Cornerback hit the Halfback" not "The Cornerback hit the Halfback with an named object" because, while technically, a body can be an object and you're implying that the Cornerback pulled something out of his jock and hit the Halfback with it. The indirect object isn't just unspecified, it's unmentioned. Except by your adding the implicating phrase, with an unspecified object.

Hopefully, now you understand why others might think you're implying things all the time. I still think you already knew this... you're too smart not to.I already understood why there was confusion. I still don't understand why you persist in the confusion when I have clarified.

There is no need to mention the indirect object in your football example because the general practice of football is to use only the body and bodily equipment. The general practice of child abuse has no such restriction, so it's important to keep in mind that we don't know what the child was hit in the face with. As I said earlier, even if he hit his child in the face with a bare hand that doesn't exonerate him IMO. It's already a gots to go situation, the only questions that identifying the indirect object answers are "to where" and "for how long".

Finally, I would like to point out a response pattern I would find disturbing if it was mine. When Thondalar sees people making an inference about the Ferguson situation, they're jumping to conclusions and should wait for evidence. When Thondalar sees people making an inference about my posts, it's proof that I'm a weasel. The active ingredient is therefore not amount of evidence relative to inference, it is whether Thondalar personally agrees with the inference being made.

[waywardgs]

The fact that he "accidentally" got the kid in the nuts indicates to me he was swinging indiscriminately, which leads me to believe the kid was attacked, not punished.

[JackWhisper]

Soooo....
Adrian screamed really loud and started 'windmilling' out of control with a switch in both hands. Accidentally hit his balls.

That or he tied his kid to the ceiling fan and used his ballsack for speedbagging.

Thoughts?!

[waywardgs]

I think he went after te kid indiscriminately. That's loss of temper and abuse. A spanking to correct behavior is moderated, specific, controlled. Wailing on a kid out of anger, hitting the face, legs, nut sack, wherever the fuck- clearly something else.

And don't say "But in MY DAY…"

Because lots of things USED to go down that shouldn't anymore.

[Androidpk]

And don't say "But in MY DAY…"

Because lots of things USED to go down that shouldn't anymore.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFHzTCa3Pz8

[Wrathbringer]

I think it is pretty progressive and good that we are now more culturally aware.

:jerkit:

[Ker_Thwap]

I already understood why there was confusion. I still don't understand why you persist in the confusion when I have clarified.


Clarifications aren't allowed on the PC. Once someone picks up on a mistake or poorly worded phrase, they'll beat it to death. After all, clarification and exchange of ideas aren't the goal, but rather scoring internet points. You're guilty of the same behavior, so I'm getting a small chuckle.

In this case, I agree with you. I believe you misread it, but that doesn't invalidate the rest of your point. Belt, fist or psychic pummeling to the face, it's all bad.

[AnticorRifling]

I think he went after te kid indiscriminately. That's loss of temper and abuse. A spanking to correct behavior is moderated, specific, controlled. Wailing on a kid out of anger, hitting the face, legs, nut sack, wherever the fuck- clearly something else.

And don't say "But in MY DAY…"

Because lots of things USED to go down that shouldn't anymore.

A lot of things have been stopped that need to be brought back too...

[Parkbandit]

A lot of things have been stopped that need to be brought back too...

Code language for bring back slavery. You sicken me, white man.

[Jace Solo]

A lot of things have been stopped that need to be brought back too...

Like public beatings! At least then we'd know exactly how it went down cause it's already be on social media!

And calm down Lanny, no body continually beat you.

I pointed out your mistake then your poor choice of wording. You said your defense. You had the last word. You don't get it or don't care to modify.

It's cool but don't go crying to people about being picked on when you were allowed your give your side, have the last word, and then some. That's why people say the Dem party is weak and has no backbone. I didn't even pull an AP on you!

[Latrinsorm]

Clarifications aren't allowed on the PC. Once someone picks up on a mistake or poorly worded phrase, they'll beat it to death. After all, clarification and exchange of ideas aren't the goal, but rather scoring internet points. You're guilty of the same behavior, so I'm getting a small chuckle.

In this case, I agree with you. I believe you misread it, but that doesn't invalidate the rest of your point. Belt, fist or psychic pummeling to the face, it's all bad.I defy you to find one case where someone admitted their mistake and I didn't leave it at that.
Like public beatings! At least then we'd know exactly how it went down cause it's already be on social media!

And calm down Lanny, no body continually beat you.

I pointed out your mistake then your poor choice of wording. You said your defense. You had the last word. You don't get it or don't care to modify.

It's cool but don't go crying to people about being picked on when you were allowed your give your side, have the last word, and then some. That's why people say the Dem party is weak and has no backbone. I didn't even pull an AP on you!I didn't realize Lanny referred to me for obvious reasons in the other thread, and I'm not too psyched to go back and check what you said but for the record, I'm a Republican. :)

[JackWhisper]

Yeah don't confuse him with Lanny. He is..... THE LATRINE STORM!

[Methais]

Yeah don't confuse him with Lanny. He is..... THE LATRINE STORM!

There's only one true Lanny.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC8GzNVy1sE

[ClydeR]

I've forgotten which scandal this thread is about. The title sounds like it's a good catchall of anything not covered elsewhere.



http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/LeSeanMcCoy_zps64688d8d.jpg
Link (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/lesean-mccoys-20-cent-tip-receipt-is-selling-for-more-than-20k-on-ebay)

Charlie Sheen (http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-lesean-mccoy-20-cent-tip-charlie-sheen-20140911-story.html) is stepping up to correct this problem, pledging a $1,000 tip for the stiffed waiter.

[leifastagsweed]

I'm just going to put this here...

https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10670232_842880215752281_6911630710874058248_n.jpg ?oh=315ab8b12d1753742da728a34ee2273b&oe=5484DFBD

[Methais]

Not NFL, but who cares.

http://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/dead-0.gif?w=640&h=364

[AnticorRifling]

Not NFL, but who cares.

http://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/dead-0.gif?w=640&h=364

I wanted to say "How could you post something like that after losing a pet" but then I realized that could mean something something slavery. So I didn't. I'm a good person.

[Methais]

I wanted to say "How could you post something like that after losing a pet" but then I realized that could mean something something slavery. So I didn't. I'm a good person.

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/thats_9592e6_1161368.gif

[Ardwen]

We have Nike pulling Peterson gear from shops in Minnesota and Anheuser Busch worrying about the NFL policies I wonder how fast the 2 largest advertyisers reacting negatively changes how the NFL is dealing with issues.

[ClydeR]

We have Nike pulling Peterson gear from shops in Minnesota and Anheuser Busch worrying about the NFL policies I wonder how fast the 2 largest advertyisers reacting negatively changes how the NFL is dealing with issues.

Here's what the NFL policy should be..

Everybody, including NFL players, should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's the American way. If the player confesses to wrongdoing or is convicted of a crime, then the NFL can punish the player. If the player is silent or maintains his innocence, then the NFL should not do anything unless the criminal justice system concludes that the player is guilty. When a player is convicted of a crime, the NFL should punish the player, even if the player still maintains his innocence and plans to appeal. If a player appeals and wins the appeal, then too bad.

The only exception should be those exceedingly rare occasions when there is overwhelming -- more than would be necessary for a criminal conviction -- publicly available evidence that a player is guilty of a serious crime, even though the player maintains his innocence. That determination should be made by an outside panel of criminal experts chosen by the NFL commissioner. If the NFL suspends a player in this situation and the player is later exonerated, then the NFL should pay the player 110% of the amount the NFL would have paid the player if the NFL had not suspended him.

The NFL should announce that this is their policy. They should put it in the contracts with their players. When the public complains about a particular player, the NFL can say that the policy is fair and, besides, their hands are tied because it's in the contract.


How would the above rule apply to current players?

Ray Rice admitted wrongdoing. That's enough for the NFL to punish him.

Randy Starks was convicted. That's enough for the NFL to punish him, if they want to punish somebody for a traffic violation.

Adrian Peterson denies committing a crime and is fighting the charges. He should be presumed innocent. It's not at all clear (http://abcnews.go.com/US/adrian-peterson-case-brings-scrutiny-child-spanking/story?id=25481292) that his behavior was a crime. The NFL does not need to get involved in making decisions about how to discipline the children of its players.

Aaron Hernandez was denied bail. Since he's in jail, he can't play. But if he had been granted bail, then he should have been allowed to play until he was convicted.


At the moment, the NFL policy appears to be to punish players when the public complains. That's why the NFL's current policy is so uneven.

USA Today database of NLF arrests http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/arrests/


The NFL should pay me for this advice. It's better than they've gotten anywhere else.

[Thondalar]

So...Ray Rice beat up his girlfriend, Adrian Peterson beat up his kid...now Cardinals RB Jonathan Dwyer showed them how to do it right and just got arrested for beating up his girlfriend AND his kid at the same time! Oh man, this just keeps getting better.

http://news.yahoo.com/cardinals-rb-arrested-assault-charges-235526157--spt.html;_ylt=AwrTccmrLxpUuWYAMxIPxQt.

[Tgo01]

So...Ray Rice beat up his girlfriend, Adrian Peterson beat up his kid...now Cardinals RB Jonathan Dwyer showed them how to do it right and just got arrested for beating up his girlfriend AND his kid at the same time! Oh man, this just keeps getting better.

http://news.yahoo.com/cardinals-rb-arrested-assault-charges-235526157--spt.html;_ylt=AwrTccmrLxpUuWYAMxIPxQt.

Time to disband the entire league now.

[JackWhisper]

...... I'm a bad person. I laughed HARD at what Thondalar said.

[JackWhisper]

And why does ClydeStorm have a list of NLF arrests?!

Fucking National Lacrosse Federation!

[SHAFT]

So...Ray Rice beat up his girlfriend, Adrian Peterson beat up his kid...now Cardinals RB Jonathan Dwyer showed them how to do it right and just got arrested for beating up his girlfriend AND his kid at the same time! Oh man, this just keeps getting better.

http://news.yahoo.com/cardinals-rb-arrested-assault-charges-235526157--spt.html;_ylt=AwrTccmrLxpUuWYAMxIPxQt.

+1 for broken bones!

[Ker_Thwap]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/bipartisan-lawmakers-group-calls-for-resignation-of-federal-judge-accused-of-beating-wife/

Would be nice if the NFL outrage spilled out into the real world.