According to Chris Mortensen at ESPN, Adrian Peterson could face a suspension in his child injury case regardless of a Texas court verdict. The league owners held a meeting last week, and among the many topics included punishment sans conviction, which they agreed was possible for the league to do.
In the case of Adrian Peterson, Mortensen reports that sources say this is another one of those cases, to go alongside Adam Pacman Jones, Ben Roethlisberger and Brandon Marshall.
This is because any facts established in a legal proceeding themselves can be used in regards to the personal conduct policy, regardless of the court’s final verdict—where the law and the NFL’s personal conduct policy do not need to coincide.
Adrian Peterson has admitted to nearly everything he is accused of outside of intent—so the facts of the case as it regards the NFL should not be difficult to establish.
View Comments
What about time already served? Isn't he suspended right now?
It's a new situation because the NFL hasn't used the exempt list very often. I am not sure, but he is getting paid so perhaps not.
Expect the union to push back regardless.
Adrian who?
In football news, Norv is starting to lose me a bit. Another half of football where the offense is stuggling and Patterson has one touch on offense. Jarious is a nice player but there is no way he should be having more plays drawn up for him than Patterson.
Zimmer is pissed at the players.
http://www.inforum.com/content/powers-vikings-coach-zimmer-upset-about-undisciplined-team
I think this team is going to be fine, but we're seeing that it takes some time to re-set the mindset of players and there were some flaws in putting this team together that are really killing us at the moment, the main one being that offensive line. There were many of us looking for some upgrades there this off-season and they decided continuity was the best thing. They did a great job with the D-line this last off-season, so hopefully next year the Oline gets addressed so they can take a big step forward. I'm just hoping they can get five guys to play well enough for the remainder of this year so Teddy can play out the rest of the schedule and progress. If he is going to spend the rest of the year under the kind of pressure he and Ponder have been under the last couple weeks he's either going to get killed or end up developing some bad habits that will stunt his developement.
How are the Vikings going to be fine? Vikings don't have a number 1 or number 2 WR. Vikings have a first round left tackle that looks like a turnstile. Well maybe the whole O-line looks like a turnstile. No running backs. Vikings need another safety. Maybe a few linebackers. A corner or two. That doesn't look fine to me. That looks like the Vikings need a lot of help. I'm beginning to wonder about Spielman also. Norv's play book looks like it fits on a recipe card also.
Well first off, anyone who was expecting much better than a 500 ballclub this year needed to get a reality check. When I say they are going to be fine, I'm not talking about them making a playoff push this year. I mean they will get better as the season goes on and probably finish fairly strong with a chance to make some noise next year. The offensive issues are a big concern, but there is still some talent on this team. I'm not so convinced they should have retained Davidson as the O-line coach. He's well respected in the league but this unit hasn't performed near expectation and I'm starting to think that having so many returning position coaches from last years staff is a reason why changing the culture of this team is proving difficult in the early goings. They kept in inordinant amount of last years staff, most of which I agreed with, but it could lead to some extra time needed for Zimmer to truly establish his culture. This was a bad football team that needed to completely rebuild the defense. That fact that Zimmer already has that group rated in the middle of the pack is an accomplishment that should not go unnoticed. That is what gives me some hope that they are pointed in the right direction despite two pathetic performances the last couple weeks.
Shouldn't he have been re-arrested by now? What's up with that? Did he in fact misinterpret the question? As in: 'have you ever done prescription or non-prescription drugs?"
The NFL does do drug testing and this never came up before.
Just saw this from John Oliver. Seems the Montgomery County Police are kinda famous for corruption.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
I wasn't expecting much out of Oliver's show, but he's been absolutely brilliant. The Net Neutrality bit was exceptional.
So the NFL is going to check up now on player parenting? I presume that should include coaches and officials as well. Maybe they can do surveys of all kids to see if they have ever been spanked, and forward the "yes" list of parents to the national associations and state authorities. And from that we can further improve society by assessing whether kids are being grounded too much, the "time-out" lasts too long. And from there it goes to checking the kids diet to see if she gets too much junk food.
Adrian Peterson is obviously not a terribly bright guy. But he is no abusive criminal.
If he were not a famous athlete, instead of pushing for a trial that would be sown nationally on Court TV and position the DA to run for higher office, they would have fined Peterson, made him take parenting classes, and do some community service in an abused children shelter.
It is obvious that the judge is right- the prosecuting attorney is a media whore who doesn't care if the kid goes hungry from now on because his dad won't be able to support him next year when the paychecks stop.
So, we can mark you down as someone who is perfectly OK with taking a small tree branch and beating a four year old child until he's battered and bloody? Great, I've checked that box for you.
Further, we can assume you are the kind of guy who thinks that people who might see beating a four year old child with a branch until he's battered and bloody as abusive, as people who would SOMEHOW find grounding as EQUALLY abusive as beating a four year old child until he's battered and bloody? That's a chasm that you literally are able to leap in your mind? Well that's just super fun right there. It's weird that the super-liberal state of Texas seems to disagree with you. Fucking Texas commies...amirite??
The hell with Texas! I don't care for em'.
Is AD a criminal? I don't know, I doubt it. Was it wrong to whip his son too much with a switch? Probably, being he was only 4. Do I want him on my Vikings? Yeah, I want some wins...and they need him for that. Is that shallow? Yes. In the big scheme tho, if we start winning without him? I won't miss him so much. Right now these Vikings have lost 2 in a row, with the offense struggling big time. Would love to have 28 toting the rock...would help Teddy. But AD is probably gone, so come on Teddy! Be that guy, I believe he can! Dammit! Zimmer is making strides with the defense. We can beat Buffalo.
AD was one of the best RB's ever....no doubting that! I will miss him.
Don't hate on Texas, other than their football teams Texas is awesome.
I lived in Texas for about 2 years. From where I was, and what I saw...Texas sucks.
I went to boot camp in Texas, so my hatred started early, and is massively biased. I must recuse myself from this particular debate...but not before agreeing that Texas sucks.
C'mon Tomb don't be naive. What Peterson did was wrong but you're talking like he's a murderer. Believe it or not what he did is far more common than you would think(not saying it's right). Kur is 100% Accurate when he says if it were anybody but Peterson it would be a 300 dollar fine and 16 hours of parenting classes.
I never said anything about murder in any way. I simply described what happened without sugarcoating it.
TomB, I am going to respond as though you are not as stupid as your reply suggests.
It is in no way an endorsement of beating children to suggest that a) this would never be handled as it has been were Peterson not a famous person, or b) that anti-spanking activists (who also tend to be the type who want government regulation over a lot of parenting- where government has no business involving itself) have grabbed onto this situation to push their agenda. Your comment is as even-handed as this stupid column by Mike Tanier, who sought out preconceived research studies coming from the academic left to support his own preconceived view that corporal punishment should be banned. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2201080-violence-is-violence-adrian-peterson-and-the-science-of-spanking Like it or not, the sports of people who go into the "family studies" fields of social work are not exactly open-minded researchers, making Taniers lame=brained statement a farce: "Decades of nearly unanimous research indicates that spanking...." is the cause of all kinds of child pathologies, per academic activist Murray Strauss.
You are the one who converted this into a manichaean set of two extremes. Not me.
Criminal prosecution requires a "mens rea" ("guilty mind"- that is, intent to produce the criminal result as defined by the statute) or reckless negligence to establish guilt. Peterson is the type of person who breaks your hand with a handshake; it is obvious that he is not particularly wise. You don't throw "dumb" into jail, you try to train it to be "smart".
Did Peterson abuse that little boy? It looks to me as though he went way too far- it also seems apparent that he did not intend to damage the boy. Unless you have a picture of the "branch", stop describing the "switch" that way. It is pretty obvious that the switch was flexible and swung too hard (which matches Peterson's ill-advised handshake habit), which is how the end curled around and hit the little boy in the front. People who say "branch" are quite clearly pushing an agenda- and it is also quite clear that the agenda extends well past Peterson into control over society.
When I was young, I was spanked with a switch- and I hated it. I never hated my Dad. When I had kids of my own, we did not handle things the same way. But the decisions were a) none of the government's business, and b) irrelevant to the quality of the parent-child relationship.
"So the NFL is going to check up now on player parenting? I presume that should include coaches and officials as well. Maybe they can do surveys of all kids to see if they have ever been spanked, and forward the “yes” list of parents to the national associations and state authorities. And from that we can further improve society by assessing whether kids are being grounded too much, the “time-out” lasts too long. And from there it goes to checking the kids diet to see if she gets too much junk food."
...and MY comment wasn't even-handed, while yours was. Right. Which words did I use that were in any way inaccurate? A switch is a branch. If you don't like the imagery that particular word brings up, then that's on you, not me. Branch and switch are synonymous terms.
I'm also not in any way surprised by the little "stupid" dig. For some people, superiority (or inferiority wearing a mask) complexes must be fed. Have at it, Hoss.
Tell me, with your mens rea, "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty," does the fact he said he "felt bad" after both occurrences not cover that? He KNEW he went too far, BOTH TIMES THAT WE KNOW OF.
...and don't think it's all encompassing. If I get drunk, get behind the wheel and kill someone, am I innocent because I didn't INTEND to kill someone? Nope. Just the difference between murder and manslaughter. The penalty still awaits.
Look, I get that you seem to be anti-government intrusion, but how far does that go? Rape? Does a child being raped by a parent mean that the government should intervene? I'm assuming (hoping) yes. I just don't see where a parent should be allowed to physically abuse a little human being. Yes, that opens to door to where the limit is. To me, Adrian passed what I think should be OK, and to conflate that with time-outs is beyond absurd, and what I reacted to.