(09-16-2014 10:20 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Got it --- no one ever told him that beating a 4-year old, drawing blood from his back, buttocks, legs, scrotum, and defensive wounds on his hands is wrong --- and Peterson is too dumb to understand that on his own.

That's about it. He was disciplined this way as a child, and that's how most parents (especially less educated parents) learn how to discipline. No need to send someone to prison if a 3 hour educational course will do the job.

Hell, we were paddling people in Tennessee public schools not more than 2 decades ago. Peterson's child will recover from his scratches and bruises, AP will learn the error of his ways and we'll all go about our own lives and not worry about how a perfect stranger disciplines their own child.

(09-16-2014 10:20 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:14 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 09:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 09:17 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:26 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Peterson and some dumb a$$es out there need to learn a lesson (and maybe a few in this thread). You don't do that to a child. Really hope he sees jail time --- that be a nice message sent to some "adults."

I'd rather our taxes go to put real criminals in prison and not someone who just needs to learn how to discipline a child because no one ever told him.

Different strokes though, I guess.

Nobody's going to defend a very strong football player who wounded a small child --- oh wait.

No one is saying Peterson was in the right, I just propose that it doesn't rise to the level of a crime. He was physically disciplining his own child according to the method that he himself was disciplined as a child. As no one showed him the acceptable way to discipline children when he was growing up, perhaps DCS should do that now. That is one of the reasons we have DCS.

AP won't do time for this (he'll get diversion or probation) and that's the correct course of action. Let's save our jail space for actual felons rather than guys who spank their kids too hard.

Got it --- no one ever told him that beating a 4-year old, drawing blood from his back, buttocks, legs, scrotum, and defensive wounds on his hands is wrong --- and Peterson is too dumb to understand that on his own.

AP went over the line but WILL NOT receive jail time IMO. It is a teachable and debatable moment however.

(09-16-2014 10:20 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:14 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 09:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 09:17 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 09:26 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Peterson and some dumb a$$es out there need to learn a lesson (and maybe a few in this thread). You don't do that to a child. Really hope he sees jail time --- that be a nice message sent to some "adults."

I'd rather our taxes go to put real criminals in prison and not someone who just needs to learn how to discipline a child because no one ever told him.

Different strokes though, I guess.

Nobody's going to defend a very strong football player who wounded a small child --- oh wait.

No one is saying Peterson was in the right, I just propose that it doesn't rise to the level of a crime. He was physically disciplining his own child according to the method that he himself was disciplined as a child. As no one showed him the acceptable way to discipline children when he was growing up, perhaps DCS should do that now. That is one of the reasons we have DCS.

AP won't do time for this (he'll get diversion or probation) and that's the correct course of action. Let's save our jail space for actual felons rather than guys who spank their kids too hard.

Got it --- no one ever told him that beating a 4-year old, drawing blood from his back, buttocks, legs, scrotum, and defensive wounds on his hands is wrong --- and Peterson is too dumb to understand that on his own.

In addition to the serious physical abuse of at least two small children committed by Peterson he also had child that died last year from abuse from another man. This was a child that Peterson rarely if ever saw. He apparently has somewhere between five and nine children with various women throughout the country. Sounds like a great guy.

(09-16-2014 10:39 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  In addition to the serious physical abuse of at least two small children committed by Peterson he also had child that died last year from abuse from another man. This was a child that Peterson rarely if ever saw. He apparently has somewhere between five and nine children with various women throughout the country. Sounds like a great guy.

Serious? I saw the pictures. It's sad that the child had to undergo this form of discipline when another would have been less harmful and more effective, but the child had some minor scratches and bruises. Those "serious" injuries won't keep the child from doing anything and he will make a full recovery. Let's keep this in perspective, please.

What does any of the rest have to do with this case?

So, I wonder those who have adult daughters...how would they respond if their daughter went out for a few drinks and stayed out later than she promised to her boyfriend/husband and his response was to whip her with a belt.

Is that ok? I mean, hopefully she will learn the lesson, right? Plus, she is an adult whose brain is fully developed and knows the concept of actions and consequences and has the ability to defend herself or leave the situation.

But it's ok to hit/whip/discipline a child?

Interesting.

From everything that has been reported to have been said by Peterson and by Peterson himself, I think "justice" would be better served with probation and counseling. What he did was wrong and is child abuse, but prison would not be the best answer in this situation.

(09-16-2014 10:47 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:39 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  In addition to the serious physical abuse of at least two small children committed by Peterson he also had child that died last year from abuse from another man. This was a child that Peterson rarely if ever saw. He apparently has somewhere between five and nine children with various women throughout the country. Sounds like a great guy.

Serious? I saw the pictures. It's sad that the child had to undergo this form of discipline when another would have been less harmful and more effective, but the child had some minor scratches and bruises. Those "serious" injuries won't keep the child from doing anything and he will make a full recovery. Let's keep this in perspective, please.

What does any of the rest have to do with this case?

"Minor scratches?" Sounds like you're unaware of the details about the extent of the poor kid's injuries. Even with the TMZ pictures we have seen that were from several days after the incident. They still looked pretty bad. So "IF" you really saw the pictures let's keep this in perspective, please.

Second, a "physical recovery" is the standard you use? Forget the idea that beatings like this may also create psychological damage.

As far as the child that was killed by another man, it has nothing to do with this particular case. I mean other than never or almost never being there. Just a broader look at Peterson and what he might consider his duty as a father.

(09-15-2014 02:55 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  So, what is the level that is too harsh. One hit might draw blood given the location of the hit and the next time not.

Once again, I am just trying to understand (and honestly so) is it the age (once again, if so what is the age that is ok for corporal punishment) and the fact that it drew blood (while welts or redness is justifiable, or not).

Sorry, not attacking anyone or their points of view.

UofMCamaro, I would agree with your last post. I do not agree that he deserves to serve jail time. Just my opinion though.

I have spanked both my kids and I never did it with the intention of inflicting pain, I use it as a tool to get their attention when nothing else worked. By their reaction you can tell that their feelings are hurt more than any actual pain inflicted by the spanking. It has always been effective for me even without using enough force to inflict more than a minimum ammount of pain. I've never struck them on their bare skin or with an object.

(09-16-2014 11:31 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:47 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:39 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  In addition to the serious physical abuse of at least two small children committed by Peterson he also had child that died last year from abuse from another man. This was a child that Peterson rarely if ever saw. He apparently has somewhere between five and nine children with various women throughout the country. Sounds like a great guy.

Serious? I saw the pictures. It's sad that the child had to undergo this form of discipline when another would have been less harmful and more effective, but the child had some minor scratches and bruises. Those "serious" injuries won't keep the child from doing anything and he will make a full recovery. Let's keep this in perspective, please.

What does any of the rest have to do with this case?

"Minor scratches?" Sounds like you're unaware of the details about the extent of the poor kid's injuries. Even with the TMZ pictures we have seen that were from several days after the incident. They still looked pretty bad. So "IF" you really saw the pictures let's keep this in perspective, please.

Second, a "physical recovery" is the standard you use? Forget the idea that beatings like this may also create psychological damage.

As far as the child that was killed by another man, it has nothing to do with this particular case. I mean other than never or almost never being there. Just a broader look at Peterson and what he might consider his duty as a father.

I've seen the pictures. They didn't look very bad. Akin to the injuries a child would suffer if he fell down a scraped a knee on the playground.

I only bring up the recovery because the word "serious" was used to describe the abuse/injury. I think calling these type of injuries serious does a disservice to the children that suffer actual serious injury at the hands of abusers.

Again, should this type of discipline continue? No, AP needs to suffer some sort of penalty to learn that this isn't appropriate discipline. Does it warrant incarceration? Absolutely not.

(09-16-2014 10:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  So, I wonder those who have adult daughters...how would they respond if their daughter went out for a few drinks and stayed out later than she promised to her boyfriend/husband and his response was to whip her with a belt.

Is that ok? I mean, hopefully she will learn the lesson, right? Plus, she is an adult whose brain is fully developed and knows the concept of actions and consequences and has the ability to defend herself or leave the situation.

But it's ok to hit/whip/discipline a child?

Interesting.

Are we saying spankings of any kind are inappropriate then? I mean, you can't spank your wife/gf when they come home late, right?

(09-16-2014 11:35 AM)idroot4russia Wrote:  I have spanked both my kids and I never did it with the intention of inflicting pain, I use it as a tool to get their attention when nothing else worked. By their reaction you can tell that their feelings are hurt more than any actual pain inflicted by the spanking. It has always been effective for me even without using enough force to inflict more than a minimum ammount of pain. I've never stuck them on their bare skin or with an object.

The whole point of corporal punishment is to alter behavior through negative reinforcement, and in the case of corporal punishment, that negative reinforcement is physical pain.

Whether it's a short swat on the butt or whippings with a belt, physical harm may not be the intention but its the necessary means. Unless we're going to say that parent's cannot physically discipline their children at all, we're tasked with determining where the line is drawn.

(09-16-2014 11:41 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:31 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:47 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:39 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  In addition to the serious physical abuse of at least two small children committed by Peterson he also had child that died last year from abuse from another man. This was a child that Peterson rarely if ever saw. He apparently has somewhere between five and nine children with various women throughout the country. Sounds like a great guy.

Serious? I saw the pictures. It's sad that the child had to undergo this form of discipline when another would have been less harmful and more effective, but the child had some minor scratches and bruises. Those "serious" injuries won't keep the child from doing anything and he will make a full recovery. Let's keep this in perspective, please.

What does any of the rest have to do with this case?

"Minor scratches?" Sounds like you're unaware of the details about the extent of the poor kid's injuries. Even with the TMZ pictures we have seen that were from several days after the incident. They still looked pretty bad. So "IF" you really saw the pictures let's keep this in perspective, please.

Second, a "physical recovery" is the standard you use? Forget the idea that beatings like this may also create psychological damage.

As far as the child that was killed by another man, it has nothing to do with this particular case. I mean other than never or almost never being there. Just a broader look at Peterson and what he might consider his duty as a father.

I've seen the pictures. They didn't look very bad. Akin to the injuries a child would suffer if he fell down a scraped a knee on the playground.

I only bring up the recovery because the word "serious" was used to describe the abuse/injury. I think calling these type of injuries serious does a disservice to the children that suffer actual serious injury at the hands of abusers.

Again, should this type of discipline continue? No, AP needs to suffer some sort of penalty to learn that this isn't appropriate discipline. Does it warrant incarceration? Absolutely not.

First those aren't "scratch marks" on that 4 year old they're whip marks. From the pictures, I counted at least 10 whip marks that were very clear, others that can't be shown are alleged. I believe the marks were already 4-5 days old when the pictures were taken. I call this serious because it is. Your more restricted use of the word serious is your preferance.

(09-16-2014 11:45 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:35 AM)idroot4russia Wrote:  I have spanked both my kids and I never did it with the intention of inflicting pain, I use it as a tool to get their attention when nothing else worked. By their reaction you can tell that their feelings are hurt more than any actual pain inflicted by the spanking. It has always been effective for me even without using enough force to inflict more than a minimum ammount of pain. I've never stuck them on their bare skin or with an object.

The whole point of corporal punishment is to alter behavior through negative reinforcement, and in the case of corporal punishment, that negative reinforcement is physical pain.

Whether it's a short swat on the butt or whippings with a belt, physical harm may not be the intention but its the necessary means. Unless we're going to say that parent's cannot physically discipline their children at all, we're tasked with determining where the line is drawn.

Sorta shows a lack of imagination doesn't it?

(09-16-2014 11:53 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:41 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:31 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:47 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:39 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  In addition to the serious physical abuse of at least two small children committed by Peterson he also had child that died last year from abuse from another man. This was a child that Peterson rarely if ever saw. He apparently has somewhere between five and nine children with various women throughout the country. Sounds like a great guy.

Serious? I saw the pictures. It's sad that the child had to undergo this form of discipline when another would have been less harmful and more effective, but the child had some minor scratches and bruises. Those "serious" injuries won't keep the child from doing anything and he will make a full recovery. Let's keep this in perspective, please.

What does any of the rest have to do with this case?

"Minor scratches?" Sounds like you're unaware of the details about the extent of the poor kid's injuries. Even with the TMZ pictures we have seen that were from several days after the incident. They still looked pretty bad. So "IF" you really saw the pictures let's keep this in perspective, please.

Second, a "physical recovery" is the standard you use? Forget the idea that beatings like this may also create psychological damage.

As far as the child that was killed by another man, it has nothing to do with this particular case. I mean other than never or almost never being there. Just a broader look at Peterson and what he might consider his duty as a father.

I've seen the pictures. They didn't look very bad. Akin to the injuries a child would suffer if he fell down a scraped a knee on the playground.

I only bring up the recovery because the word "serious" was used to describe the abuse/injury. I think calling these type of injuries serious does a disservice to the children that suffer actual serious injury at the hands of abusers.

Again, should this type of discipline continue? No, AP needs to suffer some sort of penalty to learn that this isn't appropriate discipline. Does it warrant incarceration? Absolutely not.

First those aren't "scratch marks" on that 4 year old they're whip marks. From the pictures, I counted at least 10 whip marks that were very clear, others that can't be shown are alleged. I believe the marks were already 4-5 days old when the pictures were taken. I call this serious because it is. Your more restricted use of the word serious is your preferance.

Really? Those look EXACTLY like scratch marks to me. I've seen Catholic nuns do worse than that. Again, nobody should be doing that to a child, but let's save the "serious" talk for the injuries that warrant that word. I've seen serious abuse before.

(09-16-2014 11:43 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  So, I wonder those who have adult daughters...how would they respond if their daughter went out for a few drinks and stayed out later than she promised to her boyfriend/husband and his response was to whip her with a belt.

Is that ok? I mean, hopefully she will learn the lesson, right? Plus, she is an adult whose brain is fully developed and knows the concept of actions and consequences and has the ability to defend herself or leave the situation.

But it's ok to hit/whip/discipline a child?

Interesting.

Are we saying spankings of any kind are inappropriate then? I mean, you can't spank your wife/gf when they come home late, right?

It think it becomes an interesting focus for discussion.

If it is untenable to hit an adult (women generally perceived as more "vulnerable") for doing something wrong...especially understanding the adult has full brain development to understand right vs. wrong, actions versus consequences and can (conceivably) accept the physical discipline as a result of behavior.

You then have a child (more vulnerable) who doesn't have a fully wired brain to understand all the cause/effect yet it is permissible to use physical discipline on them.

(09-16-2014 12:11 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:53 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:41 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:31 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:47 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Serious? I saw the pictures. It's sad that the child had to undergo this form of discipline when another would have been less harmful and more effective, but the child had some minor scratches and bruises. Those "serious" injuries won't keep the child from doing anything and he will make a full recovery. Let's keep this in perspective, please.

What does any of the rest have to do with this case?

"Minor scratches?" Sounds like you're unaware of the details about the extent of the poor kid's injuries. Even with the TMZ pictures we have seen that were from several days after the incident. They still looked pretty bad. So "IF" you really saw the pictures let's keep this in perspective, please.

Second, a "physical recovery" is the standard you use? Forget the idea that beatings like this may also create psychological damage.

As far as the child that was killed by another man, it has nothing to do with this particular case. I mean other than never or almost never being there. Just a broader look at Peterson and what he might consider his duty as a father.

I've seen the pictures. They didn't look very bad. Akin to the injuries a child would suffer if he fell down a scraped a knee on the playground.

I only bring up the recovery because the word "serious" was used to describe the abuse/injury. I think calling these type of injuries serious does a disservice to the children that suffer actual serious injury at the hands of abusers.

Again, should this type of discipline continue? No, AP needs to suffer some sort of penalty to learn that this isn't appropriate discipline. Does it warrant incarceration? Absolutely not.

First those aren't "scratch marks" on that 4 year old they're whip marks. From the pictures, I counted at least 10 whip marks that were very clear, others that can't be shown are alleged. I believe the marks were already 4-5 days old when the pictures were taken. I call this serious because it is. Your more restricted use of the word serious is your preferance.

Really? Those look EXACTLY like scratch marks to me. I've seen Catholic nuns do worse than that. Again, nobody should be doing that to a child, but let's save the "serious" talk for the injuries that warrant that word. I've seen serious abuse before.

Except they're REALLY whip marks. See how reality works? But continue to call them scratches marks if it makes you feel better. What could a 4 year old possibly do to justify being whipped like that?

(09-16-2014 12:21 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  Except they're REALLY whip marks. See how reality works? But continue to call them scratches marks if it makes you feel better. What could a 4 year old possibly do to justify being whipped like that?

What does it matter if they are whip marks or scratch marks? They appear as they appear.

No behavior by a child justifies a whipping, that's not the issue though. The issue is how to handle AP.

(09-16-2014 12:15 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:43 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  So, I wonder those who have adult daughters...how would they respond if their daughter went out for a few drinks and stayed out later than she promised to her boyfriend/husband and his response was to whip her with a belt.

Is that ok? I mean, hopefully she will learn the lesson, right? Plus, she is an adult whose brain is fully developed and knows the concept of actions and consequences and has the ability to defend herself or leave the situation.

But it's ok to hit/whip/discipline a child?

Interesting.

Are we saying spankings of any kind are inappropriate then? I mean, you can't spank your wife/gf when they come home late, right?

It think it becomes an interesting focus for discussion.

If it is untenable to hit an adult (women generally perceived as more "vulnerable") for doing something wrong...especially understanding the adult has full brain development to understand right vs. wrong, actions versus consequences and can (conceivably) accept the physical discipline as a result of behavior.

You then have a child (more vulnerable) who doesn't have a fully wired brain to understand all the cause/effect yet it is permissible to use physical discipline on them.

I don't think it should be permissible, but I don't think society has reached that conclusion as a whole yet. We're only a few decades removed from paddling by public authority figures. I think with better education in cases like this, we stop the cycle of behavior (i.e. kids learning this from their parents).

(09-16-2014 12:26 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 12:21 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  Except they're REALLY whip marks. See how reality works? But continue to call them scratches marks if it makes you feel better. What could a 4 year old possibly do to justify being whipped like that?

What does it matter if they are whip marks or scratch marks? They appear as they appear.

No behavior by a child justifies a whipping, that's not the issue though. The issue is how to handle AP.

Indefinite suspension seems appropriate until the case has been adjudicated. Peterson's mitigating circumstances? Didn't you say he doesn't know any better?

(09-16-2014 12:40 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 12:26 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 12:21 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  Except they're REALLY whip marks. See how reality works? But continue to call them scratches marks if it makes you feel better. What could a 4 year old possibly do to justify being whipped like that?

What does it matter if they are whip marks or scratch marks? They appear as they appear.

No behavior by a child justifies a whipping, that's not the issue though. The issue is how to handle AP.

Indefinite suspension seems appropriate until the case has been adjudicated. Peterson's mitigating circumstances? Didn't you say he doesn't know any better?

The case could stretch on for two years. How does it help anything if the child's father is unable to work and pay the child support while a criminal case (which will most likely end up dismissed) is conducted?