Good job Adrian Peterson

[skyvue]

People disagree -- and there is room for a certain amount of disagreement -- but there are laws that define what abuse is.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

but there are laws that define what abuse is.

What does the law say?

 

[skyvue]

I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine that varies by state.

But the idea that abuse is this amorphous notion isn't necessarily the case; there are legal guidelines, or no one would ever be convicted (there are very specific laws about sexual abuse, and I can't imagine that's not also the case with child abuse).

And the fact that people once did something with impunity means little; lots of things are illegal now that were once allowed, and many things are now required by law (seat belt use, for one) that were once not required.

 

[Section31]

I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine that varies by state.

But the idea that abuse is this amorphous notion isn't necessarily the case; there are legal guidelines, or no one would ever been convicted (there are very specific laws about sexaul abuse, and I can't imagine that's not also the case with child abuse).

And the fact that people once did something with impunity means little; lots of things are illegal now that were once allowed, and many things are now required by law (seat belt use, for one) that were once not required.

I think what he said laid out his position pretty well. The law doesn't SPECIFICALLY define abuse...or at least, I don't think it does.

My position is, if you believe spanking is off limits as a form of punishment, you probably (not you, but in general) shouldn't comment on this case too much. I spank, was spanked and have no problem with it as a form of punishment. There's OBVIOUSLY a line there somewhere, but I'm not sure you can really quantify what that is.

Conversely, there's no punishment for parents who DON'T discipline their kids properly and that can be more destructive to a child's life as well as society. It's an interesting situation.

 

[skyvue]

I think what he said laid out his position pretty well. The law doesn't SPECIFICALLY define abuse...or at least, I don't think it does.

If you're a lawyer, I'll certainly defer to your greater knowledge, but if not, I stand by what I said. Sexual abuse is very specifically defined by law, and I'd be surprised if child abuse isn't also defined (though perhaps less specifically).

In any case, I think drawing blood when punishing a child is a good place to start. I'd say doing that crosses a line, any way you shake it.

By the way, I was spanked too (only once that I recall but I'm sure there were other instances). And lots of folks that do hit their children don't properly discipline them, so that's a straw man argument. Discipline is about teaching children, not merely punishing them. Plenty of fine people have been raised without ever having been spanked, and plenty of not-so-fine people were spanked often, to (it would seem) no good purpose.

 

[Section31]

If you're a lawyer, I'll certainly defer to your greater knowledge, but if not, I stand by what I said. Sexual abuse is very specifically defined by law, and I'd be surprised if child abuse isn't also defined (though perhaps less specifically).

In any case, I think drawing blood when punishing a child is a good place to start. I'd say doing that crosses a line, any way you shake it.

By the way, I was spanked too (only once that I recall but I'm sure there were other instances). And lots of folks that do hit their children don't properly discipline them, so that's a straw man argument. Discipline is about teaching children, not merely punishing them. Plenty of fine people have been raised without ever having been spanked, and plenty of not-so-fine people were spanked often, to (it would seem) no good purpose.

And the opposite can be said too, so it wouldn't SEEM anyway. I wasn't trying to be a jerk (like you seem to be trying to be)...how did sexual abuse get into this discussion?

My point is, based on everything reported during ADs situation, wouldn't someone have pointed out that, "hey, he drew blood...by law, that's abuse"?

 

[skyvue]

And the opposite can be said too, so it wouldn't SEEM anyway. I wasn't trying to be a jerk (like you seem to be trying to be)...how did sexual abuse get into this discussion?

My point is, based on everything reported during ADs situation, wouldn't someone have pointed out that, "hey, he drew blood...by law, that's abuse"?

I cited sexual abuse because I happen to know that laws defining it are generally, if not always, clearly defined. The laws defining most violent crimes are very specific, indeed (hence the existence of the various degrees by which one might be charged with murder, for example). And I don't see any reason to presume that laws defining child abuse would be any different.

As for news coverage of violent crimes, the media rarely get into the specifics of how laws are written: "Jones was charged with second degree murder rather than first degree because he did this but he didn't do that." or "Smith was charged with sexual assault rather than rape because..." That's just not what one hears from the media, so I don't know why you'd expect to hear that kind of detail in the coverage of A.D.'s case.

The media did say blood was drawn, but that's not even the point. AD was charged with child abuse. Whether the law specifies drawing blood or not, I couldn't begin to say. But I do think we can assume the law gets specific about what qualifies as child abuse, that it's not a vague, hard-to-pin-down offense, as another poster suggested. Laws defining other violent crimes are specific; why in the world wouldn't laws defining child abuse be?

Finally, you said, in effect, that those who don't believe in spanking should zip their lips regarding AD's case (a questionable stance, at best, and a statement that one might easily infer was directed at me -- you can correct me if I've got that wrong). You also implied that perhaps parents who don't "discipline their kids properly" (with a strong hint that doing so should include spanking) should be punished.

And yet, despite supporting legal action against parents who don't spank and trying to stifle the input of those who don't believe in spanking, you insisted that you weren't trying to be a jerk (unlike me, who, you went on to say, clearly was). So I think it's not a leap to conclude that you and I might not only have very different definitions of the term "child abuse" but also of the term "jerk."

 

[jmizzy4ou]

I investigated child abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect cases in Oklahoma County for about 4 yrs. Some of the biggest fights I ever saw, or participated in were waged in OK County Juvenile Courts between Judges, DA's, Lawyers, and DHS Workers trying to define what was and wasn't child abuse. Even with laws in place, there is always a gray area, and intent plays a huge part on who kept and who lost their kids......

The pictures I saw of AD's kid, if he had caused those injuries in OK County, he would have been charged, probably lost his rights to be around the child for at least awhile, and most likely convicted of child abuse. Many people think hitting a child in Oklahoma is automatically abuse, but it isn't. There are rules which can label something inappropriate discipline, which doesn't rise to the level of abuse. I have personally investigated cases where kids were cut up by belts, but all of the marks were on the buttocks and upper legs, showing the parent TRIED to whip their child properly.

Many of those cases ended in the parent receiving corrective classes in order to learn proper disciplinary techniques. On the other hand, I have seen kids with a small bruise on their cheek, from a frustrated mother slapping a mouthy teen, and it's ruled child abuse because the blow was to one of the prohibited areas, the face, head, and groin....

The age of the child, parent's history, etc also played a huge role in who was charged and who wasn't. I know some OK DA's who think AD should have been charged, and others who think he just needed to be taught how to properly discipline. The laws in place don't always make it cut & dry......

 

[campbest]

Here is a novel idea...don't have 7 kids with 6 women (may be more than that). It's tough for me to really feel bad for the guy, he isn't exactly some moral standard we should be defending.

 

[Eielson]

I don't deny that AD's discipline was excessive. I just believe that the NFL's "discipline" was also excessive, and that there was no wicked intent on AD's part. He wasn't raised like most of us were.

 

[Eielson]

Here is a novel idea...don't have 7 kids with 6 women (may be more than that). It's tough for me to really feel bad for the guy, he isn't exactly some moral standard we should be defending.

I don't defend people because they are the moral standard. I defend AD because he's one of ours, and because the punishment didn't fit the crime.

 

[Section31]

Finally, you said, in effect, that those who don't believe in spanking should zip their lips regarding AD's case (a questionable stance, at best, and a statement that one might easily infer was directed at me -- you can correct me if I've got that wrong). You also implied that perhaps parents who don't "discipline their kids properly" (with a strong hint that doing so should include spanking) should be punished.

And yet, despite supporting legal action against parents who don't spank and trying to stifle the input of those who don't believe in spanking, you insisted that you weren't trying to be a jerk (unlike me, who, you went on to say, clearly was). So I think it's not a leap to conclude that you and I might not only have very different definitions of the term "child abuse" but also of the term "jerk."

I specifically said "in general" not you.

I didn't hint at them being required to spank...it was just a converse look to passive parents judging aggressive parents when they could be doing as much or more damage to the child and society...I stress COULD BE.

You were being a jerk by assuming what was implied and questioning my opinion by pointing out I'm not a lawyer - screw me for having common sense about what most would agree has some good amount of gray area. As jmizz points out, "whipping" a child is not abuse. Drawing blood could be, but I've just NEVER heard a definite answer on that and all I said was, I'd think we'd have heard that in a case like this where there IS a gray area.

Get of your high horse.

 

[Section31]

I investigated child abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect cases in Oklahoma County for about 4 yrs. Some of the biggest fights I ever saw, or participated in were waged in OK County Juvenile Courts between Judges, DA's, Lawyers, and DHS Workers trying to define what was and wasn't child abuse. Even with laws in place, there is always a gray area, and intent plays a huge part on who kept and who lost their kids......

The pictures I saw of AD's kid, if he had caused those injuries in OK County, he would have been charged, probably lost his rights to be around the child for at least awhile, and most likely convicted of child abuse. Many people think hitting a child in Oklahoma is automatically abuse, but it isn't. There are rules which can label something inappropriate discipline, which doesn't rise to the level of abuse. I have personally investigated cases where kids were cut up by belts, but all of the marks were on the buttocks and upper legs, showing the parent TRIED to whip their child properly.

Many of those cases ended in the parent receiving corrective classes in order to learn proper disciplinary techniques. On the other hand, I have seen kids with a small bruise on their cheek, from a frustrated mother slapping a mouthy teen, and it's ruled child abuse because the blow was to one of the prohibited areas, the face, head, and groin....

The age of the child, parent's history, etc also played a huge role in who was charged and who wasn't. I know some OK DA's who think AD should have been charged, and others who think he just needed to be taught how to properly discipline. The laws in place don't always make it cut & dry......

Thanks, jmizz.