Deactivated for last weekend's due to being indicted over whipping his 4-year old boy with a switch that left welts and cuts on his back and legs.
He was reactivated by the Vikings yesterday and is able to play with the time while the legal process moves on. Shortly after the press conference, Radisson Hotels pulled its sponsorship of the Vikings because of the issue.
Does anyone know why there had to be a SECOND grand jury which indicted him? The first grand jury did not indict him, which makes me wonder how many grand juries can be assembled over the same charge. If the second grand jury also did not indict him, would they have assembled a third grand jury? I don't know how that works, but thought it was interesting it took two grand juries to indict him.
I was whipped with a switch by my father a few times. Mostly he used a belt or a paddle, but there were a few times he used a switch. I had welts, but no skin was broken, no cuts were made.
Obviously, today's generation has turned against spankings and this kind of discipline, as evidenced by the thousands of reader comments against Peterson on ESPN and other news sites.
There is a big difference between spanking, and outright child abuse.
You believe that was child abuse? I do believe it was excessive, but not sure I'd label it abuse. Now if there was a pattern or this wasn't the first time it happened, then I'd consider it abuse.
You believe that was child abuse? I do believe it was excessive, but not sure I'd label it abuse. Now if there was a pattern or this wasn't the first time it happened, then I'd consider it abuse.
If the spanking left bruises and welts for days to come, I would say it is bordering on child abuse. I do believe the point of spanking is to make the child understand what he did was wrong, but to leave marks/welts/bruises that take days to heal up, that is moving past just dealing with wrong, in my opinion.
Now, I wasn't on the jury, and certainly don't know all the evidence or facts of this situation.
While we spanked our children, we certainly never left evidence, and after the spanking, we hugged our children, and talked to them for a long time about the reasons why they were spanked. Our spanking was done in love to teach them right from wrong.
Many times though I have seen spankings carried out in deep anger. I would say that if you cannot spank your child without doing it in a sense of love, perhaps you need to find another way to discipline your child. Spanking in anger will leave marks, welts, and pain far beyond just the spanking.
Our children still say to this day that they would much rather the spankings from us than a talk, because the talk lasted longer, and was the part that really dealt with the issue. I believe the most effective discipline is when you combine a spanking, and a talk, as they both work hand in hand. Soon, it comes to a point where a voice raised, or a certain look will do the trick, and spankings are no longer necessary. The children will learn to respect discipline given in love.
If the spanking left bruises and welts for days to come, I would say it is bordering on child abuse. I do believe the point of spanking is to make the child understand what he did was wrong, but to leave marks/welts/bruises that take days to heal up, that is moving past just dealing with wrong, in my opinion.
Now, I wasn't on the jury, and certainly don't know all the evidence or facts of this situation.
While we spanked our children, we certainly never left evidence, and after the spanking, we hugged our children, and talked to them for a long time about the reasons why they were spanked. Our spanking was done in love to teach them right from wrong.
Many times though I have seen spankings carried out in deep anger. I would say that if you cannot spank your child without doing it in a sense of love, perhaps you need to find another way to discipline your child. Spanking in anger will leave marks, welts, and pain far beyond just the spanking.
Our children still say to this day that they would much rather the spankings from us than a talk, because the talk lasted longer, and was the part that really dealt with the issue. I believe the most effective discipline is when you combine a spanking, and a talk, as they both work hand in hand. Soon, it comes to a point where a voice raised, or a certain look will do the trick, and spankings are no longer necessary. The children will learn to respect discipline given in love.
I agree. From the written reports, it certainly reads as though he lost control and was excessive in his "whipping." I did hear and read that Peterson told his ex-wife and the police that he does speak to his children before spanking them to tell them what they did wrong and why they were being disciplined.
I remember always having some red marks after getting spanked, IMO it was unavoidable if using a belt or other object. I don't believe I was abused. Typically my parents gave no more than 5 or so hits with a belt, paddle or switch.
I agree. From the written reports, it certainly reads as though he lost control and was excessive in his "whipping." I did hear and read that Peterson told his ex-wife and the police that he does speak to his children before spanking them to tell them what they did wrong and why they were being disciplined.
I remember always having some red marks after getting spanked, IMO it was unavoidable if using a belt or other object. I don't believe I was abused. Typically my parents gave no more than 5 or so hits with a belt, paddle or switch.
Though its not always convenient. Psychologists recommend all spanking with an object and not the hand. The hand should not be feared, but the object it grabs.
Linear Mode
