AP suspeneded for remainder of season

[Bonehead]

with out pay - NFLPA to appeal.

The Vikings also released a statement, saying they "respect the league's decision and will have no further comment at this time."


http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...minnesota-vikings-suspended-least-rest-season

 

[UConn76]

While I certainly don't agree with what AP did, the NFL and Goodell are making up the rules as they go along. It would appear that the Wilf's are also just as happy not to have to deal with the issues of having him back..

Not a good year for the Vikings...

 

[JaYnYcE]

Dangerous world when a parent can't raise his kids without being arrested.

 

[Jerry1714]

While I certainly don't agree with what AP did, the NFL and Goodell are making up the rules as they go along. It would appear that the Wilf's are also just as happy not to have to deal with the issues of having him back..

Not a good year for the Vikings...

I would be shocked if he played another game for the Vikings.

My guess is he will be in Dallas for the opener next season.

 

[UConn4ever]

I would be shocked if he played another game for the Vikings.

My guess is he will be in Dallas for the opener next season.

They won't bring him in with the emergence of Murray

 

[Bonehead]

I would be shocked if he played another game for the Vikings.

My guess is he will be in Dallas for the opener next season.

Think you are correct -

Dez gets franchise tag - they let Murray walk he wants too much - get AP on the sort of cheap.

 

[superjohn]

Dangerous world when a parent can't raise his kids without being arrested.

I think you meant to say, "parent can't abuse their kids without being arrested."

 

[Jerry1714]

They won't bring him in with the emergence of Murray

Murray is a UFA, it will all be about dollars for both sides

 

[Excalibur]

Dangerous world when a parent can't raise his kids without being arrested.

If I saw you doing what he did to your own kid, I'd be legally justified in shooting you. Think about that . . .

 

[Bonehead]

If I saw you doing what he did to your own kid, I'd be legally justified in shooting you. Think about that . . .

Not in Texas - use of switch is legal in Texas.

 

[Excalibur]

Not in Texas - use of switch is legal in Texas.

You need to do a bit of reading. Any punishment that causes injury is abusive under Texas law.

 

[Rocktheworld]

I think you meant to say, "parent can't abuse their kids without being arrested."

I think you meant to say "parent can't abuse a 4-year-old to the point of physical damage from neck to foot without being arrested"

What a dangerous world for all parents. I mean an adult can't beat a child without legal impunity anymore; scary times indeed.

 

[Bonehead]

You need to do a bit of reading. Any punishment that causes injury is abusive under Texas law.

No - I have done reading - thanks for the Reading is Fundamental infomercial.
You are correct that any punishment that causes injury is abusive under Texas law, however to your point, 'If I saw you doing what he did to your own kid, I'd be legally justified in shooting you. Think about that'; I disagree with.

I dont think you would be be legally justified in shooting AP if you were his neighbor lets say, becasue he was hitting a kid with a switch and it left marks - but only one way to really find out! You would have to follow alot of other protocols - you are making it sound like you see it as you drive by, pull out a weapon and shoot him dead because he was hitting a kid with a switch.

So-called “justifiable homicides” are on the rise in Texas, where in 2007 Governor Rick Perry expanded already expansive lethal-force laws to allow Texans to kill in their vehicles and workplaces in self-defense or in any location to stop “aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.” Though the penal code has included the clause discussing “theft during the nighttime” since the 1970s, some Texans might have taken the 2007 change as a declaration of open season.

 

[Excalibur]

No - I have done reading - thanks for the Reading is Fundamental infomercial.
You are correct that any punishment that causes injury is abusive under Texas law, however to your point, 'If I saw you doing what he did to your own kid, I'd be legally justified in shooting you. Think about that'; I disagree with.

I dont think you would be be legally justified in shooting AP if you were his neighbor lets say, becasue he was hitting a kid with a switch and it left marks - but only one way to really find out! You would have to follow alot of other protocols - you are making it sound like you see it as you drive by, pull out a weapon and shoot him dead because he was hitting a kid with a switch.

All I need is a reasonable belief that you are causing injury.

 

[Bonehead]

All I need is a reasonable belief that you are causing injury.

Good Luck to you - I dont know the type of person you are so I dont know if you are just stating an opinion about haveing the right to 'shoot you' or that you are a proud member of the NRA and have a conceal permit and would actually draw your weapon any and every time you saw a stranger who you had a reasonable belief was having injury caused upon them.

- remember to never draw a weapon unless you intend to shoot - and when you shoot you should always shoot to kill.

 

[tiger8mush]

All I need is a reasonable belief that you are causing injury.

I'm no lawyer or politician, but I can't imagine you are allowed to kill someone because he/she had intent to injure another person. I believe you have to at least fear that someone's life is in danger.

While I agree what AP did was excessive, he had no intent to kill his son. If you were driving by and saw a neighbor using a switch on his/her son its hard to believe you'd be justified in killing the parent.

 

[Jerry1714]

I'm no lawyer or politician, but I can't imagine you are allowed to kill someone because he/she had intent to injure another person. I believe you have to at least fear that someone's life is in danger.

While I agree what AP did was excessive, he had no intent to kill his son. If you were driving by and saw a neighbor using a switch on his/her son its hard to believe you'd be justified in killing the parent.

You would not be justified to do so, anyone who claims you are, is on another planet.

I practice in Mass and if you kill someone and claim self defense you must prove an immediate danger of great bodily harm or death and that amount of force used was necessary. Same analysis applies for someone who uses force to protect another person.

Basically you need to show an equal threat to the force used. Could someone step in and punch AP? Sure. But anyone who think that you can just walk up and shoot someone who is hitting someone else with a stick does not know what they are talking about.

 

[Bonehead]

Ben Tate claimed by Minnesota - AP era is most likely over in Minny.

 

[Excalibur]

Depends on the state. Some permit deadly force against others who are reasonably believed to be committing a forcible felony. Others limit the situation to robbery, sexual assault, and aggravated sexual assault.

 

[Jerry1714]

Depends on the state. Some permit deadly force against others who are reasonably believed to be committing a forcible felony. Others limit the situation to robbery, s e xual assault, and aggravated s e xual assault.

You go ahead and shoot someone on their property who is hitting someone else with stick in any state in America and try to argue it was justifiable.

You also better start getting ready to bolster your prison commissary account in order to protect yourself on the inside.

 

[Excalibur]

You go ahead and shoot someone on their property who is hitting someone else with stick in any state in America and try to argue it was justifiable.

You also better start getting ready to bolster your prison commissary account in order to protect yourself on the inside.

Anywhere where "forcible felony" is the standard, I win. The blood on the kid is all the evidence I need.

 

[Bonehead]

As it turns out though, in this case, it was a misdemeanor -

So in your theory, you are AP's neighbor, you see blood on his child from switching, you go into his property, you shoot AP, you claim forcible felony, he pleads to misdemeanor, you lose.

 

[Excalibur]

As it turns out though, in this case, it was a misdemeanor -

So in your theory, you are AP's neighbor, you see blood on his child from switching, you go into his property, you shoot AP, you claim forcible felony, he pleads to misdemeanor, you lose.

The plea is irrelevant.

 

[Bonehead]

The plea is irrelevant.

You must be a lawyer - you seem to have all the answers -

Like I said - good luck to you in your efforts to prevent forcible felonies and stopping parents from child abuse by brandishing your said weapon. Remember - Shoot to Kill otherwise it will be your word vs the other persons and this thread may be used against you in a court of law.

 

[huskysupporter]

Anywhere where "forcible felony" is the standard, I win. The blood on the kid is all the evidence I need.

Say what?