To condemn Adrian Peterson without considering racial context ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. I can think of two things ...

Last edited Wed Sep 17, 2014, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

It saddens me that now, in 2014, we haven't moved to a place where race doesn't matter. I truly wonder when that will happen. What has to happen before we get to that point?? Not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.

The complete "Browning of America" ... but then, we will find some other arbitrary trait to divide us.

The second, and I hesitate to mention this, based on the reaction found here ... is found in your first comment:

It is so hard for anyone who hasn't walked a mile in your shoes to fully appreciate what you're saying.

That is to say, race will no longer matter when white people recognize, understand and internal that their experience in these United States is NOT the experience of others ... and once accomplished, operationalize that enlightenment by stopping denying/minimizing others' truth.

Meanwhile, what do you think should happen with Adrian Peterson and the Vikings?

I would like to see AP convicted of child abuse and sentenced to 3-5 years probation with the condition that he complete a court (and child advocacy group) approved parenting education and anger management counseling.

With regard to the Vikings ... I really have a very big problem with the calls for empowering private employers to govern the non-job related conduct of its employees, even in the case of extreme, socially unacceptable conduct. It legitimizes stuff like Hobby Lobby and other corporate invasions into its employees' privacy.

ETA: A law school Constitutional Law class fact-pattern, as best I can remember it, might demonstrate my objection/concern:

"A" is employed with "B" Corporation. "B" suspects that "A" is selling propriety trade-secrets owned by "B." As a result, "B" orders its security staff to spy on "A" ... they tap his work phones, they follow him whenever he leaves the office, including to his home, to see whom he meets with, they stake out his house, just in case he leaves/has guests in the middle of the night.

After this proves fruitless, "B" orders its Security staff to get more aggressive ... so, one day, the security staff decides to break into "A"s home to conduct a search. Because of their relationship, they have local law enforcement tag along, just in case they find evidence of the theft. The police were to remain outside of the house, during the search; but would be called if evidence was found.

Unbeknownst to the security staff, "A" had called in sick and was at home when they arrived. As they were breaking in, "A" grabs a lamp to defend himself from the intruders. "A" hides behind a door, and clocks one of the security staff over the head and he is promptly subdued and handcuffed by the rest of the security team. The security staff proceeds to search the house, trashing it in the process.

After several hours, the security team finds the evidence that they were looking for ... they also uncover that "A" operated a small-scale marijuana sales operation.

The security staff opens the door and calls out to the police that they found what they were looking for and tell them about the marijuana. As the security team is walking "A" out of the home, the police officer steps in and arrests "A" for theft of corporate property. "A" is, also, cited and arrested for possession with the intent to distribute.

The following day, "A" is fired for theft and violating the companies drug policy.

You are called in to consult with "A's" Tax Attorney (whose practice is limited to Tax Law). What action(s), if any, would you recommend be pursued?

The short answer is the vast majority of what occurred is NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment, as the constitution only applies to the police officer's conduct. While there ARE constitutional issues with the drug charges; the conduct of "B" corporation is not violative of the constitution. There WOULD be civil claims and, likely, criminal claims; but, "A" could still be fired for the theft AND the violation of the company's drug policy.

I don't want my employer to have that much authority over my private conduct, even if it includes selling drugs.