Quote Originally Posted by Dorahacky View Post
Completely fucked up.

I pulled the following out of the context of the entire article it was in; a link to the article itself follows:

Texas law says the use of non-deadly force against someone younger than 18 is justified if a parent or guardian "reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare."

Adrian Peterson of Minnesota Vikings to enter plea to lesser charge than felony child abuse charge, avoid jail time - ESPN

Are you kidding me? So, as long as I don't kill my minor child, I can assault and batter them to my heart's content, and this is called reasonable? This is safeguarding them?

I don't know what to say. Just....fucking unreal. Barbaric. Ignorant. Shitballs.
The rub is that the person must reasonably believe the force is necessary, and whether that belief is reasonable is judged from an objective viewpoint, not the subjective viewpoint of the person doing it. If anyone thinks what he did is reasonable, they have serious fucking issues.