• Yes. The media should remove the photos

    The media should remove the photos of Adrian Peterson's son's injuries because he is a young child These photos should not be publicly shared no matter how many curious people are out there. The public is not going to be judging Adrian in a court of law. Only the prosecutors involved in the case should have access to that information.

  • I agree, the media should not be showing photos the injuries to Adrian Peterson's son.

    In the interests of not tainting the jury pool for any possible trial the media should not be showing or publishing ANY photos of the injuries to Adrian Peterson's son. The photo displayed out of context are prejudicial to Mr. Peterson's right to a trial by a jury of his peers.

  • The media needs to be sensitive

    The media needs to be sensitive to the idea of respecting children's privacy. and not keep his son's photos online. We live in an age where privacy and respect are lacking. No one deserves to have their injuries put on blast if they don't consent to it. As a minor, even if he consents, it is invalid.

  • He is a victim.

    Yes, the media should remove photos of Adrian Peterson's son's injuries, because the son is a victim. When the child grows older, he will google himself and his father and have to read all about it. The media should be more sensitive to a child and refrain from showing the pictures.

  • There is a greater good here that must be addressed.

    When do we care about genocide in Rwanda? When do our stomach's churn at beheadings in north Iraq? It's not when we hear about it. It's not when we get the numbers of the dead. We don't get in an uproar until we see pictures of a hundred people cut up by machetes on the side of a road. Or children in a mass grave. Until we see the devastation with our own eyes. Your concern is that Peterson's little boy is gonna read about this someday???!!! LOOK WHAT HE DID TO HIM.
    The least of this kid's problems are going to be seeing the picture of his wounds in an article someday denouncing his father. Peterson held him down and beat him bloody, probably while he screamed and begged for mercy, and you are concerned about the psychological effect of pictures he may or may not even see "someday"?? Oh my god.
    No. There is a bigger point here. A child has been tortured. Yes, tortured, by someone is supposed to have loved him and cared for him and protected him from this kind of hurt. These pictures need to see the light of day. People need to see them. Because this is happening in a house near you folks. And when you see it, having seen these pictures, you will remember the horror you felt when you saw them, and hopefully not stay silent.

    If even one neighbor of an abused child sees those pictures, is filled with shock and pain, and thinks "what if that is happening to the kid next door? What if I don't say something?" and calls CPS, then the pictures have brought about at least some justice. And that is the only decent thing that can come from this whole situation: that someone might not have to suffer because someone else suffered for them and people saw it and cared enough to put an end to it forever.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.