Rusty Hardin is a silly man

So you know those times when you want to say something and you start it off with "I get where (Name Goes Here) is coming from"?

This is not one of those times.

The Two Mikes had Adrian Peterson's attorney, Rusty Hardin, on this a.m. to talk about the NFL's decision to suspend Peterson for the rest of the season, and more sheer idiocy you will never hear from one human being in so short a period of time. And that's acknowledging that Hardin is based in Texas, where sheer idiocy is a leading export, like oil and braggin'.

It is Hardin's considered opinion that Roger Goodell is a self-serving foof who's picking on poor Adrian because he so royally screwed up the Ray Rice thing, and therefore needs a big PR win. So here comes Peterson, a 220-pound NFL running back whose idea of disciplining a 4-year-child is taking a switch off a tree and beating him with it, and so Goodell (according to Hardin) sees his chance to turn into Roger the Hammer again and convince everyone the NFL is actually serious about domestic abuse, at least for as long as we're all paying attention.

Let me say this: I think Hardin's spot-on about that part of it.

But then he made the standard lawyerly mistake of not knowing when to shut his mouth, and that's when he went off the rails and I nearly drove my car off the road.

Hardin, see, characterizes what Peterson did as a "mistake" in "disciplining" his child, that there were "unintended consequences." It wasn't child abuse. Heck, he didn't even inflict any "lasting damage." A bruised testicle or two, what the hell, right? The kid'll heal.

Let's set aside for a moment the utter callousness of that, or the appalling notion that Hardin's apparent standard for child abuse is whether or not the victim suffers any lasting physical effects. Let's instead ask how the hell Hardin knows there'll be no lasting damage. Or does he think a kid who gets beaten won't grow up to beat his own kids?

I'd call that lasting damage. But, you know, I'm normal, and not someone who was paid by Peterson to represent him in the abuse trial.

And speaking of normal, let's clear up something else: No matter what Hardin says, most normal people would reasonably consider what Peterson did child abuse.  He's a grown-ass man who beat a 4-year-old with a stick so severely he bruised his testicles. Maybe in Hardin's world that's regarded as "discipline," but everywhere else it's straight-up abuse.

Period. End of story.

Not for Hardin, though. He thinks it was just a parent making a disciplining mistake with "unintended consequences." Really? So what did Peterson think was going to happen when he consciously took a switch to a 4-year-old? If he didn't know that was going to hurt the kid, then he's a damn fool on top of everything else.

Pretty much like his lawyer.