clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Adrian Peterson Begins His Defense

As Ted mentioned in an earlier post, Minnesota Vikings' running back Adrian Peterson has hired Rusty Hardin to defend him from charges of resisting arrest that stem from the incident in Houston on Saturday morning. Here is the full text of the statement, courtesy of ESPN's Josina Anderson and her Twitter account.

Adrian Peterson did not resist arrest this past Saturday morning and any suggestion that he pushed, struck or shoved a Houston Police Officer is a total fabrication. He, in fact, was struck at least twice in the face for absolutely no legitimate reason, and when all the evidence is impartially reviewed, it will clearly show Adrian was the victim, not the aggressor.

We have been investigating what happened since Saturday afternoon, and it is absolutely clear to me that the charges should not have been filed, and the Bayou Club owes Adrian an apology for having put out a totally false version of what happened. Adrian Peterson does not act the way he has been described in the initial reports, and he did not act that way Saturday morning. He was only in that club for 30 to 40 minutes, was never objectionable to other patrons, and never physically resisted any police officer. Adrian is extremely upset about these false allegations. These charges are totally at odds with the way he has conducted himself throughout his career, and he asks that his fans and the public at large reserve judgment until they hear all the facts. Adrian looks forward to his day in court.

A couple of things that I'll get to. . .wait for it. . .after the jump.

The first thing is the statement that Peterson was "struck at least twice in the face." If that's the case, maybe that's part of the answer to the question "Why would Adrian Peterson hire such a big name attorney if he's only charged with resisting arrest?" Maybe he's planning on firing back with a countersuit if he ends up being accused of anything more.

Second, the statement says that Peterson was only in the club for "30 to 40 minutes." This leads me to a couple of points.

Point the first: If he was only there for 30 to 40 minutes and security was asking people to leave because the club was closing. . .why let the party into the club in the first place? I mean, obviously they were getting ready to close and everything. Why let more people in if you're just going to turn around and ask them to leave?

Point the second: The reports said that Adrian Peterson was "wasted" at the time of the incident. Adrian Peterson's a pretty big guy. . .even if he's pounding drinks one after the other, it's going to take him more than 30 minutes to get "wasted." And if he was that "wasted" when he got to the club, again, why let him in?

EDIT: Point the third (as pointed out by rj-b in the comments): The owner of the club said that Peterson had been a difficult customer "all night." If he was only there for 30-40 minutes, that's a pretty different definition of "all night" from the one I'm used to hearing. Also different from the actual definition of "all night."

Nelson Peterson, Adrian's father, has also weighed in on the subject, suggesting that his son is not the aggressor, but the victim.

Peterson received a black eye when his face hit the ground while he was being detained, Nelson said.

"Adrian has a high regard for people in the military and the officers that help protect us," Nelson said.

Peterson's father also was confused by the charges.

"The officer said he pushed him, shoved him, then why is he not charged with assault?" Nelson said. "Only charged with resisting arrest. Doesn't make sense."

Again, Adrian Peterson's court date in Houston is set for Friday. In light of today's statements, things appear to have gotten more interesting. As noted American philosopher Jim Ross once famously put it, "Business is fixin' to pick up."