Slashdot Mirror


No Charges For Child-Whipping Judge Caught On YouTube

theodp writes "Federal prosecutors will not charge a Texas judge seen lashing his teenage daughter with a belt on a YouTube video taken seven years ago and posted online last week, closing the door on the possibility of criminal charges in the case. The viral video, uploaded by now 23-year-old Hillary Adams, shows her father, Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams, whipping her with a belt for downloading music when she was 16 (full video, requires login). 'F*****g computers,' the judge tells his now ex-wife on the video. 'I told you I didn't want one in the god damn house. See all the problems they cause?' Judge Adams issued a statement asserting that his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him for withdrawing his financial support."

948 comments

  1. Child? by nepka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    16 year old isn't a child. It's late teens, almost an adult. That's why the whole video should be considered as violence against adult, not teaching your child (and even then it would go seriously over the top). But fact is, 16 year olds are adult already. Most can act and think that way too. At least I could.

    1. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      interesting. i think though adult or child the guy deserves a beating for treating his daughter that way. beating his daughter to save the rights of people who make money from music? what an asshole.

    2. Re:Child? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1, Insightful

      16 years is a child. If you don't believe it, then upload a naked picture of a 16 year old. I'm sure they'll charge you for distributing child pornography.

    3. Re:Child? by Mitchell314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But fact is, 16 year olds are adult already. Most can act and think that way too. At least I could.

      ... not because 16 year olds are wise and advanced mentally/emotionally, but because adults aren't ... . Otherwise our world would have a tiny, tiny, tiny fractions of the problems it has now.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    4. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most states, a 16 year old is not legally an adult. I'm not 100% on this, but I believe in Texas you have to be at least 17 to be counted as an adult (i.e. live on your own (without your parents permission)) unless you get a special court order or something (had a few friends that did that ~15 years or so). Either way, although this is kind of fucked up and the judge seems like an asshole, I really don't think any crime was committed.

    5. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've worked in the newspapers as a photojournalist for a few years and I can tell you, some of the most powerful people in a company/ city/ state (regardless of gender) can act like a spoiled brat. I think the term "adult" just means putting on a socially acceptable mask in order to interact with other people. In private, all hats are off - which is specially surprising for someone in my position - where every little detail is scrutinized by the public. But since those behaviors weren't relevant to the news, they were often disregarded by the editor to make room for ad space.

      I think the "core" of a person is set in their teen years, and if they're a vengeful asshole by then, they'll probably be that for the rest of their lives. They may add more layers later in life to make themselves more tolerable, but it won't wipe off an immature jerk inside.

    6. Re:Child? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...and you will probably be charged for soliciting the picture.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:Child? by santax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Neh 16 yo aren't adults. That is a proven fact. Their brains can't comprehend cause, danger, effects as real adults do. 25.... yeps, those are adults. It can be seen by brainscans btw. Some 16 yo are perfectly capable of doing a lot of things some adults can't... but put them in a scanner and you can see the difference.

    8. Re:Child? by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      law does not define truth.

    9. Re:Child? by dbet · · Score: 2

      That's bad logic. 14 year olds can be tried as adults for murder. 16 year olds can marry 30 year olds (in most U.S. states and in most of the world as well). The only thing a 16 year old can't do is drink, vote, and fuck on camera.

    10. Re:Child? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      More likely he is beating lashing his daughter for violating the law. It is not necessarily a statement on whether the law is just.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    11. Re:Child? by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 2

      Or download music on a computer in this pricks house apparently.

      --
      #include bier;
    12. Re:Child? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      So 16 year olds are adults when they kill somebody or marry 30 year olds? But they are children when they fuck on camera, try to vote, or drink alcohol?

      PS, http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml doesn't agree with your statement that 16 years old can marry 30 year olds; at least, not without consent of their parents/guardian. That spells "child" to me.

    13. Re:Child? by Sique · · Score: 2

      Of course there was a crime committed: grievous bodily harm.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:Child? by StarKiller53861 · · Score: 1

      Anyone under the age of 18 is considered a minor in most countries.

    15. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Their brains can't comprehend cause, danger, effects as real adults do.

      I think the effect on them is greatly exaggerated considering the fact that the ability of most (as far as I've saw) adults to do this is seemingly nonexistent. They throw tantrums, get angry, try to support their arguments with logical fallacies, etc. In other words, some (most, as far as I've saw) adults, like children, are typical humans. In my experience, most adults are just overgrown children with a bit more responsibility.

    16. Re:Child? by nepka · · Score: 2

      Minor yes, but not a child.

    17. Re:Child? by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More likely he is beating lashing his daughter for violating the law. It is not necessarily a statement on whether the law is just.

      No, he's beating his daughter because he's an idiot with anger management and control issues. If it's not okay to beat a stranger for "violating the law", then it's certainly not okay to beat someone you're supposed to love, and who you have a legal responsibility to protect from bad stuff such as illegal physical assaults like this.

      BTW: This was not a one-time incident.

    18. Re:Child? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      or refuse schooling, a lawyer etc.

      A 16 your old legally is a child, they are protected by the state (and can be taken away from home if they have abusive parents, whether they want to go or not, for example), and in legal agreements they cannot sign for themselves without special circumstances. They cannot serve in the army, they cannot collect an adult minimum wage, they cannot be treated like adults legally without special circumstances (which violate both the definition and purpose of separate child laws in the first place).

      16 years cannot marry without parental consent, pregnancy - in some specific cases, court approval or the like (unless they are already emancipated).

      A 14 year old is not *automatically* tried for murder as an adult, they can, under special circumstances be given that privilege.

      You see these things on the news and it biases your perception of what actually happens. In extreme cases children can be emancipated from their parents at very young ages when the parents have no criminal record etc... But in that sense any piece of law can be overturned in a one off basis, for the 99.99% of everyone else 16 year olds are children, are treated that way by several laws, and treaties, and treating them differently is illegal.

    19. Re:Child? by eldepeche · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even more likely he is beating his daughter because it makes him feel like a big man on a power trip. She knew what she was doing would elicit a severe beating, so if she wanted footage of him abusing her, all she had to do was download some songs from the internet.

      Child abuse and domestic abuse aren't about punishment, they are about control. She could probably have changed the desktop background or something equally trivial. He's not punishing her for misdeeds, he's beating her into submission. He even says so in the video.

    20. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Anonymous Operation DoxTheJudge Judge William Adams

      TRANSCRIPT
      __________________________

      Greetings, Judge Adams.
      We are Anonymous.

      Your recent actions have been atrocious, unjust, and as an individual who represents families in judicial disputes, we expected more of you. We have witnessed you mercilessly beating your own disabled daughter for simply "browsing the internet or downloading music". We are outraged. Such aggression against a child will not stand, especially by someone who has assumed the duty to protect families. However, how ironic it is that this leak was not made by the discerning public, but from the victim: your own daughter. The heartless beating of another human being, especially the one of a child is a terrible crime that will not go unnoticed.

      To speculate the least, you yourself know as a parent that she has a disability, and given that she was of such a young age, her understanding may not be as 'advanced' as your own. However, as human beings, we have evolved NOT to abuse and incite violence, but to understand and learn. You clearly represent the intelligence of a neanderthal and as such, you deserve to be treated like the brute that you are. You may have seen your actions justified, but to a young girl, she does not understand the nature of your aggression.Your actions show you to be terrible parent, an abhorrent human being, and as such you deserve to be outcast by the society that respects and abides by your final word.

      Therefore, we have decided that you shall receive the full fury of Anonymous. We shall continue to wage war against you until you have paid the price for your reprehensible actions. We will not cease our attacks until you have done so. We demand a PUBLIC APOLOGY to both the people of Texas and to your daughter. Further, we demand your immediate resignation from the bar and retirement from any form of judiciary action or law enforcement.

      Should you choose to continue to assert that "it looks worse than it was", we shall continue our actions against you untill you see the abhorrent nature of your actions and comply with our demands.

      We protect the innocent.
      We fight for the oppressed.
      We shall avenge.
      Operation DoxTheJudge, engaged.

      We are Anonymous.
      We are Legion.
      We do not Forgive.
      We do not Forget.
      Expect us.

    21. Re:Child? by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yet another target for "Anonymous" to go at - and he isn't declared innocent either if he isn't charged. You need to bring him to court to determine guilty or not.

      I think that by avoiding to charge him they try to avoid having to re-take a lot of cases that he has been involved in.

      But the video is good enough to get him convicted by almost any jury unless they are specially picked from extreme Amish or similar societies where they don't use computers or TV.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    22. Re:Child? by lattyware · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You don't beat a child to make a moral point. You can, and should, smack a child to teach them when they can't understand - for example, if a young child is about to touch a hot oven, you smack them to shock them and reinforce the point, something you can't do with words when they are young. But that is about shock, communicating and not real harm. You should never be beating a child with an object, and never repeatedly. It should never be more than enough to cause a bit of mild pain and shock to grab attention and make them realise. By the time they are 16, you should be able to talk with your child a reason with them. If you can't, consider the idea you might be wrong. Sure, sometimes kids won't listen, but beating them is never an answer. Kid, adult - they are people. Beating them is wrong.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    23. Re:Child? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      " at least, not without consent of their parents/guardian. That spells "child" to me."

      If they were child, they weren't allowed to marry even with parental support. So it's obviously somewhere inbetween.

    24. Re:Child? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It all depends on where you live. Here in Sweden you can't be charged with a crime unless you are 15 or older, so if you train a 10 year old to kill and have him/her kill someone then that kid will be taken care of by the social support agency for a while but they can't do shit in terms of punishment, just evaluation and nothing ends up in the crime records. You on the other hand may be charged with a crime - if you can get connected to that kid.

      And in Yemen it's OK to screw 9 year olds - if you are married to them, and it's legal to marry a 9 year old there.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    25. Re:Child? by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 2

      law does not define truth.

      The law defines legal responsibility. While some people seem to have forgotten the whole balance of rights and responsibility in our society, the ethical issue is that if a person does not have legal rights (such as the right to go where they want or not eat broccoli) that person likewise cannot be held accountable in a legal sense. If the law does not grant you rights, there is no ethical or moral responsibility to obey the law. That is why the whole "try a child as an adult" nonsense is so abhorrent to anyone who has taken a class in the evolution of law or civil ethics.

      Legally and ethically a 16 year person in our society is a child.

    26. Re:Child? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      and should

      Whether I "should" do something or not is up to me to decide. And unless they're attacking me and are capable of harming me, I wouldn't hit them (in other words, only in self-defense). They can touch the oven if they want. Smacking them doesn't teach them why they shouldn't touch the oven. What hurt them was your hand, not the oven.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    27. Re:Child? by mrxak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure a man who doesn't understand computers or technology (at least, 7 years ago, that might have changed) is absolutely quaking in his boots over threats from an internet group.

      What exactly are they going to do, find and release a video of him beating his daughter to get him thrown off the bench?

    28. Re:Child? by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up. Not radically different than this. You can bet I didn't do whatever caused the whipping again. Even then I didn't think it was abuse. I would bet it didn't look much different than this to an outsider. Spanking is also still legal in the U.S. as long as the force is reasonable. Hell it's still legal in a large number of schools as well (something like 21 states still allow corporal punishment). Claiming she was 'almost' an adult is like saying someone is 'almost' guilty. You either are or you aren't. If she was living in her fathers house, under his rules, and she is a minor, then it's appropriate that he is able to dole out punishments as long as they aren't excessive, or abusive.

      TFA article states that there are no allegations of abuse on record:

      Adams was granted joint custody of his 10-year-old daughter in his 2007 divorce. There are no allegations of alleged abuse by Adams against his younger daughter.

      He wasn't being investigated because the statue of limitations on such cases is 5 years. They have no legal course of action at this point. Although they did say the video would have warranted an investigation and they would have pursued charges based on the video.

      "I would expect that yeah, charges would have been pursued but for the inability to proceed due to the statute of limitations," Flanigan said Friday. "You know, whether that would have been a felony or a misdemeanor charge I can't say but I think there would've been some action pursued."

      I always find it interesting how a video like that turns every American into a model parent when in short, it's none of their damn business. If the child was 'abused' in the truest sense (bruises, black eyes, broken bones, etc), then by all means it should be reported and the father should be investigated. If the video is however making this look worse than it is (and I know of no way to judge how 'hard' she is being whipped), then this is nothing more than judging the man as guilty with no proof of abuse. The fact that there are no allegations of abuse doesn't help her case either. Looks to me like a father who probably lost his temper and a young woman playing to the internet 'jury' for sympathy and revenge.

      Granted, he's scaring the hell out of his daughter in the video (probably with good reason), but unless there was evidence of such abuse then I think people should mind their own damn business.

    29. Re:Child? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Courts can rule "guilty" or "not guilty". There is no "innocent".

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    30. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they learned a few things about effective means of deterrence from the Zetas recently, didn't they?

    31. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead wrong. There are many cases in US & UK common law that remove a minor from "child" status. Any time the perform an action that is 'adult' such as driving a car or, for that matter, purchasing a car, they are instead held to an adult standard.

      Don't believe me? You know that minors can't form a legal contract, right? Let's see that minor try to get out of a contract for purchase of a car.

    32. Re:Child? by rockout · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up. Not radically different than this. You can bet I didn't do whatever caused the whipping again.

      Oh, that makes it okay then. Fuck you, asshole.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    33. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do understand that spanking is used as a deterrent? You seem a bit confused...

    34. Re:Child? by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Whether I "should" do something or not is up to me to decide.

      Nope. A court can too, in many cases.

    35. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. It's everyones business.

      As a high school kid I got knocked around a few times by my old man. He was, and is, a pretty solid guy (installed bathtubs for a living). I never got anything worse than nasty shiners, bloody noses, sore ribs, split lip and some bruises from going through closet doors and such. Oh, and I was horse from screaming non-stop. Never had a broken bone or anything permanently screwed up and he was normally a very calm, decent person.

      But from my somewhat... adjusted... point of view, I don't think there should be a 5 year limit on these things. Kids don't tell on their parents. Taking a beating is, in part, about teaching you that you're an arrogant shit that deserves punishment. And worse, assuming they're from a small town, his community botched this. The neighborhood knows when a kid is getting smacked around and if the kid didn't say anything (she wouldn't), then better men in the neighborhood should have "had a little talk" with him. But he's a judge, so nobody ever did anything.

      People asked me when I'd come to school about my shiners and such. Good people, usually teachers. I denied it every time, but they knew. In a smaller town, my old man would've gotten a stern talking to by a few local dads at the next poker night and dropped off at home.

    36. Re:Child? by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's very rare, but in California, the court can issue a "declaration of factual innocence", which is to say there was no reasonable cause for the person to have been arrested or put on trial.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    37. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a guy who hadn't watched the entire video. Downloading songs requires a 7 minute beating? Not to mention that she has cerebral palsy. And the jerk is a family judge. Screw that guy making decisions about the welfare of children.

      The only way it would be a decent video would be if she was wearing a corset and they had sex at the end.

    38. Re:Child? by icebraining · · Score: 2

      I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up. Not radically different than this. You can bet I didn't do whatever caused the whipping again.

      Were you 16? Then you were either an idiot or a coward.

      Spanking worked with me too until I was 8 or so. At 16, if I saw nothing wrong with if (and nobody explained why it was wrong), stopping would just mean I was a coward by giving in to the whims of bullies.

      Because that's all he's being by beating her. A bully.

    39. Re:Child? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Of course there's that little federal thing of innocent until proven guilty. Therefor, if you aren't proven guilty, you are still innocent and there is no ruling necessary.

    40. Re:Child? by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      You do realize that all of those things are child abuse right?

      "shiners, bloody noses, sore ribs, split lip, some bruises"

      The above would all be social services business and the courts. Everyone's business? No.

      Your teachers should have reported it. There is however, a difference between being beaten and being spanked, and no evidence of the former just because the girl is frightened and begging not to be spanked. There was also no history of any child abuse reported. Is it possible there was history? Certainly. Without proof you are assuming guilt. You would be considered a tainted jury member because you have personal bias.

    41. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At least I could."

      No, you couldn't. You just thought you could.

    42. Re:Child? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think the Amish would condone this.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    43. Re:Child? by meerling · · Score: 2

      No idea, but I know that someone who pissed off some phreaks a long time ago had his phones (work and home) rerouted to porncalls. It only took about 6 weeks before he caved.

      Yes, I've known phreaks, but I am not now, nor have ever been one. All of them I knew were friendly easygoing people. It took a lot to set them off, but if you were dumb enough to do that, you'd be better off never using a phone again, and possibly moving to a cave somewhere.

    44. Re:Child? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      That's not really what I meant. I meant that I don't believe that the universe (or some deity whose morals are absolute) thinks that I "should" do something.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    45. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She seems perfectly coordinated to me. I doubt seriously she was handicapped by ataxic cerebral palsy if she was affected by it at all. Such cases are typically very poor in regards to physical coordination. All I see is a girl who knew she was going to get spanked, playing up to the camera which she placed so she could record it. Pissed because Daddy took away her Mercedes and her allowance.

    46. Re:Child? by omfgnosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and he isn't declared innocent either if he isn't charged.

      Actually, he is. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means, and that is the legal status of any person in the US who has not been tried and convicted.

      You need to bring him to court to determine guilty or not.

      Which is not the same as "innocent". It is "guilty" or "not guilty".

      Note: I am not saying that this person is innocent, in a moral sense; he clearly is not. I'm only speaking to the legal structure.

    47. Re:Child? by DesScorp · · Score: 1, Troll

      Bullshit. It's everyones business.

      Unless there's proof of real physical harm... extreme bruising or bleeding, etc... then no, it's not everyone's business. Corporal punishment is legal and accepted, and if you don't like that, then don't use it. But it's none of your concern otherwise.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    48. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      16 years old is old enough to be tried as an adult in a homicide case. The system likes to pick and choose when 16 is a minor, or adult.

    49. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting definition of "grievous"...

    50. Re:Child? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is not a matter of "age" but of education or age based education.
      History is full of 14 year olds becoming King or war lord or any other high abstract thinker with organization tallent or great leader ship.
      In our society growing ups are treated like puppies, most of the time hold down so they don't develop. And only martyred with grades in stuff completely unrelated to what is really interesting. How do you learn enough physics in "school" or "high school" to get interested in studying it?
      Do you know who Niels Bohr is? Smart young people are the norm, not the exception. Also "adult" young people are the norm. The fact that we don't have/see this right now is a side effect of our society and not a genetic thing of aging or growing up. Most young people I meet are bored ... bored ... bored about what school and life demands from them ... many of them live in their own worlds. Just doing musics, parties and sports and the bare minimum to pass classes in school. The teacher asks: what do you think about "X" and they tell him everything he missed the last 20 years about X ...
      Sorry, I don't know what you want to see in your brain scans ... but I can bet that a big deal of the brains you scan (from young people) are just not yet malformed like the main adult brains are.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    51. Re:Child? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Let's restrict government to people older than 25, then. It should solve all our problems.

      Oh, wait...

    52. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Can you describe this phenomenon that you believe happens when they turn 25? In the past 100,000 years or so, for the most part did not live past the age of twenty, so how could you expect the full evolutionary process to account for past that age? My only conclusion is that you must be a terribly stupid person, and even edge to believe that you must be a democrat. Why don't you blow it out your a$$, you half-a-tard.

    53. Re:Child? by Trogre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck you, asshole

      Looks like someone needed a bit more discipline when growing up.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    54. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately so. It's even worse if you make love to one.

    55. Re:Child? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Legally considered yes, not a child in reality. 16-22 year olds are somewhere between child and adult. A 16 year old should have the right to self determination, and freedom from being beat on. If I did that to my 18 year old child, who is insignificantly more mature than a 16 year old I would be charged with assault. There is no reason a 16 year old shouldn't be allowed some level of self determination and be treated like a young adult.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    56. Re:Child? by rockout · · Score: 1

      Or maybe I think, like most of the civilized world, that beating your kid will, in the long run, do more harm than good. I'd submit that the case of the judge and his now-23-year-old daughter is pretty good evidence toward that point. Maybe you were just trying to be funny; sorry, I don't find child abuse amusing.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    57. Re:Child? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Looks to me like a father who probably lost his temper

      And then beat his daughter with a belt, took a break when he appeared tired and continued after he rested for seven and a half minutes, he wasn't just flicking her either he was wailing on her pretty good.

      and a young woman playing to the internet 'jury' for sympathy and revenge.

      I agree with that but playing the sympathy and revenge card is irrelevant to the beating.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    58. Re:Child? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Of course there was a crime committed: grievous bodily harm.

      no, but very probably assault and battery, possibly child abuse.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    59. Re:Child? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      So you were such a good and smart kid that you found what, dozens or hundreds of ways to give your parents reasons to beat your ass? Or is it that you can't count past 10?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    60. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you honestly some kind of idiot? The guy I see beating his kid in that video is just an uncontrolled asshole. It's quite obvious he's out of control. If you didn't realize that by his entire attitude throughout the video, you should have realized it when he had to go back to "get his lickin". The video speaks for itself.

      It's an honest question. Some people are truly morons, and can't see what's obviously apparent to everyone else. What's obvious is that the girl was abused, and this isn't what most people who consider "a spanking".

    61. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Corporal punishment is legal and accepted

      This goes beyond a spanking. If you can't see that, you're blind.

      Also, corporal punishment may be legal, but is certainly controversial. If you think differently, see the responses to this story. Since we live in a democracy where we decide on what's legal and what's not, that makes it everyone's business. If you'd like it to not be anyone's business, I suggest you move to a nice dictatorship or totalitarian state. North Korea is always looking for people I hear.

    62. Re:Child? by MrMatto · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What went on in the video wasn't child abuse. When I was growing up my parents would hit me with the METAL END of the belt as hard as they could. Once, I called my Mom a bitch (under my breath) and my parents knocked me down to the floor. My Dad proceeded to repeatedly kick me in the stomach HARD while my Mom jumped on my head and chest. THAT was child abuse. My parents would beat the shit out of me if I ever stepped out of line and I still didn't turn into a sociopath. There are probably some emotional scars there but I managed to move past all that. I actually have a very good relationship with both of my parents now. My older sister, on the other hand, came to school with some marks on her body and Social Services came to the house and she didn't live with us anymore after that. The father sounds like an asshole but it isn't child abuse unless it leaves a mark. Everyone needs to stop pushing their values on other people and telling them how to raise their kids. I don't advocate violence, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to spank a child when he misbehaves. It teaches the child that there are consequences to his actions.

    63. Re:Child? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I don't know. I don't think what the judge did was discipline. On the other hand corporal punishment can be used for discipline. It has been for thousands of years and it was common when I was a child. Generally children behaved far, far, far, far, far better then. I received quite a few belt driven corrections but I deserved them and knew I did and that my parents loved and cared for and about me. The discipline was always consistent and fair. I never got a spanking after about 12 or so but then by then I was pretty well behaved knowing the consequences for misbehavior. I think just beating the hell out of your children in a rage is, at the very least, counter productive. On the other hand I see the majority of children today receive no spankings whatsoever and they are mostly sad examples of modern permissive culture.

    64. Re:Child? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think a big percentage of 25 years olds aren't adults either. brain scan or not.

    65. Re:Child? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      As a parent you are responsible for the actions of your children until they are 18 unless they are legally emancipated.

      For example:
      According to Pennsylvania truancy law, "Every parent, guardian, or person in parental relation, having control or charge of any child . . . of compulsory school age . . . " may be fined or put in jail if the child in their care does not go to school. Therefore, unless a minor's parents, guardians or other adult who has previously assumed responsibility for the minor, can prove they no longer have actual "control or charge" over the minor, they may be subject to a penalty if the minor in their care does not go to school.

      And:
      V. PARENTAL LIABILITY

      Under the law, parents are liable for property damage and personal injury caused by their child. However, they can only be required to pay a maximum of $300 of any damage claim where one person is injured, and $1,000 where two or more persons are injured.

      A parent does not have to pay damages for injury caused by their child if:

              1. the parent does not have custody of the child and is not entitled to custody of the child or
              2. the child is institutionalized or
              3. the child is emancipated.

      Again, emancipation is not defined under this statute. In this situation, a parent who is being sued for property damage and personal injury caused by their child should raise emancipation as a defense. A court would then determine the parent's liability, using the emancipation factors discussed in the section of this pamphlet on Judicial Determination of Emancipation.

      And:
      As stated earlier, a minor may ask a court to declare him or her emancipated but, as shown above, court action is often unnecessary for the minor to get what he or she wants. ... In effect, the minor child must already be living independently for a court to determine that the child is emancipated.

      Parents or guardians of a minor emancipated by court order, are no longer required to give the minor any financial support. This means they do not have to provide food, housing, clothing or any other assistance to the minor.

      I.e. MINORS can ask to be emancipated but parents cannot voluntarily emancipate their children.

      And:
      Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > Law & Legal Issues > Children and the Law > Emancipation and Ages for Moving Out Can a child's parents emancipate them without the child's permission?
      Answer: No, but when the person reaches the age of majority, the parents can legally request they move out of the family home and take responsibility for their own financial support

      --
      Soooo..
      ---
      I.e. if you have an irresponsible child who is 16, you are screwed. They can leave you- but you can't leave them until they are 18. They can cause you endless trouble with the law and with CPS.

      ----

      I never laid a lick on my daughter but spanking children-- with a belt-- is not illegal unless there is injury. I can't fault the judge for engaging in the behavior and I can even understand it. Partially it's his fault for raising her to be such a spoiled, blackmailing brat.

      It's unfortunate but lots of children do not respond to reason and it boils down to fear. With a foundation of fear, you can build up respect, trust and love. Sure, it's nicer if you can avoid it but many children are unbearably disrespectful and unruly starting sometime after age 13 until they can be tossed out at 18.

      I had some friends who went so far as to kidnap their daughter and send her to a stepford child religious school. Too far? Perhaps- but if they hadn't, the girl would probably be dead or a drug using low class hooker now instead of attending college and working a day job. She cut off all contact with her old friends when she got back. Brainwashed? I sort of think so. Difficult decision for the parents to have to make.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    66. Re:Child? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      If you can control others parental rights to raise their children, then be ready to grant them to control how you raise your children.

      Perhaps as a majority (in your region), they'll decide the child should go to the dominant religion's churches every holy day.

      Perhaps as a majority, they'll decide that sex with a child old enough to bear the weight of a man is legal.

      You have an opinion- as does everyone. I'm not disputing that. But your opinions are not inherently more just, moral, right, or wrong than anyone elses.

      It's just the way you feel.

      And for the record, while I never had to use corporal punishment on my child, it's my opinion that some circumstances merit it. And some children require it - they are just wired to be nasty unless they get a firm hand. "Talking" to them is just a joke to them.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    67. Re:Child? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up.

      People who were abused as children often likely to justify and, and are more likely than average to go on to abuse their own children. Because you were beaten as a child, you will probably beat your own children.

      That doesn't make it right, except in your own corrupted mind.

    68. Re:Child? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Well, tomhudson - I positively hate the whole "anger management" thing. To a guy like me, that crap just sounds gay most of the time.

      I watched the video several days ago. I saw my own father. It isn't "anger management". I'll bet everything I've ever owned, and everything that I ever will own, that if you could get inside his head, he beat his daughter for the same reason he's a judge. He ENJOYS hurting people with whom he disagrees.

      Oh, people like him rationalize that in many way. "I'm only doing it for your own good" and "You've got to learn" and "I'm only protecting society from you" and "You broke the law, what do you expect to happen".

      Bottom line, though - I'm quite certain that he ENJOYS inflicting pain on people.

      As I said - I looked into those eyes as a small child myself. It took 15 years for me to become "adult" enough to pick up a hunting rifle, stick the muzzle in the old bastard's face, and make him understand that "enough is enough".

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    69. Re:Child? by sethmeisterg · · Score: 1

      Wow. You spent WAY too much time on that post. That's pretty scary.

    70. Re:Child? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are a couple questions to ask about the "spankings".

      1. Did you actually do something wrong - or were the "spankings" random, unpredictable, and/or unwarranted?

      2. Did you get belted all over your body, like the girl in the video?

      3. Was there a preset number of swats, or did your parent just whip until his arms got tired?

      4. Was there a definite lesson to be imparted?

      5. Did you actually LEARN a lesson, or did you just "learn" to avoid Dad, or to hide your actions better?

      As for minding our own damned business - that shit can go to far. I seem to remember some women being killed in New York City, screaming, crying, and begging for help - and no passerby would lift a finger, or make a telephone call. I also seem to remember, more recently, a toddler being killed in traffic in China, and no one would come to her aid. Almost every month, we read of some child dying in America due to abuse and neglect. I'm one to "mind my own business" most of the time - but there comes a time when you HAVE to take notice!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    71. Re:Child? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Statute of limitations, I think. Sometimes those statutes suck - but unless you murder someone, there is a limit for all crimes. Had he also sexually abused the girl, I think that limit is quite a bit longer than mere physical and emotional abuse.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    72. Re:Child? by littlewink · · Score: 1

      Don't be a dipshit! At 16 I knew everything: cause, effect, danger, just like any adult. "It can be seen by brainscans. " - Proof that you're an idiot (at the age of 35! ) "Put them in a scanner and you can see the difference." - Yeah, one is 16 and the othe is 35. One is normal and the other is an idiot. What a dumbass! Who gave this idiot a 4?

    73. Re:Child? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      amiga - you nailed the issue right on the head.

      Corporal punishment, by definition, has specific goals of teaching lessons. Consistent, fair punishment can almost never be considered abusive.

      I listened to this judge, and everything he said and did hinges on one sentence. "I'll beat you into submission." The ONLY lesson to be learned from the beating in the video, is that "Dad is God".

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    74. Re:Child? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The cerebral palsy means little to me. A child who has EARNED punishment is a child who has EARNED punishment. Your halfwit brother can bear a spanking just as well as you can - and may require a couple swats to help him understand the simplest lessons.

      I'm not outraged that he beat a girl with cerebral palsy - I'm outraged that he dumped all of his rage and frustration on a mostly defenseless person. Dig deep enough into his psyche, and there is no difference between what the judge does here, and what a rapist does when he finds a defenseless woman in the park.

      Key on one sentence in the video - "I'll beat you into submission". Key in on that sentence, then watch the video again.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    75. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I had some friends who went so far as to kidnap their daughter and send her to a stepford child religious school. Too far? Perhaps- but if they hadn't, the girl would probably be dead or a drug using low class hooker now

      Yeah, but the kid wouldn't have turned out that way in the first place if her parents weren't the kinds of psychos who would kidnap and brainwash their child. Duh!

    76. Re:Child? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No, he's beating his daughter because he's an idiot with anger management and control issues.

      Yes, that. I'd also be willing to wager he's a christian. That correlates highly with child abuse too.

    77. Re:Child? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Operation DoxTheJudge Judge William Adams

      fake. Guess you didn't notice that this user joined on Oct 17, 2011

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    78. Re:Child? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      16 years old is old enough to be tried as an adult in a homicide case. The system likes to pick and choose when 16 is a minor, or adult.

      11 year olds have been tried as adults, do you also consider them "adults"

      being tried as an adult != being an adult

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    79. Re:Child? by Trogre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please stop being deliberately obtuse.

      This case of a judge beating his daughter has nothing to do with physical discipline. It's a sick bastard beating a child for pleasure. Clearly abuse and completely different from what I was talking about.

      The liberal media will often try to equate physical discipline with abuse (and of course use terms such as "beating") and will report horrific child abuse cases as "raising the question" about smacking in general. I live in a country where it has for several years been illegal to smack children for any reason (though of course children are still allowed to hit whomever they please, since this "think of the children" society is hell-bent on giving children more rights than they can handle but no responsibilities).

      And guess what? Since that law came into effect, actual child abuse hasn't decreased at all. Not a bit. What has happened though is a generation of disrespectful children who can get away with near murder and a culture where and any parent who pulls their two-year-old away from traffic is regarded with suspicion.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    80. Re:Child? by tomhudson · · Score: 0

      He might "enjoy it at the time" - the endorphin rush - but the fact is that there is a proven difference in the structure of the brain between people who are liberal and conservative/religious. The latter have less self-control when it comes to reacting to their initial emotional "gut feelings" because the part of the brain that controls that is smaller.

      This doesn't excuse it. What it means is that they need to be trained to recognize when they're going off the rails. Failing that, they will perpetuate the cycle in the next generation. That's what anger management does - makes them realize that they had better at the very least balance that with the fear of the consequences after the endorphin high wears off.

      Is he a sick f*ck? No question. Can he change? So far, he's denying he even did anything wrong. He may be incapable of seeing that he did anything wrong. There are people who still believe that the bible gives them the right to beat their kids (and their wives). Anything that threatens that structure on which they are psychologically dependent is going to be ignored.

      It's very frustrating trying to deal with cases where the father is physically abusive, the mother won't report it because "it's not god's way", and the police won't take action unless the mother reports it. Fortunately, those situations are becoming fewer, as the police and public and courts say that religion is not an excuse for abuse.

      But sometimes it still takes the victim doing as you did to change things. Progress is slow, and there are a lot of people and organizations who have a vested interest in just sweeping everything under the rug, because they're sick f*cks too.

    81. Re:Child? by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      That is not a matter of "age" but of education or age based education. History is full of 14 year olds becoming King or war lord or any other high abstract thinker.

      But they didn't cognitively work themselves into those positions, and once there they were there generally puppets of their advisers until they were mature enough to think for themselves. Generally the more advanced the society, the longer the development cycle. If you want to breed kids capable of eating, sleeping, fucking and killing then by all means let them loose at 14. If you want a positive contributor to a 21st advanced society then that will take a little bit longer.

    82. Re:Child? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      16 year old isn't a child. It's late teens, almost an adult. That's why the whole video should be considered as violence against adult, not teaching your child (and even then it would go seriously over the top). But fact is, 16 year olds are adult already. Most can act and think that way too. At least I could.

      13
      14
      15

      • 16

      17
      18
      19

      It's fairly obvious that 16 is MIDDLE teens, not late. And no it's not the same as a prepubescent child, but it's also not an adult. Perhaps you were capable of adult-like thought, but I would suspect that had something to do with your parents preparing you for adulthood and progressively treating you more like an adult as you got older. This girl's father was treating her very much unlike an adult, if you strike another adult you go the fuck to jail.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    83. Re:Child? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe in spanking, under the right circumstances. What this man did was not spanking, it was beating. It's not cool.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    84. Re:Child? by tchall · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Then again she could have been downloading files that the heavy hitters were prosecuting for hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages EACH and WINNING...

      Not that it excuses a beating, but I'd have been a little torqued over my entire life's accomplishments being jeopardized by an asswipe kid wanting to steal software/files... especially when a pattern of theft continued despite continued repeated efforts to break her of the habit...

      Not only did she set up and stage manage the video, but she managed to live off him till recently and only released the video when he told her a part time job in a game store wasn't cutting it... he wasn't paying for her lifestyle any longer and BTW drop off the Mercedes at the house...

      She told him he'd live to regret it, and did her best to make that come true..

      . Now she and her mom are making the talk show circuits and getting lots of sympathy...

    85. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This judge better not visit Sweden. Signed, a 14 year old.

    86. Re:Child? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Claiming she was 'almost' an adult is like saying someone is 'almost' guilty.

      Except children gradually grow into adulthood. We don't (yet) raise children in a protective bubble until the age of 18, and then suddenly unleash the full hell of real life on them.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    87. Re:Child? by JCCyC · · Score: 1

      My parents would beat the shit out of me if I ever stepped out of line and I still didn't turn into a sociopath.

      That's highly debatable.

    88. Re:Child? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Not true. You can do behavioral conditioning to associate one negative to another. For instance I was hearing about a situation where a child was I believed slapped when they touched a fuzzy bunny. They would associate negative experiences with rabbits and fear them.

      I would say a little physical violence against a child if it prevents a greater injury is justified. For instance tackling a child might hurt them and could even break a bone but if they were about to step in front of a truck then it's the lesser of two evils. But maybe not just tackling a child if they are about to walk into a flower garden. ;)

    89. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't agree with you more. When a society usurps the rights of parents to discipline their children, sometimes corporal but not outright maiming or causing disability, that society also looses taking action against the parents for the actions of the children or even the children themselves, if they did something bad.

      You can't have a tribe dictating parental rights at the same time assuming parents hold all the responsibility. It creates mutual distrust, it makes parents fearful of the tribe and children don't learn what their limits are. If the tribe takes care of providing all necessities the children then the tribe has a point until such time parents are within their *** natural and inalienable *** right to punish their children without causing permanent damage.

      Making up laws don't make them just or fair -- like war on drugs.

    90. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're describing is very clearly child abuse. You've come up with your own definition (has to leave a mark) as a form self defence. It's quite obvious you should talk to someone about this and come to terms with what it really was. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

    91. Re:Child? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Not true.

      Perhaps not for all people. But my response is, "It depends on the person/child." For me, things like that just raised further questions and I reacted as if someone used reverse psychology on me (the exact opposite of what they wanted). Even if it works in some cases, I don't believe it should be done.

      but if they were about to step in front of a truck

      If you can hit them, then you can pull them away.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    92. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't agree with you more. When a society usurps the rights of parents to discipline their children, sometimes corporal but not outright maiming or causing disability, that society also looses taking action against the parents for the actions of the children or even the children themselves, if they did something bad.

      You don't have the "right" to assault and batter someone else. I don't care if they're a minor and your own offspring.

      If you take this as a "right," then I likewise have the "right" to discipline you violently if you're doing something I don't like. You need to change your behavior, and goldarn it, I'm going to beat you until you behave...

    93. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You with your fat fingers might be better off splashing them with your flabby hands, but a normal man could cause a lot more harm using his hands than a belt.
      The reason belts are used for punishment in the first place is to limit the harm an alcoholic father who loves his children but has problems controlling his fury can cause. Belts are painful and scary but they cause little physical damage.
      When they were introduced, they were regarded as the gentle way to punish children.
      Today mental damage and the like are considered as well, but mental trauma beats being dead any day.

    94. Re:Child? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

      ... but it isn't child abuse unless it leaves a mark.

      WTF? Can you say, "Stockholm Syndrome"?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    95. Re:Child? by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Of course my opinions are nothing more than opinions. I'm posting a comment in a discussion, I thought that would be clear. That said, that's how I see it. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to make counter-arguments and change my mind - I could well be wrong, but at the moment, that's how I see it, and I can't think of any better argument.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    96. Re:Child? by lattyware · · Score: 1

      I don't see that. A man slapping a child on the bum with his hand isn't going to injure a child unless they are trying to do so. You shouldn't be hitting them, just a tap to give them a moment of shock. If you truly can't control yourself to that point, call social services and have your child taken off you.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    97. Re:Child? by alienzed · · Score: 1

      Hey, he can afford a computer and an internet connection. He even has a Slashdot account!

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    98. Re:Child? by alienzed · · Score: 1

      See the differences in the brain between age 25 and 50? How about 50 and 80? Maybe it's, *gasp*, aging and experience! Somehow I don't think that the way the brain looks has any real effect on what makes us consider someone an adult or not. However, for the sake of argument I still call 'no child'. She is clearly a teen.

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    99. Re:Child? by vesuvana · · Score: 1

      The truth lies somewhere between the extremes. My father beat me with a belt too a few times, and a) I never did those things again and b) they were things of serious enough consequence that a "talking to" or "time out" were not sufficient punishment. Today I am a respectful productive member of society able to form full meaningful relationships with others. So I'd argue that it didn't leave me with the severe psychological scars that so many non-spanking proponents wave around. I have to work daily with "millenials" who have never been punished more severely than a time out and are members of the generation where all participants "win" just for showing up. They are a nightmare to work beside: egotistical to the point of being rude, whiney, and demanding praise for even the slightest effort. They are also the most intolerant and disrespectful bunch I've ever encountered anywhere in the US and have the worst impulse control of all generations in the workforce. So I'd say our recent generation's experiment with permissive child rearing was a total failure. I dread having these people become our leaders. Would I beat my child with a belt? No. But would I spank them when it's something that deserves swift high-level punishment? Absolutely, and without a bit of guilt or worry about scarring them emotionally. And I really do think the daughter in this case is a little sh*t for petulantly getting even with her father in this manipulative manner that's (imho) completely out of scale with the incident. I think her current actions show that she was a trouble maker as a child too and probably didn't get spanked nearly as often as she deserved.

    100. Re:Child? by alienzed · · Score: 1

      Flower Garden!?! 'bout time to take off ye ol' belt and start the beatin'

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    101. Re:Child? by syousef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up...

      You are a clear example of why this form of discipline should not be used. You're incapable of thinking for yourself, as evidenced by the logical fallacy you opened with. Or rather fallacies.

      1. Let's start with the fact that you don't agree that you were harmed does not mean you were not indeed harmed - you clearly have no sympathy/empathy for others who are similarly abused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist's_fallacy

      2. If I were to accept that you were not harmed, why would I accept that others with different motivations, beliefs, personalities would not be harmed? A sample size of one is not sufficient. Perhaps you turned out fine but your neighbour would become a serial killer or a broken wreck of a person given this form of discpiline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

      I don't doubt others apply and that is just your opening sentence. I don't have time or inclination to pick apart more. See the complete list here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

      May I ask the following question? If it is okay in your mind for a parent to beat his or her children to make sure they do not behave antisocially, why not a boss beating his or her workers, or a teacher, provided that they mean well? What exactly makes it okay to discipline a child one way but not an adult? Surely you don't think they are lesser creatures? So what possible sane argument can you make here? I'm curious.

      If you think it's okay for you or others to beat people to get them "in line" with your way of thinking, you have in fact been harmed by your upbringing. Violence often escalates. Children learn by example. Get help - certainly before having children and infecting the next generation. You are using your abuse to justify more abuse.

      That's less succinct than "Fuck you, asshole" the other poster presented, but much more thorough. Consider that I'm not being abusive and actually think about what I am saying.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    102. Re:Child? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Yep. If there's grass on the field, it's time to play ball...

      In my day, the rubric used by those trying to justify their preference for jailbait was, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed".

      ...any respectable lady shaves her pussy, but that's a separate issue.

      I have some news for you. The women you see in pornos are generally not "respectable ladies".

      I would consider getting some counselling before you get yourself in a heap of trouble.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    103. Re:Child? by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      Actually, the law disagrees where I'm from. Over here, you are an adult at 18, but the law does state that until 21 you should be able to count on support from your parents. From 16 you can drive a 50 cc motor cycle, drink beer and have consensual sex with your peers (certain limitations apply to the last point), but driving, joining armies, voting, complete sexual self-determination and the ability to smoke weed, drink hard liquor and such all come at 18.

      That would be the legal aspect. From a neurological perspective, the Rotterdam professor of Neurology Dick Swaab has been claiming for years that a human brain doesn't reach a stable state until it's 23 or 24 years old. The way the brain physically fires and the way hormones affect a person's mindset is enough reason to collectively say that all persons below 23 are of diminished mental capacity or at the very least show a diminished sense of good judgment.

      Car Insurance companies will definitely back that claim up, if you look at the way a person's car insurance premium is calculated, by the way. So saying that this judge is whipping an adult is just plain wrong from both a legal and scientific perspective, and I find it morally objectionable.

      This is a kid who got whipped viciously with a leather belt for downloading some songs from internet. The man in the video doesn't seem to whip his daughter in an orderly fashion that suggests the administration of a measured disciplinary whipping, the man in the video beats his daughter in a completely emotionally over the top manner that suggests a somewhat vicious nature.

      From my perspective, this man is not fit to be a judge or parent, for that matter. On top of that, I am relatively sure my mother would strike him exactly once, across the face, for behaving in this way. After that he'd have to sit through a full hour lecture with a lot of finger-wagging and stern staring during which he'd feel strangely compelled to listen real damn well lest he get one of those measured smacks across the face again.

      By the way, my mother struck me twice in my whole upbringing. It was deserved in both cases, and done in such a way that I will never forget them. I dearly love the woman. She is wise, kind and on the whole, just.

    104. Re:Child? by toriver · · Score: 2

      So, in some families, is rape. Does not make either OK.

    105. Re:Child? by toriver · · Score: 1

      But the State has a monopoly on corporate punishment (or violence in general). I mean, is murder legal in states that practice the death penalty? No, because the rights of the State are not the same as the rights of the individual.

    106. Re:Child? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3

      ...it boils down to fear. With a foundation of fear, you can build up respect, trust and love.

      If you honestly believe that, then you are one sick fuck.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    107. Re:Child? by toriver · · Score: 1

      A parent is not the owner of a child, you cannot own other humans. The parents have a responsibility, it is no more okay for them to abuse children (physically or sexually) than for a stranger to do so. If you are unable to teach you kid right from wrong without resorting to physical violence you should be fucking neutered and never breed in the first place.

    108. Re:Child? by toriver · · Score: 1

      In which case the 16-year-old should have the right of self defense (e.g. a gun to kill her abusive father with), or at least be able to charge him for the assault. But sadly, 16-year-olds living with their parents and being economically dependent on them (not easy getting a job and apartment at that age) cannot take the chance on that, so the abuses continue...

    109. Re:Child? by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      First of all, as others have commented, most of the civilized world doesn't consider whipping your children an appropriate disciplinary action. So his "Fuck you, asshole" in reply to the gentleman's defense of the whipping is completely justified. Saying that my asshole dad whipped me does indeed not make it OK for some asshole dad to whip someone else, and I can understand this is an emotional topic.

      My son lives with his mother in Israel while I am far away. We try to maintain a good contact. However, if I ever find out that my ex or her current boyfriend would structurally whip Daniel with a belt, I'll be on the first plane to Israel to end their lives. I am not kidding, it is something I will gladly do jail time for in an unsavory country. Mind you, by structurally I mean more than once. If I found out it happened once I'd just fly there to punch their lights out and claim custody of my child. I am a reasonable man.

      Secondly, the video is about a 200 pound dude whipping a girl. My mother always taught me that I shouldn't hit women. I don't think it's a man's job to hit a woman. We have quite the different physique, and quite frankly I don't give a shit who beat who for what reason... You just don't hit women. Period.

      To all the people that claim "children behaved far better when I was a kid" I can call bullshit. Records of a 15th century monk's writings find him complaining about "today's youth" who refuse to dress properly, are lazy, stupid and ill-mannered. It is a property of mankind to become the sort of "it was all better before" grumpy old bastard, and yet I see we have the longest life expectancy ever, and people seem on the whole to become more and more domesticated.

      So no, I really don't think the "Fuck you, asshole" gentleman needs more discipline. I think his reaction is honest and balanced.

    110. Re:Child? by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      I believe in spanking too. Sometimes I am a naughty boy, and my wife dresses up in heels and spanks me while speaking with a German accen..... Oh.... Wait.... ;)

    111. Re:Child? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Any child abuser with half a brain knows that you don't make the wounds in a place they can be spotted. Go for the back, rear, upper thighs and chest... places always covered by clothing.

    112. Re:Child? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Brain scans, though informative, are not of much practical use in writing law.

    113. Re:Child? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's completely absurd to think that using violence against someone who's begging for it to stop as a way to intimidate them and control them could possible be abusive. More seriously, what world are you living in?

    114. Re:Child? by makomk · · Score: 1

      More than that, there have been incidents of underage kids that have been tried as an adult for distributing child porn of themselves.

    115. Re:Child? by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

      My parents would beat the shit out of me if I ever stepped out of line and I still didn't turn into a sociopath. There are probably some emotional scars there but I managed to move past all that.

      It's not as if having cunts for parents has left you with a bizarrely distorted understanding of what constitutes abuse.

      The father sounds like an asshole but it isn't child abuse unless it leaves a mark.

      Oh wait...

    116. Re:Child? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      More likely he is beating lashing his daughter for violating the law. It is not necessarily a statement on whether the law is just.

      More to the point, he was beating her for downloading music. The jury's common sense has prevailed. No punishment is too severe or unjustifiable for crimes like that.

      --
      No sig today...
    117. Re:Child? by Occams · · Score: 1

      What about the statute of limitations? He probably cannot be charged.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    118. Re:Child? by Occams · · Score: 0

      All those quest5ion are entirely irrelevant

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    119. Re:Child? by frisket · · Score: 0

      The religious right sure would

    120. Re:Child? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Horse shit. All of those questions are entirely relevant when considering whether a "spanking" is "corporal punishment" or "child abuse". The fact that you may be ignorant of the reasons why any or all of those questions are applicable has no bearing on the discussion.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    121. Re:Child? by xmundt · · Score: 1

      Greetings and Salutations.....
                A couple of thoughts here. First off, people mature at different rates. Society has picked arbitrary, chronological points in life to define what phase of that maturing process a given person is at. With luck, those magical dates are generated by observing the population as a whole, and, picking a time that covers 85%-90% or more of the population. However, because it is a spectrum, there are some people who have an amazing level of maturity at the age of 12, and some who are still adolescent at the age of 30. We have to look at the actions and attitudes of each individual to truly know how mature they are. That having been said...recent studies, using MRI and other scanning technologies have discovered that there IS a difference between the wiring of an adult brain and a teen age brain... Also, having interacted with quite a number of youth and young adults in my life, I have seen that difference high-lighted by the younger brains being willing to take greater risks, either because of a limited ability to model consequences, or a stronger spirit of adventure, than a fully mature brain. This argument would not be as likely if she had been scanned and the structure of her brain analyzed. The simple answer is that, at the time, she was 16, and, therefore generally looked up as a child by the law. Elsewhere in this lengthy thread, the point is made that society does try younger folks as adults, if the crime is "bad enough". I would submit that the driving force there has nothing to do with the person on trial, or their actual maturity and understanding, but, rather has almost everything to do with the political pressures put upon the prosecutors by the public.
                Secondly...I finally did watch the entire video, and, it is hardly shocking or unusual (sadly enough), but it sure looks like the event went well beyond discipline and descended into abuse. It also appears from various data sources that the judge had a long history of abusing the women in his family, so, this is hardly a surprising result.I was spanked a few times when I was growing up, because I never have been good at dealing with the strictures and rules of society. In all cases, my father limited the paddling to a few strokes and made it a point to never administer the punishment if he was angry. He also took time to make it very clear WHY I was being spanked. As for why the young lady published the video - I question whether it was for blackmail purposes, although even if it was, that does not mitigate the nature of the problem. I did see part of an interview with her where she categorically denied that blackmail was involved. My take on it is that she is trying to get the baggage that this and other abuse left with her, and, the only way to do it is to talk about it. I suspect that this sort of situation was the "elephant in the living room" that everyone knew they must not talk about. The usual result of such denial is a growth of darkness in the victim that will eventually destroy them, if it is not dealt with.
                The folks in this thread that have casually dismissed her chronic MD show a sad lack of education in the area. The problem with diseases like that is that one tends to look perfectly normal for much of the time. However, beyond the surface, there is pain, weakness and often some overwhelming, negative, emotional pressures that suck one's energies. I would say to those folks dismissing the illness - pray to whatever God you follow that you are never struck down with such a condition.
                Finally, it would be interesting to look at the judge's record and see how he handles similar family situations. It would be the height of hypocrisy for him to come down hard on alleged abusers with this kind of situation. In any case, while it sounds like the family is too broken to be repaired, if there is a sincere interest in it, I hope they agree to (and stick to) a schedule of work with a family councilor who may be able to help them work out the festering rot that has caused this.

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
    122. Re:Child? by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, they can drink (non-hard) alcoholic beverages in most of the world. And there are places where 16 years old can vote, at least at a local level too.

      Fuck on camera is a worse issue, it depends on the local standards what child pornography is.

      And the fact that 14 years can be tried as adults is also rather specific to the US. In other places it tends to be the other way, e.g. young adults, when recommended by the child protection service can be tried as a children, if they are not yet adult in their behaviour.

    123. Re:Child? by DJRumpy · · Score: 2

      I wasn't abused asshole. I was spanked. For doing common things like skipping school, getting into fights. I was never bruised, marked, or anything of the sort. I know right from wrong, and I respect and love my parents.

      Only an idiot would take what they see on the internet as religious truth without any evidence to back up what they are seeing. Here you have a girl who planted a video camera knowing she was about to get spanked for doing something that could potentially cost her father hundreds of thousands of dollars. You also know that she posted this because her father took away her mercedes and allowance as an act of spite.

      Whatever works for you though.

    124. Re:Child? by nepka · · Score: 2

      With a foundation of fear, you can build up respect, trust and love. Sure, it's nicer if you can avoid it

      Is this how you handle all your relationships?

    125. Re:Child? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      But they didn't cognitively work themselves into those positions, and once there they were there generally puppets of their advisers until they were mature enough to think for themselves.

      Sorry, I did not talk about those who where under advisory.
      Alexander the Great started his military carrier with 16. Or if you count him leading the cavalry in the battle of Charoneia, he was 18.
      However this is a particular unfair example as Alexander was educated by Aristoteles.
      I really doubt that I was in any way less responsible or adult when I was 14 in relation to now. If at all I'm still not adult enough ;D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    126. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might be true for you... But you have to take into consideration the whole population, you you must agree that there are many idiots out there....

      * And i see all religious fanatics as child's that just waits for their 'dad' to make everything better and make all the bad people go away...

    127. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And do you really believe that Alexander the Great really commanded any troops? Developed military strategy? If so, you are a complete moron.

    128. Re:Child? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Lol, 16 year olds adult! Letsee, patriated 16 yr olds ready to make their way in society.....I see a lot of couch surfing and sponging and McDondalds paychecks getting spent on playstations instead of survival.

                ROFLOL, You are sitting at a 3 insightful as of my post. You got two other 16 yr. olds to mod you up.

                    ROFLMAO. You should probably log off that emule you installed on daddys 'puter. You gonna get a butt whoopin!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    129. Re:Child? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      it isn't child abuse unless it leaves a mark.

      You know what doesn't leave a mark? Waterboarding.

      If there are physical marks on your body, yeah, that's a sign of abuse of some sort -- though you still want to make sure it looks like actual abuse, and not some normal bumps and scrapes.

      But if that's the metric, abusers will find a way to inflict maximum pain without leaving a mark.

      My parents would beat the shit out of me if I ever stepped out of line and I still didn't turn into a sociopath.

      I hope you're not implying that this makes your abuse ok. I mean, great, you've moved past it, but just because someone else was less abused than you doesn't mean it's not abuse.

      It teaches the child that there are consequences to his actions.

      There are ways to do this without laying a finger on them. "Grounding" is the traditional one. Or confiscating the stuff they care about -- I was a geek, so to discipline me, they'd take my computer.

      If the child really has nothing they value that you can take, that says something about you as a parent -- why don't they value anything you have the authority to take away? Have you not given them things they'd be attached to?

      And if you don't know what's going to work well, then you really ought to spend more time with your kid.

      What's more, physical violence doesn't necessarily teach them that there are consequences to their actions -- after all, no one ever hurts you in their presence. No, maybe it teaches them that might makes right -- that when they're big enough, they can get their way by telling you what to do, and beating you if you don't do it. It may be that you're not in their life when they realize this, but someone else is...

      Everyone needs to stop pushing their values on other people and telling them how to raise their kids.

      That's not what this is about.

      If you're right and this isn't abuse, then you're right, and that applies to everything I just said. I'll gladly tell people how I think they should raise their kids, but I won't try to enact legislation to enforce that.

      But if it is abuse, that's a category of things we do interfere, and I hope you agree that this is a Good Thing.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    130. Re:Child? by pakar · · Score: 1

      It's unfortunate but lots of children do not respond to reason and it boils down to fear. With a foundation of fear, you can build up respect, trust and love. Sure, it's nicer if you can avoid it but many children are unbearably disrespectful and unruly starting sometime after age 13 until they can be tossed out at 18.

      That's what any religious fanatic would say.... Fear can never be used for good... NEVER! It *might* maybe someone from doing something, but if they want to and can do it without being found out they will do anyway...

      If you instead of hitting the child but talking to them about the things that can happen if they do the thing you will get the following benefits.
      - More open, you will actually know what's going on in their life..
      - If they trust you you will get the benefit of being able to trust them......
      - If they do something bad they will be self-punishing themselves..

      But it all requires trust from both parties... When they are at 15 maybe you should allow them to make mistakes, but be there for them to help them with their mistakes... And by doing this they know that they can always turn to you and you will always back them up no matter what...

      The largest problem abusive parents (mental or physical) will get is that their children will never speak openly with their parents.. If they have made a mistake they will try to hide it forever instead of asking for help and guidance from their parents..

      Making mistakes is how we learn stuff as people..

    131. Re:Child? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      16 years is an adult. If you don't believe it, try prosecuting me when I fuck my neighbour's 16 year old daughter.

      (comically, taking a photo of her while doing so would indeedbe illegal, but taking her virginity isn't).

    132. Re:Child? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Believe me, I know judges kids. They are expected to stay the hell out of trouble by the judge.Big conflict of interest being an outlaw and a judges kid, duh.
      I look around me and I see a generation of kids raised by stupid hippies high on E.S.T. and Entitlement age bozos of any Ethnicity/Philosophy/Political affectation, unable to get even the meager-est of jobs because even McFuckups wants someone who has a bit of experience and work ethic.( No , not all of them, dummy)
              I think that most of the damage comes from the babyboomers feel-good, popsych books. They've talked a generation into not training their offspring for further survival,coping and excelling in favor of getting in touch with their feelings and gratifying their inner child. Incedently an inner child has no business raising children. I give you todays world as proof of concept. Couch surfing slackers who believe a masters in lesbian studies or an ITT tech "degree" constitutes a foundation for a career and living in the real world.
                We turn them out without any discipline, or goals. Hell , most don't even set an example. They're too busy being a friend, a buddy to their kid.
      A parents job just sucks in that aspect. You can't be a friend. You have to be a parent, a bad cop who cares enough to dig through sock drawers and closets, install "Back Orifice" on their damn computer, give em a talk when they need it, yell when they appearantly weren't listening or feeling superior to your council , ground their ass from the stuff they love and even whip the crap out of them if they rebel against a common lesson they will need to exceed in life later on or even stay out of jail. I think it SHOULD apply right up to their 30s when they actually start pulling their heads out of their asses and see what life is really about. Hope to GOD, they do the same for your grandchildren.
                No I don't advocate ruthless acts of anger, Don't punish your children angry or you will associate anger and punishment rather than wrong an punishment. That's the Proper Sensitivity Training you need. Anything extra puts the species at risk for another decline in western civ.
              Don't like it? Suck it up sister!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    133. Re:Child? by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      Keep advocating discipline reform... and keep wondering why our kids can't learn shit in school.

    134. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I ask the following question? If it is okay in your mind for a parent to beat his or her children to make sure they do not behave antisocially, why not a boss beating his or her workers, or a teacher, provided that they mean well? What exactly makes it okay to discipline a child one way but not an adult? Surely you don't think they are lesser creatures? So what possible sane argument can you make here? I'm curious.

      Well, it's not justified when the beating is severe, and it's not justifiable with a 16 year-old, but small children are lesser creatures. Their brain hasn't fully developed yet, and they won't understand a logical argument. You spank them for the same reason you spank your dog: you're training them. You're making them associate the pain with the action.

      By the time they become old enough that they should be expected to know the difference between right and wrong and reason their way through new situations to figure out if something is right or wrong, then you're no longer justified.

    135. Re:Child? by vajorie · · Score: 1

      law does not define truth.

      Sure it does. It defines what legally is true. Law is a productive discourse, not just a restrictive one...

    136. Re:Child? by StarKiller53861 · · Score: 1

      "The legal definition of 'child' generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority."

      In the context of the article ("No Charges For Child-Whipping Judge ..."), 'child' refers to a minor.

    137. Re:Child? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wasn't abused asshole. I was spanked. For doing common things like skipping school, getting into fights. I was never bruised, marked, or anything of the sort. I know right from wrong, and I respect and love my parents.

      Right. So the beatings were so good at teaching you right from wrong, you kept on doing things wrong and you kept on being beaten.

      Here's a clue. The kids who are going to school every day, and aren't getting in to fights are more likely to be the ones who are not beaten at home.

      The only reason you think corporal punishment is OK is because of the normalising effect of childhood. You were beaten therefore beating is OK. You speak about your parents in the present tense. Something I experienced myself is that it was only after both my parents had passed away, when I was in my approaching 40, that I began to see my childhood as it really was. That I began to see it critically rather than just assume my parents got everything right.

      Only an idiot would take what they see on the internet as religious truth without any evidence to back up what they are seeing. Here you have a girl who planted a video camera knowing she was about to get spanked for doing something that could potentially cost her father hundreds of thousands of dollars. You also know that she posted this because her father took away her mercedes and allowance as an act of spite.

      There are two videos of interest. One is the 7 minute one of her being beaten with a belt. The other is the interview. If you'd actually seen the interview, you'd have realised that the mother - who administered one of the lashes of the belt - is sat beside her daughter, supporting her. It seems like the father wasn't just abusing the daughter but his wife as well.

      What was that about only an idiot? You're supporting a child abuser as a result of you being beaten as a child. You're a classic stereotype.

    138. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the eyes of the law, you are either an adolescent or an adult. You don't gradually shift from one to the other.

    139. Re:Child? by StarKiller53861 · · Score: 1

      PS: In addition to what I said above, 'child' may also refer to the fact that she was his daughter (i.e. "No Charges For Judge Caught On YouTube Whipping His Child") - in that context, the use of the word 'child' has nothing to do with age.

    140. Re:Child? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Evangelical whack-job Charles Dobson (Focus On The Family) says it's okay to use physical punishment on an 18-month-old. And if they don't stop crying within 5 minutes of you whacking them, it's "protest crying", and "I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."

      I've had to deal with fundies who believe it's their god-given right to physically abuse their kids right up to the age of 18. It's like talking to a wall - except that the wall just sits there, you don't have to worry that an off-the-record verification by a concerned cop turns up that the wall owns 3 firearms. Or that the wall will turn paranoid.

    141. Re:Child? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

      It depends on the children. Children raised with or without corporal punishment come out fine, and others raised with or without come out horribly.

      There are times when it becomes really the best thing to do, but that's very rare. My grandmother actually had the cops tell her to beat one of her children after he constantly was running out into traffic no matter how much he was non-corporally punished. Cops couldn't tell a parent that today--but he never ran in the street again, and quite possibly it saved his life.

      If someone is going to administer corporal punishment, normally it's expected that the father in the household will do it--at least with every family I've known about it being used in.

      That being said, by the time someone is sixteen, corporal punishment is really not relevant. This was a teenager who clearly had a lot of stuff--if they felt that strongly that what she had done was wrong, they could have just taken away that stuff, or had a long conversation, or generally grounded her.

      I am also curious whether this was actually a blackmail case--whether she released the video in retaliation for his cutting of support, as he said, or whether she had actually threatened to release it if he didn't continue to support her.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    142. Re:Child? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm surprised they can't toll the statute of limitations to when they first discover it. In the alternative, a longer statute of limitations might be appropriate.

      And he is a judge, so he has the spectre of other punishments--losing elections or being disciplined by the bar. He probably won't get more than a slap on the wrist from the bar (if it were something he were actively doing, he might have more serious consequences).

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    143. Re:Child? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Child abuse should not be defined by "real physical harm" though. You can mentally scar a child in ways that cause no real physical harm and tou can torture a person without leaving a mark.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    144. Re:Child? by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Apparently you lack reading comprehension. I stated that I never did those things again, and I didn't. Perhaps you should re-read it.

      I wasn't beaten, I was whipped. You are a perfect example of someone who is a perfect example of an armchair parent. Easy to take pot shots from the good seats. If you had a child who potentially put you at risk for thousands of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, you just might lose your temper as well. it's easy to take pot shots at someone else's parenting skills, but an entirely different case when people are poking their noses into your business.

      You assumptions that I was beaten as a kid are a perfect example. You judge with no facts to back things up. Here you have a video of a girl who staged a camera, could easily be playing up the begging, and then posted it for spit years later for no other reason than revenge, and folks on here are all ready to make her a martyr.

      As to her mother, she could be in 'cover your ass mode' for all I know. I haven't seen the evidence, and neither have you. It's not my business to judge this man guilty or innocent based off of a staged youtube video. I would expect better from someone on slashdot, but apparently that's asking a bit much. Ironic really as folks in here are usually quite clear about 'big brother'. From what I see in the video, this girl probably has some red marks on her ass and possibly her legs since she was squirming so much, but I'm guessing those were gone within 15 to 30 minutes. If she was abused as a child then the mother is also at risk for being charged, which could also be why the mother is suddenly 'sticking up' for her child. Odd that there is no reports of any abuse in the family, nothing noted by the schools, or any us usual trips to the hospital, etc. You know, those things that are typically used as evidence in such cases.

      Lastly, I do not 'support child abuse' and frankly your rhetoric is infantile, and smacks of something you'd read on Fox news. I support the rights of the parents to discipline their children without America sticking their noses into private business. IF the child is abused, then it should be resorted, investigated, and dealt with. I see no proof punching in the face, blood, welts, or anything of the sort in the video, and knowing her motives and the fact that she prepared and taped this knowing she had put her father at risk for potentially thousands of dollars for copyright infringement, I can see why he lost his temper. I don't think that makes him a bad father. I think it makes him human. No one is perfect 24x7, 365 days a year.

    145. Re:Child? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      > Were you 16? Then you were either an idiot or a coward.

      Many people who live with abusers don't fight back because it's what they're used to, or--yes--because they've been conditioned to be afraid of the attacker, or because the abused is someone they care about, or for other reasons. Calling them names for it is really incredibly cruel.

      There are millions of people in the country conditioned not to fight back against abusers. They are not all idiots and cowards. Most of them are just in situations that are untenable to them that they don't know how to get out of. Sometimes they're afraid to leave because they think someone will kill them. Sometimes they think they love the person who abuses them, either from Stockholm syndrome or from behavior in the period when they are not being abused. Sometimes they don't know where to go for help because their abuser is from a powerful family that runs the local cops or court. Sometimes they're afraid that if they go for help, their kids will get taken away from them, or will be hurt by their abuser. Sometimes they don't have the money to make it on their own. There are many reasons people don't leave.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    146. Re:Child? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Well, I reserved corporal punishment as an option if my child were putting her self in danger such as crossing the street or playing with matches. In my case, my child was rational and not a hellion so it worked.

      So I guess a discussion could start with: As I had reserved corporal punishment for some cases, are there any circumstances where any kind of corporal punishment you would use corporal punishment?

      If every rational method failed because they were just to full of hormones would you just deal with a misbehaving child who kept endangering themselves?

      What would you do if your 16 year old was putting you at a high financial risk and there was no way you could break your legal responsibility for their actions until they were 18?

      My fairly nice child completely lost it at 17 and 7 months. Stayed out without calling and various other problems. Couldn't be solved by talking. She basically just did what she wanted and at 18 got the "obey the house rules or move out" speech. Things got very surly for a while but then she went off to college after the summer and things improved (partially because she fell for someone in college who was not a complete loser like she had been previously seeing).

      But there was basically no action I could take for about 5 months. So I sympathise with the judge for losing it. You are responsible, you can lose a lot of money, and you can't get free of the responsibility. It's a bad situation.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    147. Re:Child? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      You are very naive and ignoring 99% of history.

      Most of history has shown you can have a loving relationship with people who use physical discipline. There is even some data that shows some people don't feel right without strong boundaries drawn by people they respect and fear.

      I've seen so many helpless parents who were being driven over by their children who have no respect for them.

      However, taking one part of the comment out of context isn't really fair. I also said that for many children, a rational approach works. We used logical consequences on my daughter and it was effective until just before she was 18. Then she went psycho for about 5 months.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    148. Re:Child? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      All of which, he could, in theory, do from the prison library.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    149. Re:Child? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Really well said. Mod parent up!

    150. Re:Child? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      So you are saying there is NEVER a child or situation where the child just does what they want and ignores any rational approaches.

      That statement does not match the real world.

      Most people who were children 40 years ago were subject to spankings and grew up with loving relationships with their parents.

      It's not about the violence- it's about the context. If the violence is "fair" and moderate then it does no damage and can be a lot faster than talking it out.
      It's when the violence is irrational and excessive that it becomes abusive.

      Consider when a child falls down- they can either throw a hissy fit or get up and keep going- BASED on clues from the parents. It can turn into a traumatic life event or be something that isn't remembered the next day.

      It's the same thing for corporal punishment. If it is reserved for excessive situations, isn't used constantly and the social framework provided by the parents and other indicates that it is normal and okay, then no damage results from it.

      I've taken much harder hits in sports than I ever took from my mom or the school principal.

      With my daughter I reserved corporal punishment for if she took a habit of doing life threatening actions- and it never cameup. We used logical consequences which some parents ALSO consider abusive. "You didn't pick up your toys and I had to pick them up- so I put them away for a few weeks." And (didn't happen with her but it could have) "you threw a fit while I was trying to buy food for us so we have no food for you for dinner tonight." Logical consequences works really well. It typically only takes one iteration. And the child usually sees that it is "fair" so there is no outrage.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    151. Re:Child? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Actually, she was a very good kid until about 15. Then she fell in with a bad crowd of drug using, partying dropouts. Nothing they could do. It was getting bad really fast.

      There is an entire industry devoted to brainwashing the kids. Kinda creepy, no?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    152. Re:Child? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I was spanked as a child and frankly, I agree that the questions are irrelevant. The questions are about whether you can justify the abuse or not. But it doesn't matter, controlled violence is still violence. The primary lesson of "corporal punishment" is that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems, whether or not that is the intended lesson.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    153. Re:Child? by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up. Not radically different than this. You can bet I didn't do whatever caused the whipping again. Even then I didn't think it was abuse

      Meaning that you likely will abuse your children in exactly the same way. It's truly sad how easily people like you justify this kind of out-of-control behavior.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    154. Re:Child? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I said nothing about "fighting back". Parent said he learned to never again do some stuff because he was beaten into submission.
      That's being a coward, since it implies he stopped doing it even after being subject to the abuser's rule.

      There's nothing wrong with not fighting back, of course. I know very well the oppression that living with an abusive person implies. The sleepless hours of fear wishing he won't come home drunk or worse.

      But that sure as hell doesn't justify the mind submission that parent advocated (disguised as "education").

    155. Re:Child? by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      I think he was talking about myelination, the physical change when neurons get sheathed in Myelin so they process information far faster at the loss of learning abilities. It is a very concrete and observable process and does coincide with a pretty massive leap in human cognitive abilities. It's mostly complete by the mid teens though.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    156. Re:Child? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      No.

      Fear is the enemy of freedom and wisdom.

      It's that simple.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    157. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is even some data that shows some people don't feel right without strong boundaries drawn by people they respect and fear.

      Yeah, let's see that data, please.

      This sounds like the "alpha male" theory of social mores and roles.

      Basically we have two possible responses to fear/danger: fight or flight.

      Those who are predisposed to fight will resent the authoritarian control and rigid discipline, and will probably grow more willful as they get older. They tend to become domineering selfish assholes who walk all over other people to get what they want.

      Those predisposed to flight will look for a way out, a compromise, or just bottle up their fear, anger, stress, and frustration. They will probably grow more ineffective and helpless as they get older. They tend to become apathetic, depressed, and codependent and turn to alcohol or drugs for relief.

      None of this is desirable or inevitable. There are nonviolent and respectful methods of discipline that produce healthy, well-adjusted adults. Unfortunately some people, ignorant of methods they weren't instilled with, rationalize the violence and intimidation as "normal" and the cycle perpetuates itself.

    158. Re:Child? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      law does not define truth.

      Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity. RAH

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    159. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The assumption sounds perfectly valid, for someone who's described his "spankings" as "not radically different from this". And "I would bet it didn't look much different than this to an outsider." Your standard for abuse is more than a little odd. "I was never bruised, marked, or anything of the sort." That's the barest minimum because it presents incontrovertible evidence that abuse took place. This video also serves that purpose.

      So essentially you're saying that what's in the video, and what you experienced are largely the same thing. Given the worldwide shock and outrage, and the small number of people such as yourself who think this is normal, I'd say that the society has determined that what's in the video constitutes abuse. Since you're saying you experienced the same thing, then the vast majority of people would consider what you went through abuse. There's not really much "arm chair parenting" going on, since the facts are readily apparent. In essense, the preponderance of evidence would suggest you were abused.

      You can disagree that this constitutes abuse, but that's merely a difference of values.

    160. Re:Child? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up.

      So it wasn't very effective then. Except, of course, for teaching you to consider domestic violence acceptable and instilling a rather disturbing level of authoritarianism, which you demonstrate here by instantly siding with the authority figure, even when he's clearly abusing his power. And so the cycle continues.

      Looks to me like a father who probably lost his temper and a young woman playing to the internet 'jury' for sympathy and revenge.

      Are you implying that an adult man who "lost his temper" and beat up a helpless girl in rage should be pitied, because his victim made the disgusting crime public?

      Granted, he's scaring the hell out of his daughter in the video (probably with good reason), but unless there was evidence of such abuse then I think people should mind their own damn business.

      There is evidence of abuse, specifically the video in question which depicts it. This abuse is everyone's business, because violent crime doesn't become any less of a violent crime just because it happens inside four walls and the victims are in a particularly vulnerable position in respect to the criminal. And in this particular case the criminal happens to be a judge; if he can't control his violent impulses with his own family, why would we expect him to do so in in official capacity either?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    161. Re:Child? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Man- it's amazing how many wise and free people were regularly given corporal punishment throughout history until .. well.. basically today still.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    162. Re:Child? by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My parents would beat the shit out of me if I ever stepped out of line and I still didn't turn into a sociopath. There are probably some emotional scars there but I managed to move past all that. I actually have a very good relationship with both of my parents now.

      You admit your parents abused you and not only do you condone it, you seem to idolise them. I feel sorry for your kids.

      Not everyone's going to handle that kind of abuse the same way. Some will turn into sociopaths, some will commit suicide.

      My older sister, on the other hand, came to school with some marks on her body and Social Services came to the house and she didn't live with us anymore after that. The father sounds like an asshole but it isn't child abuse unless it leaves a mark.

      Sounds like your sister got the protection and you got screwed. You shouldn't grow up thinking that's normal.

      Everyone needs to stop pushing their values on other people and telling them how to raise their kids.

      No. You live as part of a society and what you do affects others. You need to stop insisting that anti-social child-raring that raises monsters is okay because some people don't end up monsters. Should I be permitted to raise my child to beat, murder and rob people if that is my belief? No. Your position is untenable.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    163. Re:Child? by rochrist · · Score: 1

      No, it was assault.

    164. Re:Child? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The father sounds like an asshole but it isn't child abuse unless it leaves a mark.

      Forcing you to drink from a toilet doesn't leave a mark. Would you consider it not abuse?

      Everyone needs to stop pushing their values on other people and telling them how to raise their kids.

      The problem with that is that children are people too. Simply letting the parents do anything they want to their kids is effectively the same as declaring said kids as mere objects, lesser than even animals since animal abuse is illegal. That's simply not going to happen.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    165. Re:Child? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Keep advocating discipline reform... and keep wondering why our kids can't learn shit in school.

      I certainly don't need to beat my children to discipline them, or have them learn at school. I think in most cases it can be avoided.

      In any case have you watched the video? This wasn't discipline, it was a savage uncontrolled beating by 2 parents of their child. It is unbelievable that anyone would condone such barbaric behaviour.

      The reason children can't learn in school is that no one is allowed to fail a class any more, teachers are underpaid and have classes that are too full, and teachers aren't permitted to use their judgement about what their students need to learn. It has nothing to do with not being permitted to beat the crap out of the kids.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    166. Re:Child? by syousef · · Score: 1

      May I ask the following question? If it is okay in your mind for a parent to beat his or her children to make sure they do not behave antisocially, why not a boss beating his or her workers, or a teacher, provided that they mean well? What exactly makes it okay to discipline a child one way but not an adult? Surely you don't think they are lesser creatures? So what possible sane argument can you make here? I'm curious.

      My children are 1 and 3. They do not get beaten and we find plenty of much more effective punishment that they do understand when they behave anti-socially. Usually taking away a toy or privellege makes them fall into line. It's simpler and while they may get upset at no time do they feel fear - they always feel safe in our home even when being punished.

      Negative reinforcement sometimes works and may even be necessary sometimes but it is not as powerful as positive reinforcement. I've owned dogs most of my life and giving treats when they do the right thing is usually all the power you need, and a water spray bottle is all the negative reinforcement I use. Hitting a dog is much more likely to make it aggressive towards you and others. You are teaching it that doing so is acceptable to maintain pack order.

      My rule is simple. If a child or animal is misbehaving but not posing a danger to others, there is no way I should consider corporal punishment.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    167. Re:Child? by shentino · · Score: 1

      There was a crime committed, but she waited too long to reveal the video and the statute of limitations expired.

    168. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did, about the only epsiode of Judge Judy I ever suffered all the way through. She told the the original owner to take the car back and return the kid's money. She also told the kid that he would have the swallow the $200 he'd spent on getting the car fixed up. Seemed very reasonable. Sure, she was a complete asshat in the way she came across, but it wasn't a bad decision.

      Next up, she didn't immediately laugh out of court someone who tried to claim damages for battery from someone who had already been acquitted of the crime, so I suppose YMMV.

    169. Re:Child? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      "If it's not okay to beat a stranger for "violating the law""

      Someone should tell the police this.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    170. Re:Child? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      You must be from a very well off family.

      In the real world- getting dumped into the full hell of real life at 18 happens a lot.
      It's not that bad. You get a job- you find roommates. You ride the bus (or a bike). You eat ramen noodles. Occasionally you visit your parents.

      Today's kids are way to coddled. I'll admit life is harder now than it was in the 60's and 70's-- but it's about the same as it was in the 50's and 80's.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    171. Re:Child? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are still ignorant, and perhaps not yet mature.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110510101621.htm

      Also... (google and choose the cache if the pdf doesn't come up)
      http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.pdf

      âoe[They] frequently know the difference between right andwrong and are competent to stand trial. Because of their impair-ments, however, by definition they have diminished capacities to understand and process mistakes and learn from experience, toengage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understandthe reactions of othersâ¦. Their deficiencies do not warrant anexemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their per-sonal culpability.âAtkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 318,122 S.Ct. 2242, 2250 (2002)

      âoeThe evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of con-sequences, and other characteristics that make people morallyculpableâ¦. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the âbiolog-icalâ(TM) age of maturity.â10

      ---
      The brain continues to develop. Major parts of the brain which manage impulse control and logical thinking do not fully develop until later.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    172. Re:Child? by Narcogen · · Score: 1

      and he isn't declared innocent either if he isn't charged.

      Actually, he is. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means, and that is the legal status of any person in the US who has not been tried and convicted.

      Actually, he's not. You focused on the word "innocent" and ignored the word "declared". If he is not charged, he cannot be declared innocent. He is presumed innocent. They are not the same. The former is a positive statement to establish the proposition that the individual did not commit the alleged crime, and that there was never any evidence to the contrary. The latter is a presumption that applies to all people, whether charged or not, that they are innocent of any allegation until evidence is brought forth. The two statements are categorically different.

    173. Re:Child? by syousef · · Score: 1

      I meant to say self or others. If a child is posing a danger to him/her self (eg trying to play with a power socket) I will consider a light tap on the hand. I can count the number of times I've felt that I needed to do this on one hand. Once a child can hold a conversation and understands the concepts of danger and having things taken away, there are other ways.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    174. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm not outraged that he beat a girl with cerebral palsy - I'm outraged that he dumped all of his rage and frustration on a mostly defenseless person.

      he beat a girl with cerebral palsy = a mostly defenseless person.

      mostly defenseless person

      defenseless person

      person

    175. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "First of all, as others have commented, most of the civilized world doesn't consider whipping your children an appropriate disciplinary action." Actually. I do. If more of the entitlement generation got their asses smacked a bit more, instead filling your heads with what perfect angels you are how you can do no wrong and that the world owes you everything - then maybe this conversation wouldn't be taking place. From the sound of it (face it, no one on /. is going to know the whole story) she's a spoiled brat that holds a grudge. Seriously, laying in wait trying to catch this on tape how many times? And then sitting on it for how long? And ultimately releasing it because of? Really? I would have kicked her ass out. I acted up when I was young and I got my ass beat. With a belt. I deserved because I got caught doing what I KNEW was wrong. What did it teach me? A little better manners and behavior - and because I was probably a little too smart - how not to get caught next time. Did I hold it against my parents? No. It was the trade off of knowing what was expected of me and the responsibility on my part for knowing the consequences of my actions. We're way too much of a PC mentality now and the whole nanny state thing making someone else responsible for something YOU should be doing.

    176. Re:Child? by Flaming+Cowpie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let me know how that works out for you. When you have children and they drive you to the edge with their bullshit and you've tried everything and still, you're spawning the child from hell. You tell me that blistering the ass off the little shit isn't what needs to be done. Oh, of course, can't do that in this day and age. Don't want to stunt the emotional development or world view of the little prince or princess. Just tell them that they can do no wrong and that anything they want is owed to them by the world. Oh wait. That's the current crop of shits coming of age right now. It's not truly their fault, the parents are to blame. We just have to live with the results of their bad decisions.

      --
      Sigs? We don't need no steekin Sigs!
    177. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Others have pointed this out, but get it through your head: lack of corporal punishment != lack of discipline.

      There are non-violent ways to discipline your child, and you may end up with a healthy, responsible adult instead of a neurotic one.

    178. Re:Child? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You're just offering a variation on "Granddad terrorised Dad, Dad terrorised me, so it must be right for me terrorise my kid."

      I know this is overused as hell, but it fits here: Correlation is not causation.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    179. Re:Child? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Basically we have two possible responses to fear/danger: fight or flight.

      Those who are predisposed to fight will resent the authoritarian control and rigid discipline, and will probably grow more willful as they get older. They tend to become domineering selfish assholes who walk all over other people to get what they want.

      Those predisposed to flight will look for a way out, a compromise, or just bottle up their fear, anger, stress, and frustration. They will probably grow more ineffective and helpless as they get older. They tend to become apathetic, depressed, and codependent and turn to alcohol or drugs for relief.

      None of this is desirable or inevitable. ... Unfortunately, some people ... rationalize the violence and intimidation as "normal" and the cycle perpetuates itself.

      Bingo.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    180. Re:Child? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Are, interesting. I did not know that this happens so late. Might there be any relation to MS (something not finishing the process or not doing it correctly so MS has it easier to start)?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    181. Re:Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, he wasn't charged because the statute of limitations ran out, NOT because they couldn't find anything to charge him with.

      A person doesn't become innocent over time, so the statute of limitations running out does not make him innocent.

    182. Re:Child? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Exactly....
      Violence does NOT always (or even often) result in a maladjusted adult.

      On the other hand, a complete lack of discipline and parental involvement has a much higher rate of failure than a few spankings a year over the child's formative period. I got about 6 to 8 by the time I was 14- a few from school- less than a half dozen from my parents.

      Anecdotally- many parents fail badly at attempts to use non violent approaches to their children. They just lack the skills to pull it off. The result of the non violent approach is also often maladjusted adults. They are whiny, unrealistic, and self centered. Their expectations do not meet reality.

      The failure rate of the non violent approach is unpopular to research because of the anti violence propaganda right now.

      Listen- I used "logical consequences" with my daughter successfully. But I and my partner were both college educated and read extensively on how to do it correctly. I'm not for violence. Many parents who try logical consequences suck at it however. It's more like "illogical consequences" or they lack the will to let the kid go to bed hungry one night after tossing a fit in the grocery store or go without toys left out for one month.

      So for most parents- a couple quick pops or switching combined with a "no do not do that" well connected to the child's bad behavior fixes the problem quickly and permenently; usually results in a well adjusted adult, and doesn't require nearly as much thought,training and effort.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    183. Re:Child? by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      If someone is going to administer corporal punishment, normally it's expected that the father in the household will do it--at least with every family I've known about it being used in.

      Ha ha ha. We much preferred it when dad whooped us. Mom's belt was skinnier, and you could hear it whistle through the air right before it made contact. Dad's belt was good and thick, with soft edges.

      Dad was stronger, but mom was meaner. The last time she smacked me was when I was about 15 and talked back to her while she was cooking. The spatula left a mark on my leg for about a week.

    184. Re:Child? by eldepeche · · Score: 1

      I think you're trying to look at this as an isolated incident, and I'm trying to look at as it one incident in a long pattern.

      The mother, seen in the video holding down the daughter while she is beaten, divorced the judge four years ago, and claims that she was also abused, saying, "I was completely brainwashed and controlled." http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8370540/texas-judge-defends-his-abuse-of-daughter

      The daughter says the abuse went on for years, the judge says he lost his temper. I don't think the charitable explanation casts him in a particularly good light, either. The beating he lays down is wildly out of proportion to the offense (downloading stuff from Kazaa).

      As to your point about spanking, we can have a discussion about spanking a child, but this is a 16-year-old. You're not going to correct her behavior by beating her up. Meanwhile, I know plenty of millennials who weren't spanked who are reasonable people, and I know a small handful of them who were beaten as children who have some pretty substantial mental health issues. It's a non sequitur though, because whether or not spanking your child is necessary to make them a functional adult (hint: it's not), this judge beat the shit out of his 16-year-old daughter because she downloaded music from the internet and had an attitude. If you think that deserves a beating, I'm not sure what to say to you.

    185. Re:Child? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      That doesn't change his legal status.

    186. Re:Child? by vesuvana · · Score: 1

      If he really is a serial abuser, then there's no excuse and I agree with you. Would I have spanked her? No, not at 16 and not for downloading music. Though I really do think discipline is lacking in parenting today and I do have some compassion for parents who get pushed by their kids into craziness. Everyone looks scary and awful when we lose our tempers. Most of us just don't put it on video. :-) Mostly I think we need to be careful not to just reflexively play into her obvious manipulation of the situation. Youtube? really? That's not how real victims heal. That's how clever vindictive people get public opinion on their side. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon of defenseless female, but her current actions really speak loudly to how calculating she is. I'd be surprised if she doesn't make money off this. It's a sad situation all around. I hope they all get the help they need.

    187. Re:Child? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      FTFS, there is no implication in the summary that she was illegally downloading music.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    188. Re:Child? by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      here is the judge demanding that she pay off the car or take it back
      http://twitter.com/#!/shoeofallcosmos/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2FF1MKmzBG

      and when she says that she can pay it off, he threatens to report the car stolen.
      http://twitter.com/#!/shoeofallcosmos/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2FN5egyjaW

  2. He... by dr_dank · · Score: 1

    He done goofed.

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    1. Re:He... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Consequences will never be the...

      Oh wait

    2. Re:He... by Memnos · · Score: 2

      I am from the South. When someone crosses the line into plain cruelty like this, regardless of the folly of their kids, there is no statute of limitations, and there is no court of law. They get beaten to within an inch of their life by those who they thought were friends, and they never ever do it again.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    3. Re:He... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      I am from Texas, that will never happen. Solving family problems through violence is considered the right of the head of the household. Even more so because he said that it was in retaliation for him withholding money, so he'll be seen as a good guy who was dealing with an entitled child.

      Besides that, this man is a judge (one presiding over cases of family abuse at that), and he'll likely get reelected too, because Texas has the best courts that money can buy!

    4. Re:He... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Yes, because beating your "friend" to within an inch of their life isn't cruelty.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:He... by Surt · · Score: 2

      It's justice. Served angry mob style.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:He... by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After having watched the video, it's very hard not to agree with you though. I don't understand how whipping his daughter is teaching her a lesson about downloading. Beating the fuck out of him might help though, seeing as fear and control seem to be the only thing he understands.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:He... by Beelzebud · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      A fine example of why the South is FUBAR.

    8. Re:He... by somersault · · Score: 1

      After watching the video I want to beat him up myself, but I wouldn't go to "within an inch of his life", it seems like it would be just as overreacting and cruel as what he did. I think breaking his hand or arm would be suitable punishment. I really hope he loses his job. He's already lost his wife and daughter at least, that's a start. What a pathetic piece of shit.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:He... by fizzer06 · · Score: 1

      Leave the man alone. He's suffered enough.;*)

    10. Re:He... by zoloto · · Score: 1

      angry mob style. Definitely not justice.

    11. Re:He... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solving family problems through violence is considered the right of the head of the household.

      Complete bullshit. YOU might think that way, but the vast majority of Texans most certainly do not.

    12. Re:He... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Problem with corporal punishment is that it is usually delivered in a state of hate and rage, giving the whole method a bad rap. I have also noticed, with my kids at least, that physical pain, or the threat of it, is a small motivator compared to the things that really matter to them.

      I lived in Texas for a couple of years, and the thing that amazed me about the extra conservative conservatives I met there was how they publicly expressed a set of values that they themselves could not live up to. It's nice to aspire to improve yourself, but wishing for your children to be "better people" than you or your parents ever were doesn't make it so, belt or no belt.

    13. Re:He... by strack · · Score: 1

      well he certainly has appeared to escape any sort of justice civil society might mete out.

    14. Re:He... by Memnos · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. The example that I meant to portray is that any man, any father, with any sense, does not beat his children. Most fathers have no desire to do so anyway, 'cuz your kids are the best thing you ever did. I meant that that child abuse is not acceptable within society, and it might be met with one's own severe punishment, despite one's arrogance and vitriol. And "within an inch of your life" does not mean that you are beaten to death. It does mean that you know not to beat your kids again.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    15. Re:He... by iamhassi · · Score: 2

      They get beaten to within an inch of their life by those who they thought were friends, and they never ever do it again.

      like the "beating" he gave his daughter? So basically you'll do nothing, gotcha.

      Watch the video, she isn't even crying after he leaves the room, and she only posted this video because he recently took away her Mercedes

      I'd say someone's spoiled.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    16. Re:He... by iamhassi · · Score: 0

      He's already lost his wife and daughter at least, that's a start. What a pathetic piece of shit.

      He only lost his daughter because he stopped giving her money and took away her Mercedes. Seems she was pretty happy with the arrangement for the past 7 years since she didn't upload the video earlier (video's from 2004). He's not even up for re-election for 3 more years.

      "...she warned her father if he reduced her financial support and took away her Mercedes, which he had provided, he would "live to regret it.""

      What a spoiled brat. Isn't this blackmail or extortion? Give me money or else? It's already been ruled that it wasn't a crime, and even if it was she didn't go to the police, she uploaded it to the internet for all to see. I think she should be brought up on charges.

      A CBS producer threaten to expose that David Letterman was sleeping with staff if he didn't pay $2 million. Police found out and the producer was arrested and got 6 months in jail.

      How is this different? "Give me a Mercedes and money or I release the (perfectly legal) spanking video to Youtube!"

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    17. Re:He... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      How would he? You don't seem to. You can't teach someone that violent discipline is wrong by disciplining them violently.

    18. Re:He... by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

      I cried when I watched this video.

      I've spoken about something extremely similar with the psychologist I have been seeing. From what I remember what the psychologist said was "Apart from scaring the living shit out of you, I can't see the purpose of him doing that to you" and he said that I have never experienced any love in my life. This sort of corporal punishment is shown to be really bad for a persons development. Please see the video entitled "Dr Drew livid over videotaped whipping" in this link.

      Personally it has manifested in my life by the fact that neither me or my brother have never had a girlfriend and we are now in our late twenties, that I have tried to kill myself with bad results to my body (some loss of sexual function for one, although the psychologist thinks it is psychological), and that me and my brother are fairly socially outcast. Though perhaps there was a lot of plain bad luck, I believe we wouldn't be as broken as we are if our environment had been better. I've had a psychiatrist that I was seeing say "You could shoot the bastard, but it won't do you any good.", this was just after a couple of questions, I hadn't even told him about my life, just that I have had thoughts of revenge.

      I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot more beatings and that she was locked in an almost empty room for weeks, apart from school and living necessities. From what I have seen, it looks like this guy is worse than my father. Part of me likes the idea of his balls being sawn off*.

      * Although if that happened I actually don't believe I would take any satisfaction out of it, I just find this whole thing horrible.

    19. Re:He... by definate · · Score: 1

      With lettuce on the side. Where the lettuce represents liberty, and it being on the side means the suppression of it.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    20. Re:He... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, my wife is the best thing I ever did!

    21. Re:He... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      I agree, your wife was the best thing I ever did too :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    22. Re:He... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you can... By crushing both his arms so he could never do this to anyone again..

    23. Re:He... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Well, without justice, there can be no liberty, so there was no hope of having it either way if you believe that.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    24. Re:He... by definate · · Score: 1

      But justice is the horse radish, it's smothered over everything, and it tastes disgusting, but you grit and bare it anyway. The horse radish is omnipresent.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    25. Re:He... by somersault · · Score: 1

      That's all well and logical, but while watching the video I wanted to protect that poor girl. Like I've said elsewhere, I don't think I would just walk up to him in the street and punch him, but if I were there when that video was happening, I'd have given him a good elbow to the face or something. The video had me outraged at what an abusive asshole he is. Kind of like my own dad.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    26. Re:He... by makomk · · Score: 1

      Seems she was pretty happy with the arrangement for the past 7 years since she didn't upload the video earlier

      Or just scared of what would happen if she rejected him. It's not that uncommon for abusers to give their victims gifts either; after all abuse is very much about control, and giving someone gifts is a good way of cementing your control over them, something that can be used as a tool of emotional blackmail if they object to the abuse.

    27. Re:He... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > if I were there when that video was happening, I'd have given him a good elbow to the face or something.

      This is Texas we're talking about. You'd probably get shot in the attempt... by the father, mother AND daughter.

    28. Re:He... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I haven't watched the entire video. I've tried, but I just can't make it all the way through. As a father, I just can't see whipping my child like that for any reason. When I see a dad think that the proper response to downloading music illegally was to beat her like that, I try to understand why he would do this and my brain just can't wrap itself around it. I understand in theory why he might (anger issues, feeling beating his daughter is his "god given right", etc), but seeing it in practice is just too painful.

      I think one of the parts (that I saw) that gets me the most is when he walks out. He's gone for about 30 seconds and then comes back in saying "I never got my whoopin'!" Then, he begins to whip her more while screaming at her to turn over and let him whip her "properly." (Thus setting up a rationalization in his mind that she "caused" the beating, I'm sure.) I would have thought that his time away from the situation would have led him to calm down. Instead, he seems to come back in angrier than ever. Silly me, thinking rationally when irrational thought processes were being used.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    29. Re:He... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Or just scared of what would happen if she rejected him.

      Scared she would be spanked with a belt again? So far there's been no evidence of abuse. No hospitalization, no division of family services, no broken bones, not even bruises, nothing to show she was being abused. Spanking your child with a belt IS NOT abuse in the US (yet). Federal prosecutors determined there wasn't even a crime depicted in the video.

      Calling this video "abuse" is a horrible injustice to the 3.5 million children that really are abused or neglected.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    30. Re:He... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, blame the victim. Of course. Ever think why she might have had that camera set up and ready? Maybe it was a regular occurrence? Did you bother reading the whole story or just his side?

    31. Re:He... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I agree. I found the only use for corporal punishment was to establish who is ultimately in control. The "timeout" gag is useful, but what happens when you put the child in timeout and they say, "No." One pop on the rear end, look them straight in the eye and ask, "Do you really want to fight about it?" Call it brutal if you want, but that is exactly how the real world operates. Try telling the police some time to go away cause you'll smoke anything you damn well please. You'll quickly understand that a polite "yes sir" is more comfortable that a knee in your neck.

      What this guy did is just completely counterproductive, though. He did not establish his authority. He undermined it. He demonstrated that he has absolutely no control over his emotions and can be manipulated by a 16yr old girl. It would have been much more effective to just calmly take the computer from her room and say, "Oh, well. We will let you log in to do your homework when we can watch you."

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    32. Re:He... by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      here is the judge offering to sell her the car
      http://twitter.com/#!/shoeofallcosmos/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2FF1MKmzBG

      here is the judge threatening to report the car stolen when she gets another job to pony up the cash.
      http://twitter.com/#!/shoeofallcosmos/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2FN5egyjaW

    33. Re:He... by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-He-That-Controlling/dp/0425191656

      usually power oriented abusers have to hit "rock bottom" before they turn around. Sometimes that means jail in a "pound me in the ass" prison, according to Dr Bancroft.

      power oriented abusers are literally drunk on power. They need it to feel normal. They would trade anything to feel normal. only they, themselves can give up the addiction to power.

      having said that, I wouldn't beat him up. I'd like to see him jailed. Maybe "Bubba" teach him that violence is not the answer.

    34. Re:He... by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      you're right -- better finish the job.

  3. Just another corrupt judge by fotbr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and another example of a judge that should be removed from the bench by any means possible -- I don't know if you can recall a judge in texas, or if you have to wait until the next time that clown is up for reelection, or what the process is, but whatever the process, it needs to happen.

    1. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Big+Hairy+Goofy+Guy · · Score: 1

      If he is re-elected, I wonder if it will be news in Texas.

    2. Re:Just another corrupt judge by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Probably. The video is clear evidence of him applying non-capital punishment to an offender who could have been charged as an adult. Are texan voters going to stand for a soft-on-crime stance like that?

    3. Re:Just another corrupt judge by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a native Texan, I'm all for corporal punishment as a method of last resort. But not in the manor in which this was delivered. But if you have to go there, you have much bigger family problems in the first place. Such as lack of respect for others. Second, the parent delivering the punishment should never be in a state of hate and rage. Remember, corporal punishment is about sending a message of last resort. *NOT* to be used an excuse to vent rage and frustration like her parents did. The later only perpetuates family problems down the line.

      Case in point. The daughter never forgave the father (big issue) to this day, and she blackmailed him for money (so he says). Either way, they're are much bigger problems within that family we do not know about. Absolutely broken! Sad.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and another example of a judge that should be removed from the bench by any means possible..." ...and made the head of RIAA.

    5. Re:Just another corrupt judge by artor3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a native Texan, I'm all for corporal punishment as a method of last resort. But not in the manor in which this was delivered.

      So the judge can't beat his daughter in his house, but could in someone else's? That seems kind of arbitrary.

    6. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only cases I'll accept corporal punishment are where

      - the person being punished nearly killed someone or themselves by doing something stupid. Not beating them within an inch of their life, but getting the point accross that should they pull this shit again, they will not like the consequences.
      - the person being punished has killed someone, defense or not, once. Not the death penalty. I object to the death penalty except where the murderer enjoys killing, in which case there is no chance of rehabilitation and simply keeping them alive risks further deaths.

      Corporal punishment for theft, protesting, or other behavioral problems doesn't rectify the problem. You have to understand that a lot of behavioral problems are addictions, and punishing them with violence just means they'll be more discreet about it. I watched a TV show on discovery channel that had interviews with people who are in jail, and in many cases, the thieves/shoplifters are remorseful, but the ones that have a theft habit are barely remorseful and see their theft habit as "if I'm not caught, it's mine now." You see the same mentality with people who pirate music, movies and software. "I wasn't caught, so I'm going to keep on doing it."

      As for the judge in question, it seems like he has a conflict of interest. Someone who presides over family court issues should not have violent issues otherwise it clouds their judgements in ... well being a judge.

    7. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't have kids.

    8. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judges are not elected in the USA

    9. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    10. Re:Just another corrupt judge by fotbr · · Score: 1

      Some judges are elected in my state. Some are appointed. It just depends on what level - city, county, or state.

    11. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Gary+Perkins · · Score: 2

      There's a difference between a spanking and an all out beating. When I have to spank my kids, first thing I do is step back and think...do I really need to do this? Am I calm enough? Sometimes I'm too upset, and I do a quick breathing exercise, re-evaluate the situation, and realize a simple "Ok, lets sit down and talk about this" works. Other times, like out and out disobedience (multiple times (room...ROOM...ROOM NOW!!)) it's just necessary. Watching the video reminded me a lot of my daughter, but I was horrified by the father's actions. I read in my local news that this incident was over freakin' file sharing. Really, dad? He could've taken the computer away, problem solved and hopefully lesson learned. At 16 years old, if she wasn't going to woman up and take her licks, he could have found another way to discipline. My daughter is 7... I can pick her up and bend her over my knee...I do NOT use a belt, and I do NOT use my full force. I can only imagine what his daughter's legs looked like. It's far too easy to cause damage with a belt, and she's lucky she didn't walk away from that beating with more than bruises.

    12. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      You Texans and your pride. I lived there for a few years and got sick of hearing about it.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    13. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you know the context of the video. You know everything that was going on in their life. You know he hated her so much that he never did anything for her. Odds are pretty good that he was abusive. However, you don't know a damn thing about the context. He either cared enough or was scared enough of her to let her have a car 5 years after she was out of the house.

      I haven't watched the video. But knowing people, I'm guessing he lost control. Show me a parent who hasn't. Knowing who taped it would really help to understand the situation in context, but putting a guy in the welfare line because he had a crappy episode as a parent is just as rational as putting someone in jail for a joint.

    14. Re:Just another corrupt judge by silas_moeckel · · Score: 0

      He gave his daughter corporal punishment, this is different than child abuse. Am I missing something?

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    15. Re:Just another corrupt judge by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well considering that she knew she was going to be beaten by her father's demeanor, that she set up the video camera to capture the event for posterity, I have a hunch the Judge sent the "message of last resort" rather frequently.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    17. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the judicial commission investigation doesn't lead to punishment, Adams could be safe on the bench until he's up for re-election in threeyears.

      Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/US-attorney-no-federal-offense-in-Texas-beating-2249787.php#ixzz1ctW8QkaX

    18. Re:Just another corrupt judge by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I was horrified by the father's actions.

      Guess what. Other people would be horrified by your actions. Of course you think the corporal punishment you give to your daughter is acceptable. Trouble is: Judge Adams also thinks what he did was acceptable.

      The problem is that you're trying to find a line between how it's acceptable to hit children, and how it's not acceptable. And there is no such line. Discipline by using violence is morally and practically wrong.

      Other times, like out and out disobedience (multiple times (room...ROOM...ROOM NOW!!)) it's just necessary.

      So if you chose something as the last resort before beating that the child might just refuse to do, you made a bad choice. Sending to their room is fine if you know they will do it. If there's any element of doubt that they will obey, then it's a mistake. There's plenty of other options. Kids want lots of things that parents supply. They want money, a computer, games, mobile phone credits, taking to their social activities in the car, etc.etc. etc. Pick a punishment where you are actually in control, and you don't risk feeling like you have to escalate to a beating.

      Beating might make your child comply to your immediate demand. But it won't make you a better or more respected parent. And it won't make your daughter a better child, or later a better adult. So why do it?

    19. Re:Just another corrupt judge by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      She didn't look too minced to me. Actually, she didn't look like she was beat badly at all. Got up and walked around afterwards, not falling to the ground, she wasn't even crying anymore.

      If that's a "beating", it's the most pathetic example of a beating ever. No hospital, no ambulance, not even a broken bone. She even has all her teeth still! Was there even a bruise?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    20. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a coincidence! We Slashdotters have had to endure your posts here for some time now and feel the same way about you.

    21. Re:Just another corrupt judge by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      You can remove a judge, especially in Texas. That's what the second amendment is for.

    22. Re:Just another corrupt judge by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      You totally misunderstood. He was referring to the typo (manor vs. manner)

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    23. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, That is just an amazing thing, looks like the media missed the real news story here.
      http://goo.gl/qfbPI

      One thing I think is interesting here is that this is what we have sitting in judgment of the people.
      This is not certainly representative of what we expect to see as a basis for our justice system, but sadly
      there are people sitting on the bench that do not need to be there...

    24. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Gary+Perkins · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, not every child responds to taking things away. I've set up a progressive discipline process whereby I first take away her outside playtime. Usually this results in her throwing stuff around the living room and knocking things off the table, so I'll tell her no TV/dessert/whatever, which usually results in some sort of bigger fit, and me sending her to her room (if she's going to break stuff, she can break her own stuff). I usually have to haul her there myself, and block the doorway, and also make sure she doesn't try to break the door. I try to verbally calm her down, which usually does not work, and pretty much the only option left is a spanking. It used to be even worse than this, to the point that I had to hold her down until she calmed down (she has Asperger's Disorder), but an adjustment to her medicine (she's 7 now, and bigger than she used to be) seems to have helped bring her back closer to reality again. There's not much to take away from her, as she's broken everything in her room. She has a bed, a desk, a chair, and her dresser, each one with pieces missing, scratched, torn, or broken apart.

    25. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... I'll drop by your place start smacking you around for a while and see what you think about it. Will use belts/padded-gloves etc as not to leave any marks.....

      Just because you are disagreeing with me...

      A beating does not always reflect back in physical harm but in metal harm due to the fact that someone you love is beating you... Just have a look at all the studies done on this and you will be overwhelmed.

      People that has been treated this way by their parents will grow up with big trust-issues that will affect them their whole life in all interactions with people that they might have...

    26. Re:Just another corrupt judge by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Gary, I'm for my initial tone. There were a lot of unthoughtful comments I'd just read through when I made my response, and I think that made me a bit patronising. Yours wasn't one of the unthoughtful ones, and so I apologise for replying as if it was.

      It seems to me if your daughter has Asperger's then that's a whole different ballgame, and experience of other kids doesn't necessarily apply.

      I nearly said in my original reply that if you want her to go to her room and she won't go, why don't you just take her there, and prevent her leaving till she calms down. At 7 that's still doable. But of course you are already doing that.

      I'll just say this. If the only reason she's not as badly behaved as she used to be because of medication, then are you sure that spankings actually worked? It seems to me if her bad behaviour is brought on by a medical condition then it's even more wrong, and unpredictable in it's long term effect, to use corporal punishment.

      I've been interested to hear from Temple Grandin, and her story that she finds physical contact with other human beings to be very disturbing. Whilst a hug for most people will calm them down, for her it would have the opposite effect. I wonder whether holding your daughter down does actually calm her down or just finally exhausts her?

      Temple Grandin also tells of her "squeezing machine" that does calm her down. What are your thoughts on that? It seems to me as an outsider that maybe there's an alternative there to both holding down and punishment?

    27. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Texas, beating your retarded child is a Right.

    28. Re:Just another corrupt judge by fotbr · · Score: 1

      She (the daughter) taped it. It happened often enough that she knew something was going to happen. The mother has since left him and also said that was normal behavior for him, and that she (the mother) was scared of him. That put it into context for you?

    29. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      You can remove a judge, especially in Texas. That's what the second amendment is for.

      Since I'm out of points to mod you down with, I will just say that no matter how big of a dick he is, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to advocate assassinating an elected official. Not particularly funny either.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    30. Re:Just another corrupt judge by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Firstly: I am not trying to troll with this post, merely contrast the US position with the European one and state my own feelings. Please don't take it personally, obviously I realise that there are many different views in the US and this post just addresses the current way that state and federal governments act. I just feel that it is the elephant in the room here.

      In Europe we don't have any corporal punishment and this guy's actions would be a clear case of assault. I actually find it shocking that such a thing is seen a legitimate form of punishment in the US, but then again you guys still execute and torture people. We abandoned that stuff decades ago, and current human rights legislation prevents it ever being re-introduced. That is one reason why we are somewhat reluctant to extradite people to the US; your treatment of them is considered inhumane under our laws and we don't normally send people, even illegal immigrants, to countries where we know they will be mistreated.

      That is not to say that we can't smack our children. Smacking is seen as a legitimate way of disciplining very young children who cannot be reasoned with, as a measure of last resort. Smacking causes some pain for a short time but should never injure the child. Using a leather belt is not acceptable.

      By the time a child is 16 as this girl was it corporal punishment is not allowed, and is in fact not a very good way of punishing bad behaviour anyway. Grounding, withholding pocket money (allowance), barring her from using the computer for a month... There are so many options it is hard to imagine why this judge decided to assault her repeatedly like he did, other than to assume he regards violence against others as a legitimate form of behaviour. I would honestly like to know if he would advocate being belted for people who break the speed limit or download copyrighted material.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:Just another corrupt judge by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it's illegal to advocate assassinating an elected official.

      Who cares? It's not as if they'd go to Slashdot and subpoena their IP records, only to find out that I don't even live in the States...

      Not particularly funny either.

      I dunno. For me, considering that this judge was sufficiently smart to remember about the statute of limitations, but at the same time dumb enough to forget that he lives in Texas is pretty funny...

      So, if you live near 717 Magnolia Street Rockport, TX 78382 say hello to him from me!

    32. Re:Just another corrupt judge by makomk · · Score: 1

      Definitely, given that he'd apparently used his position as judge to help other abusers like him continue abusing kids.

    33. Re:Just another corrupt judge by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      You have to understand that most of America isn't culturally refined like some European nations are. We tend to be more risky and fly by the seat of our pants. This attitude is what makes America successful. It's precisely this attitude that get us into trouble as well. We learn this very young in America as children growing up. We push the limits harder and more forcefully as children than just about any other European nation. As such, our parents often have to be more forceful in letting us know where those boundaries are at.

      This judge is an asshole on so many levels. You don't beat a 16 year old girl like that. Now, I've been beaten a few times with a belt on my ass when I was younger but it was never on the legs or back. My ass stung when it happened, but for the remaining hour afterward it was just a minor discomfort. By next morning, there was no pain. In grade school, we used to get the paddle to the ass as well for the most serious of classroom offenses. By your standards, that would be a "smacking". Oh and if you have to ask. I got belted at the age of 7 because I threw brick into the window of a home under construction. It was a game of dare with a friend of mine.

      The problem we have in America is that as a rough culture, we also need the social tools to be able to address our misbehaving children. It worked out extremely well for children in the 1940s though mid 1950s. Then came the flower children / hippie generation. They had this idea that our method of punishing children were the cause of American culture. Quite the opposite, it was a way of refining our culture to be less rough. We were on a path to be coming more culturally refined like Europe. Slowly but surely. Instead, these baby boomers looked to European laws and parental methodologies and attempted to cut-n-paste them into US Law. Now we're a nation of runaway misfits and hooligans. Teachers can't even yell at children without getting sued now. And parents are threatened with CPS getting involved. Simply put, children can now get away with more and they know it. America's hands are socially tied from reducing lawless behavior both in the home and outside of it.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    34. Re:Just another corrupt judge by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They had this idea that our method of punishing children were the cause of American culture. Quite the opposite, it was a way of refining our culture to be less rough.

      So... your way of getting people to be less violent and move beyond petty anger and revenge is to... inflict violence on them? That seems to be what you are saying. We stopped corporal punishment of criminals and then later of children to get to this point, not afterwards.

      Now we're a nation of runaway misfits and hooligans. Teachers can't even yell at children without getting sued now. And parents are threatened with CPS getting involved.

      We have regular outrage stories about this sort of thing too, but it is completely untrue. I can't speak for American children but we actually do a lot to vilify ours, which is really just part of a trend of people thinking that things are getting worse when in fact they are getting better. Surveys regularly show people thinking that violent crime is getting worse, when in fact it has been falling since the mid 90s. Some people claim that the figures are massaged but it is pretty difficult to hide physical assault and murder.

      In the late 90s there were a lot of stories about how we were unable to discipline or even prepare children for adult life, e.g. by banning competitive games where one person was the loser. Around 2000 a rumour started that a teacher had been convicted of assault for merely touching two children in class. No-one is quite sure how it started, but the papers started running articles about how teachers were afraid to break up playground fights and so forth. Eventually questions about it were asked in Parliament, but it was completely untrue and the law says nothing of the sort. Needless to say it never actually happened.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Just another corrupt judge by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      So... your way of getting people to be less violent and move beyond petty anger and revenge is to... inflict violence on them?

      Yes. I mean, as a last resort for the most serious of offenses. No matter how good of a parent you are, society around your child will shape and mould them in ways that can be destructive. When a child does something really serious, pain will send a message more clearly than words. It's generally effective because now that child will have a moment of fear should he/she even think about committing the same offense again. It may sound barbaric, but the history of fear has been proven very effective at controlling people. Unfortunately history also shows that fear is used more for evil than for good. And often too much of it.

      Of course, if a child doesn't respond and even takes pleasure in the risk of getting caught again, you have more serious problems. Sometimes, children can be born mentally ill. Inflicting pain will not send a message and only makes matters worse. Only a professional psychologist and perhaps psychiatric therapy can be of help here.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    36. Re:Just another corrupt judge by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It may sound barbaric, but the history of fear has been proven very effective at controlling people.

      Not really... Look at the amount of violent crime in the US, particular the murder rate. You can go to jail for the rest or your life, and your jails are far more harsh than ours, or you can even be executed in some states. Yet there are more murders per capita.

      When someone decides to kill another human being they are generally not thinking about the consequences of being caught. What works to reduce violent crime is creating a fairer society where people have real chances in life, i.e. dealing with the things that lead people into situations where they become violent.

      That is how we have reduced the crime rate. One particularly effective method has been "open" prisons. Basically prisoners who are judged not to be a threat to society and who have behaved well are transferred to an open prison where they are only locked up at night. At other times they are tagged but can leave the prison to do community work or attend educational courses. It helps prepare them for life outside and gives them a real chance to reform and not re-offend. Rather than trying to scare people or make the punishment so bad they are deterred we try to fix the things that cause crime so they don't do it again. Obviously punishment is important and that is what being locked up in a normal jail is about, but it doesn't fix anything.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re:Just another corrupt judge by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Europe, but in America, most violent repeat offenders have a very long rap sheet going back toward their teen and sometimes pre-teen period. Others are one-off in which they snapped or got involved in some drug abuse. The later can be rehabilitated. The other group, not so much. They just end up being institutionalized the rest of their life because they refuse to live a normal life. I suppose that's not entirely fair to say as they really can't grasp the concept of what "normal" is. It's bad for them as it is for the tax payer. For these people, they never had proper parental upbringing or none at all. For example, mothers who are too immature and knowing who the father of their child is. At best, they know who the father is, but decided to be a deadbeat dad and go AWOL. A broken family contributes to more societal problems than any other social issue.

      As for the concept of fear, just look to nations living under it every day. N. Korea, Iran, Afghanistan...ect. Just a few examples at the macro level. Evils such as slavery also come to mind.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    38. Re:Just another corrupt judge by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      I thought it was hysterical.

    39. Re:Just another corrupt judge by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The later can be rehabilitated. The other group, not so much. They just end up being institutionalized the rest of their life because they refuse to live a normal life.

      That is the key difference I think. We don't give up on people. Anyone can be reformed, and while not every criminal does manage it we always try.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:Just another corrupt judge by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      People that has been treated this way by their parents will grow up with big trust-issues that will affect them their whole life in all interactions with people that they might have...

      And people that are not disciplined grow up thinking the world owes them everything and they can do anything they want without consequences. Visit any US prison for great examples of criminals who weren't disciplined growing up.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    41. Re:Just another corrupt judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people that are not disciplined grow up thinking the world owes them everything and they can do anything they want without consequences.

      Yeah, and it's just not possible to discipline a child without hitting them, is it?

    42. Re:Just another corrupt judge by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      How about you go and ask some serial killers how their parents taught them the delight of pain?

    43. Re:Just another corrupt judge by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      >manor
      pun on house

      sigh. nobody will get that.

  4. The legal system at it's finest. by pro151 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One more example of the corrupt "Good Ol Boy" law enforcement network up and running at full speed. If that video had been of you beating your 16 year old daughter, you would be Bubba's girl friend right now and he would be trading your @$$ for cigarettes.

    1. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Statute of limitations.

    2. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually no, the statute of limitations applies to regular citizens also.

    3. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by ProfM · · Score: 2

      Didn't she release the video 7 YEARS after the incident? Statute of Limitations comes in play here. If it was murder or something like that, there is no limitation then. Not saying that he was right in doing it, but that's the reason he's not being charged.

    4. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by MBCook · · Score: 2

      Why exactly should federal charges be brought against him? I don't think beating your kid is a federal crime.

      He should be punished (although I'd image the statute of limitations is up on this), but it would be by a local/state court. I'd also say he should lose his position, but I'd imagine they can't do that unless he is convicted.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    5. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by devleopard · · Score: 5, Funny

      One more example of the lack of reading the article on Slashdot at its finest.

      --
      The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
    6. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Stonent1 · · Score: 0

      When his daughter didn't want to try to get a real job he took away her Mercedes and then this video comes up on the internet.... Coincidence? I think not.

    7. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You say that like it changes whether what he did was right or not.

    8. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      18 USC 3283 - Sec. 3283. Offenses against children

      "No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child."

      I believe the code is clear in stating that the statute of limitations do NOT apply to child abuse victims.

    9. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

      If she thought it truly wrong, she would have released the video right away, rather than wait for the most satisfactory moment of revenge. She knew what seh was going to get for disobeying her parents rules, and she knew it was justified, otherwise this video would have come out six years ago.

    10. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Funny. A belt is child abuse these days. In my day, that was considered 'punishment' for fucking up.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by eldepeche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If she had released it when she was a 16-year-old living at home, I would imagine he would have beaten the shit out of her.

    12. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by jd · · Score: 2

      First, we only have his word for that and I'm not inclined to accept his claims on face value.

      Second, what does it matter why she released the tape? The tape was made and depicts child cruelty, child abuse (not the same thing), negligence, uncontrolled violence and addiction to violence. Ok, so he wanted this to be a family secret. (See "People of the Lie" for why this is a really good indicator of even worse depravities.) His excuses ended the moment he started thrashing her with his belt.

      This might not be a Federal crime but I honestly believe it should be. It's quite clear the States have no desire to prevent this kind of behaviour.

      Corporal punishment is, as child psychologists routinely point out, ineffective at disciplining and is used purely as a means of avoiding having to handle anger management issues. It should not be permitted and in civilized countries it is not.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    13. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Technically he should have recused himself whenever the issue of child abuse or domestic violence came up.

    14. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by jd · · Score: 2

      The judge cannot be punished in Texas. The State Attorney there has already stated that it would have been a crime, had it been known about at the time, but the statute of limitations has run out. I would argue that the Feds were quite reasonable to examine if there was a Federal issue, since Texas has declared the incident to have been a crime but one they could not prosecute. The Feds might also argue that corrupt officials (and there's no question that he is one) should also be investigated to see if their corruption is one that they have any jurisdiction over. Obviously, in this case the answer is no.

      I believe judges there are elected, not appointed. If so, he can't be fired as he was never hired.

      It is very obvious that something should be done but it is also very obvious that nothing can be done as things stand.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    15. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why exactly should federal charges be brought against him? I don't think beating your kid is a federal crime.

      Come to Canada. It *is* a federal crime and the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court, just like drunk driving, and you will be charged. You'll have to make bail and promise to come back for your trial, and if you don't your sorry ass will be extradited from the US.

      And no, we also do it to Canadians as well - and there is no "religious excuse".

      âoeWhatever oneâ(TM)s belief in higher authority, if you live in Canada you are subject to the laws of Canada as interpreted by the courts, in this case the Supreme Court of Canada,â Stevens-Guille said in the ruling. âoeSpare the rod and spoil the child is not the byword of the discipline of children in this country in 2010,â he added.
      ...
      In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada banned spanking of children under 2 and over 12 and criminalized it at any age with an implement such as the common wooden spoon.

      And there is no statute of limitations on child abuse in Canada.

    16. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Ten years in Texas for injury to a child or disabled person, of which the daughter qualifies as both.

      You must not know how to read laws.

      http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    17. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      The State Attorney is a lying sack of shit.

      http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html

      TEN YEARS.

      2011-2004 = 7

      Someone needs to shoot the SA as well.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Her reason for releasing the tape matters if she was using it to blackmail him. Two wrongs don't make a right.

      What he did was wrong, but it also occurred beyond the statute of limitations. Knee-jerk changes to laws are bad. You're angry, not rational, and that's not the state of mind you should be in when making laws that affect hundreds of millions of lives.

    19. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We thought the world was flat once.

      Sometimes people realise the ideas they have are wrong and they change them, beating children is one of those things that much of the world has decided was wrong.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    20. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      We also use to buy and sell african americans as if they were livestock. Not much of that going on either these days.

      Newsflash: Old people are old, younger folks deal with things differently. Film at 11.

    21. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      That's because you grew up in a backwards shithole surrounded by hicks. Go ahead, beat your children in the face with a belt and see how they grow up.

    22. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by snl2587 · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to a quote from the district attorney from the Texas county in question:

      "I would expect that yeah, charges would have been pursued but for the inability to proceed due to the statute of limitations," Flanigan said Friday. "You know, whether that would have been a felony or a misdemeanor charge I can't say but I think there would've been some action pursued."

      Also according to the article:

      Angela Dodge, a U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman, said prosecutors determined there was no federal crime depicted on the 2004 video of Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams.

      According to the link you posted (emphasis mine):

      Five Years
      Theft, burglary, robbery; kidnapping; injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; abandoning or endangering a child; or insurance fraud;

      I don't agree with beating children, and especially disabled children, but the crime was not severe enough under current laws to be a felony, and the statute of limitations expired.

    23. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by jd · · Score: 2

      Two wrongs don't make a right, but they ARE wholly independent issues as far as the law is concerned. Her reasons, therefore remain immaterial when it comes to examining his actions.

      Yes, you're right that knee-jerk changes to law are bad. However, I take as the underlying principle that the sole value of a nation-state for the people within it is that it raises the potential of all within it beyond the point that could be achieved by any other means. Everything comes down to that. Perpetuating a cycle of abuse is clearly NOT raising the potential of anyone and clearly if abuse + intimidation can guarantee a perp immunity from law, that violates the underlying principle I hold.

      WHAT should be done - that I don't know, that requires calm, level-headed thinking and I'm not inclined to that right not. You are correct that making a law when angry is extremely bad, but that doesn't mean that identifying that a fault exists cannot be done when mad. It merely means you won't be any good at knowing what the underlying fault is or how to fix it.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by jd · · Score: 1

      Ok, that is a wholly new piece of information and one that nobody else seems to have picked up on.

      Does anyone know if there had been a shorter statute of limitations before? If so, does the statute apply at the time of the investigation OR at the time of the incident?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    25. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      I totally agree that that children should not be beaten (especially not with implements !), nor shouted at or belittled, but helped along and mentored and respected and loved. I've got 2 incidents to the contrary though:

      - my nephew had a "testing boundaries" (i guess) phase, at around 4 years. He was having tamper tantrums and stuff, and once kicked me. I kicked him back. Not hard enough to *hurt* him, but enough to make him hurt, well, feel it. I'd do it again, I think, because i really hate violence (once broke up with someone for slapping me -once-), and I do think kids need to be taught stuff. Maybe I could have tried and explain with him that I was physically and emotionally hurt, but I do think "kick and you'll be kicked" is acceptable, especially when it's probably a testing phase, and just once. He's actually very sweet. I tried to explain to him why kicking is not OK, and that if he kicked me, I'd kick him back. The next big fight we had (I had misunderstood which "Smurfs" episode he wanted to see), he just went at me verbally, in a quite outspoken way that was actually cute.
      - very linked to that, I remember as a kid (probably a bit older, 6-ish) once being absolutely odious with my very sweet grandma, just to check if I could push endlessly. I got a strong slap, and I distinctly remember thinking "ok, so she will do it if i really push it". I think it's good she did it, and i remember thinking quite a bit about what that meant. My kicking back my nephew was actually directly decided by that memory, though the age difference bothers me.

      Obviously, neither have anything to do with using a belt, on a kid, for a certain length of time, when no-one was originally hurt. That guy should be.. well, beaten too.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    26. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. There was no serious injury to the child, which makes it not a felony charge dropping the statute of limitations to 5 years. Says it right there in the article linked.

      You seriously think some random guy on the internet is going to discover some long lost part of the Texas penal code which somehow makes the State AG wrong? Get real.

    27. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Changes to Statute of Limitations applies immediately. It's not a "ex post facto" issue because it was illegal at the time the crime was committed, the only thing changing is how long you have to hide from the law to get away with it.

      See also: nearly everywhere eliminating the limitations on child abuse after Catholics started coming out.

    28. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Obviously in this part of the world(Canada), better behaved then the kids in most of the US and europe if the current events of the world are any indication.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    29. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Khyber · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your quote is screwed.

      "Ten Years- theft of any estate by an executor/administrator. Theft by a public servant of government property, Forgery. Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code;"

      A child with cerebral palsy that has been terrorized into a state of fear and unable to defend themselves is a felony, according to Penal code 22.01 with the provision of it being a THIRD DEGREE FELONY if conducted against a person described in Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code (in this case, it's 71.005 that applies - Household member) and also in Section 22.04, which the entirety of the section shall be hereforth linked

      http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.22.htm

        ""Disabled individual" means a person older than 14 years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself."

      By reason of age - 16 years old is not old enough to reasonably live on your own, especially with cerebral palsy, which happens to fall under physical disease.

      Hi, I can read in-depth and reference multiple law requirements at the same time thanks to tabbed browsing. SOL has very clearly not expired due to these conditions.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    30. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Khyber · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are very clearly not reading everything.

      The child has cerebral palsy. First, it's a felony by reason of age - 16 is not old enough in Texas to reasonably live on your own without support or aid. Secondly, Medical (physical) disease further adds to this. Thirdly, it's a third-degree felony alone if committed when the child assaulted is covered under Family Code 71.005 - Household member.

      You don't know jack about Texas law. How about you shut up and listen to an actual Texan?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    31. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a difference between beating and spanking with a belt, or hitting with a belt. I'm glad you can't see, or know the distinction.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    32. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Khyber · · Score: 2

      The other piece of info everyone seems to be neglecting is that the child has cerebral palsy. This makes her a DISABLED individual, which certainly qualifies her for the ten-year one, not the five-year one everyone else is trying to say SOL applies.

      Don't forget by reason of age as well - 16 isn't old enough in Texas unless you've been emancipated. She clearly can't be emancipated, as she is dependent by nature of physical (possibly mental) disability.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    33. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Goaway · · Score: 2
    34. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      In other news, person equates physical punishment to slavery. Moral quandary's are broken world wide as their value system seems to be fundamentally broken.

      Tip: If you haven't looked in africa, or arab countries, or most muslim countries, or various parts eastern eroupe. Slavery still exists, between hidden and fully open.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    35. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Yes because obviously he raised his daughter well. Just look at their fun home movies!

    36. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At other times, people find out that the true, old ways worked better. "Slapping a child is bad" is the norm in a small part of the world, which is getting smaller and weaker precisely because the perceived value of a child has become, quite irrationally, an ideological absolute. This has made the costs of raising a child exorbitantly high, and that, in its turn, has had a huge negative demographic effect on the Western world.

    37. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      So if someone knew they would be murdered for, say, talking back to their parents, and they thought it was justified (the victim), nothing should be done about it if they were murdered?

      What she thought is irrelevant.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    38. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Nos9 · · Score: 1

      Um, as you point out it would have been a *third* degree felony. Which is not a *first* degree felony which would have had a 10 years Statute of Limitations, instead having a 5 year SoL. Meaning the judge can no longer be charged for that incident.

    39. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Nos9 · · Score: 1

      Yes a third degree felony it is, which means that it does not qualify for the 10 year SoL that a first degree felony would.

    40. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

      Why is it that so many on here are comparing a whipping(something that the great majority of individuals survive) to murder(something nobody survives)?

    41. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

      This might not be a Federal crime but I honestly believe it should be. It's quite clear the States have no desire to prevent this kind of behaviour.

      TENTH AMENDMENT of the U.S. Constition The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    42. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      Funny. A belt is child abuse these days. In my day, that was considered 'punishment' for fucking up.

      If this was his adopted "black" daughter would it change how this event was viewed?

    43. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Khyber · · Score: 0

      No, there's still the element that makes it a first degree felony - when this crime was committed, it was committed against a disabled person, a minor, that could not get along on their own without accommodation, and could not defend themselves to any reasonable degree. That takes it from third degree felony to first degree.

      In fact, that is almost the sole requirement for the elevation. Had this not happened, yes, SOL would have expired. As it stands, it has not.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    44. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      It's called an analogy. I did not compare it to murder, but the fact that the people in both scenarios thought that their punishment was "justified" (which, seemingly according to your post, means that the punishment is "okay").

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    45. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First, dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com isn't an authority to cite on Texas law. You should be linking to http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/CR/htm/CR.12.htm.

      Second, if you read that page and the other referenced sections of the law carefully, you'll find that for the purposes of *most* Texas criminal statutes, "Child" means a person 14 years of age or younger.

      Third, A diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy does not in and of itself mean that a person is considered a "Disabled Individual" under the law.

      I just love how so many people on the internet consider themselves experts on everything simply because they know how to use a search engine and tabbed browsing.

    46. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by spyowl · · Score: 1

      Actually no, the statute of limitations applies to regular citizens also.

      It can be ignored when convenient.

    47. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Apparently besides being old, you are also unable to read. Where did parent equate physical punishment to slavery? Nowhere.

      Also, I don't get what's your point about pointing out that some places still practice slavery. Parent is obviously talking about the US society.

    48. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I care less about whether or not a 16 year old girl thought it was right or wrong to download illegal music on the internet, and more about a judge that regularly threw those kinds of beatings on his kid and got away with it.

      It's disgusting, wrong and nothing will happen to him. That's all there is to know.

    49. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Because the difference is irrelevant to GP's point.

    50. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      What's the difference? If you were being held in prison and every day the guards would come in and smack you around with leather belts for a while, would that be OK because the guards weren't actually "beating" you?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    51. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Tell it to mashiki -- he seems to think beating kids is what made Canada great.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    52. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by snl2587 · · Score: 2

      Hi, I can read in-depth and reference multiple law requirements at the same time thanks to tabbed browsing.

      Can you? In the same article (penal code) you cited:

      (f) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) or (a-1)(3) or (4) is a felony of the third degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly, except that an offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a felony of the second degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly and the victim is a disabled individual residing in a center, as defined by Section 555.001, Health and Safety Code, or in a facility licensed under Chapter 252, Health and Safety Code, and the actor is an employee of the center or facility whose employment involved providing direct care for the victim. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly, the offense is a state jail felony.

      (a)(3) refers to

      (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual:
      (1) serious bodily injury;
      (2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or
      (3) bodily injury.

      Note that I did not hightlight (a)(1), which refers to just a bit more than bruises. In the same section:

      (1) "Child" means a person 14 years of age or younger.
      (2) "Elderly individual" means a person 65 years of age or older.
      (3) "Disabled individual" means a person older than 14 years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself.

      By this law, which you cited, the girl was not a child. She was, however, disabled, so (a)(3) is the area you should be looking at. Seems like this is what the district attorney knew, which is why the statue of limitations expired. This all means that the statute of limitations is 5 years, since it was not a first-degree felony.

      You make the claim in a sub-post that this crime is somehow elevated to a first-degree felony. Care to cite how? The law seems to spell things out pretty clearly here.

    53. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Some people are jerks, no matter where they're from. Beatings don't work. Not in animals, and not in humans.

      The only time it (force to the point of harm) can be justified is to prevent greater immediate harm.

      There was a time when people thought it was justified to slap a woman around to "calm her down". Before that, it was okay to beat slaves to "beat some sense of respect into them."

      Spanking a kid makes as little sense as beating a dog because it pooped in the house, or rubbing their nose in it. There are easier ways to house-break a dog. And better ways to raise a kid.

    54. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by jd · · Score: 1

      I believe some random guy on the Internet CAN discover some part of the Texas penal code that COULD demonstrate the State AG did not use all means at their disposal. Not "is", "can".

      I believe it is reprehensible, bordering on fanatical, to reject a claim before you even know what the claim is.

      I believe it is good judgement to listen, impartially and rationally, to a viewpoint that differs from my own.

      I definitely believe that your kind of cynical, twisted excuse of a slam is truly pathetic.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    55. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      But those methods all require time, patience and effort. Beating them past the point where they can even beg for mercy is so much more satisfying to some (many?).

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    56. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by jd · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't necessarily trust a Texan to know Texan law. I wouldn't trust more than half of America to know how to spell "law". Being born in a given location doesn't give you any special privileges or abilities when it comes to knowing something.

      Having said that, what matters is purely what is known and by whom. I would trust you to know Texas law because everything you've said matches what I've looked up. Ergo, you've done the legwork. Ergo, your comment is as correct as you're going to get outside of asking a lawyer certified in Texas. (Though why you'd ask someone who was positively certifiable, I dunno....)

      This is the Great Error made by a lot of newbies to the Internet. They're too busy looking for things that confirm their biases that they don't look at the facts.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    57. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by jd · · Score: 1

      Obviously, that depends on the Statute and the State Constitution governing it, but if it looks like that applies here then if the State has a serious issue all it has to do is raise the time limit. Frankly, I'm not a great fan of Statutes of Limitations. Yes, there comes a time when the evidence no longer exists, but clearly that's not the case here and that kind of debate is better settled by investigators or the court, it shouldn't be settled by some politicians setting a deadline.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    58. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      My god man (or woman)! I meant that just because it was ok to beat your kid in the past, didn't mean its ok (just like slavery used to be a common practice in early American history). I did not mean to equate the two, nor am I oblivious that slavery is alive and well today.

    59. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is provable, and clearly doesn't apply to raising and disciplining a kid. That is, until it crosses some threshold where it has been shown to be detrimental.

      I don't actually believe in ever beating kids to relieve one's own anger, and never on a repeated basis or it completely loses the purpose. I just disagree with your straw man of "We used to think the world is flat". You can apply that statement to anything you disagree with. Thus, your trite retort means nothing.

      There are case studies that show beating kids on a repeated basis harms them emotionally, quite dramatically. In one classic study, the kid killed himself around 20. However there are also case studies that show the threat of harsh punishment is a good deterrent for many behaviors. Many would consider this lesson important in order to respect the laws, and Texas is a prime example of the "respect authority or authority will shoot you dead" state. Cops have shot people dead for running away, despite the accused crime not carrying a potential death sentence.

      You live in a world where people use the phrase PMITA Federal Prison ("Pound Me In The Ass"). If federal charges were brought against the judge, would you tell the prosecutor the same thing and how we should think different and his ideas of sending someone to be ass-raped are wrong? Because that kind of prison punishment seems to be cruel and unreasonable, too. Do you really think that would be an appropriate punishment for beating one's kid 8 years ago?

    60. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny. A belt is child abuse these days. In my day, that was considered 'punishment' for fucking up.

      I'll grant you that there definitely is a bit of debate and disagreement on whether punishment with a belt is considered discipline or abuse. In a way I think it kind of borders on abuse, but at the same time, I was whipped with a belt as a child and I don't really think of myself as having been abused.

      However, that's beside the point. We aren't talking about hitting someone with a belt a couple of times. We are talking about a video of him whipping and degrading her for SEVEN MINUTES. After about the first 5 hits in about 20 seconds, she's cryiing and begging him to stop, but he continues on. She's hit with the belt a total of 18 times. At one point (about 4:20 in the video) he appears to hit, punch, or slam her (you can hear a pretty loud thump, and you can tell it's not the belt). He uses phrases like "I didn't get my licks in yet", "I'm going to BEAT you into submission" (emphasis his), and "I'll keep BEATIN you, and BEATIN you". Apparently his wife even claims she was abused, and she eventually left him for that reason.

      Here's the video of the whole thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEaqB4773MA

    61. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      True. But I would say that first, all those methods require love. This judge is the type of guy I would be very worried would shake a baby to death because satisfying his anger and sense of justice is greater than his love for his daughter.

      The full video This is messed up. He's going at her with the belt, and telling her to lay down on the bed so he can beat her behind, or she's going to get it "in your fucking face".

      And the mother ... "I'm going to smack her. You turn over on the bed and take it like a grown woman." Did hubby beat her too?

      And him later, "I'm going to [whack] BEAT you into submission. You want to put some more computer games on? You want some more? Fucking computer. blah blah in the fucking goddamn house " (3:25). "Putting a fucking gang of them on I'll just keep beating you and BEATING YOU, that's how upset I am" (4:40)

      This is someone who has lost it.

    62. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, love can be mixed with rage - I grew up in a culture where that was commonplace and accepted. But I don't see this in the judge, this is an angry, prideful control freak. In fact, I wonder if his daughter's disability feeds that rage as many parents do see the children's flaws, of any kind as a reflection on themselves.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    63. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the idea that time removes guilt awesome

    64. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Funny. A belt is child abuse these days. In my day, that was considered 'punishment' for fucking up.

      We live in more enlightened times.

    65. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The only reason you think there is a difference is because of the normalising effect of childhood. You were abused by a parent with a belt when you were a child, so you think that behaviour is acceptable.

      There is no limit to this normalising effect. People who were sexually abused by a parent often go on to sexually abuse their own children.

      Any time someone justifies something because that was the way things were when they were a kid, you know you're dealing with someone who's ideas are governed by conditioning, not thought.

    66. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Funny. A belt is child abuse these days. In my day, that was considered 'punishment' for fucking up

      The beating didn't even seem all that impressive either.

      Dads first belt 14 whacks total (Most happening within 15 sec clip circulated in the media)
      Belt only...no buckle contacts.
      Butt seems to be the target although some did seem to contact her legs.

      Mom then uses dads first belt for 1 whack says "thank you" and leaves the room.

      Finally dad comes back with second belt adding 3 more whacks.

      There is other brief contact grabing her head? that happens off camera.

      Big fricking deal - I've had worse and seen worse.

      The language and additude from both parents was much more upsetting to me than the beatings. Both parents act like huge jackasses.

      Until several years ago corporal punishment in public schools was handed down by teachers on at least a million occassions per year and was commonly done by many of the parents of kids I associated with growing up.

    67. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Come to Canada. It *is* a federal crime

      All crime is federal in Canada, the criminal code is federal. Provinces have laws about things like the motor vehicle act and of course property related stuff. Provinces also run most courts and prisons which is why our wonderful right wing government can get tough on crime without worrying about paying for it. (crime rates are at a 45 year low yet our government wants to force the provinces to spend billions on prisons to combat crime).
      Still this arsehole would lose his judgeship really quick here and with any luck go to jail. The government is bringing in minimum sentences for child abuse, IIRC about a third as the minimums they're bringing in for growing 6 marijuana plants, even if they're sickly male plants. Right wing priorities, pot is much worse then child abuse.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    68. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      This might not be a Federal crime but I honestly believe it should be. It's quite clear the States have no desire to prevent this kind of behaviour.

      TENTH AMENDMENT of the U.S. Constition

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
      prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
      or to the people.

      All that the tenth amendment says is that the constitution would need amending to protect children from beating. It was done before to give black people rights so amending the constitution to give children the right not to be beaten doesn't seem that much of a stretch.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    69. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Ridiculous justification is ridiculous.

      "You were raped by only ONE man? That's nothing!"

    70. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I believe judges there are elected, not appointed. If so, he can't be fired as he was never hired.

      There's no way to impeach or recall him?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    71. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by vakuona · · Score: 1

      I believe the statute of limitations should be there for some crimes. The state has limited resources, and should concentrate on addressing criminal cases that have occurred in the recent past. There is a reason why more serious crimes will not have a statute of limitation. Obviously, child abuse would seem to be one kind of crime for which many might feel there should be no statute of limitations, or a reasonably long one.

    72. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the idea that time removes guilt awesome

      Actually, yes, yes it is. And for cases like this, the statute of limitations should be a lot shorter than 5 years.

      The evidence has disappeared. We have the video to show that he beat her, but her body can't be examined for injuries, because they have since healed. Since the line between disciplining your child and illegally beating them is defined by the nature of the bodily injuries, the statue of limitations should be pretty much however long it takes for the child to heal.

    73. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I think one of the telling parts is where the wife joins in - but at the same time, tries to negotiate it down to ONE whack instead of multiple ones. This is the sort of unconscious mediating behavior you'll see when someone is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We're hard-wired by evolution to seek out such solutions (since those who failed are removed from the gene pool ...).

      After all, it's kind of hard to pick up the phone and call the police when you're physically and emotionally dependent on preserving the family unit, and more so when your hubby's a judge.

      It doesn't make it right, it doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it in terms that give us a first handle on how to understand it and argue that we need to make it clear that hitting anyone as a form of correction or teaching doesn't work.

      Also, the first thing any parent needs to learn is that kids will definitely get on your nerves at times, and that you do not try to address the situation while you're upset. And especially when you're angry. When you lose control, they're in control.

      You know what kids really hate? When you say "we'll talk about this later", and then do so. And explain why you're upset (for example, that they stayed out way past the agreed-upon time and didn't phone), and ask them what they propose to do about it to avoid it happening again in the future, and what the consequences should be next time.

      They'd rather just be punished, because then they have carte blanche to break the rules as long as they are willing to pay the penalty - same as speeders - and they can dodge the feeling of responsibility because they didn't have any input into it.

      All hitting the kid does is prove that you need to grow up. Or in this guy's case, be kept away from kids.

    74. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aspergers alert...

    75. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Sangui5 · · Score: 1

      It is only a 1st degree felony if it causes "serious" injury (as per 22,04(e), referring to offenses (a)1 and (a)2). Since nobody went to the hospital or required medical care, it probably falls under 22.04(a)3, which is not a 1st degree felony, per 22.04(f), but only a 2nd degree (if in a care institution) or 3rd degree (otherwise) felony. Injury to a disabled person which is not a 1st degree felony has a 5 year statute of limitations (per your original statute of limitations link).

      Regardless or the injury to a disabled person, it is not injury to a child, since the cutoff there is 14 years of age.

      There doesn't seem to be anything he did criminally which hasn't expired. On the other hand, there is no statute of limitations for pissing off your electorate...

    76. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by makomk · · Score: 1

      And the mother ... "I'm going to smack her. You turn over on the bed and take it like a grown woman." Did hubby beat her too?

      I think she's said that he did beat her too, yes.

    77. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by syousef · · Score: 1

      I don't think there should be a statute of limitation on this kind of beating of children, and I don't think he should be allowed to get away with repeated beatings of his child. Also the mother was complicit - while she did try to moderate the beating, she also participated. She should also be held accountable.

      But I wonder if that tape, taken without his knowledge, could even be admitted as evidence. Could the daughter be charged under wire taping law? No one else seems to have considered this. I think it's a legal mess. But letting him - a family court judge - get away with this is sending the wrong message. Watching the video should sicken and outrage anyone with a modicum of decency. I wonder if the daughter has had any counselling - it's not the sort of abuse that would leave someone unscathed.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    78. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "(3) "Disabled individual" means a person older than 14 years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself."

      Got some news for you, since you can't seem to read.

      Still a minor, regardless.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    79. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by syousef · · Score: 1

      Funny. A belt is child abuse these days. In my day, that was considered 'punishment' for fucking up.

      Should someone take to you with a belt for swearing then?

      Child abuse was once commonly accept. So was the ownership of slaves, and the ownership of women by their fathers and husbands. These things were all and still are all wrong.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    80. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Although slavery hasn't actually been constitutionally banned in the US. There's still an exception allowing it as a punishment. There may be various state and federal laws against sentencing those convicted of crimes to being sold to the highest bidder as labourers, but the constitution itself doesn't forbid it. Cruel and unusual punishment should apply, but it doesn't seem likely that any court would let it.

    81. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you blabbering about?

    82. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by raehl · · Score: 1

      The type of cerebral palsy the child in the video had doesn't meet the statute's definition of disabled.

    83. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      hillary knows about this law

      http://twitter.com/#!/shoeofallcosmos/statuses/133650002890334209

      "One last thing: A law has been uncovered that would allow prosecution of my father. I will not use it and I beg the state not to either."

      she's been posting on her twitter to the effect that
      1) she has taken no money from any of the media attention.
      2) she doesn't want her daddy jailed,
      and
      3) she just wants him to say to her that he realises that he was wrong and mean it.

      personally, I don't hold out much hope for her approach. He's lost face, and he's addicted to power and respect (and, as it turns out, was addicted to opiates). He'll want to get his own back and retaliate in nasty ways. If Hillary wants to have any peace in her life, she has to jail her own father so he can't come after her ever again.

    84. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      there is a difference between spanking and being an obsessed control freak with fucking issues.

      if this is legal, that just means the people who consider it legal have to go, too. and that is ALL it means.

    85. Re:The legal system at it's finest. by Bluebottel · · Score: 1

      We also use to buy and sell african americans

      No you didn't. They weren't american at all, they were black people from Africa. I don't understand why you accept this stupid term.

  5. Computers are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I watched that video this week. My reaction after seeing it in its entirety: "Computers are bad."

  6. Sexual arroused by santax · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I bet 10 bucks he later wanked on that spanking. Those sort of people always do. This is more than just a crime. It is a form of sexual torture and rape and should be treated as such. Since this is also a minor, that guy should get the chair. Especially since he is a judge and clearly has pulled all his known strings to get away with it and after that points the finger at the victim.

    1. Re:Sexual arroused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..and your 'reasoning' (I use the term loosely) is the reason we have shitty laws on the books. all you offer is an assumption without proof. go lick some feminazi cunt or something. girls are not always victims.

    2. Re:Sexual arroused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so we should prosecute him as a rapist based on your speculation that he jacked off later?

    3. Re:Sexual arroused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like someone is Projecting.

    4. Re:Sexual arroused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are overtones of sexual saddism, 'Take it like a woman' and a very obvious erection while delivering the beating.

    5. Re:Sexual arroused by flohuels · · Score: 1

      ...believe it or not, even a straight, non-sadism mother can "educate" her child with a belt.

    6. Re:Sexual arroused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking waaaaaaaaaaah?

      Ok so your daughter just possibly subjected your family to 250k fine and 10 years in prison. How do you react? And keep in mind he is a judge and has an idea how the law might work...

      Yeah.

    7. Re:Sexual arroused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't the one who said 'like a grown woman.'

    8. Re:Sexual arroused by jd · · Score: 2

      Beat, yes. Educate, no. There is no evidence that beatings achieve anything beyond a brief catharsis on the part of the one doing the beating and some form of severe mental dysfunction on the part of the one being beaten. It has no redeeming qualities and is often concealed by the perp (as in this case) because he/she knows damn well it's abnormal, psychotic and depraved.

      In this case, the victim has been alleged to have become dysfunctional and that this is why the tape was released. I say alleged because there's no proof of it. However, if it is true, then the judge's repeated beatings of her are the reason for her state of mind. Any monsters in her or in him are of his creation and he is responsible for them all.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Sexual arroused by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      keep in mind he is a judge and has an idea how the law might work...

      Haha, nice one. The judges here in Texas are the biggest dumb fucks you could find outside of the legislature. They are elected, with parties, so he was probably chosen on how well he would enforce the will of the Republican Party, then everyone just voted party line. These dipshit idiot judges are outmatched in stupidity and ignorance of the law only by the jury. It's better in the higher courts, but district and below may as well be run by a vigilante lynch mod.

    10. Re:Sexual arroused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I definitely agree with you. I've had to slap my wife around a few times (trust me -- it was justified and, no, I didn't use a closed fist) and I have fucked her _silly_ afterwards. I really think there must be some connection between the two.

    11. Re:Sexual arroused by buybuydandavis · · Score: 2

      Overtones?

      Bend over. Submit. Take it. Obey. Followed by terroristic threats of even greater beatings.

      Weeping. Crying. Begging. All of a 16 year old girl with a physical disability. Leather. Whipping. Threesome. Dad. Mom.

      I suspect this will be making the rounds on porn sites for year to come. How many tags can you put on one video at those sites anyway?

      I wonder when this Judge will be prosecuting his daughter for producing and distributing this porn. I don't think he can get her for illegally taping the conversation - usually there is a loophole for taping criminal acts.

    12. Re:Sexual arroused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm certain that the judge doesn't know how copyright law works. He didn't even make the attempt to discern if what she did was actually illegal or not. Lots of music exists under the public domain for instance.

    13. Re:Sexual arroused by icebraining · · Score: 1

      If a 16 year old stops doing something simply because she was beaten, all the parent has achieved is teaching her how to be a coward who gives in to bullies.

    14. Re:Sexual arroused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to mandelbr0t we should and I agree with him.

    15. Re:Sexual arroused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to mandelbr0t [slashdot.org] we should and I agree with him.

    16. Re:Sexual arroused by cffrost · · Score: 1

      ...believe it or not, even a straight, non-sadism mother can "educate" her child with a belt.

      Sure, and a mother can also "educate" her child with a straight-razor or a strap-on dildo; none of these three items are used against children by responsible, informed, caring parents. However, they all teach the same tried and true lessons: "See, I'm a shitty parent with antiquated 'ideas' about parenting passed through generations of victims-turned-violators. Today, you'll learn that the world is a vicious and ugly place, there's nowhere to run; no one to run to. Our first lesson: How fear, intimidation, abuse, and the shared experience of family violence make us a 'good' and 'normal' family."

      Unfortunately, few formerly abused parents want to give up their chance at bat... or fist, or whatever the fuck you sick assholes' weapons of choice are. If you strike a child, for both of your sake, please seek treatment. Wide-spread does not mean beneficial, healthy, or normal.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    17. Re:Sexual arroused by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      yeah right. someone is not paying attention, and/or watching out for their own.

    18. Re:Sexual arroused by flohuels · · Score: 1

      I see, those tags are more common than simple quotes :-/

  7. Federal? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Child abuse is a state matter, last I heard. Why do federal prosecutors have anything to say about it?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on what I have read, at the lower levels, the statute of limitations ran out on anything they could charge him with in this, so they were checking to see if anything could be done at the federal level. I guess that would be NO. So, legally, he is not chargeable.

    2. Re:Federal? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the reason he decided to cut off his payments to her is he realized the statute of limitations had run out...

    3. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slavery used to be a "state matter" too.

    4. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the state level officials had already looked into it, and decided not to pursue charges. (Statute of Limitations). The internet was in enough of a huff that I guess the federal prosecutors reviewed it to make sure it was outside of their jurisdiction.

    5. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RTFA - they said they don't have anything to say about it because it's state matter. (C'mon mods, you should have caught that.)

      Meanwhile, Arkansas says statute of limitations on child abuse. Which is kinda crazy, because abused kids often aren't able to start dealing with it till they're adults who've gotten away from their abusers, but whatever, welcome to Arkansas.

      Civil case is still possible, and of course public shaming, which is what's going on now.

    6. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why do federal prosecutors have anything to say about it?"

      Here's why :

      Federal prosecutors sometimes act for political reasons. A case like this can bring tangible
      political benefits to the US Attorney and prosecutor involved. It is a case which arouses an
      emotional response and it will get a lot of "press" ( the media will cover it, in other words )
      such that the Feds involved will get a lot of political mileage from being involved.

      If you don't believe what I wrote above, hang out at whichever watering hole the local
      attorneys frequent and ask some of them what their take is.

      Bottom line : the US court system is very much tainted by politics. Those who are involved
      have ambitions and some of them will use a case to further their career. Yeah, it's ugly.
      A lot of reality is.

    7. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably due to conflict of interest, I'd imagine. If he was a state level judge, then it would be a federal case. Can't have a state level judge judging his colleague.

    8. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you arguing, Sir, that YouTube does not cross state lines?

    9. Re:Federal? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Why do federal prosecutors have anything to say about it?

      Watch the news video, where they interview the father in his car. Apparently the MAFIAA is involved...

    10. Re:Federal? by jcr · · Score: 1

      The federal government fully supported slavery for about eighty years. It was federal troops who fought John Brown at Harper's Ferry, and it was the US Army, intent on enforcing the fugitive slave act, that was met at the border of Vermont by the militia, who told them to leave or there would be bloodshed.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    11. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because state judges are ABOVE state law.

    12. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is a judge. 'nuf said.

      "'F*****g computers,' the judge tells his now ex-wife on the video. 'I told you I didn't want one in the god damn house. See all the problems they cause?'"

      Oh buddy.... Wait until /b/ gets done with you. Right now you don't even know 0.001% of what kind of problems they cause!

    13. Re:Federal? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      At what point does corporal punishment become child abuse? Sure the "time out" generation will say any amount is child abuse, however the previous generation will see nothing wrong.

      Timing is everything and when I see a 23 year old releasing a video 7 and a half years later, I'm thinking the child attempted to extort the father for continued financial support thinking that him being a judge provided her some leverage. It looks like he didn't meet her demands, so out comes the video on youtube.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    14. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what point does corporal punishment become child abuse?

      How about either when you use an implement -- such as a belt -- to perform it, or when it leaves clear physical damage to the child. Those are two simple clear lines you can and should use.

      I don't think releasing a youtube video of the abuse is the proper way for a grown up child to deal with their child abuse, but if the child wasn't brought up properly which isn't unlikely, then they might not act properly as an adult. But regardless of the reasons for the child to release the video, that shouldn't exempt the parent from prosecution for child abuse. IOW, it doesn't fucking matter why the child released the video her father was still in the wrong.

    15. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what point does corporal punishment become child abuse?

      When it serves the perpetrator's needs and not the victim's?

    16. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > At what point does corporal punishment become child abuse?

      IMHO it's child abuse when parents hit a child out of anger, not from the need to punish. If you can't control your temper, you're just taking out your aggression on someone who can't fight back.

      There's a reason they invented the (admittedly illogical) term "rage-a-holic."

      (captcha: serving)

    17. Re:Federal? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      How about either when you use an implement -- such as a belt -- to perform it, or when it leaves clear physical damage to the child. Those are two simple clear lines you can and should use.

      As someone who had to pick his switch from the whipping tree, my point still stands. Differences in belief on what constitutes corporal punishment exist between generations. I wasn't abused by my parents, but I did get a whipping when I did something wrong.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    18. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the time she sat on the tape, 7 years. The Statute of Limitations governs how much time can elapse between the offense and the trial. Per the wikipedia article, only the "heinous" crimes, such as murder, do not fal under the statute of limitations. In this particular case, 7 years is greater than the Texas statute of limitations, and I couldn't tell you about federal without doing more digging.

    19. Re:Federal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because he's a federal judge

  8. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by Skater · · Score: 1

    By beating the shit out of her with a belt? This is far worse than anything the MAFIAA (note: that's the term YOU used) did.

  9. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Rightly so? He was physically attacking her for downloading music...does that not seem just a little bit over-the-top to you?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  10. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    Check that, actually all states. Now that's a plurality.

  11. hard to watch by ejtttje · · Score: 2, Informative
    The video is hard to watch. For reference, the daughter was participating in the comment thread on reddit (username shoeofallcosmos).

    Judge Adams issued a statement asserting that his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him for withdrawing his financial support.

    Oh, so he abuses his children and then also doesn't support them financially, sounds like a real winner!

    1. Re:hard to watch by vakuona · · Score: 1, Troll

      She is 23. Not excusing what he did, but in what world should anyone have to support a grown woman who refuses to take care of herself?

    2. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your parents were still supporting you when you were 23?

    3. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      She has cerebral palsy.

    4. Re:hard to watch by hedwards · · Score: 2

      It's the pottery barn rule, you broke it you bought it.

      As for refusing to take care of herself. That's just plain ignorant, more likely he conditioned her to be dependent upon him. Which is probably a large factor in why it took so long for the tape to be made public. If she really refused to take care of herself, she probably could have gotten most of his money suing him in court for the damages.

    5. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "not supporting her financially," you mean "took away the Mercedes [yes!] that she'd been driving" and told her that at age 23 she ought to have a real job, not work at a video game store, right?

      Because that's exactly what happened.

    6. Re:hard to watch by bcrowell · · Score: 2

      Oh, so he abuses his children and then also doesn't support them financially, sounds like a real winner!

      She's an adult now, age 23 or 24, so he's not obliged to support her financially.

    7. Re:hard to watch by Jiro · · Score: 1

      The cerebal palsy is not mentioned in Slashdot's TFA, but if you Google it, you can find that she really does have it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057419/Judge-William-Adams-beat-disabled-daughter-Hillary-video-WONT-charged.html

      Furthermore she says she waited seven years because she feared for her safety.

    8. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in what world should anyone have to support a grown woman who refuses to take care of herself?

      You've never been married, have you?

      Or worse, divorced.

    9. Re:hard to watch by mayberry42 · · Score: 1

      Judge Adams issued a statement asserting that his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him for withdrawing his financial support.

      Oh, so he abuses his children and then also doesn't support them financially, sounds like a real winner!

      For proper context, assuming he is telling the truth (you never know), he withdrew his support for her - both financial and a freakin Mercedes to drive - after she said she was going to drop out of community college. And don't forget, she's 23, not 13. To be honest I would have done the same (beating excluded, of course).

    10. Re:hard to watch by ejtttje · · Score: 2

      Parents should be supportive of their offspring. Sure there's no legal requirement, and sure sometimes kids need a little push to get out of the nest, but I doubt that is the case here. My parents would still pitch in if I was having trouble, and I am grateful for that support. In any case, she has a job (she had previously posted pics on reddit from working at EBGames (or some such) over Halloween), so I'm not sure why you assume she "refuses to take care of herself."

    11. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Crawl back in your hole, Teabagger.

    12. Re:hard to watch by Khyber · · Score: 2

      So we slap seven years of terrorism charges against the judge.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:hard to watch by vakuona · · Score: 3, Informative

      He didn't completely stop supporting her financially. He reduced her allowance and took away the Mercedes. Most people do not earn enough to drive a Mercedes. Why should he be forced to supplement her income to the level she deems adequate. She should be grateful for every cent she gets. She is essentially blackmailing him. Two wrongs do not make a right.

    14. Re:hard to watch by meburke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Note: She is an adult and recovering from the abuse. However, she was born with ataxic cerebral palsy. I don't know how bad it is, but it may preclude her from many occupations. Apparently she is pretty smart and plays the piano well. Ataxic cerebral palsy usually affects muscular coordination, and the symptoms (poor balance, shakiness, poor coordination) last a lifetime and may get worse in old age.

      There is no reason to discuss why she needed her family's support, if she needed her family's support, if it was justified to withdraw the support or anything else because we don't know enough facts, and it's none of our business.

      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=thinker's+toolbox&x=0&y=0

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    15. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For your information, she has cerebral palsy.

    16. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, and for that matter, how is a child "abused" if she can afford a hidden camera to tape being beaten (for steeling no less), and raised in such plush ignorance by a JUDGE to allow her to not understand what a "statute of limitations" is. Hell, the chick is blackmailing her own Father - clearly he didn't beat her hard enough.

    17. Re:hard to watch by artor3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So she should be allowed to blackmail him for the rest of his life?

      If she wanted justice, she could have released the video years ago, and he would be in prison right now. Instead she decided she'd rather have cash and a nice car. What the judge did was wrong. Between the two of them, he's definitely worse, and he will be punished by society even if he isn't by the legal system. But she's no saint either. People all too often fall into the trap of thinking that there must be exactly two sides to every issue: the good guys and the bad guys. Real life isn't so tidy.

    18. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many kids do you have? How many have been in trouble with the law? Repeatedly?

      News Flash! There is no correct way to raise children, mmmkay? If you are blessed with little angels, not a problem. If, despite your best efforts, through repeated lectures on morality, groundings, revoking privileges, etc. the child persists in shoplifting, stealing, lying, etc. just what exactly is a parent to do? You see, in that unfortunate circumstance, the parents are financially and legally responsible for their child's bad behavior. In which case, the only legal and cost effective option is to get on your knees and pray that little Johnny will turn 18 before he gets you into serious legal and financial difficulties. Some kids are just bad seeds and that's all there is to it.

    19. Re:hard to watch by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      You would normally be right, but this situation is a bit different because she suffers from cerebral palsy, which is very debilitating.

      Certainly he has no obligation to support her, but it's the morally right thing to do if he really cares about his daughter. He didn't pay for everything in her life, just enough to keep her going while she was already working. It sounds like he was just bitter that she dropped out of college. Not sure why she did, but she likely had her reasons.

    20. Re:hard to watch by ejtttje · · Score: 1

      I hope you find some peace, that sounds like a really shitty start to life. It shouldn't have been like that.

    21. Re:hard to watch by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      And she's not obliged to cover up his sadistic nature.

    22. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like emotional abuse as well. Parents like that often hold material possessions over their child's heads as part of a very twisted, narcissistic power trip. He should be disbarred at the very least.

    23. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She *is* disabled. Just saying.

    24. Re:hard to watch by shilly · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hmmm...let's think about the causality here. I think giving her a Merc and supporting her financially is frankly only a part of what he ought to be doing by way of recompensing her for beating her like that. What do you think is the likelihood that this is the only time she was beaten?

    25. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't she suffer from cerebral palsy?

    26. Re:hard to watch by gbutler69 · · Score: 0

      Getting your ass whipped with a belt is not abuse unless it is routine and not for correction. People need to grow up.

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    27. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because teenagers don't have friends with video equipment? Because a $30 video recorder is prohibitively expensive?

    28. Re:hard to watch by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      repeated lectures on morality

      Not sure what stating your personal morals as a fact would accomplish.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    29. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh? So you were circumcised? That is not mutilation.

    30. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... downloading those Super Nintendo games is super duper illegal and worthy of such punishment. Moron.

    31. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's 23 now. Withdrawing financial support for a 23 year old is hardly a hanging offense. Still, karma has a way of coming around and biting you in the ass. It seems like a truly messed up family. Hopefully the people involved can get it together and move forward with their life.

    32. Re:hard to watch by noems · · Score: 1

      hah no doubt.. OWS

    33. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "not supporting her financially," you mean "took away the Mercedes [yes!] that she'd been driving" and told her that at age 23 she ought to have a real job, not work at a video game store, right?

      Because that's exactly what happened.

      In other words, a victim of abuse stopped accepting the bribes ("hush money") that she had been offered in exchange for her silence. Monthly payments on a car are a hell of a lot cheaper than what you can make as a judge.

      Even if we take the abuser at his word (funny how it's always the victim's fault, never the abuser's fault), that's still not blackmail. That's a victim of a crime refusing any longer to be intimidated by the perpetrator.

    34. Re:hard to watch by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Home abusers who later buy gifts out of remorse is extremely common. Just like the guy who buys flowers to his wife right after cheating on her.

      clearly he didn't beat her hard enough

      You do know what's been said about the definition of insanity?

      Personally, I think you should beat yourself until you grow superpowers. If you didn't by now, you clearly haven't beaten yourself enough.

    35. Re:hard to watch by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. It fits the definition perfectly.

    36. Re:hard to watch by Locutus · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is that he used that as an excuse? So I guess a defense for murder in his court is 'I was made at X for lame reason Y so I shot X'. Way to show how great the State of Texas is.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    37. Re:hard to watch by tftp · · Score: 1

      Ataxic cerebral palsy usually affects muscular coordination, and the symptoms (poor balance, shakiness, poor coordination) [...] Apparently she is pretty smart and plays the piano well.

      I don't have a cerebral palsy (or anything else) but I can't play the piano, well or not well or even in a most awful way. She appears to have better muscular coordination than average. I can't imagine that being a problem with any job.

      we don't know enough facts, and it's none of our business.

      I have to agree. But in general if a child doesn't like her parent she just stays away, goes her own way and so on. In this case the girl wants it both ways - independence and support. She appears to be a perfect fit with the OWS people.

    38. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The judge is a wiener. He didn't think he did anything wrong. Some of it might be hubris: "what are you going to do to me, I can do anything I like, there are laws protecting my right to make my kids arse black and blue, and besides, I'm an judge. I'm above the law since none of my peers will convict." This is so wrong on so many levels. The kid has mild cerebral palsy, beating for downloading crap off the internet? Who is this guy, the RIAA? The MPAA? They are going the way of Kodak film (and sooner is better than later). What else, family values? Beating your kid makes for better kids? *THATS* mentally retarded, and teaches your kid that violence is a way to resolve problems, and that whoever has the belt, gun or upper hand makes the rules. There are people in remote, dusty countries that honestly believe that cutting hands off people is a way to stop hungry people from stealing food; that stoning people to death is a way to prevent sexual assault (even if the person was a victim, if its a woman, she gets 'stoned' to death), and people with guns make all the rules till someone with a bigger gun comes along. Its true that bigger guns is usually the American way, (one of the few countries in the western world where 'Might Makes Right'(tm) is taught in military, business, and public schools alike. But having bigger guns, more money, or judge job and a wide belt don't make everything right. The judge got the upper hand 7 years ago. Now he can be tried in the court of public opinion.

    39. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      terrible

    40. Re:hard to watch by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      The issue is most 23 year olds are incapable of being financially independent even if they are employed or hard workers in this economy. The unemployment rate amongst that age group (18-26 or something) is 24 percent. This is not because they are lazy, its because they are competing for jobs that 35 year old laid off people with working experience are also competing for, and also because some jobs were annihilated never to come back, and many people aren't retiring.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    41. Re:hard to watch by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      You are an asshole, and I don't give a damn if you have mutilated genitals. It doesn't give you the right to be a worthless pile of shit.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    42. Re:hard to watch by vakuona · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not how it happened (according to him).

      He decided to reduce the support because he felt she was not pulling her own weight.

      She countered that she had a video of him beating her from 7 years ago. Basically, she was threatening him to keep the support going or risk embarrassment or worse, prosecution or prison.

      The law in most countries does not allow blackmail. In fact, if the prosecutors are willing, she might find herself in trouble.

      He did something bad, illegal for which he ought to have been punished. But the law does not allow vigilantism. The law is not a tool to be used to beat people into submission with. It is not hers to use as a weapon. She had to decide earlier whether she wanted him punished or not. Heck, this girl continued living with her father after her parents separated.

    43. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By 23 I was married, in school + working, and between my wife and myself, were fully self sufficient. Just because most 23 year olds are lazy slackers doesn't mean it is a result of their age; rather it is a result of their slothfulness.

    44. Re:hard to watch by revlayle · · Score: 0

      I wish I had the mod points to mod you up beyond troll. Yes, what he did is inexcusable, but it all sound like blackmail to me on her part. Both people are being shitty. At least he admitted his shittiness (mind you, this doe NOT absolve him of anything)... she is acting like she is entitled to be a bitch... no one is entitled to that crap.

      That being said, her shitty attitude may very well be a product of shitty treatment as she grew up - but blackmailing dad (if that is what she is doing) to get 'revenge", that is inexcusable too.

    45. Re:hard to watch by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      you can walk away from abuse

      Sorry your shit's all fucked up, but don't get too lost in the pity party - people don't just walk away from serious abuse. You take it with you always.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    46. Re:hard to watch by IICV · · Score: 1

      He reduced her allowance and took away the Mercedes. Most people do not earn enough to drive a Mercedes.

      And you're entirely sure that, if she doesn't have the Mercedes to drive around, she has some other means of transportation? Keep in mind that this is Texas we're talking about, with some of the absolute worst public transit in the nation. If she doesn't have an alternate car to drive, she may not be able to lose her job.

      I mean, do you really think that driving Dad's Mercedes around is some sort of giant privilege? It's a fancy car that will get you whipped if there's so much as a dent on it when you get home.

    47. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please link to Digg instead. Reddit is nothing but viruses and cp. Or so I've heard.

    48. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His daughter is in his 20's and lives on her own.\

        Sounds to me that he as well as your own parents major abuse if any is not preparing you guys to support yourself after you are out of the house.

    49. Re:hard to watch by theedgeofoblivious · · Score: 1

      By mentioning the financial issue he hopes to make people pay attention to it instead of paying attention to the fact that he beat the shit out of her.

      Giving someone financial support in no way justifies nor entitles anyone to beat the shit out of someone else. Whether or whether he did not provide her financial support is none of our business. The reason why she chose to disclose that he beat her is also none of our business.

      Don't let him divert attention from the fact that he beat her like that.

    50. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone who's never been dependent on someone who beats you or abuses you.

      For a time, a relative of mine was dependent on her abusive father for financial support, and believe me, he took every opportunity to make that clear to her.

    51. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At 23 you are an adult. Your parents owe you nothing after age 18, much less your rent, a very nice car (mercedes), and spending money.

      I've never seen anyone get a beating like that first time out of the gate. My own beatings at the hands of my parents usually took 4-5 repeated intentional breaches of the rules. If I wanted to make things worse for myself I would defy them just like she did by not accepting the punishment.

      No doubt her parents come accross as douche bags, but then again she is just like them. I have no sympathy for her either.

    52. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, the chick is blackmailing her own Father - clearly he didn't beat her hard enough.

      Blackmail would be getting off easy. The sonofabitch is lucky she didn't get a gun and blow his fucking brains out.

    53. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's not a child anymore, and for the record he took back the mercedes he bought her. It's his right to take it back if she's a pain in the ass...

      It does NOT excuses the beating and the judge should be prosecuted, but please inform yourself before spreading FUD.

    54. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So beating your kids if no one knows about it is OK? At the same time watching drawn "children" naked is capital offence. Talk about hypocrisy.

    55. Re:hard to watch by The+Terminator · · Score: 1

      He must be forced to support her with all his posession and income until his end of life just because of the harm he did to her. And he must be banned from any service as justice, paralegal or lawyer. He must learn how to make living by his own hands.

    56. Re:hard to watch by toriver · · Score: 1

      So if I punch you in the stomach as I pass you on the street it's not violence if it was for "correction" of your views?

    57. Re:hard to watch by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      He's also not obliged to beat nine colours of shit out of her, either.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    58. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea because you MUST financially support your 23 year old children... First world problems, modern entitlement, etc. Let me guess, you are running up the mid 20s clock and are worried mommy and daddy will make you move out soon.

    59. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's 23, well past the requirement of him financing her life (if he really was).

    60. Re:hard to watch by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Apparently the law does allow unwarranted physical violence.

      Else the judge would be serving time.

    61. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither is she obliged to keep that video a secret and... SURPRISE!

      (...your point was?)

    62. Re:hard to watch by JazzHarper · · Score: 1

      Oh, so he abuses his children and then also doesn't support them financially, sounds like a real winner!

      Clearly, she should have released this video years ago. Even if you believe in corporal punishment, this isn't it--this is abuse, plain and simple.

      That being said, since when is any parent obligated to provide financial support to a 23-year-old? That kind of "support" is usually a very bad idea.

    63. Re:hard to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She is 23 years old! Why should he be supporting her financially? Children should grow in to ADULTS.

    64. Re:hard to watch by Omestes · · Score: 1

      So she should be allowed to blackmail him for the rest of his life?

      Why not? If you act like a dick, you can't get mad for being called out on it. Also, there were other circumstances at play for her not releasing it. As in her mom was on her father's side, also she lived with him, and he had political power. Anyone of these generally preclude one from reporting abuse, all of them together means reporting means jack-all, and would probably make the situation worse for her.

      The system generally fails in cases like this. And reporting things, without official consequence, always makes the situation worse for the abused.

      But she's no saint either. People all too often fall into the trap of thinking that there must be exactly two sides to every issue: the good guys and the bad guys. Real life isn't so tidy.

      Everyone is an asshole. Except me.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    65. Re:hard to watch by makomk · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, according to her he'd been verbally abusing her and making harassing phone calls and that was in large part why she released it.

    66. Re:hard to watch by makomk · · Score: 1

      If she wanted justice, she could have released the video years ago, and he would be in prison right now

      Alternatively, he could still be free and she could be in a shallow grave somewhere. All it'd take would be a police officer or prosecutor or judge that took the word of a "respectable" abuser despite the actual evidence, or just didn't think it was that bad, or worse still did the same himself. It looks like the judge at the center of this has a reputation for ignoring evidence of child abuse in his judgements, for example.

    67. Re:hard to watch by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Everyone is an asshole. Except me.

      OMG, you have that problem too?!

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    68. Re:hard to watch by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      dude, what make you think he didn't give her that car as a form of control to begin with? how is using that to force her choices even when she's an adult, not blackmail? ... and when you blackmail someone, because YOU THINK THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU, you deserve this and more.

      "You guys are amazing. I'm so glad someone believes me, after all these years... I've been crying ever since the video gained ground. -Hillary"

      right after the video was taken, youtube didn't even exist! so what would you have her do, and how would you have her avoid the savage punishment once her father finds out? living at home at all? and *you* complain that people aren't thinking?

      and yes, later on, when she had her own place, I guess there was no beating anymore -- but money and the car, and stipulations on how she's supposed to live coming with them. then, I guess she finally had it, and said fuck you dad, I'm gonna do what *I* want. so he punished her by taking the car etc.

      then she posted the video. how does this constitute blackmail? how can she hope to get the money and the car back? to me that rather sounds like burning bridges. of realizing, that sick psycho fuck will never change, and that he deserves to be exposed. I BET you this guy acts like he's totally not a piece of scumbag trash around society. that's what sociopaths do. he's a judge, he likes to think he's respected.

      of course she is no saint -- who is?! who is saying she is? unless that is supposed to somehow explain his behaviour, that is simply not relevant at all. he's a devil, that's kinda the part we're focusing on right now. and even that is just because he's not even sorry - until he realizes what a sack of shit he has been for most of his life, the world ought to tell him.

      if by his logic downloading music calls for THAT, what does what he did call for? nuke his house from orbit?

  12. Excuses by Spad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Judge Adams issued a statement asserting that his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him for withdrawing his financial support.

    I'm not quite sure that makes what he did OK...

    1. Re:Excuses by phaserbanks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Umm... call me crazy, but maybe she was retaliating for him repeatedly beating the crap out of her.

    2. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not OK as seen by you and me, but I don't think that the electorate in Texas would notice the irrelevant nature of his comments.

    3. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nope. She's posted about it elsewhere, but basically, she saved the video in order to blackmail him. Fast forward to a week ago, and he threatens to stop allowing her to borrow his Mercedes. So she posts the video in response.

      They're both horrible people: the judge for beating his daughter, and the girl for blackmailing him over it.

      If she wanted him punished, she had the chance. She didn't. She wanted money from him.

    4. Re:Excuses by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Gotta agree with the AC - I've been beat before, and while it looked like this man was putting his heart into it, he looked like an out of shape skinny punk compared to the whippings I got as a child. When a beating was finished in my household, the crying didn't stop for 30 minutes, and you'd be lucky if you weren't limping afterwards. If the video had shown her inconsolable for 20 minutes after the beating, hardly able to move because of the pain, I'd be more inclined to feel some sympathy for her. As it was, she had a dick father, and a dick mother, but as soon as they got out of the room, she was cool as a cucumber, walking around like the beating was nothing to her.

      Now be clear, even if you're a wimp with a belt and can't give a 16 year old enough of a smack down to keep them crying for 30 minutes, you shouldn't be beating your kid - it's stupid and unproductive. But this was definitely "gotcha" videography on the part of the kid. The whole family is rotten, and frankly, I'm most appalled by the mother - the fact that she was cool with it as an observer (although I think she got one lick in too) was chilling.

    5. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judge Adams issued a statement asserting that his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him for withdrawing his financial support.

      I'm not quite sure that makes what he did OK...

      This is Texas, where "he was cuttin' his EYES at me" is considered justification for homicide.

    6. Re:Excuses by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, she's a terrible person, it's like she wasn't raised right or something....

    7. Re:Excuses by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      You should read up on gulags, ghettos and concentration camps to see what people do and did when other people controlled them. When one horrible person makes another horrible person, must it damn the victim?

    8. Re:Excuses by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If she has become a monster, then it is of his design and his handiwork. It may not excuse her for her attitudes, if indeed these allegations are true, but his responsibility does not end with him, it encompasses ALL that he has done. If he has indeed broken her mind, then he is no less responsible than her for the video being posted.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the video had shown her inconsolable for 20 minutes after the beating, hardly able to move because of the pain, I'd be more inclined to feel some sympathy for her"

      You are just as sick as he is.

    10. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta agree with the AC - I've been beat before, and while it looked like this man was putting his heart into it, he looked like an out of shape skinny punk compared to the whippings I got as a child. When a beating was finished in my household, the crying didn't stop for 30 minutes, and you'd be lucky if you weren't limping afterwards.

      While my condolences and pity go out to anyone who was beaten as a child, perhaps you could've phrased that in a way that doesn't sound like you're trying to one up the previous, in this case unseen Yorkshireman.

    11. Re:Excuses by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Where did you read this stems from not being able to borrow a Mercedes? I've never read this anywhere.

    12. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps she was afraid what may happen if she published the video or gave it to the police while still being a minor. Trading "favors" with law enforcement is far from unheard of.

    13. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to make these kind of statements from the outside. Inside that situation the mother probably thought the father was right. I'm sure she was previously trained to take his side on things when he put his foot down, why would it be any different here? Apparently the mom and daughter have a good relationship, so in hindsight she was able to see it was clearly wrong.

      I also agree that while this was clearly over the line, it's really not bad compared to what happens in some homes. I don't think her releasing the video now really has much point, although I wont condemn her for it. There are much worse people in the world than this group, it's just rare that we get this kind of glimpse of them. This and much worse happens every day, and even good people can cross lines from time to time.

    14. Re:Excuses by hpycmprok · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      No matter what her reasons or intentions for posting the video are - nothing makes what he did OK.

    15. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich girl with daddy issues. Giggity...

    16. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. Even if you know her motives, still nonsense.

      Nothing she does after the fact creates his absurd actions. Period. He chose to do this. He chose to give her all of this rope - and inflict needless harm on her physically, emotionally, mentally. What she does with that 1. doesn't retroactively change his actions and 2. is fully within her rights. Whatever motive she had - WHATEVER - wasn't even needed to justify exposing his actions. He alone is responsible for his actions.

      She wants money? She wants payback? Make your case for this even being unjust or unethical. Just disparaging her based on your conjecture holds no actual ethical analysis. WHY would this make her a bad person? Don't just assert things. There is one thing we know for sure, and it's on video.

    17. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the daughter was 100% at fault for just wanting money, GEE I WONDER WHAT TURNED HER INTO AN UNSTABLE PERSON

    18. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am at a loss of words from reading your response. The way you argue against what the judge did and how you at the same time makes it seem like it is ok to smack a kid around alot if you can at least make them cry for 30 min.

      I am in the same way at a loss of words from reading other comments about this article. Many of you seem to not even know any alternative ways of correcting a child that have done something wrong besides "smacking them around". Shame on you. You are all so skilled and technical, knows so many different ways of solving a problem in your field of expertice but knows only one way for correcting a "grievous error" that your child have done.

      I was never whipped, neither have my sibblings ever been. My parents sat down and explained to us, when we were ready, what was wrong. When I scratched the neighbors car so my father had to repaint it (which cost alot) when I was five. Well, I understod I had done something wrong from my parents reaction. They explained, I cried and said I was sorry. I paid what I could, all my savings. I never did that again and tried to think before doing in the future (of course I still did other things).

      Children understand, you understod. Treat them with respect like any other human, don't derogate your seed to something less than you are.

    19. Re:Excuses by shilly · · Score: 1

      A bit of of Python. Nice.

    20. Re:Excuses by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      I don't know. I mean, how much faith can you have in the justice system after you've been beaten by a judge in your own home?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    21. Re:Excuses by lanner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Abuse survivor here. I'm in my mid 30s now, male. I've not seen or heard from my parents/step-parents since I was fifteen years old. One of the best things I ever did in life.

      Blackmail was not involved here, as far as I can tell. I never read anything about that. She never threatened to release the video; she just did it. I would bet sacks full of money that she never let anyone else know about that video, out of fear of being abused further. It doesn't even make sense that she would try to use it as a control mechanism against him. Even if she did,.... uh... good for her.

      Note in the articles how the farther took back a car, thus depriving her of the ability to get around. It was never a gift to her. It was a tool to use as control, and when he wanted to control her further, he yanked the chain. This is a twenty year old we are talking about here, not a child. Even in adulthood, he treats his daughter as something that needs to be controlled.

      This guy will lose friends, respect, his job, and his entire career. I'd say that's pretty fair. I don't have any sympathy for him and very little for the mother.

      As for the feds, they should not be involved in any way, no duh.

      As for charges, unfortunately, she sat on this too long. Fear can really paralyze and control you. Again, no duh.

    22. Re:Excuses by danomac · · Score: 2

      From TFA:

      Adams issued a three-page statement Thursday saying his daughter posted the clip to get back at him for telling her he would be reducing the amount of financial support he gives her and taking away her Mercedes.

      What a fucked-up family.

    23. Re:Excuses by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      You are just as *damaged* as he is. FTFY.

    24. Re:Excuses by buybuydandavis · · Score: 0

      Granted that there wasn't a lot of permanent physical damage, or even the kind of tremendous pain a cold blooded torturer could produce, but I don't know that physical pain is generally the real harm in these situations anyway.

      Most of the damage is in the fear and terroristic threats. Then the shame and humiliation of being treated as a dog/sex slave, to be beaten, tormented, and humiliated *by her parents* to satisfy their sick, twisted fetishes. Clearly the whole episode was about domination/submission for dear old dad, who could barely contain his sexual arousal. And from Mom's comment about "taking it", I'm guessing hubby isn't all too charming to her in bed either.

    25. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Taking away a car doesn't deprive one of one's ability to get around. It just makes it a bit slower, and prevents one from driving one's friends around. That's what one gets for allowing one's parents to buy one an expensive car-- I got a clunker, and my own name on the deed.

      There's a lot of child abuse going on here, apparently, but believe me, taking the car away isn't it. Anyone who "can't get around" without their Mercedes has deeper issues than abuse to worry about.

    26. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. She's posted about it elsewhere, but basically, she saved the video in order to blackmail him. Fast forward to a week ago, and he threatens to stop allowing her to borrow his Mercedes. So she posts the video in response.

      They're both horrible people: the judge for beating his daughter, and the girl for blackmailing him over it.

      If she wanted him punished, she had the chance. She didn't. She wanted money from him.

      So what? He owed her money for life for being such a twisted miserable sadistic piece of garbage as a father. I wouldn't look down on his daughter one bit if she had pleaded with the Internet to stake him down, cut him open, and let the hogs eat corn out of his guts because he decided to replace her Mercedes with a slightly older model.

      What do you want to bet that the "family secret" is that his "addiction" was getting off on beating her and her mom?

    27. Re:Excuses by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      you reap what you sow

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    28. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the video had shown her inconsolable for 20 minutes after the beating, hardly able to move because of the pain, I'd be more inclined to feel some sympathy for her. As it was, she had a dick father, and a dick mother, but as soon as they got out of the room, she was cool as a cucumber, walking around like the beating was nothing to her.

      I'm sorry to hear that you were maltreated so badly. But don't jump to conclusions too lightly, even emotional abuse without any physical harm can scar people for life. I suffered emotional abuse and neglect at home, and was physically bullied by classmates for 5 years. While I got used to just ignore the pain after a beating and go on as if nothing happened, it took me, looking back, about 18 years after it stopped to get what I know now were very obvious PTST symptoms out of my system. It never seemed a big deal at the time because it was dwarfed by what the emotional rejection I got from my parents did to me. I'm nearly 50 now and still working on leaving that behind me.

      Some time back I talked to a guy about my own age about this and about his past. He suffered 10 years of frequent sexual abuse by both his parents in his childhood. We were both surprised at how very similar the effects on our lives had been.

      Recent studies have found that physical and emotional pain, especially social rejection, show a large amount of overlap in how the brain handles them. Here is one of them. Don't think that the abuse needs to be physical to cause pain, and don't think you can judge the severity of the pain caused by only looking at the severity of the physical aspects of the abuse. There's more going on.

      I think that social rejection is part of any kind of abuse, physical, sexual or emotional. When your own parents, the people you automatically trust as a child, do it structurally the consequences are huge, regardless of the type of abuse. You are brought up with the assumption that being rejected is normal. While you may be able to see that many other people are different in this respect, without ever having experienced anything close to the social confidence they have it is extremely difficult to understand how different life can be, let alone set it as a goal for yourself. I've advanced far enough on that path to begin to understand that the difference really is huge, people really live in fundamentally different social realities. That difference in perspective is much harder to overcome than the more direct PTST-like consequences, which are serious enough by themselves.

      I, my siblings and the other guy I mentioned have to deal with mothers who are in total denial about what happened. My mother was the main culprit, the other guy's mother was both victim of her husband, who forced his whole family to enact his sexual fantasies, and co-abuser of her children because she did take part in it. While they can't undo what was done, dealing with it is made much more difficult by this denial, the air is never cleared and you don't get the chance to establish a better, even a neutral relationship with them. Judging from the video Hillary's mother's story is that she was both her husband's victim and forced to be his co-abuser, and Hillary accepts that. Perhaps they are as rotten as the father, but it could also be true.

    29. Re:Excuses by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      Somebody need to attempt to live in a place where the collective transportation(busses, train, metro) is shitty.
      If you don't have a car, you limited to moving around 1-2 kilometers, and your also severely limited in shopping groceries. And lets not forget the real problem without a car is getting a car, because its expensive, a too old model will eat your wallet with its gas bill, and if the collective transport sucks you will have have trouble getting too review the cars you want to buy.

    30. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean PTSD, of course.

    31. Re:Excuses by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      People can and do routinely rise above their upbringings. Which isn't to say that I disagree with what you said, but I don't think it can or should be used as an excuse for poor behavior. She's responsible for her own actions, regardless of how she was raised, just as he is responsible for his as well. They both chose their own actions, and they should both be held accountable accordingly.

      Note: I support corporal punishment, but not when it's anything that even remotely resembles what that video shows. My parents spanked me as a child (always on my butt with an implement that was a flat piece of flexible metal wrapped in cloth), but they made a point of never once doing it while angry, never once using it as a first resort, never once doing it before they had clearly explained to me what I had done wrong and making sure I understood, never once trivializing it by slapping or swatting me, and never once doing it without telling me that they loved me and making that clear to me through the tears in their eyes. I know it's trite to say, "This hurts me more than it hurts you," and I don't recall my parents ever having said that, but it certainly would have applied to their actions towards me. Any punishments of this sort need to be given out of true love and concern for the wellbeing of the child. Anything else is simply inexcusable.

    32. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This guy will lose friends, respect, his job, and his entire career.

      I don't think you understand Texas.

    33. Re:Excuses by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      But don't jump to conclusions too lightly, even emotional abuse without any physical harm can scar people for life.

      Not to be flip, but actually, our emotions are under our *own* control, not others. No matter what other people do to you emotionally, it is *always* a choice of yours on how to react. I'm not denying that emotional neglect and abuse happens, but the greatest gift I was ever able to give myself was the realization that no matter what other people did, *I* got to choose how to react to it. It's not an easy realization, but it's a true one, and I found that given the choice, I choose to be happy rather than upset, and I choose to be empowered rather than victimized. A book that helped me get there was called "Open Heart, Clear Mind" by Thubten Chodron, and I highly suggest it.

      My best wishes to you, your siblings, and the other guy on finding serenity. My current observations of Hillary thus far, both in the press and the video, show vengeance, not serenity, and I hope both her, her father and her mother find their way out of the other end of this one. Rather than escaping from the cycle of negative emotion, it seems that she's only further perpetuated it in her own heart.

      I don't condone what my parents did to me, but I do forgive them, and have realized that my inner peace is up to me, not anyone else. The lesson I've taken away has been that negative emotion can only be defeated by love and compassion, and I hope the players in this current drama can learn that eventually too.

    34. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's not a horrible person. She was abused her entire life and suffers from cerebral palsy. Her father is a monster and her mother is an enabler of abuse.

    35. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did all the abuse make you a retard, or were you born that way?

    36. Re:Excuses by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      It very well may be that only those who have been *really* abused can look at this video and not be shocked - I don't doubt that at all, in fact. But honestly, you've got a weak man weakly beating up on his rebellious daughter because he can't figure his own anger out, an obedient wife who goes along with the gag even though she must know in her heart she's married to a wimp who didn't have the balls to just *take the damn computer away*, and a daughter who sets up her little candid camera with visions of cold vengeance in her head (a daughter who could probably have beaten the shit out of her own father if she wanted to).

      In the end, the girl got her vengeance, the father got his moment to feel like a man beating up on a 16 year old girl, and the mother got to feel like a devout and godly obedient wife. All three of them suck. Take away lessons:

      1) a real mother doesn't let their husband/boyfriend beat on their kids
      2) a real man doesn't beat their kids
      3) vengeance, while definitely a dish best served cold, is only a perpetuation of a continuing cycle of negative emotion

      Real world implications:

      1) if your man is beating on your kids, divorce him, break up with him, and get the kids away from him;
      2) if you're beating on your kids, stop - there are *plenty* of punishments that can be used to discipline kids without beating them, and frankly, they're a lot more effective. Take the computer out back and smash it to bits with a baseball bat if you have to express some inner violence, but leave the belt down;
      3) if you're getting beaten by crappy parents, get out - find relatives, or friends that can help you through that rough patch if you can; no matter what, though, understand that your parents are messed up not just because they're beating on you, but because they're filled with negativity, and *vow* to yourself that you won't follow in those footsteps (even if its a different *form* of negativity).

    37. Re:Excuses by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I think you misdiagnose the real damage actually - it's not fear or terroristic threats (her dramatic reactions during the encounter, compared to her cool demeanor afterwards shows a distinct lack of fear), the real damage is the *example* that her parents gave her. Her parents taught her, with that beating and whatever other beatings she may have had, that anger, hatred, and frustration can be blamed on *others*, and that taking action against others is a rational and normal course of action. The father and the mother were frustrated with their daughter, blamed her for their internal anger and hatred, and took action against her. Seven years later, the daughter was frustrated with the father and mother, blamed them for her internal anger and hatred, and took action against them.

      The fruit didn't fall all too far from the tree.

    38. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you, thank you for the best wishes, and the same to you.

      Emotions are only partially under our own control, they are influenced by others, that's part of what it means to be a social animal. How strong we are influenced by others may differ from person to person, and speaking for myself, I've found the influence is, and always has been, much stronger than I was willing to accept when I was younger. I have developed my defences, have developed my techniques to influence my mood and feel good, but I have also discovered that up until fairly recently I put an awful lot of energy in just keeping the balance on the positive side, how much only became clear when it stopped being a struggle.

      You are right that your inner peace is up to you and no-one else, I came to that insight about 25 years ago. It is the key to the way out of the mess, but it can still be a very long road (but a rewarding one, the quality of my life only improves with age). Hillary is just 23 years old, younger than I was when I started heading in the right direction. I think it is far too early for any conclusions about how she may or may not handle it in the future, even for people who know her well, which we don't.

    39. Re:Excuses by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong AC, I'm not condoning anything here - I'm simply adding perspective. The judge is a weak man, the wife is a weak woman, and the daughter learned from her parents that internal frustration and anger can and should be retaliated against. I judge them *all* to be in error.

      I'm glad you had a good childhood, and parents that were intelligent enough to discipline you effectively without teaching you lessons of hatred and anger. But you've got to know that this video and its contents are a far cry from real, honest-to-god-fear-for-your-life-and-physical-well-being beatings that a tragically large number of people have gone through during their childhood. This whole drama is an exposition of how people externalize the causes of their own personal frustrations, and take it out on others - and *that* is the real problem here.

      Imagine for a moment the same scene, with the same verbal abuse, but no beating - just yelling. The anger lesson is still being taught. Imagine for a moment the same scene, without the verbal abuse, but *just* beating. Now a slightly different anger lesson is being taught (possibly with a touch of sociopathy). In any of those cases, including the one shown in the video, the *wrong* lesson is being taught, and the daughter's long hoarded vengeance shows that she learned that lesson well enough to emulate it, albeit in a different mode.

    40. Re:Excuses by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Any abused child has two choices, even if they don't realize it:

      1) they can be a victim, and learn the hatred lessons taught by their parents;
      2) they can break the cycle, and refuse to give into hatred and anger, in any of its forms

      In this case, you've got parents teaching the wrong lesson, and unfortunately a daughter who couldn't break the cycle. I wish them all the best for coming to terms with their angers in the future, but I must say it's probably a lot harder than any of them can imagine.

    41. Re:Excuses by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And that's what everyone is missing. They think she is a spoiled brat blackmailing him for cutting her off. As you said from all appearances that car was her only transport. Given that's she got palsy she's probably very limited in what kind of transportation she can use. Although it doesn't excuse the fact that she should get her own transportation he's clearly using it as a form of control. He probably gave it to her with the intent to use it to control her, when she failed to do whatever it was he wanted he'd yank the chain and try to force her to obey. I'm willing to bet up to this point he's exerted immense influence over her and her life.

      He needs serious help in the form of counseling, and I dare say she does as well because I really don't think this was an adult response to the situation.

    42. Re:Excuses by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 2

      Nope. She's posted about it elsewhere, but basically, she saved the video in order to blackmail him. Fast forward to a week ago, and he threatens to stop allowing her to borrow his Mercedes. So she posts the video in response. They're both horrible people: the judge for beating his daughter, and the girl for blackmailing him over it. If she wanted him punished, she had the chance. She didn't. She wanted money from him.

      Devil's advocate... as the victim of physical abuse, why shouldn't she have a say what form her retaliation should take? Specifically, what makes her a horrible person just because she decided his abuse of her should have financial penalty that directly benefits her? Given she likely doesn't fear continued physical abuse and given he's not likely to physically abuse other people, imprisonment wouldn't be worthwhile. A nice steep fine, perhaps? With perhaps her as the beneficiary as the aggrieved party? Blackmail, sue... what's the difference in this case, except that this way is simpler for all parties involved and lawyers don't need to get rich parasitically?

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    43. Re:Excuses by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I somehow missed that. Honestly; wow. I really feel no sympathy for the girl anymore after reading her dads statement, as it made a whole hell of a lot more sense than how she tried to justifying the timing.

      I had a lot of sympathy for her on account of her cerebral palsy, but if she's as functional as she appears on tv and according to her dad, then she's really not disabled enough to merit being funded by her father and given cars the rest of her life while she works at gamestop.

    44. Re:Excuses by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Emotions are only partially under our own control, they are influenced by others, that's part of what it means to be a social animal.

      I respectfully disagree - the illusion is that they are only partially under our control. The reality is that our emotions are completely under our control, and breaking through the illusion, as hard as it is, gives us great power and peace. I'll leave with this quote from "Open Heart, Clear Mind":

      "We often get angry when something we consider undesirable happens. But what use is this anger? If we can change the situation, then let's go ahead and do it. There's no need to be angry. It's very useful to think like this when confronted with social problems and injustice. They can be changed, so rather than be angry, it's wiser to work calmly to improve the society.

      On the other hand, if the situation can't be changed, anger is equally useless. Once our leg is broken, we can't unbreak it. All of the corruption in the world can't be solved in a year. Getting angry at something we can't alter makes us miserable. Worrying about or fearing something that hasn't happened immobilizes us. Shantideva sad in A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life:

      Why be unhappy about something
      If it can be remedied?
      And what is the use of being unhappy about something
      If it cannot be remedied?"

    45. Re:Excuses by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I don't think her releasing the video now really has much point, although I wont condemn her for it.

      I think you're right, but because of that, I do...well, not *condemn*, but certainly disapprove of Hillary's continuation of the cycle of anger and hatred. She learned the lesson of lashing out at things that frustrate you from her parents, when she should've taken their example as a display of what *not* to do.

      The happy ending to this story is still a long way off, if it exists at all.

    46. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      @lanner, I agree with you totally on every point.

      This judge perfectly fits the psychological profile of an aggressive Narcissist (as in a Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)). They are basically bullies seeking to control others and they want other people to see they have power over everyone around them. But then that psychological profile perfectly fits the job of being a judge. It doesn't mean all judges are Narcissists, but certainly, many Narcissists would love to have the power (and powerful social status) of being a judge, so its not at all surprising to find a Narcissist wanting to become a judge (and he most definitely isn't the only NPD judge).

      I think part of the problem of dealing with Narcissists and stopping their abuse (and stopping them getting into positions of power over others so they can extend their ability to abuse much of society); is that the problem is unfortunately, most people wouldn't understand the significance of when you said about he used that car as a tool to control. Most people have not experienced the extent of relentless manipulative devious brutality of Narcissists, as they seek every way they can to gain and maintain control and they are very adept liars, so this too prevents people finally learning the truth about Narcissists.

      So I very much hope technology helps expose many more Narcissists. They need to be stopped and punished and everyone needs to see and learn about these arrogant evil people for what they really are. Exposure will undermine them like never before in history. Their abusive behavior has to be collectively exposed and punished by society and they fear this. Its why they seek to keep what they do so often secret. Also the irony of their arrogant persona is that they are fearful of not being in control of others, so its time we all threw them out of control of everyone. That is their Achilles heel, so to speak. They need to be stopped, but that can't happen whilst most people don't know about them and get lied to about them. Technology can help like never before to stop them and expose the truth.

      Good on her for standing up to the guy.

    47. Re:Excuses by vakuona · · Score: 0

      Let me start by reiterating that I I think he went over the top, and his behaviour (in beating her) was not only unjustified, but ultimately unhelpful and possibly (almost surely) damaging to her, and he shouldn't have done what he did.

      However she did threaten to release the video before she released it. She even said it herself, on video. It makes sense that someone would use that as a weapon to blackmail him. Of course she has corroborated the blackmail bit, but their stories are quite consistent (even if they disagree on many points). She also seemed particularly displeased that he called her bluff about publishing the video.

      He is not treating his daughter as a child in adulthood. He is actually treating her as an adult by making her responsible for her own well-being. If she decides she wants to work part time and not finish her college degree, then she should face the consequences of doing so, including a reduction in her income. At 23, no one should expect to be provided for by their parents. She cannot expect her father to bankroll her life choices. The evidence is that her father was supporting her until she was 23, then realised that she wasn't taking responsibility. Removing her privileges forces her to face up to her choices.

    48. Re:Excuses by sjames · · Score: 1

      Mostly I was pointing out the (appearance of) natural justice of the judge's current situation. He may well be reaping what he has sown.

    49. Re:Excuses by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Ah, well, then I agree with you even more.

    50. Re:Excuses by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      So sad that your attitude appears to be to brag about how bad you were abused, and to dismiss others abuse because it wasn't as severe as yours. By that token, I suppose I should just call you a whiny little bitch, since your abuse only results in 30 minutes of crying. That's nothing...soldiers in war are captured and sometimes abused for months on end (and in ways certainly much worse than you experienced), resulting in YEARS of them crying about it. You getting slapped around a couple times is NOTHING compared to what they go through, so boo hoo to you.

    51. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in this town and yes, he did pull financial support and this is retaliation on her part.. No, this is not a beating. It is a spanking. The judge is a prick, but he doesn't deserve this. She was illegally downloading music and she was told not to. Then she setup a camera and basically told on herself to set this all up. She planned on releasing this years ago and stopped when she did the math and realized it might impact her social life and that him losing his job might impact the money she got from him. She even said as much in the Today show interview.

      Now if you want to look into the Judge, start asking about the IT person he hired that stole drugs out of the county evidence locker. However, this is a family matter that blew up because a girl manipulated reddit readers into doing her dirty work. Bravo Innermets! You are heros.

    52. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the video again, then consider this:
      That man sits in a court and makes judgements over what whould be considered right and wrong in this society.
      The girl might be damaged goods but the judge is a menace to society and if he isn't stopped his moral compass will be used to determine the fate of others.

    53. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abuse survivor here. I'm in my mid 30s now, male. I've not seen or heard from my parents/step-parents since I was fifteen years old. One of the best things I ever did in life.

      Blackmail was not involved here, as far as I can tell. I never read anything about that. She never threatened to release the video; she just did it. I would bet sacks full of money that she never let anyone else know about that video, out of fear of being abused further. It doesn't even make sense that she would try to use it as a control mechanism against him. Even if she did,.... uh... good for her.

      Note in the articles how the farther took back a car, thus depriving her of the ability to get around. It was never a gift to her. It was a tool to use as control, and when he wanted to control her further, he yanked the chain. This is a twenty year old we are talking about here, not a child. Even in adulthood, he treats his daughter as something that needs to be controlled.

      This guy will lose friends, respect, his job, and his entire career. I'd say that's pretty fair. I don't have any sympathy for him and very little for the mother.

      As for the feds, they should not be involved in any way, no duh.

      As for charges, unfortunately, she sat on this too long. Fear can really paralyze and control you. Again, no duh.

      All very good points!
      My fave...even if she did it to get back at him good for her.

    54. Re:Excuses by IronSight · · Score: 1

      I went through something similar, though my father was a single parent (mother left father from physical violence but married a child molester instead so couldn't keep us, so both were pretty horrid parents), and it started with beatings (getting slammed against walls, punched, whipped with belts, sticks, thrown down stairs, malnourishment, smashing or selling possessions), then moved to sexual abuse to my 13 year old sister. Now that I am a father, I respect my own children that punishments are usually along the lines of a long talk about the issues at hand, what the real problem is, and how we can fix it. Though I daily have to fight my own internal rage from my own childhood and the temptation to just hit my sons can get high with aggravation of different situations, but I fight it and win. The problem is the abusers forget the pain over time and think it's alright to just go crazy on their children. That's what I see in this man, is someone who himself was abused severely by some drunk dad or something along those lines and was brainwashed to believe that it was OK for their parents to do that because of things like, "The bible says it's OK". Or "my daddy did it to me, and look, I'm a judge now, so it must have been good". Or "I got beat because I deserved it". All classic things that abusers use to make their children think that it is their fault their parents are raging lunatics. I do believe though that if she really wanted to do something, she should have ASAP. BUT true abusers can brainwash these kids into thinking nothing will happen if they step forward, that every child on the planet gets treated like that, and that the parents are being abused by the children first. In the end, leaving the abused to think that they might as well forget raising any charges because it will just anger their parent(s) more and if they lose the case they will just get abused more by said parent(s). In the end fear is a powerful weapon.

    55. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's reaping what he sowed, sure, but she's a 23-year-old monster and while I am sure she would blame her parents, now that she's an adult, it's really her own fault it's continued.

    56. Re:Excuses by icqraid · · Score: 2

      I read an article in which the judge had made a decent amount of comments regarding the past couple of weeks events. I'm guessing it was the three page article from the Associated Press. I could tell in his speech that he never learned to give up control. In my opinion his language was that of someone that is still controlling. I would have hoped he would have stopped his abusing lifestyle, but I don't believe he has.

    57. Re:Excuses by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      She's a bad person because she was raised by an evil person who beats his children. Faults in the children often reflect failings of the parents.

    58. Re:Excuses by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      So, a girl who with cerebral palsy and who was 16 at the time was whipped by her father - and you think she's a "horrible person" for blackmailing him about it?

      For fuck's sake, she was 16 years old then, is 23 now, and was raised in an obviously abusive household while he is a motherfucking federal judge and you think they're *equally bad*? Are you impaired?

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    59. Re:Excuses by jd · · Score: 2

      The flaw is to think that exactly one person is 100% to blame and that no other division of responsibility is possible.

      If you bought a used car that was defective at time of manufacture and it still had the same fault, you'd blame the previous owner for not fixing it but you'd not hold the manufacturer blameless either. They created the problem, the fact that nobody fixed it doesn't change that. If you prefer a different example, if you throw a stone into the water, the stone only directly creates the first ripple but you would not then claim that each ripple out had nothing to do with the stone. That would be daft.

      Yes, she's an adult which means that some percentage of the responsibility shifts onto her. Unlike the car or the ripple, she has some measure of independent thought. Not necessarily a normal adult's level - she's what psychologists call an "adult child", in part because of her disability and in part because an abusive background stunts mental growth.

      My philosophy is that placing responsibility on one person and one person alone on almost anything is merely a way the members of society can avoid ever having to address underlying causes. the "one bad apple" theory simply doesn't hold up, IMHO. If you prefer a programming example, a segfault rarely occurs where the actual bug appears. It's normally the result of a bug somewhere else. Blaming that part of the code and/or trying to fix the wrong bit will bypass that one visible occurrence but it won't fix the problem itself.

      In this case, I'd say that the father is 45% responsible, the daughter is 45% responsible and the mother is 10% responsible.

      The father essentially brainwashed his daughter into being defective, the mother was compliant with this (knowing full well that it was criminal) and the daughter did nothing to remedy the defects later. In fairness to the mother, she was also brainwashed. The household apparently followed a typical cult mentality with the father being the cult leader. Cults are extremely hard to go against. However, it's not impossible and she earns a token responsibility for not doing so.

      The daughter, again by being indoctrinated into a cult, isn't fully culpable. This is actually the law these days. I'm sure you remember from the Beltway Smiper case the references to the Triggerman Theory, where the brainwasher IS legally liable for the actions of those they brainwash. She snapped, in this case, and retaliated rather than being ordered to blackmail, but I don't consider mere orders to be a valid stopping point. It doesn't matter, in the end, if the person pushing the dominoes actually orders the last one to topple. It will fall because the first one fell because that's what dominoes do. She's not devoid of responsibility but she's not 100% responsible either.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    60. Re:Excuses by Nerdorable · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make extortion that occurred recently (for which the statute of limitations has not expired) any more excusable, if there is any truth to the judge's claim.

    61. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming the dad's statement is true. It's very possible that he's lying at some level. If you can't defend yourself on the merits of a question, make up some reason to attack your accuser. Works like a charm.

    62. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's over 18. If she doesn't like it, she needs to leave and be on her own. Blaming someone else when you are an adult doesn't make any sense to me. It won't change anything. We can't take responsibility for someone else's actions, but as an adult, we can take responsibility for ourselves.

      She needs to move out and make her own way in life. She's 23. Grow up and stop depending on mommy and daddy.

      My father was a control freak too - for exactly as long as I was getting money from him. When he stopped paying, he stopped demanding anything. Oh, he still demanded, I just stopped listening.

    63. Re:Excuses by cffrost · · Score: 1

      you reap what you sow

      If you sowed that cocksucker's fetid corpse in your field, you'd likely reap some fungicide-resistant carcinogenic slime-mold, plus a couple Monsanto C&D Fun Packs in your mailbox.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    64. Re:Excuses by Zironic · · Score: 1

      Well, considering that he's the one responsible for raising her, any character fault of hers is his failure.

    65. Re:Excuses by BobSutan · · Score: 0

      Agreed. She's 23 for fucks sake! Time for the little princess to stop mooching off daddy and get her ass a J-O-B. Notice that she wasn't too butthurt over the asswhooping to take his money and borrow his car, but once that stopped now he's the bad guy. Riiiight. The guy isn't winning any popularity contests with the beatdown, and yes I think it was excessive, but this whole thing smacks of sour grapes and entitlement mentality on the girl's part.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    66. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha, so you think this is basically her fault...? Where the hell do you think she learned to be a rotten human being?

    67. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unsure if your statement is as offensive as it reads or if you write poorly. More inclined to believe it is the latter.

    68. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the same local coward from the post you responded to.

      Blackmail was not involved here, as far as I can tell. I never read anything about that. She never threatened to release the video; she just did it.

      She says she threatened to release the video in the Today show interview and in several other media outlets. She specifically used reddit to cause maximum damage.

      As for charges, unfortunately, she sat on this too long. Fear can really paralyze and control you. Again, no duh.

      The state of Texas says there would have been no charges to file in any case. No crime was committed.

      Note in the articles how the farther took back a car, thus depriving her of the ability to get around. It was never a gift to her. It was a tool to use as control, and when he wanted to control her further, he yanked the chain. This is a twenty year old we are talking about here, not a child. Even in adulthood, he treats his daughter as something that needs to be controlled.

      Sure, lots of parents do this. We aren't skewering them for it. There is no law against being an asshole. Unfortunately.

      I would bet sacks full of money that she never let anyone else know about that video, out of fear of being abused further. It doesn't even make sense that she would try to use it as a control mechanism against him. Even if she did,.... uh... good for her.

      I would be taking sacks full of money from you. She told her friends and showed it to people before.

    69. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing to do with the girl. If she's a horrible person, I'm sure it was in large part due to terrible parenting. But that's besides the point. That piece of shit should be punished for what he did, and never be allowed to practice law again.

    70. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he was promising her all along financial support so she would keep this secret from others... Now that she finds out that all along he was telling her how he was going to give her all this money turned out to be a lie, she was fed up and told the truth.

      Would be interesting for someone to get in contact with this girl and hear more of her side of the story.

    71. Re:Excuses by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Also, just to make things much better, this is a family court judge. So he might be ruling on matters of abuse in families. I wonder how many abuse cases were tossed out by him because he thinks beating a disabled girl for 7 minutes with a belt is normal.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    72. Re:Excuses by syousef · · Score: 1

      Gotta agree with the AC - I've been beat before, and while it looked like this man was putting his heart into it, he looked like an out of shape skinny punk compared to the whippings I got as a child. When a beating was finished in my household, the crying didn't stop for 30 minutes, and you'd be lucky if you weren't limping afterwards. If the video had shown her inconsolable for 20 minutes after the beating, hardly able to move because of the pain, I'd be more inclined to feel some sympathy for her.

      This is one repeated pattern I see in a lot of people who claim they were beaten as a child and it did them no harm. They are incapable of sympathy/empathy and are far more desensitised to violence than any video game player who gets a bit too far into it. You have been harmed, but you seem to see or admit it.

          As it was, she had a dick father, and a dick mother, but as soon as they got out of the room, she was cool as a cucumber, walking around like the beating was nothing to her.

      Now be clear, even if you're a wimp with a belt and can't give a 16 year old enough of a smack down to keep them crying for 30 minutes, you shouldn't be beating your kid - it's stupid and unproductive. But this was definitely "gotcha" videography on the part of the kid. The whole family is rotten, and frankly, I'm most appalled by the mother - the fact that she was cool with it as an observer (although I think she got one lick in too) was chilling.

      She is the product of that upbringing. With that kind of example set for the child, do you expect her to grow up and being a wonderful person? It takes a remarkable amount of determination and reflection for a person coming out of that sort of home not to be completely messed up, and we are talking about a girl with a mental disability here. Blaming her and calling her rotten too is WAY over the top.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    73. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I somehow missed that. Honestly; wow. I really feel no sympathy for the girl anymore after reading her dads statement, as it made a whole hell of a lot more sense than how she tried to justifying the timing.

      Unless you're saying the video was fabricated with at stand in looking like her father, I don't see how the reasons for releasing the evidence has any influence on the severity of the crime (around here, what he did would be a crime), or the sympathy for the victim with regards to the original crime.

    74. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to go re-read the definition of blackmail you idiot.

    75. Re:Excuses by Syberz · · Score: 1

      He's a lawyer, his job is to lead your attention to something irrelevant so that you forget what the real issue is; barring that, he's trying to shift the blame onto the victim. Essentially, he's jiggling his keys so that we focus on the shiny instead instead of the fact that he beat his daughter.

      As your comment demonstrates, it ain't working.

      --
      ~Syberz
    76. Re:Excuses by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      They're both horrible people: the judge for beating his daughter, and the girl for blackmailing him over it.
      If she wanted him punished, she had the chance. She didn't. She wanted money from him.


      Maybe she would have turned out different if her shithead dad hadn't abused her...

    77. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your courageous post.

    78. Re:Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. She's posted about it elsewhere, but basically, she saved the video in order to blackmail him. Fast forward to a week ago, and he threatens to stop allowing her to borrow his Mercedes. So she posts the video in response.

      They're both horrible people: the judge for beating his daughter, and the girl for blackmailing him over it.

      EIther way, it's pretty fucking hot, especially when her mom joins in. Wish she'd pointed the camera more at the bed. And the lighting was better.

    79. Re:Excuses by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      Here is the judge offering to sell her the car.
      http://twitter.com/#!/shoeofallcosmos/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2FF1MKmzBG

      here is the judge threatening to report the car stolen when she gets another job to pony up the cash.
      http://twitter.com/#!/shoeofallcosmos/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2FN5egyjaW

    80. Re:Excuses by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      here's the judge offering to sell her the car
      http://twitter.com/#!/shoeofallcosmos/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2FF1MKmzBG

      and then here's the judge threatening to report the car stolen when she tells him she got another job to pony up the cash.
      http://twitter.com/#!/shoeofallcosmos/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2FN5egyjaW

    81. Re:Excuses by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      yeah, and, so, what?

      I would applaud anyone shooting him the face -- how could I be upset by him being blackmailed?

    82. Re:Excuses by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      This is one repeated pattern I see in a lot of people who claim they were beaten as a child and it did them no harm. They are incapable of sympathy/empathy and are far more desensitised to violence than any video game player who gets a bit too far into it.

      I suppose it could go the other way too for people who weren't beaten as children - they are oversensitive to any display of conflict, and interpret any sort of raised voice as just as violent as a full on beat down. Personal experience with being beaten, and having *real* harm done to you, gives you a perspective that is distinctly different than someone who has had nothing but flowers and roses in their life. Not all beatings are of the same magnitude, and the video shows something mild compared to the reality many children have to endure every day.

      Blaming her and calling her rotten too is WAY over the top.

      I call it like it is. She had crappy parents, and instead of making the decision to be different, she learned the same lessons of hate, anger and vengeance. In the end, no matter what the world does to you, *you* are responsible for the choices you make - otherwise, why not just blame the guy who beat the father, and the father before him, and the father before him, ad infinitum? It's easy to blame others.

    83. Re:Excuses by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      My point exactly - people seem to be so oversensitive to this video, when compared to *real* violence (be it anywhere from a severe beating by a parent, to being tortured as a POW), that they lump them all together - they're as different as night and day.

      I'm arguing here that on the scale of abuse, this was minor. It showed more about the emotional problems this family had than anything regarding physical violence, and sadly enough, the daughter learned a lesson of vengeance she held onto for seven years, instead of making better choices than her parents. Those people that want to make it out like she was some kind of tortured POW are completely out of line.

      And yes, if you were captured in war, and tortured for months on end, I'll freely admit you've gone through way worse, and that I've got no right to compare my suffering to yours (and you'll note, I never did compare my suffering to that kind of suffering).

      On the other hand, if you're just talking out of your hat because you know *theoretically* there are tortured soldiers out there, and your life has been one peachy keen rainbow, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on - you've got no right to talk on their behalf if you haven't been there yourself.

  13. Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitations by devleopard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's a bad person, to say the least. However, the state's statute of limitations expired, and the federal prosecutors could find no *federal* laws being broken. (Keep in mind which crimes are state, which are federal) To do otherwise would be to violate the legal system, no matter what you feel.

    --
    The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
  14. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    He was applying his God given and government affirmed right to discipline his child after she thwarted his authority on numerous occasions and risked the financial security of their home.

  15. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol, "God given"

  16. The whole summary is incredibly biased. by Artifakt · · Score: 1

    The claim is that the federal government wont prosecute this possible crime. Of course not. What FEDERAL law has he violated? Even if he murdered his 16 year old daughter, it would be a crime under Texas law, not a federal crime. Hey, I'll bet the governments of Bali, New Zealand, and Monaco don't want to prosecute this judge for beating his kid either. Now there may be a real issue as to why Texas hasn't done anything...

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
    1. Re:The whole summary is incredibly biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law of the land trumps the individual state laws. It is illegal to beat a child in the USA irrespective of the state, city, county or town local laws. Wasn't so hard to grasp was it?

    2. Re:The whole summary is incredibly biased. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I think the suggestion is that by beating his child he'd be in violation of the terms of employment that judges have to meet to be allowed to serve.

      Allowing people that are known to have engaged in domestic violence on the bench would set a disastrous precedence for future judicial proceedings.

    3. Re:The whole summary is incredibly biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been posted so many times: there is a 5-year statue of limitations for breaking Texas state laws on injury to children.

    4. Re:The whole summary is incredibly biased. by SEE · · Score: 1

      Which still has nothing to do with the federal government. He's a state judge, and the only Federal requirement of his job is that he take an oath to the US Constitution.

    5. Re:The whole summary is incredibly biased. by SEE · · Score: 1

      Only in areas where the Federal Government has authority to legislate. Gonna argue that this was an instance of interstate commerce?

    6. Re:The whole summary is incredibly biased. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Now there may be a real issue as to why Texas hasn't done anything...

      From what another commenter said, the statute of limitations has passed. If she wanted him prosecuted for it, she waited too long to post the video.

    7. Re:The whole summary is incredibly biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The claim is that the federal government wont prosecute this possible crime. Of course not. What FEDERAL law has he violated? Even if he murdered his 16 year old daughter, it would be a crime under Texas law, not a federal crime. Hey, I'll bet the governments of Bali, New Zealand, and Monaco don't want to prosecute this judge for beating his kid either. Now there may be a real issue as to why Texas hasn't done anything...

      Wow, you don't know what "biased" means. Good for you.

  17. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Her pants were not filled after this session, so it must not have been to the point of hyperbole that you employed.

  18. Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I really believe that if this happened to a regular Joe Schmoe, the prosecutors would have found something - anything, no matter how thin and tenuous to charge the guy with because they want to build their political or legal career.

    But because it's a judge, they just threw up their hands and said, "Statute of Limitations. Oh well! Can't do anything."

    1. Re:Whatever. by jd · · Score: 1

      You're probably right, officials get a lot of cover. In this case, especially when it comes to Texas, as that has some marginals up for election next year and nobody is going to want to take on the risk of prosecuting him. Everyone had to look, as it would be damaging not to, but nobody could do anything after.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  19. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by houghi · · Score: 1

    If he is liable for her crimes, should not HE be the one that gets the beating? I hope the MAFIAA sees this and sues the hell out of him. He admitted that a minor, for which he is legally liable, downloaded the stuff.

    OTOH they probably do not want to bite the hand that feeds them.
    OTOH they are stupid enough to do just that.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  20. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Correct, nothing to prosecute.

    But you don't need to be convicted of a crime to lose your job and your social standing. People have lost far more for far less.

  21. MAFIAA: sue him! by houghi · · Score: 1

    for downloading music when she was 16

    he should be sued because they downloaded music. They do not stop for people who never downloaded, so this should be a REAL case where he admitted they downloaded illegal music.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:MAFIAA: sue him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary; who says the RIAA didn't send him flowers and a box of chocolates for taking copyright infringement seriously?

      No kidding, and this is carefully kept out of the Mainstream Media: Daddy was lashing the child for copyright infringement by means of downloading copyrighted material on the Internet or in his words "stealing". That's what "copying == stealing" leads to, and that aspect is being hushed up.

    2. Re:MAFIAA: sue him! by vakuona · · Score: 1

      He didn't download illegal music. His child did. If the RIAA want to sue, they should sue the daughter. It's blatantly obvious that this disturbed man was against downloading music illegally.

    3. Re:MAFIAA: sue him! by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Mainstream Media is carefully covering up the biggest story, copyright infringement, and instead focusing on the lesser evil, battery against a 16-year-old suffering from ataxic cerebral palsy.

    4. Re:MAFIAA: sue him! by Pitr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She was a minor at the time, so it's on his dime.

      --

      --Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
    5. Re:MAFIAA: sue him! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      He didn't download illegal music. His child did.

      That one doesn't work. Tell that to the judge. Oh, wait.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:MAFIAA: sue him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Downloading music and games allegedly not available for purchase at the time thus quite possibly it was from the public domain. "Illegal" is a claim the media made up because Kazaa was involved.

  22. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    The law doesn't say that he should/may receive a 'beating' for the crime of illegally downloading music. The much discussed repercussion/consequence of that crime results in the MAFIAA suing you into financial submission rather than physical.

  23. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to what I found on http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/methods/removal_of_judges.cfm?state=tx a Texas judge may be removed in the following ways.

    Methods of Judicial Selection: Texas
    Removal of Judges
    Texas judges may be removed in one of four ways:

            The state commission on judicial conduct investigates, and if warranted, prosecutes allegations of misconduct by Texas judges. Upon a commission recommendation of removal or retirement, the supreme court selects a review tribunal from among court of appeals judges to verify the findings and enter a judgment. Judges may appeal decisions of the review tribunal to the supreme court.

            Judges may be removed by the governor on the address of two thirds of the house and senate.

            Judges may be impeached by the house of representatives and removed by two thirds of the senate.

            The supreme court may remove district court judges from office.

  24. Vigilantism by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    It would not surprise me in the least if someone took some form of personal justice on the man. Probably nothing major, but you can't show something like that to the entire internet without stirring someone into action.

    1. Re:Vigilantism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Operation DoxTheJudge Judge William Adams

      TRANSCRIPT
      __________________________

      Greetings, Judge Adams.
      We are Anonymous.

      Your recent actions have been atrocious, unjust, and as an individual who represents families in judicial disputes, we expected more of you. We have witnessed you mercilessly beating your own disabled daughter for simply "browsing the internet or downloading music". We are outraged. Such aggression against a child will not stand, especially by someone who has assumed the duty to protect families. However, how ironic it is that this leak was not made by the discerning public, but from the victim: your own daughter. The heartless beating of another human being, especially the one of a child is a terrible crime that will not go unnoticed.

      To speculate the least, you yourself know as a parent that she has a disability, and given that she was of such a young age, her understanding may not be as 'advanced' as your own. However, as human beings, we have evolved NOT to abuse and incite violence, but to understand and learn. You clearly represent the intelligence of a neanderthal and as such, you deserve to be treated like the brute that you are. You may have seen your actions justified, but to a young girl, she does not understand the nature of your aggression.Your actions show you to be terrible parent, an abhorrent human being, and as such you deserve to be outcast by the society that respects and abides by your final word.

      Therefore, we have decided that you shall receive the full fury of Anonymous. We shall continue to wage war against you until you have paid the price for your reprehensible actions. We will not cease our attacks until you have done so. We demand a PUBLIC APOLOGY to both the people of Texas and to your daughter. Further, we demand your immediate resignation from the bar and retirement from any form of judiciary action or law enforcement.

      Should you choose to continue to assert that "it looks worse than it was", we shall continue our actions against you untill you see the abhorrent nature of your actions and comply with our demands.

      We protect the innocent.
      We fight for the oppressed.
      We shall avenge.
      Operation DoxTheJudge, engaged.

      We are Anonymous.
      We are Legion.
      We do not Forgive.
      We do not Forget.
      Expect us.

    2. Re:Vigilantism by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      A hacker group waging war against a man who doesn't even like to have a computer in the house.... I find this rather ironic.

    3. Re:Vigilantism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need inspiration?

      Rip the sound from the video and filter everything out except William Adams' voice then copy it to a portable playback device.
      Get a friend to operate a video camera and spank the guy while the portable playback device does the talking.
      Upload the video and get a couple of million hits.

    4. Re:Vigilantism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hacker group waging war against a man who doesn't even like to have a computer in the house.... I find this rather ironic.

      Poetic justice is poetic.

      The line about "fucking computers" sticks in my craw almost as the ones that suggest he's getting off on the beating.

      The beauty of this little dustup is that computers didn't bring the problems into the house. The problems were there before computers were invented. No doubt he doesn't realize this and never will.

      But I've got a big bucket of popcorn to keep me occupied as I watch the ensuing shitstorm of lulz.

      Remember, remember, this Fifth of November,
      4chan, Fark, Reddit, Slashdot.
      I see no reason this Judge's malfeasin'
      Should ever be forgot.

    5. Re:Vigilantism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would people please stop insulting neanderthals ?

    6. Re:Vigilantism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do not forgive. We do not forget. He should expect us, but he since he hates computers and the internet, he doesn't know anything about us. Excellent!

  25. Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know it is trendy & hip to not spank your children and I disagree with that -- I do spank my children on occasion and I can usually tell - from the behavior of other kids in their classes - which parents don't. All that being said, the guy in that video isn't spanking his daughter -- he has lost his temper and is just beating her. I mean, who screams "fuck" repeatedly when they are spanking their child? Plus, I think 16 is too old for corporal punishment -- honestly, the die is pretty much cast at that point. I think the fact that she released the tape 7 years later because he wouldn't pay her rent any more shows that she was already ... on a path that was different than what her Father wanted. PS -- Why wouldn't you just take the fucking computer, anyways?

    1. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't have to spank your kids to keep them in line. I was spanked a lot as a kid. Didn't want to finish my food, didn't want to go to bed, fighting with siblings (I was middle child. What older said was always right and younger was too young to know better, so always my fault), plus other random things. It didn't make me a better person, it made be a better lier and I stopped trusting my parents. I knew that if I went to them with a problem, there was a chance I would get in trouble and a chance I would be spanked. Out of habit at 25, I still barely talk with them. Spanking made me hate and distrust them. Also, it doesn't take too long to get used to it. It's not fun, but it's not too bad either.

      However when they took things away from me (no computer, no cartoons, no dessert, no toys) or sent me to my room, it was more "Why did I do that?" and I had to come up with something productive to do instead of sitting around bored. Spanking gave me the excuse to focus on my parents as the enemies, while non-physical punishment gave me no outlet except I did wrong.

    2. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the behaviour you notice, is that of a beaten dog. It is so nice that you find using strength and force an acceptable method of disciplining family.

      Don't be surprised when the aluminum baseball bat begin swinging your way in a few years.

      Your kids no longer respect you and will use you. If you examine, you know this to be true

    3. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. This family relationship degenerated into a power struggle, dad was losing it, and flailing to recover.

      As you say, just calmly remove the computer from the picture, but really you have to get that relationship there with the kid first. ...and yes, you do need to assert loving, calm control early on which may include occasional spanking as necessary.

    4. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You were spanked for the wrong reasons. There is a strict procedure for spanking that many parents don't follow. The first is set the reasons for it. I spank only for outright rebellion, willful lying, or gross disobedience. There are lots of other punishments I can use before I resort to spanking, thus I don't spank often. A simple warning is the first, then the timeout chair, then there is a loss of one or more of their many privileges (TV, games, toys, dessert, etc.). I don't use soap, cold showers, denial of a meal, or other items that some may try.

      Once a spanking condition is reached there is a procedure. I don't use any instruments, just my hand. And I only spank on their bottom. I don't spank when I am angry, and I don't spank in a spontaneous method. In spanking you are sending a message, not trying to hurt them. So spanking them many times is wrong. One good slap on the bottom gives a nice sting, doesn't bruise, and does the job effectively enough.

      You should do this in a private area. I do it in the bathroom. I CALMLY make them go in. Then I give them a talking before and after. They know the boudaries which can lead to spanking, and they know why and how they are being spanked. It takes a long time because of all the preliminary and post things that should be done.

      There's a book on Amazon called, "Dare to discipline". It talks about this procedure.

    5. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 16 is TOO OLD for corporal punishment. The younger the better when smacking your children.

      I honestly can't believe you said that. You're a sick fuck.

    6. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by log0n · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you're spanking your kids all it means is that you have failed in your role as a parent. Spanking means that you have nothing else, no other ideas. There's nothing hip & trendy or touchy-feely about it.

      re: behavior of other kids in the class.. I'll agree, there's a lot of extremely poor parenting out there. But smacking your kid to teach respect/authority is no better than having no discipline/consequences in order to be friends with your kid. In either case the parent took on the role of an abuser.

      Seeing as you've posted AC, I think on some level you know this. Don't make up BS about you not wanting your real ID to be associated with you spanking your kid.

    7. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Spanking makes sense for younger children since they can't be reasoned with. They understand pain and discomfort as something to fear, so they avoid it. However when you spank them you don't beat the fuck out of them with a belt and verbally abuse them. You just swat them a few times without causing injury to get the point across. Even some unruly 16 year olds that try to hit you or push you need to be restrained or slapped a few times, but this guy actually seemed to be enjoying or at least craving beating her with a belt. He went and got another one when the wife took the belt from him rather than let the few swats he already did stick. The daughter was sitting there crying and scared, and he kept at it. She wasn't trying to resist, nor was she being violent towards them. He could have just picked the computer up and stuck it in his closet or something. Lesson learned.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    8. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Completely agree. To repeat something I said elsewhere, I support corporal punishment, but not when it's anything that even remotely resembles what that video shows. I've talked to my parents about some of this over the years as questions about how I'll one day raise my own children have come up, and some of the things that I most remember about my punishments as a child were things that I later learned were entirely deliberate and intentional on their part.

      My parents did spank me as a child, but they made a point of never once doing it while angry, never once using it as a first resort, never once doing it before they had clearly explained to me what I had done wrong and making sure I understood (and they always gave me 10-30 minutes to think about it before discussing it with me), never once trivializing it by slapping or swatting me, and never once doing it without telling me that they loved me (and making that clear to me through the tears in their eyes). Aside from the obvious (at least to me) fact that they were acting out of love, the fact that I could always count on them to be reasonable is what made those spankings effective. There were a few times where my parents had me sit in a room in anticipation of being spanked, only to let me leave for one reason or another (e.g. it became evident that I was acting with a different motivation than they had ascribed to me, such as entering an off-limits area, not to misbehave, but rather to pull a wayward sibling out of harm's way).

      Any punishments of this sort need to be given out of true love and concern for the wellbeing of the child. Anything else is inexcusable and won't be effective since the child will recognize it for being what it is: unloving, unfair, inconsistent, or unreasonable. I was fortunate to have two loving parents who understood that. Not everyone is that fortunate.

    9. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by IICV · · Score: 0

      I know it is trendy & hip to not spank your children and I disagree with that -- I do spank my children on occasion and I can usually tell - from the behavior of other kids in their classes - which parents don't

      Sooo... do you recognize them by the bruises you see? Or maybe you're just too short-sighted to realize that there's other ways of teaching your child that don't involve resorting to violence?

    10. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      spanking is not meant to be a discipline but a means of getting their attention, If and when a spanking is required.. its done as a means to bring the child back to reality and should be followed up with an actual consequence. example:

      *spank child 2 -3 times with open hand*
      "Now that I have your attention, you are grounded for 1 week. No television or electronic games during that week"

    11. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can also tell which children are and are not spanked. The ones who spend their childhood in fear, the ones that cower whenever authority is near, the ones that follow every rule and request from an adult even if those requests and rules are plainly immoral. They're the ones that are spanked.

      The others, well, they're all over the map, because let loose, some people are just not good people, and some parents that don't spank are bad parents, too.

      But the ones that are spanked are always the ones who'll sit in the corner and stare at a wall when they're told to.

    12. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Kjella · · Score: 2

      If you're spanking your kids all it means is that you have failed in your role as a parent. Spanking means that you have nothing else, no other ideas. There's nothing hip & trendy or touchy-feely about it.

      I think in every child's life there comes a time when you have to test out "What if I just refuse?" In my case I was throwing a temper tantrum at the breakfast table. I was told to go to my room, I refused. They tried to drag me there, I resisted. Long story short it was the last resort because I rejected all other attempts at an amicable solution, and as far as I remember the only time. Remember that your parents are the only people that are legally obliged to deal with you, no matter how much of an asshole you act like. A job can fire you, a school expel you, friends abandon you, family disown you but the parents of a minor don't have a choice. No matter how much you're acting like the brat from hell they somehow have to make living with you work.

      Someone I know has a daughter who has "broke the code", so to speak. When all privileges have been revoked, she can just do anything because things like being grounded mean nothing to her. Even if her allowance is revoked she gets money for things she must have, then spends it on other things. Nothing she says can be be trusted, she'll say one thing but reality will be something completely different. Being a divorcee kid from a bad divorce doesn't help, she's real Machiavellian with her parents already and they won't talk to each other. I don't know, half the time I feel giving her a hard spanking would be a terrible thing to do and the other half I feel it'd be just what she needs. It should be a last resort, but if you are there I'm not really sure what's worse.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by cain · · Score: 1

      I know it is trendy & hip to not spank your children and I disagree with that -- I do spank my children on occasion and I can usually tell - from the behavior of other kids in their classes - which parents don't

      Confirmation bias.

    14. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's start at the beginning spanking a child is still beating a child. The fact that you, your friend or the rest of the country does it doesn't change the fact that it's the deliberate inflection of pain and suffering to attempt to modify behavior. Think about it for just a second. You'd beat a child who's brain is still developing and is susceptible to impulsive behavior but you stop as they start acquiring self control. How is that even remotely intelligent? It's not about fashion or liberal or conservative. It's about thinking. For crying out loud do some! Beatings adults is wrong except in self defense. Beating adolescents is wrong, except in self defense. How could it possibly be OK to beat an 8 year old girl or boy? They have no appeal, they cant defend themselves and they look to you for compassion but you reward them with a beating and BS like "this is hurting me more than it does you". Every single time I got a beating the only thing I felt was HATE and a burning desire for REVENGE. The last time I got beaten, at 13, I returned the favor with a 2x4; he never hit me or my bothers again. So, do the beatings stop because the child is too old or because they can give as good as they get? Spanking only demonstrates lack of self control, lack of discipline, lack of strength and lack of intelligence. Deal with it, you'd think twice about striking an adult but with a child you swing away. What does that make you? That's right, own it, it's who you are.

    15. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I can usually tell - from the behavior of other kids in their classes - which parents don't.

      Oh, me too. The worst behaved manipulators always belong to the spankers. The bullies always belong to he spankers. The cutting teens always belong to spankers.

      Spanking means you have conceded the point that your 3 year old is smarter than you. I can say less than one sentence to my 4 year old and stop any tears, even from real pain, or cause him to break down crying. If you can't control a child over the age of 2 with words only, you are too stupid to be a parent. You are just a temporary caregiver until they are 18, but never a parent.

      But I agree with your point that she's a bad child. But what do you expect? She was raised by a person so lazy, hateful, and uncaring that he hit his own children.

    16. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I know it is trendy & hip to not spank your children and I disagree with that"...
      I know it is trendy & hip to have children and I disagree with you being allowed to have them.

    17. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop using reasoning based on folk-behaviorism,, longitudinal study of 2,500 children, "those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were much more likely to be aggressive by age 5." Follow the link, it sums up what ever study testing your theory of child rearing has found for 50 years: corporal punishment only aggravates behavioral problems.

      Children whom experience physical punishment incorporate it as a socially acceptable reaction when they themselves want to settle the moral books. This has knock-on effects in adult-hood: neurons that fire together wire together. When the older self is overcome with anger over a moral wrong-doing, the networks connecting fear/anger/moral outrage will more strongly fire off with the networks involved with physical punishment -making it harder to hold back. Fights hurt, they are expensive, and they will show up on a background check whether or not the charges are dropped. Other than when one is physically endangered, it is never worth the costs associated with physical violence against another adult.

      Furthermore, parents whom engage their children in examination of the child's feelings are making the child cognizant of their emotions and are thus better able to modify them. You can't just stop all discipline and give the child fee license to do as they please, but corporal punishment doesn't do anything to help the child learn to control their own behavior.

    18. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never understood how anyone could purposefully hit their own child. Spanking is hitting, pure and simple. It teaches children that it's OK to use violence to control people. "not spanking" isn't hip and trendy, it's common sense. Hitting children is wrong, plain and simple.

      And if by saying you can tell which kids are spanked and which are not by their behavior, that's a crock. My kids constantly, _constantly_ get praised for their courteousness, for their always willing to participate, for always behaving. For every child you can find that behaves badly because they aren't spanked, I can show you two that behave badly because they are.

    19. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure can tell the difference between these two groups of kids. Those who suffer physical punishment by their parents usually will be shier, less self-confident and more likely to give in in any conflict. If that's what you want to achieve, go ahead.

    20. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Either you are not a parent, or you are a poor parent.
      If you buy into the 'never spank' crap from the 70's and 80's take a look at kids today and see how well it has worked. I see the most miserable little brats everywhere now. when I was a kid there were a couple 'Cartman' types.. now they seem to be 50% of the population. Whiny, spoiled, and with no self control at all.

      Training your children not to kill themselves or harm others is no different than training a animal. 'Carrot and stick' is the best approach. Stick with the carrots but sometimes pain is the only thing that can teach the lesson. dog trainers, horse trainers, and good parents who raise non-spoiled well adjusted children all use small amounts of pain to stop behavior that is unacceptable and dangerous.

      Now, this guy was totally over the line and it is disturbing that he is a judge. He just was beating her.

      But there is a place for a 'normal' spanking or slap on the hand.
      Child keeps trying to touch the fireplace? You scold them, you put them in timeout.. They still don't listen because they are little and can't remember shit?
      Then do you wait for them to get a life-long disfiguring burn?
      No.
      You catch them trying to mess with it again and you slap their hand and scold them. They do it again and you slap their hand and spank them.
        Guess what?
      They will connect touching the fireplace with pain. They will stop the behavior. Better than learning by getting burned.
      You can see it. They walk up to it and are about to touch it but STOP. The pain memory is stronger and 'lower level' than their curiosity and inability to remember the logic behind it.

      I have a low point in my basement. I whacked my on it something wicked after we moved in. I have never done it since. Every time I get close to that beam I can't help myself but to pause and look at the beam and make sure I don't whack my head on it again. The PAIN formed a strong instinctual memory that has since saved me from getting hurt again.

      You catch them hitting another child and stealing a toy? You tell them why it was wrong and you spank them. They then learn that the consequence for causing another pain is pain to themselves. The bad behavior stops. You also see this in their behavior. You can tell they are losing their temper and are about to hit another but they stop themselves. Not because of logic, but because that memory of the pain causes them to pause and stop the behavior before they even think as to why.

      The entire reason for the pain system of animals is to learn to stop doing things that hurt. This system is basic and instinctual. It is necessary to use this system of learning.

      Again, the guy was out of line, the girl was already 16.. It even seems kinda' pervy to me that he is doing this to a 16 year old girl... Screaming bend over... Pervy.

      And on top of that...
      We are not talking about slapping her hand away from a saw blade or anything... It was just a beating.
      But there is a place for corporal punishment for certain things at a certain age. Not whipping, not anything that would leave a mark..
      And absolutely not for something that was not going to cause them or others direct harm.

      It was just (possible) copyright infringement. F Him. He is a pervy jerk who should not be on the bench.

    21. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by MoriT · · Score: 1

      I will support is as soon as all evidence doesn't suggest that it is counterproductive. As it is, there is no reason to support allowing parents to inflict punishments on their children we would never allow the state to inflict on its citizens.

    22. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by cbciv · · Score: 1

      If you're spanking your kids all it means is that you have failed in your role as a parent.

      Bullshit. Kids vary widely in the sorts of things that they respond to. One of mine (we'll call him Bob) has always responded well to verbal remonstration and body language (the "look"). The other (Jim) does not. This has been the case for their entire lives. They're getting older now and removal of privileges usually suffices, but when they were little Jim could be punished by removal of toys, removal of privileges, removal of a desired activity and timeouts, but sometimes would just continue right on with the bad behavior. For him, attempting to exercise control over us by trying to make us angry was more important than avoiding punishment. When he really got up a head of steam, he became so single-minded that nothing would stop the behavior except a smack on the butt.

      Now, you may be tempted to tell me that I didn't think of all of the alternatives, or that I didn't implement the ones that I tried correctly. The problem is that you don't know what you're talking about because you don't know my kid. I've talked to other parents who have kids like Jim, including some who know Jim, and they also hear this kind of nonsense all of the time. People assume that because they've been successful in using other techniques with their own children, that the success is due to the techniques. What they fail to comprehend is that the child's personality is a huge factor in which techniques actually work. This was a lesson that I had to learn the hard way. When Jim was little, I never thought that I'd spank him. We tried everything we could think of, including reading books, articles, blog posts, etc., getting advice from other parents, and experimenting with anything that we could think of. The bottom line was that none of it worked when he really got going.

      As a contrast, Bob's bad behavior can usually be interrupted with a sharp word. In serious cases, raising our voices does the trick. Timeouts never fail to work with him, and he rarely takes it far enough to get one. Same parents, same gene pool, very, very different results.

      My kid is probably an outlier in this regard, but he's not the only one that I know. If you've been able to find ways to discipline your kids without resorting to spanking, good for you. Don't be arrogant enough, however, to assume that your experience is representative of everyone else's.

    23. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given all the rest of what they did, the spanking part was risky and unnecessary. You'd probably do well to try all that and then *not* spank your kids for a while. I'll bet you about $200 they will come out just as well behaved and with fewer BDSM fetishes when they grow up.

    24. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My parents did spank me as a child, but they made a point of never once doing it while angry, never once using it as a first resort, never once doing it before they had clearly explained to me what I had done wrong and making sure I understood (and they always gave me 10-30 minutes to think about it before discussing it with me), never once trivializing it by slapping or swatting me, and never once doing it without telling me that they loved me (and making that clear to me through the tears in their eyes). Aside from the obvious (at least to me) fact that they were acting out of love, the fact that I could always count on them to be reasonable is what made those spankings effective.

      To me, it sounds a lot like they would be at least as good and sucessful (I'll assume you turned out ok) parents if they behaved in the exact same way, but without the spanking. The key is to do set sane limits (and be prepared to argue for their merit once the kid starts asking "why?"), but also make sure the child is certain that you love them no matter what.

    25. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Physical discipline is (supposedly) used to modify undesirable behavior displayed by the child. We are talking about the modification of child's behavior ie, someone who hasn't fully developed their cognitive function. It shouldn't be difficult for an intelligent adult to achieve this. On the whole it is about expectations, structure and consistency.

      If you have to resort to caveman tactics (physical punishment), it reveals to me a lack of intelligence. Some "advanced" countries have actually outlawed physical punishment (including smacking), eg New Zealand.

      For what it is worth, yes I am a parent, and yes my children are well behaved. I have never been close to having to resort to violence.

    26. Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same by PintoPiman · · Score: 1

      Dude, if you've got to spank your 16 year old to make a point, you've long ago failed as a parent.

      Heck, even dog trainers have figured out how to train without beating, and dogs aren't really that capable of higher level reasoning.

      Beating isn't the only way. It's *a* way, and very rarely is it the best way. Those who rely on it are either too dumb to figure out how to train using positive reinforcement, or just plain evil.

  26. So... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ...does this fall under successful or failed digital rights management schemes?
    Either way, being child (and probably spouse) abusing entitled prick in Texas - still priceless.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:So... by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      His spouse was just as bad as him. She was fully involved with the beating.

    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think about it, she was trying to appease the dad and make the beating stop. Notice how she wouldn't give the belt back and tried to make it end at just one more wack. I'm sure the mom has experienced worse as his hands. In any case, he came back into the room saying that he hadn't had his turn yet.

    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the wife was probably abused by this jerkhole as well. That doesn't make participating in this beating /right/, but there are likely extenuating circumstances at work, here.

  27. Only till 25? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah that's right. Age of consent should be 25.

    But the age of enlistment should be 16 since they are capable of doing a lot of things some adults can't like that they are naturally more energetic and risk taking (better for war).

    I'm 21 and apparently my brain can't comprehend "cause, danger, effects"...I've managed to get a full scholarship for my university not because I understand physics very much but because I just do some game of "monkey-see-monkey-do" watching the "real adults" do their thing. Right...

    1. Re:Only till 25? by santax · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't take it personally. Imagine what you will be able to do in about 4 years. Even 8 years. Brains grow till that age. The difference between a 16 yo and a 21 is pretty big, but judging from the way responded, I think you are perfect proof that 21's aren't full adults yet. You can't comprehend this, can you? No worries though, you will soon, young grasshopper,

    2. Re:Only till 25? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'll understand why all of your arguments are completely incorrect when you're older.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:Only till 25? by nepka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be honest, I felt like I was much more intelligent when I was 16-17 years old. I spent my days learning and coding. Now that I am 23, I look back to my past year and it's full of partying, booze, traveling around the world and having sex with random chicks from all around the world. Not that intelligently spent time as I did when I was 16-17 years old. Of course I know a lot more about things, but that doesn't come from sudden increase in my intelligence, it just comes from my experiences. If anything, I feel like I'm only dumber now.

    4. Re:Only till 25? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There would be no point in me imagining it since I wouldn't comprehend it anyway.

      I must take it personally because it affects me personally.

    5. Re:Only till 25? by santax · · Score: 1

      Give it a couple of years. You'll do fine :) And read what I said again. It is a lot less offensive and judging as you make it to be.

    6. Re:Only till 25? by santax · · Score: 1

      A problem I also have. It doesn't seem to get better when you're even older and I am way pass 23. With age comes experience and a sort of insight that is better left alone. With 23 I still believed the world could be a happy place. The good news is however, you can still have those parties at 33 :)

    7. Re:Only till 25? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't speak too loud. The delusional adults might start to wonder if they really are as smart as they think they are. Call it stupid, but I have that same feeling towards my "younger" self but perhaps at 14-15, same thing, all day learning and coding. Nothing has really changed since then, just that I've learned to integrate and how to model physical models mathematically--but that's just as it sounds, it's nothing but a bunch of fancy labels for methods and ideas I knew since I've for the most part always known.

      It's not like you learn anything new, you know the basic algorithms and ways to do things in your head just intuitively (perhaps there are ways you haven't thought about but some big picture ideas like a game having an event loop for example seem like things you would have thought about without resorting to a textbook, I know I did), you just didn't know how to put that into C++ code. Since age 15 perhaps, I haven't had any great jumps in understanding, I've just learned to speak the ideas that were for the most part always intuitive to me in different languages.

    8. Re:Only till 25? by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 2

      As an unbiased third party, I can confirm that you do sound like a condescending asshole with a complete lack of respect. The only thing missing is a `get off my lawn'.

    9. Re:Only till 25? by santax · · Score: 2

      That is because I don't have a lawn, you insensitive clod!

    10. Re:Only till 25? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      So at what age does one stop being a douchebag?

    11. Re:Only till 25? by santax · · Score: 1

      I'll let you know when I get there.

    12. Re:Only till 25? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At 50, I find I've still no problems enjoying drinking and/or fucking.

    13. Re:Only till 25? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Seems neutral to me. Some folks can't argue and be pleasant- they interpret it as condescension.

      My Lawn.
      .
      ,
      .
      , ... you

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  28. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    Not necessarily. While the judge is a person with all the rights and privileges of the average joe, it also makes sense to expect a higher standard of behaviour from him due to his position, beyond merely the letter of the law. There should be some kind of disciplinary consequence, and it should be seen to be done, not merely done behind closed doors. That's something his superiors can do I would hope.

  29. RIAA hiring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So he's beat up a teenager for downloading music, and he hates these darn computers 'cause they just cause 'im trouble.

    Well, if he ever does get fired from the judiciary, looks like he'll fit right in at the RIAA.

  30. federal law vs. state law by belmolis · · Score: 2

    For those who don't know the US legal system, in general criminal law is a state matter. Federal criminal applies only in certain areas, such as crimes committed on federal property (e.g. in a national park), against federal officials, by members of the armed forces, involving interstate commerce, espionage, treason, counterfeiting, and so forth. Most ordinary crimes - murders, assaults, thefts, etc. - are purely state matters. All that the federal prosecutor said in this case was: "No, there isn't any federal crime here." The state prosecutor almost certainly already knew that and was only checking just in case some provision of federal law that he didn' tknow about provided a way around the state statute of limitations.

    1. Re:federal law vs. state law by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement is a federal matter, but beating your child for it is not.

    2. Re:federal law vs. state law by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Is it commerce if you're not paying anything for the goods?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:federal law vs. state law by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Is it commerce if you're not paying anything for the goods?

      Only if you can smoke it. Then it's interstate commerce even if you found it in your own back yard and kept it yourself.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  31. Bad way to raise a kid by tramp · · Score: 0

    At the age of 16 you do not whip your child with a belt or whatever. You ground her, cut her spending, talk to her but whipping or spanking only shows you are not in control and fall back to physical violence to push you wishes. Falling back to physical violence is quite common in foreign politics of the USA so he is probably the judge they deserve.

    1. Re:Bad way to raise a kid by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      At the age of 16 you do not whip your child with a belt or whatever. You ground her, cut her spending, talk to her but whipping or spanking only shows you are not in control and fall back to physical violence to push you wishes. Falling back to physical violence is quite common in foreign politics of the USA so he is probably the judge they deserve.

      Why is this okay at ANY age? Because they can't defend themselves or fight back as well if they're younger? Because they're more likely to be intimidated and less likely to tell someone else if they're younger?

      At what age do you think it is okay to start beating them? And should the kid have the right to physically defend themselves from such assaults, and if so, to what extent? To the same extent as an adult with a gun would do?

    2. Re:Bad way to raise a kid by tramp · · Score: 1

      It is not okay on any age although one spank to a naughty kid won't spoil it. But even if you think whipping is a good idea which I do not, you should talk or punish non-physical from 8 year and older. From that age it will learn nothing good from a outrageous father which can not control himself.

    3. Re:Bad way to raise a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only "okay" when the child cannot possibly retaliate. Parental cowardice. At 15 my single parent stopped beating me because I would've kicked their ass in return. After that age, my "guardian" had to use his/her lackluster mental facilities -- to their express annoyance.

    4. Re:Bad way to raise a kid by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      You don't whip your child with a belt or any other object at ANY age.

      That guy has got problems. Big man that he is.

      --
      Huh?
  32. judicial misconduct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This qualifies as a case of judicial misconduct, even without a conviction, considering he is a judge that oversees family law cases.

  33. No jail for judge; life in jail for 'child porn' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man sentenced to life in child porn case

    The US justice system is garbage, on par with Iran and Saudi Arabia.

  34. privacy by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 0

    Please note that this incident involves privacy implications.

    Discuss.

    1. Re:privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

  35. Power struggle by davidurquhart · · Score: 1

    I was struck (sorry) by the involvement and comments of the older female (mother?). I heard her say things like "Turn over and take it like a 16 year old" and "Take it like a grown woman!". As the child nears sexual maturity I believe the insecure older female feels threatened and engages in a power struggle. It's possible that the mother played a significant role in the father being motivated to beat the daughter. Subconciously / instinctively the mother may want the daughter to move out. I believe physical confrontations between children and parents are common at this stage of development - particularly when smacking / beating has been part of the way the parents discipline the children. The level of violence peaks when the child feels strong enough to defend themselves and typically would indicate the end of beating being used. At this point the father gives up trying to physically dominate the child. Certainly we may expect a judge to have moved on from smacking his children to a more effective and appropriate form of discipline - but we have to go back not just 7 years but up to a further 16 to see where the pattern in that relationship began. Smacking was part of how I was raised. I'm a bit older than this girl. I wonder is smacking still practised? I grew up and have raised kids in more liberal places (in Australia) than Texas. Is smacking partly cultural?

    1. Re:Power struggle by soundguy · · Score: 1

      Go watch that video carefully. The wife is playing "mediator" by taking the belt from the judge and claiming that it's her turn. He tries unsuccessfully to take it back a few times but she won't give it up. Also be aware that the wife left the judge and took the kids sometime after this incident because he beat the shit out of her regularly too. This piece of garbage is a sadistic animal who terrorized everyone in his family for years before they were able to break away. He has no business being a judge and every family law case he ever handled should be re-tried. As for him, he deserves to be dragged behind a pickup truck for a few (hundred) miles.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    2. Re:Power struggle by davidurquhart · · Score: 1

      I agree that he's behaving like a monster. Also that I didn't analyse the video as much as I should - like many it made me uncomfortable to watch a small section. Nevertheless, with what I heard the mother say, and what you believe was mediation (but could simply be her participating) I'm still thinking her role deserves careful analysis.

  36. Re:First Post by eldepeche · · Score: 0

    Probably had it confused with Push It.

  37. Source - no registration required by mayberry42 · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Source - no registration required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is no one talking about the ***WOODY*** he has while beating his child?!
      Watch the video closely!

  38. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Guil+Rarey · · Score: 1

    Agreed that the statue of limitations prevents his prosecution for felony child abuse.

    However, his position as a judge should be held to a higher standard. While it may be too late to send this guy to jail, he has not business sitting on the bench. For that matter, he has no business being a lawyer either, but that's a different problem.

    --
    Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
  39. I got beat as a kid. by dadioflex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ho ho. I got beat left and right for stuff I did as a kid. This video is so much BS, bunch of wormy liberals complaining about a real person taking control of their family, after their daughter has stolen stuff off the internet. Yup. That's what I thought until I watched about a third of it before I couldn't stomach any more.

    I'm for discipline, and I'm for corporal punishment, but that was a sick individual getting his kicks punishing his child. You lose the moral battle when you curse as much as he did, when you seem to enjoy it as much as he did, when you won't stop even when your child is a weeping wreck in front of you.

    What sort of parent looks back on that I thinks they've helped mould their child into a good citizen?

    There's a lot of talk about how she only showed this after he took away her toys. Because you expected adult, rational behaviour from her? Yeah, that's how she was raised. Wasn't it?

    I don't normally get angry at Random Q. Internetguy, but that wasn't an Internet meme, that thing you just saw, that was the repeated, planned, brutalization of a child by her parent, and it was appalling.

    1. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you do not beat your kid he/she will not become a good person?

    2. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel sorry for you if you think this is how you handle something.

      Perhaps taking away the computer would have served as a better example of what could be done.

      It was likely one of many beatings as well. Abuse doesn't just happen once.

    3. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may feel corporal punishment has its place, but don't be surprised if the message of force over the weaker is properly transferred to the kid.

      Also, don't be surprised if a few years later, an aluminum baseball bat begins making contact with your bones.

    4. Re:I got beat as a kid. by whoop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I found the most interesting quote from the video wasn't his cursing, but the mom's statement, "Take it like a grown woman." That underscores their life in that house. I'm sure this happened to everyone in the house several times throughout the years.

    5. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about your first paragraph : apparently she never stole anything on the internet, only piracy was involved.

    6. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember folks, this would be considered "reasonable force" if this was a cop and she was not complying.

    7. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, that was pretty much how my childhood was ... yet to this day my family will claim I was never abused. Sucks, huh?

    8. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to touch the corporeal punishment issue, but copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft. Theft of a physical object stops the first person from using that object. Piracy doesn't. In a general sort of sense, copyright infringement is closer to trespassing than it is to theft.

      All three are crimes, and all three involve a person using something they aren't allowed to, but they're not all the same crime.

    9. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just goes to show how many assumptions you make when you throw around stupid phrases like "wormy liberals" all the time and don't bother to actually research what's going on with something before buying into the Faux News trap you always do.

    10. Re:I got beat as a kid. by porkThreeWays · · Score: 2

      The line between discipline and abuse was crossed when he lost control. He was hitting her out of anger, not because he thought the resulting punishment would make her a more responsible member of society.

      --
      If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    11. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. I am fine with a spanking when needed (though I think 16 is too old to be spanked).

      But this guy went crazy and you could tell he was actually ENJOYING this in some sick hateful way. He enjoyed having the power over this poor girl, enjoyed making her scared, enjoyed making her cry and scream! Sick, sick sick.

      This dude probably got aroused while doing this. Disgusting but probably true. He needs help and needs to be kept away from contact with ANY children.

    12. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to watch the video, but I do appreciate your candid remarks, they were enough to convince me I didn't need to see it.

    13. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And look what it got you a membership in the Tea Party.

      Hope you like the creeps that are in it with you. Maybe they are all child beaters?

    14. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I got abused as a kid so it's okay that others get abused" is not remotely correct. Just because someone screamed at you and violently assaulted you doesn't mean it's okay. Spanking a kid isn't a problem, whipping the shit out of them with a belt IS a problem and should never be done.

    15. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting whipped by a belt at age 16 for downloading illegal software is not corporal punishment, its assault. The only thing you teach anyone over the age of 5 who's not about to stick a fork in a light socket by hitting them is that you're a dick.

    16. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Ho ho. I got beat left and right for stuff I did as a kid.

      And, based on what you said here, it clearly turned you into an awful human being. That's good to know. Thank you for being an illustrative example of what not to do.

    17. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the judge would have us believe that a beating like this only happened once, ever. Every other day he was lavishing his daughter with gifts.

    18. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This outlines why most of us think conservatives are such shitbags. It has been conclusively proven that beating your children only helps the problem in the short term and makes the problem worse later. I wouldn't expect you to understand this since researching anything is probably too difficult for you to wrap your head around. It disgusts me that trailer trash like you is even permitted to procreate.

    19. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ho ho. I got beat left and right for stuff I did as a kid. ... I'm for discipline, and I'm for corporal punishment...

      Better be careful. There's this thing called the "cycle of abuse" you should look into.

      What sort of parent looks back on that I thinks they've helped mould their child into a good citizen?

      The sort of parents who are "for corporal punishment" and were beaten harder than you as a kid.

      Blah blah this video is BS, blah blah bunch of wormy liberals blah blah blah blah internet.

      What? Fuck you.

      I don't normally get angry at Random Q. Internetguy, but that wasn't an Internet meme, that thing you just saw, that was the repeated, planned, brutalization of a child by her parent, and it was appalling.

      Is this the part of the post that warrants a +5 mod? A drunken restatement of the facts?

    20. Re:I got beat as a kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have not seen the whole video, but what i did see of it was clearly abuse. This guy is nothing but low down scum. IMO corporal punishment should only be used as a last resort or to try to keep the kid out of immediate danger. I think a lot of problems today is too many people wanting control of other people. Yes parents should (discipline when needed) try to raise their children to be honest respectful and decent. But in general the overuse of corporal punishment produces the opposite effect and misses up the kid for years (if not for life) and is a good way to make the kid hate the parents and want to get back at them. (I know this from people I have known). What this guy did was not corporal punishment it was plain and simply abuse

      Copying is not theft http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft

  40. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Punishment behind closed doors isn't punishment. The problem with applying privacy laws to this sort of thing is it ensures that people filing complaints never receive justice. They have no means of appealing if the decision isn't right and they don't know if the complaints were even taken seriously.

    Really, whenever a boss or individual in power is accused of such things the person making the accusation needs to be informed at least of whether or not any action was taken.

  41. Our education system is sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And not in the way you're thinking now. Thing is, when I was young, physical discipline wasn't illegal yet. If we did something wrong, we were punished. Beaten or shut in our room. And you know what? Teaching us a lesson was the right thing to do, in retrospective, as much as we hated it back then.

    But it taught us that doing wrong has consequences. Today's children are just spoiled. They don't learn anything about morale and ethics and hence mob their colleagues without any sense of wrong-doing. And they have other highly egoistic tendencies as they never learned to be modest, attentative and altruistic.

    This dad did the one and only right thing. The fact that the teenage girl recorded the beating is proof enough that she knew she would get punished. So she knew she did something that didn't please her parents. It likely wasn't the first time. And remember that the mother seems to agree to the punishment. They would have never beaten her if she didn't do anything wrong.

    1. Re:Our education system is sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5/10

    2. Re:Our education system is sick by drewm1980 · · Score: 1

      Her mother was also abused, and later divorced her husband, and has apologized to her daughter, who has forgiven her. This man would likely beat the crap out of his daughter again given the opportunity, while simultaneously claiming to be a paragon of morality. Don't blame victims for trying to expose their own abuse.

  42. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in your worldview anytime you don't like someone, even if legally there is nothing that can be done, they should be horse-whipped anyway.

    Why does Slashdot drain all logic and rationality out of people?

  43. what game / type did she download? did not pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have heard

    Free game
    abandonware
    warez
    shereware

    also herd downed music with not paying for it.

  44. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    What God giveth, society judges. His authority does not extend to abuse and we as a society have deemed it a god-given right to interfere in cases where parents exert too much authority.

    --
    Good-bye
  45. The man has a history of mis-ruling on child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cases, so it's a shame she waited. However maybe she didn't want him to go to jail and waited out the statute of limitations on purpose. She is a judge's daughter after all, she probably knew the law.

  46. Minor by S77IM · · Score: 1

    But it's only been five years since she became an adult. She was a minor at the time of the incident. Often, time doesn't start counting against the Statute of Limitations for a minor until they become an adult. So the crime could still be within the limit. Maybe this works differently in Texas though.

      -- 77IM

    --
    Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
    Master: Well, yes and no.
    1. Re:Minor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to put your name in your post. It's already placed in the header of your comment automatically.

  47. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

    THE FUCKING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS NOT EXPIRED.

    http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html

    Could you at least have the fucking brains to DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF before opening your mouth like a fucking parrot?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  48. This is Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it really surprise you at all? This is a state with capital punishment, do you have any doubt that their judges would use physical abuse to punish disobedience?

  49. crime and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is a judge. So first, disconnect the Internet services. Then take her to the DA, and have her charged as an adult for the crime.

  50. Wrong Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'F*****g computers,' the judge tells his now ex-wife on the video. 'I told you I didn't want one in the god damn house. See all the problems they cause?'

    This comment on digital technology was made seven years ago, which would be approximately 2004. At this time, personal computers had been entrenched in many areas of human endeavor for at least 20 years and the judge still has not become aware of their value or potential. He reacts to their ubiquity as if they are some cheap adolescent toy.

    For this reason of failed apprehension he should be barred. We need those who truly understand technology, and not throwbacks to the 19th century, on our judicial benches.

  51. This shows how far down the toilet we've gone.. by LVSlushdat · · Score: 0

    When I was a teen in the mid 60s, I lost count of all the times I got the belt by my father. I guarantee you those "belt-of-education" sessions settled me down such that I made it thru US Army boot camp without a Courtmartial and a stay at Leavenworth. Damned kids now think they're entitled to everything and the parents, IF they even care about the kid, they bend over and give the damned kid whatever he wants just to shut him/her up. All the parents are doing is reinforcing the kids entitlement mentality. Of course the kids are smart too.. If the parents DO try to discipline the kid, the kid often threatens to call Child Protective Services, in short, blackmailing the parent. I realize that getting the belt by my father taught me clearly that the world does NOT revolve around me. When I met my wife back in the early 80s, we made a concious decision not to have kids as it was begining to look like the early "nanny state" would prevent me from discipling any kids we might have as my father did. Based on what I just said, I have a funny feeling his daugther needed a good visit with the belt. Looks like a bit of blackmail by the brat of a daughter...

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    1. Re:This shows how far down the toilet we've gone.. by darthium · · Score: 1

      When I was a teen in the mid 60s, I lost count of all the times I got the belt by my father. I guarantee you those "belt-of-education" sessions settled me down such that I made it thru US Army boot camp without a Courtmartial and a stay at Leavenworth. Damned kids now think they're entitled to everything and the parents, IF they even care about the kid, they bend over and give the damned kid whatever he wants just to shut him/her up. All the parents are doing is reinforcing the kids entitlement mentality. Of course the kids are smart too.. If the parents DO try to discipline the kid, the kid often threatens to call Child Protective Services, in short, blackmailing the parent. I realize that getting the belt by my father taught me clearly that the world does NOT revolve around me. When I met my wife back in the early 80s, we made a concious decision not to have kids as it was begining to look like the early "nanny state" would prevent me from discipling any kids we might have as my father did. Based on what I just said, I have a funny feeling his daugther needed a good visit with the belt. Looks like a bit of blackmail by the brat of a daughter...

      There's no excuse to beat a girl, even if he'd be a very spoiled girl, that would be the parents fault, cause when you're a responsible parent, you don't need violence to teach your kids manners and values. . And in the video, it's not just some ass whipping, he keeps yelling at her and beating her for over 7 minutes, it's not like she killed someone.

    2. Re:This shows how far down the toilet we've gone.. by visdog · · Score: 2

      Wow. Impressive that you made it through boot camp without a Court martial. So did I, even though my dad was a Sargent Major who didn't need to beat any of his 6 kids, including my disabled sister. Thanks for not having kids, though

    3. Re:This shows how far down the toilet we've gone.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like this was understated. Seriously, SERIOUSLY , thank you OP for not having kids! If you wouldn't beat an adopted child in the same manner (and you shouldn't) then beating a biological child should feel just as bad. A parent does not own the body of their child.

    4. Re:This shows how far down the toilet we've gone.. by drewm1980 · · Score: 1

      If your post is genuine, then this is a massive CPS WIN! They managed to teach you, even as an adult, that you can't get away with beating children. You are a excellent case study in how CPS helps to prevent abuse. You are a less violent person ~despite the abuse visited on you as a child, and ~thanks to the nanny state.

    5. Re:This shows how far down the toilet we've gone.. by drewm1980 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it's a boy or a girl.

  52. Crime? by Hentes · · Score: 1

    This guy is a bad man but that shouldn't be a reason to make parenting illegal.

    1. Re:Crime? by Zorque · · Score: 1

      Child abuse is mutually exclusive from "parenting".

  53. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by jd · · Score: 1

    We're coming up to an election year and whilst the nation (and world) may be shocked, Texas is a very violent place. There's simply no possibility of getting a 2/3rds majority of politicians to agree to removing a judge unless there's unequivocal evidence that Texans would vote against them if they didn't.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  54. so let me get this straight by fireylord · · Score: 1

    You think that privacy implications trump the disclosure of obvious criminal child abuse (and frankly from the video i'd also call it sexual abuse of a minor)?

    What have you been smoking?

    1. Re:so let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand.. the victim didn't care if her father was prosecuted for his crimes.. so, why should I care more than the victim?

  55. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by Troed · · Score: 1

    And in civilized countries, we outlawed it completely 30+ years ago.

    http://www.nospank.net/durrant.htm

  56. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    However, the state's statute of limitations expired, and the federal prosecutors could find no *federal* laws being broken.

    It's also not really clear that any state laws were broken. Texas law gives parents pretty broad leeway. The law allows corporal punishment provided that the child is not exposed to a substantial risk of harm, the force is not deadly, the child is under 18, and to the extent that the parent believes the punishment to be necessary. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_spanking_legal_in_Texas All of these legal phrases are clearly open to pretty wide interpretation, e.g., if the kid ends up with a bruise, is that "substantial" harm?

    If people who are upset about this are living in Texas, then what they're really upset about is their own state law, and they need to work on advocating changes in that law.

  57. Re:"Spare the rod, spoil the child." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My parents took the belt to my hind end a few times as a kid and I turned out OK.

    Uh, no. You grew up to be an advocate of beating children. That you think that represents "turning out OK" shows how far from OK you are.

  58. Hello retrials! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This scumbag was in charge of the fate of hundreds? thousands? of other people who came thru his courtroom.

    And he's one of the lowest of the low... I think everyone needs a new trial without a scumbag judge.

    Ahhh screwit.. Get him up aginst the wall.

  59. well hang on by fireylord · · Score: 1

    Look at it this way, this is physical abuse, and imo sexual molestation of a young woman. THis was not about retribution for her actions, what is clear from the video is that this was about control and domination. He violated his own daughter, in his own way, for his own ends. Its not a liberal viewpoint to regard that as wrong.

    1. Re:well hang on by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      Sexual molestation? Come on.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:well hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well why don't you try doing that to a 16 year old disabled girl and we'll see what sort of charges are brought forth. I don't see it as too much of a stretch.

    3. Re:well hang on by syousef · · Score: 1

      Look at it this way, this is physical abuse, and imo sexual molestation of a young woman.

      What he did wasn't sexual as far as I could tell, but it was still reprehensible and harmful.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  60. It was Hillary's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you agree with "William A. Dudley" and his assessment that the daughter is at fault,
    http://www.kristv.com/files/Judge-Adams-statement.pdf

    then please feel free to tell him at
        email@divorcecorpuschristi.com
        dudleypc@yahoo.com
        lindarae48@yahoo.com

    Some choice quotes (just like Mr Dudley, I will take the bits I want to emphasise),
    "Perhaps Hillary Adams should explain ..." ... no, you're wrong Mr Dudley - it's YOUR mate that should explain.
    "The public may ponder what consideration Hillary Adams gave her little sister before subjecting the entire family ..." ... Who subjected the family? Wasn't it YOUR mate ... again??
    "He is confident the process will be managed in accordance with the law" ... Since lawyers protect their own, i'd say YOUR mate Adams is safe has houses.

    So let me sum up your article...
    1. In your view, the topic of YOUR mate is not the focus - it's Hillary that needs to explain herself.
    2. In your view, child beating (the kind that I WOULD NEVER give my child, even if they accidentally killed someone) is a topic that should not be discussed in public - even if the video evidence speaks for itself. The behaviour demonstrated is either condoned - or it is not. You called it disciplining. That in itself sums you up sufficiently.
    3. In your view, the fact that Hillary delayed releasing the video means that (i) she is guilty, (ii) she's at fault and (iii) she has an alterior motive. This implies that, she deserved it, and the behaviour was warranted and justifiable. You carefully avoided the possibility that she may have been scared or affected by extreme behaviour from her father eg. similar to Stockholm syndrome?

    Your three page summary says as much about you as it does YOUR mate.
    AC

    1. Re:It was Hillary's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blaming the victim is indicator of Antisocial personality disorder, common known as psychopat/sociopath.

  61. Retribution by localman · · Score: 2

    "his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him"

    Really! I wonder where she learned about such vengeful behavior? Though I'd have to say her releasing the truth about you for any reason is far less questionable than you beating her like that. And I'm not even against restrained use of corporal punishment in some cases - but what you did, to a girl that age, for the crime committed?

    Sir, you are a shitty father. If your daughter knows well enough that you're going to beat her in a scandalous way that she sets up a camera to catch you in the act, you have failed utterly as a parent. If she's able to cause a national sensation by showing a few minutes of what she grew up with, you are a lousy human being. It is a travesty that one as you has ever sat on the bench and decided the fates of others.

    1. Re:Retribution by lanner · · Score: 2

      Telling and showing off the truth can rarely be attributed as retaliation to any sane observer.

    2. Re:Retribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this "retaliation" claim based on the father's word? Why would any reasonable person believe him? Look at what he wrote in another interview:

      In my mind I haven't done anything wrong other than discipline my child after she was caught stealing and I did lose my temper but I've since apologized. It looks worse than it is.

      How many times did he beat this girl? Obviously it happened at least several times or she wouldn't have predicted it.

      This is what she wrote:

      It was the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't any, you know, huge happening or anything. I just told him I had the video and he didn't seem to think anything of it and basically dared me to post it.

  62. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    In a perfect world, this guy would be spending a few years in jail, however, the statute is three years for assault.

    Could you at least have the fucking brains to DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF before opening your mouth like a fucking parrot?

    http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/22.04.00.html

    In this section:

    (1) "Child" means a person 14 years of age or younger. ...
    (3) "Disabled individual" means a person older than 14
    years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease,
    defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from
    harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself.

  63. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

    There is no god, your argument is invalid.

  64. Would he be so brave with a man who can fight? by darthium · · Score: 2

    It's easy to be so brave with a young girl who can't defend herself. He should be put on a UFC cage against a man who can kick his ass. There's no excuse to beat a girl, even if he'd be a very spoiled girl, that would be the parents fault, cause when you're a responsible parent, you don't need violence to teach your kids manners and values.

    1. Re:Would he be so brave with a man who can fight? by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      But would the UFC guy be so tought against someone with a gun?

      And would that someone with the gun be so tough against a guy in an armored helicopter with a rocket launcher?

    2. Re:Would he be so brave with a man who can fight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But would the UFC guy be so tought against someone with a gun?

      And would that someone with the gun be so tough against a guy in an armored helicopter with a rocket launcher?

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and would like to sign up for season tickets to your sports league.

    3. Re:Would he be so brave with a man who can fight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Tyson beating up a woman was okay because he did not fear being locked up with another man ?

    4. Re:Would he be so brave with a man who can fight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But would the UFC guy be so tought against someone with a gun?

      And would that someone with the gun be so tough against a guy in an armored helicopter with a rocket launcher?

      In case you don't get it, my point is how coward the father was. If one is a brave man, it must be shown when the conditions of a potential fight are at least similar. When you only show extreme violence against weaker opponents, you're an abusive coward, not a brave man.

    5. Re:Would he be so brave with a man who can fight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      COME ON! Just upmod this guy already! Can you not see the _best_ comment on this story so far? It's here!

    6. Re:Would he be so brave with a man who can fight? by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

      And would the helicopter pilot be so tough if you tossed three angry badgers into the cockpit with him?

  65. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To me the worst part is the fact that the wife videotaped it. They were planning on showing it to her prom date?

  66. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    Did you read that link?

    Unless the prosecutor decides to pursue first degree felony charges, the statute of limitations has indeed run out.

    Ten Years: Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code;
    Five Years: Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code;

  67. He is a _Family Court_ judge. by Nehmo · · Score: 2

    A family court judge has hearings behind closed doors. These are not public hearings. The parents cannot invite the press or anyone. And the government gets away with murder, without public inspection. And with this judge, we won't be able to look up his decisions. It's all secret.
    Anyway, I had to stop posting (under fake names) or talking about my own experience with such a judge a few years ago to keep my sanity. (The state took our baby from the hospital where he was born. The supposed reason was that he was methadone exposed. It's a legal drug, and the hospital provided it to his mother, my wife, four hours before he was born. There were no illegal drugs involved.) The worst people in the world gravitate to this part of the government. This judge's exposure is just lucky.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
    1. Re:He is a _Family Court_ judge. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      This varies by jurisdiction. I have been involved with a multi-state case. In one of them, closed doors. In the other, open court.

      But even in 'open' court, the relevant decisions and discussions were made in chambers, with the trial(s) being just for show.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  68. hmm by fafaforza · · Score: 1

    People get all up in arms about punishment like this, but no one bats an eye at an overweight parent feeding their kids fast food for breakfast and a medium Sprite as the drink. And the kid already looks like the Michelin man. I don't get it.

    1. Re:hmm by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      People get all up in arms about punishment like this, but no one bats an eye at an overweight parent feeding their kids fast food for breakfast and a medium Sprite as the drink. And the kid already looks like the Michelin man. I don't get it.

      Feeding a kid junk food on a regular basis is child abuse just like beating them is. I agree with your point. However neither should be OK and this judge deserves to be publicly ridiculed. Of course he won't be tried for it. What would be the point when his buddies will just dismiss the case?

    2. Re:hmm by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Feeding your child is a natural behavior so it isn't as shocking, relatively speaking, to see a parent overfeeding their child. You disagree with what the parent is putting in their child's mouth, but not with the basic act.

      This is beating your child. Whipping them. This is *not* a basic act of parenting. Even if you believe in spanking, spanking is different than beating. Therefore, you aren't questioning the father's methods (e.g. "he should only whip his daughter with the belt for three minutes; seven is excessive"), you are questioning the act itself. No part of what happened on this video should happen in any home.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:hmm by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      that's kinda like how in a story about obese kids we don't talk about brutal abuse or the linux kernel. you're right, it's a total mystery.

  69. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The statute of limitations has expired. It's ten years only if there was a felony which occurs if there is serious injury. Otherwise it's 5 years. So using your words, "THE FUCKING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS EXPIRED."

    Do better research next time.

    Source: The link you provided.

  70. Let's release a public service announcement! by Coppit · · Score: 1

    Someone *please* make one of those fake PSAs for the RIAA. "If you steal music from artists you'll be smacked in the f***ing face!"

    1. Re:Let's release a public service announcement! by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      can't you turd do that yourself?

  71. The Summary Doesn't Reflect The Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the summary fails to mention is that what the article actually says is that the statute of limitations on child abuse is five years. It is not that no one wants to prosecute him. The fact is that the case was on shaky ground to begin with in terms of how far can you go when disciplining your child but when the statute of limitations window has gone the case will be thrown out instantly.

  72. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cerebal palsy is a disability in Texas that meets the criteria.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  73. I assume child abuse is now legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I can beat the shit out of people and just use this case as prior evidence that its ok.
    All we need next is a video of a judge killing his wife and then we can finally murder people without having to worry about the repercussions!

  74. it puts on the lotion or it gets whipped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it puts on the lotion or it gets whipped.

  75. Statue of limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is nothing they can really do, I believe the statue of limitations on this already up. Off hand most crimes are able to be brought up to be prosecutable for a max of 6 years after it occured, MOST. Killing is obviously an exception as well as a few others. But it has been 7 years so he got off lucky if you can call it that, as I bet his career is now ruined and people will look for any reason to fire him now.

    1. Re:Statue of limitations by RandomAvatar · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it kind of stupid to have a law that allows people to get away with heinous crimes just because they were not caught within a certain number of years? If you can beat a child in the U.S. and not have any legal repercussions so long as a few years go by, I am glad I do not live a country like that.

  76. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you at least have the fucking brains to DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF before opening your mouth like a fucking parrot?

    Likewise. By this point, your lack of reading comprehension is borderline trolling.

  77. Generational Abuser v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gotta agree with the AC - I've been beat before, and while it looked like this man was putting his heart into it, he looked like an out of shape skinny punk compared to the whippings I got as a child. When a beating was finished in my household, the crying didn't stop for 30 minutes, and you'd be lucky if you weren't limping afterwards. If the video had shown her inconsolable for 20 minutes after the beating, hardly able to move because of the pain, I'd be more inclined to feel some sympathy for her. As it was, she had a dick father, and a dick mother, but as soon as they got out of the room, she was cool as a cucumber, walking around like the beating was nothing to her.

    Now be clear, even if you're a wimp with a belt and can't give a 16 year old enough of a smack down to keep them crying for 30 minutes, you shouldn't be beating your kid - it's stupid and unproductive. But this was definitely "gotcha" videography on the part of the kid. The whole family is rotten, and frankly, I'm most appalled by the mother - the fact that she was cool with it as an observer (although I think she got one lick in too) was chilling.

    Seems like you're primed and ready to be a child abuser yourself.

    Your attitude needs a lot of work. I'd recommend a psychological evaluation, stat. Or just show this post to your woman and let her decide.

    1. Re:Generational Abuser v2.0 by hsthompson69 · · Score: 2

      Oh, no doubt, I could've learned the lesson of anger and hatred from my parents, the way Hillary seemed to learn from her parents. It would've been almost too easy. But I made a conscious choice to forgive my parents, and to respond to their anger and hatred with love and compassion. My children don't get beat, they get disciplined with appropriate restrictions and stern lectures - both of which, by the way, have been very effective in teaching proper behavior.

      I broke the cycle of anger. Hillary didn't.

    2. Re:Generational Abuser v2.0 by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      She got a mild beating, she was obviously preparing for it and overacting. Nothing but a petulant child trying to get back at her father. This does not even look to come close to child abuse. Overall seems like it was a seriously screwed up home. But at the end of the day parents need to be allowed to parent, there are children that need more than there xbox taken away or no more shopping on daddy's credit card. From the back story it sounds like she was and still is a spoiled brat hiding behind some label as why she deserves special treatment. If you think it makes this guy unfit to be a judge then vote against him. In my view anything that does not permanently damage your children is fair game.

      PS I did not grow up in a home anything like this nor would do anything like that to my son at 7. At 16 he might need to be taken down a notch but I expect I'll have more effective methods than a beating.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:Generational Abuser v2.0 by syousef · · Score: 1

      Oh, no doubt, I could've learned the lesson of anger and hatred from my parents, the way Hillary seemed to learn from her parents. It would've been almost too easy. But I made a conscious choice to forgive my parents, and to respond to their anger and hatred with love and compassion. My children don't get beat, they get disciplined with appropriate restrictions and stern lectures - both of which, by the way, have been very effective in teaching proper behavior.

      I broke the cycle of anger. Hillary didn't.

      Assuming you're telling the truth, good for you! You and your family will be the ones to benefit from this.

      But Hilary has cerebral palsy to deal with. You do not. I don't know enough about how she is affected to tell you if it has affected her ability to understand and choose her morality.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    4. Re:Generational Abuser v2.0 by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      But Hilary has cerebral palsy to deal with. You do not. I don't know enough about how she is affected to tell you if it has affected her ability to understand and choose her morality.

      Now that's an interesting thought - I've never had anyone suggest that cerebral palsy might leave people incapable of morality, or incapable of any sort of self reflection and self control. I would suggest though, that even for the most damaged brains, we still have the choice on how to react to our surroundings - it may be more difficult for some brains to realize that, but it is nonetheless true.

      The trick here is to realize that some people *choose* to be unhappy, and ultimately nobody can be blamed for that except themselves.

  78. Is spanking legal? by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    If spanking is legal (and apparently it legal is in most states -- making it very likely that spanking USED to be considered a common way to discipline ones kid), there should be a guideline on how to do it. I don't see how ANY spanking video can be released and most people saying "oh ok, that looks fine".

    1. Re:Is spanking legal? by wwbbs · · Score: 1

      In Canada (Ontario specifically) your allowed to spank your child on the bum with an open hand you are not allowed to leave any visible marks ie bruises or welts or it would be considered extreme. I believe your only allowed to spank your child in public up to age 8 perhaps it is 10 years old. After that it better be done in private else not at all.

    2. Re:Is spanking legal? by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      thats generally how its interpreted everywhere. Every state has some manner of child protective services and the whole visible mark rule applies. Some states may make leeway to use paddles or belts, but they still cant leave marks. If you leave marks and you get reported CPS definitely will open a case and assign a social worker to re-educate the family on what is and is not appropriate.

  79. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by martin-boundary · · Score: 2
    Eh? No, I'm saying with great power comes great responsibility. Judges need to be held to a higher standard than ordinary people, because they're judges.

    Being a bad parent while being a judge is worse than being a bad parent while being a plumber.

  80. F*****g judges by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    F*****g judges, See all the problems they cause?

    What kind of person would want a job where they sit in judgement of fellow human beings? The kind of job where they can decide on a whim if the guilty will be locked up for 10 or 30 years. Those who crave power over others above all else. Psychopaths. No wonder so many of them are caught doing weird stuff like using penis pumps under their desks, or stalking women, or get accused of child molestation, or spanking defendants with sex toys.

    No. I can't come up with a better system.

  81. What about the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like there is video evidence his guy's computer was illegally downloading music. Seems like he should turn himself in and pay the full 11 million per song fine.

  82. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    Cerebal palsy is a disability in Texas that meets the criteria.

    Unfortunately, not in this case. She has a job, drives a car and was enrolled in school. That does not fit any definition of "substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself."

    I hate to say it, but the jerk is most likely going to walk.

  83. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Khyber · · Score: 1

    SOL time begins from the day of commission of the crime.

    SOL has NOT expired, and when the crime was committed the child had a disability.

    Clearly criteria are met and SOL is not in play for another three years.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  84. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a bad person, to say the least. However, the state's statute of limitations expired, and the federal prosecutors could find no *federal* laws being broken. (Keep in mind which crimes are state, which are federal) To do otherwise would be to violate the legal system, no matter what you feel.

    I read (on the internet, so buyer beware) that the statute of limitations is actually 10 years in this case because of the daughter's permanent disability.

  85. You don't hit children - ever. by germansausage · · Score: 1

    The guy thrashed his own child while in a frothing fit of rage. He beat her mercilessly for almost 10 minutes. This is not punishment, it is torture and sadism with very disturbing sexual overtones.

    Violence is almost never justified except in self defense. This kind of assault on a child can not be justified for any reason.

    I don't claim to be any shining paragon of virtue. I've certainly done things I'm not proud of, but on that Last Day when my grimy little soul is judged at least I'll be able to say that I never hit my kids.

  86. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Her cerebral palsy apparently doesn't qualify her as disabled. The statute of limitations is 10 years, not 5, for disabled victims.

  87. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    The only thing worse than someone who claims that I am a terrible person because their deity says so is a person who claims their own terrible acts are permitted by their deity, and therefore OK.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  88. damn straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At $175,000 statutory damages per instance of infringement, you better believe she deserved a good whuppin' Bet she got grounded too.

  89. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    This happened 7 years ago.

    The 10 year SOL applies only to serious bodily injury, otherwise it would be 5 years, assuming if the disability was serious enough to apply. If not, it is 3 years.

    Since she obviously didn't require hospitalization, serious bodily injury is out, that makes it third degree, bodily injury.
    Since she is able to attend school, hold a job and drive, she is not seriously disabled under this law.
    Since she is over 14, she is not a child under this law.

  90. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by zoloto · · Score: 1

    Prove it.

  91. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a statute of limitations for child abuse? And in this case, a (partially) disabled child? And that limitation is under seven years?

    That's like a get out of jail card for abusers, since many many cases don't get discovered for many years.

  92. Double Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let anyone not a Judge, Politician, or Police Officer get caught beating the f%%k out of there child like that on camera. Statute of limitations my ass, wed be buried under the foundations.

  93. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Khyber · · Score: 1

    You are not reading the full parts that come with the law.

    Go read the entirety of Section 22 of the Texas Penal code. Add in Family Code section 71.005.

    When the crime was committed, the child could not drive, hold a job, and was only barely able to attend school (cerebral palsy, especially ataxic, tends to leave you rather defenseless and somewhat unable to move properly - which is quite evident in the video she has ataxic.)

    She could not defend herself.

    This is quite clearly a crime having been committed while she was a child. SOL is ten years from commission of the crime, REGARDLESS if she is an adult now.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  94. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a bad person, to say the least. However, the state's statute of limitations expired, and the federal prosecutors could find no *federal* laws being broken. (Keep in mind which crimes are state, which are federal) To do otherwise would be to violate the legal system, no matter what you feel.

    The laws on child abuse in the United States are very perverted. I can guarantee you that if she took pictures of herself masturbating then she would be charged with creating child pornography (of herself) and put on a sexual offenders list. The political elite will find or create or twist the laws to suit their political agenda.

    The sad fact is that there is NO political will to punish people who commit violence on their own children. If only he were caught fondling her, then probably something would be done. Unfortunately the religious zealots in the United States think that suffering is good, and sex is bad. If the daughter was killed by his abuse, then the father might get a few years in jail. Otherwise its free reign on children. You should read some of the Right Wing statements on some of the news sites or on Youtube. According to social Conservatives, parents have a right to physically abuse their children and that this right is called "discipline".

  95. Art imitates life/life imitates art? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I recently saw a TV police procedural where a youth basketball coach was abusing his players, giving them hush money and stopping the hush money after the statute of limitations ran out. (they still got the guy because the statute of limitations hadn't really run out.)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  96. Mod up by ridgecritter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wish I had mod points. Times change, things get better. What our parents accepted as the way of the world wasn't ok with us. What we think of as part of the landscape is not good enough for our kids. This is progress.

  97. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    Please don't compare the U.S.A. to a country like Sweden that has fewer persons in it than our largest cities, is a monarchy, and has the diversity of a vanilla ice cream cone with an M & M face on it, of which nearly 1.3 million of its populace left at the beginning of the 1900's to come to the U.S.A. where they comprise about 4.4 million strong today, as they contribute to the laws on the books here that declare in all 50 States that corporal punishment is legal in the home.

  98. Re:"Spare the rod, spoil the child." by Paco103 · · Score: 1

    I got spankings, sometimes with a belt, but never like that. He was yelling, cussing, and swinging that belt with his entire arm to hit anything that was open. There is a fine line between spanking and beating. This was beating, no question.

  99. Odd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one here who seems to think that this is all very ironic?

    How many people, I wonder, have received the retribution of some judge for giving a spanking or two to a child at some Wal-Mart or whatever that equated to the child being removed from the guardianship of the parent whereby the parent was then forced to either go to prison or some form of counseling? I'll admit, I have no proof or whatever to my claims, but you know there's been at least 1 parent out there who's gone through that kind of dismal outcome and just for providing much-needed discipline to the little dickheads that scream and break things just because they either didn't get some toy or some dessert.

    But even with video footage, this guy gets away with absolutely no reprimand? I'm sure it's because he's a judge or whatever, but Jesus, this has to be a slap in the face to logic. I can't possibly be alone in thinking this...

  100. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are things he could be charged with that have a statute of limitations of 10 years instead of the usual 7. Looks like the prosecutors dropped the ball again... just like they always do when the perp is part of the criminal injustice system.

    Oh well. Looks like it's up to Anonymous now.

  101. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by whoop · · Score: 1

    So consult with your local lawmakers and draft the Judge's Standards Act, Politician's Standards Act, etc. to spell out just how each profession must behave at all times.

    Then again, many said in the 90's Clinton was fine doing whatever in his personal life since it wasn't criminal. I guess it's different if you like the person in these cases.

  102. meanwhile in sweden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweden is fucked up in many ways, but in this case this judge asshole would be in prison 5 minutes after the video hit Youtube, one recent case in sweden
    clearly shown that the rights of children is very strong, good or bad thats the way things work right now.

  103. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She was repeatedly downloading music illegally in his house

    According to who? This is what she wrote: "to acquire music and games that were unavailable for legal purchase at the time". In the video the father basically implied that using Kazaa is a crime.

  104. Judge Removal v1.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a blowtorch and vicegrips can't be found, this will work!
    www.kaisertree.com/images/tree_removal5.jpg

  105. Filthbag by Dracophile · · Score: 1

    I couldn't watch all the video. That man is an oxygen thief, pure and simple. I hope he dies in a fire.

    --
    Athy, athier, athiest.
  106. What a moron. by adewolf · · Score: 1

    Wow this guy is really an idiot. How did he become a judge? You know, instead of whipping how but watching what she is doing on the computer....It ain't rocket science.

    --
    "The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
  107. Re:The man has a history of mis-ruling on child ab by snowgirl · · Score: 1

    cases, so it's a shame she waited. However maybe she didn't want him to go to jail and waited out the statute of limitations on purpose. She is a judge's daughter after all, she probably knew the law.

    No, it seems likely that she was caught in an abusive situation. His reaction statement talked about himself in the third person, and talked about how he was providing wonderful stuff to her, like a Mercedes. This is not an uncommon tactic by abusers to create a codependency so that their abused do not feel like it would be in their interests to confront them, leave them, or anything worse (for the abuser), like report them to police, etc.

    The victim noted on Anderson Cooper that she was hoping that this would force her dad to confront that he did in fact abuse her, and that he needed to apologize and get better. She seems to have failed to realize just how deep abusers are in cognitive dissonance, and that they will always minimize their actions, and convince you that it was never as bad as tapes and records of the incident would have you believe. It's kind of the horrible thing about memory, that it is so malleable, and subject to distortion.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  108. Okay... by Chas · · Score: 2

    I was spanked and beaten as a child.

    To be honest, in a lot of cases, I (and my brother) were completely out of control. And when I say completely, I MEAN *COMPLETELY*. The kind of behavior that's not acceptable ANYPLACE. The kind that gets you ejected from restaurants. The kind that has the police coming and talking to your parents. The kind that gets your parents called in to school for multiple parent-teacher conferences.

    Yes, I've had a belt taken to me. At most, 2-3 whacks across the ass.

    The only time I was ever beaten anyplace NEAR this badly was when my brother and I were caught playing out on the roof of our house. We scared my father so damn badly with that stunt that he smacked us silly.

    Needless to say we never did that again.

    The are times when a hand or belt across the backside is acceptable.

    But the severity of the beating in this case is unlike ANYTHING I had as a child (and let's face it, I drove my parents NUTS, quite literally, my mother was a stone's-throw away from being committed a time or two).

    And the whole bit about "You turn over and take it".

    Like fucking hell! I'll be damned if I EVER give someone a free hand in beating me for prolonged periods. And I expect no less from ANYONE, adult or child.

    If my parents had treated me like that, I'd have killed them. Flat out. No exceptions.

    It's no wonder the girl grew up and became a vindictive little bitch.

    When you discipline a child, you spank them at the time of the infraction. You link cause to effect. You don't "wait until dad gets home" then stage a beating. Even on a teenager. ESPECIALLY on a teenager. All you're teaching them at that point is that, if you're doing something wrong, it's okay to simply lash out at any time as "payback".

    Sound like her behavior in this case?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Okay... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      I'll be damned if I EVER give someone a free hand in beating me for prolonged periods. And I expect no less from ANYONE, adult or child.

      If my parents had treated me like that, I'd have killed them. Flat out. No exceptions.

      Try growing up under that and tell me you would have the will to kill them, LOL. Depending on your personality (lion, or lamb; lamb here) it's been beaten out of you long ago. Perhaps you're a lion and it wouldn't have broken you. For a girl I imagine it would have? We'll never know. Only the person themselves knows the answers to these things.

    2. Re:Okay... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Some times the children are really that bad, but usually, if you need to beat your children, you failed long before the beating. They beat you because you deserved it, but *why* did you act in a manner you deserved it? Go back far enough with that reasoning, and you almost always end on "bad parenting" at some point."

    3. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta agree with a lot of this. I've been spanked - sometimes for cause, other times because my older brothers' words carried more weight than mine, bastards... - but never like this. I might have dodged a board to the ass, leading them to take another swing, but they never indiscriminately just hit us like this sorry fucking sack of entrails.

      But, at 16, nah, I'd have swung back and they knew it. By that time, having lifted weights for years, trained in wrestling, and survived older brothers, my parents wouldn't have lasted a minute. Fortunately, by that age, I made myself scarce around the house and didn't have too many problems.

      When it came to my own son, I never had to spank him. He knew if I growled at him, he was pushing it and he stopped whatever he was doing that I didn't like. Otherwise, we were cool - hung out like best buds. I probably behaved worse than he did. He was more like Hobbes and I was Calvin. There was this one time when he was a junior in high school, and he pulled some cheesy move on me in wrestling practice and I swung at him, just missing, but in that he was just like any other guy in the room: you pull BS and expect to get hit. We still laugh about it now and then. I remember the moment when I knew he was "ready" for life. He and his band asked me to manage them and I'd arranged for them to play at a "battle", a big event. We'd discussed what songs to play, and they were determined to play originals; it was "lame" to play covers at a battle, even if people might know a cover or two and vote for them. So, a few days before the show, my kid texted me and said they were going to do covers after all. Since we'd had "discussions" about this, earlier, and he wouldn't budge, then, I was pissed. I walked into band practice and was cool for all of about 10 seconds, then I started hollering. He knew I was mad and that I could probably do some serious damage if push came to shove, but he stood his ground and argued right back. Nothing happened - just a lot of noise - but that was the defining moment: if he can go toe-to-toe with me, he can take on anyone. I was proud of him: don't take shit from -anybody-. He's now mid-20s, got a great daughter, and doing well for himself. Couldn't ask for a better kid.

    4. Re:Okay... by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I don't know that a beating like that deserves the parent to be killed.

      It does seem though that there is a reason he is hitting his 16 yr old *daughter* like that. Its a power trip and he even gives a hint he is enjoying it several times from what he is saying.

      OTOH, if it was his 16 yr old *son* it would be a different story. I'm in my 30s now but I know that at 16, if my dad hit me like that I would have dropped him like a rock. Then again, my dad was too kind and I love him. He never abused me let alone spank me very much. I was also a good kid. But in a fit of rage like that, I would defend myself.

    5. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the whole bit about "You turn over and take it".

      Like fucking hell! I'll be damned if I EVER give someone a free hand in beating me for prolonged periods. And I expect no less from ANYONE, adult or child.

      Well, that's not how I interpreted it. I think that she only got beat for a prolonged period because she didn't turn over, so she was further disobeying. I think this was the mother got into it. She realized the father would not stop beating their daughter until she fucking obeyed them and turned over. So she took the belt away and figured that she could get her daughter to turn over. That said, the father still wanted the daughter to obey him.

      If she had turned over, I figured she'd have gotten maybe three slashes. I think she knew that too, but had to make it look good for the camera.

    6. Re:Okay... by MoriT · · Score: 1

      There's a reason you were out of control: you were subject to regular assaults. Obviously they didn't work or help, or you wouldn't have been out of control in the first place.

    7. Re:Okay... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      WTF is with you and other posters hear tossing out the pussy pass to this girl? I thought wymyn these days were supposed to be all about the equality and whatnot. If it's ok to do something to a boy, it's okay to do it to a girl. If you want a blanket condemnation of corporal punishment if you want to give her a pass because of her (mild, unnoticeable) disability, fine. But to do it because of gender? Ridiculous.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  109. Re:"Spare the rod, spoil the child." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was anything like what happened to this girl -- and lots of adults have suffered far worse physical abuse than her -- it was in spite of the beatings, not because of them. You didn't grow up to be a functioning adult because you were mentally traumatized. She was basically raped -- not violently, just put into a situation where she was de-humanized. Slapping a child on the ass a few times does not convey nearly the same anguish. Imagine the most fear you've ever felt and that's what she experienced.

  110. Or maybe you withdrew the only thing stopping her? by jnork · · Score: 1

    "Judge Adams issued a statement asserting that his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him for withdrawing his financial support."

    Oh, well, that makes the beating OK then.

    --
    Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
  111. I am the only one wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one wondering why this was being video taped in the first place?

  112. you stupid idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoever thinks that 16 = adult then you have to give them the same rights as any other adult. the right to vote, the right to die for their country, the right to imbibe alcohol, the right to bare arms, the right to bare children.

    anything else makes you a stupid fucking hypocrite fuck face who needs to be shot in the head. got a problem with my rights to freedom of speech? go fuck yourself.

    1. Re:you stupid idiots. by TheRealGrogan · · Score: 1

      the right to bare arms, the right to bare children.

      Yes, you can wear short sleeve shirts if you wish, but it would be frowned upon to be taking children's clothes off.

  113. Texas justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Code of the West, haul the bastard out into the town square and hang him.

    1. Re:Texas justice by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Code of the West, haul the bastard out into the town square and hang him.

      Don't forget to wrap up the days' festivities with a trial.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  114. Re:"Spare the rod, spoil the child." by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

    You don't discipline a 16 year old by beating them with a belt until they are crying and scared. 16 year olds are basically young adults, and they can be reasoned with. He could have thrown the computer out the window to make his point, or simply taken it away, or he could have reported her to the authorities.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  115. "I can usually tell..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course you can. That's because any child that exhibits poor behavior must have not been spanked, and those who exhibit good behavior must have. Let's ignore the bias of the idea, because even if that were true, it'd be insanely anecdotal. Your children and their friends is hardly a representative sample. Studies have proven spanking to lead to reduced IQs, more not less disciplinary issues and in the long-term is not effective. These are widely available, scientifically based and been repeated many times over. You may claim, "Oh, but my kids changed their behavior after."

    Oh really? Did you ever consider that they changed because they outgrew it naturally, because their friends weren't doing the same, because they in some other way came to understand the real reasons for such behavior being detrimental, or a million other possible reasons? And how do you defined changed? Just how much time has to pass? If they stop doing something for a night, for a day, for a week? How did you track this? Think about it.

    You delude yourself sir and it's sad that you don't see it, but I agree with your last statement, he just should have taken the fucking computer.

    1. Re:"I can usually tell..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

    2. Re:"I can usually tell..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt a model response. It addresses in such elaborate detail the full argument of the previous post and provides such wonderful counterpoints that I should save myself the trouble of responding and concede. Yes indeed, no juvenile approach here. Your dedication to a well reasoned argument is outstanding, even inspiring. You've revealed yourself to be quite the intellectual. God, oh please God and good sir, please forgive me for having doubted the proponents of spanking. Yes, you've proven you're the better man. I tip my hat to you sir.

  116. Not a beating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A beating leaves you bleeding with broken bones and a concussion. That was just a spanking. They weren't even hitting her hard.

  117. What I saw wasn't punnishment by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

    I watched the video straight through, it was hard to do. What I saw was clearly not punishment, it was flat out inexcusable abuse.

    His life as he previously knew it is over. And that is good. He deserves worse than he will get and I have confidence that Anonymous will be very effective. Then there are all the professional responsibility and ethics boards that are all chomping at the bit to get at him.

  118. "and it's none of our business" by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Bingo. but unfortunately its today's "shiny object ratings improver" in the media.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  119. Re:hahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you watched the video and in some way feel it is okay, you are a fool. It was appalling and over the top ABUSE. No child should suffer 10% of what that girl did. Period.

  120. Re:"Spare the rod, spoil the child." by dward90 · · Score: 1

    Watch the fucking video. This isn't spanking. This is abuse. I was spanked as a child. It made me a better child. What never happened, though, was repeated whipping over my entire body after I was screaming in submission. He beats her. She screams and cries. Then he beats her more. Then he yells at her, cursing. Then he beats her more. She screams. He beats her more. If you think the fathers behavior is ok in this video, then you are lower than scum.

    --
    My other sig is clever.
  121. What about the Judge's ability to do his job? by vilain · · Score: 2

    He's a family court judge deciding family law cases. With this sort of behavior publically posted, I wonder if a bunch attorneys who've had cases before this guy aren't going back now looking for grounds for appeal. Any abuse case that appears before this guy or anything with violence in it would be grounds for an attorney to ask the judge to recuse himself. He may not be fired, but he many end up doing traffic court for the rest of his career. If it's boring enough and at night, that might be a nice start. Maybe he'll just quit. But I doubt it. He's said he did nothing wrong. Maybe so. But it's prejudicial as hell.

    1. Re:What about the Judge's ability to do his job? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      He may not be fired, but he many end up doing traffic court for the rest of his career. . If it's boring enough and at night, that might be a nice start.

      I'm thinking his new career should be referee during wrestling matches. With one stipulation, however: The wrestlers will constantly forget that they just *pretend* to smack him in the back with a steel chair. "*WHAM!* Oops. We're supposed to fake that? I don't know why we have so much trouble remembering!"

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  122. Re:"Spare the rod, spoil the child." by euroq · · Score: 1

    Your comment belongs in another discussion about the merits of spanking when raising children.

    This discussion is about child abuse and about a judge who makes judgements on cases involving child abuse and domestic violence. If you watch the video, you'll understand. The man is sadistic and is taking pleasure in beating a child. Even if you think physical violence is appropriate when raising children, if the person applying the violence enjoys it then it's not okay.

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  123. DIMWITS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The country is going down the sh*tter and most kids feel they can do whatever they want without repercussions. I think if you can reason with your child and not have these sorts of problem then your ahead of the game BUT with all the accessibility to bad and somewhat illegal information online and a d*psh*t spouse willing to undercut you to keep up with the Jones what can you do? I say if present Society fell on its @ss there would be a major attitude correction all the way around and more folks would be minding their P's and Q's.

    SIN

  124. In my house, I beat my father by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At 16, I remember my dad took my out driving. He got mad at me for driving too fast and he tried to take away my keys. I didn't let him so he tried grabbing me. I grabbed the nearest object (a cordless phone) and smashed it over his head (it flew into pieces). His glasses flew off, and I gave him a pretty big bump on the head. I felt so guilty after that. I was 6'4" at 16 and was about 6 inches taller than my father, so that's one advantage guys have over girls. Needless to say, my father never tried to take my keys or pick a fight with me again haha. I beat my father! I don't know how someone could beat their child like that, especially at that age. He should know that beating older kids is a bad idea because they have brains and can do things like video tape or fight back.

    1. Re:In my house, I beat my father by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      He should have just reported the car stolen the next time you used it.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  125. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice link. It says 5 years. She was 16 when this was taken, and is 23 now.....

    Too much caps lock, not enough reading.

  126. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by ThePeices · · Score: 1

    Holy crap!

    Settle down mate, just settle down....take a deep breath and a step back.

    nice slow deep breaths...thats it....nice and slow......

    everything's okay, just take it nice and easy, and keep that breathing exercise going...nice and easy....

    You feeling okay now? good...

  127. Re:"Spare the rod, spoil the child." by e3m4n · · Score: 1

    spanking is not discipline.. it is used to get their attention and if you dont follow up with a real consequence you teach them nothing. The word Discipline comes from the word Disciple. It means 'to teach'. What exactly are you teaching by applying pain for a brief period of time? Even way back in the days of actual 'rod's being used.. it was to stop them from doing whatever half-assed thing they were doing right that moment (getting their attention) .. but the actual Discipline came afterwards when they got some other consequence that had a much longer lasting effect than the initial slap with a stick of wood.

  128. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by vakuona · · Score: 1

    No they shouldn't be held to a higher standard. They should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

  129. His rulings as a judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More worrying is the fact that Adams, as a judge, is (allegedly - I haven't seen it myself) lenient with child abusers.
    I've read allegations that he completely dismisses witnesses and demands pictures for cases to go forward. Basically, unless you have a picture or a video of child abuse, he'll let the abusive parent go free and keep custody of the child, no matter how many witnesses you have.

    I'm sure transcripts of his cases and rulings could be found by someone in the USA who would be willing to do the research.

    1. Re:His rulings as a judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read allegations that he completely dismisses witnesses and demands pictures for cases to go forward. Basically, unless you have a picture or a video of child abuse, he'll let the abusive parent go free and keep custody of the child, no matter how many witnesses you have.

      After reading how many people think this video is "child abuse" when the US attorney's office reviewed the video and found no offense.

      Clearly people think things are abuse that are not abuse.

    2. Re:His rulings as a judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly people think things are abuse that are not abuse.

      Clearly not all abuse is legally defined as "abuse."

      As Dr. Drew said about the abuse, we KNOW the damage it does. The fact that it's legal doesn't change it, and these victims end up having to deal with the effects in adulthood.

      Someday the law will change to reflect the reality of abuse. The brain is an organ that can be damaged by trauma.

  130. Re:The man has a history of mis-ruling on child ab by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

    That's the great thing about recordings. They aren't malleable. And it's fund to watch liars squirm when confronted with them. At least I think so...

    --
    Huh?
  131. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh?

    Going by the link you posted, the statute of limitations is 5 years at most ("injury to a child...that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code"; this offense is _not_ punishable as a felony of the first degree). It may not even be that long; it's not clear to me that she qualified as a child at the time (since it looks like they define "child" to mean "14 years of age or younger"). At any rate, this happened 7 years ago.

    But you typed in all caps and used mean words so you're probably right; I'd just like you to explain to us simpletons how you inferred, from a link that says the statute of limitations has expired, that the statute of limitations hasn't expired.

  132. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the link. What is the statute of limitations? The video is seven years old. The ten-year statute of limitations only applies if there is actual physical injury. At best, the statute of limitations in this case is three years and more likely two years.

  133. And this is why I'm not visiting the Bible *Belt* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen the video, but there's a transcript on Reddit, and I can't help thinking he'd like to fuck her real hard. It almost reads like a perverted game, a S&M session - "daddy" "punishes" the "bad" "daughter". For disrespecting his authorita, no less. Bend over the bed *unbuckled, unzips*. Of course, with the mother trying to minimize damage there, he doesn't get the chance. Not that it helped this girl much, but at least she has one scar less. Not everyone is (even) that lucky.

  134. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
    Well you're wrong. For starters, they can't have criminal convictions themselves. Expecting them to behave privately in line with the higher standards of their office is both natural, and in fact highly logical.

    Do you really feel it is ok for a judge to turn on the respectable persona while he's sitting on the bench, and as soon as he leaves the courtroom he can act like a jerk and a wife beater? At the very least that puts a huge question mark over his judgment, and frankly his competence to make life and death decisions over other people.

    Nobody's putting a gun to his head and forcing the guy to be a judge. If he wants to be one, he should get his private life in order.

  135. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The link you just posted shows, in fact, that the statute of limitations has done just that - expired.

    From the link:

    "Five Years
    Theft, burglary, robbery; kidnapping; injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; abandoning or endangering a child; or insurance fraud;"

    Note that the limitation is 10 years if and only if the injury to a child is punishable as a felony of the first degree, which almost certainly wouldn't apply in this incident.

  136. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by tofubeer · · Score: 1

    Ummm... according to the link you posted, yes the statute of limitations has expired. Also given that it is federal prosecutors I am not sure that the STATE of Texas statute of limitations would apply.

  137. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article: "Aransas County District Attorney Patrick Flanigan said Thursday the statute of limitations on charges such as injury to a child expired after five years."

  138. Sixteen is too old to spank by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    If you feel the need to spank your 16 year old child, then you've already lost. You should have done a better job of parenting many years before that point.

    Basically, you should spat a two year old's hand if he's reaching for something dangerous, but by the time a child reaches an age where they can communicate, all spanking should end. They're intelligent human beings; treat them as such.

    My 30 year old son reads and posts here. Let's let him judge the way he was raised now that he has two children of his own. :)

  139. Sense of scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just watched and listened to the video. This will not be trendy, but 50 years ago this kind of beating would be considered appropriate. Even 20 years ago, this would not have been anything to prosecute for. And I've met far, far, far too many kids whose parents never *did* discipline them properly, who now are pampered, entitled, fools with no sense of *scale* about what abuse really is.

    While this seems excessive even to me, I can certainly think of dozens of adults who'd benefit from a strap across their ass for criminal violations, as opposed to the crapshoot that is the US prosecutorial system.

    1. Re:Sense of scale by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

      Fifty years it was considered constitutional to have laws forbidding marriages between blacks and white. Anyone arguing for a return to sterner times really needs to look at worldwide crime rates and explain why crime in the western world has generally been in decline for quite some time now - despite "trendy" methods of disciplining children and adults.

      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm

      So, what's the message there? Beat children a little bit and tell them that a severe beating is that beating multiplied by ten? Yes, we all know some dicks. Whether we want to live in a society that allows these people to be flogged is a question that requires an argument more substantial than an appeal to tradition.

      I see physical violence as being similar to honking the horn in a car. It should only be used to avert an immediate danger: If a child is about to touch a red hot stove, slapping their hand away makes sense. If a driver is about to cut across your lane, oblivious to the presence of your car, honking the horn may prevent an accident. Honking the horn as punishment, just like with beating a child, is more about punishment than an ernest attempt to teach a lesson. How often do we see people honking their horn as a warning? Most of the time I see it used to deliver a loud "fuck you!" With spankings, how often are they done in a calm and dispassionate manner? Do parents first talk to the child so they understand what is about to happen and why, or are they more likely to just reach for the belt and begin thrashing away? Are there not better ways of teaching a lesson - such as discussing actions and the denial of privileges?

    2. Re:Sense of scale by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      This will not be trendy, but 50 years ago this kind of beating would be considered appropriate.

      Its fucking child abuse. Stop making fucking excuses for violent, savage behavior under the guise of "discipline," you fucking Neanderthal asswipe.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
  140. relevant part of TX Penal Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised no one has posted this yet: (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.22.htm)

    """
    Sec. 22.04. INJURY TO A CHILD, ELDERLY INDIVIDUAL, OR DISABLED INDIVIDUAL. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual:
    (1) serious bodily injury;
    (2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or
    (3) bodily injury.
    """

    And Statute of Limitations stuff (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/CR/htm/CR.12.htm):

    """
    CHAPTER 12. LIMITATION

    Art. 12.01. FELONIES. Except as provided in Article 12.03, felony indictments may be presented within these limits, and not afterward: ........
    (6) ten years from the 18th birthday of the victim of the offense: injury to a child under Section 22.04, Penal Code; or
    """

    I'm not a lawyer,

  141. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by iamhassi · · Score: 1

    By beating the shit out of her with a belt?

    CITATION NEEDED: Define "beating the shit out of"

    she wasn't even crying when he finally left the room, hardly "beating the shit out of"

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  142. Get over yourself, hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, i think it's a case of child doesnt understand their father's position. She was downloading music and games illegaly. When you are a judge, that kind of shit can't be going on in your house. He whipped her with a belt, big whoop, i used to get whipped plenty as a child. That being said, at the age of 16 a whipping is a little... I guess primitive, a teen isn't gonna respond to that kind of shit. You take the kids computer away and call it a day, she's taking online classes? Go to the library and read a book while she does her school shit. Abuse? No, i guarantee any and all marks left by the belt were gone within 2-3 days, if even that long. Children these days have too much power, it's BS, learn to reapect your parents and those around you, grow up and realize this world doesnt revolve around you.

    1. Re:Get over yourself, hillary by drewm1980 · · Score: 1

      http://abstrusegoose.com/114
      "Beats his own children for violating RIAA sponsored copyright legislation"

  143. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Boy, you're an overbearing shithead.

    Here's a clue, aspie: being good at computers doesn't mean you're good at anything else. Put the routine back in the fucking closet.

  144. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by dryeo · · Score: 1

    I just went outside and cursed god and didn't get struck down, there I proved it as the god of the bible didn't put up with that kind of shit.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  145. The daughter may be the only one criminally liable by Nerdorable · · Score: 1

    As upsetting as the video may be to watch in 2011, it was still recorded in 2004. The statute of limitations for any crime(s) documented in the video (assault and battery/domestic abuse) have already expired.

    Federal prosecutors can't do anything because no federal laws were broken. This is a state matter. The people of Texas decided that five years should be the statute of limitations for domestic abuse and they are the only ones who could change that with legislation. If the state of Texas finds the situation unjust, then it needs to extend the statute of limitations for these crimes, or enact new laws. The people can also refuse to re-elect the judge.

    The opportunity may still exist for the daughter to sue her father and seek tort remedy; not for the abuse documented in the video, but any abuse that occurred after it (if a court sees it as abuse). Many states view each occurrence of abuse as a separate act. The statute of limitations begins to run for each act at the time that it occurred. If the last incident of abuse took place within the last 5 years, then the daughter could hold her father accountable in civil court for damages.

    Only one crime may have taken place relating to this video for which the statute of limitations has not expired: extortion.

    The father claims that when he cut off the daughter's financial support after she dropped out of college, she threatened to publish the video and ruin his career unless he reinstated it. It is unusual that the daughter held onto the video for seven years (four years after moving out of the household) before releasing it.

  146. She got what was coming to her. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they charge the father, they should charge her, too, for STEALING.

    Why do all you /. communists like STEALING?

  147. OY VEY! Collective Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, the IDF beats Palestinian children who live in prison (refugee)camps like Jenin and Gaza. Wheres the media attention on that? they dont allow car imports to Gaza, and communication privileges like skype and facebook and telephone are regularly restricted and jammed, and not because they did anything wrong. Ask Netanyahu why he says they must be collectively punished and he might say something like " well we abused them earlier and we dont want it to get out".

    Oy Vey, he forgot to read the Goldstone report, post #37959484, or http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-13/opinion/op-61_1_pipe-bomb/2

  148. Thsi is a Judge that tires cases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She has had ataxic cerebral palsy so not only a child but a handicapped child that he beat like that and that is against the law, so why is he not getting brought up on charges?

  149. Beating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't a brutal beating the kind where, you get your teath kicked in, cracked ribs, broken nose, multiple bruised or broken bones? Or has the use of the word brutal lost its meaning? He seems to have lost his temper and been capricious in his disciplining of his daughter.

    Could there be a video posted of an child receiving a belt, that would not get the overwhelming oh me, oh my response? 16 seems a little old. Her being "disabled" seems more for shock value, would it matter if she had dyslexia? Her cerebral palsy is ataxic, meaning the kind people dont notice, it has to do w/ muscle coordination, her disability does not prevent her from driving a car.

    For every "Kill this animal" "Oh My G@d, the brutality" ... in what situations would you find using a belt on a child acceptable? Probably none.

    The best use of corporal punishment is in a calm, dispassionate manner, when a young child that doesnt under stand reason, has performed something that has natural consequences that may be permanent or debilitating, a child that doesnt understand not playing in street, touching a stove, etc. The best use is clearly dispassionate. He doesn't meet any of these cases but short of medical evidence showing she's been brutalized, I cant call this criminal.

  150. Statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this kind of case, the statue of limitation in Texas is 5 years, so there are no charges to be filed.

              This doesn't mean he won't be disbarred or any of that (this is Texas we're talking about, though, so who knows?)

  151. that's not straight by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    You think that privacy implications trump the disclosure of obvious criminal child abuse

    Who ever said that? Who ever said anything remotely like that?

    Most people won't be able to see how this situation is (generally) privacy related, they'll be focused too narrowly. That's okay. But don't make wrong assumptions about what my stance is on the very specific issue of this man's right to privacy versus that girl's right to justice.

    People were bound to read into what I said, even though I said nothing about that particular matter. Expectations and narrow focus make people troll themselves.

    For those with the ability, I am prompting discussion of the more general implications of how democratized data capture affects everyone's privacy. And I can't stress strongly enough how this generalized trend is something we should be keeping our eyes on. Taken to the extreme, it means eventually that no one, whether acting evilly or good, will have any privacy at all. Discuss.

    1. Re:that's not straight by fireylord · · Score: 1

      You think that privacy implications trump the disclosure of obvious criminal child abuse

      Who ever said that? Who ever said anything remotely like that?

      Most people won't be able to see how this situation is (generally) privacy related, they'll be focused too narrowly. That's okay. But don't make wrong assumptions about what my stance is on the very specific issue of this man's right to privacy versus that girl's right to justice.

      People were bound to read into what I said, even though I said nothing about that particular matter. Expectations and narrow focus make people troll themselves.

      For those with the ability, I am prompting discussion of the more general implications of how democratized data capture affects everyone's privacy. And I can't stress strongly enough how this generalized trend is something we should be keeping our eyes on. Taken to the extreme, it means eventually that no one, whether acting evilly or good, will have any privacy at all. Discuss.

      I completely disagree with your premise here. Privacy concerns have no place in situations of child abuse. There is indeed a line regarding privacy of events and actions in private situations, however in this case that line is about 3 timeszones back that way. The only 'implication' inferrable from this regarding privacy is that if you break the law and someone records it then any expectations of privacy are delusional.

      To take this as an indicator of the extreme end of this being zero expectactions of privacy in any scenario is just a strawman argument. To wit, this case and privacy 'implications' have zero to do with each other.

  152. Judge bashes disabled daughter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently she has axatic cerebral palsy... From the article at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8370540/texas-judge-defends-his-abuse-of-daughter

    This is why too much is hinged on any one person to make quite extremely and highly important decisions for, not just a household as is half of the case in this article, but the greater community as a whole as a judge which this man should clearly not be. The mother in this video is no better either, she is a slave to this man it would appear as well or maybe does it to be more loved in bed by her hubby when they whisper tales of who beat their daughter the hardest?

    The decisions of this man as a judge can NEVER be taken seriously. The video is very disturbing. One can only imagine that her OBEDIENCE is lacking because she has started taking on her parents image as the mold has long since set from a little girl, I guess. But she has a disability, doesn't make this ANY better for her parents. She is supposed to trust her parents to be there for her. She sure as heck trusted her dad to beat her, that clearly was the case and she knew it which is how she got footage. I bet it took her ages to work up the courage to get that camera set up and film her getting bashed. How many beatings would that be do you reckon?

    I wonder what other thoughts were racing through his head? Why he wants to see his '16' yo daughters ass and smack it when all the while he is just beating the crap out of her anyway, is beyond me. Very sick man, and the mother is clinical too imho.

  153. case of... by alienzed · · Score: 1

    World sees reality, world freaks out.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  154. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    And how do you figure the statute of limitations has not expired? Not only has the state said so, the link you provides says so too. She wasn't a child (younger than 14). Nor is the offense punishable under 22.04 (despite being disabled, she is able to care for herself). So the maximum possible term for the statue of limitations would seem to be five years.

    Or, in other words, the link you provide doesn't seem to say what you think it does. The State of Texas agrees with my interpretation.

    So, if you've "done the research", why not provide a cite showing where the State of Texas and the link you provided is wrong?

  155. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by Troed · · Score: 1

    I'm Swedish. You might want to update your knowledge about other countries before having too strong opinions about them :)

    (And none of it, the small parts that might be considered true, had anything to do with the fact that parents who think corporal punishment is a good thing should visit the nearest psychological clinic)

  156. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    From your link:

    The SOL is 10 years in the case of "Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code". That would be within the SOL, but I don't know whether it counts as such a "felony of the first degree".

    For "injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code", the SOL is only 5 years, and this case is too old.

    You seem pretty sure (sure enough to run your mouth quite a bit) that this incident is still within the SOL. That implies you think it to be the first case, a felony of the first degree (and also that the page you linked, from 2008, is still valid). You may even be correct. However, the link you posted is not, by itself, sufficient to show that.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  157. Can't believe people are OK with this by bryan1945 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "It wasn't as bad as I got when I was a kid."
    "She's just digging for money."
    "Teaching a lesson is a good thing."
    "Other countries do this all the time."

    You people are sick.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Can't believe people are OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You are a sissy.

    2. Re:Can't believe people are OK with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. My parents hit me growing up. Now as an adult I have a hard time relating to them. I remember every time they beat me. Every time. Twenty years later I remember the beatings. My parents want to have a normal healthy relationship with me as an adult but I can't. It affected me my entire life. I can't trust my parents, I can't relate to them. I don't like being around them. If I had children I wouldn't let them near them.

    3. Re:Can't believe people are OK with this by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Wow, coming from an AC. Bravo.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  158. Question Papers | Solved Question Papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi,

    Globalshiksha provides all kind of question papers like, Entrance Exams of 2012, Engineering, Medical, Fashion, Competitive examinations and many more related to Question Papers. To download the question papers click on the link given below
    Question Papers

  159. What a pathetic man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a pathetic man

  160. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THE FUCKING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS NOT EXPIRED.

    http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html

    Could you at least have the fucking brains to DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF before opening your mouth like a fucking parrot?

    Five Years
    Theft, burglary, robbery; kidnapping; injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; abandoning or endangering a child; or insurance fraud;

    Did you even read your research ?

  161. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The video is seven years old. The statute of limitations for injury to a child in your very own link is five years and five years is the number given if you RTFA and it is also the number given in the news report YouTube linked in the parent.

    Way to go with the insults before faceplanting. Maybe you should go to anger management classes with the judge.

  162. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by vakuona · · Score: 1

    I do not think it is ok for the judge to be a jerk and a wife beater, and I do not think anyone else should be a jerk and a wife beater. You see, holding _everyone_ to the same standard.

  163. One rule for us, another for them by wdef · · Score: 1

    Qu: how is it that a judge can entirely avoid prosecution for a crime that would see an ordinary person jailed in many parts of the developed world?

  164. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the link you posted:

    Five Years
    Theft, burglary, robbery; kidnapping; injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; abandoning or endangering a child; or insurance fraud;

  165. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Five Years
    injury to a child...abandoning or endangering a child"

    "When Does the Statute of Limitations start?
    The day you (allegedly) commit the offense."

    For a video that was filmed 7 years ago, the research suggests that devleopard is right.

  166. He is right by koan · · Score: 1
    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:He is right by drewm1980 · · Score: 1

      Your response to watching video of a disabled girl getting beaten is "Whip her again"?

      http://abstrusegoose.com/114
      "Condones child abuse"

    2. Re:He is right by koan · · Score: 1

      I don't see any information about being "disabled" she is clearly a functional (physically) human with a nice Mercedes to drive, you know... prior to it being taken away.
      http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Police-Fed-prosecutor-looking-into-Texas-beating-2249787.php

      http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2011/11/02/police-investigate-judge-over-disturbing-online-video/?tsp=1

      Since you didn't post anything about her "disabilities" and the first 2 articles I find do not mention it, the answer is yes, beat her again.
      It appears to some he went overboard but consider that she had no problems stealing, lying and then blackmailing her parents who thought enough of her to provide her with a nice car and financial support, she is the perfect example of what's wrong with this country.

      What people like you don't seem to understand is the behavior I see today, compared to what was expected from people 40 years ago, if you are under 30 you wouldn't know this and you are most likely a self serving narcissist with little empathy for others and a gross exaggeration of your own abilities.
      Which I think you have shown quite well with your absurd post.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:He is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. That comic reminded me of this old skit from Amazon Women on the Moon:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIk2Qs3EgbI

    4. Re:He is right by drewm1980 · · Score: 1

      You're advocating for people beat their children more, and yet ~I'm the one "with little empathy for others"?

      I'm not an expert on psychology or child development, but the experts sure seem to disagree with you:
      http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/corporal-punishment.aspx

      Not that it has any bearing on whether children deserve to be beaten, but she ~does have ataxic cerebral palsy. It's in the second article you link to.

      What's your take on elder abuse? Should we take off our belts and beat the crap out of our grandparents if they buy unauthorized copies of prescription drugs on the black market? Is a judge who beats his elderly parents for such behavior fit to decide cases involving elder abuse? Does the level of senility of a little old man really have any bearing on whether his children should ever beat him with a belt?

    5. Re:He is right by koan · · Score: 1

      I've watched the decline of this country for several decades, in no small part to "child psychologist", television and a broken education system and nanny government, you will never understand what I am talking about because you haven't seen it first hand, you have to rely on other peoples opinions to form yours, I rely on experience, one benefit of age.

      Let me put it to you in a way you can understand LIGAF, FOAD, DIAF, almost your entire generation is a self indulgent waste of space.

      Get it yet?

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    6. Re:He is right by drewm1980 · · Score: 1

      I still don't quite get it. Could you please elaborate?

  167. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Please don't compare the U.S.A. to a country like Sweden that has the diversity of a vanilla ice cream cone with an M & M face on it,..

    You do realise that over 10 percent of Sweden's population is either immigrants or the children of immigrants, don't you? (And in Stockholm and Malmö, it's more like 20-25%.) In my suburb, you hear Russian and Arabic spoken about as much as you do Swedish.

    You might also be interested to learn that Sweden is a parliamentary democracy.

    And I fail to see what size has anything to do with it, other than your attempts to impress us with numbers/factoids that don't actually have any bearing on the topic at hand.

    BTW, one of my best friends here was born in the US of Swedish parents, and migrated back here (and reclaimed her Swedish citizenship) as soon as she was old enough to do so on her own, legally.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  168. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well actually! Yes! According to your own link, it has passed. Could you at least READ AND COMPREHEND THE FUCKING RESEARCH YOU DO before opening your insulting sewer of an ignorant mouth to spew your mistaken legal opinions, as supported by a fucking blog entry?

  169. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is the text of Texas Penal Code Section 22.04, referenced in the link you provided:

    http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/22.04.00.html

    Note that a 'child' is defined to be someone 14 years old, or younger, so this section doesn't apply. Unfortunately, it looks like the SOL did expire.

  170. Re:The daughter may be the only one criminally lia by Zironic · · Score: 1

    Well, even if he's not going to be prosecuted for a crime, his career as a family judge is probably over at this point.

  171. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow - are you the judge in question? Rage much???

  172. good verses evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not like how this is being portrayed as a innocent crippled,child being attacked by a monster. It seems to me that both the judge and his daughter are awful people. The daughter was 16 years old at the time of the video, played the piano very well, has never used a wheelchair or crutches due to her disability, and was more than capable of reporting any abuse. The judge for beating his daughter with a belt while the daughter has set up the circumstances for the beating and the camera to record it (she somehow knew the beating was coming, set up the camera and waited for a half hour), then waits seven years to release the video.
    I am just saying that taking one side in this situation should not be automatic especially without knowing the full history of the family.

  173. The RIAA would be proud! by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

    I think the RIAA has found their new saint.

  174. WTF by HBI · · Score: 1

    You're right, this isn't about retaliation, really. She's releasing it now to get attention and money. That's called being an attention whore, hauling out your personal baggage for the world to see for money and some short-lived attention.

    This kid deserved the beating. Too bad it was too late to help. I foresee a negative outcome, if we cared enough to watch over the course of 10-15 years.

    The fact that so many people don't see the utter frustration with this kid depicted in the video shows the degeneracy of modern society. I see it in my daughter's fellow students on a daily basis. They are scum. No ethics, no moral compass, fulfill every desire and fuck the rest of the world. Seems to be the motto of this generation.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, you're okay with this guy telling his 16yo daughter to take her "beating like a grown woman," and you're worried about the moral compass of others? If your moral compass is okay with beating grown women, what exactly is it not okay with? Let me guess... being gay?

  175. Her motivations are irrelevant by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    He is a self-righteous, vicious and violent monster who should never have sat on the bench.

    I'm reminded of the German judge who acquitted Veit Harlan, the producer/director of the viciously anti-semitic film, Jew Suss, of war crimes related to the production. During the war he had a gypsy woman beheaded for stealing a head scarf during an air raid. The judge should have been in Spandau, not on the bench.

  176. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez, fucking calm down...

  177. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    The best policy is to assume that all unprovables are false, until such time as they are proved. In other words, it is reasonable to disbelieve a proposition when there is no evidence. Even if it is less certainly false than propositions which are actually contradicted by evidence (although even that does not amount to a complete certainty), it is still reasonable to regard them as false so long as we've done some checking, and don't ignore new evidence that we come across.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  178. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, five years according to the link above. The video is seven years old. Who's the parrot now?

  179. Understaing Abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For victims of abuse, that video can bring up a lot of emotions that others who have never been beaten, terrorized, and controlled by another person could ever understand. My dad was like Vince Vaughn in Domestic Disturbance, an ostensibly perfect citizen, well loved by his neighbors, fellow chuchgoers, and business associates. But at home, he abused, terrorized, and controlled his wife and children until they were self loathing and broken willed emotional cripples. What you see in that video is a glimpse into the lifestyle of abuse he led against his family. I bet he gave his wife an allowance to pay bills that lasted only part of the way through the month so she'd have to ask him for more, and that all the titles to the cars and property are in his name. He turned his responsibilities into privileges for family; to clothe, feed, and shelter them were gifts of his benevolence and mercy that they, people with nothing, who were nothing without him, had to earn with simple respect and obedience. I left home several times as a teenager because of how I was treated, like a puppet in a psychopath's imaginary tea party rather than a human being, but always came back when my mother would call and tell me that he'd taken away the keys and locked her in the house and cut off her phone or he'd call and blame me for why my I could hear my mom crying in the background, because really I was his favorite to torment. That's kind of what life as I knew it was, and I hope you understand that no matter how much stupid fucking money someone has (she's just the spoiled kid of that good rich judge, right?), the perversion of the mind of your wife and children through manipulation and abuse has a cost that can't be redeemed with gift bribes or cash pay offs, which you know are just more strings to be pulled because, if you follow the logic, you know that property isn't allowed to own property.

    This girl has is bad in a number of ways that people don't seem to understand. It's hard to get away from someone that abusive or a systematically abusive situation, to sever all of the strings, to build a life that belongs only to you from the ground up without any support from the people you always wanted to believe would love, protect, and guide but never did. It takes a long time to rebuild your self confidence and heal emotionally and mentally. A decade later, I still have dreams where I have to fight off my father, and I wake up with the terrible feelings I had so often as a younger man, and I'm always afraid and ashamed that one day in a professional situation something might set those feelings off, that someone might get a hint of what my life was like before and try to exploit me like my dad did to my family. Having a car taken away wasn't the issue to this girl; having someone who had betrayed and manipulated her for her entire life try to exert control over her when she was showing a modicum of self sufficiency was just the straw that finally broke the camel's back. She's fighting back for the years she spent being a psychopath's plaything by showing the world his true colors and knocking him off his shining white pedestal. She knew that releasing that video would be crossing the Rubicon, but she didn't know what would happen if she did it while still under his roof. Now, older and with some sort of financial stability from working, she knows for the first time the feelings of independence, safety, and security in her life well enough to not put up with any more of his bullshit. When she said, "No, I'm doing it my way, it's my life.", he threatened to take things away from her to get her to comply. Only this time, she said fine, take it, you're out of my life, and here's what you look like, here's who you are.

    Making the decision to break of out that life was probably the hardest thing she's ever had to do. Could she have done that without posting a damning video of her past abuse? Probably, but I think exposing abuse is extremely important. When I went to my school counselor as a kid to explain what what going on at home, beca

  180. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is felony child abuse then its 10 years, if its not a felony its 5 years, so perhaps its not felony child abuse? Since there is no past history and no permanent injury and no deadly weapon used its probably not a felony, least in Texas... So maybe you need to read what you link, you think?

  181. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THE FUCKING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS NOT EXPIRED.

    http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html

    Could you at least have the fucking brains to DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF before opening your mouth like a fucking parrot?

    Your link itself says that the Statute of Limitations expires after five years for injury to a child and if you RTFA you'd see it also explicitly says five years and the youtube clip of the news piece also says errrr five years.

    So before f'ing and blinding, do make sure you're not doing a spectacular faceplant. You can get some anger management classes with the judge too.

  182. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THE FUCKING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS NOT EXPIRED.

    http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html

    Could you at least have the fucking brains to DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF before opening your mouth like a fucking parrot?

    Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Is this how pathetic some have become? Being abusive and posting a link they have not bothered to read carefully.

    I know that he hasn't bothered to read the link carefully because I did, and from my reading I see that the statute of limitations for applicable crimes is at most five years: five for either "injury to a child" or "endangering a child", three for "All other felonies not already listed.". Maybe the SoL has not expired, but according to that link it has.

    This demonstrating a saying of Abraham Lincoln's " When in a room full of people who think you are an idiot, it is better to say nothing then to open your mouth and
    remove all doubt."

    Worse are the people who voted this up.

  183. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are you saying that what he's done is punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code?

    If she's 23 and it happened when she was 15, then yes it would be. If it is NOT punishable under section 22.04, according to your linked article, then it would fall under the 5 year limit.

    Based on that the STATE has apparently decided it was NOT punishable as a felony, I suspect you're probably the one who is wrong in this case.

  184. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Sangui5 · · Score: 1

    Khyber has posted that the statute of limitations is not up multiple times, and done so in highly rated comments. While what the judge did was wrong, the statute of limitations does seem to be up under a careful reading of the statutes. Khyber is pointing out the 10 year limitation for injury to a disabled individual, but is ignoring the specific requirements.

    From the statute of limitations link Khyber posted, we have a 10 year and a 5 year term for injury to a disabled individual:

    Ten Years- theft of any estate by an executor/administrator. Theft by a public servant of government property, Forgery. Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; Sexual assault, unless there is DNA evidence or if the victim is under 18. Arson;

    Five Years
    Theft, burglary, robbery; kidnapping; injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; abandoning or endangering a child; or insurance fraud;

    So, it is only 10 years if is a felony of the first degree under 22.04. Any other felony (under 22.04) would have a 5 year statute of limitations. From the part of section of 22.04 that talks about what sort of felony various things are:

    (e) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) or (2) or (a-1)(1) or (2) is a felony of the first degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
    (f) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) or (a-1)(3) or (4) is a felony of the third degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly, except that an offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a felony of the second degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly and the victim is a disabled individual residing in a center, as defined by Section 555.001, Health and Safety Code, or in a facility licensed under Chapter 252, Health and Safety Code, and the actor is an employee of the center or facility whose employment involved providing direct care for the victim. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly, the offense is a state jail felony.
    (g) An offense under Subsection (a) is a state jail felony when the person acts with criminal negligence. An offense under Subsection (a-1) is a state jail felony when the person, with criminal negligence and by omission, causes a condition described by Subsection (a-1)(1), (2), (3), or (4).

    So it is only a felony of the first degree if it is 22.04(a)(1) or (a)(2) (section (a-1) is about caregivers in institutions, and so doesn't apply). What does 22.04(a) say?

    Sec. 22.04. INJURY TO A CHILD, ELDERLY INDIVIDUAL, OR DISABLED INDIVIDUAL. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual:
    (1) serious bodily injury;
    (2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or
    (3) bodily injury.

    The difference between (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) is "serious". Many jurisdictions would use "grievous", but its the same thing: a pretty nasty injury. What specifically does Texas mean, though? For that, we look to Chapter 1 of the penal code, specifically 1.07, "Definitions":

    (46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

    Nobody is alleging that the beating required a trip to the hospital, medical care, permanent disfigurement, or anything else that would indicate it was serious bodily injury, rather than bodily injury. This is, at worst, an offence under 22.04(a)(3). It could also be

  185. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by sanosuke001 · · Score: 2

    Ten Years- theft of any estate by an executor/administrator. Theft by a public servant of government property, Forgery. Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; Sexual assault, unless there is DNA evidence or if the victim is under 18. Arson;

    Seven Years
    misapplication of fiduciary property or property of a financial institution;securing execution of document by deception; or certain Tax Code violations

    Five Years
    Theft, burglary, robbery; kidnapping; injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; abandoning or endangering a child; or insurance fraud;





    and the 22.04 section which, if this was not "serious bodily injury", means only 5 years

    http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/2204.htm

    (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual:
    (1) serious bodily injury;
    (2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or
    (3) bodily injury.

    (e) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) or (2) is a felony of the first degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly it shall be a felony of the second degree.
    (f) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a felony of the third degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly it shall be a state jail felony.

    --
    -SaNo
  186. Spanking/Beating and so forth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The belt seems awful harsh -- spanking should not be against any law -- used to be, the belt was ok -- the baseball bat was going too far -- except one daughter who was prostituting herself, dad took a baseball bat to her (nothing broken) and put a stop to it (Richmond paper 1982) -- too many parents wait till the kid is older (16 for ex) to discipline -- raise a kid the "old fashioned way" works, and produces respectful kids -- love and discipline -- the two main ingredients of child rearing -- and there needs to be room to fall down and make mistakes -- like the time the dad told his daughters to go out side and get branches, one daughter came back with a twig and the with a log (a small log), he laughed so hard, the never got punished -- and on and on...

  187. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently you didn't do much research either.

    From the article you linked to:

    Two Years
    All Misdemeanor offenses including DWI, marijuana possession, assault family violence etc.

    2 years. The incident occurred 7 years ago.

  188. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, he read it. Since there was no serious bodily injury (bruises at most), it's not punishable as a felony, and therefore only subject to 5 years.

    Also (although a moot point), if not being able to drive or hold a job makes you disabled, then most children 16 and under are "disabled".
    (As well as a lot of people over 16.)

  189. setting straight by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    I completely disagree with your premise here.

    No offense, but you totally missed my premise the first time round, too. We'll have to figure out whether you're understanding me yet, though it doesn't look good.

    So, what is it you think my premise is now? Something like "Privacy concerns have a place in situations of child abuse", it seems pretty clear to me. But let's dig a little deeper to see what that actually means.

    What are "privacy concerns"? Is that when citizens like you and me petition elected officials to pass legislation to constrain or make illegal the unconstitutional gathering and use of non-public information about us? Or is it when a supervillain tries to keep his plot to murder thousands hidden?

    Hopefully that last sentence will help to hint at what I'm talking about, the fact that privacy can be a more general, encompassing subject. I'll try to spell it out some more: When people discuss privacy, they're usually discussing it from the perspective of protecting their own privacy, or from the perspective of how privacy ought to be enforced legally or morally. But what actually is happening with privacy, whether it's something desired or something unwanted, is still the subject of privacy.

    So, specifically regarding this case, one implication is that interaction between individuals grows easier and easier to record. This is a trend. Follow the trend out, and even consider the extreme. Eventually, nearly any social interaction you have could conceivably be recorded (regardless of moral outcome, in case anyone is still stuck on that idea). That is an implication for privacy.

    I hope that clears things up.

    1. Re:setting straight by fireylord · · Score: 1

      No, not really, this was not a government agency or indeed any corporation that outed him. This was his daughter publishing the video. I'm unsure what your argument saying that there are actually are any. Who's privacy are you saying was violated in this case? (hint: who's bedroom was it, and who was in a state of undress?) This is not a case of governmental snooping.

  190. Failures of the Rule of Law by MoriT · · Score: 1

    It is straight-up assault. There is no excuse for assault; we live in a world where the law is just a tool of the rich, not justice.

  191. one percent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it must be nice to be in the one percent

  192. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    Good for you. I prefer judges to be quality controlled.

  193. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04"

    From Section 22.04:

    "(3) "Disabled individual" means a person older than 14 years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself."

    At the time of the commission of the crime, the person was over 14 years old, and had a severe disability that rendered her substantially unable to defend herself from harm. Also, cerebral palsy tends to make it pretty hard to give yourself medical care.

    Why, yes, I've been through similar shit with Texas, when I was a child. I rather know this system a bit too well.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  194. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Khyber · · Score: 1

    If you bothered to read section 22.04

    (3) "Disabled individual" means a person older than 14 years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself.

    She clearly meets the criteria at the time of the crime.

    It's a shame you people can't bother to read the entire thing, do the research yourselves, and come to the same conclusion. Lazy idiots, the lot of you.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  195. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Section 22.04

    (3) "Disabled individual" means a person older than 14 years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself.

    This clearly establishes first degree felony, and thus 10 year SOL.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  196. is anybody else wondering... by jeffcox65 · · Score: 1

    ...is this "news for nerds"? is this "stuff that matters"?

    --
    Curb your dogma.
  197. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your own link says the statute of limitations has expired.

    The only way it wouldn't have expired is if it was "Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04" And Section 22.04 says " 'Child' means a person 14 years of age or younger.". She was over the age of 14 at the time.

    Could you at least have the fucking brains TO RESEARCH YOUR OWN FUCKING RESEARCH before opening your mouth like a fucking dumbass?

  198. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by liquiddark · · Score: 1

    Five Years[...]injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code

    Seven years later, the statute of limitations has expired. Read the research yourself?

  199. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your a moron. Clearly the limitations expired two years ago. This happened 7 years ago and limitations on injuring a child expire 5 years after the incident.

  200. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    In short, you've assumed she was "substantially unable" (etc..) without actually having any proof she was unable to do so. You also seem ignorant of the fact that cerebral palsy comes in a wide variety of forms. You also seem ignorant of the fact that she's living alone, on her own, which demonstrates the falsity of your assumption and the depth of your ignorance.

    Or, in other words, you have ignorance piled on top of ignorance piled on top of groundless assumptions. None of which are any substitute for the facts, which in this case are trivially available to anyone following the case.

    Which makes it easy to see why, to those that have done the research and are even mildly conversant with the facts, why the State of Texas ruled that the statute had been exceeded and why you have failed utterly to demonstrate otherwise.

  201. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 1

    THE FUCKING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS NOT EXPIRED.

    http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html

    Could you at least have the fucking brains to DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF before opening your mouth like a fucking parrot?

    FYI - the article you linked lists "injury to a child ... that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree" under the 5 years limitation. TFA states this happened 7 years ago.

    --
    A recursive sig
    Can impart wisdom and truth
    Call proc signature()
  202. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It says "injury to a child". How are you going to prove injury 7 years later (when there are very clear legal definitions of injury)? She would have needed to go to the hospital and have photos taken of cuts and bruises. There will be no case because there is no preponderance of evidence to use against the father.

  203. Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Lovely place that god fearin Texas.

  204. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THE FUCKING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS EXPIRED.

    Five Years: Injury to a child.

    Could you at least have the fucking brains to READ THE ARTICLE YOU ARE LINKING TO before opening your mouth like a fucking moron?

  205. Re:The daughter may be the only one criminally lia by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    Well, even if he's not going to be prosecuted for a crime, his career as a family judge is probably over at this point.

    You don't know much about Texas, do you?

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  206. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Sangui5 · · Score: 1

    Yes, she was disabled, per 22.04(c)(3). That makes the offence covered by 22.04, and therefore we can potentially consider the 2 longer SOL terms (longer as in not the default 3 year). However, being disabled does not in and of itself make it a 10 year SOL. The 10 year SOL requires a 1st degree felony (the most serious level); all other offenses under 22.04 are covered by the 5 year SOL.

    22.04(e) makes the standard for a 1st degree felony be that it was serious injury (it references only those offenses under 22.04(a) and 22.04(a-1) which have the serious modifier). The standard for serious injury is really high, aka sent to the hospital & crippled for life; it wasn't a serious injury. (e) is the only part of 22.04 that makes anything a 1st degree felony; no other part of 22.04 makes anything higher than a 2nd degree felony. 22.04(f) makes what he did a 3rd degree felony; that is less serious than 1st degree. The longer stature of limitations requires it be 1st degree under 22.04. No serious injury implies not 1st degree under 22.04, implies 5 years is the longest SOL.

    I notice you did reference some sections of Texas family statute, and you implied that they had bearings on the penalty. I looked, but those just seemed to be definitions; if you still consider them relevant could you re-cite, including year?

    Another possibility is that you believe that the offense is indeed covered by 22.04(a)(1) or 22.04(a)(2), rather than 22.04(a)(3). (a)(2) seems most likely, since the legislature does not seem to have crisply defined serious mental injury. However, in comparison to the difference between bodily injury and serious bodily injury, a "serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury" would have to be pretty bad, and claiming there was one would seem to be quite a stretch.

    Another possibility is that you looking at a different version of the SOL statute; I'm looking at the summary of it that you linked too at http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html under the presumption it is what you're using.

    Finally, it could be a different version of the Texas penal code; I'm using http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.22.htm which seems to be updated for at least as far as 2009. Note that the (a) subheadings are included immediately under the main section heading; bad formatting on the part of whoever assembled the statutes.

  207. Arousing by Married+to+Christ · · Score: 0

    Anyone else get a hard on watching this video?

  208. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THE FUCKING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS NOT EXPIRED.

    http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html

    Could you at least have the fucking brains to DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF before opening your mouth like a fucking parrot?

    @Khyber

    I am not a lawyer, not do I live in Texas. However, I do think your response was a little extreme, especially since you appear to have done partial research yourself. The link you provided show the statute of limitations as follows:

    Ten Years - Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code;

    Five Years - Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; abandoning or endangering a child; or insurance fraud;

    Two Years
    All Misdemeanor offenses including DWI, marijuana possession, assault family violence etc.

    I am not sure if the expiration was 2 or 5, but I am fairly certain that the judge did NOT commit a felony.

    Therefore, I suspect the statute of limitations expired (or actually was enabled).

  209. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verbal abuse is abuse nonetheless and it seems you probably need some counseling.

  210. 'F*****g computers,' ... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    the judge tells his now ex-wife on the video. 'I told you I didn't want one in the god damn house. See all the problems they cause?'

    If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  211. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by 666999 · · Score: 1

    The Today Show video mentioned in TFS states clearly that the statute has run out; that it's only 5 years. Thanks for the correction, no need to berate anyone.

  212. Back to basics. by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

    For a single moment forget about everything you know. Forget about laws... forget about your religion... about your studies... forget everything. Now, with a fresh and clean mind go watch the video and tell me: does it look right to you? I sometimes wonder at how we let ourselves be fooled by our own rules, and end up confused to such an extent as to allow and consider appropiate something like this kind of physical punishment on a kid due to "copyright infringement"... whatever the fuck that is supposed to really mean.

    --
    diegoT
  213. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury" would have to be pretty bad, and claiming there was one would seem to be quite a stretch."

    Cerebral palsy.

    My most recent revision comes from the carbon copy I have of the entire 2005 Penal Code for Texas.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  214. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I know her specific form of Cerebral Palsy. Ataxic. It severely hampers motor coordination in all cases, making it difficult to even react to anything. Reflexes are slowed, coordination is half shot. It's something I dealt with WORKING WITH DISABLED CHILDREN.

    You keep thinking I know nothing when I'm far more informed than you are.

    Keep on assuming.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  215. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you read the article you linked? He did not cause serious bodily harm. This is not a first degree felony injury of child (10 years). At best it could be non-felony injury (5 years - expired) or more likely assault family violence (2 years - expired).

  216. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhh would this fall under "injury to a child" because that has an SOL of only 5 years. Last time I checked, 23 - 16 = 7 > 5 years. So why are you so angry when you obviously didn't read your own link?

  217. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello angry person,

    take a deep breath. Read the information you linked to. Then read the original post again.

    "The viral video, uploaded by now 23-year-old Hillary Adams, shows her father, Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams, whipping her with a belt for downloading music when she was 16"

    That means the beating took place 6-7 years ago.

    According to your link, injury to a child and endagering a child both have a statute of limitations of 5 years. It seems that the statute of limitations has indeed expired.

    Well, no hard feelings, right? Everybody can make mistakes. Don't worry, you'll get there eventually.

    Oh, one more thing:
    STOP BEING A DICK!

  218. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, it's clear you disagree with devleopard and Joe U. It appears you and they have done some reading, and you all have different opinions.

    Opening a discussion by calling someone a "fucking parrot" without enough "fucking brains" is not the most constructive way to get a useful dialogue going. It makes people tune you out, even if your reasoning is correct.

  219. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your link lists child abuse as possibly 10, 5, or 2 years, depending on how the act is classified. It seems not at all clear that the statute of limitations has not expired.

  220. Still an Ahole by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I still think when someone has to physically hit their kids for them to think, see, hear, listen, xxx....
    then I think it is time to turn in your parent cap and let someone else take over...
    At no point is it ok to hit your kids, it does not ever produce good results.

    Tehy say a swift hit behind the head to just snap them out of their "daze" they might be in.....
    to me still is a bit much...but a lashing with a belt to teach her what exactly????

  221. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Sangui5 · · Score: 1

    20.04(a)(2) is referring to what the attack caused to her. A beating at age 16, no matter how bad, cannot cause cerebral palsy. That she started disabled is relevant to 20.04(c)(3), meaning she meets the prerequisite to be covered under 20.04, but the attack only caused further bodily injury, which is 20.04(a)(3).

    As an aside, that brings up an interesting possibility (completely unrelated to the judge here). Suppose Alice beat Bob so badly that Bob became disabled; would the clause in 20.04(c)(3) be relevant? That would probably not be what the legislature intended, but a creative prosecutor and permissive judge could twist it to be so, maybe.

  222. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by Skater · · Score: 1

    Classic. You can't dispute my point so you attack something irrelevant. Also, how do you know her pants weren't filled?

  223. Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes by Skater · · Score: 1

    Spoken like someone who's never been beaten by a parent before. Also, like the GP, you decided to ignore the point I was making, too, in favor of attacking an irrelevant point.

  224. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by forceman130 · · Score: 1

    THE FUCKING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS NOT EXPIRED.

    http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitations-texas-l.html

    Could you at least have the fucking brains to DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF before opening your mouth like a fucking parrot?

    Why should I do the reasearch myself when the State Attorney General's office, whose job it is, has already done the research and determined that the statute of limitations has expired? After all, shouldn't they have a pretty good idea of what the law is - at least more so than some random Slashdot poster? You know, since that's their job.

    --
    Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
  225. Re:The daughter may be the only one criminally lia by Nerdorable · · Score: 1

    I don't know how the state/county works exactly, but typically judges run for re-election every three years and people just by default re-elect them without even knowing anything about them. Who's to say that anyone will remember or care about this in three years? He may still keep his job.

  226. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by jank1887 · · Score: 1

    Brilliant. You should be a lawyer. But first, you should read up on what defines first degree versus not first degree felonies. Specifically those defined under Section 22.04, Penal Code, with respect to injury to a child. From your link:

    Ten Years- theft of any estate by an executor/administrator. Theft by a public servant of government property, Forgery. Injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; Sexual assault, unless there is DNA evidence or if the victim is under 18. Arson; ...
    Five Years- Theft, burglary, robbery; kidnapping; injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; abandoning or endangering a child; or insurance fraud;

    So yeah, 5 years, unless they can make the argument for 1st degree status.

  227. Whipping judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is one of the most horrible people I have seen. I hope he is somehow enlightened that there is never a reason for what he did. He should be chastised severely.P.S. I am not "anonymous coward", I could not remove that header when I posted my comment. I am a brave loving person and I abhor what he did to his daughter.

  228. Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    if being irate about something like this is a problem for you, just... go and get fucked.