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."
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.
He done goofed.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
Check that, actually all states. Now that's a plurality.
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!
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...
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.
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?
Her pants were not filled after this session, so it must not have been to the point of hyperbole that you employed.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
...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. . . .
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.
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.
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?
You'll understand why all of your arguments are completely incorrect when you're older.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=65285
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 :)
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.
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.
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'.
This guy is a bad man but that shouldn't be a reason to make parenting illegal.
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)
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?
And in civilized countries, we outlawed it completely 30+ years ago.
http://www.nospank.net/durrant.htm
it's in my head
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.
Find free books.
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.
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.
That is because I don't have a lawn, you insensitive clod!
"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.
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.
There is no god, your argument is invalid.
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.
Did you read that link?
Unless the prosecutor decides to pursue first degree felony charges, the statute of limitations has indeed run out.
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.
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 (||)
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?
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.
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
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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".
Being a bad parent while being a judge is worse than being a bad parent while being a plumber.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Prove it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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
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!!!
"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.
So at what age does one stop being a douchebag?
Great Intellect...
I'll let you know when I get there.
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".
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.
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.
Bingo. but unfortunately its today's "shiny object ratings improver" in the media.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
No they shouldn't be held to a higher standard. They should be held to the same standard as everyone else.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
World sees reality, world freaks out.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
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?
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)
it's in my head
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...
"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.
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.
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?
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?
F'ing computers indeed.
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-cia-following-twitter-facebook-081055316.html
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED246534&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED246534
http://www.cpj.org/reports/2011/05/the-10-tools-of-online-oppressors.php
If what the Judge said is true that she is retaliating for a loss of financial support she sounds like a spoiled tool.
Blackmail your own family? Whip her again.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
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.
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.
I think the RIAA has found their new saint.
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.
It doesn't matter if it's a boy or a girl.
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.
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.
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"
http://abstrusegoose.com/114
"Beats his own children for violating RIAA sponsored copyright legislation"
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
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
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
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.
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.
Good for you. I prefer judges to be quality controlled.
"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.
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.
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.
...is this "news for nerds"? is this "stuff that matters"?
Curb your dogma.
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?
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.
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()
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.
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
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
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
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.
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..
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.
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
"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.
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.
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????
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.
Classic. You can't dispute my point so you attack something irrelevant. Also, how do you know her pants weren't filled?
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.
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.
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.
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.
if being irate about something like this is a problem for you, just... go and get fucked.