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."

Comments

Child?

[nepka]

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.

Re:Child?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Child?

[Mitchell314]

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.

Re:Child?

[betterunixthanunix]

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

Re:Child?

[santax]

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.

Re:Child?

[epyT-R]

law does not define truth.

Re:Child?

[dbet]

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.

Re:Child?

[Killer Instinct]

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

Re:Child?

[Sique]

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

Re:Child?

[nepka]

Minor yes, but not a child.

Re:Child?

[tomhudson]

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.

Re:Child?

[Sir_Sri]

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.

Re:Child?

[eldepeche]

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.

Re:Child?

[Z00L00K]

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.

Re:Child?

[lattyware]

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.

Re:Child?

[ninetyninebottles]

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.

Re:Child?

[mrxak]

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?

Re:Child?

[DJRumpy]

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.

Re:Child?

[rockout]

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.

Re:Child?

[icebraining]

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

Nope. A court can too, in many cases.

Re:Child?

[larry bagina]

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.

Re:Child?

[icebraining]

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.

Re:Child?

[meerling]

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.

Re:Child?

[omfgnosis]

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.

Re:Child?

[angel'o'sphere]

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.

Re:Child?

[Trogre]

Fuck you, asshole

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

Re:Child?

[amiga3D]

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.

Re:Child?

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:Child?

[Runaway1956]

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".

Re:Child?

[Runaway1956]

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!

Re:Child?

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:Child?

[Runaway1956]

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".

Re:Child?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Child?

[Trogre]

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.

Re:Child?

[Lord Kano]

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

LK

Re:Child?

[syousef]

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.

Re:Child?

[toriver]

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

Re:Child?

[Zontar The Mindless]

...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.

Re:Child?

[DJRumpy]

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.

Re:Child?

[nepka]

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?

Re:Child?

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:Child?

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

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.

Re:Child?

[ultranova]

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?

Re:Child?

[syousef]

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.

Just another corrupt judge

[fotbr]

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.

Re:Just another corrupt judge

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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?

Re:Just another corrupt judge

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:Just another corrupt judge

[artor3]

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.

Re:Just another corrupt judge

[Gary Perkins]

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.

Re:Just another corrupt judge

[Antisyzygy]

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

Re:Just another corrupt judge

[budgenator]

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.

Re:Just another corrupt judge

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:Just another corrupt judge

[DigiShaman]

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.

The legal system at it's finest.

[pro151]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[Anonymous Coward]

Statute of limitations.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[ravenspear]

Actually no, the statute of limitations applies to regular citizens also.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[ProfM]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[MBCook]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[devleopard]

One more example of the lack of reading the article on Slashdot at its finest.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[eldepeche]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[jd]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[hedwards]

Technically he should have recused himself whenever the issue of child abuse or domestic violence came up.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[jd]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[tomhudson]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[Khyber]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[Bitsy Boffin]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[snl2587]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[jd]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[Khyber]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[Khyber]

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?

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[Mashiki]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[Khyber]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[Goaway]

http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_history.html

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[snl2587]

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.

Re:The legal system at it's finest.

[LordKronos]

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

Federal?

[jcr]

Child abuse is a state matter, last I heard. Why do federal prosecutors have anything to say about it?

-jcr

hard to watch

[ejtttje]

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!

Re:hard to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

She has cerebral palsy.

Re:hard to watch

[hedwards]

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.

Re:hard to watch

[bcrowell]

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.

Re:hard to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:hard to watch

[ejtttje]

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."

Re:hard to watch

[Khyber]

So we slap seven years of terrorism charges against the judge.

Re:hard to watch

[vakuona]

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.

Re:hard to watch

[meburke]

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

Re:hard to watch

[artor3]

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.

Re:hard to watch

[vakuona]

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.

Excuses

[Spad]

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...

Re:Excuses

[phaserbanks]

Umm... call me crazy, but maybe she was retaliating for him repeatedly beating the crap out of her.

Re:Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Excuses

[jd]

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.

Re:Excuses

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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?

Re:Excuses

[lanner]

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.

Re:Excuses

[danomac]

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.

Re:Excuses

[circletimessquare]

you reap what you sow

Re:Excuses

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Excuses

[PsychoSlashDot]

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?

Re:Excuses

[icqraid]

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.

Re:Excuses

[jd]

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.

Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitations

[devleopard]

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.

Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Sexual arroused

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone is Projecting.

Not All Spankings Are The Same

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Not All Spankings Are The Same

[Kjella]

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.

federal law vs. state law

[belmolis]

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.

Re:So...

[Belial6]

His spouse was just as bad as him. She was fully involved with the beating.

Re:Only till 25?

[cheekyjohnson]

You'll understand why all of your arguments are completely incorrect when you're older.

Re:Only till 25?

[nepka]

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.

Source - no registration required

[mayberry42]

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=65285

I got beat as a kid.

[dadioflex]

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.

Re:I got beat as a kid.

[whoop]

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.

Re:I got beat as a kid.

[porkThreeWays]

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.

Re:He...

[Memnos]

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.

Re:Sexual arroused

[jd]

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.

Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati

[Khyber]

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?

Re:Only till 25?

[Pseudonym Authority]

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'.

Re:MAFIAA: sue him!

[Pitr]

She was a minor at the time, so it's on his dime.

Re:"Spare the rod, spoil the child."

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Only till 25?

[santax]

That is because I don't have a lawn, you insensitive clod!

Retribution

[localman]

"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.

Re:Retribution

[lanner]

Telling and showing off the truth can rarely be attributed as retaliation to any sane observer.

Would he be so brave with a man who can fight?

[darthium]

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.

He is a _Family Court_ judge.

[Nehmo]

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.

Re:This shows how far down the toilet we've gone..

[visdog]

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

Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati

[Khyber]

Cerebal palsy is a disability in Texas that meets the criteria.

Generational Abuser v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Generational Abuser v2.0

[hsthompson69]

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.

Re:He...

[Surt]

It's justice. Served angry mob style.

Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati

[martin-boundary]

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.

Re:He...

[somersault]

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.

Re:Sexual arroused

[buybuydandavis]

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.

Mod up

[ridgecritter]

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.

Okay...

[Chas]

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?

Re:well hang on

[Antisyzygy]

Sexual molestation? Come on.

What about the Judge's ability to do his job?

[vilain]

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.

Re:He...

[iamhassi]

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.

Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati

[sanosuke001]

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.