A few generations ago, women stayed in the kitchen and lived to please their man, black people weren’t allowed in the vicinity of whites and an entire nation claimed that Jews and Slavs were subhuman parasites without causing much of a stir until it was revealed they’d also taken steps to remedy the “problem”. And also everybody wore hats, what’s up with that ?
People from a few generations ago might as well have been aliens for how much their mores relate to ours, let alone how their norms should define the boundaries of acceptable behaviour today.
How to stop a child illegally downloading games? let’s see:
Take away computer
Install any decent parental lock software on the computer
Setup admin account for installing software
Or, alternatively, leather the fuck out of them whilst swearing abuse. But frankly if you have to resort to that option it’s because you’re a despicable failure of a human being who has no business being a parent. And yes, I do have kids thanks.
In her Today Show interview this morning, Ms. Adams confirmed this, describing a game that was available for purchase overseas but not in the U.S.
I don’t.
So it’s not just any child abuse – sexual abuse is ten years after the child’s 18th birthday, yes. Child abuse not sexual in nature appears to be ten years from the date of the oiffense only if it’s the sort of abuse that is a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04.
This isn’t:
I welcome correction from a Texas attorney, but I’m pretty confident I’m reading this correctly. Section 22.04 applies only to a “child” 14 or younger; which excludes Ms. Adams in 2004. Therefore the ten year SOL in the criminal procedure code does not apply.
Bears repeating. Kolga, your posts in this thread are anything but shrill. You’re factual and logical, and I have a lot of respect for what you’ve written.
I have kids. I have belts. Never the 2 shall meet. That’s not any kind of solution to anything. I got hit/beaten with all manner of implements when I was younger and it was never because *I *was out of control. It was because my mother was, plain and simple.
Also, is this guy in fact running for re-election this year? None of the news stories I’ve read have mentioned that. I tried looking for a campaign site, but of course if you Google his name now, the first couple of pages will be nothing but links about this video.
As a young child, it didn’t take me long to work out that the nights where punishments involved tools coincided with the nights that my parents were drinking. Those incidents did not teach me the errors of my ways.
Judging by the tone of voice of the attacker in the video, he does not appear to be drunk. As such I can only surmise that he’s inadequate scum with deep seated issues, a label I happily apply to anyone who thinks that such behaviour can be excused or justified.
Again I’m not a Texas lawyer, but I think it’s very doubtful: “Disabled individual” in that section 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.
As I understand ataxic cerebral palsy, it would not meet that definition.
The judge could still be on the hook even if the daughter was past the magic age of 14 on the video - prosecutors could prove up that she had a beating prior to the videotape that she can link up to some memorable event like her 13th birthday, Christmas of that year, the Super Bowl, etc. There are problems at trial if they go that route, but they could probably make a prima facie case. Injury to a disabled individual isn’t necessarily out of the question, either; a quick search found a case in which prosecutors proved up that a woman with cerebral palsy was disabled based on the testimony of two bartenders at the bar that the assault took place in. The bartenders testified that the victim was on crutches, had trouble getting around, and had to be helped out of the bathroom on occassion. The jury found that she was disabled under the statute based on that testimony, and the court of appeals upheld that finding on a factual sufficiency analysis, giving “due deference to the fact finder’s determinations.”
Then again, it may not go that far. The one or two interviews I’ve heard sort of sound like the daughter may be reluctant to press felony charges on him and may be content to destroy his career on the bench, which is a pretty safe bet at this point.
Sure, although they could have done that without the tape, too. I assume the “problems at trial” you’re thinking of would be the prior bad acts issue of admitting the tape – which in this case would be a future bad act! Given the substantial prejudicial value of the tape, and its slight probative value, I can’t imagine it being admitted against him at a trial for a previous assault… unless he denied ever hitting the girl, in which case it might come in as impeachment.
Sure – but here, I’m not seeing any evidence of any impairment like that. Ataxic cerebral palsy, according to the NIH:
Exactly so, which he hasn’t done so far and probably won’t do at trial. Getting the tape in would be tricky.
Sure, but my point is just that disability can be proven up with nonmedical testimony, and that whether or not the statutory definition is met is left to the fact finder. That puts the defense in the uncomfortable position of trying to sell the argument that she’s not legally disabled to the jury who just saw that video. It may be a hard sell, and if the jury does find that she was disabled the courts of appeal will give that finding wide latitude.