As much as I disapprove of what the judge did, I am surprised by the apparently widespread belief that it will cost him either his job or time in prison (assuming that the statute if limitations doesn’t prevent it). He gave his daughter what they call a whuppin’, and for apparently committing a crime (well, that’s what the daughter says – I’m not sure the father knew it at the time). It’s just not that unusual, and to criminalize it would be a vast social upheaval in rural Texas. I see it as more likely that people (small brained ones, maybe, but there are LOTS of them) will rally around him and re-elect him to spite the “outside agitators”.
That would be an excellent point, but Judge Adams never called his daughter a cunt.
Lynn, are we allowed to threaten other posters with repeatedly beating them with a belt while screaming at them, so long as we don’t call them cunts?
Just wait, Charlie. You’ll see some consistency coming, I’m sure.
The ridiculous part is that were these consenting adults, it would have been criminal. But because one was an unwilling minor, it quite possibly would be considered legal.
Given the definition of disability in 22.04: “by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from harm…” it sure seems to me like a factual finding on this record would not stand up on appeal. Sure, the jury as fact-finder has wide latitude, but there has to be something in the record that they relied upon. As a matter of law, I say that no reasonable jury could find Ms. Adams “disabled” within the meaning of 22.04 on the facts we’ve seen.
No, I’m pretty sure that adults can consent to being whipped.
Probably you simply meant, “adults.” Then yes, but that statement is true for a wide variety of interactions. I have no legal right to confine another adult to his room as punishment for failure to complete homework, for example, but this is a remedy I can exercise against my son.
No. I meant consenting adults. There’s cases of consenting adults in the BDSM community being convicted for such activities. I cannot remember the Latin phrase, but there’s a basic principle that one cannot consent to assault. Sports of course have an interesting standing here.
I can dig up some cites tonight. If you have Lexis, I can point you to a law review article that briefly mentions them.
Could have fooled me.
I don’t, particularly, any more than I wonder (for example) whether a habitual drunk driver tried taking the bus or a kiddie-porn producer tried finding other outlets for his entrepreneurial spirit. At a certain point, one must stop grasping for excuses and address the unacceptable behavior (that is, after all, the point you seem to be trying to make, albeit at a 180 degree angle to the correct direction).
It is trivially easy to lock down a computer so that it cannot be used without a password. I consider that sufficient proof that this guy didn’t make any attempt whatsoever to address the problem in a reasonable manner.
OK, you didn’t know about the password thing. Now you do. And knowing is half the battle!
Maybe I should copy-and-paste the above-described helpful-hint-from-the-techie…
Nah, unless I can find a cheap source of replacement “CTRL” and “C” keys somewhere.
Well, I suppose harsher measures are required for dealing with those damn mutants who can access the Internet directly with their brains. Senator Kelly for President!
Do you mean volenti non fit injuria? 'Cause that one means the opposite, sort of (that one can consent to the risk of injury, if not to assault).
Yeah, and when police put out bait cars they want somebody to try and steal them. By your reasoning, the police are the real criminals in that scenario. :rolleyes:
Yes, please.
That’s great, but who’s “we”? The judge is the head of his household, in a part of the country where that makes him god. No one else is in a position to tell him anything, unless they want a beating too. I think miss elizabeth is right: it’s easy to say you wouldn’t tolerate brutality when you’ve never known brutality. The events in the video happened because this guy has unlimited power. He’s the one who can make people disappear.
I’m absolutely disgusted by the “Why did she record it?” comments. It sounds like the stereotypical “Baby why you make me hit you like that?” abuser-speak.
Yeah she “set up” her dad to beat the shit out of her with a weapon. It’s funny but I don’t think I could’ve “set up” my parents to do that no matter what I did. I wonder why?
If honestly have to look it up, and that’s not possible here. It’s been 7 years or so since I did the research, but just as you cannot consent to being killed, you cannot consent to being assaulted. There’s a case up in NY I believe where people were prosecuted for consensual spanking using a wooden spoon, which was classified as a weapon IIRC.
Er, which is it?
-
Something disreputable that he might get “caught” doing on camera.
-
Something perfectly proper, the photographing of which is of no more concern to him than a picture of him hoisting an American flag while tossing a baseball and eating a slice of Mom’s apple pie.
It has to be one or the other…
Not trying to be snarky, but if this girl has no coordination or depth perception, how can she protect herself from harm?
That’s not the question. The question is whether she would be able to protect herself otherwise, and I don’t see how a 15 year old (?) girl is supposed to protect herself from a grown man under any circumstances.
It’s perfectly proper in Texas. It’s only disreputable if you’re a tree-hugging candyass from some other part of the country.
Someone’s going to come in this thread now and start to talk about hypothetical 16-year-old teenage girls with black belts against grown men who are physically disabled.
I guarantee it. Want to start a pool?
Somebody ought to point this out to Rick Santorum. A little perspective might make him feel better about his little Google problem… 