Judge beats disabled teenage daughter

This makes me furious watching this video. Apparently she is disabled, and she has been enduring abuse from the father and mother. So she set up a camera to get people to believe her. I watched the video and this is way over the top. The stuff this man and woman are saying to their daughter in my opinion is criminal alone. "I will beat you in the face" "take it like a woman", and other really really bad stuff in my opinion. Why is this man not being charged?

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...nternet-claim/

Youtube video in its entirety

Sickening. Pig.

I thinks it is interesting how he uses words like submit and submission.. very telling.

Yeah, he's enjoying it. Fucking creep.

I think that most conservatives -- and this guy is a "law and order" and "family values" conservative Republican -- believe in the "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality. The get all defensive and threatened when others who are more educated or enlightened say that corporal punishment is unnecessary and counterproductive at best, and child abuse at it's worst. And the words "submission" and "submit" have very specific meaning to evangelicals.

Frankly, I think you would be shocked how many people would find that either 1) this isn't out of line; or 2) that while the man overreacted some, that his concepts of family life (both corporal punishment and submission) were sound. Frankly, I'm appalled, but not the least bit surprised by both.

But I suspect that I'm in a distinct minority in that regard. Most Texans would only say that he went too far in his application of his principles. And worst of all, if he had done the same without the language, the religious nuts would have been substantially less upset. But I am gratified to see that, at least so far, no one here has tried to defend him.

I think that most conservatives -- and this guy is a "law and order" and "family values" conservative Republican -- believe in the "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality. The get all defensive and threatened when others who are more educated or enlightened say that corporal punishment is unnecessary and counterproductive at best, and child abuse at it's worst. And the words "submission" and "submit" have very specific meaning to evangelicals. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Most conservatives know the difference between abuse and punishment. This is abuse, no other way to see it. If you can't find a better way to get a teenagers attention you have already lost.

Here is the thing that bothers me most about this, this video is 7 years old, and only was just recently uploaded to youtube. Some are questioning if his time on the bench and cases he over saw may need to be scrutinized, but from what I understand if he didn't do anything wrong in the court room not much will happen. However an attorney was saying something about a morality/ethical clause or something like that can't remember the exact wording that was used.

I was raised in a house where this type of behavior was acceptable. Down the road it had great negative impact on me and my siblings. Nothing good comes from corporal punishment and hitting your kid period. People who want to have children need to learn much better discipline tools and techniques than just resorting to getting mad losing control and hitting your kid. Especially like what is seen in that video.

Most conservatives know the difference between abuse and punishment. This is abuse, no other way to see it. If you can't find a better way to get a teenagers attention you have already lost. Originally Posted by Laz

So as I predicted, you approve of his principles. It's OK to beat a 16 year old with a belt. If he'd just have beat her a little less, of been less foul mouthed when it did it, it would be OK. Or hit her a little less hard?

So how many licks with a belt is OK. 1? 5? 10? How do you draw the line? Does it make a difference what she did? Does it matter what he says? How far can he draw back when he gives her the number of licks you say is OK? How hard can they be? Does that make a difference? How to we measure the hardness? Does it have to break the skin? Or is a bruise enough? And what if she bruises easily?

Or do we just have to rely on your highly objective finely developed moral "I know it when I see it" sense? So well developed that you can't even give us a rule on how many licks are OK?

Once you accept that it's OK to beat a kid, it's a fool's game to try to describe an acceptable beating and differentiate it from an unacceptable beating.

So as I predicted, you approve of his principles. It's OK to beat a 16 year old with a belt. If he'd just have beat her a little less, of been less foul mouthed when it did it, it would be OK. Or hit her a little less hard?

So how many licks with a belt is OK. 1? 5? 10? How do you draw the line? Does it make a difference what she did? Does it matter what he says? How far can he draw back when he gives her the number of licks you say is OK? How hard can they be? Does that make a difference? How to we measure the hardness? Does it have to break the skin? Or is a bruise enough? And what if she bruises easily?

Or do we just have to rely on your highly objective finely developed moral "I know it when I see it" sense? So well developed that you can't even give us a rule on how many licks are OK?

Once you accept that it's OK to beat a kid, it's a fool's game to try to describe an acceptable beating and differentiate it from an unacceptable beating. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Where do you get this crap out of anything I said?

Where do you get this crap out of anything I said? Originally Posted by Laz

He "predicted " it.... remember?

A Master of Prophecy!

OK, then let's answer some questions the, Laz.

Is it OK to beat a 16 year old with a belt? If he'd just have beat her a little less, of been less foul mouthed when it did it, it would be OK? Or hit her a little less hard?

So how many licks with a belt is OK. 1? 5? 10? How do you draw the line? Does it make a difference what she did? Does it matter what he says? How far can he draw back when he gives her the number of licks you say is OK? How hard can they be? Does that make a difference? How to we measure the hardness? Does it have to break the skin? Or is a bruise enough? And what if she bruises easily?

Help us understand the objective indicia that distinguish a legitimate beating from abuse.

TTH, you have got to learn to read. Or maybe you could pay someone to read for you. Laz never said it was ok to beat a child, in fact, he said quite the opposite. At least this explains why you can't spell. If you can't read, you can't spell!

TTH, you have got to learn to read. Or maybe you could pay someone to read for you. Laz never said it was ok to beat a child, in fact, he said quite the opposite. At least this explains why you can't spell. If you can't read, you can't spell! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I disagree. He seemed to embrace corporal punishment. He said "conservative know the difference between punishment and abuse," and the punishment he was presumably referring to (since it was the subject of my post, was corporal punishment. Once you do that, the question become "Where, on a principled basis, do you draw the line."

Here is an article that quotes one supposed expert who makes one suggestion.

Children's advocates roundly condemned the beating as abuse. However, investigators may decide that the judge's actions, while shocking to many, weren't criminal.

The lines between what's deemed child abuse and what's considered an acceptable level of discipline differ in various parts of the country and among various social groups, though the use of objects such as belts and sticks is usually seen as beyond any normal physical punishment, said David Finkelhor, a University of New Hampshire sociology professor who heads the school's Crimes against Children Research Center.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-investi...234832157.html

My guess is that most conservative Texans would disagree on that even today, although I imagine that the margin is shrinking. But when I was a kid, lots of kids were whipped with belts, switches, paddles and other "objects."

And I agree with the analysis of the article when it says that "investigators may decide that the judge's actions, while shocking to many, weren't criminal."


Frankly, despite everyone's indignation, I suspect that is in fact the case. And that is one of the difficulties with the law allowing physical punishment of children. Of course the alternative, the State outlawing physical punishment in all families, is equally unappetizing to most folks, and to me. It is a far more complex issue than most here are likely willing to acknowledge.

Typical lawyer. Twist the guy's words around to mean something he didn't say, and knock it down and pretend to win.

I think everybody agrees that this type of behavior is unnacceptable....at least I hope that's true.

Imagine if a husband did this to his wife. His ass would be arrested and in jail 30 minutes after the cops arrived....no questions asked. Imagine if an adult who was not the child's parent did this to the child. Instant arrest. Imagine if any adult did this to another adult. Instant assault and battery charges. It's just astonishing that in almost any other context, the behavior you see on this video unquestionably merits criminal charges. Yet, parents are still free to beat their children in this manner and it happens all the time.

I saw this idiot on the news this morning on a video interview when he got caught by reporters outside his house yesterday. He says this was nobody's business but his own, all he was doing was disciplining his misbehaving child. Said he "lost his temper." No shit.