Viral video: Judge William Adams beating the h*ll out of his daughter

[slowfiveoh]

Sooo...based upon your statements above, I get the impression you disapprove of the judges action. Correct?

I'm getting the whole smarmy thing going on here.

How about this:

Read my opinion from page 1 on. I have already discussed all of this.

 

[HandyHamlet]

How about this:

Read my opinion from page 1 on. I have already discussed all of this.

hahaha!

No one reads the posts around here. Some don't even read the original thread. The reply you are forced to give is a perfect example.

:banghead:

 

[Redbaron007]

I'm getting the whole smarmy thing going on here.

How about this:

Read my opinion from page 1 on. I have already discussed all of this.

Page one was reviewed prior to my post. You didn't post on page one. It appears you're first post was #36 on page two. I will admit, I didn't go back and review page two.

So my interpretation was correct, you do not approve of the actions of the judge.

hahaha!

No one reads the posts around here. Some don't even read the original thread. The reply you are forced to give is a perfect example.

:banghead:

hahahaaha!!

No one? Guess that includes you. You do know there are 17 pages and now 403 posts for this thread.

 

[HandyHamlet]

No one? Guess that includes you. You do know there are 17 pages and now 403 posts for this thread.

Yah. I do.

And I read every single post in this thread at least once.

And I won't comment on a thread or post unless I have read the whole thread.

It's called common courtesy.

And it shows respect to fellow members. While not making one look foolish for posting something stupid because they are lazy and can't be bothered reading.




What's your excuse again?

 

[Redbaron007]

Yah. I do.

And I read every single post in this thread at least once.

And I won't comment on a thread or post unless I have read the whole thread.

It's called common courtesy.

And it shows respect to fellow members. While not making one look foolish for posting something stupid because they are lazy and can't be bothered reading.




What's your excuse again?

So you read every post? Interesting. Did you see the posts I made throughout the thread?

Stupid? Lazy? Disrespectful? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

And I guess asking for clarification on a recent previous post is not acceptable to you? Guess your disappointed frequently. That's life! Oh well!

 

[Old Virginia Joe]

You people who condone or beat children are COWARDS, period.

Are you serious? Period? Is this an absolute statement as you gave it, or do you want to hedge just a bit? You may be right that some of them are Cowards, but some of the folks who I know whip kids' butts when needed are the same ones who will fight ANY one at the drop of a hat. They are definitely not all cowards.

 

[Tawnos]

Are you serious? Period? Is this an absolute statement as you gave it, or do you want to hedge just a bit? You may be right that some of them are Cowards, but some of the folks who I know whip kids' butts when needed are the same ones who will fight ANY one at the drop of a hat. They are definitely not all cowards.

Such a willingness to fight would further my belief the person in question is a coward. Being ready to throw down "at the drop of a hat" doesn't disprove cowardice, it merely shows the person feels they have something to prove.

 

[georg jetson]

Such a willingness to fight would further my belief the person in question is a coward. Being ready to throw down "at the drop of a hat" doesn't disprove cowardice, it merely shows the person feels they have something to prove.

The brave parents are the ones that learn the law and stand up to the government when it tries to tell them how to raise their children.

 

[MamabearCali]

Good heavens there has been quite a storm here. Everything from the council of Nicea to pop psychology. I read the lot.

I will only comment on the original topic...the video.

Is the timing of this video release suspect. Yes.
Is it possible the this was an isolated incident. Maybe.


Truly both of those things matter less to me than what actually happened in this video. This judge went way way over the line. First off if you have to beat your teenage daughter (this isn't a spanking it is at minimum a belting), you have lost the war. Spankings are primarily a childhood punishment, once puberty hits spanking time is long done with. Second this belting is way way more violent than it needs to be...it reminds me of the beating of the woman in an African country for dressing badly or some such nonsense. It was terrible to watch. So as a parent he failed big time. If this was released in revenge...tough...he obviously never reconciled with his daughter, another parenting fail. We all mess up at being parents, but what separates the good parents from the bad is recognizing our failures and reconciling with those we have failed. So he gets the fail stamp from me.

What worries me though is that a man with this level of a failure in judgement is/was a judge over US citizens. That is really worrying.

Some have mentioned there has to be a better way to handle things like this, other than get the gov't involved. There was, 50 years ago, when families were not a shambles. My mother tells a story of how her Dad hit her really hard and left a bruise on her legs. While she was at her grandmothers house (his mom), the grandmother saw the bruise asked what happened. Apparently my great grandmother went postal on her son and chewed his butt up one side and down the other. He was much more careful in his discipline after that. Sadly today, families are torn apart, grandmother would never be around the kids enough to see the bruise, and might not care if she did. That is why the gov't steps in, because we as a society have failed in our familial duties. You want the gov't out of families, strengthen the families. When familes function there is no need for gov't intervention.

 

[marshaul]

]Some have mentioned there has to be a better way to handle things like this, other than get the gov't involved. There was, 50 years ago, when families were not a shambles. My mother tells a story of how her Dad hit her really hard and left a bruise on her legs. While she was at her grandmothers house (his mom), the grandmother saw the bruise asked what happened. Apparently my great grandmother went postal on her son and chewed his butt up one side and down the other. He was much more careful in his discipline after that. Sadly today, families are torn apart, grandmother would never be around the kids enough to see the bruise, and might not care if she did. That is why the gov't steps in, because we as a society have failed in our familial duties. You want the gov't out of families, strengthen the families. When familes function there is no need for gov't intervention.

With all due respect, this is a cop-out. What about those who don't have families, due to accident or circumstance? I've known individuals to whom this would apply.

And there are plenty of cases of familial abuse where there is an extended family, who intentionally avoid knowledge or look the other way.

And there are plenty of families today which aren't "in shambles". Frankly, most of the families I know aren't "in shambles", and a likely majority of the rest are only due to unavoidable tragedy.

Appealing to the degraded state of the family is great rhetoric for those pushing a political agenda; it's been used time and again as justification for government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong: "Obviously government needs to step in and start doing such-and-such because the family isn't doing it any more!"

This rhetoric is at least a century old, and during that time government meddling has proved itself to be worthless to a far greater extent than "the family" has shown itself to be "in shambles". At least, in my experience.

I'm not sure there ever has been, or ever will be, an easy or ideal answer to this dilemma.

I say this because, despite everything I just wrote, I do accept the possibility (and, indeed, reality) of certain acts of aggression which exist even in a parent-child relationship. (The obvious examples are murder, rape, and permanent physical disfigurement -- horrible, but they do occur.) I have no problem with such behavior being punished by the state. However, I am undoubtedly concerned with the tendency of government to take such approval and run with it, far into the realm of excess.

I don't know where to draw the line, and more importantly how to keep it from creeping, but I am certain that it is not so simple as it's often presented.

 

[Verd]

Sorry. I was beaten as a child many times over for stupid ******* **** like not placing the wrench back in its spot or because the dogs jumped the fence while I was at school, and subjected to YEARS of emotional abuse. I am still pretty ******* damaged. ****, I remember the ONE ******* time my dad said he was proud of me and it ******* infuriates me that I still, to this day, feel slightly better about myself when I remember it... and 4 hours later he said he was wrong about being proud of me and a bunch of other **** that i am not getting into on here.

Anyways, what I am trying to say here is that beating a child or teen is only done by cowards... cowards because they can't, won't, or choose not to be able to ******* control themselves. They are SCUM of the ******* earth. Beating ANYONG that you have authority over places you in this same category, i.e. bad cops. People who do this deserve to have the book thrown at them at the very least.

 

[MamabearCali]

With all due respect, this is a cop-out. What about those who don't have families, due to accident or circumstance? I've known individuals to whom this would apply.

And there are plenty of cases of familial abuse where there is an extended family, who intentionally avoid knowledge or look the other way.

And there are plenty of families today which aren't "in shambles". Frankly, most of the families I know aren't "in shambles", and a likely majority of the rest are only due to unavoidable tragedy.

Appealing to the degraded state of the family is great rhetoric for those pushing a political agenda; it's been used time and again as justification for government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong: "Obviously government needs to step in and start doing such-and-such because the family isn't doing it any more!"

This rhetoric is at least a century old, and during that time government meddling has proved itself to be worthless to a far greater extent than "the family" has shown itself to be "in shambles". At least, in my experience.

I'm not sure there ever has been, or ever will be, an easy or ideal answer to this dilemma.

I say this because, despite everything I just wrote, I do accept the possibility (and, indeed, reality) of certain acts of aggression which exist even in a parent-child relationship. (The obvious examples are murder, rape, and permanent physical disfigurement -- horrible, but they do occur.) I have no problem with such behavior being punished by the state. However, I am undoubtedly concerned with the tendency of government to take such approval and run with it, far into the realm of excess.

I don't know where to draw the line, and more importantly how to keep it from creeping, but I am certain that it is not so simple as it's often presented.

Perhaps I was not clear. I am not in favor of gov't intervention into family lives except in cases of severe abuse. I don't think it is good and the CPS creep that has gone on over the past 50 years is insane. The case here I think is borderline for gov't/community intervention. It was clearly abusive at least at that moment. It was terrible. But worse happens in this world, and she is obviously not so damaged that she hated her father and got away the moment she could, nor is she a timid little mouse afraid for her life because she had the presence of mind to film the incident in the first place. So what should have happened....family should have happened. If the husband and wife had a working relationship that they had built through years of respecting each other the wife could have intervened. When the dad blew his top and yelled for the belt. The mom could have come and quietly said, sweetheart this is very serious and I can see you are very angry. Lets come together and talk about the consequences for our daughters behavior. The dad could have told the young lady to sit on the couch while we decide what your punishment will be. The mom and dad could have come together let the rage subside, and come up with very severe yet reasonable to the crime consequences for her actions. That is part of being in a parenting partnership, pulling each other back when the other one loses it. If that had happened then we would not be talking about the horrible scene that ensued.

Now I am unclear on what political agenda that furthers. A husband and wife choosing love, choosing respect. Parents giving ear to their parents wisdom--maybe not always following it, but giving it a hearing. Parents working together to raise civilized children. All of this can and should be done without any input from the gov"t. If we had more of that in our society we would see CPS less often (at least in theory--some of them are so corrupt they would do anything to keep themselves in business). When I said that we should strengthen families--i did not mean through governmental authority. I meant that we should in each of our own personal lives encourage those we are in contact with to make wise choices, not living for the pleasure of a moment, but instead to look to the future. We ourselves should do what we can in our own home to encourage positive family relationships. If you are a husband love your wife in word and deed. If you are a wife, don't nag your husband to death, but encourage him in his pursuits. If you are a parent discipline your child in a reasonable manner and if your spouse/parenting partner/mother-in-law says you are going off the deep end at least hear them out. They might be wrong, but allow yourself to have the the support and the checks and balances God/nature has given you. To my way of thinking this furthers no particular political agenda. I might be wrong of course.

 

[DrakeZ07]

You all get a time out and a spanking for bringing this topic back up D:<

 

[georg jetson]

Sorry. I was beaten as a child many times over for stupid ******* **** like not placing the wrench back in its spot or because the dogs jumped the fence while I was at school, and subjected to YEARS of emotional abuse. I am still pretty ******* damaged. ****, I remember the ONE ******* time my dad said he was proud of me and it ******* infuriates me that I still, to this day, feel slightly better about myself when I remember it... and 4 hours later he said he was wrong about being proud of me and a bunch of other **** that i am not getting into on here.

Anyways, what I am trying to say here is that beating a child or teen is only done by cowards... cowards because they can't, won't, or choose not to be able to ******* control themselves. They are SCUM of the ******* earth. Beating ANYONG that you have authority over places you in this same category, i.e. bad cops. People who do this deserve to have the book thrown at them at the very least.

if a parent decides to "whip"a child, the proper way is to do it in a controlled manner. Parent's that hit a child out of anger are making a mistake and that can lead to resentment.

 

[kemo]

I think this has been argued over enough. I have read alot of crap on this thread and I think it is getting out of control. I hope the moderator locks it soon.

 

[since9]

I rather enjoy the thread and hope the moderator keeps it open. This is, after all, a discussion forum. Anyone who doesn't like what's being said is free to leave -- no one's forcing you to keep reading.

In the meantime, what's being said is tackling a complex issue from many sides. That helps all of us to understand the situation better, and it helps the few of us who've suffered ill effects from our upbringing to better come to grips with it.

 

[3fgburner]

if a parent decides to "whip"a child, the proper way is to do it in a controlled manner. Parent's that hit a child out of anger are making a mistake and that can lead to resentment.

How about, any parent that decides to "whip" a child, doesn't deserve to be a parent.

 

[PALO]

Well, if they weren't family, then it would be assault if the "guy" didn't have the parents consent.



His dog is PRIVATE property. It's none of the government's business what he does with that dog. Of course that is NOT the reality these days. People are just fighting to give their liberties away so they can get into their neighbor's business.

dogs are private property. wives and daughters are not .

that being said, there is a level of abuse that is CLEARLY the business of govt, since only govt. can prosecute, etc.

also, at least in my state, the fact that dogs are private property does not mean you have any legal right to torture them, etc.

you can KILL them outright. they are property. but you must do so in a humane manner

you can't , for example, starve them to death

maybe in your perfect world, you would the right to be free to do so w/o any govt. intervention. i thank god i do not live in such a world

 

[PALO]

btw, just for perspective, here's what the penal code in my state says

is it somewhat vague, etc? sure. such laws pretty much have to be. ime, it's USUALLY dealt with reasonably by the cops. CPS? ok, they have some issues but overall they do a decent job

obviously, like most other aspects of the law, it's a balancing test

what amuses me is how many kids think mere physical discipline is child abuse

had a teen girl call police a few months ago claiming child abuse

her mom slapped her across the face. why ? because daughter called mom a * - * - * - *

daughter cheek was quite red from the slap

she thought mom should be at least warned not to do it again

instead i told her - "dont' call your mom that word again!"

clearly, that was a REASONABLE form of discipline



: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.100

RCW 9A.16.100
Use of force on children — Policy — Actions presumed unreasonable.


It is the policy of this state to protect children from assault and abuse and to encourage parents, teachers, and their authorized agents to use methods of correction and restraint of children that are not dangerous to the children. However, the physical discipline of a child is not unlawful when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. Any use of force on a child by any other person is unlawful unless it is reasonable and moderate and is authorized in advance by the child's parent or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.

The following actions are presumed unreasonable when used to correct or restrain a child: (1) Throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child; (2) striking a child with a closed fist; (3) shaking a child under age three; (4) interfering with a child's breathing; (5) threatening a child with a deadly weapon; or (6) doing any other act that is likely to cause and which does cause bodily harm greater than transient pain or minor temporary marks. The age, size, and condition of the child and the location of the injury shall be considered when determining whether the bodily harm is reasonable or moderate. This list is illustrative of unreasonable actions and is not intended to be exclusive.

[1986 c 149 § 1.]

 

[georg jetson]

How about, any parent that decides to "whip" a child, doesn't deserve to be a parent.

This is a secondary point that I was making. There are many that agree with you and if you decide to raise your children that way then fine... none of my business. However, for those of us that know better, that certain applications of safe physical pain is necessary from time to time based on the individual needs of the child, we don't want you using the government to tell us how to parent.