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

[georg jetson]

Mr Jetson calls it discipline. I'd like to see him beat within an inch of his life for, oh, what, not taking out the garbage one time. He'll change his tune. .

Discussing what "is" and "is not" discipline is a useful endevour. It's my opinion that beating a child within an inch of his life for "not taking out the garbage one time" would be a bad idea.

It's not discipline it's abuse and if he can't tell the difference he shouldn't be allowed around children.

The difference is important and like I've pointed out, we'd get a wide range of opinions. To me it is more important to point out that it should not be left up to the state to determine the difference.

I sense a bit of emotion in your post. Let's not get our feeling hurt again.

 

[georg jetson]

Discipline? No. Abuse? Yes.

Just like in the adult world, if someone's rights are violated, there must be consequences and a way to see about delivering those consequences..

Children don't have rights until they reach the age of majority. Any attempt for the government to assert otherwise is an abuse of authority.

The problem is where does discipline stop and the abuse begin? Defining something that everyone isn't going to agree on is the hard part.

Some might say that as soon as you raise your hand, it's abuse. Others might say that if you leave a bruise, it's abuse. Hell, some cultures still practice "honor killings".

If pressed, Maybe I'd say abuse begins at the point that the intent is to cause harm, emotionally or physically. I think "intent" is key.

This is the essense of the problem. The most dangerous thing IMHO to liberty is allowing the state to determine this.

As for other heinous acts that are already illegal in the adult world like rape, well that's beyond abuse and clearly a criminal act.

This one's tough because of the absence of the right of majority. Where do the parents rights stop and the kid's begin? If you're not an emancipated minor your parents must have certain controlls over you and are liable for your actions.

That's just my point. A child has only those rights that the parents give them. Letting the government determine abuse from dicsipline removes parents rights and places parenting in the "privilaged" catagory.

 

[georg jetson]

You are a disgusting individual who preaches his religiosity all around the forum then unilaterally tells all of us he is ok with:

A.) Child Abuse

and

B.) Animal Abuse


You're a sad dude and if I ever saw you beating your kid like this you would be even more pitiful than you are right now.

What a wretched, foul individual.

Begin your back-pedalling now. Oh wait...too late.

Here we go... people getting their feelings hurt all over the place... remember what I said about maturity level?

 

[slowfiveoh]

Ignore this kid. georg jetson couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag, and is sincerely devoid of any form of post collegiate level critical thinking. If some voice told him to gut his first-born, he very likely would.

Of all the government entities we actually want to exist, those who act on behalf of defenseless children may be one of the most necessary. Yes they screw up from time to time, and yes they often drastically overreach their authority.


The thought that a child is "owned" and that therefore this "life" belongs to whoever was involved in its creation is disgusting. Being a parent is about providing compassionate, often stern, but never abusive, guidance and support.

To attempt to justify child abuse as nobodies business "but the families" shows where this low-life derives his line of thinking. I had several friends growing up who were abused. One of which in particular often included black eyes, cheeks, bruised forearms and thighs, etc. His father was an abusive alcoholic. The best thing that ever happened to him was 4 Sheriffs from the Sacramento Sheriffs department escorting CPS over after school one day. His father was arrested on charges of child endangerment, and my buddy was whisked away from that abusive place. He and I talk about it on occasion and he was sure he wouldn't have lived to see 18 had he stayed.

Who else was he going to tell?


See georg jetson has a severe mental deficiency in which he probably would prescribe "prayer" and "youth group" to this poor kid. Pray in one hand and crap in the other. You let me know which one fills first. We all know that a praying kid getting the everloving crap beat out of them is much better off than one simply getting the crap beat out of them! Right?

What an idiot. If I could file transfer a punch and watch a video feed of this guys busted teeth I'd know what reruns to watch for a week.

He's disgusting.

Here we go... people getting their feelings hurt all over the place... remember what I said about maturity level?

You have nothing of value to say to anybody kid.

Hey man. Your kids scratched your car.

Don't you have a baseball bat to shop for?

 

[thebigsd]

Here we go... people getting their feelings hurt all over the place... remember what I said about maturity level?

Now you're questioning other folks maturity level? You can't seem to give me a straight-forward answer to my straight-forward question. I think others would also like to see your answer to my question.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Now you're questioning other folks maturity level? You can't seem to give me a straight-forward answer to my straight-forward question. I think others would also like to see your answer to my question.

Here SD, we'll do this in tandem. Maybe that will illicit a response:

georg jetson:

Who does the little girl tell? Give me your hypothetical answer.

 

[Badger Johnson]

IMO, a REAL man (or woman) protects the innocent, the elderly, the weaker, females, children.

Though I'm a big fan of less gubmint and less laws and less gbmnt intrusion, this is NOT the area to champion that right (of privacy).

I would be MUCH BETTER if there was a responsible adult that the child could tell. The goal is RESULTS not punishment or intrusion or whatever. Results is that the child is no longer abused. I should STOP, I don't care how.

In fact it might be that gubmint involvement might NOT stop it (the 'judge's good old boy network' for example, prevents action). So the answer is ultimately to stop the abuse and protect the child. In this case the only answer is to remove her and put her with a good foster family or a ward of the court with some kind of weekly phone calls to the judge to assure she's OK.

Why make it an intrusion issue when it's clearly an abuse issue? (rhetorical question)

 

[Brass Magnet]

Children don't have rights until they reach the age of majority. Any attempt for the government to assert otherwise is an abuse of authority.

This is wrong. If your believe in natural, fundamental, inalienable rights, we're born with them. Children only have certain rights disabled until they reach the age of majority and those are most definitely not basic human rights. Just the very fact that we allow for emancipated minors under law and in tradition proves as much.

The rights that are disabled are only those that they may not be able to exercise responsibly.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Why make it an intrusion issue when it's clearly an abuse issue? (rhetorical question)

Badger, the fundamental problem is still rights vs. intrusion but GJ seems to have jumped the shark very early on in the thought process here. See my post above.

 

[hazek]

[video=youtube;ONNRfflggBg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONNRfflggBg[/video]

 

[jag06]

I agree with another post on here that the first 30 seconds or so was just a parent punishing a kid, but after that I think is when it went to abuse. I grew up where if you did something you were not supposed to do you got spanked, and if you did something really bad your but was so sore you could not sit down for 20 minutes. Thankfully I was smart enough not to do those things that often. It worked rather well as a deterrent for me. Physical punishment is a tool used to give just enough pain to a child to get them not to do something again without causing any permanent injury or harm. Abuse is when you cause long lasting or even permanent injuries and is use only to cause harm.

The judge in my mind crossed the line in wanting to punish his daughter to get her not to do something again to just wanting to cause her harm for not doing what he told her. Now I will agree with Jetson that the government has no right to tell you how to or not to punish your kids as CPS is a craphole of a place to send kids and end up getting more abuse there than at home from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse as well as gunny pig testing new drugs and medications on. And the CPS most of the time only goes after parents who punish their kids in a way they do not believe, or because they took them off of a harmful medication or some other stupid reason so they take their kid and only give them back after they have collected thousands in fines from the parent. Most of the time they do nothing for the kids who are in real abusive homes because the parents are poor and they can not make any money off of them. If you ever want to kidnap kids and get ransom money from the parents just join CPS, don't do it on your own because the government hates competition.

With that said their are times when the government can do good and does need to step in, when there is real abuse going on it should be reported and the government should step in. We do need to get rid of the CPS and have local programs for each town or state that can more effectively help these kids and can be under a close eye to be sure that what they are doing is helping the kids and not just further abusing them and exploiting them.

 

[Tucker6900]

Could I get your opinion on this issue...

Should the governmnet be allowed to interfere in family matters such as discipline?

Discipline: NO

Abuse/assault: Yes.

There is a difference between the two that you may not understand.

Spanked on the behind once, twice = Discipline

"Spanked" over the legs, back, arms, behind, etc = Abuse/Assault.

This girl was BEATEN. This "judge" even said he would "be her into submission".

He should be relieved of duty and convicted of child endangerment and assault on a minor.

 

[kemo]

If you saw someone beating a child like that would you step in? For most stable people and with a good conscience would stop the beating.

 

[jammer]

Judge William Adams

I know that this parent when kinda to extreme at his punishment with his daughter, but the us supreme court says, that spanking your child with a belt ( as long as it's below the waist) is not child abuse. Some children are very stubborn when punished and I'm sure that these parents tried other forms of punishment before having to use the belt. Just saying! Anyways no internal organs below the waist to damaged.

 

[Tawnos]

The CREATOR decided to give parents their children without a license or mandatory training. The issue of parents abusing their authority over their children is between them and their creator.

Tee hee, maybe Santa Claus will come along after he's done snogging the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy in a fairy tale threesome, and he can tell you why your "creator" standard is piss-poor.

But since neither the mythical creatures I've mentioned nor the one you claim grants authority exist, how about we start with the basics: human rights don't magically appear at age 18. They don't come into being because the invisible sky wizard you were told as a kid punished the wicked likes them. They aren't magic, found in a book of fairy tales. They are an interpretation of what is fundamentally right or wrong in the treatment of humans. When a person acts to fundamentally disrupt life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness/property in the manner shown, it is incumbent upon those of us with the will to act to take a stand against such actions. In such a case, it is often those not directly related to the person involved to step in and be their advocate, and yes, this may be a government agent such as a teacher or police officer.

If you can't see that, then you don't really understand what fundamental rights are. Of course, I think that's been made pretty clear in your previous comments about the first amendment, but this simply reaffirms that disconnect. I only hope you didn't beat the **** out of your kids the way the ******* in the video did, because no kid deserves that. Sadly, it appears you are trying to justify such actions, implicating past participation in such fruitless and ultimately harmful acts.

Try to twist the argument from "spankings are bad" to "the government shouldn't be involved" if you'd like, but it shows how dishonest you are: when you can't actually address a point made with citations and studies, you resort to emotional rhetoric. Rather than showing why what I posted was pseudoscience, you shifted the goalposts. I don't even know what county they are in, anymore.

 

[Tawnos]

I know that this parent when kinda to extreme at his punishment with his daughter, but the us supreme court says, that spanking your child with a belt ( as long as it's below the waist) is not child abuse. Some children are very stubborn when punished and I'm sure that these parents tried other forms of punishment before having to use the belt. Just saying! Anyways no internal organs below the waist to damaged.

Claim of law requires citation. What SC case says this, because a quick search turns up recent felony charges based on spanking with a belt:
http://www.volunteertv.com/national/headlines/Mom_pleads_guilty_to_spanking_own_child_124072014.html
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/abuse-31956-kids-belt.html
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/01/spanking_3-year-old_with_belt.html
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_130c5df0-1605-11df-b12c-001cc4c002e0.html
http://nospank.net/n-o44r.htm
http://www.durantdemocrat.com/pages...ns+arise+of+beating+boy+with+belt &id=6924228
http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=47159

 

[Tawnos]

If you saw someone beating a child like that would you step in? For most stable people and with a good conscience would stop the beating.

I think this is a pertinent question. Would someone advocating such abuse be willing to do it on the street in front of others, or would they fear those others would defend the person they were attacking?

 

[oldbanger]

Here we go... people getting their feelings hurt all over the place... remember what I said about maturity level?

Reading this thread I am inclined to quit this forum, because I do not want to be associated with this person [sic] but I will just ignore list "it".

 

[Brass Magnet]

I think this is a pertinent question. Would someone advocating such abuse be willing to do it on the street in front of others, or would they fear those others would defend the person they were attacking?

Hmmm....Forgetting for a minute any advocates of such abuse.....I'm becoming interested in where the line should be drawn with respect to the rights of all involved. What you wrote sounds like a "reasonableness standard".

I can't say I'm enamored of such standards as they seem to shift too much with popular sentiment or judicial activism but is it the only choice here?

I mean, I would say that it's unreasonable to spank a baby. I'd say that a swat on the rear of a toddler who doesn't understand right from wrong is only useful to scare them away from potential hazards. I'd say that once a child knows right from wrong spanking should be used very sparingly and usually to reinforce another form of punishment that was not headed. Lastly, after a child develops complex reasoning skills, I'd say that spanking is pretty much useless and taking away privileges is much more favorable.

That all seems "reasonable" to me, but therein lies the problem.

A way to define what it's acceptable in black and white terms is what I always look for based on my political and moral philosophy. This may be the one that finally gets me.

When are certain rights enabled before the age of majority? As you can see by what I may find reasonable, I'm almost automatically giving more deference to the childs rights as time goes by. As a parent, I also should decide when a child is responsible enough for certain activities such as firing a gun so a parent definitely has some say. Quite a lot of latitude actually. So, where is the line?

I'm beginning to think that I hit the mark closest in my previous post with "intent". That solves most of the issues.

 

[Badger Johnson]

The physical abuse is so bad people are just forgetting the verbal abuse. I'd be more afraid of the guy coming back while I was asleep and harming me, because due to the verbal abuse and threats he's psychotic and a menace and a danger and unpredictable rage-a-holic.