Originally Posted by
Fee
While I don't agree with his actions she was effectively baiting him with the camera setup ready.
Yep, it's that she wanted to submit herself to vicious beating and was "baiting" her father to accomplish this result. What an ingenious evil plot!
Originally Posted by Fee
Also the disabled spin off that's being put on this is stupid, she is willing and capable to secretly film the whole thing and release it with the intention of ruining her father's career.
....Apparently you don't understand how ataxic cerebral palsy works, this quite simply DOES have a disabled aspect to it that can't be ignored.
I don't think pointing out Texas's ass-backwards laws really somehow justifies the judge's actions. This is not an issue of state law, this is an issue of morality. Further, even this isn't acceptable by state law standards. He would be prosecuted if not for the statute of limitations.
Originally Posted by Fee
She is in-fact working outside the law, he is not. Not to mention illegally downloading music and games.
Illegally....downloading music and games....?
Le gasp! What horrific act of criminality is this!? Quick, beat that man for rolling a stop sign!
By the way, invasion of privacy in almost all cases is a civil matter. Further, the vast majority of legal definitions of privacy note that it is acceptable when justified.
Originally Posted by Fee
I am in no way condoning spanking children, personally I disagree with it and find it to be a lazy method of teaching a minor right from wrong. However it happens and this man was acting within the law of his state and shouldn't be slated for it, he made the choice to discipline HIS child in this manner.
This is not spanking, this is whipping her with a belt and explaining to her such just parenting principles as "if you even look at me wrong, I'm gonna wear your fucking ass out with this belt." At the very least this is severe emotional abuse, threat of severe physical abuse (are you condoning felonious threats made against children?), and, more open to interpretation, severe physical abuse in and of itself. You're ducking around the issue by insinuating that she isn't the victim and by mistakenly claiming that state law allows this.
Edit: oh, and even if it were unreasonable to criminally try him, this is absolutely valid grounds to have any children removed from his custody by child protection services.
Last edited by Boredpayne; Nov 4, 2011 at 05:42 AM.