Judge violently beats daughter... video just released by the daughter. Very Graphic

[Shootin 4 Fun]

I'm not going to sugar coat it nor apologize for my opinion. I'd like to see the sick S.O.B. suffer through a slow agonizing death at the hands of someone much more creative than myself.

 

[beast1989]

I did a little more research:

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.61. Parent-Child

§ 9.61. PARENT-CHILD. (a) The use of force, but not
deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified:
(1) if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or
is acting in loco parentis to the child; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to
safeguard or promote his welfare.
(b) For purposes of this section, "in loco parentis"
includes grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through,
or under the direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child,
and anyone who has express or implied consent of the parent or
parents.


So if he used "non deadly force" to discipline her, it's arguable that what he did was well within the laws of Texas. Damn....

If you think the part in bold is what we witnessed than you are wrong. Im not sure what your stance is on this but he was out of line 100%.

 

[Koshinn]

I'm not going to sugar coat it nor apologize for my opinion. I'd like to see the sick S.O.B. suffer through a slow agonizing death at the hands of someone much more creative than myself.

Should watch Dexter, especially this season. Some very creative deaths in that show. But the main character causes very uncreative deaths. He generally injects people with tetrodotoxin, wraps them in saran wrap, cuts their cheek for his serial killer trophy, then stabs them through the chest to slice their heart in half. I mean occasionally he'll kill people with a pillow or something, but usually it's knife-through-the-heart. But the other murderers in the show are often pretty creative. This season had a murder involving live baby snakes.

If you think the part in bold is what we witnessed than you are wrong. Im not sure what your stance is on this but he was out of line 100%.

No, that is exactly what we witnessed. The way the statute is written, it's the degree that "the actor" reasonably believes the force is necessary. The actor, being the one doing the punishment. So if he believed that was necessary, then he was within his legal right to do what he did. And if that's the only deciding factor in a trial, there is only one person who can say what the judge was thinking, and that's him. And maybe he's so sick that he actually believes it.

 

[twocan]

Im a firm believer that right before a child does wrong he/she should have their last ass whooping run through their mind.
That was a beating not an ass whooping!

 

[RidgeHunter]

I did a little more research:

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.61. Parent-Child

§ 9.61. PARENT-CHILD. (a) The use of force, but not
deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified:
(1) if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or
is acting in loco parentis to the child; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to
safeguard or promote his welfare.
(b) For purposes of this section, "in loco parentis"
includes grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through,
or under the direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child,
and anyone who has express or implied consent of the parent or
parents.


So if he used "non deadly force" to discipline her, it's arguable that what he did was well within the laws of Texas. Damn....

Under that interpretation you could poison, starve, cut with a razor blade, pull hair out, rape, chain to a radiator etc. I highly doubt it's perfectly legal to do anything up to but not including killing your child in Texas...

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/childabuse1.shtml

Physical discipline vs physical abuse is kind of like obscenity... you know it when you see it, but it's really hard to explain where you draw the line. I'm just trying to figure out where people draw that line. I draw it at 1 physical attack on your child. And it really is an attack. Physical violence another person is only justified, in my opinion, in defense (of another, of yourself, of property, etc), if consensual (sport fighting or where both sides want to fight), or in times of war. Physical violence on a defenseless person probably less than half your size is, in my opinion, uncalled for in any situation, even if it's "for their own good."

I guess we're getting into more subjective matters of opinion here. Some people might disagree with you that violence is justified in war. Some people think sport fighting is not justifiable. The law here says violence is not justifiable in the the defense of property; you just said it is in your opinion. So there are people that disagree with your lines too. Lots of them.

I'm totally in agreement with you that it is inappropriate to hit a kid as a form of discipline. I couldn't do it. Wouldn't do it. I think that adult humans should be able to have relationships without violence and physical/emotional domination coming into play. I just refuse to classify every parent that has spanked their kid as an abuser. It's simply a form of discipline I vehemently disagree with. There are many kids being raised in ways I disagree with. Religions I think are whacky, etc. I can't just say they are all abusers because I disagree with their parenting methods.

Forget hitting. Where do you draw the line between emotional abuse and non-physical discipline? Keep in mind emotional abuse is horrible, and arguably worse than the physical abuse. Sometimes you have to be a bit pragmatic and objective. Aldo Leopold said "We shall never achieve harmony with land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations the important thing is not to achieve, but to strive." You're never going to get every parent to raise their kid how you see fit. All you can do is strive to protect them from offenses so egregious and unacceptable they are recognized by the majority of our peers as abuse. That's where the law comes into play. I'm sure if we all had our way every kid would be raised how we see fit. Unfortunately that's not reasonable. Our entire criminal justice system is basically built around what our peers find acceptable and reasonable. Far from flawless, but that's what it is. There are legal forms of homicide. You get put on trial and claim you killed someone in self-defense, it's up to 12 people to decide whether or not they believe you. It's not as simple as "all killing is illegal" in the eyes of the law. It's not as simple as "a strike to a child is abuse". (yes I realize SD is an affirmative defense...just an example).

As with a self-defense killing, you have to argue that the strike to your child was reasonably and justifiable to what basically amounts to the Average Joe.

By the way, this is how I feel about spanking. Also to lighten the mood a bit.

 

[Grendel]

According to one website the girl has ataxic cerebral palsy. I don't know much about that family of medical conditions, but one has to wonder if it was brought on, or worsened by the abuse that she received.

My wife and I are under a strict agreement that if the discipline of our daughter is starting to get out of hand, that the other one should step in and remove us from the situation.

I hope this guy loses everything.

 

[waltham41]

That guy is nice compared to what my old man was..... he came so close so many times when we were kids to beating us to death.. He beat our mother to death in front of us kids. Not that she was much better.

I have broken bones that bother me to this day from my childhood. Back in them days no one questioned when you showed up to school with black eyes or covered in bruises.

I am sure she will gain comfort when that SOB dies and goes to hell, that is what brought comfort and closure to me. Foregiveness is not an option after things get that bad

 

[beast1989]

Koshinn yea I agree that the law is written like ****, I cant wait to see the outcome of this saga.

 

[Koshinn]

I guess we're getting into more subjective matters of opinion here. Some people might disagree with you that violence is justified in war. Some people think sport fighting is not justifiable. The law here says violence is not justifiable in the the defense of property; you just said it is in your opinion. So there are people that disagree with your lines too. Lots of them.

Oh people definitely disagree with me. All the time. Just look at this thread

Some people believe wars are never justified. Some people think you shouldn't even kill your attackers and you should just turn the other cheek or run away. I think some wars are justified, but not all, and I believe that manslaughter in self defense is morally justified (and legally, but the law is already there on that).

Forget hitting. Where do you draw the line between emotional abuse and non-physical discipline? Keep in mind emotional abuse is horrible, and arguably worse than the physical abuse. Sometimes you have to be a bit pragmatic and objective. Aldo Leopold said "We shall never achieve harmony with land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations the important thing is not to achieve, but to strive." You're never going to get every parent to raise their kid how you see fit. All you can do is strive to protect them from offenses so egregious and unacceptable they are recognized by the majority of our peers as abuse. That's where the law comes into play. I'm sure if we all had our way every kid would be raised how we see fit. Unfortunately that's not reasonable. Our entire criminal justice system is basically built around what our peers find acceptable and reasonable. Far from flawless, but that's what it is. There are legal forms of homicide. You get put on trial and claim you killed someone in self-defense, it's up to 12 people to decide whether they believe you. It's not as simple as "all killing is illegal" in the eyes of the law. It's not as simple as "a strike to a child is abuse". (yes I realize SD is an affirmative defense...just an example).

Emotional abuse is harder to draw the line on because it affects every kid differently. I see that more as a case-by-case basis, but as you say, it can be worse than physical abuse. And emotional and physical abuse tend to go hand-in-hand, like in the video I believe.

 

[inactive]

Under that interpretation you could poison, starve, cut with a razor blade, pull hair out, rape, chain to a radiator etc. I highly doubt it's perfectly legal to do anything up to but not including killing your child in Texas...

I will admit I making this into a bit of an exercise. I don't disagree with you, but the point is there's a veritable panorama of interpretations of what is allowable based on that statute. I suspect it was written to allow parents benefit of the doubt when it came to reasonable physical punishment, but I would go so far as to call the wording reckless with what it allows.

You know good and well that deadly force does not have to result in death (a la the Stand you Ground law here in OK). So you couldn't shoot your kid in the hand as punishment for telling tall tales on the internet (as shooting someone anywhere is considered dearly force). But, a reasonable person could understand that a belt whippin' isn't deadly force. Thus it is debatable whether this is allowable under TX law or not. In all seriousness, I pray it isn't.