Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Charges For Child-Whipping Judge Caught On YouTube

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the internet-sensation dept.

Crime 948

theodp writes "Federal prosecutors will not charge a Texas judge seen lashing his teenage daughter with a belt on a YouTube video taken seven years ago and posted online last week, closing the door on the possibility of criminal charges in the case. The viral video, uploaded by now 23-year-old Hillary Adams, shows her father, Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams, whipping her with a belt for downloading music when she was 16 (full video, requires login). 'F*****g computers,' the judge tells his now ex-wife on the video. 'I told you I didn't want one in the god damn house. See all the problems they cause?' Judge Adams issued a statement asserting that his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him for withdrawing his financial support."

cancel ×

948 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Child? (2, Insightful)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960508)

16 year old isn't a child. It's late teens, almost an adult. That's why the whole video should be considered as violence against adult, not teaching your child (and even then it would go seriously over the top). But fact is, 16 year olds are adult already. Most can act and think that way too. At least I could.

Re:Child? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960546)

interesting. i think though adult or child the guy deserves a beating for treating his daughter that way. beating his daughter to save the rights of people who make money from music? what an asshole.

Re:Child? (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960744)

More likely he is beating lashing his daughter for violating the law. It is not necessarily a statement on whether the law is just.

Re:Child? (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960884)

More likely he is beating lashing his daughter for violating the law. It is not necessarily a statement on whether the law is just.

No, he's beating his daughter because he's an idiot with anger management and control issues. If it's not okay to beat a stranger for "violating the law", then it's certainly not okay to beat someone you're supposed to love, and who you have a legal responsibility to protect from bad stuff such as illegal physical assaults like this.

BTW: This was not a one-time incident.

Re:Child? (1, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960560)

16 years is a child. If you don't believe it, then upload a naked picture of a 16 year old. I'm sure they'll charge you for distributing child pornography.

Re:Child? (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960606)

...and you will probably be charged for soliciting the picture.

Re:Child? (2)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960668)

law does not define truth.

Re:Child? (2)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960676)

That's bad logic. 14 year olds can be tried as adults for murder. 16 year olds can marry 30 year olds (in most U.S. states and in most of the world as well). The only thing a 16 year old can't do is drink, vote, and fuck on camera.

Re:Child? (2)

Killer Instinct (851436) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960758)

Or download music on a computer in this pricks house apparently.

Re:Child? (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960760)

The only thing a 16 year old can't do is drink, vote, and fuck on camera.

They should try to do all three things simultaneously. Can't really get any worse.

Re:Child? (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960778)

So 16 year olds are adults when they kill somebody or marry 30 year olds? But they are children when they fuck on camera, try to vote, or drink alcohol?

PS, http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml [usmarriagelaws.com] doesn't agree with your statement that 16 years old can marry 30 year olds; at least, not without consent of their parents/guardian. That spells "child" to me.

Re:Child? (3, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960918)

or refuse schooling, a lawyer etc.

A 16 your old legally is a child, they are protected by the state (and can be taken away from home if they have abusive parents, whether they want to go or not, for example), and in legal agreements they cannot sign for themselves without special circumstances. They cannot serve in the army, they cannot collect an adult minimum wage, they cannot be treated like adults legally without special circumstances (which violate both the definition and purpose of separate child laws in the first place).

16 years cannot marry without parental consent, pregnancy - in some specific cases, court approval or the like (unless they are already emancipated).

A 14 year old is not *automatically* tried for murder as an adult, they can, under special circumstances be given that privilege.

You see these things on the news and it biases your perception of what actually happens. In extreme cases children can be emancipated from their parents at very young ages when the parents have no criminal record etc... But in that sense any piece of law can be overturned in a one off basis, for the 99.99% of everyone else 16 year olds are children, are treated that way by several laws, and treaties, and treating them differently is illegal.

Re:Child? (3, Insightful)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960562)

But fact is, 16 year olds are adult already. Most can act and think that way too. At least I could.

... not because 16 year olds are wise and advanced mentally/emotionally, but because adults aren't ... . Otherwise our world would have a tiny, tiny, tiny fractions of the problems it has now.

Re:Child? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960570)

In most states, a 16 year old is not legally an adult. I'm not 100% on this, but I believe in Texas you have to be at least 17 to be counted as an adult (i.e. live on your own (without your parents permission)) unless you get a special court order or something (had a few friends that did that ~15 years or so). Either way, although this is kind of fucked up and the judge seems like an asshole, I really don't think any crime was committed.

Re:Child? (2)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960780)

Of course there was a crime committed: grievous bodily harm.

Re:Child? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960580)

I've worked in the newspapers as a photojournalist for a few years and I can tell you, some of the most powerful people in a company/ city/ state (regardless of gender) can act like a spoiled brat. I think the term "adult" just means putting on a socially acceptable mask in order to interact with other people. In private, all hats are off - which is specially surprising for someone in my position - where every little detail is scrutinized by the public. But since those behaviors weren't relevant to the news, they were often disregarded by the editor to make room for ad space.

I think the "core" of a person is set in their teen years, and if they're a vengeful asshole by then, they'll probably be that for the rest of their lives. They may add more layers later in life to make themselves more tolerable, but it won't wipe off an immature jerk inside.

Re:Child? (3, Interesting)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960644)

Neh 16 yo aren't adults. That is a proven fact. Their brains can't comprehend cause, danger, effects as real adults do. 25.... yeps, those are adults. It can be seen by brainscans btw. Some 16 yo are perfectly capable of doing a lot of things some adults can't... but put them in a scanner and you can see the difference.

Re:Child? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960808)

Their brains can't comprehend cause, danger, effects as real adults do.

I think the effect on them is greatly exaggerated considering the fact that the ability of most (as far as I've saw) adults to do this is seemingly nonexistent. They throw tantrums, get angry, try to support their arguments with logical fallacies, etc. In other words, some (most, as far as I've saw) adults, like children, are typical humans. In my experience, most adults are just overgrown children with a bit more responsibility.

Only till 25? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960822)

Yeah that's right. Age of consent should be 25.

But the age of enlistment should be 16 since they are capable of doing a lot of things some adults can't like that they are naturally more energetic and risk taking (better for war).

I'm 21 and apparently my brain can't comprehend "cause, danger, effects"...I've managed to get a full scholarship for my university not because I understand physics very much but because I just do some game of "monkey-see-monkey-do" watching the "real adults" do their thing. Right...

Re:Only till 25? (0, Troll)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960868)

Don't take it personally. Imagine what you will be able to do in about 4 years. Even 8 years. Brains grow till that age. The difference between a 16 yo and a 21 is pretty big, but judging from the way responded, I think you are perfect proof that 21's aren't full adults yet. You can't comprehend this, can you? No worries though, you will soon, young grasshopper,

Re:Child? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960684)

Yep. If there's grass on the field, it's time to play ball [NB - the age of consent in Texas is 17]. Of course, any respectable lady shaves her pussy, but that's a separate issue.

Re:Child? (1)

StarKiller53861 (2251214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960784)

Anyone under the age of 18 is considered a minor in most countries.

Re:Child? (2)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960870)

Minor yes, but not a child.

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960524)

Whip it real good.

Re:First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960558)

Just do the world a favor and shove a shotgun up your ass.

Re:First Post (-1, Troll)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960566)

First Fail: Claiming you got a first post when you didn't.

Second Fail: It's "whip it good", no real in there.

He... (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960534)

He done goofed.

Re:He... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960696)

Consequences will never be the...

Oh wait

Just another corrupt judge (5, Insightful)

fotbr (855184) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960536)

and another example of a judge that should be removed from the bench by any means possible -- I don't know if you can recall a judge in texas, or if you have to wait until the next time that clown is up for reelection, or what the process is, but whatever the process, it needs to happen.

Re:Just another corrupt judge (0)

planimal (2454610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960584)

what's so wrong about beating your children?

Re:Just another corrupt judge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960638)

May I beat you to minced meat? No? Why? What's so wrong about it?

Re:Just another corrupt judge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960736)

Beating your meat is different from mincing it. Accurate terminology, fellow geek. Also, Maddox says I have to [thebestpag...iverse.net] , if I really love my children.

Re:Just another corrupt judge (1)

Big Hairy Goofy Guy (866523) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960608)

If he is re-elected, I wonder if it will be news in Texas.

Re:Just another corrupt judge (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960748)

Probably. The video is clear evidence of him applying non-capital punishment to an offender who could have been charged as an adult. Are texan voters going to stand for a soft-on-crime stance like that?

The legal system at it's finest. (2, Insightful)

pro151 (2021702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960568)

One more example of the corrupt "Good Ol Boy" law enforcement network up and running at full speed. If that video had been of you beating your 16 year old daughter, you would be Bubba's girl friend right now and he would be trading your @$$ for cigarettes.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960578)

Statute of limitations.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (5, Informative)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960590)

Actually no, the statute of limitations applies to regular citizens also.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960840)

18 USC 3283 - Sec. 3283. Offenses against children

"No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child."

I believe the code is clear in stating that the statute of limitations do NOT apply to child abuse victims.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960906)

Funny. A belt is child abuse these days. In my day, that was considered 'punishment' for fucking up.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (2)

ProfM (91314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960620)

Didn't she release the video 7 YEARS after the incident? Statute of Limitations comes in play here. If it was murder or something like that, there is no limitation then. Not saying that he was right in doing it, but that's the reason he's not being charged.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (2)

MBCook (132727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960646)

Why exactly should federal charges be brought against him? I don't think beating your kid is a federal crime.

He should be punished (although I'd image the statute of limitations is up on this), but it would be by a local/state court. I'd also say he should lose his position, but I'd imagine they can't do that unless he is convicted.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (5, Funny)

devleopard (317515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960670)

One more example of the lack of reading the article on Slashdot at its finest.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (0)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960794)

When his daughter didn't want to try to get a real job he took away her Mercedes and then this video comes up on the internet.... Coincidence? I think not.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960824)

You say that like it changes whether what he did was right or not.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960856)

If she thought it truly wrong, she would have released the video right away, rather than wait for the most satisfactory moment of revenge. She knew what seh was going to get for disobeying her parents rules, and she knew it was justified, otherwise this video would have come out six years ago.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (4, Insightful)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960908)

If she had released it when she was a 16-year-old living at home, I would imagine he would have beaten the shit out of her.

Re:The legal system at it's finest. (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960914)

First, we only have his word for that and I'm not inclined to accept his claims on face value.

Second, what does it matter why she released the tape? The tape was made and depicts child cruelty, child abuse (not the same thing), negligence, uncontrolled violence and addiction to violence. Ok, so he wanted this to be a family secret. (See "People of the Lie" for why this is a really good indicator of even worse depravities.) His excuses ended the moment he started thrashing her with his belt.

This might not be a Federal crime but I honestly believe it should be. It's quite clear the States have no desire to prevent this kind of behaviour.

Corporal punishment is, as child psychologists routinely point out, ineffective at disciplining and is used purely as a means of avoiding having to handle anger management issues. It should not be permitted and in civilized countries it is not.

He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes (-1, Troll)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960596)

She was repeatedly downloading music illegally in his house at the height of the MAFIAA lawsuit festival. Corporal punishment is legal in many states, and rightly so.

Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes (1)

Skater (41976) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960632)

By beating the shit out of her with a belt? This is far worse than anything the MAFIAA (note: that's the term YOU used) did.

Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes (1, Informative)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960726)

Her pants were not filled after this session, so it must not have been to the point of hyperbole that you employed.

Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960634)

Rightly so? He was physically attacking her for downloading music...does that not seem just a little bit over-the-top to you?

Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes (0, Flamebait)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960674)

He was applying his God given and government affirmed right to discipline his child after she thwarted his authority on numerous occasions and risked the financial security of their home.

Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960686)

lol, "God given"

Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960640)

Check that, actually all states. Now that's a plurality.

Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960738)

If he is liable for her crimes, should not HE be the one that gets the beating? I hope the MAFIAA sees this and sues the hell out of him. He admitted that a minor, for which he is legally liable, downloaded the stuff.

OTOH they probably do not want to bite the hand that feeds them.
OTOH they are stupid enough to do just that.

Re:He's a judge, he is liable for her crimes (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960786)

The law doesn't say that he should/may receive a 'beating' for the crime of illegally downloading music. The much discussed repercussion/consequence of that crime results in the MAFIAA suing you into financial submission rather than physical.

Computers are the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960614)

So I watched that video this week. My reaction after seeing it in its entirety: "Computers are bad."

Sexual arroused (1, Interesting)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960616)

I bet 10 bucks he later wanked on that spanking. Those sort of people always do. This is more than just a crime. It is a form of sexual torture and rape and should be treated as such. Since this is also a minor, that guy should get the chair. Especially since he is a judge and clearly has pulled all his known strings to get away with it and after that points the finger at the victim.

Re:Sexual arroused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960710)

..and your 'reasoning' (I use the term loosely) is the reason we have shitty laws on the books. all you offer is an assumption without proof. go lick some feminazi cunt or something. girls are not always victims.

Re:Sexual arroused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960712)

so we should prosecute him as a rapist based on your speculation that he jacked off later?

Re:Sexual arroused (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960806)

Sounds like someone is Projecting.

Re:Sexual arroused (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960816)

There are overtones of sexual saddism, 'Take it like a woman' and a very obvious erection while delivering the beating.

Re:Sexual arroused (1)

flohuels (1920394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960848)

...believe it or not, even a straight, non-sadism mother can "educate" her child with a belt.

Re:Sexual arroused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960898)

Fucking waaaaaaaaaaah?

Ok so your daughter just possibly subjected your family to 250k fine and 10 years in prison. How do you react? And keep in mind he is a judge and has an idea how the law might work...

Yeah.

Federal? (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960628)

Child abuse is a state matter, last I heard. Why do federal prosecutors have anything to say about it?

-jcr

More News for nerds? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960630)

WTF is this on Slashdot, just because it's on YouTube? Give me a break!

hard to watch (2, Informative)

ejtttje (673126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960648)

The video is hard to watch. For reference, the daughter was participating in the comment thread on reddit [reddit.com] (username shoeofallcosmos).

Judge Adams issued a statement asserting that his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him for withdrawing his financial support.

Oh, so he abuses his children and then also doesn't support them financially, sounds like a real winner!

Re:hard to watch (1, Troll)

vakuona (788200) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960862)

She is 23. Not excusing what he did, but in what world should anyone have to support a grown woman who refuses to take care of herself?

Re:hard to watch (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960904)

She has cerebral palsy.

Re:hard to watch (-1, Troll)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960912)

"in what world should anyone have to support a grown woman who refuses to take care of herself?"

The Obamacare one.

Re:hard to watch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960864)

She's 23. Her parents have no obligation to do shit for her. My parents stopped supporting me when they found out I was taking a medication their bible didn't authorize when I was 19. My doctor's opinion wasn't as a good as Jesus', apparently. This is perfectly normal for USA. I've had jobs since I was 17 and a paper route before then, so it didn't make a difference to me.

At least she could walk away from what her dad did to her, and it looks like he may get fired, or whatever happens to judges.

I'm going to get modded to oblivion, but honestly there are worse things parents can do to their children.

My genitals were mutilated and I'll never be 100% sure if the "allergy shots" that never really did anything for my allergies I received between the ages of 12 and 14 weren't actually testosterone. I can't ever walk away from those things. It's my face, after all, and others are right. I look like a faggot, can't change that.

I guess joke's on them. People with sexual value go off, fuck like rabbits, have families, buy houses they can't afford, and boo-hoo on them when they have to sell to a faggot for half the price they bought it for. Idiots. I may look like a faggot, and nobody will ever help me if I need help, and I'll never understand why people with sexual value get help so easily, but fucking boo-hoo on them for being irresponsible idiots.

I don't really blame my parents any more because I've realized they were severely misguided by the doctors and religious leaders they consulted. I also haven't spoken to them in years, either. I just wish I could have the body parts they cheated me out of. At least I've got my wisdom teeth, whatever difference that makes. I just wish I could walk away from it all like you can walk away from abuse when you turn 18 and everyone goes boo-hoo and feels sad for you.

Re:hard to watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960882)

Your parents were still supporting you when you were 23?

Excuses (5, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960656)

Judge Adams issued a statement asserting that his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him for withdrawing his financial support.

I'm not quite sure that makes what he did OK...

Re:Excuses (5, Insightful)

phaserbanks (1977290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960692)

Umm... call me crazy, but maybe she was retaliating for him repeatedly beating the crap out of her.

Re:Excuses (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960750)

Nope. She's posted about it elsewhere, but basically, she saved the video in order to blackmail him. Fast forward to a week ago, and he threatens to stop allowing her to borrow his Mercedes. So she posts the video in response.

They're both horrible people: the judge for beating his daughter, and the girl for blackmailing him over it.

If she wanted him punished, she had the chance. She didn't. She wanted money from him.

Re:Excuses (1, Interesting)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960850)

Gotta agree with the AC - I've been beat before, and while it looked like this man was putting his heart into it, he looked like an out of shape skinny punk compared to the whippings I got as a child. When a beating was finished in my household, the crying didn't stop for 30 minutes, and you'd be lucky if you weren't limping afterwards. If the video had shown her inconsolable for 20 minutes after the beating, hardly able to move because of the pain, I'd be more inclined to feel some sympathy for her. As it was, she had a dick father, and a dick mother, but as soon as they got out of the room, she was cool as a cucumber, walking around like the beating was nothing to her.

Now be clear, even if you're a wimp with a belt and can't give a 16 year old enough of a smack down to keep them crying for 30 minutes, you shouldn't be beating your kid - it's stupid and unproductive. But this was definitely "gotcha" videography on the part of the kid. The whole family is rotten, and frankly, I'm most appalled by the mother - the fact that she was cool with it as an observer (although I think she got one lick in too) was chilling.

Re:Excuses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960694)

It's not OK as seen by you and me, but I don't think that the electorate in Texas would notice the irrelevant nature of his comments.

Re:Excuses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960894)

Judge Adams issued a statement asserting that his daughter released the tape to retaliate against him for withdrawing his financial support.

I'm not quite sure that makes what he did OK...

This is Texas, where "he was cuttin' his EYES at me" is considered justification for homicide.

Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitations (4, Insightful)

devleopard (317515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960662)

He's a bad person, to say the least. However, the state's statute of limitations expired, and the federal prosecutors could find no *federal* laws being broken. (Keep in mind which crimes are state, which are federal) To do otherwise would be to violate the legal system, no matter what you feel.

Whatever. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960734)

I really believe that if this happened to a regular Joe Schmoe, the prosecutors would have found something - anything, no matter how thin and tenuous to charge the guy with because they want to build their political or legal career.

But because it's a judge, they just threw up their hands and said, "Statute of Limitations. Oh well! Can't do anything."

Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960746)

Correct, nothing to prosecute.

But you don't need to be convicted of a crime to lose your job and your social standing. People have lost far more for far less.

Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960788)

According to what I found on http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/methods/removal_of_judges.cfm?state=tx a Texas judge may be removed in the following ways.

Methods of Judicial Selection: Texas
Removal of Judges
Texas judges may be removed in one of four ways:

        The state commission on judicial conduct investigates, and if warranted, prosecutes allegations of misconduct by Texas judges. Upon a commission recommendation of removal or retirement, the supreme court selects a review tribunal from among court of appeals judges to verify the findings and enter a judgment. Judges may appeal decisions of the review tribunal to the supreme court.

        Judges may be removed by the governor on the address of two thirds of the house and senate.

        Judges may be impeached by the house of representatives and removed by two thirds of the senate.

        The supreme court may remove district court judges from office.

Re:Nothing to prosecute here - Statute of Limitati (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960826)

Not necessarily. While the judge is a person with all the rights and privileges of the average joe, it also makes sense to expect a higher standard of behaviour from him due to his position, beyond merely the letter of the law. There should be some kind of disciplinary consequence, and it should be seen to be done, not merely done behind closed doors. That's something his superiors can do I would hope.

just like the good old days (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960666)

I am glad they are over.

Cue the righteous indignation... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960672)

Not to get in way of the /. circle-jerk cum witch-hunt that is surely to ensue, but he SHOULD NOT have been charged with crimes due to the statute of limitations having elapsed.

If you want the statute of limitations changed, that's one thing, but don't go whining about how he should have been charged, it WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT A BASIS IN LAW to do so.

The whole summary is incredibly biased. (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960720)

The claim is that the federal government wont prosecute this possible crime. Of course not. What FEDERAL law has he violated? Even if he murdered his 16 year old daughter, it would be a crime under Texas law, not a federal crime. Hey, I'll bet the governments of Bali, New Zealand, and Monaco don't want to prosecute this judge for beating his kid either. Now there may be a real issue as to why Texas hasn't done anything...

Re:The whole summary is incredibly biased. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960802)

The law of the land trumps the individual state laws. It is illegal to beat a child in the USA irrespective of the state, city, county or town local laws. Wasn't so hard to grasp was it?

MAFIAA: sue him! (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960772)

for downloading music when she was 16

he should be sued because they downloaded music. They do not stop for people who never downloaded, so this should be a REAL case where he admitted they downloaded illegal music.

Re:MAFIAA: sue him! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960890)

On the contrary; who says the RIAA didn't send him flowers and a box of chocolates for taking copyright infringement seriously?

No kidding, and this is carefully kept out of the Mainstream Media: Daddy was lashing the child for copyright infringement by means of downloading copyrighted material on the Internet or in his words "stealing". That's what "copying == stealing" leads to, and that aspect is being hushed up.

Vigilantism (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960798)

It would not surprise me in the least if someone took some form of personal justice on the man. Probably nothing major, but you can't show something like that to the entire internet without stirring someone into action.

Not All Spankings Are The Same (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960812)

I know it is trendy & hip to not spank your children and I disagree with that -- I do spank my children on occasion and I can usually tell - from the behavior of other kids in their classes - which parents don't. All that being said, the guy in that video isn't spanking his daughter -- he has lost his temper and is just beating her. I mean, who screams "fuck" repeatedly when they are spanking their child? Plus, I think 16 is too old for corporal punishment -- honestly, the die is pretty much cast at that point. I think the fact that she released the tape 7 years later because he wouldn't pay her rent any more shows that she was already ... on a path that was different than what her Father wanted. PS -- Why wouldn't you just take the fucking computer, anyways?

So... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960814)

...does this fall under successful or failed digital rights management schemes [slashdot.org] ?
Either way, being child (and probably spouse) abusing entitled prick in Texas - still priceless.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960876)

His spouse was just as bad as him. She was fully involved with the beating.

RIAA hiring... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960834)

So he's beat up a teenager for downloading music, and he hates these darn computers 'cause they just cause 'im trouble.

Well, if he ever does get fired from the judiciary, looks like he'll fit right in at the RIAA.

federal law vs. state law (2)

belmolis (702863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960836)

For those who don't know the US legal system, in general criminal law is a state matter. Federal criminal applies only in certain areas, such as crimes committed on federal property (e.g. in a national park), against federal officials, by members of the armed forces, involving interstate commerce, espionage, treason, counterfeiting, and so forth. Most ordinary crimes - murders, assaults, thefts, etc. - are purely state matters. All that the federal prosecutor said in this case was: "No, there isn't any federal crime here." The state prosecutor almost certainly already knew that and was only checking just in case some provision of federal law that he didn' tknow about provided a way around the state statute of limitations.

Re:federal law vs. state law (1)

SCVirus (774240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960874)

But this was a beating for copyright infringement-- a clear case of interstate commerce.

Bad way to raise a kid (0)

tramp (68773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960852)

At the age of 16 you do not whip your child with a belt or whatever. You ground her, cut her spending, talk to her but whipping or spanking only shows you are not in control and fall back to physical violence to push you wishes. Falling back to physical violence is quite common in foreign politics of the USA so he is probably the judge they deserve.

judicial misconduct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960854)

This qualifies as a case of judicial misconduct, even without a conviction, considering he is a judge that oversees family law cases.

No jail for judge; life in jail for 'child porn' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960872)

Man sentenced to life in child porn case [miamiherald.com]

The US justice system is garbage, on par with Iran and Saudi Arabia.

privacy (0)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960878)

Please note that this incident involves privacy implications.

Discuss.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>