Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the Internet

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
reply to post by Amanda5

 

What are you talking about? Understand what?

I know what the father did. I have eyes.

I was responding to another poster. I want to know what legally the father is guilty of.

You are talking about child abuse. In other posts I was just pointing out that the media has stated that the victim was 16 at the time this happend. Yet the law classes a child as 14 or younger.
So legally this would not be child abuse.

I was told by the poster i am replying to that : "I would also argue you have your head in Disney Land if you think he'll walk away from court without charges."


Before you answer questions to other posters you should read previous threads.

You then have to bring in if coporal punishment is permissable in this location. If it is then you have to decide what the definition of coporal punishment is.

Yes the incident is horrible but all I am asking is what exactly is he guilty of. I am guessing there will be no charges.

edit on 4-11-2011 by JohnySeagull because: (no reason given)

Assault and battery?

reply to post by CREAM


He will not be charged with assault and battery because the statue of limitations.

reply to post by JohnySeagull


Depends on if he continued to beat her. The video is old, but similar crimes may not be. At the very least he should lose his job because it brings his personality and mentality into question. That normally wouldn't matter, but he is a judge so it's important.

I am no lawyer, but if there are no laws to convict him for what he has done, then I guess a good ole ass whoppin is what this guy needs if he can't publicly apologize. I don't condone violence against children, but it's a different story for adults... It aint cool to beat up a girl.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


the victim has not mentioned going after him. she states she wants to reconcile as father and daughter , not as defendant and prosecuter.

he wil certainly loose his job. his position is untenable.

WTF is up with the mother?

Besides that, a girl should never be beaten by her father. I believe that is the mother's job.
Growing up, (i grew up with my grandparents) I would only get a hiding from my grandmother. Never from my grandfather. Ever.
Maybe that is why I'm not afraid of men.

reply to post by JohnySeagull


Yes I understand your position.
As for - what is the father guilty of legally?
All crime has to have two parts - mens rea and actus reus.
Mens rea is the thought behind the crime and the action is acting upon the thought which is actus reus.
I am in Australia so I am giving you my understanding of how the law is applied here. You will have to research for yourself or ask an American person versed in law. I don't imagine that it would be very different.

Essentially I assess assault using the video clip as evidence because he plans the assault - go and get the belt - get on the bed etcetera.

Those comments tend towards his thinking about what he is going to do before he does it.
His actions are clearly visible on the video.

You then consider the Child is frightened - listen to her comments. I could not watch it right through as it was far too disturbing for me. I am a former Police officer and I know first hand what people can do to their Children and it is one of those things that never gets easier.

In this instance there is the option of making an historical report - my understanding is that Child Abuse has no statute of limitations - if it does then that in itself is a crime - just my opinion.

The girl was a Child when the offence occurred and that is what would be looked at in terms of the charges. The young woman says it was a regular occurance and that needs to be considered as well - a different type of charge or a charge for each episode - depends on the law in America and how it is applied.

Much Peace...especially for abused Children... in particular for those who don't survive the abuse...

reply to post by Amanda5


thats great amanda.

but the conversation you butted into is very simpe.

i was accused of having my head in disneyland if i think this man will walk away without facing any charges.

i still think he is very unlightly he will face charges.

Originally posted by scoobdude
Ok, i came in late to this thread, but I am confused.

**EDIT: Sherlock I looked up your above statement and according to the map on wiki there is only one country that allows no corporal punishment. I did not read much further than that, but just wanted to point it out so we don't pollute this thread with wrong information. But if there is more recent/relevant information I would love to see it. Below is a map of the map of europe and corporal punishment.

edit on 3-11-2011 by scoobdude because: (no reason given)

Just the opposite as far as I can tell.....only one country permits it in both home and school. Was that a typo?

Stay well.

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
reply to post by Amanda5

 

What are you talking about? Understand what?

I know what the father did. I have eyes.

I was responding to another poster. I want to know what legally the father is guilty of.

You are talking about child abuse. In other posts I was just pointing out that the media has stated that the victim was 16 at the time this happend. Yet the law classes a child as 14 or younger.
So legally this would not be child abuse.

You then have to bring in if coporal punishment is permissable in this location. If it is then you have to decide what the definition of coporal punishment is.

Yes the incident is horrible but all I am asking is what exactly is he guilty of. I am guessing there will be no charges.

I was told by the poster i am replying to that : "I would also argue you have your head in Disney Land if you think he'll walk away from court without charges."


Before you answer questions to other posters you should read previous threads. Do you understand that?

edit on 4-11-2011 by JohnySeagull because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-11-2011 by JohnySeagull because: (no reason given)

Yep, I'd forgotten about the legal restrictions that come when x amount of time has passed.

My original point was that the man is guilty of a crime. He is guilty of a crime. Whether or not he will be charged is completely irrelevant.

The poster you just quoted is right, you are wrong. There was nothing legal in what the judge did

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
reply to post by CREAM

 

He will not be charged with assault and battery because the statue of limitations.

That doesn't mean he isn't guilty of assault and battery.

You seem to be arguing that because he might not be charged that somehow he's innocent and did no wrong in the eyes of the law. You are wrong.

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
reply to post by CREAM

 

He will not be charged with assault and battery because the statue of limitations.

Not so, the statue of limitations may not apply in his case since she was a minor, under extreme duress, and unable to speak out for herself.

There is a legal term called "Tolled" and in this case it will most likely apply.

en.wikipedia.org...(law)

Tolling is a legal doctrine which allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations. Certain traditional conditions will toll a statute of limitations:
Plaintiff is a minor.
Plaintiff has been deemed insane.
Plaintiff has been convicted of a felony and is imprisoned; a major component of the AEDPA.
Defendant is in bankruptcy.
Filing of an action which is later voluntarily dismissed.
Parties were engaged in good-faith negotiations to resolve the dispute.

I would say personally he is going to do time, even if it's 60 days, but most likely he'll be a convicted felon.

If he shows remose the sentence maybe reduced, but he has already made foolish comments publicly about how the video looks worse than it really is, so IMO he is in deep trouble.

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
reply to post by Amanda5

 

thats great amanda.

but the conversation you butted into is very simpe.

i was accused of having my head in disneyland if i think this man will walk away without facing any charges.

i still think he is very unlightly he will face charges.

That's not the conversation. That was the conversation 10 pages ago, the conversation then moved to whether or not he committed a crime. Which was the original conversation to start with.

I chose my words poorly in one statement, but it's neither here nor there considering the issue being debated is and was whether he was guilty of a crime

Originally posted by fishman1985
This #head is lucky I dont live down there... Id love to see him one day just casually walking along. Im sure he will have to look over his shoulder for the rest of this unnatural life after this one. If you go to the county courthouse website, it even says not to contact them anymore over this situation... the truth hurts you dumb county #s that thought he was a good and rightous guy. What a POS

Yeah. He will. Not because of the law though. In fact maybe the best thing the law can do for him is to charge and convict him, simply to keep the mob from tearing him apart. Otherwise, the degree of outrage over this will follow him with every nutcase who actually was abused as a kid, and has not come to peace and forgiveness...who sees him as the stand-in for his own abuser, when he was too powerless to do anything about it, and decides to "fix" that.

I was appalled when I watched the video.....mostly by the language he was using with his most precious gift. One should never punish a child...or even a near adult while angry. And her continued defiance clearly pushed him over that line. As she probably knew it would. They had not just met. She had lived with him for sixteen years and knew every button the guy has. There are forensics in the video. I am going to tell you what I noticed from a detached perspective and what I think it means, speaking to motives for the people involved.

The actual hitting was nominal....which you can verify for yourself, simply by getting a thick wide belt and doubling it over, careful to keep the buckle securely in your hand and smacking it against your own body. It sounds horrible. That's the two pieces of leather smacking together....much like a movie special effect. The stinging is momentary though. And does no real damage. A switch does far worse damage. And that it was indeed nominal is borne out by the indisputable fact that the daughter shuts off the tears and screaming immediately once the door is closed and in the end when she asks her mom who participated, in a very "innocent" voice, "But, how am I going to wake up?" Still trying to have her way and control the situation, even after the supposed savage beating, which she purposefully prolonged knowing she was recording it.

Have you ever actually been hurt? I mean in actual pain from a real injury? Even professional football players continue to grimace when they are actually hurt. She was not hurt in any real way. She wasn't even very scared, which is the real intent of properly administered corporal punishment. If she had complied with him to begin with, and bent over, she would have received a few smacks across her clothed, and even pocketed backside. She knew that too. It would have stung. But, it would have been over. Her defiance, IMO, was what got the father so mad.That is the point of effective punishment...not to exact retribution for some single act. It's to reduce defiance. In that sense, she won the contest for control. He blew his cool. She controlled him.

And when her mother perceived that he was not controlling his anger, she stepped in, again IMO, to mediate, by taking the belt and see if she would not just take her licks from her instead, and satisfy the criteria for compliance. Of course the mother also did not know she was being recorded and her actions have also been portrayed in the worst possible light by media...and by many here, who believe her to be a sadistic person who just wanted in on the "action"....and probably the victim of "abuse" as well. When the father saw that she was still not complying, even to take one lick from the mother, he tried to get the belt back from her and she did not return it. Note that he did not simply take it from the much smaller woman, as he easily could have, had he been prone to violence and abuse. So he stated his intention to get another one. Still no luck. Defiance. So he got one, and made one more attempt, which also failed...because he did not know that she had a larger strategy in mind....to have something to dangle over him if she felt she needed it. Again, this is about control. And she clearly won the larger battle.

The mother comes in again to impose some other non-corporal punishments, since the first attempt had not worked. I noticed that rather than taking the computer away or moving it to where she could only use it in the presence of them, she simply forbid her to use it for anything other than schoolwork. I can understand that, since the ultimate goal of discipline is to inculcate into your child, a sense of SELF discipline. Removing it would not accomplish that. It would just be another way of saying that they could not gain compliance in any way other than to remove the temptation...which again would be a loss of the control, in the relationship. And no further along in the path to SELF discipline when she was an adult and WOULD be held responsible for her actions.

cont

reply to post by NadaCambia



I dont know how many posts above you keep stating I am wrong.

Whatever man. Keep saying it to convince yourself you are right.

You are always right man. You will always be right. You are right about everything.


It must have been someone else who fired this insult at me;
"I would also argue you have your head in Disney Land if you think he'll walk away from court without charges."

It couldn't have been you. You are always right and I will always be wrong.

reply to post by Realtruth


She was not a minor. She was 16.

The age of a minor in her location is 14.

She broke the law and was stealing music off the internet.

She was far better off getting a belt to her rear than facing the fines and prosecution in court. With a Felony copyright conviction she wouldn't get a job flipping burgers at McDonalds.

Daddy saved her rear.

reply to post by SonicInfinity


Sad. Painful memories, the video makes me cringe.
Trying to teach discipline by inflicting pain as a punishment has been around for thousands of years and society aint getting any better.
Some people defend Judge Williams saying, "spare the rod, spoil the child", that line does not work out so well when anger is involved - for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. (James 1:20)
"I lost my temper", the Judge says. How can a parent who loses self control teach a child discipline?
You can not teach discipline without having discipline - Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher. (Luke 6:39-40)
This is a big problem in the world - many people can not display calm controlled behavior while they are angry or even understand that losing your temper is unacceptable in most situations.
All I see in this video is a foolish man venting his anger. (Proverbs 29:11)
Not only did he hit her in anger and attack the person instead of the problem, some bitter words were said.
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. (Ephesians 4:31–32)
I can understand why Hillary was in trouble, I can not understand why Judge Williams hit her so much, literally belting her, or why they said such nasty remarks to their daughter.
Hillary Adams family has fallen apart. There are issues with anger. She is asking for help and taking a huge risk doing it.

There is a lack of discipline in this world, dysfunctional families are a part of it. It is a hard subject to talk about, especially with those who do not want to talk about or take responsibility for their actions.

hm.

reply to post by Enderdog


Continuation of my last post.....


I wonder how many here who are vociferously against any form of physical discipline, would have reacted to the father simply calling the cops and reporting his daughter for theft, to teach her a lesson. That would have probably indemnified him career-wise. I have seen a great variety of opinion from parents on here, from both those who have chosen, as is their right as a parent, to never strike their child, and from those who like myself have decided, which is equally my right as a parent, to use it. I rather doubt there is anyone in this discussion who honestly feels that abuse is a good thing.If you are one who does not believe in any physical discipline, I'd sincerely like to hear from you on what your reaction to that scenario would be, and why.

I'm fairly certain that a few here, already think of me as some horrible abuser who beats my kid for kicks. And I'm hoping that they find it in their hearts to forgive whoever treated them so badly...not for the person who did that...but, for themselves, so they can let go of the pain and focus their energy on making their life, and the lives of their families happy and healthy. And I have seen that some have done that already. Good for you, if you have. If you still hate someone because of what they did to you...either physically or psychologically, rather than pity them for being such miserable creatures....I invite you to consider the question of why you continue to let them still control you by living in your head?

I guarantee you that the people I've read here who did have scars but have forgiven and allowed them to heal, are much happier and much better parents because of that. Forgiving isn't for the person being forgiven. It's for you. It's the best way to free up the energy invested in anger and pain, that you can then use for yourself and your loved ones. And it doesn't mean you ever have to let them or anyone else abuse you ever again. It just means you're over it. Do I hear strains of Johnny Cash's "A Boy Named Sue", in the background here?

I'm a firefighter and EMT for a living. I go into people's houses every day, and see first hand, things that most people are never exposed to. I see physical violence. I see mental violence. Of the two, I believe that mental violence is harder to come to terms with than physical...although they often go hand in hand. But not being physically hit, in no way means that the kid isn't suffering, whether by intent or ignorance. Every time I hear a parent call their kid stupid or some variation of, I die a little bit inside for that kid, because I know that before the age of about seven, a child simply believes without question, what the adults in their lives tell them. It is so much more effective to say something like "I know you are smarter than that!" because it gives them something to live up to rather than live down to.

How we expect to be treated, how we feel about ourselves, and how we treat others is directly formed by what we learn about that as small children. And that in large part determines how we live the rest of our lives, and how happy we are. I've been to too many automobile accidents and overdoses, to not be able to empathize with the father in that video. The very idea that my kid wouldn't have the tools she needs to resist peer pressure and exercise self discipline, in the face of decisions that she inevitably will have to make, when I am not there to decide for her, or even "catch" her, gives me an almost overwhelming sense of dread. I do not think I would be able to survive the loss of my child, to something like that, as I would hold myself responsible for not doing a good enough job of instilling it in her. My daughter knows she is too smart to cave into peer pressure of a dangerous kind. She knows that because she's heard it every day of her life and believes it because we told her that when she was in the uncritical reasoning phase as a matter-of-fact truth.

My method, which I outlined in another post, was to start early, be completely consistent, and always use ten to fifty times more positive motivation than punishment. Kids go through developmental phases. For the purposes of this discussion, I think three of them are pertinent. From birth to about 16 to 18 months of age, a child has no understanding of reason. They do not know what "disobeying" is. A one year old running around screaming is not doing it to annoy anyone. They are experiencing the world in the only way they know how. By doing stuff. And punishing a child of that age does no good, because they are incapable of connecting their behavior to any consequences. It's all just stuff that happens to them. And the only way to keep a child safe at that age, is simply to keep your eye on them every minute and prevent them from doing anything dangerous.



continued...