Texas Judge Will Not Be Charged for Severely Beating His Daughter
- Thread starter Zeema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Easy, the evidence, I'd say "What evidence do you have against me?". Unless i've slipped into a particularly weird dimension with an incredibly broken judicial system nobody gets convicted based on an accusation, there needs to be evidence with which to place them at the crime scene and/or having been involved with the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Not just "Well I reckon he done did it", not just circumstantial evidence, there is a reason why crime scene investigators need to collect as much as they can as quickly as they can; Evidence does not become easier to find the longer you wait.ravensheart18 said:
Statute of limitations do nothing but protect the guilty, as quite well demonstrated with this case (and a number of other cases including child molestation that took place within the catholic church in ireland). The most clear, present evidence exists that a crime has taken place - We know who did it, when they did it, what they did and who they did it to but the statute of limitations has protected them. All he had to do was not get caught for a couple of years and a man has gotten away with violent assault.
It's still retarded, it's still immoral and it serves only the patient guilty.
If a law protects the guilty, the law is BROKEN.
Statutes of limitation are in place for a reason. It is assumed that if somebody has not viciously assaulted somebody for five years that part of their life is behind them and there is no reason to bother prosecuting them.
There are people in my family who used to be awful abusers. Not any of the family I've lived with, but some in other states. Now, they're all older and have cut that shit out.
There are people in my family who used to be awful abusers. Not any of the family I've lived with, but some in other states. Now, they're all older and have cut that shit out.
There doesn't need to be a conviction for an accusation to cause serious problems. And it isn't just about evidence degradation, it means a person needs to be tried in a reasonable amount of time. And someone earlier already mentioned the blackmail/coercion angle.RagTagBand said:
oh the irony of this world, this man himself presided on cases judging whether or not other people were fit to raise their kids, and it turns out he himself physically abused his daughter. i guess this means the divine really does have a sense of humor.
unfortunately judges are elected, and dont get the boot unless they royally screwed a case , or committed an offense.Patrick_and_the_ricks said:
Captcha: for arkshw!
why do i get the feeling the captcha's word jumble is not as random as we would like to think. arkshw sounds like some eldritch shit is going on behind the scenes.
I remember hearing about some guy that raped some chick and later went on to be a minor character in some Austin Powers movie, then like a BAZILLION years later people found out about it and he still faced charges, so why not in this situation?
Well, guess what: I disagree completely. Did you forget the part about the statute of limitations? I'll explain the general idea: after committing most crimes, there's a period of time following the actual crime during which you can be brought up on charges for it. For some really serious stuff, ie, murder, there is no statute of limitations. But for this case, the statute of limitations was five years. And she waited seven years to release the footage.Trezu said:
I heard her talk about the video. From her voice, I wouldn't have guessed she was handicapped, but in retrospect, it makes sense. She rambles about how she didn't want people to villify her father in spite of the fact that there is literally no motivation other than that to release video evidence of a crime after the clear statute of limitations has expired.Trezu said:
I thought she was just a moron. But I guess she's a moron in the clinical sense of the term.
Because not every crime has the same statute of limitations. Why would that make sense? Rape doesn't have one at all, and neither does murder. If someone finds evidence of you having committed one of those, it doesn't matter if it's been one year or one hundred years: you can still be charged for it.CRRPGMykael said:
What part of "Statute of Limitations" isn't computing? You can only be brought up on charges for this specific offense within five years of having committed it. The girl released the video seven years after the fact. Do the math.henritje said:
Because hitting someone with a belt isn't the same as raping them?AndyFromMonday said:
Was that supposed to be a trick question?
Why? Tell me, specifically, why it shouldn't apply.Keepeas said:
No. There isn't. And the fact that the girl didn't release video evidence of the one time she managed to record it would suggest that that isn't the case.Keepeas said:
But a crime was still committed. What changes in five years that warrants forgiveness?Char-Nobyl said:
While I'd tend to agree, when you start hearing things like "turn over or I'll hit you in your fucking face", it seems to cross the line of being an outdated and ignorant method of disciple and more of just plain old being a a sick fuck.Jack the Potato said:
In any case, not too concerned about legal follow up with this, good luck with the rest of your life when there's something like this out there with your name attached to it.
The bastard isn't getting entirely off.
Let's see how long his career can possibly last with that shit on the internet.
Let's see how long his career can possibly last with that shit on the internet.
Well, five years, for one thing. That changed.AndyFromMonday said:
And when was the US judicial system ever about 'forgiveness'? It's about punishment, which is ultimately one of its biggest downfalls, but that's not on topic. The point is, five years is what changed. That's more than enough time to, say, present video evidence, but who gets the blame for that?