Texas Judge Will Not Be Charged for Severely Beating His Daughter

[AndyFromMonday]

Well, five years, for one thing. That changed.

But the judge still committed a crime. Five years does not change that.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Well, five years, for one thing. That changed.

But the judge still committed a crime. Five years does not change that.

From the most literal perspective possible, yes, five years does not change the fact that he committed a crime five years ago. If it didn't, then we wouldn't need a statute of limitations.

Alright, general background question: why do you think we have a statute of limitations?

 

[Rad Party God]

Why Texas, why do you allow such a crime to pass? Just because it's been a few years doesn't excuse anything. I mean, if a murder happened 11 years ago, would you let it go? Or if a case dealing with rape happened 9 years later dealing with incest, would that be excused since it's 'late'? I know this isn't as bad, but isn't anything to lose sight of ether.

At least now this makes everyone aware that if you do something incredibly bad... you may get away with it but it'll bite you in the butt somehow. Karma never fails usually when it comes to these types of things.

Not despising the dad nor thinking he's a monster but honestly he doesn't deserve to go scout free ether. Also the girl shouldn't of been harmed in such a disgusting manner only because she was doing something almost everyone secretly does. But that's just me... Mm.

Yes, it's sad, really sad, but he didn't killed her, nor did he raped her, he just went way overboard to just ground her over something she mistakenly did.

The law's hand are tied up, but the internet rage can be worse than God's rage. He should be worried.

 

[Raddra]

won't face criminal charges because too much time has elapsed, police said Thursday.

This is BS. if this guy had raped or killed or even faked his death and claimed insurance money several years ago he would have faced consequences.

 

[Mrmac23]

Ooh, look! Let's see, that's reason...*scribbles on a piece of paper*...number 572 not to go to America! For fuck's sake, what is wrong with you people?

 

[F4LL3N]

This makes me think.

My father grew up in a similar household in Kansas during the sixties and seventies. Every time he would screw up on something, his dad would beat him with a belt. And this went one until my father was old enough to move out. And he turned out as a damn fine individual.

He made it to Sergeant in a Company of Combat Engineers, went into Somalia during April of 1993 to help restore order to Mogadishu in the months and left just as SHTFShit Hitting The Fan. prior to the Black Hawk Down Incident. Spent Desert Storm attempting to find mines the Republican Guard placed and helping place bridges, losing two friends in the process yet saving innumerable Iraqi civilians.

What I'm trying to point out is, taking the belt to your child for severe fuck ups isn't grounds for condemning someone as a monster. I've read several articles on this incident and reading why she had warranted a beating on herself was because she was pirating music and games. Yes, she was breaking the law (Technically) while her father was enforcing said laws. When a child does something illegal, telling them it's bad and grounding them may not always cut it. And the belt for the most severe of mistakes will basically teach them this.

Really, the best way to teach a growing child not to fuck up, is to give them a taste of painGranted, the Judge went overboard with the beating..

I hope you don't actually believe that. We all have differing opinions; but quite frankly that opinion is wrong. Being beaten into fear by the people you are meant to trust the most doesn't make you a good person.

Perhaps you should visit some anti child abuse websites and read some of the testimonies from the people who are still fucked up, 20, 30, 40 years later. Read the statistics of how many million have to suffer through this sort of thing every single day; there's some true horror stories out there.

EDIT:

...Hell, I LOVE Texas, since it's a state where I can kill a group of thugs trying to steal my or others property/family with out legal repercussion unlike otherCalifornia, a man can't defend his own home without being sued for it.

You just showed the effects of child abuse and poor upbringing right there. You talk about killing people, abeit a thief, as though it's all fun and games. Society wouldn't be moving away from that sort of thing if it was normal or right in anyway imaginable.

I don't expect you to understand, since that's how you've been brought up. But it hopefully gives you something to think about.

 

[Astoria]

You're kidding right? That is actually a law? Wow the 'justice' system is screwed up. Poor girl I hope she's gotten away from him.

 

[Phlakes]

Fuck this. If the real justice system won't do shit, send the fucking internet after him. Seriously.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

From the most literal perspective possible, yes, five years does not change the fact that he committed a crime five years ago. If it didn't, then we wouldn't need a statute of limitations.

Alright, general background question: why do you think we have a statute of limitations?

Prevent lesser crimes from interfering with more current ones? Still, the evidence is there. He clearly abused his daughter and from the looks of it he continued to do so for quite some time. I fail to see why he shouldn't be prosecuted.

 

[CRRPGMykael]

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?

Different crimes have different statutes of limitations in different places.

But the case with the guy who appeared in Austin Powers, I think it occured like 20 years ago and he still faced charges(for abduction and rape). That was in California. Now some **** in Texas(who's a judge and should be an upstanding citizen) beats his daughter like that and after only 7 years they're like "mmmmm yeah we would do something but sorry too much time has elapsed hurr durr". That's fucking ridiculous.

 

[CRRPGMykael]

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?

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.

The judge is supposed to be an upstanding citizen. He severely beat his daughter ONLY 7 years ago(when the case with the guy who was in Austin Powers was 20 years ago, in California). The fucking moron should still be punished.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

I never thought I could be more embarrassed for America than I am right now. They spend years bickering over pointless shit all over the country yet fail at the basic task of charging an emotionally fucked up lunatic who beat his wife and daughter.

How the fuck did the rest of the world let these guys become the dominant superpower? On behalf of Britain, I want to apologise for my country ever letting America try to handle its own shit. It's clearly not up to the challenge.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Statute of limitations. No problem here. If she the girl and the judge's wife really wanted justice, should have reported it 7 years ago and not wait all this time. Sure the judge is in the wrong here, but unless its reported then nothing can be done. Keeping it quiet is just as worse, though I do feel bad for the victims.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Prevent lesser crimes from interfering with more current ones?

...wait, what? I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. Like, it prevents a recently-indited murderer from being put through a trial for assault from ten years prior before he can actually be tried for murder?

And no, that's not the point. The statute of limitations places actual responsibility on the offended party. Physical evidence degrades over time, first-hand accounts get more hazy, and the crime generally becomes more difficult to examine. If a person is the victim of a crime and actively chooses not to present it to the police for the duration granted by the statute of limitations, they are waiving their right to press charges against the perpetrator.

Still, the evidence is there. He clearly abused his daughter and from the looks of it he continued to do so for quite some time.

Could you elaborate on that? Because I didn't remember the video being a montage of various, cut-up videos of him abusing her. Do you have something other than a baseless assumption?

I fail to see why he shouldn't be prosecuted.

Then my work here is done. Not because I've broken through to you or anything, but because I've presented the law in no uncertain terms and you can't grasp that the law clearly states what is to be done about this.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Physical evidence degrades over time, first-hand accounts get more hazy, and the crime generally becomes more difficult to examine.

That video is totally hard to examine. It's so grainy and unclear. The statute might have worked fine back when evidence was entirely physical but with the advent of the digital age this statute is nothing short of bullshit.

Could you elaborate on that? Because I didn't remember the video being a montage of various, cut-up videos of him abusing her. Do you have something other than a baseless assumption?

Accounts from his wife and daughter? But I guess it's been to long. Their memory might be hazy. I'm sure all the abuse they experienced was all in their imagination.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056582/Judge-William-Adams-beats-disabled-daughter-Hillary-16-YouTube-video.html

Yeah, it's the daily mail. Who cares.

Then my work here is done. Not because I've broken through to you or anything, but because I've presented the law in no uncertain terms and you can't grasp that the law clearly states what is to be done about this.

And that law is nothing short of broken.

 

[LilithSlave]

I think I'm gonna be sick.

At the very least, I'm happy that that man's social life and career will be forever ruined.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

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?

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.

The judge is supposed to be an upstanding citizen. He severely beat his daughter ONLY 7 years ago(when the case with the guy who was in Austin Powers was 20 years ago, in California).

Oh, I see. So a judge beating someone is the legal equivalent of a non-judge raping someone? Is that a subsection of the law that makes black people who sell cocaine go to jail longer than white people who sell differently-shaped cocaine?

Or, alternatively, are you unreasonably demanding that a person be unjustly tried for a crime solely because you saw a video of it happening?

The fucking moron should still be punished.

Mhm. See, I think the original action was deplorable, but I can see past that to the world seven years later, where the law clearly states that legal punishment is out of the question. Can you do the same?

What if this didn't have a video? How would that affect your opinion?

 

[Zorg Machine]

I have to say, they did the right thing. The statue of limitations is law and not following the law when persecuting a judge is just plain irony.

That said, 5 years for domestic abuse? most children who are beaten don't dare to do anything about it until they are older and if the statue of limitations is so short then it's already too late.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

That video is totally hard to examine. It's so grainy and unclear. The statute might have worked fine back when evidence was entirely physical but with the advent of the digital age this statute is nothing short of bullshit.

Those were general reasons for its existence. And you seem to have ignored the parts about the responsibility of the offended to actually seek justice. You don't get to intentionally hide the existence and evidence of a crime and then lament the failure of law enforcement to find it.

Accounts from his wife and daughter? But I guess it's been to long. Their memory might be hazy. I'm sure all the abuse they experienced was all in their imagination.

So...the daughter, who released the video in the first place, and the wife, who divorced him?

Not exactly the most reliable of witnesses, especially with the daughter. Once the crime itself has been established, the prosecution doesn't get to call itself up as a collaborating witness.

And that law is nothing short of broken.

On the contrary, the law is in place to deal with situations exactly like this. Ever wonder why she waited seven years to post this video? And no, that "living in fear" explanation is bullshit. He hit her with a belt, and she was a legal adult two years after the crime. Hell, since she was 16, she might've even been 21 before the statute expired.

After the video is released, we get her father's account, which states that not long beforehand, he had told her he was going to be cutting her allowance, presumably on the basis that she was 23 and drove a Mercedes. While such a statement is, on its own, just as unsubstantiated as the other statements made, this one raises a few questions. And he also stated that he had revoked her driving privileges, which would imply that the aforementioned car isn't even legally hers.

So no, the statute of limitations isn't "broken." This is a stellar example of why it does, and should, exist.