Texas Judge Will Not Be Charged for Severely Beating His Daughter

[AndyFromMonday]

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.

Like it's that easy for a 16 year old to report physical abuse by her parents. I'm going to take a dive here and assume you've never been physically or even emotionally abuse because you seem to have no idea what it's like.

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.

They do have that video though which is pretty strong evidence in my opinion.

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.

Except it was "living in fear" but I'm assuming you're to far up your ass to admit it.

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

Oh yeah, totally. Who cares about the video? It was probably faked anyways. That statute might have worked back when we relied on physical evidence but as it stands, digital evidence CANNOT deteriorate. It's bullshit and the fact that the judge isn't being prosecuted is equally bullshit.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Like it's that easy for a 16 year old to report physical abuse by her parents.

She certainly uploaded it to the internet easily enough, and other people filed police reports on her behalf. Youtube has existed since '05, if memory serves, so it wasn't like the medium she used wasn't there.

I'm going to take a dive here and assume you've never been physically or even emotionally abuse because you seem to have no idea what it's like.

Nope. And if you're trying to use this as a reason for dismissing my argument, I assume that you have?

They do have that video though which is pretty strong evidence in my opinion.

It's evidence that the incident in the video happened. That's it. You need to prove beyond hearsay that any other incidents happened if you want them to be up for prosecution.

Except it was "living in fear" but I'm assuming you're to far up your ass to admit it.

Erm...at first I thought this was some sort of snide remark at a typo or something, but "living in fear" is exactly what I typed. If you wanted further elaboration, I was stating that the explanation was bullshit, not the actual idea. You can say you were "living in fear" all you like, but that's just your word. You have to actually show some reason for such a claim to be valid.

Oh yeah, totally. Who cares about the video? It was probably faked anyways.

...not sure if sarcastic, or losing sanity.

That statute might have worked back when we relied on physical evidence but as it stands, digital evidence CANNOT deteriorate. It's bullshit and the fact that the judge isn't being prosecuted is equally bullshit.

lol, seriously? You're right, to be honest. Digital evidence doesn't deteriorate...but the means upon which it's stored? Yeah. That can deteriorate. And unlike blood samples, hair follicles, etc, digital data can be damaged or outright destroyed with by something as mundane as a refrigerator magnet.

Or, even more simply, it can get deleted, corrupted, or simply be lost when the device on which it's stored gives in to decay. Because, you know, those devices are objects being built from increasingly cheap materials.

 

[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).

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?

It isn't the equivalent and it never has been. I don't demand he faces the same punishment for a less severe crime, obviously. But he should be punished. And if this didn't have a video, then well there would have been no proof then, but it doesn't matter anyway 'cuz nobody ain't taking action.

 

[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.

Maybe you misunderstood what I said. The law on limitations is different by crime (kidnapping and rape vs assault), and by region (California vs Texas).

Both areas are bound by their existing law, there was no "hurr durr" about it and the cases are not comparable in any way.

Still, he should face the consequences. Of course, not severe as rape, but there should atleast be SOMETHING.

 

[F4LL3N]

You just showed the effects of child abuse and poor upbringing

I'm not even going to point out how much of a dick you've just made yourself.
Enjoy this image.
Goodbye.

So in other words, you've actually got nothing legitimite to reply? Does that mean I'm right? I KNEW IT!

 

[Krion_Vark]

The Feds might bring their own charges, sit tight.

Also, I just watched an interview with the DA and notably, what wasn't asked and answered was whether there had been other incidents for which the statute of limitations had not yet expired...hmmm.....

The thing is though were they also caught on camera. Because even if it did happen after and there is no evidence. IE Video or Photograph won't really hold much water even with this one being there because it can be a fabricated story now that its come to light that this one won't be tried.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

but the means upon which it's stored? Yeah. That can deteriorate.

Except in this case the video is quite visible and widely available for viewing on the internet. With the advent of the internet it's almost impossible to lose digital data by deterioration.

nd unlike blood samples, hair follicles, etc, digital data can be damaged or outright destroyed with by something as mundane as a refrigerator magnet.

See above. Videos can be stored on literally thousands of servers and hard drives. At this point it's almost impossible to fully lose digital data because it's so easy to make backups.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

It isn't the equivalent and it never has been. I don't demand he faces the same punishment for a less severe crime, obviously. But he should be punished.

On the contrary, you certainly are: you're demanding, on the basis that a rapist was put on trial twenty years after the act, that this man be put on trial for a crime he committed beyond the time allotted by the statute of limitations, which rape lacks.

And if this didn't have a video, then well there would have been no proof then, but it doesn't matter anyway 'cuz nobody ain't taking action.

See? Problem solved. Justice has prevailed over knee-jerk emotional responses. Now, hopefully we'll get the same thing with the "Caylee's Law" travesty people are trying to push through.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Except in this case the video is quite visible and widely available for viewing on the internet. With the advent of the internet it's almost impossible to lose digital data by deterioration.

You do realize that you can't directly submit a Youtube video as evidence, right? Like, you need the original video, or at least you need to possess a copy made from the original. Videos get taken down from Youtube all the time. How many people do you think are downloading this to save it? It's not like they want to keep it around for convenient viewing.

See above. Videos can be stored on literally thousands of servers and hard drives. At this point it's almost impossible to fully lose digital data because it's so easy to make backups.

And this time you're grossly overestimating how loose police policy is with the storage of evidence. See, stuff like this isn't supposed to be available to the public before a trial, especially if you plan to have a jury that won't be biased. If you release a grainy security tape of, say, a man allegedly beating a store clerk to death, and then assume that that will preserve the evidence from all possible harm, guess what? You've just created a viral video and destroyed that evidence as surely as if you'd run a bar magnet over it. No one gives a shit if you say it was an "alleged" crime. They see someone being beaten to death by someone who roughly resembles the person you "allege" it to be. A biased jury is one of the easiest ways to get a mistrial for the defense, and it's every prosecutor's worst nightmare.

You've practically proven that point with the response to this video. No one is calling for an investigation: they're throwing "innocent until proven guilty" to the wind and demanding that this guy be punished, apparently without trial, and in direct contradiction to the clearly-stated law.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

you need the original video, or at least you need to possess a copy made from the original.

The person who uploaded that video obviously had a copy or possibly even the original one.

You've practically proven that point with the response to this video. No one is calling for an investigation: they're throwing "innocent until proven guilty" to the wind and demanding that this guy be punished, apparently without trial, and in direct contradiction to the clearly-stated law.

I guess I can get behind that.

 

[F4LL3N]

No you asshole. It's because you just generalized someone and their entire family in the most offensive manner, just because said person is deciding to defend an issue that everyone else seems butt hurt about. That is why.

Now, in the most polite manner...

No. You basically said this girl deserved it because of, and I quote, "severe fuck up(s)". Downloading music/games isn't a severe fuck up and doesn't warrant such punishment.

You believe downloading music as some hideous crime, yet you "LOVE" Texas because you can kill someone without legal percussions. I stand by my statement, you just showed the effects of poor upbringing. Killing someone is rarely okay to do, and beating a child is never okay. If your offended by that, well that's not my fault.