16

Texas Family Court Judge Videotaped Beating his Daughter

http://www.nydailynews.com

"I'm going to beat you into submission," the 'honorable' William Adams shouted at his disabled daughter as she attempted to deflect his swings with a leather belt. To his daughter Hillary, this was routine. Suspecting it was wrong, she set up a camera and recorded the 7-minute beating she received from both her parents. This is the sort of human waste that the state puts in charge of settling custody disputes and recommending children to foster care. Is it any wonder the system is so F'ed up?

Read »
celestrion's picture
Created by celestrion 2 years 24 weeks ago – Made popular 2 years 24 weeks ago
Category: Bad Cop   Tags:

Well...

CaptainWhomp 2 years 24 weeks 3 hours 4 min ago

Well, not sure guys on this one. A parent doesn't have the right to spank their own children? (And yes, this was clearly a spanking, not a beating, if the distinction between the two is relevant to anyone.)

So this girl was asked not to download games or music onto her computer (for whatever reason), and she deliberately disobeyed her parents and did it anyway. If I were a parent and it were important to me that the music and games not be downloaded to the computer, what options do I have? If I asked her again not to do it, I know that she clearly would do it anyway, because she's disobeyed before. A spanking seems like a clear way to send the (more amplified) message to her daughter that doing this is not okay. It also sounds from the text of the video that the music and movies downloaded might have been in violation of intellectual property laws (i.e. stolen). In that case, it becomes more clear why the parents acted the way they did -- they don't want their daughter to be a thief.

You may not agree that downloading music and games is a valid reason for spanking her, but she's not your daughter. Part of the reason people have children in the first place is because they want them to be raised "right", according to their own moral code. As libertarians, we should all respect the right of the parent to do so. Life, liberty, and property are rights guaranteed to individual adults, not people under 18. People underage cannot yet protect their own life, liberty, and property so they have attenuated versions of these rights. The right to life comes about at around birth, the and the rights to liberty and property come about in some gradual sense as the parents allow for it. Full life, liberty, and property rights clearly don't come about until 18, or the parents agree the youngster has the full capacity to participate in those rights and responsibilities before that time. But even so, the only thing which the parents deprived the daughter of in this case was liberty, and just a tiny bit of this while she was being spanked and lectured. Surely that is within a parent's jurisdiction.

I am not really sure what the goal of including stories like these on the FTL website is. It seems to me, any way you look at it, that this is a call for more government. If you agree that the daughter should not be spanked in this case, then you're asking for more government control over parents (and perhaps in-house monitoring to prevent spanking). If you just don't like the fact that the guy also happens to be a judge, since when should you care about the lives of people outside of office? If that were the case, then we should investigate public officials by making sure their religious orientation, political views, sexual preferences, and past-time hobbies are all within the scope of what everyone should consider "normal". But that sort of crap is exactly what libertarianism is supposed to be constantly fighting against!

I waited until the end to say this, but sorry to say that the above video isn't much different than the spankings I got when I was a kid (younger than the girl in the video). I didn't always agree with my father's reasons for taking his belt to me, but I never questioned his right to do so while I was living under his roof. Never. I suppose that's the difference between me and Hillary. She's ruined her father's job and broken up her parents' marriage over this. It really wouldn't have taken much for her to avoid this punishment -- just comply with her parent's wishes while they provide for her.

It's telling to see adults rationalize their own abuse

bte 2 years 23 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago

CaptainWhomp provides us a textbook example of the rationalization emotionally damaged individuals apply when confronted with a reminder of their own, past abuse. Right out-of-the-gate, CW wants to "soften" the harsh reality of a large man physically beating a smaller girl with a leather strap--you know, sort of like what plantation owners would do to their disobedient slaves.

"Prior to the mid 1800s, most legal systems accepted wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

CW justifies such behavior as simply sending a "(more amplified) message" of disapproval to a child. What it actually does is foster a disrespect for one's sovereign ownership of one's own body, and the concomitant right to be free from physical attack, so long as one does not attack others. Such "messages" also teach the evil lesson than violence against other humans is an acceptable means of solving problems or getting one's way.

CW makes the false, logical leap that, were it not for this beating, the girl might become a thief. Not only is this a blatant, logical fallacy, but it is also an example of the evil belief of less enlightened individuals that "the end justifies the means," like when U.S. government agents rationalize torture as a legitimate means to fight terrorism. Oh, and if one follows the debate of intellectual property laws, it can best be said there is no moral case that their violation is the same as stealing.

In any case, CW says, "[y]ou may not agree that downloading music and games is a valid reason for spanking her, but she's not your daughter," and proceeds down the sad path of those who believe young humans are property, to be disposed of according to the parents' "own moral code." How many wars and how many millions of lives will it take before this backward thinking is shunned by humanity? So long as people--of any age--can be deemed the property of others, there will be violence and abuse of others justified by controlling one's "property." In an attempt to reconcile the irrational belief that rights can be unequally applied to different aged humans, CW lays-out *his* "moral code," which assigns a right to life "at around birth," "and the rights to liberty and property come about in some gradual sense as the parents allow for it." Note that such a false argument for arbitrarily-scheduled recognition of human rights, based upon an individual's own proclivities, works equally well to differentiate the rights of dark-colored skin humans from light-skinned ones, short-statured humans from tall ones, ad nauseam. There can be no morality unless it universally applies to *everyone equally*, at all times past, present and future.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
- attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

CW next makes the incomprehensible assertion: "[b]ut even so, the only thing which the parents deprived the daughter of in this case was liberty, and just a tiny bit of this while she was being spanked and lectured. "[s]urely that is within a parent's jurisdiction." Again, how sad it is to realize there are those who view the beating/abuse video and conclude it merely evidences Hillary Adams was a "tiny bit" deprived of "liberty." Just a few obvious rebuttal points:
1) the father turned out her bedroom light--recognizing the inherent shame in what he was doing (the psychology of this is so poignant!);
2) how many times would he be able to swing his belt at a hypothetical, 17-year-old, muscular son, before being... oh, let's say, "physically restrained";
3) his foul language--there is no doubt that he was out-of-control (his girlfriend intervened to "lessen" the beating, albeit by dealing-out her own "licks") and his stated purpose was to beat her into submission (no contrite, "this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you" rationalization here);
4) would CW, along with the father, advocate beating adult thieves - seeing as how it is a "tiny" deprivation of "liberty," that is effective in correcting such behavior?

The final problem(*) for CW is how to reconcile "what the goal of including stories like these on the FTL website is [sic]," exhibiting the false choice conclusion that highlighting such abuse "is a call for more government." Clearly, CW has not adequately investigated the true foundations of libertarian--let alone voluntaryist--principles advocated by FTL. A (the?) fundamental reason for working toward these better systems of thinking is to reduce to a minimum--even eliminate--the use of force by some people in a society against others in that society. Ostracism--and up to banishment--is just one of the myriad of non-violent methods to correct bad behavior within such a freer society. In fact, seeking government action in response to this kind of behavior is exactly the perpetuation of institutionalized violence that libertarians and voluntaryists shun. Doesn't this sound like the violent governments in the U.S.?: "It really wouldn't have taken much for her to avoid this punishment -- just comply" --CaptainWhomp Many FTL supporters might be more aligned with the following moral values: "That government is best which governs least" --Henry David Thoreau; "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent" --Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

It is clear that CaptainWhomp doesn't yet believe that children have natural human rights, making them worthy of a violence-free upbringing. I hope this backward belief does not physically and emotionally damage any children CW may "acquire" in the future, at that his/her irrational brainwashing that lead to such depreciation of the rights of others will be overcome with self-examination.

Yours In Liberty,

--BTE

*That is, besides making completely incorrect statements contrary to reported facts about this event, for example, that Hillary Adams has "broken up her parents' marriage over this." The breakup of the marriage, not surprisingly, was due to spousal mental abuse, to wit: "a counter-petition filed by Adams' ex-wife states that the divorce was filed under grounds of 'mental cruelty.'" http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Police-investigate-Texas-judge-ove...

Really?

CaptainWhomp 2 years 23 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago

My goodness. I've been called many things in my day, but un-libertarian has never been one of them. Anybody who knows me will tell you I'm the most libertarian person they know by far. But if it's a matter of background, let me tell you some things about myself. I've been a libertarian for over 15 years and I'm (still) a paying member of the Party of Principle. I've studied under David Boaz, the Institute for Justice, I've read over a dozen books on libertarianism proper. I have created college libertarian groups at two universities, and I have participated in the local LP as an officer in 3 different states, and on the state level in 2 different states. I have run for office on the local level on one occasion, and plan to do so again in the future. So if it is a matter of a libertarian resume, I'll happily match mine to yours any day of the week.

I never thought in a thousand years that I'd have to be defending spanking to a supposed libertarian, but alright, here we go.


CaptainWhomp provides us a textbook example of the rationalization emotionally damaged individuals apply when confronted with a reminder of their own, past abuse. Right out-of-the-gate, CW wants to "soften" the harsh reality of a large man physically beating a smaller girl with a leather strap--you know, sort of like what plantation owners would do to their disobedient slaves.

Emotionally damaged? Are you calling me that? How? Why? You don't even know me at all. I will strongly attest that I have no emotional damage due to spanking, if that is what you are implying about me. Yes, I learned things about proper behavior after being spanked, but that is the entire point.

And your reductionist comment about slavery should show how far you are having to reach here. Are you really comparing spanking to the way plantation-owned slaves were treated?


"Prior to the mid 1800s, most legal systems accepted wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

Again, a reductionist statement. We're talking about spanking someone with a belt here, not leaving them with permanent physical damage.


CW justifies such behavior as simply sending a "(more amplified) message" of disapproval to a child. What it actually does is foster a disrespect for one's sovereign ownership of one's own body, and the concomitant right to be free from physical attack, so long as one does not attack others. Such "messages" also teach the evil lesson than violence against other humans is an acceptable means of solving problems or getting one's way.

This is about parenting and discipline, not about freedom. People living under the roof of others who provide for them owe them at least the courtesy of obeying their rules. "My house, my rules" -- how many times have you heard that in life? I hope many; it's a very libertarian idea. To say that an underage person has all the life, liberty, and property rights of a full-fledged adult is to "soften" the power of the adult's own life, liberty, and property. Why? Because the underage person (in most cases) gets free room, board, education, social upgringing, experiences, encouragement, and so on at the expense of the parents' money, time, and energy. What do the parents get in return? Well, I would hope a basic level of respect for them would be at the top of the list. If there is no respect, why should the underage people do anything that the parents tell them to do? If you know you're not allowed to download music to the household computer and you're probably going to get spanking if you do it, and you do it away, what does that say about your level of respect for your parents?

This is a tangential point, but in your view, what are valid (but still effective) ways for a parent to enforce their house rules? Spanking is historically very effective -- I'll attest to it. Once I knew I might get a spanking, I no longer did what I wasn't supposed to while I was living under my parents' roof. Once I left, I was free to exercise all my liberties, but only then.


CW makes the false, logical leap that, were it not for this beating, the girl might become a thief. Not only is this a blatant, logical fallacy, but it is also an example of the evil belief of less enlightened individuals that "the end justifies the means," like when U.S. government agents rationalize torture as a legitimate means to fight terrorism. Oh, and if one follows the debate of intellectual property laws, it can best be said there is no moral case that their violation is the same as stealing.

Evil? Less enlightened? C'mon, BTE. Surely you can talk to me as a human being. Sheesh.

The argument about the end not justifying the means only works if you disbelieve in the validity of the means, and I have stated that I do not. I don't see spanking as "evil" and certainly not oppressive. Whether it is necessary or not is a judgement call for the parent -- it is not my place, nor yours, nor anyone else's place to make that judgment for them.

There is a dangerous culture in modern society to place all kinds of rules and regulations on parents, telling them what is the exact, true, and correct way to raise children. There are more laws about children and upbringing than there are about civil rights, and you couldn't read them all in your lifetime if you tried. The number increases every day, but I'm sure you're aware of that. The point is -- are we to assume that we're allowed to have children, but we're only allowed to raise them in one particular cookie-cutter way? I'm arguing here from the point of view of diversity. You may not like that your neighbor spanks his kids, but as a libertarian, you definitely have the responsibility to respect his methods of parenting.

As for intellectual property and media, I believe taking it without payment when payment is expected is theft, so I can understand the parents' frustration with their daughter. But whether or not it actually is stealing is irrelevant to this argument.


In any case, CW says, "[y]ou may not agree that downloading music and games is a valid reason for spanking her, but she's not your daughter," and proceeds down the sad path of those who believe young humans are property, to be disposed of according to the parents' "own moral code." How many wars and how many millions of lives will it take before this backward
Yes, when living under someone else's roof, you have to respect their moral code. If they don't want you doing something, you don't do it, or you can be kicked out or otherwise punished. This goes for adults as well, but spanking in the case of the underage.

Please don't take the point of view of the hippie liberals who think that underage people must be protected at all costs from any potential physical or psychological damage, thereby limiting their preparedness for and exposure to life's trials, and limiting everyone else's freedoms even further in the process.


thinking is shunned by humanity? So long as people--of any age--can be deemed the property of others, there will be violence and abuse of others justified by controlling one's "property." In an attempt to reconcile the irrational belief that rights can be unequally applied to different aged humans, CW lays-out *his* "moral code," which assigns a right to life "at around birth," "and the rights to liberty and property come about in some gradual sense as the parents allow for it." Note that such a false argument for arbitrarily-scheduled recognition of human rights, based upon an individual's own proclivities, works equally well to differentiate the rights of dark-colored skin humans from light-skinned ones, short-statured humans from tall ones, ad nauseam. There can be no morality unless it universally applies to *everyone equally*, at all times past, present and future.

Now I'm being called "irrational", and then having "false" claims. Do these additive words really.. add.. anything?

The hasty generalizations about slavery aren't helping your case. This is spanking we are talking about, not being shot at or being forced to work in a cotton field under the scorching heat until you have callouses and dehydration. Spanking is over in a matter of minutes.


"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
- attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

"The quickest way to lose any argument is to overstate your case." -- somebody very smart


CW next makes the incomprehensible assertion: "[b]ut even so, the only thing which the parents deprived the daughter of in this case was liberty, and just a tiny bit of this while she was being spanked and lectured. "[s]urely that is within a parent's jurisdiction." Again, how sad it is to realize there are those who view the beating/abuse video and conclude it merely evidences Hillary Adams was a "tiny bit" deprived of "liberty." Just a few obvious rebuttal points:

I don't see how one can claim that the underage person has the same life, liberty, and property rights as a parent does. Who pays for their property? Who gave them their life? Who protects their liberty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from outsiders during various stages of their upbringing? You'll probably want to back away from the argument that the underage have the same rights as adults -- it's very shaky ground.


1) the father turned out her bedroom light--recognizing the inherent shame in what he was doing (the psychology of this is so poignant!);

Oooh, and the way he looked in his eye when he was swinging the belt -- clearly insane! C'mon, seriously?


2) how many times would he be able to swing his belt at a hypothetical, 17-year-old, muscular son, before being... oh, let's say, "physically restrained";

I don't know the answer to that, but in your world, who restrains him? The cops? The FBI? Again, do we need cameras in our homes to prevent spankings in a sort of Minority Report or Orwellian dysopia?


3) his foul language--there is no doubt that he was out-of-control (his girlfriend intervened to "lessen" the beating, albeit by dealing-out her own "licks") and his stated purpose was to beat her into submission (no contrite, "this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you" rationalization here);

I don't necessarily agree he was out of control, but let's assume that he was for a moment. What is going to prevent him from performing the spankings when he is out of his mind? In fact, if he was truly out of his mind, what prevented him from going even further? Spanking her for an hour, beating her with his fists, smashing her head into a wall, or killing her outright? Ask yourself that. If he's truly insane or irrational, what is to prevent him from completely throwing the law, ostracism, or anything else completely out of the window for that particular moment?


4) would CW, along with the father, advocate beating adult thieves - seeing as how it is a "tiny" deprivation of "liberty," that is effective in correcting such behavior?

Spanking isn't the same thing as beating. But I'm sure a lot of robbers and theives would much rather spend 5 minutes being beaten than spend 15 years in jail. Wouldn't that be a nice tradeoff? Actually, scratch that, I don't think your comparison makes any sense.


The final problem(*) for CW is how to reconcile "what the goal of including stories like these on the FTL website is [sic]," exhibiting the false choice conclusion that highlighting such abuse "is a call for more government." Clearly, CW has not adequately investigated the true foundations of libertarian--let alone voluntaryist--principles advocated by FTL. A (the?) fundamental

Aside from finding this quite laughable, I wonder what BTE's true motives are. There's no call in bringing attention to cases like this other than a call for more government. That is, unless you mean to imply that we are supposed to be ostracizing and shunning the judge. Okay, successful shun. What now? Anything? Legal matters are all about legal punishment.


reason for working toward these better systems of thinking is to reduce to a minimum--even eliminate--the use of force by some people in a society against others in that society. Ostracism--and up to banishment--is just one of the myriad of non-violent methods to correct bad behavior within such a freer society. In fact, seeking government action in response to
Would you recommend that form of punishment for a parent trying to get his children to behave? If you really think that would work, I think reality somewhere has broken down for you.

Let me make the assumption BTE that you've never been spanked. Maybe I can decidedly change your own system of thinking just a little bit. I'll do you the favor of having to suffer through the experience yourself, and I'll just give you a feeling of how it goes down. Your parents are upset because of something you've done, and maybe it's not even so clear to you how upset, but you do know why. First comes the warning, the threat of a spanking. 9 times out of 10, that is enough to make you shape up pretty quickly. Just the possibility that there might be a spanking in the near future lets you think about how severely you must be acting, because you've been spanked before and it wasn't pleasant. If you keep up the disallowed behavior, though, here comes the parent with a belt. It lasts anywhere from 15 seconds to a few minutes. Afterward, yep, it stings on your butt and legs and back for a few more minutes, and during that time, you are sobbing and thinking about what behavior was disallowed that you got the punishment for. You realize that you don't want this to happen again. Then the pain goes away, and it's over. Ripping a band-aid off your body with hair is just about as painful as a belt whop, and getting a full waxing job of your back is far more painful.

Like I said in the first message, I didn't always agree with the circumstances in which I received a spanking. One morning, I just decided that I wasn't going to go to school. I stayed in bed and announced to my parents that I wasn't going. My father was aggrivated at first, then he yelled, then came the belt. After the spanking, I showered and he drove me to school, and then I thought the rest of the day about what happened. Pretty soon, I realized how dumb it was for me to not get out of bed. I was not only jeopardizing my education for the day, I was making the rest of the family late for their jobs. I learned that time not to do that anymore. On another occasion, my father told me not to drink any sodas before dinner that night, as I had already had one. I didn't listen, and I drank another one. I got the belt. That time, I didn't necessarily think that I should have gotten it, but I did learn not to stuff myself with drinks or junk food before dinner. Now, I often have a snack before dinner, although I think about it carefully before I have it. You can't tell me that spankings aren't effective, because I don't buy it.

I'd be willing to wager that half of parents spank their kids at some point -- so sorry, I don't feel so alone here. I also take some offense to the implication that my father was evil or hateful or anything of the sort. My father is one of the nicest men you will ever meet, and I love him just as much as I would if I had never been spanked, perhaps even more so.


this kind of behavior is exactly the perpetuation of institutionalized violence that libertarians and voluntaryists shun. Doesn't this sound like the violent governments in the U.S.?: "It really wouldn't have taken much for her to avoid this punishment -- just comply"

It's not a valid point because children don't have the full life, liberty, and property rights of adults. Just think about it logically for a while, and I am confident you will understand why, at least to some (your own) degree. It's not so difficult to grok.


It is clear that CaptainWhomp doesn't yet believe that children have natural human rights, making them worthy of a violence-free upbringing. I hope this backward belief does not physically and emotionally damage any children CW may "acquire" in the future, at that his/her irrational brainwashing that lead to such depreciation of the rights of others will be overcome with self-examination.

Children do have natural human rights, just not as many as adults. Exactly how much, and when they appear, is under constant debate in libertarian circles, and there is no clear, final answer yet. However, I think almost everyone agrees that children obviously have fewer rights and privileges than adults do, because those rights, to some degree, are necessarily offset by the responsibilitiues that the parents take on until the underage person is ready to assume them. Whereas the logistics are still under debate, I've offered you part of my opinion. It appears also that the state agrees with me: no charges at all are being filed against the judge (although he has probably suffered irreparable damage in his professional and personal lives).

Oh, and "backward"? "Damaging"? "Irrational"? Why don't you let your audience decide for themselves?

I don't have any children and don't plan on any in the near future. But suppose I have one anyway (just to spite you). You claim it has all the life, liberty, and property rights that I do. Further, there is all the added expectation that I care for it, feed it, clothe it, educate it, etc. It seems like I'm really losing out on this deal. Hmm. I've got an idea -- why don't I just drive the newborn into a far away city and leave it in the town square? After all, it has all the rights and privileges that I have -- so it must be able to take care of itself, feed itself, clothe itself, earn its own living, educate itself, etc., right? Or, maybe, just maybe, I should go ahead an take on those responsibilities for the kid until it can handle them itself? Believe it or not, youngsters don't know everything at birth, or even as teenagers (though more is known by then). Parents should decide when the teenager is ready to tackle the world and govern themselves, with 18 years of age being the time limit for the parents. Until then, it's the parents' house, and the parents rules are sovereign.


Yours In Liberty,

Yours also!


*That is, besides making completely incorrect statements contrary to reported facts about this event, for example, that Hillary Adams has "broken up her parents' marriage over this." The breakup of the marriage, not surprisingly, was due to spousal mental abuse, to wit: "a counter-petition filed by Adams' ex-wife states that the divorce was filed under grounds of 'mental cruelty.'"

You are correct on that one -- I misread the article the first time around.

I've said my peace, so I'll stop with this and let you respond. But I do feel strongly about this, so I invite you to give me a call on my personal cell phone so you and I can discuss this further. Just send me a private note and I'll send you my phone number.

Cheers.

Video Link

celestrion 2 years 24 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago

Video of the assault (warning: it's really painful to watch) is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl9y3SIPt7o&feature=youtu.be

Air Times & Contact

LIVE 7 Days a Week!
Mon-Sun: 7pm-10pm Eastern

Call toll-free:
1-855-450-FREE

You can also Skype us.

Join our Email List

Stay up to date with the latest about Free Talk Live, and receive our Weekly Digest email - the most popular stories for the week from our front page and also the week's audio highlights!

See our past emails.


Free Talk Live 2.5

Welcome Free Talk Live 2.5! Now, with Reddit!
 
You'll need a Reddit account before you can vote on and submit show prep. (That is different from your FTL/AMP account.)

The content here is the same as you will see on the FTL Subreddit. Please submit bug reports on the appropriate BBS subforum.

Enjoy the new site and thanks for submitting your content!

Google+

New forum topics

Recent Posts Recent Posts

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 2 guests online.

Online users

  • FatRasputin