Man arrested for beating down boy in shower with daughter

[Jetan]

In that case, as long as you're in your house, you can beat your children, rape your wife, and, if you feel so inclined, shoot your neighbors through the window.

Pretty sure that wouldn't fly.


Edit: also, it sure seems like the law does say that.

You know what I meant, don't turn this into semantics.

If a parent says their kids can't have sex in their house then the kids can't. End of story.

Evidently it's not the end of the story. What's more, you're blatantly in the wrong here. If the kids are over the age of content you have no legal say in who they have sex with or not.

[Nazi Flower Power]

He committed a crime, so he got arrested. Pretty straight-forward.

[Draica]

So this is clearly a moralistic argument. In which case I must ask.... What if the stepfather found his stepdaughter with another woman?

1. Red herring.

2. We're not saying it was right to beat up that kid, but it was his right. The same if this was a woman-on-woman situation, the other woman intruded his home, he has the right to defend his home. Now let me say this: Only punks hit women, You don't lay your hand on a woman. Ever. Ever. But he has the right to, but not the moral authority or moral right to.

[Quackenbushia]

(Image)


I'll just leave this here for you guys.

She is not a tenant, it was not her property to allow him to enter, the man was her LEGAL GUARDIAN, and as such, her rights are at his discretion.

I guess that just because it is the 21st century means that minors should be able to have sex.

As I said earlier, YOU HAVE SEX, YOU HAVE SEX, ALL THE MINORS HAVE SEX! They are minors under U.S.A. law, which defines an adult as anyone of the age 18 and older.

Minors are allowed to have sex.

Never said they were not......if they are of consenting age, of which both of these kids were, then it is fine....never said they should not

[Trollgaard]

You know what I meant, don't turn this into semantics.

If a parent says their kids can't have sex in their house then the kids can't. End of story.

You sound like a dictator -_-

Sometimes parents seem like dictators, I suppose.

[Kelinfort]

So this is clearly a moralistic argument. In which case I must ask.... What if the stepfather found his stepdaughter with another woman?

1. Red herring.

2. We're not saying it was right to beat up that kid, but it was his right. The same if this was a woman-on-woman situation, the other woman intruded his home, he has the right to defend his home. Now let me say this: Only punks hit women, You don't lay your hand on a woman. Ever. Ever. But he has the right to, but not the moral authority or moral right to.

He hasn't go any right, legally or morally, to beat a minor, even a minor in his house who isn't causing any property damage.

[Divair2]

You know what I meant, don't turn this into semantics.

If a parent says their kids can't have sex in their house then the kids can't. End of story.

You sound like a dictator -_-

Some parents are.

[Duuuude Im Stoned]

Reasonable reaction?

Possibly, I'm certain he won't serve time for it. But this is actually a fair charge. He did do those things clearly, and a trial by jury would be the best way to determine whether his actions were merited.

Do I think he was right to do it? Probably not. Could I see myself doing it in the same situation. Quite possible.

This is true.

[Senkaku]

So this is clearly a moralistic argument. In which case I must ask.... What if the stepfather found his stepdaughter with another woman?

1. Red herring.

2. We're not saying it was right to beat up that kid, but it was his right. The same if this was a woman-on-woman situation, the other woman intruded his home, he has the right to defend his home. Now let me say this: Only punks hit women, You don't lay your hand on a woman. Ever. Ever. But he has the right to, but not the moral authority or moral right to.

Read the post again.

2. We're not saying it was right to beat up that kid, but it was his right.

I don't even.

[Wisconsin9]

it was his right.

No it wasn't.

[Duuuude Im Stoned]

I have another question. What if it was a son who brought home a daughter?

[Senkaku]

Minors are allowed to have sex.

Never said they were not......if they are of consenting age, of which both of these kids were, then it is fine....never said they should not

But you did say her stepfather should be allowed to beat up boys who do have sex with her, which amounts to pretty much the same thing.

[Jetan]

It sure as hell doesn't say they aren't.

Nor should it. That is the domain of the parents to make the rules.

It is legal for kids over the age of consent to have sex at their homes whether you like it or not.

So this is clearly a moralistic argument. In which case I must ask.... What if the stepfather found his stepdaughter with another woman?

1. Red herring.

2. We're not saying it was right to beat up that kid, but it was his right. The same if this was a woman-on-woman situation, the other woman intruded his home, he has the right to defend his home. Now let me say this: Only punks hit women, You don't lay your hand on a woman. Ever. Ever. But he has the right to, but not the moral authority or moral right to.

No, he did not have that right.

[Magna Libero]

You know what I meant, don't turn this into semantics.

If a parent says their kids can't have sex in their house then the kids can't. End of story.

You sound like a dictator -_-

Nothing "dictator" about it. If the parents have instructed their children not to do x in their home, then the child should go to place y, so that they can do thing x.

[Trollgaard]

You know what I meant, don't turn this into semantics.

If a parent says their kids can't have sex in their house then the kids can't. End of story.

Evidently it's not the end of the story. What's more, you're blatantly in the wrong here. If the kids are over the age of content you have no legal say in who they have sex with or not.

I'm talking about parental rights. Parents can forbid their child from seeing a certain boy or girl, and punish their child if they disobey.

From what I'm getting from you it seems like parents have no rights to make rules for their children.

[Draica]

I have another question. What if it was a son who brought home a daughter?

I've had enough of these what ifs. These are red herrings, stay on topic.

[Divair2]

I have another question. What if it was a son who brought home a daughter?

What if it was a son who brought home a son?

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

You sound like a dictator -_-

Nothing "dictator" about it. If the parents have instructed their children not to do x in their home, then the child should go to place y, so that they can do thing x.

Doesn't mean they can use this as a reason to lay hands on a child. They can punish the child other ways, but to hit a minor is just a sign that they are not only a bad parent but childish at heart as they have to use violence to solve problems that are easily solved in other ways.

[Senkaku]

Evidently it's not the end of the story. What's more, you're blatantly in the wrong here. If the kids are over the age of content you have no legal say in who they have sex with or not.

I'm talking about parental rights. Parents can forbid their child from seeing a certain boy or girl, and punish their child if they disobey.

From what I'm getting from you it seems like parents have no rights to make rules for their children.

Yes, they can do this. Punishment does not equal compliance.


Edit: and they can't punish the other kid, much less beat them up.

[Quackenbushia]

(Image)


I'll just leave this here for you guys.

She is not a tenant, it was not her property to allow him to enter, the man was her LEGAL GUARDIAN, and as such, her rights are at his discretion.

I guess that just because it is the 21st century means that minors should be able to have sex.

As I said earlier, YOU HAVE SEX, YOU HAVE SEX, ALL THE MINORS HAVE SEX! They are minors under U.S.A. law, which defines an adult as anyone of the age 18 and older.

Minors that, in the state of Alabama, are allowed to fuck as much as they want, because the age of consent is 16.

Her parents are her legal guardians. She is not legally an adult. She is bringing him into a house that is legally theirs.

What do you not understand?

Why you aren't using a source, preferably the Alabama legal code, to back up this assertion, as I have and as I asked you to reciprocate.

Well, Imperializt,
They are not in Alabama...they are in the state of Georgia! Athens-Clarke county is in the state of Georgia, as one may see when chancing a look at the interactive google map on the website that the article was posted. Alabama legal code works fine in Alabama, but it does nothing in Georgia, which uses its own legal code, being a separate state and all.

[Risottia]

Lol, he looks like a thumb. Anyway, he had the right to do it. You don't go with a man's daughter into his house without his consent.

Seems logical. When you assume that daughters are property, of course, and that laws apply only out of private premises, that is.

Which would be a rather iffy assumption.

[Trollgaard]

I'm talking about parental rights. Parents can forbid their child from seeing a certain boy or girl, and punish their child if they disobey.

From what I'm getting from you it seems like parents have no rights to make rules for their children.

Yes, they can do this. Punishment does not equal compliance.


Edit: and they can't punish the other kid, much less beat them up.

You are quite right that punishment does not equal compliance. Kids will disobey their parents.

[Jetan]

Evidently it's not the end of the story. What's more, you're blatantly in the wrong here. If the kids are over the age of content you have no legal say in who they have sex with or not.

I'm talking about parental rights. Parents can forbid their child from seeing a certain boy or girl, and punish their child if they disobey.

From what I'm getting from you it seems like parents have no rights to make rules for their children.

They can make rules alright. But that does not mean the kids are legally required to obey. Or that the parents are free to break the law if the kids don't obey.

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

I have another question. What if it was a son who brought home a daughter?

I've had enough of these what ifs. These are red herrings, stay on topic.

It's really not a red herring at all. If the man hit a girl for doing the same thing everyone would act like it's the end of the world. It's a double standard. Unless it was rape then both the boy and girl are at fault and most likely equally so, however if the roles were reversed and the man hit the girl there would be a massive outcry because she's "just a girl" when this was "just a boy" and the outcry should be equal. If it was a homosexual relationship then the dad would be seen as a bigot, etc.

[Trollgaard]

I'm talking about parental rights. Parents can forbid their child from seeing a certain boy or girl, and punish their child if they disobey.

From what I'm getting from you it seems like parents have no rights to make rules for their children.

They can make rules alright. But that does not mean the kids are legally required to obey. Or that the parents are free to break the law if the kids don't obey.

Then the child will be punished for disobeying. Simple as that.