Doan wrote:
On 20 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On 19 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


The topic - particularly the question of when physical punishment
becomes abuse - lay at the heart of a Hamilton County Municipal Court
case in Cincinnati that involved former City Councilman Sam Malone.

He was found not guilty of domestic violence on Friday. He had been
accused of beating his 14-year-old son with a belt for disrespecting a
teacher.

The teenager suffered welts on his arms, legs, chest and buttocks.


So did he crossed "the line", ignoranus kane0? ;-)

So do you think he did?


It doesn't matter what I think, it is what the judge thinks that matter.
So what did the judge think?


Once upon a time you made the argument, when CPS followed a judges
orders (as they are required to do, by law), that "just following
orders" is not a defense for immoral acts by people in authority.

Do you believe the court was correct in aquiting someone that left
welts on a child's arms, legs, chest and buttocks using a belt?


I don't have all the fact of the case. If you have access to the
transcript of the case, I will be glad to look at it.

You are dodging. You have as much information as anyone reading, and you
are willing to make comments on it given just this amount of
information, until you are asked a question. That is dodging.

Given that you can in one circumstance, claim the authorities could be
wrong and following them is tantamount to using the "I was just
following orders" invalid defense, do you believe that in THIS case the
judge WAS right and his finding used as a guide for parents?


Where is your line, Doan?


It's where "reasonable" people say it is?

I didn't ask you t use such a dodge. They say a wide different of
things. Some will say that it's okay to strike little babies with
switches, while others say it's okay to leave marks with a belt. Some
will say it's okay to slap a child's face, other restrict only to the
child's buttocks. Each thinks they are reasonable. You can't agree with
all of them when some of these "reasonable" people are in direct
conflict with each other.

You'll go along with '"reasonable"' 'people?' Even though you know they
don't all agree?


Doan


What is your line. Not theirs, not the judges. What do you personally
believe is reasonable.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin