No, I know that what passes for judgement in one place does not pass in
all. Last I heard we lived in a "United" States, so that while we have
some laws that apply to all, we also have some that apply only to the
few...such as in one state only.


Not in the least. I have no trouble accepting that what is law in one
place is not in another. Are you?


No, greegor. I simply live where the law is different, know that it is
different in different places, and what I don't like I can, if I wish
get it changed.

Passing a law and being ruled by that law does not automatically make
it a good law, so yes, of course there are bad "judges" since this was
a judicial ruling.

What you failed to do, as you always seem to manage is to bother to
explore the issues more fully.

For instance, how many states beside Connecticut have had such a
ruling?

I'll tell you, since I know you have little self control and NO
discipline to do any seeking on your own, Damn, fuggering, few,
greegor. And now and then you'll find caselaw that says no no no, you
may NOT leave marks on a child.

For example:

http://www.nospank.net/signals.htm

High court upholds judge's ruling that spanking was child abuse
By Chet Brokaw, Associated Press
Aberdeen News, South Dakota, 15 May 2003 PIERRE, S.D. - A circuit judge
had sufficient evidence to find a 12-year-old boy was abused and
neglected when his stepfather spanked him with a belt, the South Dakota
Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The high court's unanimous ruling upheld Circuit Judge Kathleen F.
Trandahl's decision that the boy, identified in court records only by
the initials T.A., was abused and neglected. Her rulings in the case
allowed officials to place the boy in a facility for treatment.

The boy's mother and stepfather argued that the spanking was proper
under a state law that allows parents to use reasonable and moderate
force to restrain or correct their children,

However, the Supreme Court said Judge Trandahl had sufficient evidence
to find that the force used by the child's stepfather was not
reasonable in manner nor moderate in degree.

The high court also rejected the parents' arguments that South Dakota's
child abuse law is unconstitutionally vague. The law is constitutional
because it provides sufficient warning on what conduct is prohibited,
the justices said.

"A reasonable person would be aware that forcing a child face down on a
mattress, grabbing the child's arm tight enough to leave bruises and
beating him hard enough with a belt to leave bruises constitutes abuse
rather than reasonable corporal punishment," Justice Richard W. Sabers
wrote for the court.

The Bennett County case started when the boy's family was moving from
an old house to a new house on the same property in October 2001. The
boy, who has behavior problems associated with Tourette's Syndrome and
Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder, apparently refused to help
with the move.

Late in the day, the boy's mother repeatedly asked him to retrieve a
trash can from the old house. When he finally complied, he emptied the
trash can onto the kitchen floor of the old house before tossing the
trash can onto the floor of the new house, according to testimony.

The boy was confronted by his stepfather, who said the child cried,
screamed and became out of control. The stepfather said he took the boy
by the wrist, led him to a bedroom and spanked him eight to 10 times
with a belt.

Officials of the state Department of Social Services and the Bennett
County Sheriff's Office investigated several days later and discovered
that the boy was bruised. Authorities filed a petition alleging the
child was abused and neglected.

Judge Trandahl last year found the child was abused and neglected. The
boy was placed in a residential facility where he attended school and
received treatment.

South Dakota law allows parents to use force to restrain or correct a
child if the action is required by the child's misconduct or refusal to
obey commands. The law says such force must be reasonable in manner and
moderate in degree.

The parents argued that the spanking of T.A. was reasonable punishment
made necessary by the child's continuing bad behavior over the three
months before the spanking.

The Supreme Court said testimony by witnesses indicated the boy was not
out of control, so the judge had reason to find the spanking was not
necessary. The stepfather's testimony and statements by others also
showed the spanking was not reasonable nor moderate, the high court
said.

In addition, the boy's mother testified that she knew the stepfather
spanked the child with a belt. Her testimony supports the allegations
that she failed to provide proper parental care by not intervening to
stop the spanking, the high court said.

...............

And to be fair and equitable, and to prove that you fools think that an
incident proves the rule, I'll prove that there are and will be
findings from both sides, and I do NOT try to prove a rule when you
twittering nitwits are wrong, only that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOUR
STUPIDITY.

Here yah go, one for your side:

Court Paddling Case Not Child Abuse - Boy, 13, Was Paddled More Than 12
Times
WTAE-TV, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 18 April 2003 PITTSBURGH --
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has ruled that a woman and her male
partner do not belong on a state list of alleged and confirmed child
abusers for paddling her 13-year-old son.

The court said Friday that the injuries do not justify keeping the two
on the list following the paddling at their Blair County home three
years ago. The boy suffered bruises and had trouble sitting for several
days afterward.

The state Department of Public Welfare's Office of Hearing and Appeals
had rejected their request to be removed from the list.

Neither adult was identified by name in the case.

According to court records, the boy was paddled more than 12 times on
March 6, 2001. His parents said he'd become aggressive and verbally
abusive and took a swing at his mother when questioned about items
removed from a bedroom.

Court records stated the boy kicked his mother in the stomach at one
point during the paddling. She was five months' pregnant at the time.

The man, who has a doctorate in psychology, called police and the boy
was taken to a shelter. Ten days later, Blair County Children and Youth
Services filed reports indicating possible child abuse. No criminal
charges were filed.

The court said there was no evidence of malicious intent or negligence
and that the boy's bruises were the "normal regrettable result" of a
paddling.

........in other words, fool, you aren't "winning" anything at all. And
the fact there is, in a society that spanks about 98% of it's children
ANY RULING against it shows conclusively that we are in fact country of
rule of law, and the law is undergoing change.

Best to yah, greegor, and your answer to the question on Lethal Force.
So far you've actually answered it quite nicely. Seems to be consistent
with what I think of you as a person.

Thanks.

Kane

doan

98%??? And yet, Kane0 claimed that juvenile crime rate is the LOWEST in
decades! Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS... are they mutualy
exclusive? ;-)

Doan

greegor

Kane is full of Zeal, Fervor and lots of gas.

Notice that as the number of states and schools districts banned the
paddling practice the incidence of youth crime lowered?

If one is going to claim there is a connection between spanking up to
98% of the US population then it would be logical to assume that as
spanking, in truth, has been reduced, as the schools show for the past
couple of decades now, there is a connection. Wouldn't you say, fart
breath?

In addition the increase activism against the practice seems to be in
direct correlation to the dropping juvie crime rate.

So which is it...spanking decreases juvenile and youth crime, or not
spanking does?

So much for logic and the lack.

The more evidence piles up against spanking as safe and effective the
more you twittering nitwits devolve into your babbling logic defying
shit pits.

Kane

doan

REALLY??? :-)

Doan

doan

LOL! Speaking like a "never-spanked" boy again, Kane0.

Doan