Wow. We're lucky he didn't kill anyone else while he was out of jail.

Then, prison doesn't exactly teach you how to function in society, either. I'm not surprised he went back to a life of crime. But what to do? Lock them up and throw away the key? Put a child in jail during his formative years, and that's all he'll know. What's he going to do once he gets out? Probably get in with the same crowd he rolled with in jail.

Lionel Tate was a scumbag long before he was sent to prison.

Wow. We're lucky he didn't kill anyone else while he was out of jail.

Then, prison doesn't exactly teach you how to function in society, either. I'm not surprised he went back to a life of crime. But what to do? Lock them up and throw away the key? Put a child in jail during his formative years, and that's all he'll know. What's he going to do once he gets out? Probably get in with the same crowd he rolled with in jail.
minors are still to be kept out of sight and sound of adult inmates. i can't think of a single state that doesn't abide by that Federal mandate.

So do you or do you not believe that a 10 year old who kills someone should be tried as an adult?
that 10 y/o might be better off tried as an adult-the average muderer served 100 months (in 1991 (http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/prisons/violoff.txt)), far short of until their 21st birthday.

Lionel Tate was a scumbag long before he was sent to prison.
I agree, but I feel this statement is disingenuous:

So, did Lionel Tate learn his lesson when he was the recipient of leniency from a liberal judiciary? No.

His conviction was thrown out, there was no "leniency," and there's no evidence that it was a "liberal judiciary." A "technicality" is a subjective judgment, not one that has any legal bearing. Convictions are thrown out when the prosecutors don't do their jobs properly. A court cannot in good conscience keep a man imprisoned when there's been inconsistencies in the procedure of law. It sucks sometimes, but it's better than the alternative.

You posted that none of us is qualified to decide whether the people in question should be tried as an adult or minor. Fine, using that criterium none of is qualified to decide most of the issues we discuss. That doesn't stop us, or you from discussing them though. Besides, it wasn't any of us but the judge, a person who is qualified to make that determination who decided they should be tried as adults.

I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't discuss it. I'm just saying the people that are absolutely convinced they should be tried as adults don't necessarily know the whole story. And for the record, the prosecutor, not the judge, decided to try them as adults.

Kidnapping always carries a possible life sentence, especially combined with other crimes (e.g. assault). Of course, most kidnappers do not get life, and I highly doubt that these girls will either. Do you think they should get 20 years? I'm thinking 10 max.



Honestly,DF,who cares what I think,it's not my place to set the sentence for them.
I am choosing not to answer this cause my feelings about this case and others like it are borne of being a mother and tend to not be very logical. That's just going to have to suffice.

Who in their right mind would not be outraged or angered over what these girls did to that other girl?

I didn't say you shouldn't be outraged, quite the contrary; I said you shouldn't base your legal decisions on that outrage.


If the victim was your daughter, grand daughter, whatever, would you be happy with trying them as juvienals?

Perhaps not, but the justice system should dispense impartial justice, not happiness.


So easy to sit on the sidelines and makes the criminals the victims when the real victim is just a face in the news.

It's also easy to try, convict, and sentence someone based on what you read in the newspapers. It's almost always an unwise thing to do.


They will get impartial justice when they go to trial.

Hopefully this is true.


They will be judged by an impartial jury of their peers just like any other criminal.

Unlikely. They won't be tried by sixteen-year-olds, they will be tried by a bunch of outraged adults.


By the way, 18 is way too old these days to be considered an adult. At 16 they have more rights then the parents who are responsible for them by law.

For example?

Hey Leper, you're the criminal defense guy - does the prosecution have to prove some level of mental capacity to prosecute a minor as an adult, or is it really completely up the prosecutor and the judge has no say (outside of any adjustments he might make at sentencing)? Can you tell I didn't take crim pro?

Well, I'm sure the process is variable from state to state, so I can only speak from the Texas perspective.

With that said, the process pretty much goes like this:

A) the prosecution decides whether it wants to try to "certify" the child offender as an adult (in the few months I spent in a juvenile court, I only saw the prosecution try to do this once, for a 16-year old who broke into an attractive neighbor lady's house with a rifle and abused her in front of her tot - so I believe this discretion is reserved for only the worst of crimes)

B) Once prosecutor has decided to certify, there is an investigation followed by a hearing where the juvenile court may decide to waive jurisdiction so that the child may be tried by an adult court - to have such a waiver, the kid must be 14-15 or older and must be accused of a felony and the judge must determine that there is PC to "believe that the child committed the offense and that, because of the seriousness of the offense or background of the child, the welfare of the community requires criminal proceedings." (Don't worry, I had to look the standard up again myself - I needed the refresher)

So, in sum, there's no mental capacity required, but there's this vague standard that requires some evidence regarding the welfare of the community and is somewhat connected to level of outrage (e.g. "seriousness of the offense").

That sounds pretty much like what people have been posting, Leper. The perpetrators were close enough to being legal adults and the crime was of a magnitude sufficient to cause them to be treated as adults.

Highest in the world, actually.
1 out of every 100 Americans is in our prison system (which is increasingly becoming privatized which means it is getting more and more expensive)

Right - that's what I meant. "world" instead of "country."

No, but I'd be willing to bet your legal tactics would. Counselor. :D

You bet - representing someone else nullifies (at least it should) your personal views to a large degree.

Probably under the concept of diminished capacity. Courts take the mental and/or emotional stability of perpetrators into consideration every day.

Diminished capacity is only recognized in a few states. I think most states don't recognize this concept - I know TX doesn't.


These young men and women are not suffering from diminished capacity.

I don't see how you can tell that from a 3-minute video of a physical fight.


I don't think they should get life in prison but I would be in full agreement of a sentence of at least five years for each of them, inluding the lookouts.

For a fist fight? I think that's very extreme.

Diminished capacity is only recognized in a few states. I think most states don't recognize this concept - I know TX doesn't.

Which might explain why Texas has such a high execution rate.




I don't see how you can tell that from a 3-minute video of a physical fight.

I am assuming they are not retarded or suffering from any other form of diminished capacity based not on a three minute video but on the accounts of what happened, the attempts to scare the victim into not telling she had been beaten, the fact that the girls are cheerleaders, not usually an activity for people of diminished capacity, and the fact that the prosecutor wants them tried as adults.




For a fist fight? I think that's very extreme.

Not a fist fight, Leper.......a thirty five minute beating. Calling it a fist fight is like calling a hand grenade a fire cracker.

Way to go Dr Phil! This guy is a total fool!

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/television/tv-news-story/ar/_a/dr-phil-staff-bails-out-jailed-teen/20080413102809990001

These girls and boys who did the beatings should consider themselves lucky they are not my children and instead have parents who have obviously raised them with no moral fiber whatsoever.

If they were mine first of all they would certainly NEVER hang out with this group of "friends" again.

I would give them one chance to stick to that rule. If I found out that trhey were still hanging out they would spend the remainder of their school experience in a catholic school seperated from the other animals.

In this case they should be tried as adults, they should also be forced to see a pschiatrist and attend MANDATORY anger management.

Personally I don't undertsand why the school systems dont have anger management classes rather than second language. Seems a lot more important to me that these kids learn how to deal with their emotions than learn how to talk to each in some foreign language.

I am assuming they are not retarded or suffering from any other form of diminished capacity based not on a three minute video but on the accounts of what happened, the attempts to scare the victim into not telling she had been beaten, the fact that the girls are cheerleaders, not usually an activity for people of diminished capacity, and the fact that the prosecutor wants them tried as adults.
LOL - just a question here, Frogger, but have you ever known any cheerleaders to attend MENSA meetings? Most barely scrape by under the radar.

P.S. All joking aside, and for what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with you.

Personally I don't undertsand why the school systems dont have anger management classes rather than second language. Seems a lot more important to me that these kids learn how to deal with their emotions than learn how to talk to each in some foreign language.

I agree. In fact, I think instead of this silly math, science, and English stuff, we should just have children see a therapist for eight hours a day. That'll teach em!

LOL - exactly.

Personally I don't undertsand why the school systems dont have anger management classes rather than second language.
Perhaps because schools are not substitutes for parenting?

I agree. In fact, I think instead of this silly math, science, and English stuff, we should just have children see a therapist for eight hours a day. That'll teach em!

Who said anything about math or science or english--I said rather than make a SECOND language mandatory they should make them learn how to deal with anger issues.

Perhaps because schools are not substitutes for parenting?

Has nothing to do with parenting but with TEACHING. I believe THAT is what we pay these people for. And even if the schools were used as a substitute for parenting, they couldn't do any worse than the poor excuse for parents these kids must have.

Perhaps because schools are not substitutes for parenting?

Actually, they are, Borg. Schools act in loco parentis. I agree with you that the parents have the primary and major responsibility for the behavior of their children but in this day and age when schools give out condoms without parental permission, teach sex education without parental permission, run peer mediation groups without parental permission it is at least reasonable to expect that they will also have anger management lessons.

Who said anything about math or science or english--I said rather than make a SECOND language mandatory they should make them learn how to deal with anger issues.
Why? Anger management is not an academic subject.
Has nothing to do with parenting but with TEACHING. I believe THAT is what we pay these people for. And even if the schools were used as a substitute for parenting, they couldn't do any worse than the poor excuse for parents these kids must have.
The government has no responsibility to make up for poor parents. Getting poor parents is just one of those crapshoots in life; children of poor parents have 18 years to deal with it, and then they can choose to do whatever they want vis-a-vis their parents.
Actually, they are, Borg. Schools act in loco parentis.
This is a legal distinction to protect schools from prosecution and allow them more freedom to put reasonable restrictions on students. It does not mean that schools should delve into areas that are the responsibility of parents.

Actually, they are, Borg. Schools act in loco parentis. I agree with you that the parents have the primary and major responsibility for the behavior of their children but in this day and age when schools give out condoms without parental permission, teach sex education without parental permission, run peer mediation groups without parental permission it is at least reasonable to expect that they will also have anger management lessons.

Are you actually advocating redirecting some of the students' educational resources (specifically, their second language education according to Genzo) to anger management courses?

My two sons still in High School tell me that such fights break out at their own school at least once or twice a week. Mostly it's boys fighting, but more and more often, it's girls, much to the guys' delight.

Frequently all is settled after the fisticuffs are over.

Why? Anger management is not an academic subject.

neither is "Independent Living", but they are important life skills.

My two sons still in High School tell me that such fights break out at their own school at least once or twice a week. Mostly it's boys fighting, but more and more often, it's girls, much to the guys' delight.

Frequently all is settled after the fisticuffs are over.
catfight!?!?! where?!?!?!:eek:

LOL!
Guys just love a catfight, don't they? That could be why the dumb girls taped the damn thing--hoping to make some MONEY off of it.

LOL!
Guys just love a catfight, don't they? That could be why the dumb girls taped the damn thing--hoping to make some MONEY off of it.
that wasn't a fight, it was just a beating. no sport in that.

that wasn't a fight, it was just a beating. no sport in that.


That is true.

Actually, they are, Borg. Schools act in loco parentis.

This is a legal distinction to protect schools from prosecution and allow them more freedom to put reasonable restrictions on students. It does not mean that schools should delve into areas that are the responsibility of parents.

Borg, since you are so adamantly opposed to schools delving into areas that are the parent's responsibility I assume you are against schools teaching sex education since this is an area that should be the responsibility of the parents. You must also be against schools setting nutritional standards for lunch since that too is an area where the responsibility should be the parents.



Are you actually advocating redirecting some of the students' educational resources (specifically, their second language education according to Genzo) to anger management courses?

I would be more than willing to not have anger management classes if the schools were to stick to academics and not try to teach sex education, tolerance for minority groups and alternative sexual proclivities.

If the schools are involved in social engineering in one area why should they not be involved in social engineering in another area?

Remember, Leper, I was directly involved in what was taught in schools. I saw the amount of time that was meant for academic learning slowly but surely being eroded by demands for social engineering classes. Let's get rid of all the extras and go back to having schools teach academics and the parents teach morality.

Does anyone know what triggered the beating?
That is, what set it off?
All I've heard is that the girls were unhappy that the beaten girl had left the cheerleading team. This seems glaringly incomplete.

PS. I've not followed this case much.

She, as one poster, I think it was Leper, said, she talked smack about one of the girls.

That's all?
There HAS to be more, IMO.

Nope, that was it. You can hear one girl on the tape saying, "Why don't you like ........?"

I think schools should teach everything...except religion. :D

I think schools should teach everything...except religion. :D
Why shouldn't schools teach religion (objectively)? Theology is plenty academic.
Borg, since you are so adamantly opposed to schools delving into areas that are the parent's responsibility I assume you are against schools teaching sex education since this is an area that should be the responsibility of the parents.
Human anatomy and sexology is an academic subject. I see no reason not to have it in school. As long as the information is objective, it belongs there.
You must also be against schools setting nutritional standards for lunch since that too is an area where the responsibility should be the parents.
Well, schools shouldn't tell kids what they can and cannot eat, but I don't think schools should sell soda, chips, etc. to the students on campus. If only because I find it abhorrent that companies are getting so insidious that they're selling to kids on school campuses now. But other than making sure the regular school meals are reasonably healthy and balanced, no, I don't think schools should make dietary decisions for students.

I think they should be tried as adults. You learn that hitting people is wrong in Kindergarten -- obviously these girls knew what they were doing.

They planned the attack beforehand (premeditated) and not only hit her, but left her with serious injuries that she may never recover from. Plus, most of the girls were 17 and one of them was even 18.

They can't claim ignorance or immaturity -- this is a common sense issue that even a 5 year old would understand. Hitting people is wrong, but leaving people with serious injuries is not only assault, but something only the lowest of people do.

And the girls laughed about it after being caught. They need a reality check, and I hope they get sent away very soon.

I think they should be tried as adults. You learn that hitting people is wrong in Kindergarten -- obviously these girls knew what they were doing.

They planned the attack beforehand (premeditated) and not only hit her, but left her with serious injuries that she may never recover from. Plus, most of the girls were 17 and one of them was even 18.

They can't claim ignorance or immaturity -- this is a common sense issue that even a 5 year old would understand. Hitting people is wrong, but leaving people with serious injuries is not only assault, but something only the lowest of people do.

And the girls laughed about it after being caught. They need a reality check, and I hope they get sent away very soon.

Agreed. And the victim has been physically, mentally, and emotionally damaged. Will that ever go away? The victim has to live with this memory and pain for the rest of their lives. This kind of stuff really damages a person inside and out forever.

My God, Overdose, Mesk and me all in agreement. Will wonders never cease?

Borg, since you are so adamantly opposed to schools delving into areas that are the parent's responsibility I assume you are against schools teaching sex education since this is an area that should be the responsibility of the parents.

Human anatomy and sexology is an academic subject. I see no reason not to have it in school. As long as the information is objective, it belongs there.


What a phony, disingenuous argument, Borg. They aren't simply teaching anatomy which is a valid academic subject. They are also teaching the morality of different sexual practices many of which the student's parents consider immoral. It is impossible to teach sex education objectively. The views of the teacher are always injected into the lessons.

What a phony, disingenuous argument, Borg. They aren't simply teaching anatomy which is a valid academic subject. They are also teaching the morality of different sexual practices many of which the student's parents consider immoral. It is impossible to teach sex education objectively. The views of the teacher are always injected into the lessons.
What the fuck are you talking about? I've never heard of any sex education including a discussion of "morality".

Sex education courses discuss areas of sexuality that should be within the pervue of the parents, ie. homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc. These are moral decisions that should be discussed with parents not with school teachers.

Sex education courses discuss areas of sexuality that should be within the pervue of the parents, ie. homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc. These are moral decisions that should be discussed with parents not with school teachers.
Homosexuality and pre-marital sex can't be talked about objectively?

I agree. If I was the one who got beat up I would feel so embarrassed and ashamed for the rest of my life. This is something that will not only leave her with physical issues going forward, but huge, life-long mental issues too. What they did is one of the worst things you can do to someone.

And the young women who did this don't even care. Shame on them.

I agree. If I was the one who got beat up I would feel so embarrassed and ashamed for the rest of my life. This is something that will not only leave her with physical issues going forward, but huge, life-long mental issues too. What they did is one of the worst things you can do to someone.

And the young women who did this don't even care. Shame on them.
I cant believe im saying this,but i agree completely with you, overdose. :eek:

Watching that video makes my blood boil. And then seeing some of the parents try and justify what was done makes me even sicker. One of the girls was holding back laughing when she was in-front of the judge. These girls don't understand what a horrible thing they did.

I don't know why these type of things make me so angry. But when I see an INNOCENT person being beaten senseless -- to the point where they could have died -- I take a huge issues with that. How inhumane can you be?

And I don't want to hear, "emotion shouldn't play a factor in the law." Because these girls, who committed organized crime, PLANNED and knew what they were doing. And what they did is something so sick I can't even begin to describe how I feel about it.

The girl who was beat will have to live the rest of her life feeling ashamed and embarrassed. The physical bruises may heal, but the mental bruises will never go away. And for that, these girls who are charged deserve to get punished in a severe way.

where do these egos come from and manifest?? I'd say withdrawn parenting + reality TV = things like this

Watching that video makes my blood boil. And then seeing some of the parents try and justify what was done makes me even sicker. One of the girls was holding back laughing when she was in-front of the judge. These girls don't understand what a horrible thing they did.

This is exactly why I don't think they should be tried as adults. They clearly are completely clueless. Laughing in court; filming the crime...they don't understand the consequences of their actions.

This is exactly why I don't think they should be tried as adults. They clearly are completely clueless. Laughing in court; filming the crime...they don't understand the consequences of their actions.
Too bad. Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean you shouldn't understand. You have to hold people, adult or not, to a level of human decency. And if they don't understand that level, well, that's too bad. They should understand it.

To be honest, I think they understand it, they just don't give a shit. So, have fun in jail, girls.

This is exactly why I don't think they should be tried as adults. They clearly are completely clueless. Laughing in court; filming the crime...they don't understand the consequences of their actions.

We give 16 year olds the power to drive and get a paying job in some states. So, they know what they are doing. They are laughing because they think they will be let off.

This is exactly why I don't think they should be tried as adults. They clearly are completely clueless. Laughing in court; filming the crime...they don't understand the consequences of their actions.
__________________________________________________ ____________

I agree I can't understand those who claim the young are just as responsible for there actions as a hardened criminal or a way older adult. We here in Canada tried a 12 year old for murdering her parents with the help of a 22 year old boyfriend.

In a few more years I doubt jail is needed to confirm her guilt.

These people need to be in a hospital or mental institution only.

This is exactly why I don't think they should be tried as adults. They clearly are completely clueless. Laughing in court; filming the crime...they don't understand the consequences of their actions.

Perhaps because they've never been made to accept the consequences of their actions. Perhaps it's long past time they learn that nifty life lesson.

Lot's of criminals laugh and joke in court. Does that mean they should be given a more lenient sentence because they continue to think what they did was funny?
One of the girls was just short of her seventeenth birthday, an adult by today's standards. Perhaps the fourteen year old should be treated more leniently but the sixteen year olds should be tried as adults and given penalties fitting to the seriousness of the crime they committed.

The facts of the case that we know are: they lured this girl to a house where they beat her for thirty five minutes. They forcibly kept her in the house when she attempted to leave and continued beating her. They then forced her into a car and drove her to another location where they threatened to beat her even more severely if she dared tell anyone.

These girls showed a callous disregard for the welfare of their victim and complete distain for the legal system that will be trying them.

They deserve to feel the full weight of the law and to be punished as adults and sentenced accordingly.

Lot's of criminals laugh and joke in court. Does that mean they should be given a more lenient sentence because they continue to think what they did was funny?
One of the girls was just short of her seventeenth birthday, an adult by today's standards. Perhaps the fourteen year old should be treated more leniently but the sixteen year olds should be tried as adults and given penalties fitting to the seriousness of the crime they committed.

The facts of the case that we know are: they lured this girl to a house where they beat her for thirty five minutes. They forcibly kept her in the house when she attempted to leave and continued beating her. They then forced her into a car and drove her to another location where they threatened to beat her even more severely if she dared tell anyone.

These girls showed a callous disregard for the welfare of their victim and complete distain for the legal system that will be trying them.

They deserve to feel the full weight of the law and to be punished as adults and sentenced accordingly. __________________________________________________ _________________

100 Lashings in public would be more appropriate.


And it would be a fitting and a good determent.

Put that on youtube

First off, one hundred lashings would scar them for life. There could never be redemption. The fitting punishment is being sent to prison for the same term an adult would be imprisoned. They should not be placed in the general population but they should also not be placed in a juvenile facility.

Lets have a poll.

I think I'm right.

__________________________________________________ _________________

100 Lashings in public would be more appropriate.


And it would be a fitting and a good determent.

Put that on youtube


Agreed - should be implemented for adults as well. Jail is too costly for such widespread use and it's not a good determent, I mean, deterrent.

First off, one hundred lashings would scar them for life.

You don't think prison time does that?

There could never be redemption. The fitting punishment is being sent to prison for the same term an adult would be imprisoned. They should not be placed in the general population but they should also not be placed in a juvenile facility.

And you think you can have redemption with a felony conviction? Let me ask you this - would you hire someone who had a "kidnapping" conviction on their record?

This is exactly why I don't think they should be tried as adults. They clearly are completely clueless. Laughing in court; filming the crime...they don't understand the consequences of their actions.

Yep. The kids don't get it. Still, everybody wants them to do hard time before they even get their first lesson. Sixteen year olds don't know shit - any adult should know that. Beyond that, hard time for a first offense like this is out of line with how other offenders are treated.

P.S. From what I read, they laughed in detention, not in court - but there seems to be different accounts out there.

I would be more than willing to not have anger management classes if the schools were to stick to academics and not try to teach sex education, tolerance for minority groups and alternative sexual proclivities.

If the schools are involved in social engineering in one area why should they not be involved in social engineering in another area?

Remember, Leper, I was directly involved in what was taught in schools. I saw the amount of time that was meant for academic learning slowly but surely being eroded by demands for social engineering classes. Let's get rid of all the extras and go back to having schools teach academics and the parents teach morality.

I agree with all of this except the bit about sex education - sex ed is relevant to everyone in a way that anger management and "tolerance education" are not. Personally, I learned a lot in my Health (including sex ed) class - I got an introduction to how birth control works and the variety of STD's that exist in our society. That's basic education that everyone should have, regardless of their parent's beliefs.

Leper (http://www.allforums.net/member.php?u=830)

~I think lashing people in prison could prove disturbing and concern for abuse. But for a kids punishment; it would be gravy.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________


On a second thought I think lashings in prisons could reduce jail rapes a little. But these are hardened criminals in prisons and it could be bragging rights to those in prison.

First off, one hundred lashings would scar them for life.
You don't think prison time does that?
No, I'm pretty sure getting pounded in the ass by another man is what scars them for life.

where do these egos come from and manifest??

There are so many parents that want to be best friends with their kids and/or don't want to hurt their kids feelings. I think there are a large number of kids that have gone through life without ever having been told "no" or "that was bad," etc. That some parents go the extra step and defend their children when their children are in the wrong just makes the problem worse.

There are so many parents that want to be best friends with their kids and/or don't want to hurt their kids feelings. I think there are a large number of kids that have gone through life without ever having been told "no" or "that was bad," etc. That some parents go the extra step and defend their children when their children are in the wrong just makes the problem worse.

agree. seen it in my own family!

There are so many parents that want to be best friends with their kids and/or don't want to hurt their kids feelings. I think there are a large number of kids that have gone through life without ever having been told "no" or "that was bad," etc. That some parents go the extra step and defend their children when their children are in the wrong just makes the problem worse.


I agree.

My mom was both. She is still my best friend but she is quick to tell me when I'm being a dumbass. In fact if I did something like that she would stand by me too....while she buried me!!!!

There are so many parents that want to be best friends with their kids and/or don't want to hurt their kids feelings. I think there are a large number of kids that have gone through life without ever having been told "no" or "that was bad," etc. That some parents go the extra step and defend their children when their children are in the wrong just makes the problem worse.

Agreed.. You aren't a true parent unless your child doesn't like you a lot of the time. And that's not saying you are abusing them or going out of your way to harm them... but installing good work ethics and moral values into kids is always met with resistance from the child. And it's undeniable. The part of the brain that thinks things through and makes "sense" of everything isn't fully developed until 18+... while the emotional and impulsive part of the brain is in full development by 14-15. So that means making them do chores around the house and going to a party at 9pm, not 8, even though it's not a big deal AT ALL, is met with an emotional, overdramatic response, probably one they saw on a music video.

Parents with money (not all, but the stereotype) don't want to pay the price it is of being a parent.... at least physically and emotionally. So they will do so with dollars.. whatever their little princess or son wants... and there will be a fake relationship between the two until the child gets past high school and suddenly, they go off to college with no moral values or work ethic. They get what they want from their parents, who will pay tuition and for their car, gas, cell phone, etc.. just to keep them out of the house. Then the real world hits them, and they don't know what to do. Most of the time, by the end of college, they have already made tons of bad decisions that were deemed "cool" by society but downright stupid in reality. Probably had multiple sex partners without being checked, probably drank underage, probably never had to work, probably only cared about their appearance blah blah blah... My kid will NEVER wear that life of luxury. I will love my child, but I will instill in them values and a work ethic. I won't buy my child's love.

I wish I could slap the parents, and the girls, on the "My sweet 16" show... Line em up.. and I'll slap the spoiled, spineless taste right out of their mouths LOL.

We give 16 year olds the power to drive and get a paying job in some states. So, they know what they are doing. They are laughing because they think they will be let off.
They are also laughing because many of the parents don't seem to think it was, "that big of a deal."

It is time for the law to discipline these girls -- because clearly many of their parents are the trashy kind who don't really give a damn about what their daughters did. This is the only way for these girls to get a reality check.

Honestly, this is a COMMON SENSE issue. Hitting and beating others isn't excusable no matter what age you are.

Agreed.. You aren't a true parent unless your child doesn't like you a lot of the time. And that's not saying you are abusing them or going out of your way to harm them... but installing good work ethics and moral values into kids is always met with resistance from the child. And it's undeniable. The part of the brain that thinks things through and makes "sense" of everything isn't fully developed until 18+... while the emotional and impulsive part of the brain is in full development by 14-15. So that means making them do chores around the house and going to a party at 9pm, not 8, even though it's not a big deal AT ALL, is met with an emotional, overdramatic response, probably one they saw on a music video.

Parents with money (not all, but the stereotype) don't want to pay the price it is of being a parent.... at least physically and emotionally. So they will do so with dollars.. whatever their little princess or son wants... and there will be a fake relationship between the two until the child gets past high school and suddenly, they go off to college with no moral values or work ethic. They get what they want from their parents, who will pay tuition and for their car, gas, cell phone, etc.. just to keep them out of the house. Then the real world hits them, and they don't know what to do. Most of the time, by the end of college, they have already made tons of bad decisions that were deemed "cool" by society but downright stupid in reality. Probably had multiple sex partners without being checked, probably drank underage, probably never had to work, probably only cared about their appearance blah blah blah... My kid will NEVER wear that life of luxury. I will love my child, but I will instill in them values and a work ethic. I won't buy my child's love.

I wish I could slap the parents, and the girls, on the "My sweet 16" show... Line em up.. and I'll slap the spoiled, spineless taste right out of their mouths LOL.



:worship:

Amen Decka!

I fully agree that parents need to step up and stop being afraid of their children and wanting to be all buddy buddy with them. You can be their friend and their parent. And a little fear of your parents is not a bad thing. I am still afraid of my dad to this day and I'm 31. My daughters have a little bit of fear of me and they know when enough is enough. One look or gesture from me and they know they are about to cross a line.

No one is perfect and being a parent is THE toughest job in the world but you can still be a good parent and teach values and morals without worrying your kid is going to hate you...cause lets face it,your kid is going to hate you between the ages of 13 and 17 anyways.

Agreed.. You aren't a true parent unless your child doesn't like you a lot of the time.
I completely disagree with this. My step-mom is the best of my three parents by far, and I like her the most. My dad and mom are ok parents at the best times and terrible parents at the worst times, and I really don't like either of them at all.

I completely disagree with this. My step-mom is the best of my three parents by far, and I like her the most. My dad and mom are ok parents at the best times and terrible parents at the worst times, and I really don't like either of them at all.
__________________________________________________ ___________-

You made Decka's point.

__________________________________________________ ___________-

You made Decka's point.
Not at all. He was saying that teenagers hate good parents. I have one good parent, and she's the only one I like.

I am happy for you that you and your stepmother found each other, DF. Being a step parent can be hard. I know because I married a widow with three children. Don't ever forget to tell her you love her.

People always ask me if she's evil. :p

People always ask me if she's evil. :p
i know my step-mom's a saint. she'd have to be to have put up with my dad for the last 35 years:@@:

People always ask me if she's evil. :p
Well, she is Jewish.

Smash the Jew egg before it hatches! :eek:

Smash the Jew egg before it hatches! :eek:
wtf?:confused:

wtf?:confused:
It's from Borat. :p

It's from Borat. :p
oh:rolleyes:

please no famous quotes from borat; the man is a pig.

please no famous quotes from borat; the man is a pig.
What?? I loved Borat! The guy's hilarious!

please no famous quotes from borat; the man is a pig.
he's just a character, not a real person. are you that guy that talks to the movie screen?

The only way you can be certain that you are correct, dark, is if the parents don't care about you, or abuse you. If none of that, then I would heed their advice... you might learn something from em.

And i couldn't even finish watching the movie borat... funny parts, but the documentary style bored me to tears.

The only way you can be certain that you are correct, dark, is if the parents don't care about you, or abuse you. If none of that, then I would heed their advice... you might learn something from em.
I certainly listen to my parents' advice and generally follow it. What does that have to do with the fact that the most competent of my parents (the one that doesn't have any drug and mental problems) is the one I like the most?

please no famous quotes from borat; the man is a pig.
"The man"? He's a character. That's like being angry at Stephen Colbert.

"The man"? He's a character. That's like being angry at Stephen Colbert.
OTOH, didn't they both create their characters?

OTOH, didn't they both create their characters?
Yes, and both their characters have something in common: They're nothing like the person playing them.

Yes, and both their characters have something in common: They're nothing like the person playing them.
do you know either one? they wouldn't be the first ppl to use comedy to say things that they want to, but would never try in public.

Considering that the guy who plays Borat actually is Jewish, I hardly think he's masking his violent anti-Semitism with comedy. :thumbs:

do you know either one? they wouldn't be the first ppl to use comedy to say things that they want to, but would never try in public.
Have you ever bothered hearing what they have to say when they're not in character? Or how very satirical Colbert is being?

What?? I loved Borat! The guy's hilarious!
No doubt. :)

I certainly listen to my parents' advice and generally follow it. What does that have to do with the fact that the most competent of my parents (the one that doesn't have any drug and mental problems) is the one I like the most?

Well that is fine Dark. I don't know every aspect of your life. If you have parents that are doing coke lines and are on the bus to the insane asylum... then by all means, the other parent is your best choice...

But my initial statement is pretty much true all of the time with competant parenting.

Well that is fine Dark. I don't know every aspect of your life. If you have parents that are doing coke lines and are on the bus to the insane asylum... then by all means, the other parent is your best choice...

But my initial statement is pretty much true all of the time with competant parenting.
I still think that you can be a good parent and still have your teenager like you, unless your kid is a complete idiot. So I suppose there are a lot of families for which your statement would be correct, but you're basically assuming that all teenagers are complete idiots. As an intelligent teenager who happens to know a lot of other intelligent teenagers (all of whom tend to at least be ok with their parents), I find that insulting.

I still think that you can be a good parent and still have your teenager like you, unless your kid is a complete idiot. So I suppose there are a lot of families for which your statement would be correct, but you're basically assuming that all teenagers are complete idiots. As an intelligent teenager who happens to know a lot of other intelligent teenagers (all of whom tend to at least be ok with their parents), I find that insulting.


My parents were a good mix of strict and easy going. I got along great with my parents then and still do. They are a huge aspect in my life. So I agree, you can be "good" parents and still have kids that like you.

Well that is fine Dark. I don't know every aspect of your life. If you have parents that are doing coke lines and are on the bus to the insane asylum... then by all means, the other parent is your best choice...

But my initial statement is pretty much true all of the time with competant parenting.
Competent parents know how to be fair and relatively nonrestrictive while ensuring that their children are behaving themselves and learning good values. Children need not hate their parents to have good parents. The best earn respect from their kids while still allowing them the latitude to make a few mistakes, learn from them, etc. As DF said, no child hates a competent parent unless the child is a dumbass.

I still think that you can be a good parent and still have your teenager like you, unless your kid is a complete idiot. So I suppose there are a lot of families for which your statement would be correct, but you're basically assuming that all teenagers are complete idiots. As an intelligent teenager who happens to know a lot of other intelligent teenagers (all of whom tend to at least be ok with their parents), I find that insulting.

Well science does not agree with you Dark. Perhaps you have a small pocket of exceptions... but like I said earlier, the emotional, impulsive part of the brain develops first. Things that aren't important in life are EXTREMELY important in high school. I remember having many arguments with my folks, not chair throwing rampages, but arguments... about how late I could stay out.. or if i could go somewhere. Now that my brain is fully developed, I realize that none of that BS really matters. I'd probably have been doing myself a favor by not going out.

LOL at Decka saying what science agrees with.

LOL at Napster trying to mock an area that I excel in... the study of adolescence.

I could probably find very similar results in dharma or you compared to those I see in real life... the 3rd graders probably have dharma beat...

I have had plenty of arguments with my parents, many of which look silly in hindsight. That certainly doesn't mean that I hate them. And yes, I know that impulsive/emotional parts of the brain develop much faster than the logical, judgment type areas - the logical and impulse control areas are not fully developed until well into the 20s. I believe I actually already made that point earlier in the thread (back when it was still on-topic). :thumbs:

hate and arguments have nothing in common.

You don't have to hate your parents to be what I'm talking about. I had many arguments with my parents. I was a teen, who didn't know the big picture yet. My priorities were not based on a life-long basis. My dad was very strict, and I'm glad he was. I can see why he did what he did, and how insignificant it is now.

I get along GREAT with my parents now.. but they sure don't, and never have, given me anything I want. THAT is what I'm talking about.. the parents that have no spine and are a prissy princess's best friend because they pay for their VISA card, cell phone, and Lexus car payment bills.