Skip to main content

Texas Judge Responds - horrible PR move (clearly advised by a lawyer)

In my previous post I talked about a recent video showing a Texas Judge whipping his daughter with a belt. The judge has come out with an official statement to the press. You can read the full statement here (it's three pages in length).

Essentially he argues that his daughter is trying to damage his reputation because he refused to keep paying for her BMW.

To quote:

If the public must know, just prior to the You Tube upload,  a concerned father shared with his 23 year old daughter that he was unwilling to continue to work hard and be her primary source of financial support,if she was going to simply “drop out”, and strive to achieve no more in life than to work part time at a video game store.  Hillary warned her father if he reduced her  financial  support, and took away her Mercedes automobile, which her father had provided, he would live to regret it.  The post was then uploaded. 

William Adams regrets the  interruption and inconvenience his daughter’s post has caused to the Aransas County, Texas community.  Judge Adams is confident that when the dust settles.....it will be concluded that Hillary Adam’s actions in 2011 were misguided and misleading. 


It's just mind boggling that this is how he would respond to the situation. However, from a legal point of view, it's not. He's laying the ground work to show that this was a one off incident and that outside of that he was a good dad giving his child everything she needed.

Watch his daughter on Anderson Cooper to see the other side of the story ...



From just the facts above, what it seems likely happened was that yes, he abused his daughter. Yes, the daughter was dependent on him financially (giving her reason to stay quiet about the abuse). Yes, when he cut her off (removing the only reason she had to remain quiet) she had nothing to lose and finally struck back at him for his behavior in the past.

If that's the case, it doesn't change the simple fact, he whipped a 16 year old kid. Abuse is abuse, no matter how you cut it.

Any 'irrational' behavior on her part - for instance, why remain in contact with her father after such behavior - is easily chalked up to the fact that abuse victims often times continue taking the abuse for years. They sometimes never confront the abuser in an entire lifetime. That's actually normal - doing what she did, standing up to the abuser, is actually out of the norm (especially an abuser in such a position of power such as he has being a judge).

From a PR perspective, this guy just did the worst thing possible, he attacked the victim. Even if the catalyst to her releasing this video was him cutting off financial support, it doesn't change the fact that she was victimized.

If you've committed an atrocious act and want to lose public support as quickly as possible, attack the victim. Hey, it's working for the banks right (please note my sense of sarcasm here).

In this situation clearly the PR is being handle by a lawyer who is using their public statement to essentially lay out their defense strategy.

Regardless though, he botched this on the PR front. When you've done what he did, the only option available to you is to take accountability for your actions and hope people forgive you. But without taking responsibility, much less blaming the victim themselves, you have zero chance of gaining any kind of public leniency.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Featured Post: Where Can You Buy My Books?

Interested in purchasing one of my books? Below are the links that will take you to the right place on Amazon. A Manufactured Mind On Amazon On Kobo On Barnes and Noble On iTunes Obey On Amazon On Kobo  On B&N  On iTunes  The Fall of Man Trilogy Days of Judgment (Book One) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes System Crash (Book Two) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes A Fool's Requiem (Book Three) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...

More evidence of the Internet Revolution

Bell ushers in new era with CTV deal  So Bell has purchased CTV.  Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it... Driving convergence this time, the Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones and computer tablets are threatening home television’s lock on viewers. Bell, like its rivals, wants to offer more content to its subscribers, however they receive the signal. Viewers are increasingly interested in watching their favourite shows on their phones while they ride the bus or sit in the park, and the cable and phone companies that have served as middle men between viewers and broadcasters were in danger of being marginalized. You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content. When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As ...