Hi, Matt! ++
"The result is the same whether he used a gun or a hammer, it's just you automatically go with the kneejerk "gun=BAD" rant."
Poor reading comprehension. I specifically wrote "... I don't have anything against removing her laptop or even destroying it by any means available, be it a gun, a sledgehammer..."
"...given the lack of any thought in your post..."
Well, I'll make things easy for you: My post says that: a) He'll probably have to explain his actions in a courtroom, b) what he did was disproportionately cruel for the offence.
"She is a minor, she is subject to his rules whilst she lives in his house"
That is the ancient Roman approach to parenting - they could rightfully torture or murder (even by crucifixion) their own children for not complying with 'their rules'. FYI this mindset has been considered obsolete -and criminal- since before the end of the Middle Ages.
"Please, what is she going to sue him for, and why exactly do you think she would succeed?"
Extreme Cruelty. And she has very good chances in a civil court.
"As was pointed out by somnabulus in a post at 14.03 GMT, there followed a discussion between the daughter and the dad and they ended up laughing at some of the vitriolic posts"
Yep. Good logic. So instead of removing her laptop or destroying it, and then having that -seemingly long overdue- father-daughter discussion, he took the intermediate step of posting the video in the Nets, for all to see. Genius!
And the digitaljournal.com article is based only on what the father says, the girl hasn't been asked. Suspicious?
Sorry, I don't use Facebook.