Lawyer: Client Shot Once

ctnow.com ^ | August 16, 2002 | TINA A. BROWN

[RogerFGay]

In the dead of the night on June 20, 2001, Hartford's SWAT team circled a parking lot and an elementary school rooftop, trying to spot Catalino Morales and his fugitive partner from Pennsylvania.

When the fugitives were spotted between two cars on Plainfield Street, officers yelled, "Police, get down. Police, get down to the ground."

[Flyer]

They think it's only for those other guys

Yes. But then they have to track all of us so they can distinguish us from "the other guys".

[RogerFGay]

Yes. But then they have to track all of us so they can distinguish us from "the other guys".

They have to control everyone to make sure they have control of those who need to be controlled. Since that never works, the pass new legislation every election year, and allocate several billion more in funding each year to try harder. So many "conservatives" don't catch on to the fact that this isn't the United States of America anymore. "Conservative" in what country, I have to ask? In what year? "Conservative" in Hitler's Germany? "Conservative" in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China?

[RogerFGay]

From: Corruption in Connecticut

For an official bureaucratic spin, perhaps nothing can top Dallas Martin, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. "I'm old-fashioned," he said, "but I still believe if you bring a child into this world, you have a responsibility to support the child the best you can."

By court order? "Old-fashioned" in what country?

[Don Joe]

"His life is over as soon as they get his name and SS#. It doesn't take Sigmund Freud to figure out that a significant percent are going to fight back, no matter who comes-a-callin' It's fight or flight and sometimes both."

That's basically it in a nutshell. The system is designed to destroy fathers, and it does so with a cold efficiency. It is odd that it seems oblivious to statistical reality (i.e., in every population, there is an inevitable percentage who will flip out when it finally sinks in that their lives have literally been destroyed because of their gender).

[js1138]

I would love to sit on a jury where the cops are on record as lying. There is no worse crime in my book than having the police lie to the jury. Better not to bring the case.

[john316]

Got my hopes up I misread the title thought it said Clinton shot once.

[Don Joe]

"It would be intellectually dishonest if, by the above, you were implying that the man's response (gunfire) were somehow mitigated by the government's bad behavior. Defending the indefensible is just as wrong for us as for the government. If I were trying to make a name for myself in the arena of father's rights and divorce reform, I'd damn well learn the details before I condemned LEOs and defended a man - father or otherwise - who opened fire on them.

"As a men's and father's rights advocate myself, this is not a hill that I would chose to die on."

I think it's possible to point out that the situation was clearly created by the vindictive income confiscation/redistribution scheme that's marketed as "child support", without defending the guy who went over the edge.

I would challenge anyone to argue the reverse, i.e., if the "child support" industry was reigned in, that these "postal events" would still happen with the same frequency. I'd love to see the "logic" they'd have to invoke to make their story fit together. "Men are inherently violent brutes", perhaps?

[Don Joe]

"garnered (or is it garnished?)"

Garnisheed, actually.

[Don Joe]

"What is criminal is what the courts say is criminal."

Yup, absolutely.

That's why they used to be able to manufacture such innovative lampshades in Germany.

[Don Joe]

Pop Quiz: Which right-wing fruitcake spoke these treasonous words?

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. ... But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

[RogerFGay]

I think it's possible to point out that the situation was clearly created by the vindictive income confiscation/redistribution scheme that's marketed as "child support", without defending the guy who went over the edge.

I would challenge anyone to argue the reverse, i.e., if the "child support" industry was reigned in, that these "postal events" would still happen with the same frequency. I'd love to see the "logic" they'd have to invoke to make their story fit together. "Men are inherently violent brutes", perhaps?

I'm not going to accept their arguments. They push millions of men over the edge and then continue to push, harass, degrade, and pick. As soon as one fights back they claim they were justified all along. See what kind of people they are, they ask? We have to do more to control them, they claim. My theory is that the people who's minds work like that are actually not as evolved as normal humans. Random chance gives them political power from time to time, and then real humans have to fight another bloody revolution to set things right.

[Don Joe]

"The cause of abandoned children is not Congress or laws or government. The cause of abandoned children are the parents who abandon or renounce them. If you don't like child support laws then you should work to make people more personally responsible for their actions.

"Here is the moral-liberal dictum: 'Allow me to be irresponsible, and in return I'll allow you all to pay for the consequences of my irresponsibility.'"

Wow! What a horsepile of orwellian doublespeak.

Name me another "crime" (besides fatherhood) in which the victim is charged with the crime?

A woman abandons the family unit, absconding with the children, and it's the father who's up for punishment due to the "consequences of his irresponsibility"?

Nifty.

Next, let's start prosecuting rape victims because without their participation, the crime would never have occurred.

[RogerFGay]

Hubert Humphrey

[Don Joe]

"Do you support the 'freedom' of deadbeat dads to abandon their own children? Is it 'freedom' to shirk one's personal responsibility?"

That question would best be put to those who continue to harp on the "deadbeat dads" mantra -- after replacing the word "dads" with "moms", because noncustodial mothers are "deadbeats" at a much higher rate than noncustodial fathers.

Yet, they continue to get a pass from the pro-feminista infrastructure.

What baffles me is that so many alleged "conservatives" also climb onto that left wing bandwagon.

[RogerFGay]

"Do you support the 'freedom' of deadbeat dads to abandon their own children? Is it 'freedom' to shirk one's personal responsibility?"

I think I'd have to say yes to that. Ask the questioner what business it is of his. I'm wondering if he has any proper legal standing related to other people's family decisions and how it is that God assigned him to define what their responsibilities are (provide documentation). Frankly, I don't think he has any logical standing and certainly doesn't have any moral standing to be calling other people names.

[Don Joe]

"Maybe a few hundred thousand deadbeat dads will think twice before spending their children's dental insurance on guns or drugs or that new car."

Or more likely, other frivolous expenditures like "rent", "food", "electricity", "tires", and so forth.

If these deadbeat bastards are hungry, let them eat cake.

[mountaineer]

A woman abandons the family unit, absconding with the children, and it's the father who's up for punishment due to the "consequences of his irresponsibility"?

I was not aware that no father, in the history of humankind, ever abandoned his children. Thank you for that information.

[Don Joe]

"And, the ones complaining about their wives "running away" with the kids ---- tough, each guy PICKED that wife."

Um, right. Let's put the shoe on the other foot:

"And, the ones complaining about their husbands "deadbeat" business with the child support ---- tough, each gal PICKED that husband."

And then there's this:

"'Dads' should consider it the screwing they get for the screwing they got."

"'Moms' should consider it the payment they get for the payment they got."

[Don Joe]

"No state that I know of currently has a proper definition of the term 'child support' in their statutes -- most states have no statement of definition nor do they have a set of principles upon which the amount of child support is based. They have simple arbitrary formulae that have been determined politically by a central committee."

A committee that's been packed with hard core left wing doctrinaire feminists, by the way.

WRT to the "definition of the term 'child support'", it's true that it's not defined in law, but it is defined in practice.

"Child support" is a thinly veiled excuse for "reverse the charges" alimony. In real alimony, the recipient (mom) has to pay income tax on the amount she receives, and the payer (dad) is able to deduct the amount paid from his taxable income. In the fraudulent form of "alimony" that's marketed as "child support", it's tax free income to mom, as dad pays the IRS for the amount of income she receives.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the travesty that created this windfall has come as a result of hardcore political efforts from left wing feminists.

It should come as a surprise to everyone that so-called "conservatives" cheer on the insanity, like the French Knitting Team sitting in the bleachers.

[doug from upland]

Apparently, you are one of the few sane people on this thread. You don't resist arrest and shoot at an officer. That's not difficult to understand. If the law is unfair, people should work to change it.