Posted on 04/14/2015 11:41:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Why was Walter Scott running away from a policeman who tried to stop him for a broken taillight? The media are trying to make a South Carolina policeman's killing of a black man, Walter Scott, another sensational case of racism, but the media have missed the point of the tragedy.
The problem wasn't racism, or even dangerous driving or stolen property. It was caused by the obnoxious anti-father rulings of the family courts and Scott's fear that he would be returned to debtor's prison. Scott had already been jailed three times for failure to pay child support, and he didn't want to be sent to prison again.
Debtors' prisons were common in England in the colonial period. You can read about them in the writings of Charles Dickens, who wrote from first-hand knowledge; his own father spent time in a debtor's prison.
We kicked out British rule by the American Revolution and abolished some of its trappings, such as royalty and its titles, primogeniture and bowing to our top national official. We thought we abolished debtor's prisons even before we abolished slavery, but they continue to exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely labeled "child support."
We say "falsely" because the money collected from the poor guy usually doesn't go to his kid or her mother. It just supports the welfare-state bureaucracy.
Of course, it wasn't wise to try to outrun the policeman's gun, but this sad event should make us reevaluate the policy of repeatedly sending a penniless man to jail for failure to pay so-called child support.
These guys don't have the money to hire a defense lawyer, which they should be given when jail is the cost of losing the case.
When corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar over many years. But a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless, homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly), can't afford a lawyer, serving in our Armed Forces overseas, isn't the father or never owed the money in the first place.
The reason "child-support" debt can never be reduced by the court is the Bradley Amendment, named after a Democratic senator from New Jersey and one-time presidential candidate. That law should be repealed.
Fifteen years ago, a family court judge threw Scott in jail because he hadn't made his child support payments on time, and that meant he lost his $35,000-a-year job at a film company, "the best job (he) ever had." He then found some odd jobs but couldn't make enough money to make the support payments the government demanded.
The whole idea that a poor man is expected to support two households, including one with a child he never sees that may not even be his, is contrary to common sense and to all human experience. In too many cases, DNA investigations revealed that the poor guy is not the father of the kid for whom he is ordered to pay child support.
Scott seemed to turn a corner, but after making a couple of payments, he fell behind again and was sent back to jail. He said, "This whole time in jail, my child support is still going up."
Walter Scott's older brother, Anthony Scott, told the Charleston Post and Courier, "Everybody knows why he ran away." A bench warrant had been issued for his arrest for failure to pay enough child support.
A survey of county jails in South Carolina found that at least 1 out of every 8 incarcerated people is there for not paying so-called child support. All this imprisonment is imposed without any jury trial, due process or the benefit of a lawyer to defend the guy.
According to CUNY Law School Professor Ann Cammett, an expert on incarcerated parents who owe child support, "We have zero evidence that it works. If the goal of the child support system is to get support for children, parents can't do that if they're incarcerated."
One case on this issue went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, but it didn't produce much relief. Michael Turner of South Carolina argued that his constitutional rights had been violated because he didn't have a lawyer at his hearing, even though jail was the penalty if he lost. The Court ordered some minimal "procedural safeguards," but didn't tackle the issue of giving a father the fundamental right of due process before sending him to jail.
We hope Walter Scott's death may help some dads in the future who are unfairly treated by the family courts, not given a lawyer, denied due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
“The scumbag was buying a car, the helle with child support payments.”
It’s pretty hard getting a job to pay child support if you don’t have a car, you know.
“The scumbag also was fleeing/resisted arrest THREE times, assaulted the officer TWO times including with stun gun, and wrestled with officer on the ground.”
None of which actually justifies the police shooting him in the back when he was no longer a threat.
The officer shot a fleeing man in the BACK at a range that I would estimate was about 35 to 50 feet. NO THREAT, NO SHOOT.
You shoot to eliminate a threat; some body at that range, still running away as fast as they can does NOT CONSTITUTE A THREAT.
It's why Scott ran. He had a pay-up or else warrant.
He didn't want to go back to the cage that day.
And the failure to pay penalty fees I believe made up over half of what he owed at about 18k. He originally had paid about 7k...Then got way behind due to all the court penalties and lack of money for whatever reason.
He was never going to get out of debt.
I excerpted enough for you to understand (I hope).
'Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions,'
I really don't think that's the line conservatives should be taking, here.
Is that not why Scott was stopped?
I don’t know why he was running away, scared maybe? Irregardless the officer shot him in the back without cause or need. I don’t know what was going through the officers mind, only he does, but I’m pretty sure no department has a policy in place that says shooting a fleeing non threat in the back is a righteous shooting.
[charlesjohnson 4/10/15]
....The key part comes next, and was also cited in the recent DOJ report on the Mike Brown shooting:
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.
Read more at http://bit.ly/1Gxj7bU
“A bench warrant had been issued for his arrest for failure to pay enough child support. “
News reports (AP and others) say no warrant had been issued.
All the media and race hustlers are interested in is the color of the cop and the criminal. Not a peep when the colors are reversed, that does not fit their agenda.
You DO find some good ones.
That photo is very troubling. It’s hard to imagine anything, short of the fleeing person being armed and threatening the officer, that could justify that.
“Why is someone who the law is looking for driving around with a broken tail light?”
You might find this interesting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-details-walter-scott-michael-slager/
The cages are full of men for failure to pay $. And they don't come out of this "rehabilitated" but quite angry. Throw in biased slanted divorce laws and many of these guys get looted for decades. Hundreds of thousand have their wages garnished if they have jobs. Throw in all the court penalties for failure to pay when they won't or can't pay, and their done. Not saying they don't owe, but this system creates total financial chaos. Many times turning into very violent chaos.
Sure, I understand we call them “civil”, but we are sending people to jail over these offenses, so they are criminal offenses, no matter what we call them.
She is arguing that these stupid child support laws, with automatic jail time, is what started this bad cycle, and suggests repealing them.
Read the article.
“This is what they tried with George Zimmerman and failed.”
Zimmerman’s case was different because he fired his weapon when he was in imminent danger. This officer waited until after the danger was over, then calmly took aim and shot a man in the back who was no longer a threat. That’s certainly a situation where a good case for a homicide charge can be made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.