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 That law should be repealed.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.
It was posted on this forum a couple of days ago.
I am not excusing what the cop did.
If she is a “whore” than what is he? I see a double standard expressed by you. Is it okay for men to have sex, but if a woman has sex, then she is a “whore?”
Yes, it may cost court time, but lets face it. We are already paying for the court system through our taxes. I do not want to pay taxes for a dead beat father who spreads his seed all over the place, and expects us chumps to pay for it. i don’t want to support a woman who is too stupid, irresponsible, or unsuccessfully trying to trap a man with my tax dollars.
Privitized welfare is great. Lets have the irresponsible people pay for their own bad decisions.
“Scott was executed for giving the tramp sex. “
They were married.
The reason I ask is because the cop not long after the shooting while speaking to someone over an open microphone/dashcam audio was told he would go home and take a few days to think about the incident before being interviewed. Seems to me if someone had darts implanted into them they be going to the hospital to get them removed.
Like this here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dvkJi7MJvU
bkmk
Married or not, he ran due to having a pay-up or else warrant.
That’s a bad choice of an example. That would be a criminal charge, criminal contempt of court, and the only reason I would not get a jury trial is because of the Supreme Court decision cited earlier by others on this thread that limits jury trials to criminal charges of six months of more.
Under the Constitution, without the Supreme Court’s judicial fiat altering it, I would be entitled to a jury trial for such a criminal charge.
Scott was executed for giving his wife the tramp sex. “
“Yes, they are clearly skirting the Constitution by pretending that these are civil cases, when they are clearly criminal.”
Please do a little research on contempt of court. Thank you.
I don’t know the effect of being Tased upon one’s cognitive functions. Being Tased(if true) may provide a defense -(total or partial.)
Why was the penniless man driving a Mercedes?
I think you’re the one who needs to do that research, since you don’t seem to understand that there are both civil and criminal classes of that charge.
Obviously, you have been burned by the court system.
Wear a condom next time.
I suspect if the cop had been tased they would have broadcasted that to the world as a defense the day the video went public. In addition to posting pics of his dart wounds etc.
If you have a link to this I’d like to see it.
“That’s a bad choice of an example. That would be a criminal charge, criminal contempt of court,”
Uh, you should really NOT be posting. Someone might think you know what you are saying.
One was awarded $$$ for it, the over was sentenced to decades of slavery for it. The one that gets paid is the whore, look it up.
Only one was shot it back for it, the other is alive and free (however her gravy train is dead.) Should the police support her now?
“I think you’re the one who needs to do that research, since you don’t seem to understand that there are both civil and criminal classes of that charge.”
I know. These were CIVIL contempt charges.
The whole child welfare system is set up to fail.
If you are a guy, don’t have sex with a woman you don’t plan to marry, because you will “marry” her one way or the other.
“One was awarded $$$ for it, the over was sentenced to decades of slavery for it. The one that gets paid is the whore, look it up.”
So you believe that the father has NO obligations to support his offspring?
Her gravy train just started, because she will sue the city.
I don’t know if she was married or not to him but it takes two to tango. He is a deadbeat jerk who would not support his children.
If he had done the right thing, and tried, he would not be running away from a trigger happy policeman.
I find your statements very offensive. You are basically saying that any woman who sleeps with a man, is supported by that man, married or not, is a whore. Does that include your wife, girlfriend or mother?
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.