Skip to comments.Cops: Dad ordered to pay child support kills son
Posted on 01/04/2009 1:07:37 AM PST by LibWhacker
NEW ORLEANS A man who initially told police gunmen kidnapped his 2 1/2-year-old son was arrested Saturday, accused of committing an "extremely hideous" murder because he was ordered to pay child support, Police Superintendent Warren Riley said.
Danny Platt confessed, told police where to find the child's body and will be booked on a charge of first-degree murder in the death of Ja' Shawn Powell, Riley said at a news conference.
"He had said he would kill either his wife or his child before he paid child support," which he recently had been ordered to do, Riley said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That poor little kid was destined to pay a penalty from the day he was brought into this world.
Born into a dysfunctional family, given an odd name like Ja’Shawn, deadbeat father who he never sees until the day he gets kidnapped and murdered because the deadbeat dad doesn’t want to pay to support him.
Poor kid had no chance.
Just when you thought that the world couldn’t freak you out anymore.
The young boy is in the arms of Our Lord. Hopefully, his “father” will get the death penalty.
If this idiot was so dead set against paying child support, he should have just killed himself instead.
It is absurd for government bureaucrats to insert themselves into the deeply personal, and no doubt difficult, decision that this father made. I’m sure the decision to kill his son was not made lightly. This is the kind of decision that belongs between a man, his clergyman, and his God. Government has no business trying to force citizens to conform to religious tenets.
Are you saying that it was just late, late, LATE term abortion?
Your point is well made, and sadly, true. If a woman can decide whether a child is aborted or not, whether or not she'll extort from the bio dad, etc., things like this are going to happen. I'm horrified by this.
"Women have rights; men have responsibilities". Part II of this ideology in playout over time.
Bill Cosby’s statement “I brought you into this world and I can take you out” isn’t nearly as funny as it once was.
His defense could be “practicing medicine (after-birth abortion? euthanasia?) without a license.”
Yup. What you said.
My comments on this POS are not printable!
A few days back our little town had a guy bust into his ex wife’s house and shoot her boyfriend 8 times. The shooter’s family is defending his actions because the ex wouldn’t let him see the kids. However trying to murder a man in front of his kids isn’t going to help his visitation much.
One more reason we don’t like people from Ann Arbor and Yipsilanti moving to our town.
Either hang around & try to learn something, or maybe you happened on the wrong forum.
If I may expand on Arthur's point.
...the babies in the womb who are being murdered by the millions in our country have the same sweet cute faces as those who are mourned over on MSM & your newspapers....
..the womb babies are ignored & forgotten.... marginalized...
...because you never saw them & formed an attachment like we have for Calie Anthony (rest her soul)
Life has become cheap....
..When a nation surrenders its soul to killing unborn babies...
..the nation should not be surprised when sick murders like this poor little 2-1/2 yr old happen.
Are you like a demonic energy drink or something?
Agreed! Events like this should be legal, safe and rare.
The problem here is do-gooders imposing child support. The mother has the final choice if the kid is born. With choice goes responsibility. Her getting impregnated is a separate issue. If she was impregnated against her will, she should have filed rape charges.
What did those others post? Was it removed already?
Ooops! I must have skipped over the comment the first time... What stupid, stupid comments they made.
He had the choice whether to have sex with her and take the risk that she might get pregnant. If he didn’t want to take that risk, he could have kept it in his pants. The child didn’t have a choice.
Like I said, getting impregnated is a separate issue from deciding to abort or not. If the woman did not decide to participate in the process of getting impregnated she should have filed rape charges. The decision to carry a kid to term or not, is LEGALLY only the woman's, so it is wrong to hold a man LEGALLY liable for what is not his decision.
Now if abortion on demand for lifestyle choices was not the law, then one could start to make a case for child support. It would still be a difficult case to make because the current system is a fraud with the one making the payments having no say as to how the funds are spent.
Hasn't his Leaders told him for the past 45 of so years that they'll take care of them?
Doesn't anyone remember how the masses of Black Democrat voters in New Orleans acted during Hurricane Katrina acted when told days before to get out of the city?
They never took the initiative to leave on their own,cause they were waiting on the government to come in and take care of them; like they had been promised they would! There is no self responsibility in the minds of many of our poor, because Demorat politicians have been telling them for years they will take care of them.
So is it any surprise that this man resisted a court order by some honky judge, and an innocent child died because of it?
The child is an innocent party to both the mother’s and the father’s choices (or lack thereof). The child deserves the support of both parents both financially and emotionally. The child does not deserve to die because the father was unwilling to pay for part of the cost of his upbringing. It’s not like the mother doesn’t also contribute to this.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winnah!
It is legally not both of their choices. One has veto power over the other. Forced child support is a legal issue. We are not talking about partners who have equal rights under the law. The decision to give birth is solely the decision of the female. With choice goes responsibility. Morally a father should support his children. I get it. But I am not talking morals here but the law. Rid the law of abortion on demand, prove that the father impregnated the mother, allow the father a say in how the money is spent, and we can start to talk about child support.
The decision to have sex with the female is solely the choice of the male.
Wrong. If the female is unwilling she is a rape victim. Child support has nothing to do with sex anyway. Men have been ordered to pay when a sperm bank makes a mistake. Deciding to carry a baby to term is a different decision than having sex. Get rid of abortion on demand to even the field.
When logic fails you, you turn to personal attacks. Deciding to have a baby could result is having artificial insemination. Bet you did not know that, thus the attack. You can not see that I am calling for an end to abortion on demand.
It’s obvious that the people attacking you have never been involved with divorce, child support, or child custody from the male’s side.
But then again, if you’re taking flack, you’re over the target. ;-)
I defy you to show where once I said it was moral to "plant your seed around". I will donate an extra 100 to Free Republic if you can. I know you can't because you have all ready shown yourself to be on the level of a DU'er with your personal insults, when facts and logic are over your head. The law is not our standard for moral behavior. Our personal morals are. I have said several times fathers have a moral responsibility to their children. As long as abortion on demand is the law, their legal responsibility is trumped by the womans choice. Pay attention here because I know it is hard for you, but I never said their moral responsibility was. Also as far as your snide insinuation goes, I have never ever been in a situation involving paying child support
Listen sweet pea. You are the one who was started in with the insults. If you can't discuss a difficult subject without resorting to insults, perhaps you should just crawl away from the Free Republic.
I do not buy into depriving anyone of their rights, for the children, or any other lame excuse. Morally a father should take care of his kids. Legally the responsibility goes with the choice. I do not buy the "My choice Your responsibility" thinking of the left. If they want Choice to be the law, well then responsibility has to go with it.
If that were his point, I’d agree. It sounds like the opposite to me.