Skip to comments.Prison escapee Armin Christian caught in R.I. after 32 years
Posted on 05/27/2012 12:00:14 PM PDT by kiryandil
Rhode Island police have arrested a man they say escaped from a South Carolina prison on Christmas Day over 30 years ago...
...Christian had been living in Bristol. He was arrested and charged with escaping a correctional facility.
A South Carolina prisons spokesman says Christian walked away from the now defunct Piedmont Work Center near Greenville on Christmas Day in 1980.
He was sentenced to 11 months in prison in November 1980 for domestic non-payment of child support...
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Knowing that somewhere, there was a GUY who was denying our police officers, prosecuting attorneys, judges, and jailers those few extra hours that they needed to get the new pool finished, or maybe a nice vacation somewhere, or even cutting into the OT they needed to pump their pensions up to what they were making when they were actually working.
Throw the book at him. More jobs! More OT!
At least they managed to nudge it up from the original misdemeanor to "felony escaping"...
Now those parole guys will get some taxpayer vig after he gets out, too.
Watch your back, Folks.
Unless you're Barry Soetoro.
He stuck it to his own child.
I believe that is called debtor’s prison. One of the more charming legal fictions we inherited from King George and his ilk, the concept that if the Crown/State seizes a man’s meager possessions for itself and locks him up, his debtors will magically get paid.
And FWIW, despite years on unemployment, I never missed a single child support payment. (although, it is perhaps worth mentioning that baring a miracle I go into foreclosure this week)...
How do you know?
He was sentenced to 11 months in prison in November 1980 for domestic non-payment of child support...
It's doubtful he made payments while he was on the run, else they would have caught him sooner.
Once I was charged with non-payment although I have never missed a payment either.
And what of the jamoke with thirty (30!)kids paying $1.48¿?
Yes, the Founding Fathers foresaw and eagerly anticipated the day when the System could pursue guys like Armin from one end of the continent to the other, like the Screaming Harpies of the Inferno, combined with the ceaseless vigilance of Kerberos.
Well, unless you are Jon Corzine or Bill Clinton. Then, not so much.
I think the 30+ years has served justice. Of course, the fat, engorged .gov ticks don't think so...
Good for you.
If men won't raise their own children, the country will collapse trying to do it for them.
The Founders had the entire western frontier as a safety hatch for dealing with guys like this.
It's unfortunate that the .gov ticks have overrun every nook & cranny in this country, and will "just follow orders" in dealing with the transgressing serfs.
But not, of course, royalty like Corzine, Clinton or Barack "Forgery Boy" Obama...
Maybe they can thumb a ride with Michelle and Beyonce on Air Force One.
You assume a great deal.
Pretty much. Still, at some point one should stop persecuting a man for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his children.
Most of the Republicans are happily helping the oligarchs asset-strip the peasants.
The Stupid Party isn't as blatant as the Criminal Party, but they're complicit.
Stuff like this where an actual adult can't step in and say "Hey, why are we blowing taxpayer money on this penny-ante BS?" is why I blame both parties.
"Teacher says, every time an Armin gets arrested, another Javert gets his SWEET .gov pension."
Knowing that there are men like Inspector Javert protecting us from misdemeanor scum, like debtors and bread thieves, should make us all sleep better at night.
>The statute of limitations does not run if you flee the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution. The statute of limitations is the time they have to charge a defendant, not the time they have to try the case.
The right to a speedy trial is the time between the charge & the trial.
The SOL is the time they have to charge you after the original crime is committed.
If you flee to avoid, that might be a crime that lacks SOL
We Javerts have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Armin Christian and you curse the legal system. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Armin's apprehension and incarceration, while tragic, probably saved jobs. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves jobs...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me hunting down Armin Christian. You need me on the job 24/7/365, with OT & a great .gov pension.
We use words like rule of law, justice, fairness ... we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and join a Neighborhood Watch. (Of course, we'll prosecute you if you shoot a stoner Fight Club homey who's going MMA on you).
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
You are correct, speedy trial is independent of the SOL. If you steal a bicycle when you 15, they cannot charge you when you are 30. If you steal a bicycle when you are 15 and they charge you a few weeks later, but you don’t show up for trial, the clock on the SOL does not run. The delay was caused by you.
Child support is not proof of paternity. I know many young men hung with supporting someone else’s kid. In many states you only have to be married to the mother when the kid is born and the kid is yours regardless of paternity. Or the mother can accuse you of fatherhood and if you don’t fight the kid can become legally yours.
The best thing to do is eliminate all forms of child support. If a women doesn’t want a child it is within her power to never have one. Why should anyone ever have to pay for someone else’s voluntary activity?
Not supporting your child is despicable but it is something best left to families, churches, and local communities.
We adopted 2 children last Tuesday. They have the same mother but not the same father. In the 4 years that we had them in our custody, neither father or the mother paid a cent in court ordered child support.
This guy got 11 months for disobeying a court order, fleeing custody is what he will be charged with now and that's a 5 year sentence in most cases.
Your scheme won’t work because women can still vote.
So women are just another class of people who will vote themselves benefits that others are forced to pay for?
Women are nesters. If the fathers of their babies won’t do the right thing, then the women will make sure big government does. Women can’t do it by themselves.
That’s why if men won’t raise their own children, the country will collapse trying to do it for them.
Then that is a yes to my question. Have a baby and expect someone else to pay for it.
The father is responsible.
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
Ultimately the women decides whether or not to have a child. Therefore the woman is responsible. If a women cannot see to supporting her child either by working or having a supportive father of the child then she should not have a child. If she has child she cannot support than adoption or an orphanage are good options if family or church will not step up.
The last thing that should happen is that society should be forced to support her and the child or even forced to help her force the baby daddy into supporting the child.
Oh, jolly good parody.
And once more:
Your scheme wont work because women can still vote.
“The last thing that should happen is that society should be forced to support her and the child”
“or even forced to help her force the baby daddy into supporting the child.”
Huh? How do you conflate these two? This is precisely what should happen.
Every time a man has sex, there is the possibility of fathering a child.
Do you not know this, or do you just wish it weren’t so?
If a child is born, the father is just as responsible as the mother. Just as. Not more. Not less. Just. As.
And yeah, I’m tired of supporting other people’s kids. So I have no problem forcing fathers to “step up,” as you say.
Idiot man-child types who can’t accept reality — at its most molecular, chromosome-combining level — shouldn’t be having sex.
Some reading material for you, Big Government donna.
Oh, BTW - regarding "the ironclad rule of law in America".
How many years did Bill Clinton serve in prison again?
Oh, and how many years did Jon Corzine get for the MF Global thefts?
Law is for the little people, like Armin here.
It's positively Kafkaesque...
I will repeat myself: Ultimately the woman decides whether or not to have a child. Therefore the woman is responsible.
If she procreates with a worthless POS is that my problem? Should I be taxed so that the government can pursue and harass the same when he doesn’t pay up?
Any woman has the power to remain childless if she so desires. If she wishes to have children that’s her decision and I should not be enslaved to pay for it.
Repeat yourself all you want; you still make no sense.
“If she procreates...” What about if HE procreates?
If a woman is pregnant, some guy has also procreated. This is inarguable.
And any man also has the power to remain childless if he so desires. Also inarguable.
Roe v Wade.
The First Trimester: The Court held that during the first 3 months, the decision to abort must be completely left to the judgment of the pregnant woman and her doctor. The State cannot interfere with the abortion decision at all.
There is no “man” in that paragraph. FreedomNotSafety is correct.
Am I really reading this right?
You guys contend men shouldn’t have to support THEIR children because a woman could have aborted them and didn’t?
Vegas is also full of people who are mad at the casino where they rolled the dice and lost their money.
Nobody feels sorry for them.
And everybody agrees, you owe the marker.
No, I don't contend anything.
It's the LAW. "The First Trimester: The Court held that during the first 3 months, the decision to abort must be completely left to the judgment of the pregnant woman and her doctor. The State cannot interfere with the abortion decision at all." I don't see anywhere in there where Armin Christian gets a choice.
Now, one of the monkeys like you would read words into that statement in order to justify the State whipping out a gun and jamming it up Armin Christian's nose.
Me, I'm not a monkey. I just starve them...
My argument is unassailable. Of course it takes two I never said it didn’t but that doesn’t change the fact that a women is the ultimate arbiter for child bearing. Women will always be able to find sperm donors. So why do you contend that because she finds a sperm donor who is either unable or unwilling to support the child it becomes a problem for the government to solve?
“I don’t see anywhere in there where Armin Christian gets a choice.”
Why won’t either of you logicians address my primary point? He absolutely had a choice. He made the choice to have sex.
Anyone who has sex willingly is willingly fathering children.
Lobbing insults, wishing it weren’t so, and supreme court decisions won’t change that fact.
Any man can make the choice to not have sex if he doesn’t want children or isn’t willing to support them.
Once they’re here, they’re on you. And yeah, at gunpoint, if necessary.
“My argument is unassailable.”
Except the part about all of America and Western Civilization now and throughout history disagreeing with you: men must support their children.
“Women will always be able to find sperm donors.”
I think you mean women will be able to find “men who are willingly making the choice to have sex with women they’re not married to.”
“So why do you contend that because she finds a sperm donor who is either unable or unwilling to support the child it becomes a problem for the government to solve?”
Because by “the government,” you mean my tax dollars. And I’m not paying for your kid; I’d rather use the enforcement arm to make YOU pay for YOUR kid. You pay for your choice to have sex, not me.
Your contention that men have no “choice” (your word, and language of Roe v. Wade) is jaw-droppingly stupid. No choice whether to have sex? What are the stats of female-on-male rape?
I’m pretty sure there aren’t any.
Yeah, it’s all about “choice;” and he made his choice when he took her home or into the backseat or wherever.
Now he pays for it.
LOL! Lip off anonymously on an Internet forum all you want to.
I guarantee you that if you dared to speak that "truth to power" BS to the Supreme Court's enforcers, you'd be a bugsplat on their windshield.
You lose the argument, for spouting nonsense.
Because he's one of Tom Baugh's monkeys who needs to be starved.