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 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...