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 That law should be repealed.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.
Well, it does look like wires. As to broadcasting the alleged fact that would not be wise as to both the cop and his employer will be sued for Wrongful Death. In short save it for use later. Once again I’m assuming the photos are genuine.
You can bet the farm on that. It was clear from the first video there had been a substantial pursuit (no cars anywhere near), and a physical altercation.
Dangling wires on a video and having taser darts embedded into your skin are two very different things.
For the cops sake he better hope there were. But again, if this were the case they would have quickly reported this and shown the world...IMO.
Perhaps into a vest.
I’m reminded of how long it took to get the facts in Ferguson. We were a long time in hearing that officer’s side of the story.
Last I heard they had not released the Slager’s report.
I think it takes too long for the facts to come out and is unfair to all parties. It allows for a lot of damage to be done by speculation and contaminates the jury pool.
“1991 mercedes worth about $3k.
Gotta problem with that?”
***********************
I know a guy that owes child support to two wifes. They both cut him slack as he was trying to get his life straightened out.
As soon as he did and got a decent job, one of the wives figured he should start paying up even faster. The judge garnished his wages and made him sell his beater car. And he can’t own a car until everything gets paid in full.
Of course he lost the job. (Okay - how does not letting him own a car help!?)
Eventually found something much closer to home and he can ride his bike or take the bus.
Agreed. One things for certain, throwing this cop in jail (with no bail) so fast put the kibosh on any “peaceful demonstrations”.
Due process is a thing of the past. So is religious freedom. Speech that is not PC as well. But cops shooting people in the back in other than exigent circumstance is still a crime one would hope. I don’t get too exercised about shooting somebody in the back. Its the circumstance that makes it criminal
.
“... 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....”
Thank you for that information.
“Conservative Treehouse says that Scott fought with the officer for over two minutes and tased the officer. If that proves to be true, it changes things significantly.”
If that is true, it will be justifiable homicide.
Ya better look closer at the facts here. From the time Scott ran from the traffic stop until the time the first shot was fired was only about 30 seconds in my estimate.
From the timelines I have seen that’s not true. There was no 2-minute long fight.
This foot pursuit from the vehicle stop to the first shot, was very short. Based on reports, I’d estimate in the 25-50 second range from the initial run from the vehicle to the first shot.
Yes, it is true that courts have always had a limited authority to order incarceration as a civil case, but only to prompt compliance with the orders of the court. That is a key distinction in determining whether a contempt charge is actually civil or criminal, as delineated in Gompers vs. Buck’s Stove & Range Co, 221 U.S. 418 (1911). For the charge to be considered a civil charge, the penalties must be remedial in nature, designed to coerce the defendant to comply with a court order. If they are punitive in nature, then it is a criminal contempt charge.
So, is incarceration for failure to pay child support remedial or punitive? The argument that it is remedial relies on the fact that it is imposed in cases where the defendant has defied a court order, namely the order to pay support. However, unlike other remedial incarcerations, these penalties don’t continue until the order is complied with. They have a set maximum term, after which the defendant is released whether they comply or not, just as in criminal contempt cases. Also, they can be applied retroactively simply for late or missed payments, even if the defendant has subsequently fulfilled his obligations by the time the contempt charge is issued. Those facts demonstrate the punitive nature of these charges, and if the charges are being used punitively, then they are rightfully termed criminal contempt charges, whether the courts call them that or not.
Come on...... even for the sake of argument, do you seriously believe this or anyone like him earns “wages”?
If he was in jail, he would be missing out on penny-anty drug dealing and petty theft.
The purpose of jailing is “punishment” remember? The goal of “punishment” is to what? Get the perp to change is bad habits, like paying his frigging child support instead of buying an old MB.
If anyone even an upstanding citizen that gave a fake ID, ran, fought the cop, grabbed cop’s taser, tased cop, then took off running again, we too would get shot. As it should be.
Exactly!
>> is incarceration for failure to pay child support remedial or punitive? <<
Depends on the facts of the case.
>> if the charges are being used punitively, then they are rightfully termed criminal contempt charges <<
No disagreement.
That may have been to sole purpose.
Once the cop is exonerated, he’ll get his job back as all the bushmeat connoisseurs will have forgotten, as they prepare for the end of “their day at the fair” when nobama goes bye-bye.
The video that was shot does not include the struggle. The guy who shot the video acknowledges the struggle and that he didn’t start the video until Scott ran.
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.