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 That law should be repealed.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.
He said (to the Cop, before he ran) that he just bought the Mercedes which was why he didn’t have paperwork.
Maybe he should have paid up his support obligations before getting a Mercedes, even if used.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...
Note the second word: "all". The Supreme Court has decided that "all" does not mean what everyone thinks it means.
Would Tasing the cop effect his shooting of the suspect? Anybody know the effect of tasing on mental condition?
Gotta problem with that?
Pulls it, fires it into a perp thinking it's his taser.
The lifes of many are now forever affected and the tax-paying citizens will pay a steep price for making this guy a deputy.
Why is someone behind on child support when he is rolling in a Mercedes Benz with $8000.00 worth of 22" rims?
“Child support is slavery of men to the woman, and black men seem the most to have had the chains put on by these Islamic like civil family courts and initiated by the woman, black women the most often.
He was shot for not giving enough $$$ to the woman who gets it for having sex.”
BUMP to the doggone TOP!
The scumbag was buying a car, the helle with child support payments. The scumbag also was fleeing/resisted arrest THREE times, assaulted the officer TWO times including with stun gun, and wrestled with officer on the ground. The officer protected citizens from a dangerous, fleeing felon.
Fellas, Dont Date Women Who Have Put Other Men On Child Support! #TJPSA(vid link)
I understand the guy might’ve been an irresponsible father. No doubt.
Still, the 33 year old cop could have caught the guy. Shooting him was ridiculous.
Tennessee vs garner...the officer has legality on his side.
I really don’t give a good damn what the Supreme Court says, the language in the Constitution is plain as day, and the Supreme Court has zero constitutional authority to change it.
There’s no evidence of this... it’s the South Carolina equivalent of ‘hands up don’t shoot’ or any words ever spoken by Crystal Magnum in NC.
“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. “
This article is so full of errors ...
“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. “
This person did not read the Bradley amendment ...
Actually, Tennessee vs. Garner weighs heavily against the officer in this case. Unless he can show there was probable cause to believe that the suspect was going to cause death or serious injury to the officer (impossible, as the suspect was unarmed and running away) or others (pretty much impossible as well I suspect), then Tennessee vs. Garner says the officer had no authority to shoot.
LOL
“The fact is, imprisoning these men on a judge’s order alone is simply unconstitutional. If the offense he committed deserves jail time, then it is a criminal matter, whether we call it that or not, and we are guaranteed a trial by jury for all criminal offenses under the 6th amendment.”
These are civil adjudications, not criminal
Debtor Prison? Give us a f’ing break. Failure to pay “Court Ordered” child support means the perp is in contempt of court and he is in-effect stealing State money that you and me have to instead pay to raise his damn kids.
The law and all that is moral says you are obligated to support your children. Unless you also fall into that “non-support” class, why would any honorable citizen be against even forcing a person to support his children? Is that some part of the libertarian mantra?
Regardless of why the perp ran away. Its already established he gave the cop a false ID, had no proof of ownership of a Mercedez Benz, fought the cop mid way between the car and the shooting and in all likelihood had gotten the cop’s taser and shot the cop with it.
Once those things have occurred, the police are then charged with STOPPING the perp by any and all force necessary, which is exactly what the cop did.
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.