Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

BigKotex, a stopped clock is more frequently right than you. And by stopped clock I mean an unplugged LED clock.

I am sure your fellow Idiot's are all appreciative of their fellow Turdfly offering a high five to the Idiot Klan's, errr Clan's daily 'talking points'.

Carry on, Private No Class, Turdfly!

Meanwhile, just keep on a buzzin'.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

He is as regular as clockwork!

If you were more "regular," you wouldn't be so full of shit.

Have you "shat" in your diapers today? I'll notify the attendant, if you wish.

[Jackie S]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/...eat/ar-AAbkZsj

This is pretty much to the point I was trying to make in my original post.

The system has evolved to where it is akin to the old Debtors Prisons of old.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/...eat/ar-AAbkZsj

"He lost what he called “the best job I ever had” when he spent two weeks in jail. Some years he paid. More recently, he had not. Two years ago, when his debt reached nearly $8,000 and he missed a court date, a warrant was issued for his arrest. By last month, the amount had more than doubled, to just over $18,000." [Quote from the article, a portion of which came from Scott.]

Do you see a "problem" with these two "concepts"..?

“the best job I ever had” vs. in two years arrears increased $10,000.

"Child support" is not "a debt" ... ITS supporting your children.

I can't remember, but did you claim selling illegal cigarettes was ok?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"He lost what he called “the best job I ever had” when he spent two weeks in jail. Some years he paid. More recently, he had not. Two years ago, when his debt reached nearly $8,000 and he missed a court date, a warrant was issued for his arrest. By last month, the amount had more than doubled, to just over $18,000." [Quote from the article, a portion of which came from Scott.]

Do you see a "problem" with these two "concepts"..?

“the best job I ever had” vs. in two years arrears increased $10,000.

"Child support" is not "a debt" ... ITS supporting your children.

I can't remember, but did you claim selling illegal cigarettes was ok?

No, I did not claim that selling illegal smokes was OK, I just said that these cities pass all of the ordinances against so many things that far to many people end up with multitudes of arrest, and are basically career criminals by the time you add them all up.

I don't have an answer to the problem. Every City in the Country is inundated with these sub cultures that live on the fringe, not much different than the very activity that this Web Site represents. Basically, every one of us who frequent Hookers and Hookers who see us are criminals. Get busted more than twice, and you are in the same criminal league as the Dude selling illegal smokes on the sidewalk.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"He lost what he called “the best job I ever had” when he spent two weeks in jail. Some years he paid. More recently, he had not. Two years ago, when his debt reached nearly $8,000 and he missed a court date, a warrant was issued for his arrest. By last month, the amount had more than doubled, to just over $18,000." [Quote from the article, a portion of which came from Scott.]

Do you see a "problem" with these two "concepts"..?

“the best job I ever had” vs. in two years arrears increased $10,000.

"Child support" is not "a debt" ... ITS supporting your children.

I can't remember, but did you claim selling illegal cigarettes was ok?

You are on a hooker board you dumbass POS!
Feel free to get caught twice blowing your wad on a 19 year old and then get your whiny old ass choked out by mma police. See if that doesn't change your mind.
At least you'll be doing everyone else a favor by not posting on here anymore.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"He lost what he called “the best job I ever had” when he spent two weeks in jail. Some years he paid. More recently, he had not. Two years ago, when his debt reached nearly $8,000 and he missed a court date, a warrant was issued for his arrest. By last month, the amount had more than doubled, to just over $18,000." [Quote from the article, a portion of which came from Scott.]

Do you see a "problem" with these two "concepts"..?

“the best job I ever had” vs. in two years arrears increased $10,000.

"Child support" is not "a debt" ... ITS supporting your children.

I can't remember, but did you claim selling illegal cigarettes was ok?

How is it impossible that his debt increased $10k in two years? If his child support was $500 a month, two missed years would be $12k. You act like it's impossible. Supporting your children or not, it's still a debt.

[Freedom42]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/...eat/ar-AAbkZsj

This is pretty much to the point I was trying to make in my original post.

The system has evolved to where it is akin to the old Debtors Prisons of old.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"He lost what he called “the best job I ever had” when he spent two weeks in jail. Some years he paid. More recently, he had not. Two years ago, when his debt reached nearly $8,000 and he missed a court date, a warrant was issued for his arrest. By last month, the amount had more than doubled, to just over $18,000." [Quote from the article, a portion of which came from Scott.]

Do you see a "problem" with these two "concepts"..?

“the best job I ever had” vs. in two years arrears increased $10,000.

"Child support" is not "a debt" ... ITS supporting your children.

I can't remember, but did you claim selling illegal cigarettes was ok?

Not sure what point either of you is trying to make. Reasonable, rational people will agree with the following two statements
1) an arrest warrant does not give LE the license to "shoot on sight".
2) an arrest warrant does not give the offender the right to run away from LE with impunity.


With the above in mind, was Scott caught in a downward spiral? Probably


Was it Scott's fault? Partially, probably less and less as he was on the downward spiral without the support around him to help him get off and not being able to do it by himself.


Was the system at fault? Partially, once again big government tried to prescribe everything with good intentions and ended up in hell. A rule that was put in place against deadbeat dads is bring used often against men with marginal income and that is just enough to top tha balance against them and everyone involved suffers.


The solution, and now everyone is going to be against me, get the government out of our personal life, bedroom, Dr. Office, education, and pocket book (including welfare to individuals). Feel free to added to the list, this is just a start.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

The solution, and now everyone is going to be against me, get the government out of our personal life, bedroom, Dr. Office, education, and pocket book (including welfare to individuals). Feel free to added to the list, this is just a start.

I'm not against you on this.


+1

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

How is it impossible that his debt increased $10k in two years? If his child support was $500 a month, two missed years would be $12k. You act like it's impossible. Supporting your children or not, it's still a debt.

You can't be serious. But thanks for proving my point.

In 2 years with “the best job I ever had” and he only paid $2,000, if that much.

Where did you read he was only paying $500 a month?

Child support is not considered a "debt" ... so talking shit about "debtor's prison" is hysteria at its finest. But that's your MO.

For instance: Debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy. Child support is not.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

A rule that was put in place against deadbeat dads is bring used often against men with marginal income and that is just enough to top tha balance against them and everyone involved suffers.

#1: Females are ordered to pay child support.
#2: Since you call them "deadbeat" ... then use Webster's #1 definition.

It is reported that the reason why Scott had a warrant is because he failed to show up for Court. He apparently knew (or thought he had a warrant), which is why he ran. You want to "argue" the "system" and not hold Scott responsible for being RESPONSIBLE. As was reported he said, he had the best job of his life and wasn't paying child support like he was ordered to pay.

So you want to shift the responsible of not only raising kids to the mother, but also supporting them 100%....90%?......85%?......75 %? ... how much?

Because Daddy doesn't want to support them?

As the line on this board is often repeated: YOU PLAY, YOU PAY.

Your "plan"..????

"get the government out of our personal life, bedroom, Dr. Office, education, and pocket book (including welfare to individuals)".....

Who is going to support the kids? If Daddy can't get a job, you think Mom can?

[Yssup Rider]

Faggot.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Faggot.

Are you outing yourself?

Or are you name calling, because you think "MEN" shouldn't be REQUIRED to pay child support. ....

Go figure. You want the females to do all the "bread winning" and wear the pants in the family...while the "MEN" run around making more babies?

[Freedom42]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

#1: Females are ordered to pay child support.
#2: Since you call them "deadbeat" ... then use Webster's #1 definition.

Where did I say that Females are not ordered to pay child support?


No, no, no, you shouldn't highlights half my statement to try and make a point. The part about "with marginal income" is kind of important to the point I was making. If you want to make a different point go ahead, but please don't attribute it to me.

It is reported that the reason why Scott had a warrant is because he failed to show up for Court. He apparently knew (or thought he had a warrant), which is why he ran. You want to "argue" the "system" and not hold Scott responsible for being RESPONSIBLE. As was reported he said, he had the best job of his life and wasn't paying child support like he was ordered to pay.

where did I say that he wasn't responsible. I specifically said the opposite.
"2) an arrest warrant does not give the offender the right to run away from LE with impunity. "


You also have to admit that the failure to show up for court was a direct result of him missing child support payments, which was a direct result of him being in jail for missing child support payments so there is a downward spiral.


While I agree with you that child support is not debt, sending someone with marginal income to jail for failing to do so is not an effective solution.

So you want to shift the responsible of not only raising kids to the mother, but also supporting them 100%....90%?......85%?......75 %? ... how much?

where did I say that?

Because Daddy doesn't want to support them?

what does this has anything to do with what I said

As the line on this board is often repeated: YOU PLAY, YOU PAY.

Your "plan"..????

"get the government out of our personal life, bedroom, Dr. Office, education, and pocket book (including welfare to individuals)".....

Who is going to support the kids? If Daddy can't get a job, you think Mom can?

so are you recommending pure communism (to each according to thier needs from each according to thier abilities)?


Sending someone to jail for failing to provide to thier kids when they have marginal income is NOT working (in practice or in theory). BTW, if you believe in this so much why not implement this for married Couples, or are you saying that as long as there is a marriage it is OK if the kids don't get thier share. More so, even in case when there is child support and it is paid, there is NOTHING to enforce or even require that the money will go towards the child welfare.


I have stated before, the intent is noble, the implementation is where it fails and if you let the government do it, this is the only outcome you can expect.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

...rational people will agree with the following two statements
1) an arrest warrant does not give LE the license to "shoot on sight".
2) an arrest warrant does not give the offender the right to run away from LE with impunity.

.

In this case. #1 didn't happen. #2. did. Rational people can agree on that!

Can we move on now?