Good For Wisconsin

DS1119

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/wis ... ban-647901

Hugh Freaking Dillon

and how is this enforced? permanent condom installation? and what would the penalty be if he got another woman pregnant? seems kinda like a dumb sentence to me.

DS1119

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

and how is this enforced? permanent condom installation? and what would the penalty be if he got another woman pregnant? seems kinda like a dumb sentence to me.

I'm sure if he gets a woman pregnant his probabtion is revoked and he goes to prison. Much like when other stipulations of probation are violated.

blackredyellow

Dumb question, but is failure to pay child support a criminal or civil issue? I mean, can you a person be sent to prison for not paying?

I really don't want the government into reproductive matters, but there really isn't an effective way to curb this. Sending deadbeats to prison in theory keeps them from reproducing, but it probably costs more to tax payers than just paying for their kids.

I know there is that shot that women can take every 3 months for birth control, they need a men's version of that as well, and I'd be ok with that measure as part of a probation sentence for dads or mothers with crazy numbers of kids who can't support them.

DS1119

blackredyellow wrote:

Dumb question, but is failure to pay child support a criminal or civil issue? I mean, can you a person be sent to prison for not paying?

I really don't want the government into reproductive matters, but there really isn't an effective way to curb this. Sending deadbeats to prison in theory keeps them from reproducing, but it probably costs more to tax payers than just paying for their kids.

I know there is that shot that women can take every 3 months for birth control, they need a men's version of that as well, and I'd be ok with that measure as part of a probation sentence for dads or mothers with crazy numbers of kids who can't support them.

Since he was given probabtion I would assume it's a criminal offense.

hedonist

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

and how is this enforced? permanent condom installation? and what would the penalty be if he got another woman pregnant? seems kinda like a dumb sentence to me.

Holy hell, how difficult is it to wrap your shit when getting down to business?

I wonder about the enforcement too. Why is this guy even ON probation? Fucking over your children is not a petty crime...or is it actually considered such these days?

(and fer fuck's sake - no pun intended - women who are going to get it on with Mr. Curtis, do your part as well!)

pandora

hedonist wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

and how is this enforced? permanent condom installation? and what would the penalty be if he got another woman pregnant? seems kinda like a dumb sentence to me.

Holy hell, how difficult is it to wrap your shit when getting down to business?

I wonder about the enforcement too. Why is this guy even ON probation? Fucking over your children is not a petty crime...or is it actually considered such these days?

(and fer fuck's sake - no pun intended - women who are going to get it on with Mr. Curtis, do your part as well!)

I wanted to say this a bit ago ... it takes two to tango

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Dumb question, but is failure to pay child support a criminal or civil issue? I mean, can you a person be sent to prison for not paying?

I really don't want the government into reproductive matters, but there really isn't an effective way to curb this. Sending deadbeats to prison in theory keeps them from reproducing, but it probably costs more to tax payers than just paying for their kids.

I know there is that shot that women can take every 3 months for birth control, they need a men's version of that as well, and I'd be ok with that measure as part of a probation sentence for dads or mothers with crazy numbers of kids who can't support them.

Since he was given probabtion I would assume it's a criminal offense.

I'm pretty sure it's a criminal offense too because failure to abide by an order of support becomes a contempt of court.

JOEJOEJOE

If you knock-up nine, you gotta draw the line!

hedonist

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

If you knock-up nine, you gotta draw the line!

Nice one :P

JOEJOEJOE

hedonist wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

If you knock-up nine, you gotta draw the line!

Nice one :P

thanks!

Go Beavers

DS1119 wrote:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/wis ... ban-647901

Kinda surprised none of the anti-big government people have spoken up. It seems like dangerous territory to me.

DS1119

Go Beavers wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/wis ... ban-647901

Kinda surprised none of the anti-big government people have spoken up. It seems like dangerous territory to me.

To me it sounds like minimal government interaction. :? Doesnt impregnate a woman he stays out of jail...if he does the big hand of government comes crashing down.

Go Beavers

DS1119 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/wis ... ban-647901

Kinda surprised none of the anti-big government people have spoken up. It seems like dangerous territory to me.

To me it sounds like minimal government interaction. :? Doesnt impregnate a woman he stays out of jail...if he does the big hand of government comes crashing down.

But the government deciding who can and can't have a child is a pretty big interaction.

DS1119

Go Beavers wrote:

But the government deciding who can and can't have a child is a pretty big interaction.

Isn't it a bigger interaction if he were in prison instead of probation? Everyday in prison his life is mandated by correction officers and while in prison definitely couldn't have a child unless he performed some medical miracle with a male inmate.

hedonist

Go Beavers wrote:

But the government deciding who can and can't have a child is a pretty big interaction.

I agree and want to know, so now what?

There are irresponsible people on both sides of creating the child - excuse me, the children - all nine of them.

(holy shit)

I really have no idea how this could/should etc. be handled, made better for the next to follow this idiot's path...because I think there's a sad long line of them.

Reminds me of Octomom, in a way.

:think:

I dub this one...Nanodad.

DS1119

hedonist wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

But the government deciding who can and can't have a child is a pretty big interaction.

I agree and want to know, so now what?

There are irresponsible people on both sides of creating the child - excuse me, the children - all nine of them.

(holy shit)

I really have no idea how this could/should etc. be handled, made better for the next to follow this idiot's path...because I think there's a sad long line of them.

Reminds me of Octomom, in a way.

:think:

I dub this one...Nanodad.

I believe the judge is trying his best to nip it in the bud. He's got 9 kids and isn't supporting them. So then where does the responsibility fall at that point? It falls on the women and/or John Q Taxpayer. Why allow this guy to keep having children when he's already proven multiple times he can't or won't support the ones he has?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I don't know. regardless of the circumstances, seems like infringing on a pretty basic human right to say you can't procreate, no?

DS1119

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I don't know. regardless of the circumstances, seems like infringing on a pretty basic human right to say you can't procreate, no?

I guess the judge could have just thrown him in prison. Same result but actually less rights for this jerkoff and more taxpayer money spent. Yes/no?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I don't know. regardless of the circumstances, seems like infringing on a pretty basic human right to say you can't procreate, no?

I guess the judge could have just thrown him in prison. Same result but actually less rights for this jerkoff and more taxpayer money spent. Yes/no?

I can honestly say I don't have an answer for how this should be handled. I mean, throwing a guy in jail for not paying child support, so as you mentioned, the tax payer now pays for his living expenses? that makes no sense. but how can you take away a person's natural human right? I mean, of all the natural things we as humans do, that's in the top 5. How can you force someone to abstain, legally?

DS1119

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I don't know. regardless of the circumstances, seems like infringing on a pretty basic human right to say you can't procreate, no?

I guess the judge could have just thrown him in prison. Same result but actually less rights for this jerkoff and more taxpayer money spent. Yes/no?

I can honestly say I don't have an answer for how this should be handled. I mean, throwing a guy in jail for not paying child support, so as you mentioned, the tax payer now pays for his living expenses? that makes no sense. but how can you take away a person's natural human right? I mean, of all the natural things we as humans do, that's in the top 5. How can you force someone to abstain, legally?

What about the rights of the 9 children he fathered and chooses not to support? What about the 6 mothers? Tax payers rights? Why allow him to create more issues when it's obvious he either can't or won't handle his "rights"? I liken it to a credit card situation. The banks will give you a credit card but will cut you off when you stop paying. No more credit cards for that person.

Bottom line is the guy is not holding up to his end of his responsibility as a father....legally. I honestly think the judge is cutting him a break by allowing the plea bargain down to probation with this stipulation...as I'm sure there are other stips as well. I would have thrown his ass in prison personally. Takne away all of his rights at that point.

Go Beavers

DS1119 wrote:

What about the rights of the 9 children he fathered and chooses not to support? What about the 6 mothers? Tax payers rights? Why allow him to create more issues when it's obvious he either can't or won't handle his "rights"? I liken it to a credit card situation. The banks will give you a credit card but will cut you off when you stop paying. No more credit cards for that person.

Bottom line is the guy is not holding up to his end of his responsibility as a father....legally. I honestly think the judge is cutting him a break by allowing the plea bargain down to probation with this stipulation...as I'm sure there are other stips as well. I would have thrown his ass in prison personally. Takne away all of his rights at that point.

The original story is referring to him going to jail if he has another kid, that's separate from going to jail for not paying support. It's a huge deal for the government to say you can't have a child because you're irresponsible. If you think about applying it to different situations, it starts looking ugly really fast.

DS1119

Go Beavers wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

What about the rights of the 9 children he fathered and chooses not to support? What about the 6 mothers? Tax payers rights? Why allow him to create more issues when it's obvious he either can't or won't handle his "rights"? I liken it to a credit card situation. The banks will give you a credit card but will cut you off when you stop paying. No more credit cards for that person.

Bottom line is the guy is not holding up to his end of his responsibility as a father....legally. I honestly think the judge is cutting him a break by allowing the plea bargain down to probation with this stipulation...as I'm sure there are other stips as well. I would have thrown his ass in prison personally. Takne away all of his rights at that point.

The original story is referring to him going to jail if he has another kid, that's separate from going to jail for not paying support. It's a huge deal for the government to say you can't have a child because you're irresponsible. If you think about applying it to different situations, it starts looking ugly really fast.

I don't see it as that way at all. Since he's proved he can't handle the responsibility of the 9 children he has already why allow him for more? No different than a convicted drug addict or someone who has repeated alcohol offenses having to submit to blood tests as a stipulation of their probations.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Go Beavers wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

What about the rights of the 9 children he fathered and chooses not to support? What about the 6 mothers? Tax payers rights? Why allow him to create more issues when it's obvious he either can't or won't handle his "rights"? I liken it to a credit card situation. The banks will give you a credit card but will cut you off when you stop paying. No more credit cards for that person.

Bottom line is the guy is not holding up to his end of his responsibility as a father....legally. I honestly think the judge is cutting him a break by allowing the plea bargain down to probation with this stipulation...as I'm sure there are other stips as well. I would have thrown his ass in prison personally. Takne away all of his rights at that point.

The original story is referring to him going to jail if he has another kid, that's separate from going to jail for not paying support. It's a huge deal for the government to say you can't have a child because you're irresponsible. If you think about applying it to different situations, it starts looking ugly really fast.

this