Good For Wisconsin

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