Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[RussellsEx]

"Regardless of the facts??" Are you all serious? I didn't expect sympathy at all....but this is ludicrous.

[srqrebel]

I did not say to disregard the facts.  To reframe what I said in my previous post: Someone who uses agents of force to bludgeon another into submission, cannot be trusted to give an honest and unbiased account of the facts.

[RussellsEx]

Do you not think a man has a responsibility to his children? If so, how should that responsibility be enforced, when someone abdicates?

[Tom Sawyer]

Are you all serious? I didn't expect sympathy at all....but this is ludicrous.

Please try to remember that these are posts from individuals...
No one here speaks for the "group".

I see that you have a karma of 5. That means that some people decided to give you points.

The issue at this point in time is a claim of debt, that Russell disputes and/or is unwilling to pay.

A person can walk away from debt and not go to prison... we are not suppose to have debtor's prison. In this case he can serve both state and federal time of considerable length.

[RussellsEx]

I apologize for using the word 'all'. And I had previously mentioned that many have been quite fair at least, if not kind.

Someone rightly posted on here yesterday, that child support payments are the one payment that you cannot claim on a bankruptcy...the world around us recognizes that raising children costs money. My family and Russell's were very supportive when our marriage ended. His parents helped me confront Russell. In his own words, with them as witnesses, he looked straight at me, and said, "I'm going to kill you." He had to be physically removed by his dad. Now...if he has turned over a new leaf, I am glad, and genuinely so. But it does not negate his past, nor his prior obligations.

[RussellsEx]

Also, I have no idea what 'karma' is...I surmise from your statements that I am not disliked by everyone...but my popularity was never my goal in responding here. I could not stand by (and I have been well aware of Russell's political views for some time...) and watch so many claim his innocence. He is not innocent. Obviously. And that isn't just my word against his...

[dalebert]

No, actually it's not obvious to us at all, but as DadaOrwell pointed out, it's beside the point. He doesn't belong in jail right now. You can talk legalities, but most of us see the state as a violent and intrusive entity so we're not going to pass personal judgment on him based on legalities. It's not obvious because you're still a stranger to us but we know Russell and what you've claimed flies in the face of every experience we've had with him. If you want us to accept this violent past, you've got quite a task ahead of you. If you want to convince us that he's violent even now, you've really got a challenge. You're unknown to us. That's just a fact. So we have what amounts to hearsay to compare to direct personal experience. Honestly I don't thing continuing the hearsay on this thread is going to help, not that you need to convince us. We're just the peanut gallery after all.

[RussellsEx]

You are right...it is hearsay, from your perspective. For all you know, I could be a middle-aged man who lives with his mother...or I could be telling the truth.

[RussellsEx]

I am actually saddened with you all about his imprisonment. No mother wants to see the father of her children be IN JAIL. But only Russell can correct that...and has had years of opportunity to do so....

[srqrebel]

...And that isn't just my word against his...

No, certainly not.

Those of us who have known him since you have no longer been a part of his life, have our own experiences with him to go on, in addition to his version of events.

Regarding your version of events, we do have nothing but your word to go on.

Speaking for myself, I view all manner of enforcement -- with the exception of peaceable withholding of values, or ostracism -- to be objectively criminal in nature.  In other words, the question is not "How should one's own concept of responsibility be enforced (forcibly imposed on others)?", but "What steps can one take to protect oneself against the irresponsibility of others, and if that fails, what peaceful means can be employed to mitigate the damage?".

I am hoping not to get drawn into an extended philosophical discussion here... I just think it is useful for you to have some insight into how we (or at least I) view such matters.  It simply avoids a lot of frustration.

[RussellsEx]

...And that isn't just my word against his...

No, certainly not.

Those of us who have known him since you have no longer been a part of his life, have our own experiences with him to go on, in addition to his version of events.

Regarding your version of events, we do have nothing but your word to go on.

Speaking for myself, I view all manner of enforcement -- with the exception of peaceable withholding of values, or ostracism -- to be objectively criminal in nature.  In other words, the question is not "How should one's own concept of responsibility be enforced (forcibly imposed on others)?", but "What steps can one take to protect oneself against the irresponsibility of others, and if that fails, what peaceful means can be employed to mitigate the damage?".
I am hoping not to get drawn into an extended philosophical discussion here... I just think it is useful for you to have some insight into how we (or at least I) view such matters.  It simply avoids a lot of frustration.

I would love an answer to that question...your thoughts?

[malcolm]

Speaking for myself, I view all manner of enforcement -- with the exception of peaceable withholding of values, or ostracism -- to be objectively criminal in nature.

Let's suppose I borrow money from you.  I claim it will be used to build a fast food-restaurant.  Instead of starting a business, I blow it all on hookers and cocaine (sorry for the double pun).  I also tell you that I just changed my mind on how to use the money.  I've also decided not to repay you.  What recourse should you have to recover the funds I took from you by fraud?

[kola]

what REAL right does government have when they invade and dictate  personal relationships among common people?

and what REAL right to they have to impose punishment? who the fluck are they? a posse of angry cowboys looking to settle the score for their little sister?  

The more I think about this the more I dislike the entire injustice of legal lynchmobbing of the "deadbeat dads".

A women fully knows when she has sex that she may rear children and there is a possibility the father may not stick around. The woman has a choice to say no, then and there, and not undergo the risk of daddy running off. I do not think we need hired thugs to meddle into personal lives. But as is stands now, the corrupt invasion of personal privacy by goonsquads is designed to supply a free ticket to mothers who (by the way) almost always get child custody.

I do not think this will help russells ex in anyway. She will still get nothing, nothing at all and I think its only about money and that she feels she deserves it. I have to disagree.

The only thing she gets is revenge which will later come back in return. It always does.

sorry but thats my thoughts.

Kola

[RussellsEx]

I thought thats what I was asking YOU...no one seems to have a viable answer here for an alternative.
I offered him as many alternatives as I could think of that were outside of court. I was refuted.

He wanted to make a family with me. However things went south...and I readily admit it takes two there....there are still children.  

[RussellsEx]

"A women fully knows when she has sex that she may rear children and there is a possibility the father may not stick around. The woman has a choice to say no, then and there, and not undergo the risk of daddy running off."

Both people are aware of the risks. Fathers and mothers. He had legal recourse to see the children and yet he's in NH. I didn't move.