Michigan governor signs 48-month welfare limit

[The_Dude 1,142]

Or better yet, instead of trolling my thread you could always start your own.

And who says who is criminals? The court system? The same useless civil servants who tell everyone to take the deal?

Really?

You don't like our laws of this country, feel free to move to Somalia, or I'm sure you could move to Ukraine. The laws are determined to protect the real citizens of this country. I don't know why you insist on sticking up for those people who are determined to undermine America.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

First one must define "domestic abuse".... as it is now, nearly anything puts a man (and sometimes women) into the category you mentioned.

In fact I think within this new legislation there is a loop-hole for "victims of domestic violence" .... which no doubt will wind some poor saps "in the system" so the "victim" can keep on collecting long past the 48 month period.

I would say the system is pretty much broken when a guy gets a DV for telling is wife to take a fckng hike. Then of course said guy is guilty of a DV according to our wonderful court system so the poor sap has to go to months of counselling while paying for it to help keep some dead beats in a job.

Really?

You don't like our laws of this country, feel free to move to Somalia, or I'm sure you could move to Ukraine. The laws are determined to protect the real citizens of this country. I don't know why you insist on sticking up for those people who are determined to undermine America.

The laws are changing...maybe not in California but they are here. So again you can find another thread to troll.

[The_Dude 1,142]

First one must define "domestic abuse".... as it is now, nearly anything puts a man (and sometimes women) into the category you mentioned.

In fact I think within this new legislation there is a loop-hole for "victims of domestic violence" .... which no doubt will wind some poor saps "in the system" so the "victim" can keep on collecting long past the 48 month period.

A guy who hits his wife is a piece of trash, period. Do we really need to sub-catagorize them according to their offense?

I would say the system is pretty much broken when a guy gets a DV for telling is wife to take a fckng hike. Then of course said guy is guilty of a DV according to our wonderful court system so the poor sap has to go to months of counselling while paying for it to help keep some dead beats in a job.

The laws are changing...maybe not in California but they are here. So again you can find another thread to troll.

I don't see how you are accusing me of trolling. I have made no inflamatory statements, and have simply stated my opinion. You seem to accuse anyone with a differing opinion of trolling. You should check out some troll websites to familiarize yourself with what is and is not trolling. With your attempts to insult me because of my employer, it is in fact you who is attempting to troll.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Master Baiter

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

A guy who hits his wife is a piece of trash, period. Do we really need to sub-catagorize them according to their offense?

I don't see how you are accusing me of trolling. I have made no inflamatory statements, and have simply stated my opinion. You seem to accuse anyone with a differing opinion of trolling. You should check out some troll websites to familiarize yourself with what is and is not trolling.

"Hits his wife"? lol? Apparently you don't have a clue about DV's. Nobody has to hit anyone. A guy can get a DV for telling his wife to take a fcking hike. No physical contact whatsoever.

And yes you are a troll. You started it with your first post on this thread trying to get a rise out of slim.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Why_Me

[slim 1,530]

I know someone who is collecting unemployment, but is able to work. She just has not been able to find a job in her field, or any field for a rate that is acceptable to her.

Evidence of what's wrong with unemployment figures. It's not that jobs are not available, it's that jobs that people want aren't available.

Slimonomics would dictate unemployment benefits only be good for about a month.

Because it is inhuman and depraved to just shoot all criminals in the head.

Locking them up is much better.

It's so that they can keep the un-american criminals in line. To protect the real americans, those that pay taxes and respect the laws of this country.

You know what's funny? I was paying taxes even while involved in the criminal justice system. I guess I'm an un-american real american.

While were at it we could fix the broken system that's set up to keep dead beats in a civil job aka court system and being paid on the tax payers dime.

I agree. There's no reason we need thousands and thousands of employees in the court system. Cut police completely, have a judge or two, and everything else is handled by citizens.

[The_Dude 1,142]

"Hits his wife"? lol? Apparently you don't have a clue about DV's. Nobody has to hit anyone. A guy can get a DV for telling his wife to take a fcking hike. No physical contact whatsoever.

And yes you are a troll. You started it with your first post on this thread trying to get a rise out of slim.

No, I wasn't trying to get a rise out of anyone. Domestic violence requires more than just telling your wife to take a hike, you are being absurd. There must be a credible threat of violence, or perceived threat of violence. If you said "Get the hell out, or i'm going to beat you" then yes, that does constitute domestic violence.

[slim 1,530]

No, I wasn't trying to get a rise out of anyone. Domestic violence requires more than just telling your wife to take a hike, you are being absurd. There must be a credible threat of violence, or perceived threat of violence. If you said "Get the hell out, or i'm going to beat you" then yes, that does constitute domestic violence.

For someone who works "with" law enforcement, you certainly are clueless as to how the justice system works.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

No, I wasn't trying to get a rise out of anyone. Domestic violence requires more than just telling your wife to take a hike, you are being absurd. There must be a credible threat of violence, or perceived threat of violence. If you said "Get the hell out, or i'm going to beat you" then yes, that does constitute domestic violence.

Again start your own thread on Domestic violence. This thread is about welfare reform in Michigan.

It's pretty obvious you don't have a clue about DV's to begin with. When you finally land in the real world of the criminal justice system come back and post about it by starting your own thread.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Why_Me

[The_Dude 1,142]

Evidence of what's wrong with unemployment figures. It's not that jobs are not available, it's that jobs that people want aren't available.

Slimonomics would dictate unemployment benefits only be good for about a month.

No, that is what is wrong with our unemployment system. It incentivizes you to hold out for a job rather than take something lesser for now. I like the Canadian model, where you will receive supplemental unemployment payments if you find a job that pays less than your previous job.

Locking them up is much better.

That is a matter of opinion.

You know what's funny? I was paying taxes even while involved in the criminal justice system. I guess I'm an un-american real american.

Thats good, a step in the right direction. It is my belief that you should also reimburse the taxpayers for what you have cost them to prosecute and incarcerate.

I agree. There's no reason we need thousands and thousands of employees in the court system. Cut police completely, have a judge or two, and everything else is handled by citizens.

It's a good thing that a vast majority of people in this country don't agree with your position. You are starting to sound more and more like those 'Sovereign Citizen' types.

For someone who works "with" law enforcement, you certainly are clueless as to how the justice system works.

Slim, I think our public records would dispute that. But yes, that is a good distinction, I am not a sworn officer, I am an analyst.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

For someone who works "with" law enforcement, you certainly are clueless as to how the justice system works.

I read somewhere that cops and wannabee cops have the highest turn over rate in the US in regards to wives and girlfriends. For some reason a lot of them can't seem to handle a relationship. They even went as far in that article to say that a high percentage of cops liked to beat on their domestic partners. I wonder why that is?

My guess is it has something to do with them getting punked for their lunch money when they were kids.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Why_Me

[The_Dude 1,142]

I read somewhere that cops and wannabee cops have the highest turn over rate in the US in regards to wives and girlfriends. For some reason a lot of them can't seem to handle a relationship. They even went as far in that article to say that a high percentage of cops liked to beat on their domestic partners. I wonder why that is?

My guess is it has something to do with them getting punked for their lunch money when they were kids.

Obvious troll is obvious. If you ever get back on topic and quit trying to troll, I'd love to discuss it. But you seem to only be interested in sad attempts to troll, and defending wife beaters.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://www.purpleberets.org/violence_police_families.html

Domestic Violence in Police Families

Officer Curt Lubiszewski is not an anomaly. Hundreds of women, partners of police officers, are beaten every year. Just this April, Crystal Brame was killed by her estranged husband, the police chief of Tacoma, Washington. Here are some facts on cops as batterers.

Domestic violence is 2 to 4 times more common in police families than in the general population. In two separate studies, 40% of police officers self-report that they have used violence against their domestic partners within the last year. In the general population, it's estimated that domestic violence occurs in about 10% of families.

In a nationwide survey of 123 police departments, 45% had no specific policy for dealing with officer-involved domestic violence.

In that same survey, the most common discipline imposed for a sustained allegation of domestic violence was counseling. Only 19% of departments indicated that officers would be terminated after a second sustained allegation of domestic violence.

In San Diego, a national model in domestic violence prosecution, the City Attorney typically prosecutes 92% of referred domestic violence cases, but only 42% of cases where the batterer is a cop.

Special Problems for Victims

Her batterer always has a gun (often many guns and other weapons) and is trained to use it.

He knows how to inflict pain and leave no marks or bruises.

He's trained to intimidate by his presence alone, and to use his body as a weapon.

He lets her know he has the power to harm or kill her and get away with it, or have others do it for him.

How can she call the police? He is the police!

He tells her that if she does call police, the officers (his colleagues and friends) will believe him and not her ... and he's right.

He often threatens that if she reports to police he'll lose his job, and if that happens, she's dead.

He has access to surveillance tools like phone taps, police scanners, vehicle tracking devices, and audio and video recording equipment to stalk or monitor the victim's activities.

The batterer or his fellow officers will often "patrol" the victim's house, work place, children's school or daycare center.

Friends, family and service providers are afraid of the batterer and thus afraid to get involved.

Domestic violence advocates may share her information with the police. (Other than Purple Berets and Women's Justice Center, all domestic violence advocates in Sonoma County work for either the police or district attorney's office.)

He knows the location of battered women's shelters.

He knows the court system, often testifies in court, and knows district attorneys, judges and bailiffs personally.

Jurors assume police officers would not lie in court.

If Your Batterer is a Cop

Even more than other battered women, when you decide to leave or prosecute you need to move strategically and get good advice from the outset.

Find an advocate who is independent from police agencies and experienced in working with police officer violence.

Make a comprehensive safety plan: put money aside he doesn't know about, identify where you can flee with your children, etc. Domestic violence shelters can help you with this anonymously.

While the tendency is to take "baby steps" so as not to enrage him, once you make your move, the more power you can muster, the more likely you can stand up to the power you'll be up against. Report to police or district attorney, get a restraining order and report to his police agency all at once.

If police and DAs are unresponsive, go to the press.

Contact Purple Berets for "Police Domestic Violence: A Handbook for Victims."

(This information was gathered from the National Center for Women and Policing, Life Span, and Abuse of Power.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Why_Me

[slim 1,530]

No, that is what is wrong with our unemployment system. It incentivizes you to hold out for a job rather than take something lesser for now. I like the Canadian model, where you will receive supplemental unemployment payments if you find a job that pays less than your previous job.

Exactly why Slimonomics would fix the problem.

You'd get your full pay rate for a week. 75% the next. 50% the week after. 25% your last week on unemployment. After that, you better have a job. If you don't, that's not our problem.

That is a matter of opinion.

My opinion on the matter is violent criminals (rape, robbery, murder, etc.) should be shot in the act or hung from the nearest tree after a jury trial by their peers. Everyone else should be dealt with by the community and locking someone up is about the worst form of punishment since it not only denies the liberties of those locked up but forces the jailors to deny liberty and as such, society as a whole must deny liberty.

And we wonder why it's been so easy to make liberty scarce!

Thats good, a step in the right direction. It is my belief that you should also reimburse the taxpayers for what you have cost them to prosecute and incarcerate.

I've already done so.

You keep acting like there's more money I need to pay back. I've done everything they've told me to do. Paid back all the money they've required. The problem is the system held me for so long and required so much in order to "make me pay" for my crime.

I'll agree with you. It was a waste on both sides.

I don't know if you realize it or not, but you're actually making a case for decreasing the size of the justice system and I'm fully with you on that one. We require so much to prosecute a crime - even petty crimes - in the name of feeling better or safer or something like that when what we should be doing is handling the crime in our neighborhoods all by ourselves.

You're going to accuse me of vigilante justice but that's not where I'm going. What I'm saying is we don't even know our neighbors anymore yet we pay armed men to patrol our streets and deny liberty to those who are accused of disrupting our quiet anonymity. If we'd simply take back our own communities, help our neighbors and hold them responsible for their actions - while expecting the same for ourselves - then we wouldn't need to pay others to handle it for us.

That's truly where our money's going. And it's not because of the criminals... it's because of us.

It's a good thing that a vast majority of people in this country don't agree with your position. You are starting to sound more and more like those 'Sovereign Citizen' types.

It's absolutely horrible that someone would want to be free and independent of everyone else. Horrible. How dare they.

See above. You've already made it acceptable... as long as you're doing it like everyone else.

Slim, I think our public records would dispute that. But yes, that is a good distinction, I am not a sworn officer, I am an analyst.

If you were to delve into public records you'd notice that quite a few DVs lack any physical contact.

While I understand a threat of violence is sufficient for a conviction, it's amazing the amount of evidence acceptable in most jurisdictions. "He said he was going to hit me."

[^_^ 5,021]

I know my neighbors.

[slim 1,530]

I know my neighbors.

I'd be willing to wager you live in a relatively low crime area.