Disaster Brawl breaks out in courtroom as woman is jailed for killing baby - Is calling this chimping out racist?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...eaks-courtroom-woman-jailed-killing-baby.html

Brawl breaks out in courtroom as woman is jailed for killing baby
By Associated Press and Dailymail.com Reporter 23:59 EST 23 Nov 2018, updated 02:00 EST 24 Nov 2018

A brawl broke out in a packed Milwaukee courtroom Wednesday after a former daycare owner was sentenced in the death of a seven-week-old baby.

The fight erupted Wednesday shortly after 37-year-old Claudette Mitchell was led away in handcuffs after being sentenced to 3.5 years in prison.

Mitchell was charged in the death of Savaiyah Reid, who was fatally injured at her daycare in August 2017.

Originally charged with first-degree reckless homicide, Mitchell pleaded guilty in September to neglecting a child, resulting in death.

This is the moment a brawl breaks out inside a Milwaukee courtroom between about 50 people

The shocking incident happened Wednesday after a former daycare owner was sentenced in the death of a seven-week-old baby

Law enforcement officials are seen intervening during the brawl
In court, Mitchell said she did not cause the baby’s injuries but feels responsible.

She said in a court statement: 'I can't express how sad I am for this tragedy.'

After sentencing, an altercation broke out involving about 50 members of the defendant’s and victim’s families and friends.

Claudette Mitchell (pictured) was led away in handcuffs after being sentenced. Mitchell was charged in the death of Savaiyah Reid, who was fatally injured at her daycare in August 2017
The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department says additional deputies and DA investigators were called to restore order.

The department said: 'An emotional homicide case involving the death of a two-month-old child resulted in a post-sentencing altercation between about 50 members of the defendant’s and victim’s families and friends.

'Additional security was in place due to prior contentious hearings, but the defendant’s side did not comply with deputies’ orders to remain in the courtroom while the victim’s family was being escorted out.'

The altercation involved about 50 members of the defendant’s and victim’s families and friends

The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department said additional deputies and DA investigators were called to restore order

 

[RadicalCentrist]

partners

I was sympathetic until the overuse of the term "partner," a red flag for faggotry.

 

[Ruin]

Ah yes, those dumb bitches just shouldn't get pregnant if they don't want to go back to work 2 days after giving birth.

I've personally been laid of from my awesome-benefits job during the last 2 months of a pregnancy. I know personally half a dozen other women who've gotten laid off while pregnant.

There's also a well-known phenomenon where men treat women very nicely, right up until they get pregnant, and then the abuse or cheating rolls out, with the message communicated clearly: now that you can't get out very easily, welcome to your life.

Of course, other men just abandon and vanish -- you could collect child support, but not for ages, so good luck getting it when the baby's born fast enough to take a bit of leave. From personal experience, most women can tell you that abusers and cheaters don't start out that way. They treat you awesomely until they've got you right where they want you.

When there's no maternity leave, what's really happening is that women are being told they must stay with their abuser, and that if he's cheating on you flagrantly and bringing home STDs, well, you've now got to balance that kind of future dad for your kid with the fact that you desperately want to be able to stay home long enough to make a medical recovery. Once the kid's born, abusers will have other ways to keep their hooks in (like telling their victim that they'll harm the children if they ever split up).

When the UK moved to a new system that delays benefits money, it's led to a spike in domestic violence because women cannot get out and get the "bridging" money they need without spending weeks or months homeless.

Most women who are going back to work days after birthing a child did not know, 9 months before, that this would be the scenario they were lined up for. Huge numbers of women are abandoned by partners, abused by partners, cheated on by partners during pregnancy, fired from jobs with benefits (this is an especially horrifying one because many jobs make you work 12+ months to be eligible for those benefits, so even if you're both highly skilled and can hide your pregnancy during the interview process, you can't just find another job that offers them).

If birth was something that happened the day after conception, maybe these points about how these women should have thought things through before reproducing would make sense. But 9 months is a long fucking time. Long enough for relationships to change to the point of unrecognizability, long enough to spend down hard-won savings.

This is a really long drawn out way to say "men suck."

 

[break these cuffs]

This is a really long drawn out way to say "men suck."

Women have no agency and men are awful, the foundations of modern feminism

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

In literally every political issue, people suck. You have to plan all political systems based on the idea that some people will suck in them and abuse the system. You have to assume some people will cheat at welfare, so you have to check up on their finances and have a process to investigate deeper if someone suspects something is wrong. You have to assume some parents suck and will harm their kids, so you have to have a CPS department to make sure there's some way to stop that from happening. You have to assume some people are assholes who will literally feed bears in national parks, and have a plan to deal with that.

So yeah, I think we should probably plan for some fathers being assholes and "noping" out of parenthood and/or otherwise fucking over their partners while they're most vulnerable from a biological standpoint. It's not even a particular "men suck" thing, it's that you shouldn't have anything in the law where the only way to avoid becoming destitute or ill is "magically know with 100% confidence that your partner and job don't suck, and that nothing can happen to you whatsoever that will wipe out your savings in the next year."

 

[Ineedahero]

It isn't that poor people fuck up. It's that they fuck up with no safety net. Well, besides the rest of society... and we just kick it back to them with some bullshit like EBT or whatever. Fucking not IT, bitch. No take backs

Ok then, why do poor people have to live without a safety net? If they weren't born into poverty they would be fine. Why do the middle and upper classes get to make all the mistakes they like while the poor just get stuck with it? Because it's not fair that you had to work?

The kid IS totally innocent. Which is why I am mega pissed.

As for the parents. Clearly their fault. Tab A. Slot B. They did it and that's what started this mess. Pretty difficult to track this problem of a child to back before conception.

I'm not trying to track it back any further, I just want to know why the kid deserves to suffer for its parents mistakes.

I never said it was. I made it a point to specifically say that they are exactly like us.

You also accused me of reaching my position through moral judgement, and of bringing identity politics into it when I did no such thing. I don't even know how to respond to your fire juggling on the roof scenario - if you actually read what I wrote instead of launching into a selection of your favourite rants about the evil poor, you would see that I said this attitude pervades society regardless of class race or iq. Stop trying to put words in my mouth and argue against what I am actually saying.

Don't have kids then.

That's it? Poor people shouldn't have kids and if they do fuck all of them? Even the kid?

How many people in this thread would be ok with a license to get married?

 

[JohnDoe]

That's it? Poor people shouldn't have kids and if they do fuck all of them? Even the kid?

How many people in this thread would be ok with a license to get married?

I'm of the opinion that we need to develop artificial wombs as soon as possible so we can have a future of genetically perfect homosexual Aryan ubermen and leave all this drama behind us.

 

[Caesare]

We should pay people to be sterilized, maybe pay more if they're on welfare.

This was actually one of David Duke's ideas when he was running for governor. Not full sterilization but for those birth control rods they insert into your upper arm. I think it's a pretty neat idea: to incentivize the poorest, least educated segment of society to not have more children that they can't afford.

I would like something like this paired with policy that makes it easier for stable, intelligent people to have larger families.

 

[Girl Interrupted]

This was actually one of David Duke's ideas when he was running for governor. Not full sterilization but for those birth control rods they insert into your upper arm. I think it's a pretty neat idea: to incentivize the poorest, least educated segment of society to not have more children that they can't afford.

I would like something like this paired with policy that makes it easier for stable, intelligent people to have larger families.

Bizarrely there is an established "paid sterilisation" scheme based in the US, it's trans continental as far as I'm aware, with one case being in Leicestershire (uk).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3ow6QuzW9ISynu7nRRs7WP
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjALegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3NPIYlmSxAm8INbK4BpU3s



I've never quoted (a) source(s) here before so chances are I'll fuck it up somehow.

 

[drtoboggan]

Bizarrely there is an established "paid sterilisation" scheme based in the US, it's trans continental as far as I'm aware, with one case being in Leicestershire (uk).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3ow6QuzW9ISynu7nRRs7WP
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjALegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3NPIYlmSxAm8INbK4BpU3s



I've never quoted (a) source(s) here before so chances are I'll fuck it up somehow.

I'd sign up. I don't want kids.

 

[Marvin]

So yeah, I think we should probably plan for some fathers being assholes and "noping" out of parenthood and/or otherwise fucking over their partners while they're most vulnerable from a biological standpoint. It's not even a particular "men suck" thing, it's that you shouldn't have anything in the law where the only way to avoid becoming destitute or ill is "magically know with 100% confidence that your partner and job don't suck, and that nothing can happen to you whatsoever that will wipe out your savings in the next year."

There's child support and marriage.

That's it? Poor people shouldn't have kids and if they do fuck all of them? Even the kid?

Poor people shouldn't have kids, no.

Generally, I think culturally we should start shaming single mothers and deadbeat dads a lot more aggressively than we do right now. I think people should be married, or rely on family support or community support, in that order. (Or skip all that and get an abortion.) I think government support should be the absolute last resort. People should be looked down on for relying on government for what is ultimately a very conscious decision and a very serious decision, considering that they're creating a new human being that society will be responsible for on some level.

Of course lots of effort should be put into making that choice more conscious with sex ed, abortion, contraceptives.

But once they made that choice, they need to be held accountable.

 

[Ineedahero]

There's child support and marriage.

Poor people shouldn't have kids, no.

Generally, I think culturally we should start shaming single mothers and deadbeat dads a lot more aggressively than we do right now. I think people should be married, or rely on family support or community support, in that order. (Or skip all that and get an abortion.) I think government support should be the absolute last resort. People should be looked down on for relying on government for what is ultimately a very conscious decision and a very serious decision, considering that they're creating a new human being that society will be responsible for on some level.

Of course lots of effort should be put into making that choice more conscious with sex ed, abortion, contraceptives.

But once they made that choice, they need to be held accountable.

I still see that as punishing the kid for the sins of the parents. I guess this is the conservative - progressive divide I mentioned. I see the continuum of existence as varying degrees of suffering, and our job as humans is to push the misery back as best we can. Yes that means con artists can perpetrate scams, but to me the fundamental principle is not to punish the innocent. Not that I'm saying you want to punish the innocent or increase suffering or anything, I'm just trying to work out why I feel the way I do.

 

[Karl Franz]

Ok then, why do poor people have to live without a safety net? If they weren't born into poverty they would be fine. Why do the middle and upper classes get to make all the mistakes they like while the poor just get stuck with it? Because it's not fair that you had to work?

Because somebody pays for them. Wanna pay for some dumb fuck kids? Go ahead, make a charity. But fuck off with the laws for the rest of us.

I'm not trying to track it back any further, I just want to know why the kid deserves to suffer for its parents mistakes.

Then you should ask the kid's parents.

 

[Ineedahero]

Because somebody pays for them. Wanna pay for some dumb fuck kids? Go ahead, make a charity. But fuck off with the laws for the rest of us.

Then you should ask the kid's parents.

What law am I forcing down your throat?

And 'ask their parents' why they have to suffer? What does that even fucking mean? If you want to say 'I don't give a shit about those kids, they are not in my family' just say it, it's no skin off my back and it would be a lot better than 5 pages of me asking 'why does a kid have to suffer for the sins of its parents' and nobody answering.

 

[Cheesegirl78]

We should pay people to be sterilized, maybe pay more if they're on welfare.

That was tried a while back for welfare recipients.
You could get something like $300 if you got long-term BC, and you could get a lot more if you got tubal ligation or a vasectomy.
But the SJWs got involved and claimed it was akin to eugenics, and some dummies sued claiming they didn't realize getting your tubes tied was permanent.
So the states stopped the program.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

This conversation has strayed so far past maternity leave debate. Would a year of reduced pay maternity leave ( a lot of countries only do 80% or so) REALLY save a child from the effects of poverty? Who's going to watch them after that period? A lot of Europe doesn't even give full pay for more than a few months or so. From the info I've seen, maternity leave is clearly not for the poor.

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

Well, you wouldn't get 7 week olds at daycare, which was why the topic was brought up in the first place. Care workers are much better equipped to deal with the social, emotional, and physical needs of a 6 month old than a 6 week old.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

lol, at a place like that it probably wouldn't matter if they were 7 weeks or 7 years.

 

[GS 281]

how does a website based on laughing at people who shit their pants and get mad have so many people posting in off-topic sections who shit their pants and get mad?

Settle down, pls.

 

[Karl Franz]

What law am I forcing down your throat

Paid maternity leaves.

And 'ask their parents' why they have to suffer? What does that even fucking mean?

It means nobody but their parents is responsible for their suffering, and nobody else should be forced to pay for them. Of course I dont want kids to suffer, but paid maternity leaves only exacerbate the problem by leaving kids to be raised by dumb parents and incentivizing making irresponsible decisions.

 

[Computery Guy]

There's child support and marriage.

Poor people shouldn't have kids, no.

Generally, I think culturally we should start shaming single mothers and deadbeat dads a lot more aggressively than we do right now. I think people should be married, or rely on family support or community support, in that order. (Or skip all that and get an abortion.) I think government support should be the absolute last resort. People should be looked down on for relying on government for what is ultimately a very conscious decision and a very serious decision, considering that they're creating a new human being that society will be responsible for on some level.

Of course lots of effort should be put into making that choice more conscious with sex ed, abortion, contraceptives.

But once they made that choice, they need to be held accountable.

I don't necessarily disagree with your base point, but why do specifically "single mothers" need to be shamed? Not every single mother fucked a deadbeat, sometimes their husbands just die, or circumstances change 5, 6 years down the line and a divorce happens.

Are you saying they should just accept the first ring some rando shows them, no matter how miserable it may make them?