And yet more proof for the "law of diminishing returns"...

From the Associated Press, via the Detroit News Online (http://www.detnews.com/):

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090103/NATION/901030440/1020

Titled: "Cops: Dad ordered to pay child support kills son"

Does Mr. Platt REALLY thinks killing his son absolves him of his responsibilities? Obviously, he'll get his comeupptance in the ole' pokey, but still...

I hope not only does he have to undergo a criminal trial, but also a civil trial, in which he'd be ordered to pay all of the remaining child support owed between now and the time the child would have turned 18 (or graduated High School, whichever is later), PLUS interest, PLUS punitive damages, PLUS any other additional judgements that a jury may find appropriate to the case.

Furthermore, from the article: "'He had said he would kill either his wife or his child before he paid child support,' which he recently had been ordered to do, [Police Superintendent Warren] Riley said."

You have got to be kidding me?

They didn't arrest him for this threat? (That DOES constitute assault. Assault is threatening to hurt or kill someone, battery is the actual act of hurting someone, which is often mistaken by the general public.)

At the very least help the ex-wife and child with assumed identities (under the Witness Protection Act)?

Seems to me that if it is proven that Mr. Riley and his subordinates knew PRIOUR to the fact that he had issued this threat (and the article does not make clear when they knew of the threat, if it was before the murder or in the process of investigating a supposed "kidnapping" turned murder case), that THEY also would be liable for civil damages in a court of law. Remember, ladies and gentlemen, a civil trial has a lot lower burden of proof than a criminal one does. Remember that O[renthal] J[ames] Simpson beat the criminal charges but NOT the civil ones levied by the Goldman and Brown families. It's not "beyond any reasonable doubt" as in a criminal trial, just merely that the jury finds you responsible, whether or not there is even a smidgen of "reasonable doubt."

What? Is New Orléans known as "The Big Easy" because it's so laissez-faire that no one seriously considers a threat, to be, well, a threat?

::Sighs::

As the title for this blog post, suggests, quod etra demonstrata.