Jump to content
Paulding.com

Two babies dead....


Recommended Posts

I think the answer is actually pretty simple. We could choose, as a society, to make available broad access to free child care but society, instead, has chosen to assert that all people must be responsible and, unless they have the personal resources to pay for such care, the individual has no choice but to be responsible with irresponsibility being the penalty this person will face.

 

The underlying reason is that the cost of providing freely available daycare to all mothers would be comparatively enormous compared to the livees of the dozens of children who will die due to such tragedies and the smaller allocation of resources to devoted to locking up and punishing those who will prove to be predictably irresponsible.

 

I will say that by popularizing a more communal form of living, the Israeli's have through their kibbutz forms of social organization, solved this issue at a much smaller cost to their society. Unfortunately, the very idea of a communal community with its socialist forms, is contrary to the divide and conquer attitudes of American conservatism and are a non-starter.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the face palm emoticon?

 

 

Did you read the news story? I fail to see how free daycare would have saved these children. The mother allegedly murdered them. Don't politicize the murder of these innocent children!

Edited by icare
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the face palm emoticon?

 

 

Did you read the news story? I fail to see how free daycare would have saved these children. The mother allegedly murdered them. Don't politicize the murder of these innocent children!

 

Exactly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, what I read is that she left the kids and they ended up possibly gassing themselves with the stove because they were unsupervised. Quite possibly the three year old turned on the stove - I'm assuming a bad pilot light - but was able to leave the vicinity and survive.

 

Maybe I misread the story but how do you kill a child with a stove ... I don't think she cooked them for dinner.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, what I read is that she left the kids and they ended up possibly gassing themselves with the stove because they were unsupervised. Quite possibly the three year old turned on the stove - I'm assuming a bad pilot light - but was able to leave the vicinity and survive.

 

Maybe I misread the story but how do you kill a child with a stove ... I don't think she cooked them for dinner.

 

pubby

 

I read that she said she left them with her cousin....neighbors said they believe she was lying that she left them home alone frequently. I haven't read anything about gassing or faulty pilot light. Autopsy is being conducted but there were burns on their bodies. There's a Dad as well...where does he play into all of this? Still don't think free daycare would have helped these poor children. If you can't afford babies...don't have them. And, don't start with the free birth control crap either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the mother might have been suffering from postpartum from the 1 yr old and killed the 2 children that required the most care. She couldn't handle having to care for them herself and she had a mental breakdown and killed them.

 

She should have sought help or let the father be more involved. She might have been a control freak and decided she didn't want help from the father because she birthed the kids and they were hers. I wouldn't doubt that she believed she would receive an outpouring of sympathy resulting in money being given for herself and the surviving 3 year old. It's hard to believe but through advocacy for family law reform you see many unfathomable situations. She definitely shouldn't have had babies she couldn't care for.

Subsidized/free daycare often times just enables the alienation of the father. Contrary to popular belief, most fathers are not abusive and mothers are no less frequently abusive.

 

Any gooberment daycare assistance would likely come from Social Security. We often complain that Social Security is going belly up but most people don't know a damn thing about Social Security Act Title IV-D and Title V-E which allows states to siphon money from Social Security using children. That money usually goes to politicians and special interests with very little benefiting children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daycare is not the answer.

 

There are plenty of women, black and white, popping out babies they don't want/can't take care of.

 

What I'm seeing in the white community is baby after baby from women addicted to drugs, especially meth. We can't sterilize them and we can't force them to take birth control. What do we do? They're all on welfare and food stamps and selling their food stamps for drugs. Babies are being born defective. The foster system is in overload. Dfacs cant keep up. What can we do?

 

I have no answers but I know drugs are ruining an entire generation.

 

Put the blame where it belongs.

 

 

 

.

Edited by lowrider
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Daycare is not the answer.

 

There are plenty of women, black and white, popping out babies they don't want/can't take care of.

 

What I'm seeing in the white community is baby after baby from women addicted to drugs, especially meth. We can't sterilize them and we can't force them to take birth control. What do we do? They're all on welfare and food stamps and selling their food stamps for drugs. Babies are being born defective. The foster system is in overload. Dfacs cant keep up. What can we do?

 

I have no answers but I know drugs are ruining an entire generation.

 

Put the blame where it belongs.

 

 

 

.

 

 

It's all about the money, I think!

 

Police actually like drugs because it gives them assess to the money. Police corruption is shown at it's worse in this video.

 

 

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about the money, I think!

 

Police actually like drugs because it gives them assess to the money. Police corruption is shown at it's worse in this video.

 

 

It's about money but out the blame on the drug cartels.

 

South America and Afghanistan are our major suppliers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's all about the money, I think!

 

Police actually like drugs because it gives them assess to the money. Police corruption is shown at it's worse in this video.

 

 

 

 

Please just go away with all of your BS! Everything that is wrong in this world is Trump's fault or the policeman's fault! This "system" has been broken for a long time! Kids are neglected, abused, and dying every day. Let's focus on that!

Edited by icare
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Main Menu

The New York Times

Search

SUBSCRIBELOG INU.S.

 

Mexican Drug Dealers Turning U.S. Towns Into Major Depots

By TIM GOLDEN

NOVEMBER 16, 2002

This sturdy town in the Appalachian foothills likes to call itself ''the carpet capital of the world,'' and its industry has thrived over the last decade as thousands of Mexican immigrants have flocked to jobs in the mills.

 

More recently, though, federal and local law enforcement officials say the same pipeline of immigration and trade has been exploited by Mexican drug traffickers, who have helped turn this corner of northwestern Georgia into a busy distribution center for methamphetamine and other drugs.

 

In Dalton and surrounding areas, drug arrests have steadily risen since the late 1990's, police officials said. Gang-related violence has become common. Outside the police headquarters, a fenced-in lot is perpetually filled with cars, most of them impounded from people suspected of being in the drug trade.

 

''We keep arresting people and seizing drugs, but they just keep coming,'' said Chief James D. Chadwick of the Dalton police. ''We're in a boat with a big hole. We can keep bailing, but the hole's still there.''

 

 

Dalton is by no means alone. From Alaska to South Carolina, law enforcement officials said, Mexican traffickers have taken advantage of spreading Mexican immigration and freer North American trade to establish themselves as the dominant wholesale suppliers of illegal drugs across much of the United States.

 

The officials said the shift, in which the Mexicans have both displaced other traffickers and opened new markets themselves, has meant a steadily more efficient flow of drugs into the United States, even as border controls have tightened since Sept. 11.

 

For the traffickers, places like Dalton are often excellent sites to do business, close to growing rural markets and within easy highway access of big cities -- in Dalton's case, Atlanta, Chattanooga and Charlotte, among others. The towns offer the cover of hard-working immigrants and a pool of potential recruits among the out of luck and unemployed.

 

By establishing new distribution hubs far inside the United States, the traffickers are also posing new problems for undermanned rural police forces and for federal agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration that have long concentrated their resources in border cities.

 

Traffickers from Mexico have long sold marijuana and heroin in American cities, particularly in the West and Southwest. Since the late 1980's, officials said, they have also contracted with drug producers in Colombia and elsewhere to smuggle most of the cocaine that enters the United States.

 

But in the last decade, according to government officials and a series of reports on drug surveillance, Mexican traffickers have come to control considerably more of the United States' illegal drug supply.

 

 

They have improved the quality and increased the output of Mexican heroin and marijuana. They have negotiated to receive more cocaine from South American producers as in-kind payment for the loads they smuggle into the United States. They pioneered the large-scale production of methamphetamine, the United States' fastest-growing illegal drug, and they have scrambled to start producing other synthetic drugs like MDMA, or ecstasy.

 

''They have certainly emerged as the major wholesalers throughout the country,'' said Michael T. Horn, director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, a Justice Department agency that analyzes drug trafficking in the United States. ''Their influence is moving aggressively eastward, and they are very aggressive about getting into parts of the drug trade that transcend their traditional involvement in marijuana and heroin.''

 

Although it is impossible to determine how much of the drug trade Mexicans control, federal prosecutions point to their growing role. From 1994 to 2000, the number of Mexican citizens jailed in the United States on federal drug-trafficking charges nearly doubled, to 8,752 from 4,394.

 

Like the legitimate businessmen energized by the loosening of North American trade, the traffickers have sought new economies of scale, taken advantage of the freer movement of Mexican trucking into the United States and even shifted some production closer to consumers.

 

In Hawaii, drug intelligence officials said, Mexican distributors have now overtaken Asian organized-crime groups as the primary suppliers of crystal methamphetamine, or ''ice,'' which is the islands' most serious drug problem.

 

In the Central Valley of California, Mexican methamphetamine producers have built scores of so-called super labs that turn out 10 or 20 times the amount of drugs that biker gangs and other traffickers historically produced, federal reports show. Elsewhere in the state, Mexican traffickers have begun growing marijuana in national forests.

 

 

From bases on the West Coast, officials said, the Mexican traffickers have moved across the Northwest and Midwest, hiding among fruit pickers in Washington, resort workers in Colorado and construction workers in Minnesota.

 

Like the Los Angeles street gangs that helped spread crack in the late 1980's, Mexican traffickers have followed Interstate highways to the Southeast, feeding a surge in methamphetamine use in states like Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee. They have also built bases in New York, Florida and other former strongholds of Colombian dealers.

 

So far, the Mexican traffickers' growing role in wholesale distribution in the United States has been accomplished with relatively little violence, officials said. In part, they said, that is a consequence of the breakup of Colombian cocaine cartels and the Colombians' focus on more profitable markets in Europe.

 

In many areas, officials said, Mexican traffickers have worked cooperatively with Colombian and Dominican traffickers, offering drugs on credit and helping to launder the profits. In other instances, the Mexicans have carved out sales turf by underselling Dominicans, Nigerians and American-born traffickers.

 

Mexican traffickers have also become more efficient, drug intelligence officials said. By smuggling large numbers of smaller drug loads across the border and around the United States in the process known as shotgunning, they have lowered the risk and thereby reduced transportation costs. By moving their distribution hubs away from the border, to the areas around cities like Atlanta and Chicago, they have kept drug supplies and prices more stable.

 

''The southwest border isn't along the Rio Grande anymore,'' said W. Michael Furgason, the special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Atlanta office. ''It's in Atlanta and North Carolina and Chicago and even Yonkers and New Rochelle.''

Edited by lowrider
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the mother might have been suffering from postpartum from the 1 yr old and killed the 2 children that required the most care. She couldn't handle having to care for them herself and she had a mental breakdown and killed them.

 

She should have sought help or let the father be more involved. She might have been a control freak and decided she didn't want help from the father because she birthed the kids and they were hers. I wouldn't doubt that she believed she would receive an outpouring of sympathy resulting in money being given for herself and the surviving 3 year old. It's hard to believe but through advocacy for family law reform you see many unfathomable situations. She definitely shouldn't have had babies she couldn't care for.

 

Subsidized/free daycare often times just enables the alienation of the father. Contrary to popular belief, most fathers are not abusive and mothers are no less frequently abusive.

 

Any gooberment daycare assistance would likely come from Social Security. We often complain that Social Security is going belly up but most people don't know a damn thing about Social Security Act Title IV-D and Title V-E which allows states to siphon money from Social Security using children. That money usually goes to politicians and special interests with very little benefiting children.

 

Wouldn't necessarily disagree with much of what you said but the suggestion was that day care to provide relief from the burdens of parenting - particularly necessary for single parent households - is an expedient act that had it been taken might have saved the lives of those two children.

 

Drugs, abusive parenting, small minds and limited resources are a prescription for disaster. If everyone were responsible, that alone would mitigate a great deal of the problem but that simply is not the case. Still, even with the challenges, responsible people need to be responsible and figure strategies to mitigate the issues.

 

If there is malfeasance - I'd be interested in your documentation regarding the issues with SSA in this regard - then it needs to be rooted out and exposed.

 

I think the central point of your crusade is trying to change the attitudes towards fathers and more equitable treatment by the family courts. Postpartem depression is a medical condition and, while that may or may not be a factor, it begs the question of the adequacy of the health care the mother was receiving.

 

Ultimately, though, I believe that lamenting the situation but failing to try and address any of the problems is being irresponsible. It is societies problem whether we like it or not. I'm of the opinion that the current solution; punishing the individual, is inadequate as it fails to address the obvious underlying issues ranging from mental health, public health and assistance.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving children alone and unguarded is a terrible thing for mothers to do. But, sometimes it is necessary. The most loving animals, in the world, have to leave their children alone and unguarded sometimes. Human beings are loving animals to their children.

 

With that said, there are rare cases where mothers cook and eat their children.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving children alone and unguarded is a terrible thing for mothers to do. But, sometimes it is necessary. The most loving animals, in the world, have to leave their children alone and unguarded sometimes. Human beings are loving animals to their children.With that said, there are rare cases where mothers cook and eat their children.

 

Disgusting! There is never a circumstance where a mother or anyone should leave children alone and unguarded! Especially a 1, 2, and 3 year old...And, I'm not even sure where that last comment came from. Just stop!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I did not read all the posts. But if neighbors know she left the children alone frequently - why did it go unreported? If it was reported; why were those babies still in the home. I continue to be amazed at the children who die even after the state has been alerted. I know this personally from years ago. Why why why does it continue?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I did not read all the posts. But if neighbors know she left the children alone frequently - why did it go unreported? If it was reported; why were those babies still in the home. I continue to be amazed at the children who die even after the state has been alerted. I know this personally from years ago. Why why why does it continue?

 

 

Exactly, MissSophie!

 

There are people who love children and do not want anything to happen to them, but they love them in a way that requires no responsibility on their own behalf. If a single mother does not have the money to pay a babysitter, she has to do the best she can to provide for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, MissSophie!

 

There are people who love children and do not want anything to happen to them, but they love them in a way that requires no responsibility on their own behalf. If a single mother does not have the money to pay a babysitter, she has to do the best she can to provide for them.

 

When are you going to get it through your thick head it's not about a babysitter or daycare.

The bitch wasn't working, she went out partying. Her neighbors said she left them alone lots of times to party.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When are you going to get it through your thick head it's not about a babysitter or daycare.

The bitch wasn't working, she went out partying. Her neighbors said she left them alone lots of times to party.

 

 

I see what you mean, Lo! I apologize for not paying enough attention to the subject to see that. But, I still believe she did not kill her children. She certainly was not a good mother. And, yes the bitch should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you mean, Lo! I apologize for not paying enough attention to the subject to see that. But, I still believe she did not kill her children. She certainly was not a good mother. And, yes the bitch should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

She killed her children. In the stove. She's mentally ill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She killed her children. In the stove. She's mentally ill.

 

 

OK, I'm way behind on this story, Lo! I just can't get into mental illness, I guess. Why do so many people get involved in a story about mental illness without making that illness clear enough for people to see what it is?

 

MissSophie was the first person to get my attention. She knew what she was talking about.

 

I'm sorry, Lo! As dumb as I seem to be I still love you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She killed her children. In the stove. She's mentally ill.

 

And, mental illness is another story....why in the hell would her mother and sister allow her to keep these children alone if they knew she was mentally ill?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, mental illness is another story....why in the hell would her mother and sister allow her to keep these children alone if they knew she was mentally ill?

That was my exact thought. The grandmother is on TV crying saying she's been troubled all her life, she was a difficult child. Why didn't they take the children?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my exact thought. The grandmother is on TV crying saying she's been troubled all her life, she was a difficult child. Why didn't they take the children?

 

Yes! I have zero tolerance when it comes to child abuse! Stop it now!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the mother might have been suffering from postpartum from the 1 yr old and killed the 2 children that required the most care. She couldn't handle having to care for them herself and she had a mental breakdown and killed them.

 

She should have sought help or let the father be more involved. She might have been a control freak and decided she didn't want help from the father because she birthed the kids and they were hers. I wouldn't doubt that she believed she would receive an outpouring of sympathy resulting in money being given for herself and the surviving 3 year old. It's hard to believe but through advocacy for family law reform you see many unfathomable situations. She definitely shouldn't have had babies she couldn't care for.

 

Subsidized/free daycare often times just enables the alienation of the father. Contrary to popular belief, most fathers are not abusive and mothers are no less frequently abusive.

 

Any gooberment daycare assistance would likely come from Social Security. We often complain that Social Security is going belly up but most people don't know a damn thing about Social Security Act Title IV-D and Title V-E which allows states to siphon money from Social Security using children. That money usually goes to politicians and special interests with very little benefiting children.

Given the statistics, it's more likely that the father didn't want to be involved. And the welfare system is responsible for the high numbers of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, what I read is that she left the kids and they ended up possibly gassing themselves with the stove because they were unsupervised. Quite possibly the three year old turned on the stove - I'm assuming a bad pilot light - but was able to leave the vicinity and survive.

 

Maybe I misread the story but how do you kill a child with a stove ... I don't think she cooked them for dinner.

 

pubby

Actually she put those 2 babies in the oven and turned it on and burned them to death....

According to an arrest warrant obtained by Channel 2 Action News, Williams is accused of killing two of her children "by placing them in an oven and turning it on."

ORIGINAL STORY:

Two young children were found dead at an apartment complex, police tell Channel 2's Steve Gehlbach.

After questioning mother Lamora Williams, 24, police have charged her with two counts of murder.

Williams told police she came home to find two of her children dead inside their Oakland City West End apartment in Atlanta around 11 p.m. Friday.

She told police she left the children around 12 p.m. Friday, but in the care of a female cousin.

However, from the start, neighbors told Gehlbach they thought she lied about what happened, claiming that the mother had left the children home alone before.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, what I read is that she left the kids and they ended up possibly gassing themselves with the stove because they were unsupervised. Quite possibly the three year old turned on the stove - I'm assuming a bad pilot light - but was able to leave the vicinity and survive.

 

Maybe I misread the story but how do you kill a child with a stove ... I don't think she cooked them for dinner.

 

pubby

yes you misread story.... or did not have the rest of the story either way she did put those babies in the oven and turn it on... it was on the news this evening....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wouldn't necessarily disagree with much of what you said but the suggestion was that day care to provide relief from the burdens of parenting - particularly necessary for single parent households - is an expedient act that had it been taken might have saved the lives of those two children.

 

Drugs, abusive parenting, small minds and limited resources are a prescription for disaster. If everyone were responsible, that alone would mitigate a great deal of the problem but that simply is not the case. Still, even with the challenges, responsible people need to be responsible and figure strategies to mitigate the issues.

 

If there is malfeasance - I'd be interested in your documentation regarding the issues with SSA in this regard - then it needs to be rooted out and exposed.

 

I think the central point of your crusade is trying to change the attitudes towards fathers and more equitable treatment by the family courts. Postpartem depression is a medical condition and, while that may or may not be a factor, it begs the question of the adequacy of the health care the mother was receiving.

 

Ultimately, though, I believe that lamenting the situation but failing to try and address any of the problems is being irresponsible. It is societies problem whether we like it or not. I'm of the opinion that the current solution; punishing the individual, is inadequate as it fails to address the obvious underlying issues ranging from mental health, public health and assistance.

 

pubby

The family should have helped with day care if that was the issue (which it was not) why should some have free day care to go out and party ect..... i worked when my kids were little and paid for it.... this woman was bat sh** crazy nothing was gonna save those babies, except them being taken out of the home period. and the family should have done that. the woman was probably already getting a butt load of free stuff... she was their mother it was HER responsibility to take care of those kids, father in picture or not, SHE WAS THEIR MOTHER or learn to keep her da** legs closed.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...