Toddler Abused, Slain And Cremated to get welfare money

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
With no welfare benefits or government financial incentive this child might still be alive.
I know that this is an extreme case, but there are no doubt far more children who are conceived and abused simply so scumbags can collect money for them.

End government benefits for children and let love be the only reason people would want to have a baby, not money.

"DETROIT -- Guilty pleas were entered in court today by a Detroit couple accused of cremating their dead 2-year-old on a barbecue grill, and then hiding the skeletal remains in a basement ceiling while collecting welfare benefits for the child.

Nickella Reid, 23, pleaded guilty in Wayne County Circuit Court to involuntary manslaughter and welfare fraud in connection with the death of her son, Deuntay Miller, in February 2006 or in 2007.

Joseph Miller, 28, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for Deuntay's death and first-degree child abuse for the massive scalding burns suffered by another of the couple's children.

Nicholas Miller also was 2 in November 2007 when he survived second-degree burns on up to 40 percent of his body. It was during the investigation of the bathtub scalding that child welfare officials discovered Deuntay was missing.

A trial had been set to start today for the pair before Wayne County Circuit Judge Michael Callahan. Reid will be sentenced to up to 15 years on April 7. Miller faces up to life when sentenced on April 16.

The parents said they boiled water on the kitchen stove in preparation for Nicholas' bath, but the boy fell in or was placed in the tub by a sibling. Medical authorities testified at an earlier hearing that the burns showed a line of demarcation, indicating the boy had been dipped and held in place in the scalding water.

The couple also at first told authorities Duentay was with relatives in Chicago or down South. They later said the boy died of natural causes and that Miller burned the body using gasoline and a barbecue grill inside the family's home. The remains were hidden in the home for between nine months to a year while the family continued to collect welfare benefits for the child, Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Jerry Dorsey IV had told the court.

Medical experts said examination of Duentay's skeletal remains showed healed breaks in both of his legs and signs of malnutrition in the development of his bones. "
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090323/METRO/903230435/1409/METRO
 
Dano, this is a really bad low, even for you.

Wouldn't this contradict a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" philosophy that I'm sure you have?

It's all convenience for you. Still, this thread is the nadir.
 
Dungheap said:
You sir, are one sick puppy. Not as sick as Mr. Miller, but not as far removed from him as you think you are.
Click to expand...

It's a sick story but you cannot deny the fact that without welfare money this would not have happened. THAT is why they admitted doing it.

I am sick...of your bullshit attempts at defending any and all things leftist. Try debating the issue for once instead of the person kiddo.
 
KingCondanomation said:
It's a sick story but you cannot deny the fact that without welfare money this would not have happened. THAT is why they admitted doing it.

I am sick...of your bullshit attempts at defending any and all things leftist. Try debating the issue for once instead of the person kiddo.
Click to expand...


Debating the issue? What issue? You throw out these ridiculous bombs and then pretend to be interested in honest debate. No thank you.

You're a sicko. A sick sick puppy.
 
Actually I might have screwed up here, it doesn't actually say they killed him to collect benefits as another source implied. They may have just killed him with excess abuse and then just collected welfare benefits because it was free money.

In any event, my larger point stands that government money does give people an incentive to have a child for financial reasons instead of love.
 
Dungheap said:
Debating the issue? What issue? You throw out these ridiculous bombs and then pretend to be interested in honest debate. No thank you.

You're a sicko. A sick sick puppy.
Click to expand...

You're an emotional twat. If it was up to me and not some Liberal judge or jury in far left Detroit who think like you do, these motherfucking excuses for parents would have the death penalty.
 
I find myself having to agree with Dung and Lorax here. The story, tragic and sick though it is, shows no connection between welfare and having babies. Nothing in the story said they had the baby just to receive welfare. People have babies for different reasons (planned, accident, much effort, etc.) and unfortunately some are not fit to be parents. But countless couples have been helped through financial hard times with the benefits they have rightly received. I would use this story as an argument for the death penalty but not for welfare.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Actually I might have screwed up here, it doesn't actually say they killed him to collect benefits as another source implied. They may have just killed him with excess abuse and then just collected welfare benefits because it was free money.

In any event, my larger point stands that government money does give people an incentive to have a child for financial reasons instead of love.
Click to expand...


Might have screwed up?

That's an understatement of the week nominee.

And your larger point is pretty much eviscerated.

But you're still a fucking sicko, maybe even more so.
 
leaningright said:
I find myself having to agree with Dung and Lorax here. The story, tragic and sick though it is, shows no connection between welfare and having babies. Nothing in the story said they had the baby just to receive welfare. People have babies for different reasons (planned, accident, much effort, etc.) and unfortunately some are not fit to be parents. But countless couples have been helped through financial hard times with the benefits they have rightly received. I would use this story as an argument for the death penalty but not for welfare.
Click to expand...
Yeah the title I saw linking this made a suggestion but after rereading it, I see that link might not be there.

Taxes ARE hard times, the reality is that people in Detroit and such places receive far more in government benefits than in Conservative places like Oklahoma for children. Do you think that has helped make their families succeed more?

You are forgetting leaning that the father is often viewed by a mother as a provider - so - what happens when government takes on more of the role of the provider? There is less perceived need for the father and he leaves easier with less guilt while the mother is more likely not to want him as she has government there. And thus we have seen WAYYYYYY more single mothers raising kids with the explosion in government welfare.
These benefits HURT families far more than they help them.

But you are dead on about the death penalty, they are sick people and death is almost too good for them.
 
Dungheap said:
Might have screwed up?

That's an understatement of the week nominee.

And your larger point is pretty much eviscerated.
Click to expand...
You wish, you got your out with the POSSIBLE mistake and like a coward you take it. You really think that no one has or adopts a child to get government benefits?

Dungheap said:
But you're still a fucking sicko, maybe even more so.
Click to expand...
STFU you elitist little shit. Why am I a sicko? I am repulsed by this story, to the point where I want these fuckers dead, that's more than you can say I don't doubt.
 
After asserting in the thread title that this child was killed for welfare money, you went on to conclude "With no welfare benefits or government financial incentive this child might still be alive."

For someone who always rails lefties for making emotional appeals, and someone who is quick to blame people for gun violence (and not guns), this is not only incredibly wrong, it is incredibly hypocritical.

And all you can allow is that you "might" have been a little off....
 
Onceler said:
After asserting in the thread title that this child was killed for welfare money, you went on to conclude "With no welfare benefits or government financial incentive this child might still be alive."

For someone who always rails lefties for making emotional appeals, and someone who is quick to blame people for gun violence (and not guns), this is not only incredibly wrong, it is incredibly hypocritical.

And all you can allow is that you "might" have been a little off....
Click to expand...

Welfare money or money in general is a MOTIVE to kill someone, what motive does having a gun give someone to kill? I am being as rational as always.

And yes I "might" have been off (I never said a little off, you don't need to lie to improve your arguments). The motive is never revealed as to why this child was murdered.
 
leaningright said:
I find myself having to agree with Dung and Lorax here. The story, tragic and sick though it is, shows no connection between welfare and having babies. Nothing in the story said they had the baby just to receive welfare. People have babies for different reasons (planned, accident, much effort, etc.) and unfortunately some are not fit to be parents. But countless couples have been helped through financial hard times with the benefits they have rightly received. I would use this story as an argument for the death penalty but not for welfare.
Click to expand...

Nothing is an argument for the death penalty.
 
If they would have stopped receiving the welfare funds for the child they would have had to admit that the child was missing, and of course, they would've been suspect number 1. It would be a pretty stupid welfare scam if that's what it was about.

And Dano, do you really think that children should simply be cut off from welfare because of this isolated incidence? It's like committing a holocaust because of a murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top