Blowback on Darren Mack
Background: On numerous occasions over the past year I have condemned the June, 2006 actions of Darren Mack. Mack is a wealthy Nevada father who was involved in a divorce when he stabbed his estranged wife to death and then executed a well-planned murder attempt on a Nevada judge.
Mack shot and wounded the judge but failed to kill him. According to the Reno Gazette-Journal, when police searched Mack’s residence they found he “had bombmaking materials in his bedroom” as well as “several boxes of firearm ammunition.”
At the time of Mack’s murder spree, I wrote:
“I condemn without qualification the crimes allegedly committed by Darren Mack in Nevada last week. Mack was angered by his divorce and custody case. Some on the not insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers’ rights movement see Mack as some sort of freedom fighter. Most of the commentary by other fathers’ rights advocates seem to be of the ‘he couldn’t take it anymore and snapped’ variety.
“I don’t buy it. Though everyone is focusing on Mack’s attempted murder of a judge, everyone seems to forget that he first stabbed and killed his ex-wife. After murdering her, he shot the judge through the judge’s third-floor office window with a sniper rifle from over 100 yards away. That’s not ‘snapping’–that’s premeditated murder. Mack is not a good man trapped in a bad system. He is a bad guy. Because of men like him the system had to create protections for women, and unscrupulous women have misused those protections to victimize countless innocent men. Men like Mack aren’t the byproducts of the system’s problems–they are the problem.”
Since it was the one-year anniversary of Mack’s murder spree recently, I posted my commentary from June of last year on my blog, with the comment “In reading it again now, I can’t say I’d change a word.”
MensNewsDaily.com blogger “The Gonzman” didn’t like my blog post and posted an extensive response to it on MND called “Darren Mack II: A Response to Glenn Sacks.” In it Gonzman details his own miserable experience with the family law system and the way it often allows mothers to destroy the loving bonds children share with their fathers.
A few points:
The Gonzman’s main point in his criticism of me is that I do not have the right to criticize Mack because I’ve never walked in his shoes (i.e. I’m not a divorced dad). There are several problems with this argument:
1) When Gonzman writes of Darren Mack, he doesn’t see Darren Mack, he sees himself—himself and all of the decent loving fathers whose lives were manhandled by the family law system. Gonzman is assuming that Darren Mack is a good man victimized by the family law system. This is very speculative, particularly when you consider the terrible violence that Mack wreaked upon his ex-wife and those around him.
It is, of course, possible that Mack was mistreated by the system, but from what we know it sounds far more likely that he was the problem, not the victim. There are plenty of bad women out there, but there are also plenty of bad men out there. Mack is one of them.
2) “Only those who have been victims can judge” is a very flawed and dangerous line of thinking—a line of thinking feminists and misguided women’s advocates use against men every day. Much of the feminist movement and the anti-male laws and polices it has successfully promoted are based on the idea that only (female) victims can truly understand the enormity of the (male’s) crime. Women and their advocates are the only ones who should get to make the rules and everybody else (i.e. men) must shut up and take it.
For example, the criminal justice system has become very stacked against men accused of rape. One of the reasons is the deference of male legislators and judges to the pain of women who claim they’ve been raped.
Another example–male judges hand out restraining orders to any woman who cries, destroying innocent men’s lives along the way. This is in part because feminists promote the idea that a (male) judge doesn’t know how a battered woman feels and what she needs—how dare he refuse her what she says she needs?
(A personal note: No, I’m not a divorced dad, but I’ve received tens of thousands of letters from divorced dads, and I have a pretty good idea of how they feel and their pain. I’ve also spent an unfathomable amount of time answering these letters and trying to direct fathers towards help or offer advice.)
3) We’re often frustrated with the way the feminist movement and the media excuse women’s misdeeds. There are countless examples of this. When Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub, Patricia Ireland, the former president of the National Organization for Women, blamed it on the patriarchy. When Gilberta Estrada murdered three of her four children, the media pinned blame on her allegedly abusive ex.
Whenever a woman does something evil, the feminists and the mainstream media always seem to have some reason why she’s a victim, or it’s really a man’s fault. If we excuse or sympathize with Darren Mack, are we any different?
4) The Gonzman is outraged that I “put something out like this when Father’s Day is mere hours away from us” and asks “What the HELL were you thinking?”
I didn’t put it out for Father’s Day—I put it out because it’s the one year anniversary of Mack’s murder spree, and numerous media outlets (including CBS and several Nevada newspapers) are covering the anniversary.
5) John Dias, a commenter on MND and on Gonzman’s post, wrote:
“How sad it is that Glenn feels he has to be so trapped in a rhetorical box that he can’t even extend sympathy.”
I’m not “trapped” on Darren Mack—I had no need to even mention him, much less feel “trapped” into condemning him. I condemned him because it’s the right thing to do.
(As an aside, after Mack’s murder spree I was offered the chance to go on a couple of major television shows and take the point of view that “I condemn the murders but can sympathize with the pain that drove him to it.” I declined, because I don’t sympathize with him, and I believe such sentiments are bad for the movement. Others in the movement went on the shows instead.)
6) I can’t go into great detail on this, but while Mack was on the run after his murder spree he tried to bring in/corral certain leaders of the fathers’ movement to defend him in the media and explain away what he did. In other words, Mack was willing to publicly drag our movement through the mud and set us back 25 years over his case and his violence. I can’t imagine anything more selfish.
One final point—it is said that you can judge a movement by who its heroes are. Any modern movement which chooses to make a hero out of (or sympathize with) a murderer might as well pack up and go home right now–it will never go anywhere.
Gonzman’s criticism of me can be seen on MensNewsDaily here.
|
Possibly related posts...
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
I am not condemning the man, Darren Mack, I am condemning his actions, and I am condemning wholesale support of this man who did horrible things when we do not know all the detailsof why he did them.
Was he allowed to see his child? He may have been, he may not, we do not know. To assume he did this out of love for his child is a wild leap that cannot be made with the information we have.
Put it this way. Just because he is a man who has been through the divorce system does not mean he was a nice man any more than it means he was bad. You cannot place a value on character by the fact he went through the system.
Glenn did what needed to be done for the integrity of the movement. Gonz said what needed to be said, so we could have another point of view. We need both views, we need to be looking at all options, and I am glad the one which is out in the public is Glenn’s.
I think it is far too early to give up on the movement and leap to violence. We need to get out from behind these computers and go out and help each other. Personally, if you want to change the family court system, we need accountability. We need 5-10 men and women sitting behind every dad each time he goes to court, effectively telling the judge “We are watching you”. We need to flood the media with our stories, with our opinions, we need to stand outside the courthouse, we need to be talking to our representatives about the issues. Few are doing any of this. How can you advocate violence when so little else has been tried?
How is the insulting each other helping this movement or your understanding of each other?
I’ve read Glen’s and Gonz’s blog entries on this topic, and I think both are perfectly valid. No, I didn’t dissect them for every nuance, but I get the messages each is delivering.
Is Mack a poster boy for the MM … Glen says no, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Did Gonz say Mack was … no he did not. But I fully understand and appreciate what Gonz was trying to say.
MMX … I’ve read your posts, this thread and elsewhere, what you write is so condescending to the men here. You come across so holier than thou … and in a belittling way. You view the guys here as opponents … not brothers.
MMX, you didn’t read #8 above.
So, to help me reach the judemental point of view you look out from, so high up there, tell me what Mack did and under what circumstance. Tell me what factors led or drove him to his actions. Show me that they were immoral and I might agree with you.
But you cannot, of course. You do not know, but you have, nevertheless, already prejudged him as a murderer without mind.
I have said that shooting the Judge was a moral act, in the contexts of a) fighting injustice is moral and b) the morality of civil acts of retribution, even unto the death penalty, are highly constrained by the very forces that imposes the immoral and unjust judicial system upon us. They cannot be appealed against. The unjustice system is quite easy with gross acts of retribution on innocent men – as well as the guilty.
The Judicial system has no moral authority.
It even tells us that. It boasts that morals are nothing to do with the law.
It is therefore, in some circumstances, moral to determine matters outside the law.
It used to have a moral basis. It was the same moral basis that underlies the Constitution. But as a Judge said, “We are not here to uphold his constitutional rights; throw the bum on the streets”
Did Mack act morally? I don’t know his circumstance.
Now, do I advocate that? I have not.
Do I see it coming that some men will take the moral law into their own hands? Yes. It is here already.
Are you a half-wit? Yes.
Here’s the problem, MMX: Divorces are intensely private affairs. There is no case, nowhere, ever, in which anyone other than those directly involved can truly know what has gone on behind the scenes, no way we can truly understand the limits to which a man has been pushed. You’d have to have a camera on all of the players 24/7/365 to have that depth of knowledge. So it is disingenuous to insist that
unless one knows each and every detail of a man’s situation that led him to violence, one can never justify using him as an example.
All any of us has is the filter of our own experiences, weighted and colored by the aggregate experiences of others that are communicated to us. If you are to insist that we can’t build an argument on that, then you are effectively saying that none of us has a right to any opinion at all.
amfortas — So, on the one hand, you don’t advocate mindless violence, but, on the other hand, you want to use DARREN MACK as a springboard to make people understand “the system” and how it “makes men break”?
This is the very DARREN MACK whom no one knows very much about – except that he killed his wife and tried to kill a judge. You’re trying to found a movement on a void!
Rather than wheel out the men who have REALLY suffered under the divorce courts, men who you REALLY know about, you begin with…DARREN MACK!?
What the hell is so special about DARREN MACK that he even merits discussion? He killed his wife. He tried to kill a judge. And, oh, some people like to IMAGINE he was a tortured victim.
So, please, amfortas. What’s so damn special about DARREN MACK? (Because, no matter how “carefully constructed” your comments may be, once they’re associated with DARREN MACK, they lose credibility. (Just like Gonzman.)
MMX, clearly you only read into my post what you wanted to read. Three friggin’ times I said that I did not advocate minsless violence. Are you thick, blind or just grossly impertinent? My bet is that you think you are clever. You are not.
And this is a travesty of what I said – “He advocates shooting a judge because the judicial system is screwed. That’s like saying someone who works at amfortas’ job is a rapist, so we should all rape amfortas.”
What is a society to do, what are men to do, when people like you distort a simple, carefully constructed message. What are we to do when the sort of thinking you display becomes the yardstick on which men’s lives are measured. The judicial system is screwed because people like YOU are corrupt of mind. Even your simile is so far from rationality as to be quotable, as an example of mindless drivel enamoured by its own Narcissistic cleverness.
And you top your drivel with the Rapist jibe. All men are Rapists it seems. Should we see your stupid illogic as advocating rape?
Glen…
Talk is cheap and actions always speak louder then words…When you and the other self styled leaders of the men’s movement decide to stop yapping like a bunch of wimmin and get ready to take some real action…Then give me a call until then I will not under any circumstances support a movement that actively condemns the real men who are compelled to do what they have to in self defense…
Jon Wrote: “Nevertheless, if I’m ever called on a jury for a trial like this, I would not be so quick to judge.”
I agree except that I would go so far as to find the defendent not guility by reason of self defense…
Jon — “I have said it before, and I will repeat it for the likes of Biscuit Queen and MMX: I will not condemn Mack.”
Well, on the one hand, a woman is dead — really dead. And a judge was almost murdered — really murdered. But, on the other hand, we have a system that sucks, and we can use imaginary non-evidence to suggest that THIS woman and / or THIS judge deserved what they got.
Do you realize how silly it is to say that IMAGINATION, no matter how solid it looks, is a poor ground for excusing a real murder?
My God, we’ve become feminists. If we can imagine abuse, we can justify our response to it. I like it! Much better than actually doing research, knowing what we’re talking about, keeping an open mind, and so on. We can just follow our feelings and it’ll all be alrite.
More details of VAWA U.S. Gluzman
http://law.jrank.org/pages/3730/United-States-v-Rita-Gluzman-1997.html
With apologies to Lizzy Borden
Rita Gluzman took an ax
And gave her husband fourty whacks.
When he saw what she had done
Her cousin gave him fourty one
Amforts 21,
While re-reading some of the post I notices you enumerating some of the Constitutional rights that are gone,
Right to confront witnes,
I remember a picture in the paper where state’s attorney General General was rehersing his argume for Supreme Court with state’s intermediate appellate judge. The state won
When a woman was charged murdering her husband with an accompish, she was only charged with criminal portion of VAWA, so Supreme Court refused to hear her case sinceshe would had gone scott free.
US v. Gluzman
http://law.jrank.org/pages/3729/United-States-v-Rita-Gluzman-1997-Courts-Dismiss-Appeals.html
Woman day care center not alowed in courtroom.layperson language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Craig
Taxation without Representation led to a revolution.
Now we have Peonage without Due Process. Fathers are stripped of children, house, and income as a routine practice. It is policy. And it is profitable. That judge made a good living doing it. The more slaves he stripped, whipped, and threw into the street, the more his associates esteemed him.
I have said it before, and I will repeat it for the likes of Biscuit Queen and MMX: I will not condemn Mack.
I do agree that a better approach would have been a modern equivalent of a Boston Tea Party, say dumping all the records from the Child Support Agency into the Boston Harbor. No one would have died, and perhaps the message would be cleaner.
Nevertheless, if I’m ever called on a jury for a trial like this, I would not be so quick to judge.
Biscuit Queen — Thank the Lord you posted what you did.
Elder Geogre insists that the two major feminine virtues are immediacy and sensitivity. Amfortas’ comment #8 lacks both of these virtues. (1) He has no idea what motivated both murders, but he’s not going to let his essential ignorance stop him. Who needs humble research when he, as a masculine man (Cuz it’s like tough and shit to speak your mind without research.), can just make up his mind without them? (2) He advocates shooting a judge because the judicial system is screwed. That’s like saying someone who works at amfortas’ job is a rapist, so we should all rape amfortas.
Yup. Immediacy and sensitivity: the twin abilities to look at an individual situation up close and personally and to also make essential distinctions which prevent rash violence. Both you and Glenn displayed those virtues very nicely. But amfortas and his supporters should be ashamed of their irrationality.
Glenn, while I consider myself a good friend to Gonz as well as a big fan, I am with you on this one. The fact is we do not know why Darren Mack did what he did. Could be he did it out of frustration of not seeing his child, or it could be he was angry about paying alimony, or it could be he was fundimentally flawed and this was the last straw. We cannot know, and it is wrong to assume we do know. The fact is he did something horrendous which has set the MRM back and given feminists more ammunition. Next time a woman says “I am afraid” she can add “he is just like that Darren Mack”. Even if he had every reason to crack, what he did was wrong. We cannot justify it. I can comiserate with his situation (as much as a married woman can) but I cannot support or justify it. If I snapped and killed a person who molested my child, I would be wrong. I may do it knowing that, but it would still be wrong.
If you want to know how effective non violent protest is, look at F4J. They did not need to kill anyone, or hurt anyone to gain nationwide media attention.
I get so afraid of some in the MRM who are acting like feminists with the genders reversed. We must guard ourselves against this type of thinking. We CAN take the better road, and be successful. We should never make excuses for men when we would not accept them from women. If feminists did that we would not be here. Hypocracy is never right.
The number one reason why the MRM is not moving far is ourselves. We refuse to get out there. If each of us in the MRM just took out an ad for a week offering support to other dads in need of help, how many could we reach? Not by violence, but by support? If each of those men who we reached, reaches out to a few more…..but no. We sit here and complain rather than step up and do. For every Glenn and Gonz, there are a hundred who will do nothing. THAT is why we are going no where. It is not a lack of violence, it is a lack of motivation.
DO not blame the media for our own inaction.
Well Roger,,, apparently my attempt at satire didn’t go well,,,
if everyone read my previous posts,,,,,
In my opinion, we’re not to the point where revolution is needed. To my knowledge, there has never been a politician who ran on a platform to protect father’s rights. I would imagine that most of you would say such a platform makes the person un-electable.
But have we tried?
I have an interest in political office. I most likely won’t make that the center of my political platform. However, I have every intention of blocking anti-male laws. Will I get elected, who knows, but I’ve got to try. I would recommend other men to take the same route.
Feminists invaded the political establishment and it’s high time we do the same.
Do Not conflate, Gentlemen, the terms “Trigger,” and “Cause” and “Consequence” and ‘Justifiable” and “Predictable” and “Legal” and “Moral” and “Smart” and “Effective.”
It is quite possible for any given action to be any one of these, or combination of them, and not fill the others. It is quite possible for the Actions of people like Darren Mack to be predictable and consequences without being justifiable, legal, smart, effective, or moral.
The words mean different things. To suggest that if it is one of them, it must be all of them, is worse than stupid. That is political posturing, not discourse.
It is likewise ludicrous to insist someone is a 100% monster or a 100% saint. There are degrees. In fact, they don’t have to add up to a hundred, either.
anti armchair generals , I am not offended particularly by the example you give. It was fictional, a film. The action portrayed was however dishonourable, hysterical and immoral.
I, personally, do not advocate mindless violence. That is as much hysteria driven as the laws we wish to overturn and another face of the insidious nature of the feminist scourge that has had such a devastating effect on our social mores.
Anger, directed, is useful. Righteous anger is defensible. Harnessing anger is a social necessity. But having harnessed it, it is incumbent on the leaders who arise in the MRM to use it wisely and effectively. But that anger will include violence.
I admire the tenacity and patience of people like Glenn. They have an intellectual anger rather than a visceral one, and it is much, much easier to contain and direct. I can understand the fear that they have that things can easily get out of control and events such as the film you mention illustrates. Stupid, mindless cruelty. There is no need for that.
I hear bigpapa say we must exhaust all possible legal avenues, presumably peaceful ones. But there are none. They have been bulldozed. The beautiful trees along the avenue have been cut down for Wicca festivals, the stones of the pavement ripped up to stone fathers and men in general.
I do not advocate mindless violence. I say it again so no one gets me wrong. But neither do I rule it out or even only consider it as a last resort. It cannot be the Last Resort. It will come, well before all means are exhausted because lying down and being run over by the Legal Jugganaut is also an option. Capitulating and begging for mercy is an option. Becoming slaves to the State for a hundred years is an option. Frankly there are many options available to explore. But dead men’s ranks grow. Fatherless children grow stunted.
Violence has to be an early option even if only in the threat. Our Legal and Judicial systems are deaf to pleas for justice, common sense, heck, even equality.
We USED to have these. We HAD Innocence until proven Guilty. Gone. We HAD accuser face the accused. Gone. We HAD Magna Carta’s edict that a man’s tools of trade cannot be taken from him. Gone. We HAD All Equal before the Law. Gone. We use to swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Gone. Now we have pre-trial judgements and bargains; trial by news reporting/making; determinations without, sometimes despite, evidence. Bugger truth, no one is permitted to TELL the truth in a Law Court. Truth has been buggered. Truth is in Court’s contempt.
We HAD a lot that has GONE.
While these were being whittled away by hillbilly lawyers with their thoughts on oil-wells, no one threatened to shoot the Judges and the Politicians. So those two groups took our hard won rights. Not only did they continue to destroy our freedoms and equalities, but because the objectors were ignored and villified, others joined them. We now have corrupt police, corrupt lawyers, corrupt counsellors, corrupt and intellectually bankrupt educators, a culture of anti-male compost that breeds misandry and injustice and fed by the confiscated wealth of the victims.
What are Glenn and Co to say when good men, clearly good, solid citizens, shoot judges? The Darrens of the world clearly, possibly, don’t have the self-control and directedness to resist hysterical response, anger-driven response, revenge driven response, hysteria driven response.
But put those aside and consider cold, thoughtful, moral, patriotic, family-defending, socially self-effacing, self-sacrificing responses. Men fight for what is right. They always have done. We will again.
What if Gonzo, a man who I admire as much as I admire Glenn, had taken a slightly different route? What if he had stood on the Courthouse steps in his full 9 feet of hairy terribleness and mearly shouted his anger. I think he would have been shot. I would put money on it.
If the police can shoot men who are mearly protesting their innocence and Judges can throw non-bums on the street at whim, then better men than I are going to take direct action. Action against the INDIVIDUALS who work the system and destroy men’s lives.
I don’t advocate violence. Third time.
I see it coming. It has started. Not mindless. But mindful. Darren Mack mindfully chose a good vantage point and aimed at a Judge. A particular Judge. It is less a matter for the MRM to take note of and more a matter for corrupt Judges to take note of. They are next.
Glenn Sacks said,
“Some on the not insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers’ rights movement see Mack as some sort of freedom fighter. Most of the commentary by other fathers’ rights advocates seem to be of the ‘he couldn’t take it anymore and snapped’ variety.
“I don’t buy it. Though everyone is focusing on Mack’s attempted murder of a judge, everyone seems to forget that he first stabbed and killed his ex-wife. After murdering her, he shot the judge through the judge’s third-floor office window with a sniper rifle from over 100 yards away. That’s not ‘snapping’–that’s premeditated murder.”
Aside from attempting to kill a judge, what is so different from the cases of Darren Mack and Mary Winkler? Mack has been jailed ever since his arrest and more than likely he hasn’t had any contact with his daughter. Winkler got out of jail after only a couple of months. Didn’t she also claim that she “snapped” which later turned into claims of abuse? She was given employment. Despite the testimony of THEIR nine year old daughter that her father was a GOOD man, everyone knows the outcome of what can laughingly be called a “trial”. Wasn’t the murder of Rev. Winkler premeditated as well? Yet, because Winkler is female, she gets a pass from the feminists, the “?JUSTICE?” system, the liberally biased mainstream media and apparently Glenn Sacks since he failed to mention the striking similarities of the two cases in his response. However, Mr. Sacks did detail the circumstances of Winkler’s case in a past article.
One never knows what he might do if he were to awaken one morning and find his life totally changed in an instant by being run out of his home and cut off from his children due to LIES, mental problems and wanting to make room for a new boyfriend! I totally condemn the taking of a life (including the daily murder of the unborn). But if SHE is the one who is taking HIS life, then SHE should be punished just like HE is punished!
I
I suspect that those of you who condemn Daren Mack are not old enough to remember how appeasement defeated Hitler. Legal appeals and reasoning will not work. After a long lifetime of observing the divorce situation, I am convinced the only solution is a large number of men, willing if needed, to take up arms against the enemy. An army of armed angry fathers would be enough of a threat to effect a change without actually having to resort to violence. Those of you who counsel appeasement only encourage the enemy. Those of you who condemn Daren Mack are, in fact, appeasing the enemy.
bigpapa, you rock, I’m a chickenshit!
Now if you are going to do it, all I ask is that you get shitloads of publicity, which Darren Mack did, and that you survive the arrest. As Darran Mack did.
Then as you sit on death row, you freely give interviews explaining why you offed the family court judges, support enforcers, state license agents, pig-headed elected officials, and the bartender who sold short pints.
If you happen to be in a state that has no death penalty, you can amuse yourself reading news reports about how your case is being used to justify enacting a death penalty.
Meanwhile, Glenn Sacks will joyfully condemn you as a violent whack job, while I will refuse to condemn you for killing some of the tyrants and how they richly deserved what you did to them.
I can simply say to the courts, the politicians, and the public, please listen to non-violent guys like me, Glenn Sacks, Greg Amunrud, even Mark Rudov, honor and enforce our constitutional rights, even hand down indictments against the tyrants for their numerous crimes of peonage and conspiracies to violate civil rights.
Because the reason we have criminal statutes prohibiting extortion and peonage is that those being extorted sometimes react badly.
Please listen to us when we plead the Antipeonage Act, and the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Or you can feel the Darren Macks and bigpapas of the world plead the 2d Amendment.
Well let’s rock Roger Knight,, I have enough weapons and ammo to make police departments cringe…
Let’s do it.. let us kick some ass..
Glenn Sacks wrote:
“Mack was willing to publicly drag our movement through the mud and set us back 25 years over his case and his violence.”
25 years ago we did not have permanent license suspension for inability to pay child support. If only Mack’s action DID in fact set us back 25 years!
Here is the problem for all who ask that we refrain from the violence that the Declaration of Independence so eloquently justifies in the face of unreasoning and increasing tyranny:
You got a better idea?
Like one that WORKS?
And does not take several lifetimes?
Greg Amunrud actually got 3 justices of the Supreme Court of Washington to agree with us on the license suspension for child support issue. But we needed 5 justices. Did the US Supreme Court decide to even hear it? Hell no! Looks like Amunrud’s legal means have been exhausted.
So if one of us decides to waste a DMV office, while Glenn will condemn the violence, I will say “Hey Supremes, sending a letter that reads “petition for writ of certiorari is denied” is NOT how we resolve these issues!
Meanwhile, the Supremes just decided the 1st Amendment rights of a most trivial case, a high school kid played a silly prank and the principal had a cow! And they decided it wrong! (At least the banner did not say “Bong Hits 4 Mohammed”!)
But why hear such a case when refusing to hear a divorced father whose license is permanently suspended, and so is his ability to earn the money demanded of him?
At least the Supremes took the assinine McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill (the shut up the NRA during the last 60 days before an election Act) down a well deserved notch.
The 1st Amendment protects our right to complain of the tyranny imposed on us.
The 2nd Amendment is for when people don’t listen!
These Amendments were passed by the generation who told the British tyrants to go to Hell and sent a bunch of them there!
amfortas 8
You write and reason so well that I fear you or others may be offended by this example
laws derived from hysteria rather than cool minds
When the father was chased in the movie, young men chased him and showed soda bottle into his rectum, it was considered heroic.
While that was only a movie, after Oklahoma bombing it was discovered that the perpetrator could be buried in Vetera;s Cemetery. Without debate Congresss passed a bill depriving felonious soldiers all veterans benefits. I called VA and asked what happens to their families? The person said “I don’t know”
Apparently they limited the bill and just recently removed box of cremated soldier remains who had served in first Iraq War from Arlington Cemetery
So many laws aboutt family are adopted after media hysteria, fueled by feminist advocates who blow fathers acts out of proportion and try to explain womens actions temporary insanity caused by husband.
Sorry Jon,, I won’t argue the differences and I know they are true,,
BUT,, we must exhaust all legal and I mean ALL legal means until there is no other alternative.
We must fight this patriarchy legally until there is no other alternative.
Too many men bend over and take it for whatever reason and I KNOW the cards are stacked against us… I KNOW.
However,,, there are just as many worthless men as there are women… now,, the men don’t take advantage of the system as the women do.
This is a decades old fight, we’ve allowed it to happen and it will take some time to put it right,,,
I see this crap all the time in my job as a vocational teacher,, and I’m no liberal..
I see the real results of the courts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and the worthless don’t bother me I’m being a whore mothers and the dads who didn’t care to be involved or have given up.
We can’t make a difference in prison,,, unless you count trying to not be anal raped as making a differnce..
So, we have to write, protest, gripe, complain and make our opinions known…
Bitching about it or killing someone (who may or may not deserve it) doesn’t help.
Reality can be a bitch…
Here is the crux of the matter, take it and weigh it in the scales of justice:
A woman can shoot her husband in the back while in bed, and watch him bleed to death,
and
her punishment is LESS than what a noncustodial father faces for the sole crime of being a father. At a minimum he is subject to 18 years slavery. That ignores all the secondary draconian abuses they can levy.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…” From the Declaration of Independence.
Is the current despotism less than that born in the days of Jefferson and Washington? Do you call them murderers too?
For my own part I consider it nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery, and in that light ought we consider those who take up the fight.
thanks Joi,,,
but gentlemen,,, NOW is not the time to get violent,,,I’m a big kick your ass kinda guy but I know when to choose my battles and what the results should be.
Me in prison accomplishes nothing.
I fear for our Republic and my daughter,,,
someday and with God as my witness, I hope it doesn’t come to that but it may anyway.
I don’t ask for what I think I deserve because it may be very different than what I think..
These judges and politicos,,,if they don’t change their ways will get booted out or if nothing changes maybe worse.
But do not lower yourself to their frame of mind,,,,
It reminds me of “The Patriot”. “We don’t need those kind of men” – Answer – “Those are exactly the kind of men we need.”
With the Feminists, their female enablers and the manginas comprising the overwhelming majority and the constitutional republic transmuted to a democracy – good luck obtaining enough political power to make any headway. Raw political power is the power to kill (Machiavelli) (which is the power currently held over men) and good men will eventually have to learn from history or continue to be oppressed.
Well…. I hate to say it, but try as a I may trying to use civilized and lawful approach is not working. They keep passing more and more anti man laws everyday and soon a ” civilized and lawful” approach may not work anymore. History says that the power mad, the greedy and the selfish never..never give up power and control without being made to. Sadley enought it may come down to us getting our guns and putting a whole lot of these people in the ground. They are intractable and unreasonable. They have basically adopted the attitude that we are expendable and that our live don’t mean a thing. With thinking like that , on their part means will we have to use the same methods. God help us all!
Glenn explains his attitude, which is carefully constructed on a public-moral basis. It is also set on an individual. Lets look at the two.
The individual may well have been a poor example of a man. He killed his wife. I don’t know the circumstances and Glenn does not explain them. He assumes a murderer. He does not show what might have led to Mack stabbing his wife. It is unlikely that the present construction of Court Procedure could determine those circumstances with even the tiniest degree of fairness. He is a man.
As several here show, Gonzman amongst them, the pressures on a man are immense. In similar circumstance with the genders reversed, a woman is given much leeway and support, whether deserved or not.
The moral basis is one sided. A public morality subtends an attitude reflected by Glenn, and supported by Mike. Basically it is saying, “It’s wrong and I wouldn’t do it”, “I have been there and I didn’t do that”.
There is another side to moral action. We don’t know the morality of the wife-stabbing. The judge-shooting however was a moral act. It is moral to fight injustice. The ways of fighting injustice are strictly limited with the rules made and set, not by public morality – that which we all consider just – or even personally apprehended morality, but by veniality and technicality. Set by unjust, throw-the-bum-on-the-streets Judges. Set by mendacious politicians bought by femoterrorists. Enforced by an army of armed police.
When a civilisation has abandoned Morality and substituted Law, separating the two, indeed stating that the two are different animals and the Law is superior, laws derived from hysteria rather than cool minds, then the individually apprehended morality will rise in the throat. Where justice is routinely denied, when it isn’t being garroted, then individual men of courage, honour and moralty, will make their own, personalised Moral sense superior to the Law.
This person and that, Glenn here, Mike there, may be have a completely different take on what personally guides their actions. They may be applaudable. Some have more tenacity or personal/circumstantial power to resist moving from a failed public morality to a individually driven yet still moral resistance.
As an MRA, we can take either road with parties yelling ‘Murderer’ on one side, and ‘conformist wimp’ on the other. It does none of us any good. The moral and Legal issues are far too deep for that and for the situation – not of our making – where the application of immoral Law is elevated above Illegal Morals.
The situation is not improving. More men will have to consider their options. More men will embrace their inner Darren. These men are my brothers just as Mike and Glenn are.
Glen Sacks seems to be ambivalent about systematic extermination offathers. australian movie “Ice Palace” showed how his wife fell in love witha police officer, how the father was hunted and humilated and finally shot like a mad dog.
America about 20-30 years ago szeemed to become the reality of that metaphor. I had thought GlenSacks was married second time nd assumed he had children. Now I find out I’m wrong. What motivates him then pretend to defend men?
History has judged harshly German who did little to stop the Holocaust. Perhaps they wanted to save their own skins or their sentiments were with nazis, like Americans are with feminazis. Daniel Goldhagen book shed a light and one can make the comparison.Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goldhagen
Very well said bigpapa. I agree.
what darren mack did was murder,,,, plain and simple..
I know there are many judges and politicians out there who probably should be put down.
But that’s not the way to handle it,,, I didn’t beat my cheating, verbally abusive, lazy ex-wife..
There are other alternatives,
helpless men fall under the wheels of the juggernaut..
men with the will to live, take aim at the juggernaut..
mike …you perservered…and because you are not helpless, you logically refined youre anger and re-directed it in to the source…
You’re a strong man Mike LaSalle, and don’t let anyone ever tell you your not.
It’s men like you and Glenn, and others that make me proud to be a man.
I am many others thank you for everything you have done to help the morbid situation of men in todays anti-male world.
I know what is like to be arrested, jailed, bannished from my home, and forbidden for months to see my own child – all on the words of a single desperate and emotional woman. I know what it’s like to be inside a Kafkaesque world of routine justice, where a man accused by a woman is effectively sentenced before trial.
I know what it’s like to be so angry as to be consumed by morbid ideations of mayhem.
But unlike Darren Mack, I committed no mayhem. Even at the darkest hour.
I simply persevered and tried to make it right.
What else could I do?
I am not, after all, Darren Mack.