Justice Is Served: Darren Mack Gets Life Sentence
February 12th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: In June 2006, Darren Mack (pictured), a wealthy Nevada father who was involved in a divorce, 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 estranged 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.”
It wasn't the rope and a tree that Darren Mack deserved, but it was close enough. Friday Darren Mack--who stabbed and killed his estranged wife as his little daughter played with her toys upstairs--was sentenced to life in prison.
Mack first tried what I called the Mary Winkler defense, making the unlikely claim that he slashed his wife's throat in self-defense. It was a brutal killing--Charla Mack's head was almost severed from her body. How Mack defending himself against Charla necessitated then driving to the courthouse and trying to kill a judge in a well-planned, methodical way was never explained.
Douglas Herndon, the Nevada judge in the criminal case, explained that he let Mack speak for quite a while before his sentencing, and that Mack expressed "no remorse" for his crimes. According to the Associated Press:
"In handing down the sentence, Herndon cited the heinous nature of the crimes and Mack's lack of remorse.
"'The truth is Mr. Mack is guilty of these crimes, but he doesn't want to hear anything about that,' the judge said.
"Mack on Thursday reiterated claims that he acted in self defense when he slashed his wife's throat in the garage of his southeast Reno townhouse.
"He also has argued that he was coerced by his former lawyers into the plea deal, and suggested the attorneys, prosecutors, investigators and law enforcement officers who investigated the case were corrupt.
"Herndon said while he allowed Mack to go on at length, he never said what the judge hoped he'd hear: 'I'm sorry.'"
My position on Mack has inspired a lot of hostility from some posters on other men's and fathers' rights blogs, which tells you more about some of these guys than you'd like to know. One of the many idiotic statements made is that, based on my position on Mack, when fathers are mistreated in the family law system, I don't think they should resist.
Ludicrous--I sure as hell do think they should resist. They should resist like David Chick. They should resist like Gary LaMusga. They should resist like Jolly Stanesby and John Brumbaugh and Benoit Leroux and Daniel Sims. More importantly, we need to work to build a viable fatherhood movement.
My sympathies are with the guy who did the best he could to be a good husband and a good father and who got shafted anyway. The good dad who can't see his kids, or who can only see them four days a month while mom turns them against him the other 26. The guy whose kids were dragged halfway across the country for no reason, or whose child support obligations impoverish him. That isn't Darren Mack.
Mack didn't even take his marriage seriously, apparently resisting giving up the swinger lifestyle he knew was endangering it, and then, even after being given joint physical custody on a week-on, week-off basis, going on a murderous rampage. I've no more sympathy for him than I do for Mary Winkler or Mazoltuv Borukhova.
My coverage of Darren Mack is below, as is the Associated Press article. Also, see the Reno Gazette-Journal's Darren Mack Blog.
Darren Mack's Mary Winkler Defense
Blowback on Darren Mack (A response to a MensNewsDaily.com writer's criticism of me)
The One Year Anniversary of Darren Mack's Killing Spree
Murderous Florida Father Deserved a Necktie Party, not Shared Parenting
Nev. Man Gets Life Term for Killing Wife
By SANDRA CHEREB
Associated Press
RENO, Nev. (AP) — A former pawn shop owner was sentenced to life in prison on Friday for the killing of his estranged wife and shooting of the judge who handled their bitter divorce.
Darren Mack, 46, will be eligible for parole after 36 years. Mack pleaded guilty in November to first-degree murder in the June 2006 stabbing death of his wife, Charla, and entered an Alford plea to a charge of attempted murder of Washoe Family Court Judge Chuck Weller.
Mack admitted in court that he shot Weller through a courthouse window the day he killed his wife but invoked the Alford plea, in which a defendant acknowledges there is enough evidence for a conviction without admitting guilt. Weller has recovered from his wounds.
District Judge Douglas Herndon followed the recommendations of a plea deal by sentencing Mack to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 20 years on the murder charge.
The judge upheld the recommendation of Special Prosecutor Christopher Lalli by sentencing Mack to 40 years with parole possible after 16 years for attempted murder with a deadly weapon.
The terms are to run consecutively.
In handing down the sentence, Herndon cited the heinous nature of the crimes and Mack's lack of remorse.
"The truth is Mr. Mack is guilty of these crimes, but he doesn't want to hear anything about that," the judge said.
Mack on Thursday reiterated claims that he acted in self defense when he slashed his wife's throat in the garage of his southeast Reno townhouse.
He also has argued that he was coerced by his former lawyers into the plea deal, and suggested the attorneys, prosecutors, investigators and law enforcement officers who investigated the case were corrupt.
Herndon said while he allowed Mack to go on at length, he never said what the judge hoped he'd hear: "I'm sorry."
"));
19 queries. 0.604 seconds.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:42 am
We're not in favor of stabbing and shooting people? Ok, point taken. (But doesn't this go without saying?)
February 12th, 2008 at 12:58 am
He is not a poster child for father's rights, he is a cold blooded killer. His self centered actions have destroyed his daughters life. Now his daughter has no one, both parents are effectively dead.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:04 am
When you think about it, it is a tribute to men that, despite the soul-destruction that so many experience, there are not TONS of Darren Mack stories. I think that men's love for their children saves a lot of women's lives. Let's hope that things get better before they get worse -- much, much worse.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Darren Mack manned up. Only if the judges will man up and stand up for what's right and good for children and families.
Marcy Ganz
http://crispe.org
February 12th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Unbridled self interest pretty much equals evil in my books. This guy gets no sympathy hugs from me.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:46 am
I am not against fighting for freedom if need be, but any such fight should be the last resort, after diplomacy has failed for a decade or more, and such a fight does not target a single judge, and certainly not the mother of one's children!
I feel that father's rights groups have not yet begun to really form the diplomatic fight.
Did Mack reallty have 50% custody? What the heck was he upset about? That would be like a dream to me!
February 12th, 2008 at 2:06 am
I don't condone what Darren Mack did, but I can't condemn him either.
We know the kinds of atrocities that happen in family courts. They really can (and often do) destroy the lives of its victims. That doesn't make it okay to shoot a Judge, not by any means. But when they take away EVERYTHING a man has (including his kids) and mess with his head enough, even the toughest men will snap under the pressure.
I've seen the interview of him just a few weeks before the Judge was shot, and they were twisting the knife in his back. The man was at the best point in his life, and his wife screwed him over badly. When your life seems to be going great, and then BOOM! the person you trust the most stabs you in the back, you lose everything, and life really doesn't seem worth living anymore, Darren Mack snapped under the pressure.
There's also far more to the story than the press was willing to release. How could Darren Mack shoot his ex-wife, then shoot a Judge (in 1 hour), then make it past ALL the police, highway patrol, sherrifs, and other law enforcement in Utah and Arizona, AND cross the border to Mexico, in so short a time? Are you telling me that thousands of officers let Mack slip right by him, after a Judge was shot and a clear description was given of him, his vehicle, and where he was heading?
Also, the Judge was litterally having sex with his secretary when he was shot. She had wounds from shattered glass fragments.
William Wagener, host of www.OnSecondThought.tv, has a great video of the case. He investigated the Judge and found numerous stories of the Judge being involved in bribery scandals, and taking money to rig cases. Not much unlike the Judge in New York who was caught rigging cases and taking bribes.
Like so many other people, I got screwed pretty badly by a Judge. I was doing my best and trying to take care of my daughters, but they wouldn't let me see one of my girls, and they were taking so much of my income for $upport that I went homeless twice. I couldn't take care of the girl I did get to see because I couldn't afford food for her, shelter, etc.
Instead of doing what Mack did, I got creative. If you can't win in the "Justice System", take it to the Court of Public Opinion! The Judge stopped messing with me after I gave away 150 of these flyers in front of his courthouse - he never threatened me with jail again!
http://www.thomaslessman.com/Materials/Sign_Bullock-2_11-05.jpg
I don't believe men who kill their judges are heros, nor are they martyrs. They are victims of the "Matrix of Family Law" who couldn't take it anymore and snapped. I don't condone their actions, but I won't condemn them for losing their sanity after their lives are literally destroyed.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lessman
. www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
Email: talessman@yis.us
February 12th, 2008 at 2:13 am
I don't think Mack represents the men's movement or that his situation was as bad as some.
That said, for all the men who have been screwed over and all the judges, lawyers, and vindictive ex-wives who profited and got away with it I find it hard to have any sympathy for Mack's ex-wife or the scumbag family court judge he shot.
It may well take a lot more killings similar to this for the court system and lawmakers to come to the realization that they screwed up and need to make a change.
Simply put one man with a bullet can create more change than a thousand with protest signs.
Take that any way you want.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:29 am
While our livelihood maybe in jeapordy, our lives certainly are not. We must give peace and the system every opportunity to work, otherwise, we are no better than the terrorist themselves. If anyone thinks sacrificing themselves for whatever reason will help bring some exposure to our cause, just think of how many more people they could have reached positively by being alive or avoiding being sent to prison. We need to channel our energy for positive results because there are no shortcuts in this movement and it's going to take time. History is our friend and it will eventually prove us right and that is the greatest sacrifice we can make for our kids and countries future. Darren wasted his energy the wrong way and he got what he deserved.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:03 am
http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/020808whasasjTopFletcherPardons.a81cd458.html
" Before he left office, Governor Fletcher said that he and his wife went over hundreds of cases. Out of them he picked 21 women to pardon, giving them their freedom back and a new look on life. Whas11 was there today as the former governor met with the pardoned women, some of them for the first time."
21 women who murdered their partners... And claimed abuse.
Darren Mack should go to prison, that is the punishment of the crime.
But that these women get pardoned makes one think if Darren Mack is actually handed out some relative injustice, or that these women are getting "1 kill for free" card....
February 12th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Seriously, how can you not condemn what this man did? He murdered two innocent people.
Sure, the system's screwed up.The judge is just doing what he's learned to do. As for the wife, she didn't abuse him. And if he's capable of murder he doesn't deserve any custody at all, which is what he's getting.
I agree that I wish Winkler would get the same treatment, of course she didn't.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Sadly, there have been many, many, many murders in this country for which the only apparent motive is a current, recent of threatened economic and/or emotional annihilation of a male by America's "family" courts. What seems different about this one is not the death of his wife, but the dramatic attempt on the life of the judge.
It is possibly also noteworthy that this event may mark a transition point in the pattern of unlawful, violent people's blame-shifting processes -- in this case blame is being moved in this guy's mind, at least in part, to the public-facing representative of the institution of family court. But one wonders if the judge would have had any leeway in whatever decisions he made, given all the case precedents with which the judge is presumably burdened as case law, not to mention whatever the actual statutes are in Nevada?
The U.S. Congress has long had a role in starting wars, drafting American males, and sending them to their deaths. It would appear that U.s. State Legislatures, who cannot escape responsibility for a set of family court laws which has clearly provided motive or perceived motive for many lawless murders in America, may now, by failure to make their laws more equitable, and less encouraging of confrontation between couples, actually be sending judges into harm's way as well.
Let's hope that Darren Mack is the last to attempt such an act. And let's hope that State Legislatures wake up to their opportunity to prevent any more such tragedies.
If all citizens knew when they married or had a child that they were entitled to an iron-clad 50/50 custody upon split-ups, and no "windfall profits" at the expense of the other person, then people would have nothing to fight over.
This is the path to peace and safety for all, and better childhoods for America's children.
One hopes this legislative path gets taken before any more Darren Macks get chance to act.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I don't condone the killing of judges especially either. It potentially makes false matyrs out of what are typcially child predators (exploitation, maltreatment, and vastly increasing the likelihood of a child's sexual abuse) and people who willingly bring about the premature deaths of both chidlren and men through intellectual dishonesty and bigotry in America's ultimate Kangaroo Courts. In my view, they make child molestors and rapists seem like petty criminals.
As for the woman allegedly murdered, I suspect that her death and the attempt on the judge won't be the last as I sense that people have a viciral reation to getting the legal equivalent of castration or seeming never-ending gang-rapes. If that was otherwise, America wouldn't have had a revolution. Sometimes gross and neverending injustice, and what is child kidnapping in all but name particularly brings out the 'ugly side' of people. Imagine that.
Amazing what people do if they feel their life isn't much worth living otherwise, and want to get some sort vengence; you know, like women use every day through the sexist and corrupt misuse of government. Sometimes those being killed by injustice turn around and kill those who engage in it. (One of the most deadly people in that regard appears to have been that slimeball Thacian slave Spartacus.)
I'm glad I'm in a better situation than that, and wouldn't give the child predator, sexist thugs
the satisfaction.
Mike
February 12th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Thanks, Glenn, for clarifying the facts about Mack's murder of his wife. I have no sympathy for this cold-blooded killing, either. Even if his wife had been the worst femi-nNazi, castrating b---- on the planet, I would not condone killing the mother of one's own children. That said, I think that you go a little bit too far in stating, "They should resist like Jolly Stanesby and John Brumbaugh and Benoit Leroux and Daniel Sims. More importantly, we need to work to build a viable fatherhood movement." Our civil rights were paid for in blood and the time is approaching when the tree of freedom , as Jefferson said, must once again be watered with blood. Why should men continue to take this tyrannical persecution and merely oppose it with ineffective civil and court actions? How long do you propose that we allow this to continue without effective resistance? Yes, the peaceful protest is necessary, but this tyranny has continued at an increasing intensity since the early 1970's and shows no signs of abating.Yes, Darren Mack is a homicidal maniac, but is he the canary in the mineshaft? At what point does the resistance of Patrick Henry , along with his sacrifice, become necessary? I have no answer, except that there is such a point and we are approaching it at an accelerating rate.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Ken, does that mean you would only condone the killing or the premature death of Darren Mack or other such fatehrs if he didn't engage in such killings (allegedly) and the statistically likely lower projected life expectancy that results? Why is it only bad if only men ... and the involved children die prematurely (to include the people these children ultimately kill do to their on average far more marginalized parenting).
I have a tough time crying for women, people who whine endlessly about breast cancer and women's heart attacks while men and children are dropping dead around them due to their collective SELFISHNESS and SEXIST HATE.
Mike
February 12th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I unconditionally condemn what Mack did. No rationalizations, explanations, or excuses.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Just a thought, but it is not entirely clear to me why "just snapped" is not consistent with premeditated actions. Sure, there is a difference between "heat of the moment" and what Mack did, but as Jay R. has said, and given my experience of the evils of family courts: "it is a tribute to men that, despite the soul-destruction that so many experience, there are not TONS of Darren Mack stories. I think that men's love for their children saves a lot of women's lives. Let's hope that things get better before they get worse".
It is a quintessentially masculine trait to give an active response to provocation. Maturity lies in offering the right kind of response. The family courts often generate intolerable provocation and expect only passive compliance in response, indeed it can often seem like a game of "let's see how far we can push him and what we can make him do to screw up his own case", I am quite certain that is the modus operandi of many lawyers. That bullying conflict is certain to produce a range of results, we should be impressed and ashamed that so many men simply swallow it and walk away.
Of those that don't swallow and retreat, some make bad mistakes. If we do not condemn the man for such a mistake, we run the risk of becoming like the opposition, inclined to justify anything in the name of our goals. Nevertheless, surely there are some women who are driven to kill their truly abusive partners to escape their torment. Do we therefore condemn the woman and her act, or can we separate the two and examine the overall injustice? Personally, I think she should pay the price, but I do not necessarily say that she is evil.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am
For example, is it not interesting that Cousin Dave says:
"I unconditionally condemn what Mack did. No rationalizations, explanations, or excuses."
and yet he does not condemn Mack himself, only what he did? These small differences are important.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I can see both sides of the coin.
I can condemn what he did.
At the same time, if there was 100 more of him, these laws might have a chance of changing in our lifetime instead of our grand children's lifetime.
Because I am ex-military, I understand what the true currency of power is: violence. Every other form of "power": money, knowledge, religion is simply a way of bringing more potential violence to bear or bringing more effective violence. Thankfully, the threat of violence is often all that is needed. Sometimes you need to bring actual violence to bear.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:01 am
While I can't condone murder, Mack said in an interview that he pleaded with the Judge to restrict the (child) handover's to a neutral location. He contended that Charla was violent and had threatened him with death many times in the past.
He knew that any one-on-one interaction with Charla was going to be a bad thing. But the judge insisted on having it his way.
The only people (alive) that know what really happened in that garage is Darren Mack. After Charla lay bleeding on the floor, I believe he really did "snap." It may seem that getting that rifle and waiting on the judge to pass a window was premeditated, but Mack was at the end of his rope. His critical thinking, conflict resolution, and ability to reason were all skewed. And I would bet that he felt the judge was the one who put him in that situation. He did what all men do. He fixed it.
I think some of the posters are right. Freedom ain't free. Sadly, I think there will be more people like Darren Mack.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:14 am
The problem with this stuff is that the Domestic Violence "experts" will use this as a catch all for their "cause." This will be the "see I told you so" that men are all crazies that want to shoot everything, and everybody. Truth is this guy is a wacko, but I think it hurts the men's movement when it comes to domestic violence issues. I am glad Glenn feels the way he does about this guy. Being mad and wanting to shoot your ex, or the Judge is one thing, but acting out on it is another.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Kenneth says, "He killed the childs mother and took away both of his child parrents. I have no sympathy for that. If he had killed the judge only I would be sending him flowers and my judges home address."
Kenneth is right in a way. No matter how much we go through, killing your child's father or mother should NEVER happen. I don't think anything could ever be so traumatic to a child, losing both of their parents in the worst ways. Who would then raise your child? You run the risk of condemning your own child to foster hell (or worse).
Normal people don't do what Darrin Mack did. I almost snapped during my case, but I kept my sanity by fighting back constructively. Got my point across, they stopped threatening me, and learned some valuable lessons along the way. My oldest daughter (born when I was 17) still has it bad, with a terrible mother. PAS, false allegations, illogically vindictive, etc. My oldest daughter's life is ruined, but not as badly as it would have been if I would have snapped like Darrin Mack did.
I don't condone what Darrin Mack did. I still can't condemn him. From what I've seen, he wasn't "father of the year", but he wasn't a deadbeat wife-beater either. Just a regular guy like all of us, who couldn't handle the pressure and snapped. Many of us were *just* lucky enough to not do the same. There is only so much ANYONE can take, and there is NO excuse whatsoever for our own government to be destroying our lives like this.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lessman
. www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
Email: talessman@yis.us
February 12th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Actually justice is only partially served.
When the Mary Winklers of this world are given life sentences, then justice will be served.
Kevin Merck
February 12th, 2008 at 10:43 am
From Glenn's Feb 12 newsletter, "Social change isn't made with tempered voices."
Glenn has been the tempered voice throughout the whole Mack affair and trial. Glenn continues to be the temepred voice on many other men's issues. In this issue Glenn again condemns other men's advocates who are not so tempered and demand change in a loud voice. But Glenn even quotes the real wisdom of the disagreemnet in the community of men's advocates. "Social change isn't made with tempered voices."
For more than a century feminists have demanded change in loud, shrill, offensive voices while men have been polite, reasonable, and losing. A tempered voice gets lost and his cause gets ignored. NOW President Marcia Pappas understands that you have to be loud and untempered to make social changes. A few men's blogs and men's advocates have figured it out. We no longer will be cowed into being polite, being tempered. We will speak our truth loud and untempered, and we will demand change from the feminist dominated police state under which Darren Mack was being destroyed. Mack had been crucified by the evil police state. His right to earn a living was taken away even while he was ordered to pay huge slavery payments to his ex. He was headded straight to debtor's prison for being unable to pay the evil female who destroyed his family.
Come on Glenn, read you own column and learn from the successful NOW advocates you quote. Men are demanding social change, and we aren't going to get it with tempered voices. Read your own column Glenn. It's right there. We MEN can't make social change with tempered voices.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:57 am
"Simply put one man with a bullet can create more change than a thousand with protest signs."
Has there ever been a gathering of one thousand men with protest signs? And if so, why wasn't I invited?
That one bullet was hugely detrimental to MRA's in that it only reinforces the public notion that we are irrational and violent batterers fully deserving of the harsh realities of the VAWA.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:00 am
When the system uses a gun to force a man to pay another man(woman) $10,000/month, don't be surprised when he grabs one and fights back.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:07 am
That one bullet was hugely detrimental to MRA's in that it only reinforces the public notion that we are irrational and violent batterers fully deserving of the harsh realities of the VAWA.
No, the public notion would be reinforced with or without it. Without it, they'd find some other excuse. Just like public notion about women wasn't changed when winkler shot her husband in the back and let him bleed out: They excused that away. Look at the Duke case. Has that changed any public notion about women and rape? Barely if at all.
Has there ever been a gathering of one thousand men with protest signs?
And what would such a gathering be? Such a gathering is a threat to our government that said group will seriously consider revolt if their demands are not met. You can pretty it up any way you want, but that's what it is.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Jean Valjean said:
“That said, for all the men who have been screwed over and all the judges, lawyers, and vindictive ex-wives who profited and got away with it I find it hard to have any sympathy for Mack's ex-wife or the scumbag family court judge he shot.”
I agree – while not condoning his actions, I have no sympathy what so ever for the wife or judge. I am always amazed that we express shock and dismay when individuals lash out at their antagonists who, with some degree of sadistic (almost taunting) pleasure, take someone’s life’s work and children from them with the stroke of a pen – all in the name of “justice”. I find it hard to believe that this doesn’t happen more often – I suspect it would have in earlier times.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Mack is a murderer, pure and simple.
Exactly WHAT was he defending himself from? Was his wife armed? I've seen no suggestion of it in the press coverage I've been able to find.
And how, exactly, was the judge screwing him? He had week-on, week-off access!
Short of full custody, it doesn't get a lot better than that.
The demands on his wages MAY have been excessive (I haven't seen what proportion he was being asked to contribute) but there are other means to get those reduced than murder (which in any case hasn't, presumably, removed his child-support obligations - just delayed them somewhat).
If the murder and attempted murder weren't pre-meditated, then can any of his defenders please try to explain away the bomb-making materials or the ammo?
The only travesty I can find in this case is that he's been sentenced to at least 34 years. The sentence itself isn't the travesty - rather that Mary Winkler and other female murderers get massive sentencing reductions for similar bouts of pre-med murder and should serve the same tariff.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Thomas said:
"My oldest daughter (born when I was 17) still has it bad, with a terrible mother. PAS, false allegations, illogically vindictive, etc. My oldest daughter's life is ruined, but not as badly as it would have been if I would have snapped like Darrin Mack did."
No offense, Thomas, this statement seems to contradict itself. I'm not suggesting you should have killed the ex but seems possible the daughter might have been better off in some way.
I can certainly see a case for a man believing that his children would be better off in a foster situation than with an evil woman.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:23 am
If Darren Mack had been more conventionally minded, he would have simply shot himself, instead of other people.
Funny that the epidemic of suicide among men, and especially divorced non-custodial dads, gets no media play.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
What about Mary Winkler?
Was that justice served?
You can’t give Mack life, and Winkler 67 days, for the same crime, and call that justice.
“Without justice being freely, fully, and impartially administered, neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be protected. And if these, or either of them, are regulated by no certain laws, and are subject to no certain principles, and are held by no certain tenure, and are redressed, when violated, by no certain remedies, society fails of all its value; and men may as well return to a state of savage and barbarous independence.”
-Joseph Story
February 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Violence begets violence, injustice begets injustice. When government engages in violence and injustice, inevitably it tends to come back at those who engage in it, including those in government. As I recall, 'courtshouse security' was a virtual non-issue until Richard Nixon and the creation of the DEA and its associated laws and so-called no-fault divorce. It is a good reflection of tyranny that so-called health and human service workers do their work where the reception area has bullet-resistant glass and sometimes armed guards or cops.
Glenn and company, with so many cops and corrections types, and 1/4 of the world's prison population, how do you expect people to behave in a 'police state'. Those folk who spoke of 'black helocopters' and the like aren't as bizarre as they seemed before I entered the Woman Court System.
Mike
February 12th, 2008 at 11:40 am
"Mack is a murderer, pure and simple."
I challenge that, as I have a hard time thinking of anyone as pure and simple anything. That's what courts are doing when they automatically take accusations of DV at face value. There are always associated circumstances which should inform one's opinion of any act, illegal, immoral or otherwise. The only possible exception is the case of a purely conscienceless psychopath, and I am not even sure that those exist. To dismiss Mack as a "murderer, pure and simple" is to attempt to disable further discussion, which may prove fruitful in preventing further tragedy. Either that, or you are attempting to associate yourself with a absolutist moral position, in which case you are as vulnerable to attack as any other rigid ideology.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Best summation of the issue, yet!
Miles Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 11:00 am
"When the system uses a gun to force a man to pay another man(woman) $10,000/month, don't be surprised when he grabs one and fights back."
February 12th, 2008 at 11:46 am
He was asked to pay $10,000 a month based on an income of $44,000 a month. That's $44,000 a month, not a year. It was hardly an unusual ruling by the judge.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Wow, that is interesting --- about how wealthy he was when he snapped! (Never knew that, thanks Glenn.)
So, clearly his money meant nothing.
How do you explain that?
February 12th, 2008 at 11:55 am
By the way, if anyone reading this discussion thinks it is unreasonable and reactionary, check out the comment stream in my latest blog post regarding the Tim and Paula Parmeter tragedy, you'll find a classic example of the complete suspension of rational thought when a woman kills and the shifting of the blame onto the victim man, even if its her own child that she kills and with revenge as a very clear motive.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:59 am
She also got to live in the $1million house and he had to pay for it.
44000/Month
-(11000) Taxes (conservatively)
-(10000 ) House (whats the payment on a million dollar house with all utilities?)
-(10000 ) Ex-Wife alimony
Seem fair and reasonable?
Especially given that had joint physical custody. Why should he pay anything?
Wheres her responsibility?
Glen, does the fact that its an unusual ruling make it right?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Should read, "not an unusual ruling"
February 12th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Glenn Sacks Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 11:46 am
"He was asked to pay $10,000 a month based on an income of $44,000 a month. That's $44,000 a month, not a year. It was hardly an unusual ruling by the judge."
Nonsense Glenn. His income was based on his pawn shop business, and because of VAWA he could no longer posess a gun. VAWA takes away a man's right to own a gun if he has a "restraining order" slapped on him by a lying ex and an evil agent of Satan in black robes. His pawn shop business was GONE. He was UNABLE to pay the $10,000 per month. He was headed for debtor's prison.
Wake up Glenn. "Social Change Isn't Made with Temporate Voices" Read your own column.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Darren Mack only represents crazed murderers like himself. But I still believe in the theory that some men do snap and create mayhem after going through the feminist meat grinder. I was once a Casper Milquetoast and when faced with some insurmountable injustice I have snapped and committed some major damage. When I'm pushed I don't mind destroying families. That's how some people turn out after they've been abused for too long. Fortunately I found feminism to spar with. But Jay R you nailed it when you said that you're surprised that there aren't more Darren Macks. It's a credit to our gender that we don't sell out our families and trash mothers wholesale.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Well, according to his own testimnony on 2/7/08 he sure came up with an extra million dollars when he needed it. As for Miles, I doubt those figures are true, but even if they are it would've left him with a mere $150,000 a year to live on. Poor guy--no wonder he stabbed his wife and almost cut her head off.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Glenn said:
“He was asked to pay $10,000 a month based on an income of $44,000 a month. That's $44,000 a month, not a year. It was hardly an unusual ruling by the judge.”
America traditionally derived its strength from the hard work and endeavor of individuals. This has served the country well. Family courts are social in nature and frequently, in effect, punish individuals under the guise of being in the broader interests of society. It is not surprising that after being brain washed from day one with the propaganda of America being all about reward for hard work and personal sacrifice and “justice” (ie, the great American dream) that some individuals are angry and some will lash out when they discover, first hand, the sick lie that has been shoved down their throats. Civil courts can and do steal from individuals who have worked hard and contributed to society for their entire lives. Stripping individuals of all they have worked for – to the benefit of their tormentors, is no way to do it.
It is unclear to me why he should pay anything at all to his ex, unless he had an agreement to do so – it was his money, not hers. Welcome to the wonderful world of equity because “I want it”.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I know this to be true: "An eye for an eye makes the world blind."
I know this to be true: "A man who turns the other cheek gets bruises on both sides of his face."
At what point do you stop walking away and HIT the bully? At what point is acting within the bounds of the law submission to tyranny? At what point have your honor and ethics become a weapon with which your opponents are beating you?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Glenn said:
“Well, according to his own testimnony on 2/7/08 he sure came up with an extra million dollars when he needed it.”
So I guess Paul McCartney should be over joyed at being allowed to pay Heather Mills a trifling 100 million dollars for having suffered living with him, at his expense for four years.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Celia, I didn't say Mack should be overjoyed--I said he shouldn't have murdered his wife and (almost) murdered a judge.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Celia says
"It is unclear to me why he should pay anything at all to his ex, unless he had an agreement to do so – it was his money, not hers. Welcome to the wonderful world of equity because “I want it”."
Thanks Celia!
February 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
But Glen, if you pull a gun on me and steal my money, don't be surprised....
February 12th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Celia -- "America traditionally derived its strength from the hard work and endeavor of individuals."
That is truly funny and totally ridiculous!
America is a proud nation of theives.
I can't spend the time to go into all the details....
But our European founders committed genocide against Native Americans. It was called "Manifest Destiny."
Some four million people with strange names disappeared in order to promote "democracy."
Today we are spending billions of dollars to erase people with Muslim names in Iraq -- a country that never threated us in any way.
What part of this cultural madness do you fail to see?
How can anyone believe in "America" today?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Glenn said:
“Celia, I didn't say Mack should be overjoyed--I said he shouldn't have murdered his wife and (almost) murdered a judge.”
Okay, you had me worried there for a moment . . .but I still say this whole issue of paying someone for being your domestic partner has its genesis in the ancient duties of a man to a woman, ie a man owned his wife and their children and therefore had a duty to provide and protect. It was part of the quid pro quo that society and ultimately the law acknowledged. That whole thing went out the window when equality entered. The notion of owing a domestic partner anything in the modern era is WRONG from both an equity position and ethically – that is what equality is all about – but courts insist on towing the ridiculously antiquated equity line in spite of the fact that, technically, it constitutes theft. Sir Francis Bacon has a lot to answer for – what an A-hole.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Celia Says ...
You should listen to her guys. She makes pretty good sense. (Most of the time)
February 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I blame Mack for not finishing the Judge. If they didn't have there immunity's they wouldn't make slaves of free men in America. I do think He was wrong to kill the ex-wife. But we are all aware of the murder/suicides raging everyday. Then there are those that suffer in silence till they take there own lives. Mack isnt so much of a murderer as He is a victim of the system. And NO, I dont think He would have done this in the first place if the wife wasnt going to destroy his lifestyle. So He is not the reason the courts are oppressing men.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
She got alimony because they were married for 10 years, she bore and was the primary caregiver for their daughter, and also took care of Darren's children from a previous marriage. She had no independent income--getting 22% of Darren's hardly seems a cause for murder.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Roy said:
“That is truly funny and totally ridiculous!”
The point, which I think you missed, is that America has and still pays lip service to the worth of the individual. For the most part, early in our history the individual had the right to get on with his life without undue interference from government (read that as the pursuit of happiness). This, despite any number of arguments to the contrary, was largely the case. As you rightly point out in the modern era that has changed – but the propaganda is extant and widely promulgated – it is everywhere to be seen. That’s the point – it is a lie and you have to look no further than the civil courts.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
then she should have went out and got a job.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I absolutely condemn the actions of Darren Mack, with no reservations.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
JD (11.40am) -
I am not taking an "absolutest moral position" and I am not attempting to "stifle debate" but how exactly would YOU describe his actions?
He's killed his unarmed wife by nearly severing her neck (do you know how much strength that would have taken? Especially with a knife?!) and attempted to kill a judge with a rifle. A jury of his peers has found that the killing was murder and that the attempted killing was attempted murder.
Therefore, he IS a murderer - and yes, that IS as pure and simple as it gets.
The jury may have been misled, or the prosecution may have got their facts wrong but until he wins on appeal he will still be a murderer.
Rather than trying sophistry to nit-pick at a single phrase, why not explain to me why he had accumulated bomb-making materials and a stack of spare ammo? Why not explain to me how killing his ex-wife, and thereby leaving his child to grow up in the foster system, was the act of a concerned parent? Or how sniping at a judge sudenly makes him a suitable poster-boy for the MRM?
I can't answer those questions, and I haven't seen a response (yet) from anyone here that does either.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
At what point have your honor and ethics become a weapon with which your opponents are beating you?
It started with "Chilvary"
February 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Glenn said:
“She got alimony because they were married for 10 years, she bore and was the primary caregiver for their daughter, and also took care of Darren's children from a previous marriage. She had no independent income--getting 22% of Darren's hardly seems a cause for murder.”
Of course it is not a cause for murder but it was a reason for it. I call it theft but others call it alimony. Being married for 10 years has nothing to do with it, unless they had an agreement.
If I support someone in a job for 10 years and then let them go I don’t continue to send them a pay check once they cease working for me – even if their job was being a primary care-giver to my child. Get real this is a load of tripe. Unless she was totally incapable (and even then it is a matter of conscience), why should he pay her. Suppose the shoe was on the other foot – would want her to give him her hard-earned money. When equality came in equity should have gone out.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
A philosophical dilemma:
If you could go back in time and had the opportunity, would you kill Hitler?
Now, what if the only window back in time was when his mother was pregnant with him?
Today, very few people have any memory, or knowledge of the devastation and destruction of WWII and may not be able to comprehend the question.
It is essentially a question that assumes if Hitler had not lived WW II would not have happened.
The keyword is assumed. If it was known, with absolute certainty, that WW II would not have happened if Hitler was killed, would you do it? 65 million dead versus one man.
Tough question, and think given "absolute certainty" it would be irrational to say no.
However, the problem is really twofold, one cannot know with absolute certainty Hitler's death would have prevented WW II, and that in any given population and conditions that existed at that time, there were not multiple individuals capable of accomplishing the same thing.
So what is the real solution?
Condemning, hanging individuals, or removing the conditions which allow them to exist?
Hitler only came to power after one government after another in Germany failed to succeed under the conditions which were imposed on them after WW I.
We know what works, reward good behavior, punish bad. When individuals are punished for what ever they do, it does not take long before they learn that lesson and will adopt a course of survival which minimizes the punishment and maximizes the reward, regardless of the cost to their fellow man.
Do not think Darren Mack's actions served any one's interest but his own.
However, I am not so blind to think his actions had to happen and would have only happened under any circumstances, because that is just who he is.
Think the case of Darren Mack is like after WW I, if a way had been provided for a German government to succeed by any other way than producing a Hitler, Hitler would have never came to power, and think if justice was found in our courts no one would be reading of Darren Mack
John F. Kennedy summed it up best
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
JT
February 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Come on Celia - I'm no fan of alimony either, but she was taking care of his children (even those that weren't her biological offspring).
10 years isn't a 5 minute fling, and he should be expected to support his kids financially. Whether 22% is a fair level of support can be argued, but not the fact that they should be supported.
From what I've read to date, he had opportunities to save the marriage (if he'd stopped swinging it would have gone a long way to helping) and refused to take them. Even Muslim marriages are dissolved if the husband is shown not to be putting any effort into the relationship.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I think it is nearly pointless to decry Mack. The current state of affairs is borderline by most people's definition. That means it is borderline worthy of rebellion. I fall on the side that we can and will fix this peacefully, but I am not surprised that people like Mack exist, and I wont waste my breath condemning him. I would rather have 1000 Family Law Court judges given life sentences, along with those who have corrupted the law and ignored the constitution.
I do believe in responsibility, and that the punishment needs to fit the crime.
These are judges that are sworn to uphold the constitution and protect the people. Instead, they have created a business of slavery and draconian detentions. To the extent where they are not killing people they do not deserve to die. But they deserve to have their career and ill gotten gains taken from them, children taken, and themselves incarcerated for the damage they have done.
If there was a decent movement to bring justice against the Family Law system, would Mack have killed his wife and attempted to kill the judge? We can never know, but it certainly looks like a minority of people faced with these issues take the law into their own hands. Such happenings will become more and more common as justice contiinues to fail.
It is exactly this state of lawlessness that we seek to prevent.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
No they should be tried for treason....and the punishment for that is hanging
February 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
"Therefore, he IS a murderer - and yes, that IS as pure and simple as it gets."
No, it isn't that simple, or else there would be no reason for this extensive discussion.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Glenn said:
“. . . she bore and was the primary caregiver for their daughter. . .”
I guess she didn’t want to do this. I suppose, being a male chauvinist pig, that he forced her to stay home and mop and clean and wait on him and his children hand-and-foot. She probably hated bearing his child. Sorry but I don’t buy it, she, obviously, wanted to do this and she, also obviously, received his financial and (presumably) emotional support during the relationship. The relationship ended – his debt is to his children not her. Equality means that she can now get a job to support herself and their child.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Stephen,
Whilst I get your general drift, how can Mack be excused the murder of his wife on the basis you've set out above?
If he'd just gone off to take pot-shots at the judge then maybe (and I'd still think the reasoning was flawed) you'd have a point. But Mack murdered his wife first.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Stephen M Weiss Says at 12:47 pm ...
That should be the focus here. If we don't hold the courts responsible for their crimes this will keep happening. It's easy to forget that hundreds, if not thousands, of cases like this go unnoticed because a judge wasn’t shot in the process.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Celia -
Emotional support? What, like telling her who he'd slept with at the latest swinging bash he'd been to?
JD -
I haven't seen anyone here say that her killing wasn't murder (except Mack himself) - the extensive debate seems to be people just trying to justify WHY he murdered her.
Funny that the bomb-making kit and ammo gets constantly overlooked.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
James Howard Says:
"Celia -
Emotional support? What, like telling her who he'd slept with at the latest swinging bash he'd been to?"
That's funny, I heard he wanted to stop the swinging and that's why she left him.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
**********
James Howard Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Stephen,
Whilst I get your general drift, how can Mack be excused the murder of his wife on the basis you've set out above?
If he'd just gone off to take pot-shots at the judge then maybe (and I'd still think the reasoning was flawed) you'd have a point. But Mack murdered his wife first.
******
The argument is not being made to excuse Mack, after all, what makes him so special.
The argument is being made that when the law is administered in such a manner that it prevents the reasonable belief, that there exist a path of recourse, for the resolution of grievances, that is perceived as fair and justice, it should surprise no one that there will be individuals that will not appeal to it, but take the law into their own hands.
JT
February 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Swinging is no correlate to alimony. Sorry, I have to say it again – there is no justification for alimony, except contractual. The rationale for alimony (and property distribution) lies in the notions of equity. Equity in any other realm is based upon measurable contribution per se – not perceived nor claimed “need”. In other words, you can’t go before a judge and say well if I wasn’t nice to my boss he couldn’t have earned his income so he owes me some of it, or because I maintained my property beautifully my neighbor should pay me a percentage of the great price he got when he sold his property.
In family courts, equity is based upon a presumption of contribution usually founded upon nothing more than having “been there”. It is hard to stomach the notion that one person has worked while the other was supported financially (and presumably) emotionally and that their contributions to the “assets” can be seen as equal (based in equity) – when in fact, and technically at law, they were not. It is my view that alimony, in the age of equality, is more akin to theft.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Kevin,
Not having been in the marriage in question, I can't be 100% on who wanted the swinging, but this is from a quote from a guy called Tong (quote's in the Reno Gazette Journal) who was hired by Mack when he was trying for sole custody of his kids:
"According to Tong, the divorce, already fractious because of the battle over marital assets, was made even more so by Mack's insistence on keeping up his alternative lifestyle, a lifestyle that included swinging. "There's no doubt in my mind that when they got married in '95, my guess is that shortly thereafter, he wanted to engage in this alternative... swinging type of life and she acquiesced... I guess through his goading her to do so," Tong said. "But when the child was born in '97... she saw it as an unhealthy thing for the kid and she demanded it to be stopped. He wouldn't." In fact, by all accounts, Mack continued to troll the Internet for potential partners, including setting up a Web page at MySpace.com, a site generally frequented by far younger users."
February 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
James Howard said:
"Celia - Emotional support? What, like telling her who he'd slept with at the latest swinging bash he'd been to?"
James, please note that it was presumptive - not a statement of fact.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I wonder how many marriage proposals Darren Mack will receive now that he's locked up for life?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
James Howard Says:
"Kevin,
Not having been in the marriage in question, I can't be 100% on who wanted the swinging "...
That's probably a good enough reason not to go there in the first place. The fact is you don't know and you should leave it at that.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
The criminal injustice system in this country has been using violence against the people for decades. We've seen the massacre at Waco. We've seen innocent citizens gunned down in their homes by SWAT teams (try googling "Don Scott" for an egregious example). We've seen cancer patients dragged away by secret police to the American gulag for smoking medical cannabis. We've seen the frame-ups and malicious prosecutions and the criminalization of a generation. And now we are supposed to be feel sympathy for one of the gang who is perpetuating all of this? It doesn't wash. If the system is going to use violence, and unconstitutional/illegal violence at that, then by what right does it have to complain when that very violence bounces back at it?
More recently, the government openly admits to torture (waterboarding). And suspension of Habeas Corpus. And surveillance cameras up the wazoo. At what point is your average American going to realize that we are living in a police state?
February 12th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I get enough man bad, woman victim messages in the main stream media.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Geeez, I can't keep up with the posts today. Seems like Glenn touched a nerve here. I'll have to hand it to you, Glenn, while you take the "high road," the point is getting out! Do you think that this thread could set a one day record? I do have to respond to James Howard's comment about bommb-making material and ammunition.The chief ingredient for making bombs is gray matter found between a man's ears! As a reloader and a hunter, I constantly have bomb making materials on hand. What I find frightening is that thegovernment can charge any of us with having bomb making materials, starting with things like gasoline and eggs!
February 12th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The founding fathers' were being robbed (via extremely high tax rates) by a corrupt government and the started shooting British government officials, and those aiding the crown and they are...... PATRIOTS.
Darren Mack was being robbed (via divorce and alimony) by a corrupt government and he started shooting corrupt government officials and those aiding the government and he is said to be....... A MURDERER.
Something doesn't add up there. And by the way Darren Mack was being extorted for more then 22% of his income. He's required to pay with post tax dollars on pre-tax income. Lets do a little math here.
He makes: $528,000 a year
The tax rate on that bracket is 35% so his after tax income is: $184,800
So his after tax income is: $343,200 a year or $28600 a month
Out of that his wife gets: $10,000 a month for mommy support. Leaving him with $18,600 a month.
So all told the government is extorting him for 42% of his income. And that's not even taking into account the millions of dollars that his wife would get from his divorce. It's not like she was going to be out on the street. She's now a millionaire!
And on top of that those projections are based on past estimates! The probability of Darren Mack making $528,000 next year is no greater then the probability of a small company continuing to make (comparatively) meager earnings! Would anyone care to invest their life savings, and all future wages into a penny stock, and then allow a judged to make future financial obligations based on those shaky projections?
I didn't think so!
The bottom line is a free individual has the god given right to protect their: Life, Liberty, and Property, using force if necessary from those who wish to take those freedoms away. And it doesn't matter whether a it's a mafia don using mafia trained thugs with guns to shake down a local business, or; a government bureaucrat in robes using government trained men with guns, the situation is the same.
I applaud Darren Mack's brave decision to defend himself against those who tried to extort him using creditable threats' of violence and imprisonment. Sometimes the only way self interested parties will stop: murdering, enslaving, and stealing; is when the bodies start piling up. With the Civil war and the subsequent end of slavery in the United States being a prime example.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Faced with slavery I wonder why it has taken this long for the Macks to appear.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Oh and I forgot to add. Since Darren Mack was slapped with a restraining order he now can't own a firearm. And buy & selling guns is a significant part of a pawn shops business. So not only did the government take 50% of his wealth. It then mess up his business, and then ordered him to pay 42% of his now non-existent future income.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I suppose it's the Devils advocate in me....I don't condone it but I understand it.
The Mary Winkler defense works if you're a Mary Winkler ( or a Clara Harris ect et all ) But if you're Darren Mack You get life in prison. The point is...justice is whatever the politicaly correct power structure say it is...which isn't justice at all & guaranteed to produce more Darren Macks...which is what they want !!
Think about it !!
February 12th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Regarding the gun, according to Mack's own testimony, on the day of the killing he was going hunting with a friend and was going to apply for a concealed weapons permit--I can't see he would be doing that if he was banned from having a gun by a restraining order.
If his income is $18,600 a month, as you calculate, he came out damn well.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
So Glenn, you're advocating that one adult work to earn $10,000/month for another adult.
What does he get in return. If nothing, then that is slavery.
It could be argued that he should help her for a while, but $10000?
Do you still agree if she is truly walking away with over 1 million in assets from the marriage.
I'm not sure how you can say he "came out damn well" if he earned $44,000 but only keeps 18,600. After all, he IS the one working.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
She worked too, pal, taking care of all those kids and the house. It's guys with this kind of "the bitch doesn't deserve a dime" attitude that helped put fathers in this place to begin with.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Don't put words in my mouth, pal.
There is no question that she worked - parenting is tough.
She chose to go a different direction with her life. She no longer deserved his lifestyle.
Her decision.
She got half the assets. Does she deserve future assets for having had a relationship in the past?
She's not paying HIM for working but he's paying her for past parenting.
Ridiculous!
February 12th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
She worked too, pal, taking care of all those kids and the house. It's guys with this kind of "the bitch doesn't deserve a dime" attitude that helped put fathers in this place to begin with.
She doesn't. She took care of the kids and the house, he took care of the financial income to keep the house.
If he's still responsible for financially supporting her, then she should still be responsible for the kids and the house. As she's not, then don't call it a divorce because HE'S NOT GETTING ONE. She is, he isn't.
The deal wasn't "I'll support you until the end of time" the deal was "I'll share responsibilities with you while we are married". She's no longer sharing responsibilities. She is no longer entitled to any of his shared responsibilities.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Glenn,
You keep defending the position that She deserved the ENORMOUS amount of money She got from leaving a marriage.
The fact that there are so many disenfranchised fathers here saying that she didn't deserve to die and she didn't deserve a dime. Why do You feel that she deserved something?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Mike Hunter Said:
Lots of stuff that I agree with, thus my statement – alimony, in this time of equality, is theft.
Good figures Mike, although, it is genuinely irrelevant how much he makes after they have separated, she cannot continue to claim equity – she is no longer “contributing”.
The rationale (entitlement) for alimony is absurd. It is like your parents demanding some of your income because they supported you for all those years. It is truly a legal fiction whose origins lie in the time when men were held to be responsible for women.
Alimony currently serves the purpose of supporting the civil legal industry – because it is so unreasonable (and irrational) most people threatened with this theft will “fight” it in court – which is great for the legal fraternity but in today’s world amounts to nothing more than a form of PUNISHMENT for the person who works hard and did all the supporting in the first place – it is totally absurd in this time of equality.
Glenn said:
“She worked too, pal, taking care of all those kids and the house. It's guys with this kind of "the bitch doesn't deserve a dime" attitude that helped put fathers in this place to begin with.”
No one ever said she doesn’t deserve a dime. The argument is against alimony. Are you saying that she didn’t reap the benefits of his support for 10 years? She got paid, I suspect handsomely, through the property settlement and the fact that he supported her for 10 years. Are you are suggesting that he still owes her a living even though she no longer contributes? If you want to be “equal” her then she should in turn pay him a percentage of her income – that’s about as rational as the other argument. Alimony is a form of punishment for the person who works and earns the most and rewards the person who doesn’t or earns less.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Why do You feel that she deserved something?
She deserved something because she sacrificed income and career to raise their kids--including Darren's kids from his previous marriage. Mack didn't earn the money--they earned it together as an economic unit, and she deserves a fair share of it.
As for initiating the divorce, since he was committing adultery--serial adultery, apparently--he's got nothing to complain about. He obviously didn't care about the marriage, he obviously didn't mind getting divorced, he obviously knew he would have to pay something in the divorce, 22% certainly is not out of line--this is why he murdered her?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Then why try to kill the Judge?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
So your saying that this guy deserved to be a slave? You think He should be reduced to a visitor to his own children? you think He deserved the endless harassments from the Domestic Relations office in that town? and all that comes with the divorce....
February 12th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Glenn said:
“Mack didn't earn the money--they earned it together as an economic unit, and she deserves a fair share of it.”
I fall back on principles of equity – my neighbor and I are also an economic unit by your definition. To wit, if my work benefits him and vice versa. Do I owe him money if my house achieves a greater sale income because he maintained his property next door?
The relationship a husband has with his wife is described by law to be “domestic”. It is not a business relationship but the law turns it into one the moment separation happens – prior to that not a word is spoken.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
"He should be reduced to a visitor to his own children?"
As I stated in the post, he had joint custody, one week on, one week off.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
thats only temporary and you know it
February 12th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
She deserved something because she sacrificed income and career to raise their kids--including Darren's kids from his previous marriage.
SHE MADE A CHOICE!
God forbid we EVER hold a woman responsible for her decisions. God forbid we EVER hold a woman accountable for the risks she faces when they come true.
The problem, Glenn, is that your statements support the belief that women are more valuable than men, and therefore are entitled to more protection.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Mack looked at His options and knew He was screwed. He has been reading the horrer stories on Glennsacks website and knew it would be a never ending battle. He thought about killing himself then came up with another idea.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
"my neighbor and I are also an economic unit by your definition"
come again?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Glenn said:
“she deserves a fair share of it “
I suspect that she got that in the distribution of assets – based upon her “equitable” and financial contributions during the relationship.
“22% certainly is not out of line”
22% of someone’s income is completely out of line, unless the contribution made by the other party continues. I also note that alimony is totally dependent upon the jurisdiction. In many, alimony, in the strict sense, is no longer on the books. The money she is “entitled” to is based upon her contribution and I suspect that she was pretty well compensated by the property division. Now that she is free of the drudgeries that he forced upon her she can get a better paying job – or she can continue to live off of his hard labor – let’s see, hmm which do you think it will be?
Alimony is one of the irrational sticking points in family law, one that causes tremendous angst for the one from whom it is being stolen - it should be put to rest.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
come again?
The property value of a house is greatly dependent on the surrounding neighborhood.
As such, if my house increases in value because my neighbors maintain their houses well and the property value goes up, do I owe money to my neighbors when I sell my house?
It's the same argument you are using... that because she did X which allowed him to earn more money... only applied in a way that nobody (sane) will agree with :)
February 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
If She just wanted out She could have left, She wanted out with a payday. Thats the difference I think everyone here is saying.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Glenn said:
“"my neighbor and I are also an economic unit by your definition"
come again?”
I think you know what I mean. The claims for alimony are based on equity – the question I am putting to you is where do you draw the line – equity is based upon contribution and that contribution must be measurable, in other words it cannot be so tenuous as to become absurd. When you make a contribution you can make a claim in equity. If I support my partner through med school (which I did) and we break up (which we did) am I entitled to a percentage of his income for ever? Well according to you I might be entitled to that. Wrong – I am entitled to get out of it what I put in (plus interest).
There is no closer nor stronger domestic relationship than that between parent and child – and no stronger financial relationship enforced by law. Thus parents are by law required to “support” their children financially. The child is “entitled” to the support. When the parenting role ends (at 18 or 24 years) the entitlement ends, for good reason – the relationship has changed. It is kind of like a divorce if you will.
The domestic relationship between a husband and wife is, in 50% of cases, also finite, where do you draw the line in equity. In my view the child has a stronger case for continued support from its parents than either partner in a marriage after separation - after all the child had no choice in the matter whereas the partners, in today’s world, certainly did.
If we lived in a time when women could not ever achieve equality, financially or otherwise, I would not have a problem with alimony based upon the clear presumed social contract – those days are gone.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Darren Mack is a thug, plain and simple. What he did was nothing less than evil. However, the same goes for Mary Winkler. The difference is that Mary Winkler got to go on Oprah Winfrey and shake a pair of high heel shoes at the audience to get sympathy. I very much doubt Oprah will have Darren Mack on her show. It just seems to me that women continually get the kid gloves when it comes to the justice system we have today. Many whackjobs in the feminist movement think Mary Winkler was a victim and should be given sympathy. Don't be the MRA equivalent of those feminist freakshows and have sympathy for someone of the lowest common denominator like Darren Mack. He doesn't deserve it. I believe that those of us who care about the rights of men and boys should not sink down to a level of supporting those who we know are wrong and have done terrible things. I believe that we are better than that. I believe that what we stand for is truth, not some juvenile knee jerk reaction of supporting anyone who is our gender, regardless of what they have done. Darren Mack is a killer. Mary Winkler is a killer. Pointing out discrepancies in punishment is what we should be doing. Not rallying support for an obviously evil man.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Has this discussion gotten off track? It seems we should have a bit more on the disparity in sentencing. While few of us (if any) think he shouldn't see lots of jail time how can this in comparison to Mary Winkler for instance be seen as anything other than evidence of a female sentencing discount?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
But is He evil? Or was He desperate? Did He see this as a misrible alternative to something else. I haven't heard anyone say Hes innocent. He did do it. But His motive is whats important here. The why, why would He do it. Was He a victim of the system?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I absolutely condemn the actions of Judge Weller, with no reservations.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Al:
I don't think most are defending the actions of Mack. We are pointing out the injustice orchestrated by the courts, and the screwed up way many Americans view that injustice.
I think it’s a bit unfair to lump everyone into your expressed category, sounds a little “lofty” to me.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Al would seem to have gotten back on the track I was thinking of.
Do you think maybe we give the Winklers of the world too much sympathy and the Macks too little?
And are we rallying support for an evil man or sugesting that Mack's attempt on the judge should be taken as a warning?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I think there’s more than one issue here. I’m not sure which is more important, but the sentencing disparity was the first that came to my mind.
A life sentence for Mack, as opposed to 67 days for Winkler, can hardly be called justice.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
there have been several issues addressed here:
1, (Deleted--no positive reference to violence or threat of violence is allowed on this blog)
2. Alimony is theft of a man's future earnings. While there may have once been a justificaion for alimony when a man abandoned his family, and women did not have equal rights to employment, today with women considered "equal" by civil rights laws, and women abandoning the family with "no fault" divorce, any continuation of alimony is reduced to simple violent armed robbery of the man.
3. There is a huge injustice between the sentencing of men and women in the US. The differece between 67 days and life in hell is a sentence for the "crime" of being a man.
I expect the misandrist feminist dominated government to exercise their police state power against any man who fights against them, but I am disappointed that so many otherwise good men are siding with the feminazi and their agents. Sending men to life in prison for the "crime" of being men is not justice, it is holocaust.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Let’s see Mary Winkler wasn’t threatened with losing half her life’s work, nor a 22 or 30% impost on her income nor possible loss of access to her children by the very society which claims to have her best interests at heart. No, she was asked to wear some 70’s white platform shoes. Hmmm, sure I can see the comparison – very stressful indeed. This was clearly a justifiable homicide if ever there was one.
Although Darren Mack certainly won’t be invited to be on Oprah, I note that Oprah, to her credit, didn’t seem to buy into Mary’s insufferable angst over the shoes.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
possible loss of access to children
Let's go over it yet again--Darren Mack had joint physical custody on a week-on, week-off basis.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Glenn Glenn Glenn.....You know that She could go back to court any time She wanted and complain about anything and have everything changed. The whole time Mack would have had to pay attorneys and defend Himself from who knows what. You want to be chivalrous and give the ex something she dosent deserve. And again She dosent deserve to get killed
February 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Glenn said:
“possible loss of access to children
Let's go over it yet again--Darren Mack had joint physical custody on a week-on, week-off basis.”
Yes, I got that. I am simply planting the seed of the question of how long that might last. Mei culpa, I was speculating, on the basis of it not being unheard of for custody issues to be come up further down the track when it serves a particular party’s purpose – but you are right mere speculation – thus the word “possible” since judges do, on occasion. revise custody orders. Sorry if anyone was misled by this.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Let's go over it yet again--Darren Mack had joint physical custody on a week-on, week-off basis.
And we all know how long that will last after he's in jail for not being able to pay child support and alimony based on an income that he is no longer able to generate due to the limitations placed upon him by the courts.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Another aspect is there are hundreds of these murders we never even hear about because a judge wasn’t shot. The only reason this got so much attention is because of Weller.
Why are so many murder cases involving the Family Courts ignored by the media? This is not an isolated case, this is an epidemic.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Mack didn't earn the money--they earned it together as an economic unit, and she deserves a fair share of it.
So is an investment banker and his full time nanny. If you want to take then position then that's fine fine. The market wage for a full time nanny is freely available, and it wouldn't come out to millions' of dollars. Of course whatever Mack provided for his wife above what a normal nanny would have been paid would have to be deducted from her divorce settlement.
And how exactly does the government extorting you for 42% of your businesses possible future income constitute coming out ahead? Keep in mind that if his business pulls in less revenue he goes to jail. Unless of course you take the liberal view that the government is entitled to the fruits of your labor, and as a worker you should be happy with what the politicians left you after they are done.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Despite the speculative notion of custody, my point still stands – individuals who are crushed by society’s legally sanctioned thugs, have palpable stress – stress that, I suspect, most reasonable people will grasp – while having to wear shoes is, I hope in the eyes of most people, somewhat less of a reason to lash out – (as in shoot a sleeping person in the back, watch their exsanguination and then take the kids on a trip to the coast). Neither type of stress justifies murder but one is, from my perspective, somewhat more understandable than the other.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Regarding James Howard's post of 12:54pm wherein he states that I am 'excusing' Mack of his crimes. I did not say that. We have a justice system, and he tried to kill a judge. That makes his crime an attack on the state. I have elsewhere stated, and I think earlier on this thread implied, that these cases are NOT justification for the killing of one's children. I believe his sentencing was more severe because he tried to kill the judge. That is a special kind of crime, I don't know the exact detail of it, but representatives of the government are given special protection in the performance of their duty.
When I said I would not waste my time decrying Mack, I mean 'my' time. Stephen M Weiss, a blogger on this site and family law reform advocate does not want to make decrying Mack part of my political objective. The man has already been sent to prison for life. There is a full bureaucracy set up to deal with him. I leave it to them. I have no reason to believe that due process was not served, and I dont have a problem for life long incarcertation for his crime. It is Mary Winkler's sentence I have a problem with.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Glenn;
SHE sacrificed? I would expect more of a rational approach from you, but the feminist brainwashing seems to be almost universal. When a woman marries a man and is a stay at home mom, she has not "sacrificed" a blasted thing. On the contrary, it is the MAN who has sacrificed his bachelor lifestyle so she can do what she wanted to do in the first place: stay home, play with babies, grow obese, and have a man foot the bill.
I can't condoning murder, but this insane notion that a woman somehow sacrifices by not having to work is the ultimate insanity. Women have created the ultimate racket. Get a man to support your laziness, and then make him feel guilty for it. Unreal.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
One small point, a spouse should only be entitled to what their earning potential would have been had they continued their carear on their own and they should only be rewarded for the sacrifices they made while being married. If one parent makes all the sacrifices while the other one get's to stay home with the kids, who is actually getting the better deal here? You can't put a price on the time you get with your kids. People who feel they are entitled to something they weren't willing to work for themselves need to rethink that scenario. If the spouse was a deadbeat before, during or after, they don't deserve anything other than that lifestyle once they leave the relationship. At most they might deserve a chance to catch back up but they must also be willing to work for it. Sorry, no free rides here. -HD
February 12th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Mike Hunt said:
“So is an investment banker and his full time nanny. If you want to take that position then that's fine (sic). The market wage for a full time nanny is freely available, and it wouldn't come out to millions' of dollars.”
Good illustration. That’s kind of what I was getting at when I noted that the law is silent (at least in many jurisdictions) on what a domestic partner is entitled to during a relationship. It only becomes a business/financial issue when the domestic relationship ends. Equity, in a real court, must have a demonstrable contribution basis and while the court may make the ultimate determination of what that might be, they do so on the basis of legal evidence – which usually means the same facts and figures that make the business world function. That is not how it happens in many (most) family court jurisdictions because if you could settle on a reasonable basis – ie on genuine contribution (viz, ones measurable), there would be less work for the courts – they have a vested interest in their “business” continuing and, I believe, growing. A sure way to do that is to make unreasonable awards – thus even those who genuinely don’t feel they are “entitled” will, often at their lawyer’s urging, be encouraged to try. It is a vicious circle with those who actually do the work being punished for being productive, hard-working members of society – you know the ones who make keep the show on the road.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
***
Glenn Sacks Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
She worked too, pal, taking care of all those kids and the house. It's guys with this kind of "the bitch doesn't deserve a dime" attitude that helped put fathers in this place to begin with.
****
How about the bastard doesn't deserve a dime?
No one expects the woman to feed the man
In fact, no one expects the woman to do anything for the man after a divorce. Wny?
It is a divorce.
What is particularly appalling is how the woman can end the marriage then expect the man to continue to support her. Bascially, all she is saying is she gets to terminate her obligation, but he is stuck with his to her.
JT
February 12th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I think that my lawn guy has sacrificed his career in running Microsoft to cut my grass. Logically, I owe him at least half of everything I ever make, and that will never be enough!
(jk)
Caring for kids has a market rate, and it is not half of whatever dad may make. It is the market rate dammit!
February 12th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Glenn says: "She deserved something because she sacrificed income and career to raise their kids--including Darren's kids from his previous marriage. Mack didn't earn the money--they earned it together as an economic unit, and she deserves a fair share of it." She deserves half of what is earned during the marriage (community property). Alimony is NEVER justified. She deserves nothing more, nor does any husband or wife, but how many men have received alimony? (Want to be laughed out of court, if not the whole state?) BTW, she did not deserve to be killed, either. The system which enables this tyranny to exist is made up of people who DO need to be held accountable. And I no more excuse Darren Mack for killing his ex than I excuse Lt. Calley for tha Mi Lai Massacre, but I understand the reasons behind both, at least in part.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Some people point out that a percentage of parents will "snap" when their children are taken from them. However, in Mack's case, he had 50% physical custody.
It seems that he was already "snapped", or that the alimony was his excuse to "snap."
I've read and heard about fathers living in their cars as a result of child support. Mack was wealthy compared to many, many fathers...and he had 50% physical custody.
Darren Mack killed his wife, and justice was executed when he received life in prison without parole.
Now he has no opportunity to enjoy his children. Now he has no freedom to spend his money.
Do you think that family law feminists will connect his name to the word testosterone in order to prevent the enactment of a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting?
February 12th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Christopher Says
When a woman marries a man and is a stay at home mom, she has not "sacrificed" a blasted thing. On the contrary, it is the MAN who has sacrificed his bachelor lifestyle so she can do what she wanted to do in the first place: stay home, play with babies, grow obese, and have a man foot the bill. Women have created the ultimate racket. Get a man to support your laziness, and then make him feel guilty for it. Unreal.
Exactly.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
"On the contrary, it is the MAN who has sacrificed his bachelor lifestyle...."
[Iin most marriages], women also sacrifice their natural inclination to be promiscuous.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Hay KB......I find it more than a stretch to compair Mack to Lt. William Calley. If you knew the whole story you'd know that Calley snapped after his men were being picked off one by one by VC ( non-uniformed combatents which is illegal under the GC ).... "Kill them all & let God sort them out" came out of that incident which I do condone because that WAS in the commission of LEGAL warfare in a known WAR-ZONE where known enemy VC and NVA were active... & were the VC ever heald to account ?? No !! Lt.Calley was a good soldier made into an expendable scapegoat & in my opinion worth more than any Darren Mack... Not the same thing my friend !!
I would rather make the compairison to the Angela Davis bunch & that Marin County shoot-out of the early 70's
February 12th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
"[Iin most marriages], women also sacrifice their natural inclination to be promiscuous."
If that's the case then Men would be nagging women to marry them. But since that isn't the case, they aren't. Also very few men want to marry a woman with a million dick miles on her in the first place.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I guess Glen got spanked with the alimony He said She deserved for all Her hard work in the marriage.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Sometimes I'm a little to obtuse, or perhaps just illogical. We agree, savagebongosacramento, for the most part. The real blame for Mi Lai lay with the formulator of the policy of free-fire zones, General William C. Westmoreland. Mi Lai was one among several massacres under that policy. Just the same, all of us had the responsibility to control ourselves and behave as soldiers, not animals, the same as Darren Mack had a responsibility to behave as a civilized human being under extreme pressure. As with Westmoreland, an ultimate resp[onsibility lies with the judges and lawyers of the family law system, because their policies make these incidents inevitable, and they only give a damn when one of them becomes a target. I now return to my obtuseness.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Glenn;
Possibly I'm just irritable today, but let me further illustrate my point. I'm 47, never married, and have been able to use my money as I see fit. My home has been paid for since I was 38, and I purchase a new Harley every 8-9 months. I have all of the trappings of bachelorhood, yet I'm not rich. Yet, I buy what I want, when I want.
If I was to marry, or if I had married in the past, my home would not be paid for. I would not own the two Harley's I presently own, nor would I be able to spend my money on my other hobbies. I'm almost completely solvent financially, and will retire very comfortably some day. If I was financing a woman's breeding operation, all of my efforts would be directed towards serving her, and only her. My pleasures would not matter to her in the slightest.
My married friends are always broke, and they are, for the most part, well-educated and well-paid professional men. Yet, they don't have the proverbial pot to pee in, nor the window to throw it out, as the old saying goes.
Now, who is sacrificing by getting married?
I think my next door neighbor put it quite well last summer when he leaned over the fence while I was washing my bikes, and said "You're living the life every married man wishes he had."
February 12th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
BTW, that motto is "KILL 'EM ALL AND LET THE DEVIL SORT 'EM OUT IN HELL!"
February 12th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I have not followed the Mack case, but the snippets that I have come across here and there suggest to me that he was a rather unpleasant individual who is not deserving of much sympathy.
But, who knows? - given that men are almost invariably demonised very heavily in these particular situations.
Had he been a woman, you can bet your last dollar that he would have been portrayed in a completely different light.
Furthermore, I still hold on to the view that anybody who takes away a man's children and/or his home deserves little sympathy if they suffer significant retribution.
I suppose that for some men, arguing their case in court is a reasonable option, but for many men - particularly the less intelligent, the less wealthy, the less articulate and/or the less able they are to deal with officialdom - such an option is going to get them nowhere. And so, in my view, violence is not only understandable and predictable, but also morally quite justifiable.
To put it bluntly: If someone is taking away your home and your children then I think that you are quite justified in behaving violently towards them.
Would most people say that a woman who is being raped is not entitled to react violently against the perpetrator?
No, they would not.
Most people would argue that a woman in such a situation is perfectly entitled to react with violence.
Well, most people would also say that they would rather be raped than lose their homes and children. In other words, losing one's home and children is worse than being raped.
And so if a woman who is being raped is justified in reacting with violence, then there is even more justification for violence when a home and children are at stake.
Well, that's my view.
But let me just take this issue a little further.
Imagine, for the moment, that instead of flying planes into the twin towers, the terrorists had just taken them over.
They kicked everybody out and said, "No American can come into these buildings ever again."
Do you think that the state would simply have sat by and accepted this?
No. The state would have gone in with its guns blazing.
If a group of MRAs took over a judge's home and said, "This judge can never enter his home again," do you think that the state would simply sit by and accept this?
No. The state would use violence.
Well, I see very little difference in principle between such scenarios and men being denied access to their own homes and children. And so if it is acceptable for the state to use violence in the above circumstances then I believe that it is acceptable for men to use violence in circumstances which are similar.
Of course, there is a legal argument which would say that it is legal for men to be denied access to their own homes and children but it is not legal for a group to take over the twin towers or the homes of judges.
So what?
Just because something is legal, this does not make it moral. And just because something is illegal, this does not make it immoral.
Besides which, laws are made by people, not by gods. And, these days, laws are made by people who are thoroughly corrupt, and who are pursuing their own feminist-dominated agendas. Morality and fairness do not come into their equations. Indeed, their 'relationship' laws are specifically designed to break up men's families and their relationships.
We know that these laws are designed to debilitate men.
And given that the state is supportive of these thoroughly unjust laws, and, further, that the state would use violence to uphold them, then it seems to me that men are perfectly entitled to use violence in order to counter them.
And if you argue that men should not use violence in order to try to combat the taking away of their homes and children then you must also argue that women should not use violence in order to try to combat an attack by a rapist - because, I repeat, in the eyes of most people - including my own - the former is far worse an injury than the latter.
Indeed, when the state commits 'crimes', this is a far, far more heinous situation than when individuals do such things. And this was recognised in the old days when, for example, it was said that it was far better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted for a crime that he did not commit.
Nowadays, however, the state seems to commit crimes - mostly against men - with relative impunity.
This situation is absolutely intolerable, and if it takes violence to stop the state committing such crimes then, quite frankly, it is something that will/might need to be done.
To see just how completely unacceptable it is for state officials to engage in crimes, let us just get a feel for a few 'crimes' and their perpetrators.
If my memory is correct, there are about 20,000 homicides every year in the USA. Most of these are committed by individuals.
But what if these 20,000 homicides were mostly carried out by the state?
Such a thing would be absolutely terrible. The whole of America would live in fear.
There are probably millions of thefts committed every year in the USA - most of them by individuals. But what if most of them were committed by state officials?
What if most rapes were committed by state officials?
You can surely see that while it is one thing for us to abuse each other - kill each other, rape each other, deceive each other, steal from each other, deny each other access to each other's homes and children - it really is quite another thing for the state to engage in such activities.
Indeed, a crime that is committed by the state - i.e. by its officials - is a thousand times worse than is one committed by individuals.
As such, crimes by the state must not be tolerated - at any level.
And so when, for example, the state - i.e. its officials - acts in a corrupt manner, when it deceives us, when it prosecutes innocents with impunity, when it stacks the justice system against certain people, when it kicks people out of their own homes etc etc - i.e. when it 'abuses' people - then people, in my view, have every right to react with violence if they cannot gain redress through any other means.
And the only reason that there are not many thousands more men who react with murderous violence is because of the consequences that the state would inflict upon them.
In other words, it is a fear of the consequences - and not a question of 'justice' - that mostly prevents such things from happening.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
A.R. Says "I guess Glen got spanked with the alimony He said She deserved for all Her hard work in the marriage."
No, A.R., I just got busy with other things. But this thread has been useful--it is a classic example of the attitudes that helped create the problems fathers face today, and which impede the movement's current progress.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
i.e. This is government through fear - not through justice.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I agree 100% with harry.
I believe far too many people confer legitimacy on the behavior of the government-or at least ignore entirely the governments hand in all of this. Hence, the much greater attention given to the law breaker. Lines have to be drawn of course when determining rights and responsibilities. When laws get passed, and when laws get enforced that provide ease and ample opportunity for one side to destroy the other side-and receive the encouragement to do so from the government itself-then this too must come under close scrutiny and condemnation.
(Positive reference to violence deleted). The state is as much the culprit as Darren Mack. In fact, it was the state that caused this outcome the most. It was the state that gave Mack a strong incentive to do what he did. Courts were meant to address conflicts and grievances, whether between private citizens or between citizens and the state so as to prevent the violence that would erupt from injustice. That is why it was given one of the three branches of government. Our courts today are the ENABLERS AND CREATORS of violence because they do not dispense justice-they pick sides-they have already picked winners and losers before plaintiffs show up in court.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Glenn says---->classic example of the attitudes that helped create the problems fathers face today
No these are real issues of human rights and constitutional violations foisted upon an unsuspecting country. I love you Glenn, but what You are saying is that fems deserve something for destroying a marriage and taking everything they can. Many many many dont agree
February 12th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Fathers didnt create these problems feminists did. Where did that statement come from. You are sounding more and more like them.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
A.R. Says "what You are saying is that fems deserve something for destroying a marriage and taking everything they can."
The biggest thing that destroyed this marriage was Darren Mack's repeated adultery. I suppose Charla was supposed to just stay with him anyway? And if she divorced, she should not get any share of their combined wealth?
February 12th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Like I said befor, if she wanted out she could have just left, she wanted a payday. and again im not defending Mack,
February 12th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
What did she do to earn that wealth? So she deserves what? Anything? I say no.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Glenn - leaving out Darren Mack for the moment. What about those fathers who have done nothing wrong - in many cases being totally committed to their wives and their families; but who, nevertheless, explode with murderous rage following the judge's decision to remove them from their homes and children.
Would you condemn them totally?
February 12th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
****
Glenn Sacks Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
"it is a classic example of the attitudes that helped create the problems fathers face today, and which impede the movement's current progress."
******
So if we just shut up alimony will disappear?
The reason they can take our children, our property and our liberty is they know they have nothing to fear and the majority live in fear of them.
Best do nothing to piss them off, is the thinking of a slave, to live in fear.
JT
February 12th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Glenn said:
“it is a classic example of the attitudes that helped create the problems fathers face today, and which impede the movement's current progress.”
Do you have time to explain that? I think I understand what you are getting at, but that may be entirely too presumptuous.
No one has said Darren Mack was a hero, in fact most have admitted that what he did was wrong. On the other hand, most have also highlighted some factors that might have pushed him over the edge (and identified some of those things as being very wrong) and some have even said they can understand his actions without condoning them; some have compared the potential precipitating factors with the horrific factors that Mary Winkler told the world pushed her over the edge.
I suggest that the problem is that the state makes a big song and dance over telling the individual that working hard and keeping his/her nose clean will provide them with just rewards – but then turns around and takes a substantial portion of what she/he has worked for and gives it to another individual who has, in most instances, already been amply rewarded by “entitlement”.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Women can just up and divorce. Get everything they ask for and the man dosent get squat. Just because this case has a murder involved Im not going to change my view on it. Im not going to be sympathetic because she a woman. Lets go down the road a bit and say Darrin didnt kill Her, where would He be right now? Id say its a 50/50 chance He would still be in jail for non-support or contempt of court. Probably a 90% chance He would be having unrepairable financial problems and loosing His business. And 100% chance He would be going back to court in the near future for something else with child support or alimony.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Glenn:
As I said, I admire your strategy in taking the high road. You really do illuminate it when you state: "But this thread has been useful--it is a classic example of the attitudes that helped create the problems fathers face today, and which impede the movement's current progress." I'm watching and learning.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
It's a community property state--she had a right to half their combined wealth. The $10,000 a month--which Darren Mack never paid, even once--was in consideration of that.
As for Harry's question, when a person is angry over something they say has been done to them in family court, it's always hard it know if he's a good guy who's angry because of what happened to him, or if what happened to him occurred because he's a bad guy. I've got a simple rule--if you kill someone or try to kill someone, then you're a bad guy. That's how we know.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
So its better to kill yourself then so someone else dosnt think your a bad guy, right?
February 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Glenn said " I've got a simple rule--if you kill someone or try to kill someone, then you're a bad guy. That's how we know."
So, American soldiers in Iraq are bad guys?
February 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Simple rules don't work in the real world.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
If you want to see some -
“classic examples of the attitudes that helped create the problems fathers face today”
go to any number of feminist sites - they are myriad and classic indeed.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
all those guys that blew there heads off over family court issues, how would you classify them?
February 12th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
harry Says "So, American soldiers in Iraq are bad guys?"
I was referring to people in family court who kill their wives or judges. That is what we were discussing, right?
A.R. Says "So its better to kill yourself then so someone else dosnt think your a bad guy, right?"
I never said anything like that. It's better to fight, the way the gentlemen I cited in my blog post fought. Each one of them has far, far more courage than Darren Mack.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Glenn said:
“It's a community property state--she had a right to half their combined wealth.”
That’s the problem – it is an anachronism and one which is grossly unfair and irrational in the modern context. It should be based on the equality that both genders now have - it should be based on measured contribution.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Glenn:
You are either instigating or you are a pacifist. (Re: my comment at 8:01)
February 12th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
And for every one you name I personally know of 10 that are in jail right now. They fought back like gentlemen yet they were screwed. If you want to be a marter fight like a gentleman, if you want to win fight like demon going to hell.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
It is the lack of rational thoughts being expressed that will continue to re;egate the mens rights movement to nothing more than a footnote in history.
Very, very few rational voices have been heard in this discussion.
Please continue. Your opponents enjoy the dog and pony show.
Doc
February 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Glenn said " I've got a simple rule--if you kill someone or try to kill someone, then you're a bad guy. That's how we know."
For many men, having their homes and children taken away from them is worse than rape - worse than death; in some cases.
They become deranged with anger.
Good people can become ***deranged*** with anger.
Good people who are ***deranged*** with anger can kill.
This does not necessarily make them bad people.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Doc
In my view, Glenn Sacks is one of the best MRAs in the business - if not THE best.
If you don't like what you read, why not go away?
February 12th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
****
Doc Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
It is the lack of rational thoughts being expressed that will continue to re;egate the mens rights movement to nothing more than a footnote in history.
Very, very few rational voices have been heard in this discussion.
Please continue. Your opponents enjoy the dog and pony show.
****
So no man should have any rights until all men are worthy of them?
That is irrational
JT
February 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Glenn is great, but no one will agree on everything on all points. Besides arnt we invited to say what we think. Its wrong to ask someone what they think then get mad cause they say something you dont like. Wacko chick do that
February 12th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I have just made an ambiguous statement ...
"In my view, Glenn Sacks is one of the best MRAs in the business - if not THE best."
... and you never know with you Americans. So I am going to rephrase it.
In my view, Glenn Sacks is one of the best MRAs in the business - and, probably, THE best.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
So, Doc, we're thinking irrationally. Let's engage in some truly irrational thought. There are some men who become desensitized by the violence done to them. They cease to feel, just as if they were in a war. They are good men, but they have suffered too much sensory input and become cold and calculating, no longer feeling fear and accepting that they are dead men. For the most part, they don't engage in these little conversations. They do not explode like a Darren Mack, which is why Darren Mack deserves condemnation for killing his wife. Yes, there are some poorly expressed comments in this thread, but I suggest that you read what is behind them and consider the truly irrational men I have cited, for when they act there will be no rationality left!
February 12th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Robert--your comment has been deleted. As I've explained, positive references to violence are not permitted on this blog--see My Rules on Blog Comments, rule #4. http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1764
I'm getting tired of having to delete comments such as Robert's when I've got so many other things to do. Because of this I'm closing the comments--if anybody has anything intelligent to say that would provide a compelling reason to reopen them, they can write to me at glenn@glennsacks.com.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
[...] My position on Mack has inspired a lot of hostility from some posters on other men's and fathers' rights blogs. In February Mack got what he deserved--a life sentence. To learn more, see my blog post Justice Is Served: Darren Mack Gets Life Sentence. [...]
April 20th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
[...] My position on Mack has inspired a lot of hostility from some posters on other men's and fathers' rights blogs. In February Mack got what he deserved--a life sentence. To learn more, see my blog post Justice Is Served: Darren Mack Gets Life Sentence. [...]
April 21st, 2008 at 1:37 am
MRAs may be in the wrong to take this guy's side, but doing so is certainly no worse than women taking the side of Andrea Yates or Mary Winkler, both of whom have managed to escape the full justice their crimes warrant. To demand that all MRAs condemn him is to embrace an anti-male, anti-MRA double standard.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Just like Glenn appears to say guys: Give up, let the femmunist take all you have, forget your children exist even though your remnants of a paycheck tell you otherwise, and SHUT UP, because fighting back is WRONG! HOPEFULLY, when you and your ex stand before God, Jesus will say "Well done" to you and "I know ye not" to your ex and she will be tossed into the lake of fire!
August 5th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I think what the guy did was insane, wrong, but I can't help but wonder what would happen if people started shooting judges and people who try to force in horribly un-just laws?
In this case the judge didn't seem to bad (but i only saw a short clip) and the guy did get to see his child.