The One Year Anniversary of Darren Mack's Killing Spree
June 14th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
This week marks the one year anniversary of Darren Mack's murder of his estranged wife and shooting of a Nevada judge. The event is being recounted in several articles, including One Year Anniversary Haunts Reno (KREN, 6/12/07) and the more detailed Violence reverberates through lives (Reno Gazette-Journal, 6/10/07).
I've written about Mack on numerous occasions, including Do I Even Need to Say This? (6/19/06, see below), Thomas Jefferson Murdered Women? (6/26/06), First Darren Mack, Now Herbert Chalmers--More Radical Fathers' Rights Idiocy (2/10/07), and Darren Mack and the Presumption of Innocence (2/24/07).
The evidence of Mack's guilt seems overwhelming, but we'll see what happens in his trial. Some of those on the not insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers' movement expressed sympathy for Mack, even likening him to the 18th century American revolutionaries. My view is that, after a fair trial, Mack deserves little more than a rope and a tree.
(Note: some have criticized me for ignoring the presumption of innocence in Mack's case. However, the presumption of innocence is a legal right--it has little to do with how I, an opinion columnist, am supposed to judge him. I've little doubt that Darren Mack committed the crimes I've mentioned. If it somehow turns out that he is innocent, I will of course correct myself and apologize.)
Reprinted below is what I wrote immediately after the killings last year. In reading it again now, I can't say I'd change a word.
Do I Even Need to Say This?
I'm not sure that this even needs to be said but I will say it anyway--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 any more and snapped" variety.
I don't buy it. Though everyone is focusing on Mack's attempted murder of a judge, everyone seems to forget that he first stabbed and killed his ex-wife. After murdering her, he shot the judge through the judge's third-floor office window with a sniper rifle from over 100 yards away. That's not "snapping"--that's premeditated murder. Mack is not a good man trapped in a bad system. He is a bad guy. Because of men like him the system had to create protections for women, and unscrupulous women have misused those protections to victimize countless innocent men. Men like Mack aren't the byproducts of the system's problems--they are the problem.
Whenever a divorced dad has done something crazy and I refuse to make excuses for him, certain misguided individuals get mad at me, call me a wimpy moderate, a sellout, etc. Often the fact that I have never been divorced or dealt with the family law system in my personal life is cited as the reason that I "just don't get it." For example, I heard this type of criticism when I condemned Perry Manley here. (I will admit though that Perry Manley is a saint compared to Darren Mack).
To all the radicals out there about to descend on me over my comments on Darren Mack, I offer the counter-example of the Englishman David Chick. If the system has screwed you and you want to do something about it, have the courage to do what David Chick did. Chick was denied access to his little daughter by the girl's vindictive mother, and had been to court 25 times and spent the equivalent of $30,000 in unsuccessful attempts to get English courts to enforce his visitation rights.
Chick then launched a world famous, traffic snarling, six day, one-man protest atop a 150 foot high crane near the Tower Bridge in London in November 2003. Facing a prison sentence for his protest, Chick was acquitted by an English jury, some of whom were reportedly moved to tears by his testimony. In 2003, Chick came in second in the Evening Standard London Personality of the Year contest and was the runner-up Political Personality of the Year on a major English television station.
In September 2004, Chick struck again, climbing the London Eye, an enormous 450-foot-high Ferris wheel on the banks of the River Thames. Chick spent 18 hours there--one hour for every month that had passed since he had been able to see his little daughter. Nearly 20,000 people were prevented from visiting the attraction because the police closed it down during the protest. Popular still, a London jury again acquitted Chick of causing a public nuisance.
Chick succeeded in changing his case and is now a regular part of his young daughter's life. David Chick acted with humanity and courage. Darren Mack possesses neither.
"));
19 queries. 0.513 seconds.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:12 am
If you think the system is going to change through dialogue, you are seriously mistaken. People like Darren Mack are heroes. Let's only hope there are more brave souls out there willing to dole out justice to these judges since they will never be held accountable in their lives.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Eddie-
Likely it will not change only through dialogue.
That said, it will surely not change through thuggish acts of moronic violence.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Agreed, however, relishing in the death/injury of an unjust judge is a great start.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Whoa. There are people who, in this day and age, seriously advocate using murder to affect political change? That's practically the dictionary-definition of terrorist.
And Eddie, seek professional help. The only thing that worries me more than your attitude is the possibility that one day you might put your money where your mouth is and hurt someone.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Darren Mack is a murderer.
He should be condemned without qualification, and when found guilty, he should be sentenced to life in prison.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:53 am
My brother dragged me to the firing range once. That's the only time I've fired a gun. I'm not violent in any manner, however, the greater sin in my mind is the hypocrisy. If I were to say I didn't enjoy the knowledge that the judge was shot, then I would be a liar.
It's not advocation. It's acknowledgement of others actions making real change.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:08 am
If one must highlight the violence of Darren Mack for the cause of father's rights, use it as an example of how peaceful the rest of the fathers are for the sake of their children.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:56 am
The real question in my mind concerning Mack are the rumors concerning his sexual liaisons. Having said that, I understand those who don't advocate violence as a remedy for societal ills but these issues are almost at critical mass. There are some who work within the system, such as local government and state legislatures, in an attempt to gain equity for men but that process is nearly impossible to salvage to my reckoning since the Family Court system is a hardened bureaucracy. When 40 billion dollars is collected from non-custodial parents annually through the states and we know that the Federal government rewards the successful recouping of this money by giving funds to the states and finally we also know that several judges are state and federal officials-----do you think the abusive kickback system will end because we appeal to the emotional and physical separation of fathers and sons? I don't think so because to change it would be a radical paradigmatic shift effecting the social and monetary order. Those of you who think that violence can be assuaged given the current terrain are quite naive. My hope is that the longer this war goes on and the thousands of veterans who lost their children due to no fault of their own due to false allegations and separation will either speak up or rise up. Who will dare tell me that they don't have a right to violence? After all, they swore to defend this country from all enemies foreign and domestic----is not the status quo a domestic issue? They were to defend the 'rule of law' and the 'American way of life' while in a foreign land and when they returned, they found that a fundamental human right based upon natural law had been denied to them; that is the relationship between parent and child. In essence, they fought, they died and they were wounded for mere platitudes, nothing more. No matter what anybody here would wish or advocate-----these fathers have a right to justice and equity and sorry to say it, it may come by unpleasant means.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Eddie: Darren Mack is a hero??
This is just what feminists do, they blame all female wrongdoing on men, either it was self defence or she was fighting against the patriarchy, or men deserve cos' they oppress us (that las one came from a man)
Mack is a murderer, that is that. What he did can only really be justified in self defence or the defence of others. His crime involved neither.
How can we criticise the sickening things the courts and the media let women get away with without properly calling a guilty man just that, a guilty man.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Callum:
So, when slavery was legal, it was wrong for a black man to strike violently against the establishment?
June 14th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I agree with Eddie, it is slavery. They call it everything elase but what it really is, but it is slavery in deed by what they do to fathers. Its not the words that make them liars its there actions. Taking away a persons rights to rais there own children and confiscating property, no due process, no jury, incarceration with no crime commited, till the money is paid. What else do You call it? Extortion, blackmail,SLAVERY,it is self defence, of both His own rights and the constitution. In the last day there is a church called the lukewarm church, the movement is lukewarm. Our protests are ignored and the oppression gets worse. What else do You do?
June 14th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
A little recommended reading:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SGAZdjNfruYC&pg=PP1&ots=vrO43gmOOC&dq=animal+farm&sig=aM9v-PCO2F5t1k7hdBHI7apSyhM
June 14th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Eddie, yes it is different. Slaves had no rights at all and were not considered human beings. However, we both live in democratic countries in which most political change comes through protest. Look at Luther King, Gandhi, Mandela. All great men who did not need to resort to murder to acheive their aims.
As Glenn spoke of, the British father4justice campaigner eventually got to see his son, which is his right. Mack will rot in jail, and he deserves it.
How good a role model is a convicted mruderer to his children?
P.S. I own animal farm, excellent book, I often quote it to criticise the ironic statement, in which country are women MORE equal? In this case, women are 'more' equal. The difference is, whereas Mr Jones could kill rebellious animals, Mack has democracy. He has freedom and he has his right to life, just like his victim.
A non-violent solution will NOT alienate people from the men's rights movement and will NOT end with loss of people's lives, both the judges and most of Mack's in jail.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
callum828,
This is a matter of jurisprudence and it may be esoteric to some but the principles will never change. The law promulgated is the positive law and insofar as it differs or is not based in or derived from the natural law, it is no law at all---objectively speaking. Human, inalienable rights are derived from the Natural law, not from the social contract or a law promulgated by the state or polity. The nation, this nation could simply dissolve yet the Natural law would remain. It is the duty and right or all human beings when the Natural law has been usurped to fight. They may first fight with political means and the like but if they have no recourse, then they can resort to violence to obtain those rights latent in nature that the state, an artificial construct, has usurped from them without authority. In short, the state in its promulgation of positive law does not have a monopoly on 'rights' nor do they have the absolute say concerning what is 'right' or 'wrong' for to say that it does, necessarily invokes an ethical appeal to the Natural Law, a law that they cannot own nor master. This implicit appeal to Natural law brings about the notions enshrined in the code of hammurabi or the ten commandments. It is also discernible from nature by human reason. Thus, in a given situation where the Natural law is subverted, destroyed, usurped or denied; the human being would have the right to kill to preserve it and his culpability would not rise to level you are suggesting. Remember the maxim: Lex injusta non obligat----------unjust laws are not obligatory. It is my contention that the Natural law, the very basis for so-called 'human rights' has been usurped and the hour is fast approaching where dialogue or the status quo will not obtain. iacta alea est.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:36 am
"This is a matter of jurisprudence and it may be esoteric to some but the principles will never change........."
Darren Mack is a murderer.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Michael H,
Objectively he is----who was contesting that but the question is what was his culpability? This case or any case like it---if the judge did not fulfill his mandate----his culpability or sin is greater than the man who would kill him for the reasons the man sought his blood were engendered by judicial negligence and turpitude. The judge may have murdered justice and by doing so, a causal chain is necessarily engendered. Every action has a reaction but that law is not limited to Physics---since the human being is a moral and physical agent an unjust action will cause a moral action----and murder is a moral action--it is objectively immoral. However culpability in light of the actions undertaken by any individual at all will necessarily have to come into evaluation; that is the actions committed by any and all parties. This does not lessen the evil of murder socially or morally but some individuals do not have the wherewithal to cope with the temporal realities brought on by men who, having been entrusted with the public good and justice, have judged capriciously or erroneously. There is the judgment of the human court and then there is the verdict of another. So, before you wield 'murderer' so assuredly you should discern and weigh the nature of moral culpability in this case or any other case like it.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
"...judge may have murdered justice and by doing so, a causal chain is necessarily engendered."
Darren Mack is a murderer.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Repeadetly posting Darren Mack is a murderer, has as much substance as any other 5 words you can string together.
Darren Mack is a murderer.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Obviously he's a murderer. Those who refuse to see arguments to justify murder are being willfully blind. Self-defense is an obvious justification. Defense of another's life is another that many people recognize. Punishment of those who have committed certain crimes is called by murder by those who disagree. It is not inappropriate to discuss whether other justifications are possible. Calling a killing a murder is indicative of one's opinion more than a description of the act itself. I have not walked in Mr. Mack's shoes, thankfully --- but those who deny any intellectual credit to an argument in his favor should read Malcolm X. Even if you don't agree, and I don't agree, we should all pay attention to what gets written on the wall.
I personally agree that David Chick's path is a better alternative. But I also think David Chick, in the US, would not have gotten off in our justice system, having seen jury selection processes firsthand, and his efforts would probably have ensured he would not have seen his daughter until well after she turned 18. I bet Glenn knows that, too.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I also believe the Black Panthers and other groups advocating violence, while rejecting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s path, helped boost mainstream acceptance of Martin Luther King's grievances and his arguments for redress. And that, even if you reject violence, it is only honest to recognize it as a symptom of the environment. Violence cannot be the final answer; regardless of what Mr. Mack felt at the time, it has ended poorly for everyone around him, including himself. Individually there are always other alternatives. Yet it can still call attention to real problems. Even disagreeing with the violence, we can still call attention to the problem as we call out for a different solution (like, say, changing the custody and cs laws).
June 15th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
"Those who refuse to see arguments to justify murder are being willfully blind. "
Murder is never justified. If something is done in self defense then it's not murder. This was not self defense.
"Yet it can still call attention to real problems. "
It can be used to justify generalizations that harm all men.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
'Repeadetly posting Darren Mack is a murderer, has as much substance as any other 5 words you can string together.'
What more substance does it need? If you have no respect for the right to life for someone you *don't like* then you do not deserve much. I may not *like* bigoted feminists, but I would not killl them, nor would I relish in their deaths.
Also Thomas, there's no need to use unnecessarily complex vocabulary to make your point seem more convincing. Unless you can accept that our political system has no place for people slotting anyone they don't agree with, go live in North Korea.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:57 am
The most emotion-laden argument used against men and fathers, the one that is used to justify discrimination against them in the courts the most, is the supposed propensity of all men toward violence. Murder, especially of one's wife, can only hurt men's rights.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Callum828,
It is quite irrelevant whether you think the language employed in my posts is 'unnecessarily complex.' What is of the greatest importance are the arguments employed. We are here on a forum and the majority of us live within the USA, as such we ceaselessly and religiously extol 'democracy', and 'diversity' as the hallmarks of the 'American way of life.' My views are different than yours and my arguments, though you do not directly address them, are sound as well as firmly rooted in the Western jurisprudential tradition. I will talk and write in a manner suited to communicate these underpinnings of philosophy properly understood. If you really think I am so unnecessarily verbose for the singular purpose of sounding more convincing then I question your ability to comprehend words, concepts as well as political philosophy. There are underpinnings to law and justice that are not and cannot be promulgated, owned or governed by any state or government and if you cannot see this then I would accuse you of deifying the state and as such, you are quite illogical for your notions of justice will live and die with the existence of the state; an entity that will not save any man objectively speaking.
June 17th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Thomas, please don't patronise me I can understand what you have written. I'm quite familiar with the legal traditions of the West (living in Britain.) The problem is you just wrote 9 lines of essentially nothing. Please, how exactly are you trying to justify murder?? 'Democracy' does not involve ideally involve murdering those who disagree with you, that is the beauty of the olitical system. Please, explain your actual point. Was Darren Mack justified or not in the murder of his ex-wife and a judge? If not, why are laws and human rights exempt for him?
June 17th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Callum(828)
As I said in the beginning, besides the issue of murder (because Darren Mack is a murderer) there is the other issue concerning his sexual liaisons while he was married and after he was married. The information concerning this is sparse and is sealed as such we cannot get at his true culpability concerning the death of his wife or her culpability. Concerning the attempted murder of the judge,(the judge did not die) the question concerning his culpability extends to the execution of his office and mandate. That Darren Mack is a murderer and an attempted murderer is obvious but it does not end there----there are the culpable actions of others. This is not justifying a murderer, every human being is a moral and physical agent and as such you should also ask if the judge is exempt from the law or human rights, for he does not make the law himself, he preserves and protects the law but he does not promulgate that law properly speaking. There is more than enough blame here to go around and Darren Mack has the lion's share but please do not think that either the judge or his wife may be immaculate because chances are they were not. Finally, a point aside, the judicial and legal system in this country is irrevocably broken and I and many others presage that there will be more of this because the reality is that the Family court system does not actually care about the 'best interests of the child' but they care about money, power and politics. Also, I would beg to differ with you, you may be familiar with the legal traditions of the West because you live in England but do not think your country is the epicenter of the Western legal tradition; England forsook that under Henry the VIII-----that is to your country's everlasting shame.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Thomas makes some excellent points. However, it is not at all a given that Darren Mack is a murderer, at least not in the case of his wife. He claims that he killed her with the knife with which she attacked, and tried to kill, him. As to the judge ---. I consider that the divorce industry is waging war, or close to it, on men. That being said, I suggest to Thomas that you might expand your reading to include Mao Tse Tung and Ho Chi Minh and pay particular attention to the 20% principle. It is not my intent to insult anyone on this blog, or to seem condescending toward anyone, but merely to help unite us and help us to find what the reality is in this situation. Even though each of us sees a slightly different reality, we must stick together if we are to defeat the common enemy, which is family law and its operatives, not each other.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I am encouraging everyone to read Wayne LaPierre's new articl in the American Rifleman, "---appropriately suspected--' and then write to the NRA at their site, nra.org. We need their help and vice-versa!
http://ken454.statesmanblogs.com
June 26th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Glenn, You obviously need to go through a divorce and have your children taken away to get the real perspective on what Darren Mack ilk feel day in and day out. You cannot put yourself mentally in a position to understand how anyone really feels, thinks or otherwise without truly being there.