Sorry but I'll Have to Pass
It's almost the one year anniversary of the death of Perry Manley, a Seattle fathers' activist who committed "suicide by cop" last June. Manley entered the federal courthouse in Seattle with what appeared to be a grenade, refused to surrender or negotiate, and made a sudden move, after which police fired, killing him. Unfortunately in the wake of his death Manley has been made into a hero by certain misguided fathers' activists. For example, one activist recently wrote:
"I have never forgotten Perry Manley...I grieved for him then. I grieve for him now. I remember when they shot him down. I watched it all unfold on TV...Perry wasn't asking for much. He just wanted justice and to be a Dad. Instead people treated him like a 'kook.' But we know he was a martyr for our cause--no matter what anyone says to the contrary. I will never forget him. He fought alone like so many of us...I will never forget Perry, I will always honor what he stood for."
Another wrote:
"Manley devoted his life fighting government imposed control of our income and interference in our lives when parents divorce. He stood largely alone and was essentially driven crazy to a degree...it's important that we don't forget about him and honor what he stood for."
Sorry, but I'll have to pass. I gave my opinion in this enewsletter at the time of the shooting last year, and was greatly criticized by some for it. What I wrote still seems accurate to me. It appears below, exactly as it was a year ago:
My Opinion of Perry Manley's 'Suicide by Cop'
Many of you have written to me asking my opinion of Perry Manley's 'Suicide by Cop' Monday in Seattle. Manley, angry over a family court matter, entered the courthouse with what appeared to be a grenade. According to police, Manley refused to surrender or negotiate, and made a sudden move, after which police fired, killing him. The grenade turned out to be a fake--Manley was unarmed.
As for Manley's family court grievance, the facts, as far as I can ascertain them, are:
Manley divorced in 1990 from his wife, with whom he had 3 kids.
Manley claimed the child support system had treated him unfairly. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly is a common problem for divorced dads.
Manley claimed that his ex-wife interfered with his visitation with his kids and alienated them against him. Again, I don't know if this is true, but it certainly is a common problem.
Manley claimed that paying child support in and of itself was unconstitutional and a violation of his human rights. He made this his central issue, as opposed to the alleged violations of his custody and visitation rights.
Manley claimed that a judge who had ruled against him had violated the constitution in his dealings with him, thus violating his oath of office and committing "treason" which, Manley said, is punishable by death.
I have received many letters telling me that Manley is a hero, and even that I should honor him (or his memory) on my radio show this Sunday. I'll pass. Manley was unarmed, and that certainly counts in his favor, but his actions were reckless and needlessly put innocent civilians in harm's way. It served no constructive purpose but instead makes it easier for our many enemies to portray divorced dads as violent nuts.
While many divorced dads are abused by the child support system, it is unclear whether the child support demands upon Manley, who had three children in need of support, were unreasonable. Manley made child support, not his rights as a father, his central issue.
Had Manley done what David Chick did, I could support him. David Chick is a hero. Gary LaMusga is a hero. Jolly Stansby and Ron Davis and Gary S. and Edgar P. and John Brumbaugh and Benoit Leroux are heroes. Manley may (or may not) have been a victim of a family law system which has torn millions of fathers and children apart. But either way there was nothing heroic about his actions this week."
Around the same time last year, in a letter to one of my detractors, I wrote:
"If Manley had talked about his access to his children and made them the issue, I would be a lot more sympathetic. But he rarely mentioned that, instead focusing on this child support constitutionality nonsense. He was asked to pay $650 a month to support three children (apparently it was only $210 a month in the beginning). Was that unfair? Is that what he died for? OK, he didn't like paying through the government, which I understand, but where's the real grievance here? He had 3 kids in need of support, he was the family breadwinner so he was obligated to pay it--so what? I've got 10,000 letters in my email box from guys who have bigger grievances than this. If he made the issue his access to his kids I'd sympathize, but he hardly even mentioned his kids. Also, given his mental instability (which many who knew him have written to me about), it's possible that he was alienated from his kids in part because of his own actions, not his ex-wife's."
