Law
Yesterday, a Reno Nevada family court judge was shot by a sniper through an open window in the courthouse. The judge was involved in a divorce case between a Mr. Darren Mack and his estranged wife, Charla Mack. Hours after this shooting, according to the AP story, Charla Mack was found dead in her garage. Darren Mack has been charged with Charla Mack's killing and is officially a "person of interest" in the sniper shooting of the family court judge.
What makes me want to get in my car and drive out to Reno just to slap someone is the quote at the end of this passage:
Darin Conforti, court administrator of Reno Justice Court, said that shooting was shocking but that the risk of an attack was not. "We're well aware this is the inherent risk of trying to solve conflicts," he said. "Sometimes you don't solve them peacefully and people take the law into their own hands."
Excuse me? This was a divorce case. We're not talking about a father who shot a child molester here. There's nothing apparently vigilantistic (?) about this situation, which makes this quote really friggin creepy. Did Mr. Conforti's mouth just get stuck on open?
5 comments:
I'm guessing Conforti has seen too many insane men attack their wives after their wives use the courts to try to extract themselves legally. The guy might have stood to lose a good portion of his income and his child(ren). Add that kind of threat to an unstable mind (the type that would shoot someone) and you've got a real risk.
My brother-in-law is a prosecutor and has to keep his phone number unlisted for that very reason. There are a lot of messed up people flowing through the courts.
I remember hearing that the risk of extreme violent/aggressive behavior in a relationship is highest when someone tries to leave. An already aggressive and apparently entitled person might feel wronged, might get that "I'll show her/them" attitude, and that's a bad mix. But I can't see that sort of attitude as one of applying "the law" even when extending screwy logic. Unless it's an extremely ego centric "law", but then that's not "law" in the common use. That's entitlement and it probably underlies a fairly large number of criminal behaviors. So why say "taking the law into their own hands" in this case (the divorce) and not in a situation where someone robs a bank because they really believe that they should have that money? Oh I'm not saying this right.
I suppose Conforti might have been meaning to make his statement relative to the very real risk posed when someone leaves someone else, when someone feels rejected or like they are being screwed (on custody/property distribution/etc), but what a poor set of words he chose.
You can't predict what an unstable mind will do, this story just proves it.
Oh, I see what you mean now, you cunning linguist. Vigilantes take the law into their own hands when those authorized to execute the law fail to do so for some reason. The expression "taking the law into (one's) own hands" thus has a sort of "justice restoring hero" connotation to it. In this case, the guy wasn't taking the law into his own hands, he was breaking it in a big, irreversible way. No heroism there, and certainly no justice. Gotcha. Yes, you're right, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
you can't predict what an unstable mind will do, but you can predict one of many outcomes of what a reasonable person will do.
I don't excuse his actions.
Do you excuse the judge for flagrantly ignoring the law? The number of appeals on this judge was 10x of any other judge in that jurisdiction.
The fox gaurds the henhouse, there were numerous complaints against this judge, but no actions were taken.
There is a serious problem of accountability in family law.
Post a Comment