From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Shooting in the Courthouse: Why?
Date: 22 Aug 92 05:50:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

I watched with interest as the ABC News Program 20/20 attempted to look
into the recent flare of courtroom shootings in family law courts.

The comments by those interviewed in the program were, on the whole, an
indication of a severe problem with the system of law regarding divorce,
support, and custody. The news people, and their final interview saw it
as a problem of security in the courthouses.

I was left disturbed by the program. Certainly it's disturbing when you
hear about the killing of people, but what really struck me hard was
the attempt to dismiss the shooters as people who "didn't like someone
telling them what do do." What I watched was another case of media spin.
That's the broadcaster/writer/interviewer trying to impart a different 
meaning to a set of events than the reality of the circumstances reveals.

An attorney being interview commented that the divorce system took so
long that the stress levels of the people involved in divorce made the
parties unstable. Of interest was the fact that it was a man shooting
judges, attorneys, and court participants rather than men and women
doing it. Now, it could be pointed to that men are more violent in their
nature than women, and as such, it isn't surprising that it was men who
perpetrated the crimes. 

If you watched the interview though, and saw what the perpetrators had to
say, and read comments from the letters that were sent to a broadcaster
involved in one of the shootings, you'd have seen that in each and every
case, people were outraged by the unfair treatment that was handed out by
the courts. Unfair treatment which favored women over men, and to such a
degree that few had any deep sympathy for the court officers who were
killed or wounded. These two things do lend a bit of support to the idea
that perhaps the people who did the shootings were imbalanced.

However, they also show that the WHY of the shootings wasn't a matter of
security, but instead a matter of slow emotional torture of one of the
parties to a divorce --that being the person being run roughshod over by
a prejudiced system which has no compassion or has no compunctions from
taking absolutely everything from a person.

The same attorney who spoke of the "long emotional torture" also seemed
surprised that lawyers were the object of the shootings. Why this could
be a credible posture eludes me a bit. Almost everyone knows the story
which epitomizes the common view of attorneys:

A priest, a doctor and a lawyer were fishing. A sudden storm overturned
the small boat they were in, and the priest and doctor were immediately
consumed by sharks. As the Coast Guard pulled the shaken attorney from
the waves, he stammered "Why them and not me?" To which the Captain of
the cutter replied "Professional Courtesy."

Now, I don't mean to indict all attorneys. There are some good ones out
there. But, they're getting harder and harder to find. On the whole, the
usual posture we see in divorce cases is an attorney simply running with
what they expect from the courts: regardless of the circumstances of the
divorce, the man is going to lose his home, properties, retirement and a
great deal of his income.

Is this a sexist statement and an unfair portrayal of "usual lawyers?"
No, I don't think so. Divorce is a victimization of both parties, and
each case should be taken on its own merits instead of being applied to
some unrealistic set of criteria through tables and mind-sets. In the
way which divorce law is applied today, the great majority of cases end
with the man treated as though he was entirely responsible.

I have seen men who, were I a woman, I couldn't stay married to. Hell,
I don't even like them as fellow men. But the converse is true too. I
know women who are disasters as wives, and also wouldn't be among the
counted as my friends.

But specifics of my personal experiences aside, what should we consider
divorce to be? To me, divorce occurs when husband and wife simply can't
continue as partners in their lives. When that occurs between partners
in a business, court arbitration often divides the assets equally and
does the same with the liabilities --both current and future. Why is it
that divorce should be treated differently?

I suspect that the answer to this is also the answer to why divorce is
the charged issue it is today, and why it is that we're seeing a rise
in physical and emotional violence. Half of the marriages today end in
divorce. Shouldn't we be looking for a less lopsided and more pragmatic
approach to the separation of the day to day lives of divorcees? 

I think so.

-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2759 alt.dads-rights:2006 soc.men:15025 soc.women:15294