The only problem I have with this law is that it should protect everyone, not just first class citizens like judges and law enforcement. Other professions have disgruntled customers that wish to do people harm, especially other high-stakes professions such as doctors. The more we stratify society with special protections for specific classes of people, the more we drive a divide and feeling of disenfranchisement.
Totally agree. Get everyone's details off the internet and you get those who are more equal than others' off as well. You shouldn't get special privileges because you work for the government.
The New Jersey statute itself is arguably vague with respect to what constitutes "risk" and an intent to cause harm. Such arbitrary laws give law enforcement and prosecutors significant discretion and open the door for abuse to such an extent that I could see this being used to violate peoples' First Amendment rights. Another unconstitutional law out of New Jersey, color me shocked. :o
The public should be able to hold peaceful protests and hold public officials accountable.
Absolutely correct, furthermore not only should the public be protected, but they should also be allowed to request an audit of who's querying their information. I had a (low-ranking) member of law enforcement run my plate and send a harassing letter to my family some years back. While it's fortunate nobody in my family was shot by a nutjob, I wasn't able to find out who it was until I ran into him by chance some time later writing a parking ticket (he was only a parking enforcement official).
I commented about this experience more in depth on reddit[1] and also brought up that federal judges have the US Marshals Service to protect them, and our state judges have county sheriff departments to protect them.
I don't think "first class" citizens is the right classification. There are certain fields/work that are inherently more risky or serve a critical component of society. We are seeing this exact thing pan out now with medical care--doctors and nurses are precious resources and if we don't protect them, we put our overall societal health at risk. Same is true for judges--if you don't protect them, you put the rule of law at risk which is a way of protecting everyone.
I hate seeing this with journalists too arguing that they should get special protections and rights. Everyone should have the protections and rights. Not just judges, not just journalists.
It's a worthy statement, but at the same time, this is not the same thing.
If we didn't provide special protections for judges, 1/2 of them would be dead.
Organized Crime is a very powerful thing, they kill people all the time for a lot less and witness intimidation is rampant.
Judges take on a much greater responsibility than most others.
If there's an opportunity for 'equity' in this special equation, it may be for those who provide testimony in the courts protections. Because they are not protected nearly as well, they are easy targets:
"a study of witnesses appearing in criminal courts in Bronx County, New York revealed that 36 percent of witnesses had been directly threatened; among those who had not been threatened directly, 57 percent feared reprisals" [1]
Imagine if people weren't afraid of retribution against gangs and organized criminals, the world would be a different place.
The US govnernment already spends $$$ to give its president the kind of protection that can be only dreamed by ordinary citizens. Bulletproof cars, Air Force One, a gang of bodyguards who are trained to put themselves between you and the bullet. Sometimes they literally block streets and your right to peacefully move or assemble. Your tax dollars at work.
Why such unfairness?
Because the world is full of bad actors and crazies dreaming of killing the POTUS, and it pays off in the long run to not have the president killed off in that fashion.
Another problem that I have is that this is once again allowing law enforcement to further damage others, which they absolutely and totally refuse to take responsibility for.
Shoot someone who took a jab at you 6 times with a strong suspicion and history of racist motive ?
1) You're a private citizen: death sentence. Hundreds of thousands to millions in damages to be paid. And you can be DAMN sure nobody's will ever grant you any kind of clemency.
2) You're a police officer: Not only do you go free, you don't have to pay any damages and the incident is stricken from your record ... You MAY be asked to resign if protests get too bad.
If by some magic, there are damages to be paid, they will not be extracted from the perpetrators of the crime.
This, and worse, is what these protections will also be used for. Defending law enforcement personnel from the consequences of their own mistakes, their own racism, from attacking their ex-girlfriends or ex-wives, ...
Not everyone has the same risks. Take child protective services workers as an example I’m familiar with.
These folks can be systematically targeted because of their job, which is much harder to protect yourself against. I understand your thought process, but it seems unfair to not provide basic protections to people working on our behalf.
This rings true in the UK as well. With mainstream publications and members of government attacking “lefty lawyers” and “unelected judges” simply for doing their job, which is to uphold the law, we need to take the rhetoric we apply to these situations seriously. There need to be serious consequences for credible threats of violence against people, even when made by people in the public sphere.
Furthermore, I hear a lot of people say things like “how can lawyers defend people who do such horrible things”. I think it is an important part of our education to understand civics, and why we are entitled to a defence, rather than just subjected to the whims of an inquisition. Having a well-resourced defence for alleged criminals (and other legal aid in civil cases) means that we can be certain as a society that we get the right person for crimes, and ensures the system runs as intended.
I'll be honest in saying that I do think the so called "lefty lawyers" are usually defending people most don't like (e.g. foreign criminals), but I also hate the government's characterisation of the lawyers themselves. Like freedom of speech, people have a right to a defence.
In fact, part of having a strong legal system is the fact that it optimises for false negatives. Better to let 100 criminals go free than one person unjustly imprisoned.
> “how can lawyers defend people who do such horrible things”
It's perhaps worth noting that (in the UK at least), that should never happen, at least in the sense of a defence lawyer trying to get a "not guilty" verdict for a defendant they know is guilty:
"It's obviously unethical and illegal for a lawyer to deceive a court knowingly. If my client tells me he's guilty, I can't say he's innocent in court. I cannot call him to give evidence that I know is false or I would be a party to his perjury."[0]
Of course I'm sure it does happen all the time, but you don't need to justify a system where lawyers are lying for the benefit of their client, because that's not the system we are meant to have.
Reason behind the attack. Good read. Basically the attacker, a lawyer, had sued the army to allow women to register for draft, and felt that the female judge was delaying the case. He was fighting for the women's right to be treated equally when it comes to drafting.
I've been online for 25 years. There were always trolls, devil's advocates, provocateurs, apologists... But something has changed in the last 5 years. It's like all those roles have been rolled up into a uniformed propaganda department.
Oh wow, this is a very isolated take, seemingly based solely off on snippet from TFA. I initially thought the same because I was genuinely surprised women couldn't already register, but a quick internet search of the assailant's name gave me whiplash. If outspoken misogyny isn't your bag, you may want to look into him further before getting behind him.
> angered by the pace of a lawsuit he had filed in my court.
> In my case, Roy Den Hollander, a New York lawyer who had filed a suit against the male-only military draft, harbored deadly grudges. On July 11, 2020, he killed a lawyer in California. Eight days later, he came to our door and killed Daniel. Too late, I learned that he had often described himself as “anti-feminist.” In a self-published memoir, he described me as “a lazy and incompetent Latina judge appointed by Obama.”
Aside from easy access to guns, we can add slow legal system and political radicalization to the compounding factors of this tragedy.
Really seems like someone who made a vexatious litigant out of themselves on the back of "mens' rights" pet issues should probably have a full-time FBI tail.
What won't be popular: the second amendment was crafted specifically so that functionaries of State power can't abuse their position without the risk of extrajudicial reprisal.
Not at all saying that this specific case is a matter of positional abuse ( definitely appears to be a tragic lone mental health case, which is a whole other problem in our society entirely ) - merely stating that the right to bear arms is intended to be a check against it.
That’s not the way the law works. I am surprised a federal judge is unable to understand this, but of course she has lived through the worst thing a parent could experience. And it is indirectly why we in the USA have a second amendment. Hear me out before downvoting me.
The police, sadly, are not here to prevent crime. That’s why people who get restraining orders continue to live in fear. Our legal system simply has no concept of preventing crime except through statute. That’s why some of us, especially those living in rural areas where the police could be half an hour away or more, are afforded self protection through firearms.
I don't understand what this comment has to do with the article. The author doesn't discuss reforming firearm laws. She is trying to get support for a new law that increases privacy guarantees for judges. What exactly is she unable to understand?
I feel for her but this entire line of reasoning and Daniel's Law are hypocritical and self-serving.
For our nation’s sake, judicial security is essential. Federal judges must be free to make their decisions, no matter how unpopular, without fear of harm. The federal government has a responsibility to protect all federal judges because our safety is foundational to our great democracy.
Since Daniel’s death, I have vowed to do everything I can to make similar tragedies less likely. Last month New Jersey passed what is known as “Daniel’s Law,” which prohibits the distribution of personal information, including home addresses and phone numbers, for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel.
Where are protections for defense attorneys? Or private citizens who serve on juries - especially in unpopular cases? Surely their sense of safety must also be foundational to our great democracy. This "remedy" here is extremely inequitable, and I'd rather see protections extended to everyone, not just classes that have lawmakers' favor.
Only in movies do judges get every ruling right. There is an error rate, but thats the best case scenario. In reality many judges are political hacks, and cowards that will rule in line with their political backers when it matters. This has been true for as long as humans have lived in civilization.
Laws like this just give them more cover.
>In reality many judges are political hacks, and cowards that will rule in line with their political backers when it matters. This has been true for as long as humans have lived in civilization. Laws like this just give them more cover.
The law in question[0], in part, requires:
"The bill amends the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) to exclude from the definition of a government (i.e., public) record the portion of any document which discloses the home address of any active or retired 1) judge, 2) prosecutor or 3) law enforcement officer.
Further, the bill prohibits government agencies, individuals and businesses from knowingly publishing on the internet, or otherwise making available, the home address or unpublished home telephone number of any active or retired judge or any active or retired prosecutor."
Now there's certainly an argument to be made that such restrictions, if we are to have them, should be much, much, broader, given the harassment (including SWATting[1]) of other folks outside the specific job functions mentioned in the law.
I'm trying to view your comment in the best possible light, but I keep coming back to the last sentence:
"Laws like this just give them more cover."
How, exactly, do you mean that restricting access to the home addresses of such folks "gives them more cover?"
Is it your assertion that judges and other folks should have their home addresses available as some sort of extra-legal check on their authority?
What purpose does that serve? So that those who disagree with such people can go over to their house with a fruit basket and calmly discuss how their decision was incorrect and caused harm?
That seems pretty unlikely. As such, I'm forced to interpret your statement as:
"We should publish the home addresses of these people so they can be harassed, threatened, assaulted or killed if they make decisions I disagree with."
If I misunderstand you, please explain and accept my apologies.
I want judges to be safe. I also want to understand the motivations of this attacker. Their actions weren't justified, but having a long-running court case that can decide the course of your life can cause many new problems. What level of desperation would cause someone to lash out like this? There will always be unreasonable people, but I wonder if this outcome would have been different if courts did indeed process cases in a timely way. We know it is especially cruel to people who have nothing to defend themselves with.
An openly misogynistic lawyer who is believed to have killed the son of a female federal judge in New Jersey had a list of more than a dozen other possible targets, including three other judges and two doctors, three people with knowledge of the matter said. ...
While his precise motive for making the list remains unclear, Mr. Den Hollander had received a terminal cancer diagnosis, and F.B.I. agents earlier this week were exploring whether that news set him off on a mission of revenge against those he believed were his enemies.
... Mr. Den Hollander described himself as an anti-feminist and had made a career out of filing lawsuits, some of them frivolous, alleging discrimination against men. He also published blog posts in 2006 arguing women were inferior to men and advocating physical violence against them. In one post, he said women should be strapped to missiles and dropped in the Middle East.
The article explains his motivations. Apparently he was driven by his ideology rather than personal desperation. From the article:
Roy Den Hollander, a New York lawyer who had filed a suit against the male-only military draft, harbored deadly grudges. On July 11, 2020, he killed a lawyer in California. Eight days later, he came to our door and killed Daniel. Too late, I learned that he had often described himself as “anti-feminist.” In a self-published memoir, he described me as “a lazy and incompetent Latina judge appointed by Obama.”
Limiting it to just a select protected class is creating asymmetries that strike me as Un-American.
Slipper slope to there being harsher penalties for even mentioning a judges name. LEO covering or removing their name tags and badge numbers for "safety".
It’s so odd to see a presumably very intelligent person believe that we can legislate a solution to this problem. Maybe mandated physical security for all judges (which is how it’s done in may other countries)? But Daniel’s Law just introduces a bit more friction that would almost certainly be surmounted by a highly motivated individual. The law is just window dressing.
I don't think it should be any more illegal to kill ones another than anothers.
It should be equally, maximally illegal to kill people and everyone should have the same guarantee to personal safety, no matter how much at risk they are.
Here in DK we have some weird law that somehow, murders related to gang activity is punished harder (read: more illegal) than other murders, this is insane! It signals that gang members are more important, and killing them therefore punished harder.
> In my house, the only way to see who has come to the front door is to peek through a bay window. In mid-July, after four months of Covid-19 restrictions, home deliveries occurred almost daily. Daniel’s killer took advantage of this familiar routine, coming to our door posing as a Fed-Ex delivery courier.
This to me is the most incongruous thing about this story. Why bother with a disguise if your intent is just to shoot everybody? He ended up just going home and killing himself, so it's not like he planned a big escape.
Salas was also coincidentally(?) overseeing a class action lawsuit against Deutsche Bank in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, leading to much speculation. The NY Times piece does a good job placing the motive solely on the FedEx hitman.
It certainly wouldn’t hurt if our political leaders wouldn’t immediately bash judges if a decision doesn’t go their way. With the current election fraud outrage I see this even get worse.
It's crazy how many places people's personal information is. DMV databases and voter files are semi-public, but there are also things like data from credit reports.
[+] [-] giantg2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rjbwork|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickm129|5 years ago|reply
The New Jersey statute itself is arguably vague with respect to what constitutes "risk" and an intent to cause harm. Such arbitrary laws give law enforcement and prosecutors significant discretion and open the door for abuse to such an extent that I could see this being used to violate peoples' First Amendment rights. Another unconstitutional law out of New Jersey, color me shocked. :o
The public should be able to hold peaceful protests and hold public officials accountable.
[+] [-] joecool1029|5 years ago|reply
I commented about this experience more in depth on reddit[1] and also brought up that federal judges have the US Marshals Service to protect them, and our state judges have county sheriff departments to protect them.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/jxvote/governor_...
[+] [-] dk1138|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6gvONxR4sf7o|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jariel|5 years ago|reply
If we didn't provide special protections for judges, 1/2 of them would be dead.
Organized Crime is a very powerful thing, they kill people all the time for a lot less and witness intimidation is rampant.
Judges take on a much greater responsibility than most others.
If there's an opportunity for 'equity' in this special equation, it may be for those who provide testimony in the courts protections. Because they are not protected nearly as well, they are easy targets:
"a study of witnesses appearing in criminal courts in Bronx County, New York revealed that 36 percent of witnesses had been directly threatened; among those who had not been threatened directly, 57 percent feared reprisals" [1]
Imagine if people weren't afraid of retribution against gangs and organized criminals, the world would be a different place.
[1] https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-p112-pub.pdf
[+] [-] yongjik|5 years ago|reply
Why such unfairness?
Because the world is full of bad actors and crazies dreaming of killing the POTUS, and it pays off in the long run to not have the president killed off in that fashion.
It's not exactly black and white.
[+] [-] candiodari|5 years ago|reply
Shoot someone who took a jab at you 6 times with a strong suspicion and history of racist motive ?
1) You're a private citizen: death sentence. Hundreds of thousands to millions in damages to be paid. And you can be DAMN sure nobody's will ever grant you any kind of clemency.
2) You're a police officer: Not only do you go free, you don't have to pay any damages and the incident is stricken from your record ... You MAY be asked to resign if protests get too bad.
If by some magic, there are damages to be paid, they will not be extracted from the perpetrators of the crime.
This, and worse, is what these protections will also be used for. Defending law enforcement personnel from the consequences of their own mistakes, their own racism, from attacking their ex-girlfriends or ex-wives, ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52905408
[+] [-] Spooky23|5 years ago|reply
These folks can be systematically targeted because of their job, which is much harder to protect yourself against. I understand your thought process, but it seems unfair to not provide basic protections to people working on our behalf.
[+] [-] atomi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NullPrefix|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6gvONxR4sf7o|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigbubba|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noodlesUK|5 years ago|reply
Furthermore, I hear a lot of people say things like “how can lawyers defend people who do such horrible things”. I think it is an important part of our education to understand civics, and why we are entitled to a defence, rather than just subjected to the whims of an inquisition. Having a well-resourced defence for alleged criminals (and other legal aid in civil cases) means that we can be certain as a society that we get the right person for crimes, and ensures the system runs as intended.
[+] [-] throwaways885|5 years ago|reply
I'll be honest in saying that I do think the so called "lefty lawyers" are usually defending people most don't like (e.g. foreign criminals), but I also hate the government's characterisation of the lawyers themselves. Like freedom of speech, people have a right to a defence.
In fact, part of having a strong legal system is the fact that it optimises for false negatives. Better to let 100 criminals go free than one person unjustly imprisoned.
[+] [-] dane-pgp|5 years ago|reply
It's perhaps worth noting that (in the UK at least), that should never happen, at least in the sense of a defence lawyer trying to get a "not guilty" verdict for a defendant they know is guilty:
"It's obviously unethical and illegal for a lawyer to deceive a court knowingly. If my client tells me he's guilty, I can't say he's innocent in court. I cannot call him to give evidence that I know is false or I would be a party to his perjury."[0]
Of course I'm sure it does happen all the time, but you don't need to justify a system where lawyers are lying for the benefit of their client, because that's not the system we are meant to have.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/jan/07/workandcareers...
[+] [-] fmajid|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zapdrive|5 years ago|reply
Reason behind the attack. Good read. Basically the attacker, a lawyer, had sued the army to allow women to register for draft, and felt that the female judge was delaying the case. He was fighting for the women's right to be treated equally when it comes to drafting.
[+] [-] dalbasal|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _underfl0w_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mLuby|5 years ago|reply
> In my case, Roy Den Hollander, a New York lawyer who had filed a suit against the male-only military draft, harbored deadly grudges. On July 11, 2020, he killed a lawyer in California. Eight days later, he came to our door and killed Daniel. Too late, I learned that he had often described himself as “anti-feminist.” In a self-published memoir, he described me as “a lazy and incompetent Latina judge appointed by Obama.”
Aside from easy access to guns, we can add slow legal system and political radicalization to the compounding factors of this tragedy.
[+] [-] jeffbee|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qz2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caeril|5 years ago|reply
What won't be popular: the second amendment was crafted specifically so that functionaries of State power can't abuse their position without the risk of extrajudicial reprisal.
Not at all saying that this specific case is a matter of positional abuse ( definitely appears to be a tragic lone mental health case, which is a whole other problem in our society entirely ) - merely stating that the right to bear arms is intended to be a check against it.
[+] [-] pixl97|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomcam|5 years ago|reply
The police, sadly, are not here to prevent crime. That’s why people who get restraining orders continue to live in fear. Our legal system simply has no concept of preventing crime except through statute. That’s why some of us, especially those living in rural areas where the police could be half an hour away or more, are afforded self protection through firearms.
[+] [-] titanomachy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fmajid|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] content_sesh|5 years ago|reply
For our nation’s sake, judicial security is essential. Federal judges must be free to make their decisions, no matter how unpopular, without fear of harm. The federal government has a responsibility to protect all federal judges because our safety is foundational to our great democracy.
Since Daniel’s death, I have vowed to do everything I can to make similar tragedies less likely. Last month New Jersey passed what is known as “Daniel’s Law,” which prohibits the distribution of personal information, including home addresses and phone numbers, for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel.
Where are protections for defense attorneys? Or private citizens who serve on juries - especially in unpopular cases? Surely their sense of safety must also be foundational to our great democracy. This "remedy" here is extremely inequitable, and I'd rather see protections extended to everyone, not just classes that have lawmakers' favor.
[+] [-] dukeofdoom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nobody9999|5 years ago|reply
The law in question[0], in part, requires:
"The bill amends the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) to exclude from the definition of a government (i.e., public) record the portion of any document which discloses the home address of any active or retired 1) judge, 2) prosecutor or 3) law enforcement officer.
Further, the bill prohibits government agencies, individuals and businesses from knowingly publishing on the internet, or otherwise making available, the home address or unpublished home telephone number of any active or retired judge or any active or retired prosecutor."
Now there's certainly an argument to be made that such restrictions, if we are to have them, should be much, much, broader, given the harassment (including SWATting[1]) of other folks outside the specific job functions mentioned in the law.
I'm trying to view your comment in the best possible light, but I keep coming back to the last sentence:
"Laws like this just give them more cover."
How, exactly, do you mean that restricting access to the home addresses of such folks "gives them more cover?"
Is it your assertion that judges and other folks should have their home addresses available as some sort of extra-legal check on their authority?
What purpose does that serve? So that those who disagree with such people can go over to their house with a fruit basket and calmly discuss how their decision was incorrect and caused harm?
That seems pretty unlikely. As such, I'm forced to interpret your statement as:
"We should publish the home addresses of these people so they can be harassed, threatened, assaulted or killed if they make decisions I disagree with."
If I misunderstand you, please explain and accept my apologies.
If not, I hope I don't live anywhere near you.
[0] https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562020/approved/20201120b....
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting
[+] [-] asab|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamont|5 years ago|reply
While his precise motive for making the list remains unclear, Mr. Den Hollander had received a terminal cancer diagnosis, and F.B.I. agents earlier this week were exploring whether that news set him off on a mission of revenge against those he believed were his enemies.
... Mr. Den Hollander described himself as an anti-feminist and had made a career out of filing lawsuits, some of them frivolous, alleging discrimination against men. He also published blog posts in 2006 arguing women were inferior to men and advocating physical violence against them. In one post, he said women should be strapped to missiles and dropped in the Middle East.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/nyregion/roy-den-hollande...
[+] [-] titanomachy|5 years ago|reply
Roy Den Hollander, a New York lawyer who had filed a suit against the male-only military draft, harbored deadly grudges. On July 11, 2020, he killed a lawyer in California. Eight days later, he came to our door and killed Daniel. Too late, I learned that he had often described himself as “anti-feminist.” In a self-published memoir, he described me as “a lazy and incompetent Latina judge appointed by Obama.”
[+] [-] johnbcoughlin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huffmsa|5 years ago|reply
Slipper slope to there being harsher penalties for even mentioning a judges name. LEO covering or removing their name tags and badge numbers for "safety".
Fuck off with that.
[+] [-] locusofself|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp527|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dusted|5 years ago|reply
It should be equally, maximally illegal to kill people and everyone should have the same guarantee to personal safety, no matter how much at risk they are.
Here in DK we have some weird law that somehow, murders related to gang activity is punished harder (read: more illegal) than other murders, this is insane! It signals that gang members are more important, and killing them therefore punished harder.
[+] [-] ed25519FUUU|5 years ago|reply
This to me is the most incongruous thing about this story. Why bother with a disguise if your intent is just to shoot everybody? He ended up just going home and killing himself, so it's not like he planned a big escape.
Salas was also coincidentally(?) overseeing a class action lawsuit against Deutsche Bank in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, leading to much speculation. The NY Times piece does a good job placing the motive solely on the FedEx hitman.
[+] [-] wvenable|5 years ago|reply
To get access.
[+] [-] spaetzleesser|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diebeforei485|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callesgg|5 years ago|reply
How should one think?
[+] [-] cortesoft|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevehawk|5 years ago|reply