On Wednesday afternoon, according to reports, a man named Scott Dekraai walked into a salon in Seal Beach California and opened fire, killing eight people, including his ex-wife Michelle Fournier, his evident target. The two, who shared custody of their son, had been entangled in an acrimonious custody dispute. (Dekraai wanted to reduce his ex’s access.) Fournier had told friends she feared her ex would try to kill her.
It’s not, unfortunately, uncommon for angry or jealous exes to harass, stalk and in many cases actually kill the objects of their obsession. Usually the killer is a man, and the victim a woman, but women kill too, and same sex couples are hardly immune from this kind of violence.
I’ve been following this story – it’s a heartbreaking one — though I hadn’t planned to write about it. There’s no indication, at least based on what we know so far, that Dekraai’s shootings were ideologically driven, that he was anything other than a deeply troubled man, bitterly angry that he had to share custody of his son with a woman he hated. There seemed to be no clear connections between this story and the misogynist ideologues I write about on this site.
But then they started making the connections themselves, offering apologias for Dekraai’s violence and twisting the facts of the case to fit their ideological agendas. TRIGGER WARNING: Many of the comments I quote below are some of the most vile and vicious I have ever found in more than a year of writing this blog.
On In Mala Fide, Ferdinand Bardamu didn’t let the facts get in the way of his perverse ideological spin on the case, titling his post on the subject “Anti-Male, Anti-Father Divorce Laws Drive Man to Commit Heinous Rage Shooting Against Ex-Wife” and blaming feminism for “poisoning the relationship between men and women” in America.
Bardamu’s argument, such as it is, is utterly at odds with the basic facts of the case. Dekraai and Fournier had shared custody of the boy they’d had together; Dekraai was not fighting to see his child — he was trying to further limit his ex’s access.
As a local Fox News affiliate noted:
Dekraai’s former attorney, Don Eisenberg, told CNS that the two had a “typical” divorce, which was finalized on Dec. 28, 2007.
“This was not a remarkable case. It was a stipulated judgment and the parties agreed on these details,” Eisenberg said.
Under the shared custody agreement, Dekraai had the boy each week from Thursday through the weekend, and the mother had him Monday through Wednesday, the attorney said.
“It was almost an exactly equal split,” Eisenberg said.
There’s not much beyond the headline to Bardamu’s post; the real action is in the comments — many of which openly advocate violence and explicitly endorse Dekraai’s murderous rampage.
One anonymous visitor left this chilling comment:
[E]nough of this type of offensive action might just start making women and their supporters* think twice, especially if they also become targets. (* Divorce attorneys, child services workers and counselors, family court judges, and other enabling cogs in the feminist legal system)
Self-immolating Thomas Ball may have made a point, but the fact remains that he didn’t strike a blow, even as he advocated it.
Someone calling himself Remorhaz expresses a similar sentiment:
The only way this or any offensive action will make a difference is if it starts affecting the judges and lawyers. King John did not sign the magna carta because he was a kindly just ruler, he did it with a sword on the back of his neck while watching a grinning man holding an axe who was busy trying on black hoods. In Mexico entire police forces quit because a few officers go missing. If that started happening then the law becomes meaningless as there is no one to enforce it. …
Essentially men need to tell feminism to shut the fuck up, give it a vigorous slap across the face thus reminding it who is the biological superior, then order it back into the kitchen/bedroom.
In a followup comment he railed against those who expressed disapproval of the shootings:
What options other than overt acts of physical violence are there for a man to deal with a shrew ex and corrupt family court system? To those who are horrified and surprised at this one question…. why? Isn’t the real question – “How come this isn’t a lot MORE common?”. And please avoid the “Well… nothing justifies killing blah blah blah” as we’ve all voted, supported, and tolerated governments who kill over parking tickets much less loss of children. And if keeping your children isn’t worthy of killing what is exactly?
- Raymond, meanwhile, directed his opprobrium at Dekraai’s ex-wife:
Hopefully one of the dead carcess was his wife. The son will be better off without any parents than to have been raised by a single mother who would have gotten her vindictive way. And to Scott, when you mess with a real man’s child, blood will be spilt. Most men will just lay down and be resigned to the state-enforced kidnapping and extortion plot, but some are made of tougher stuff and for you to whine about this dead ex-wife or that is inconsequential and no loss to humanity.
Presumably he will be pleased to learn that she was one of those killed.
Frank saw the dead as “collateral damage” in a just war; his only complaint was that Dakraai hadn’t gone after public officials.
This man went to war. He caused much collateral damage and casualties have piled. And the people whose first reaction is to cry “those poor, innocent people” are people who will never change anything. Death is the way of the world. Violence or the implicit threat of it is what causes change. Go ahead, make it clear that you don’t have it in you to destroy life. The enemy will breath a little easier, because you certainly aren’t going to make any changes.
That said, he should have gone after judges and legislators. There’s no justice like a dead “justice”.
Tweell hoped the shootings would frighten women out of challenging their husbands or ex-husbands in court:
Gandi [sic] and MLK got what they were after via non-violent means, but they were dealing with people of conscience, people who would think about the issues they espoused and not just kill them. Non-violence only works when your opponent has moral character. …
I submit that women … are much more likely to pay attention when they’re being threatened. If it becomes obvious that claiming child abuse during divorce, withholding visitation and other such actions could result in their death, then they might think twice about such behavior.
Meanwhile, on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, more moderate MRAs weighed in on the case. While no one explicitly defended the shooter’s actions, numerous posters said they understood the violence, and (completely ignoring the basic facts of the case) blamed it not on Dekraai but on a court system biased against men.
A poster calling himself TheRealPariah embraced Dekraai:
He is one of us. You cannot throw men struggling out simply because they do something you disagree with.
Bobsutan predicted (and came very close to endorsing) more violence,
violent outburst[s] like this will continue to happen so long as ‘kidnapping by court’ and ‘sold into slavery by court’ (via CS & alimony) keeps happening. … fix the family court system and these murders wouldn’t happen.
Moderator AnnArchist – we’ve met him before – agreed, arguing that
To prevent this in the future the solution is clear: Mandate 50/50 custody without any child support as the default
Another r/mr regular, carchamp1, took it a bit further:
I don’t condone what he did. No sane person would. But, I understand it. … You steal someone’s kids with the help of our so-called “family” courts you’re a pig. You have it coming. Period.
I think it’s high time we put a spotlight on these kidnappers. They are NOT innocent people. They are the scum of the earth. I couldn’t care less about their “welfare”. I care about the millions of parents, mostly fathers, who’ve had their kids stolen from them AND their kids.
When I pointed out in the discussion there that Dekraai had hardly been denied access to his child, AnnArchist changed the subject, suggesting that it was Fournier’s accusations against Dekraai in court that had pushed him over the edge. In fact, both had made numerous allegations about one another in court; Dekraai accused his ex-wife of phone harassment; she complained that he was abusive, mentally unstable and had threatened to kill her. Obviously she was right to have worried.
But according to AnnArchist, Fournier was wrong to bring up his instability in court. As he put it: “Poking the bear is dangerous.”
When I pressed him on this, he responded:
If you really think someone is nuts, you probably don’t want to be the one to call them out in open court because if they don’t go to prison they might kill you. Its tough to do with kids involved, but if she thought he was capable of something like this, using it in a custody dispute would be considered by many to be risky.
Astonished, I asked him if he was really saying what it looked like he was saying, that if you think your ex is dangerous, and literally insane, you shouldn’t challenge them in court when they try to get sole custody of your kid? His reply:
I didn’t know what to say to this bizarre argument, so I stopped responding.
I don’t know what to say to any of this. It is beyond appalling.
Okay I apologize, never to MRAL, but to the fact that I responded in this thread as another MRAL delusion show, instead of as a grotesque atrocity coupled with the MRA’s movements completely not surprising response to it.
Also, a little insight to the murderer’s potential political views:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39284_Suspect_in_Seal_Beach_Shooting-_a_Tea_Party_Supporter
This story, and these commentors….there are no words. These people are psychopaths. Always accusing feminism as excusing female violence, what are they doing when they excuse this man’s rampage? I saw some comments expressing similar sentiments on the news articles too.
BOTH parents had custody. It’s important for a father to have a role in their children’s lives, but don’t mothers have a role as well? If the MRM is the true embodiment of equality, why not recognize this? why not call out the violent, deranged misogynists in your movement? many modern feminists renounce Dworkin and Solanas, why don’t you do the same for your radicals? and there are more than 2.
The abusers logic is what really gets to me though… “you have it coming” just another way of saying “she was asking for it” now I know why they are called the “abusers lobby.”
And what about the son? not very many MRAs seem to be thinking about the son who now has a dead mother and a murderer for father. Clearly they have children’s best interests in mind.
Thanks for covering this story David.
Hmm, so the guy gets the “gold standard” in child custody and he still is somehow justified in killing people, because he really thought he deserved more. The only thing that support of these things will do is get the MRM classified as a hate group that much faster. The one thing that it won’t do is endear the average person to the MRM or give it any legitimacy.
It’s obvious that these guys generally play too many war simulation video games. They know nothing of battle, they know nothing about tactics. Reveling in the notion that more men will do something stupid like this will do nothing more than destroy any chance that the MRM will do anything productive.
Violence and terrorism will not serve to accomplish anything positive for them. Most men have women in their lives that they love and cherish, whether it be their mother, grandmother, sister, wife or daughter. They will not stand idly by and watch some asshole with entitlement issues kill a loved one, nor will they support laws being passed, so that assholes with entitlement issues get their way and no longer have a reason to kill people. Rather, they’re going to be more interested in rounding up said assholes with entitlement issues and passing laws to make it easier to put them in prisons or mental institutions, where they belong. Because most people can function normally in society.
And, should the MRM decide to take up arms to terrorize my friends, family and neighbors, I’ll be right next to Pecunium.
Advocating violence as a way to achieve political ends through intimidation? Now these MRAs are identifying themselves as terrorists, maybe we can start treating them accordingly.
I’m lurking here, but just want to commend the posters who are taking the time to absolutely DEMOLISH the arguments of Ants and MRAL. As horrifying as those MRA comments are, I am very much heartened to see the smart forces lining up against those assholes. Oh, and Holly Pervocracy, I think I love you — in a totally online, abstract way.
And, now that the MRA contingent has completely decided that this guy was after his ex wife and the others were “collateral damage,” let’s confuse them with the fact that one of the victims was in a parking lot, sitting in his car, minding his own business, when he was killed: http://www.ocregister.com/news/testa-321825-caouette-rover.html
For some reason, this assmaggot “hero” decided to shoot him, for no apparent reason. Apparently, he was visiting a nearby restaurant and just happened to be there.
What a stupid site. This is like having a site for domestic violence and allowing the perps to dictate the terms of discussion. In other words, discussing what an MRA is without walking in one’s shoes speaks of arrogance.
EITHER you are a true MRA because you KNOW what the score is for western men today, OR you are deluded into thinking that living under the femocracy is the way for a man to live.
I choose the former simply because feminism has been given the chance to change, to come clean, and fails constantly.
Thanks, Kollege, that’s about the only response possible to that.
Seriously, MRAL, can you hear yourself? Basically all you do is kvetch and moan about how terrible your life is, or how terrible feminists/women/manginas are.
For some reason, this assmaggot “hero” decided to shoot him, for no apparent reason. Apparently, he was visiting a nearby restaurant and just happened to be there.
That’s what I don’t get. Sure, you just shot people in the salon, but did he think “Well, I have an extra bullet, might as well shoot this guy, too”?
Well, he hated his ex-wife way, way more than he loved his son — who he will now see even LESS. It makes no sense at all. The kid is pretty much now orphaned, with mom dead and dad going to jail, probably for life. And what was up with all those other people? They had nothing do do with it.
@AbsintheDexterous: I don’t know and I’m not sure that I want to. I think the guy was batshit crazy and killed people because he was an angry, batshit crazy assmaggot. The innocent man in the Land Rover, who by all accounts was a great guy, a wonderful husband and a beloved father, was just there and the assmaggot decided to kill him. Perhaps it was a paranoia issue, maybe the assmaggot thought he was an undercover cop or something like that.
And, as a general comment, please note that I refuse to call the shooter a “man.” He was obviously not one, or he wouldn’t have shot an unarmed, innocent person through a closed car window for no discernable reason.
MRAL is to positivity as cats are to cooperativeness. But at least cats are cute.
@CassandraSays
You mean with months and months of patient training, a ready supply of treats, and one of those little clicky devices, we might be able to train MRAL to perform a preset “positivity” routine as long as he’s in the right mood?
From what I understand, the DA is seeking the death penalty against him. :/
Nova, we don’t know that he was mentally ill or that if he was that had anything to do with what he did. The stereotype about mentally ill people being violent is just not true and hurts a lot of people.
@Snowy: Reports are stating that he was on antipsychotic medications and had a history of mental health issues:
(crosses fingers and hopes that the quote feature works this time.)
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/10/hair_salon_seal_beach_shooting.php
[quote]His attorney Robert Curtis said the jail where he is being held without bail has denied him his anti-psychotic medications Trazadome and Topamax. Judge Erick L. Larsh ordered a medical review to determine what medications Dekraai needs.[/quote]
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ex-wife-of-suspect-in-salon-shooting-claimed-mental-illness-abuse/
[quote]Sharyn White, a step-aunt of Scott Dekraai and a friend of Michelle’s, said Michelle previously told her that Scott had walked into the salon and threatened to kill Fournier and others. White said that according to Michelle, her colleagues and the customers in the salon laughed off the threat.
White, of Seal Beach, said in a telephone interview that Scott Dekraai had a troubled upbringing and grappled with mental illness.[/quote]
OMG, a clicker to train MRAs! You are a genius.
Although I suspect that the treat that they’d respond to best is sex, and sorry, that’s just not going to happen.
Cassandra, I think Cheetos might be an acceptable training substitute treat.
Oh, now that is just RICH in LULZ!!
Oh okay, looks like you’re right, he did have mental health issues. I don’t know that “batshit crazy” is really the best way to describe something like that, because it’s insulting to people who you’re not meaning to insult I don’t think, like the vast majority of mentally ill people who are not violent but still get lumped in with horrible people like this guy.
@thebionicmommy
“Hate groups tend to fester and grow when they’re ignored by mainstream society. They tend to scatter, though, when they are exposed to the light of day.”
Ain’t it the truth! Look at what the feminist hate movement has grown into. Mainstream hatred. And the light of day don’t mean shit when you’re backed by Big Daddy’s 22 million.
———————–
@Kollege Messerschmitt
“I’m honestly glad there is a site like manboobz that exposes what a bunch of hateful wankstains the MRM really is.”
And everyday another MRM sire pops up to expose your vile hate movement.
———————–
@Quackers
“Always accusing feminism as excusing female violence, what are they doing when they excuse this man’s rampage?”
Feminists all wore purple recently in solidarity for support of of a woman who pumped 11 bullets into her hubby, and cheered wildly when Big Daddy let her off. State supported violence, dontcha think? I wonder if this chap’ll get the same punishment if he claims the battered man defense?
———————–
Hate begets hate, surely you know this, right? From grade schools showing boys wearing shirts saying, “awaiting instruction,” and the constant propaganda in grade schools of boys as evil and girls as pure. Colleges recinding mens rights and continuing the propaganda with such vile hatred as the “she fears you indoctrination.” The constant false statistics. Every media outlets non stop womens opinions on how men are always wrong and evil, how they can improve themselves under womens blessed, all-knowing tutelage. Laws of every kind giving women extra while men get nothing. Laws that blantantly discriminate, depriving men of wealth, property, children, dignity…everything.
One man did this, yet quite clearly feminists use this as an excuse to blame all men. I guess it’s time for another hate law. Maybe you can get a law passed for a pre-emptive strike to let women off for murder. You can all wear purple in sisterly solidarity to show your support of some new hate law. Keep excusing all women for any crime any woman commits while blaming all men for any crime a single man commits.
Every single womens only charity, law, or State sponsored womens only club is a slap in the face to all men. If you had a boy and a girl and you gave the girl everything while giving the boy nothing, that’s hatred. Why do you lobby for State entitlements and charities that do exactly that? It’s the same hatred.
“And where is Marcotte’s apology to the Duke lacrosse team, for slander?”
If you look it up the Duke accuser (crystal mangum) is actually in jail now for murdering her boyfriend and had a history of serious mental illness. Clearly she is a highly unstable person who does not represent all females and i don’t think it was a coincidence that this of all rape cases the one that got national attention was one where there was a higher probability of it being false.
There goes NWO proving to be as evil and vile as ever! Even the deaths of 8 people by the hand of a man who was getting everything he wanted will not deter him from praising the worst of the MRM.
*yawn*
Did NWO say anything interesting?
… no? Ok then… Back to napping. Wake me up when he makes some sort of testable and/or valid and sound argument…
After reading this, I was thinking about my own parents’ divorce. My mother got “full” custody, as was pretty standard at the time. I saw my father every other weekend during the school year and six weeks in the summer. My dad actually did have time with us. He tried very hard, in his own my-dad way, to connect to us and be a part of our lives. My mom hated him (and still does), and said crappy things about him whenever she could, pretty much. But she never tried to stop him from seeing us.
My father never complained to us about my mom. He never complained to us about child support (he did say once that he thought he should know how it was being used, but then ended the conversation). My father never wielded us as weapons to hurt our mother. Because my father, overall, is a decent man. He is no saint – he cracked me across the head into a snowbank as a child, and I know he threw my mom against the wall at least once. He punched a hole in the wall one night, too. He had a temper, and he still does.
I love my dad, though. I hate some of the things that he’s done, but he’s overall a person who wants to be kind and good and tries to be so.
I talked to him about custody once, as an adult. He said that yeah, he really wished that he’d pushed harder to get 50-50 custody, but he did what he thought was best for us. He wanted to hurt our mother sometimes by trying to take us away, but he decided that yeah, it was better for us to stay in the school that we grew up in, with the friends we had.
He has 50-50 custody with his stepson, and he says that he can see how hard it can be. The individual situation needs to be taken into account. Who is the primary caregiver? How easy is it to transport kids back and forth from house to house? How is the relationship between the parents? How involved is each parent when the kids are at their house? It’s not a simple thing.
And somehow, despite my mom being a tyrant about time, he never threatened her or tried to kill her. Somehow, my father was able to be a parent to us and a semi-decent ex-partner to my mother.
Some of the people this guy killed were parents, probably. So not only has this person made his own children orphans, but he’s messed with other people’s kids and taken their fathers and/or mothers away from them. How is that right or just to these people who are defending him? Now he’s messed with other men’s kids – do they have the right to kill him? What the hell? This is awful, and there should be no one defending the shooter. This is a tragedy – 8 people were killed, and many people will have to live with the loss of their loved ones because this guy… shot them to get his kids back?