By David Futrelle
Was Men’s Rights attorney Roy Den Hollander, who on Sunday night gunned down a federal judge’s husband and son, also the man who shot fellow Men’s Rights lawyer Marc Angelucci dead a little over a week ago?
It’s looking a lot like it. Let’s consider some of the facts of the case as they are now emerging.
Den Hollander had a motive — professional and personal jealousy. According to the Daily Beast,
In one of his online screeds, “men’s rights” lawyer Roy Den Hollander made it clear he blamed U.S. District Judge Esther Salas for robbing him of a legal victory that instead was claimed by activist California attorney Marc Angelucci.
Den Hollander did not name Angelucci in his bile-filled memoir, but law-enforcement sources told The Daily Beast that papers mentioning Angelucci were found in or around the car where Den Hollander killed himself on Monday.
The Daily Beast has more on the case and Den Hollander’s feelings about it.
He was apparently targeting various people he considered enemies.
The New York Times notes that he had the name and a photo of New York State chief judge, Janet M. DiFiore in his car.
In a lengthy screed he left behind he mused about revenge. “The only problem with a life lived too long under Feminazi rule,” he wrote, “is that a man ends up with so many enemies he can’t even the score with all of them.”
Den Hollander had cancer and had apparently decided he had nothing left to lose.
“Death’s hand is on my left shoulder,” he wrote, “nothing in this life matters anymore.”
In both cases, the shooter reportedly wore a FedEx uniform as a ruse to get his victims to open their door.
This is the detail that absolutely clinches it for me; there’s no way this could be mere coincidence.
On the A Voice for Men website, a eulogy for the murdered Angelucci declares him a “modern martyr like ancient Saint Vincent.”
Now it appears that he was martyred by one of his own. Not only by a fellow Men’s Rights attorney but one who had once published an article on A Voice for Men and who had been described by AVFM founder Paul Elam as a hero. “[A]s much as I loathe the idea of anyone claiming authority on what a “real” man is, ” Elam wrote in a post on the site, “if I had to venture a guess, it would be men like Hollander.”
I would call this a great irony except that there’s really no irony here at all. The Men’s Rights Movement attracts desperate, delusional, angry and unhinged men (and some women fitting the same general description); it’s really not a shock to learn that one of these men decided to take revenge on those considered his enemies. Indeed, I’ve been expecting to see someone with ties to A Voice for Men lose it like this for years; I’m just a little surprised that it turned out to be Den Hollander and not one of the other seemingly more likely candidates.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
“Trickle-down economics” is a new term for what used to be called “horse and sparrow economics” or “cow and sparrow.” The analogy being that if you want to feed a hungry sparrow by the side of the road, clearly the most efficient way to do this is to stuff your horse with so many oats that some pass out whole on the other side, which the sparrow can then pick from the horse dung.
@Catalpa
Ah, again we see the poor reading comprehension so rampant in this community. That line is just noting that more recent popular presidents (Clinton, Reagan, maybe now possibly Obama) tend to be ranked as “the greatest” by the less-informed public, whereas historians tend to be a little less presentist in their thinking. I find this utterly unsurprising.
But I didn’t say that historians rank Reagan among the greatest presidents ever, if by that we mean something like the top 5 out of 44. They don’t (nor should they). But historian do consistently rank Reagan in the top quartile, and arguably the highest since Truman (he seems about even with Eisenhower). You can verify that here, which lists and sources major polls of trained historians over the past fifty-odd years.
You’re entitled to your wrong opinion about Reagan. But trained historians do, in fact, disagree with you.
@Motte
Wow, feel like a big man do you ya? make you feel big and strong? feel dominate? cause it was really poor display of it. makes me want to pinch your cheek.
There go those goalposts again … skittering away …
@Policy
It’s almost cute isn’t it. He thinks he has a point! he thinks he can hurt people here! he thinks he’s a big strong dominating man! it’s so cute its almost adorable.
@Lainy
He’s just MansVoice. He just admitted it in the other thread. I emailed David to let him know so he can take whatever action he deems appropriate.
Friendly reminder that Reagan was president for Iran-Contra. Bill Barr pardoned those involved in that crime and is now assisting Trump in ushering in fascism.
In other words, Reagan can eat shit and Trumpism is the end result of the actions of conservatives these past decades, not an aberration.
What are you talking about? Like, seriously. What is this referring to?
@motte
The sad little boy that you are and the fact I’m playing with you. You get off thinking superior to other when you are just sad little boy trying to be a dom. Its really cute. Makes me want pinch your cheek.
Likewise, Policy of Madness. What are you talking about?
This community is just as illiterate and tedious as always.
@mottie
What’s the matter? You don’t like flirting? You can always leave baby boy
And yet you decided to evade a ban to come back. That’s a non-trivial amount of effort to go to, just to hang out with us tedious illiterates.
@WWTH
This is what a lot of people closer to the center don’t get. They think getting rid of Trump will magically fix everything, when really it’s the whole system that has problems and he’s just a symptom.
@Lainy
So, a standard conservative.
@PoM
He must have missed us.
Anyway, Motte, you sound cranky. Maybe take a nap, get your diaper changed, and come back later.
Your last claim was that:
Not since Truman or Eisenhower or Kennedy.
And aside from that, the whole point of my initial post was that there are plenty of shitty, shitty people who are well-remembered despite the atrocities they commit. I don’t know why you think I don’t believe that there are historians who have the same bias.
Things weren’t quite so … in the open, however, before he got into office. On the one hand, that’s bad, because it makes white supremacists think that what they believe is A-OK and gives them a courage to act that they didn’t have before. Giving aid and comfort to Nazis is never a great thing.
On the other, it’s really ripped the bandaid off and revealed the rot underneath. A lot of (white) people didn’t previously understand how incredibly racist this country still is. Some of them still don’t – my dad recently admitted that racism was a thing when he was a kid, but he claims that was over and done with in the 70s and racism has been solved ever since. But a non-trivial number of white people are seeing that my dad’s position is bullshit, because the cops are suddenly giving white people a similar treatment to how they’ve always been encouraged to treat black people. When peaceful white people are tear gassed for the crime of thinking black people might be human, the racism is nakedly there for all to see and can no longer be glossed for the comfort of whites.
So there are pros and cons. I think it’s time for him to go regardless, because the damage he’s doing to real individual people is intolerable, but I hope the conversation around racism doesn’t stop just because he leaves office.
@Catalpa:
OK, that’s pathetic.
I said that Reagan was “certainly one of the best, if not the best” since FDR; I was not claiming that he was unequivocally the best. Indeed he is “one of the best” since FDR, and historians do agree.
I’ll cop to a little bit of rhetorical sloppiness, though. I was giving you my own view (best president since FDR), and then saying that “historians agree” with the general sentiment, which is that he was a very good president.
@PoM
True, but there remains more to be done than just getting a new president in order to fix things. There still are many goals which remain.
This was what I was trying to say earlier. Too many older white liberal voters seem to think Obama getting elected means racism is over, when that is certainly not the case.
I went ahead and banned motte for ban evasion, though I suppose I could unban him if a bunch of you still want to play with him.
And he’s still trying to dom but he’s an idiot so it doesn’t work. Stick to bottom dude
@david
I like to play but that’s just me. If no one else is comfortable with it. Then keep him banned
Ugh. I meant he orchestrated the pardon, not that he did the actual pardoning. That was Bush Sr.
I have a bad headache and got no sleep last night, so coherent writing is just too big an ask today.
I personally find MV/M&B to be tedious and boring, but won’t argue if everyone else wants him unbanned.
I’m not a huge fan of the guy but I get the feeling we’ll be seeing more of him at some point in the future given his ban-evading tendencies. Honestly I don’t really care one way or the other.
@Lainy
I feel like then he’d just be a really bratty guy who tops from the bottom too much (or tries, anyhow).
The troll is tedious, I won’t miss him. Thanks for the ban, David.
I missed the fun, but i don’t want them unbanned either.
They earned a ban before, why allow them to come back after they deliberately circumvented that ban?
Nope. They got banned for a reason. Even banned people don’t deserve banning for literally every word they type. In this case one could argue that their behavior in this thread isn’t enough to warrant banning on its own, but that’s the point. This behavior isn’t isolated.
Rebanning was a good choice. +1