Earlier this month three judges were shot and killed in one courtroom in China and the assailant then committed suicide. A few days later in Brussels, a respected judge and her clerk were killed in a court of law. It was Belgium’s first judicial killing in an active court and it shocked the country’s populace and legal community.

Actual acts of violence directed towards the judiciary are relatively few, in relation to how many judges sit in a court of law everyday around the world. Because there are so few of these types of judicial assassinations – thankfully - it is important for the practitioner to examine them as much as possible to discover indicators that might help reduce the chances of an event from occurring in their community.  As such when these awful and tragic events occur – regardless of location – I look to see beyond the sensationalism of the media and seek those nuggets of facts that may help illuminate the event in the first place. By examining an event and deconstructing it, I hope to learn what – if anything – can I use to possibly mitigate the likelihood of an event from occurring in my community. I intentionally interject the word mitigate, because no one can eliminate all the risks involved in the courthouse security dynamic.

China prohibits the possession of firearms by its citizens. So the media report that three judges were shot in their court was quite surprising. Upon reading about this incident, I wanted to know more about the subject and how he specifically had access to guns. The media reports indicated that the 46-year old male, Zhu Jun, was in charge of security at a district post office. He checked out an automatic weapon and two pistols on a pretext of having them inspected at another governmental office. Question disturbingly answered! Head of security for another governmental agency equals legitimate access to weapons in China. The next question then – what triggered this individual into committing such an act?

According to news reports, Zhu Jun, left behind a note stating that he was upset with the court in regards to a property civil case he had before it - four years prior! He technically won the case but felt that his compensation ordered by the court took too long. That same year he went through a divorce and was diagnosed with terminal cancer. It was at this point in his life; he stated in his letter, that the idea of revenge and suicide germinated. The previous two months before his attack upon the court, he was at home on sick leave. Three days after returning to work he attacked.

The above factorial elements offer a possible explanation for his attack. A perception that the court was not just to him, a divorce and terminal illness are all events that can remove significant inhibitions of violence. The perception of injustice alone can push some people to commit acts of violence toward the court – but coupled with a divorce and terminal illness, it can then exacerbate a subject’s mental condition. It is important to note that Zhu Jun was ill, at home, for two months and returned to work for only three days prior to the attack. Knowing what occurred during those three critical days might illuminate more on the mindset of Mr. Jun. One can only speculate that his illness might have become more final and he knew he did not have much time if he wanted to take action on his perceived injustice. As such, he sought his revenge on the court – even though the sitting judges in that court were not the same ones in his case. It was an attack on the court and not an attack on the individual judges per se.

In Brussels the subject stated that he was upset at a particular judge because she had him evicted from his residence three years prior! The assailant, on the day of attack, sat patiently in the judge’s courtroom and waited. Once a majority of the cases were called, he stood up and shot her and the clerk, killing them both and ran out of the courthouse. The police captured him on the following day in a park. The subject was known to the police for committing various acts of violence in the 1990s, according to local media reports. Question, how did the assailant get a gun into a civil court? He simply brought it with him into the courthouse, as the civil courts in Brussels have no magnetometers. However, more probing questions, such as what inhibitors were being removed during the intervening three years that increased this individual’s capacity to be violent need to be asked. As a direct result of this tragedy, Belgium is now deliberating the best way to improve their court security.

Two culturally different countries, two attacks upon their judicial system separated by a few days earlier this month. Two broad common themes – both assailants appeared to nurture a grudge over a lengthy period of time and both had access to weapons. What are the implications for the practitioner? There is no quick fix. Vigilance, seeking best practices in court security, protective investigations and judicial threat management are the tools of our trade that must be constantly tuned and readied each day. – Be Safe

Jimmie

Welcome to the first blog dedicated exclusively to court security. This will be THE PLACE on all matters on court security. It is my intention to create a quality venue for those responsible for the protection of our courts.  As such a post will be shared at least once a month or sooner – depending upon current events. 

If you have a question or wish for me to discuss a matter (in a public format) on a particular court security topic contact me via the Protecting Court website – I would truly like to hear from you about what is important to you.  For my inaugural post, I have submitted an article that I wrote for the first publication of Deputy & Court Officer Magazine, a new NSA publication. Let me know what you think!

Best

Jimmie

Internet & The Judicial Threat

By Lt. Jimmie Barrett

“Those who are able to adapt and change in accord with the enemy and achieve victory

are called divine…”

-Sun Tzu

In June of 2006 Judge Chuck Weller in Reno, Nevada was shot in the safety of his judicial chambers. An angry litigant of Judge Weller, fired a single rifle bullet from over 170 yards away in a nearby parking garage that quickly shattered not only glass but quickly pierced the façade of security on local judges. While Judge Weller was being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, he informed law enforcement that he believed he had been attacked by the same man that had began an internet attack campaign against him – Darren Mack.

Before Darren Mack had fired his single bullet, a small dark space on the Internet was raging about how unfair and unjust Judge Weller conducted himself in court. Judge Weller was being referenced on the Internet as Hitler, Monster, and Tyrant, not exactly pleasant compliments, but also not illegal. Whether Darren Mack initiated or participated in attacking Judge Weller in the sphere of the Internet is irrelevant, what is relevant were that these comments and demonization of Judge Weller were out there for all to see.

The Internet postings on Judge Weller had the potential to reinforce online individuals with the same perceptions of Judge Weller and even fan their own individual flames of grievances against him. To others in the online world it could have been viewed as just one more place on the web where a bunch of unjustified bitter crackpots pontificated. However, those Internet postings can be much more sinister as Michael Prout, Assistant Director of Judicial Security for the USMS, recently stated in the National Law Journal.

  “Unlike a letter or an e-mail, comments posted on an Internet Web site have the potential to be viewed by a countless number of persons. Internet postings that are hyper-critical and contain restricted personal information of the protectee, such as a home address or Social Security number, can create a large number of potential threateners virtually unknown to the USMS.”[i]

In the ‘old’ Internet days, court security threat assessment professionals focused primarily on websites and blogs for potential threats to their judiciary but now websites are becoming passé. Social networks, such as Myspace, Facebook and Twitter are the now  ‘new’ hot things. These rapidly expanding social networks are not just for kids. According to a recent study by iStrategylLabs, Facebook users aged 35 to 54 are among the fastest growing demographic on the web. These social networks allow for like-minded individuals spread out geographically to come together in cyperspace to further their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and actions in a free flow of information sharing – which may not always be for the betterment of society! 

It is hard not to notice the potential impact this new Internet dynamic of social networks coupled with the power of ‘Internet Information’ has upon court security judicial threat assessment practitioners. The fluidity in sharing of information by individuals and groups that are not friendly to the judiciary are a concern, especially if that information is personal, such as a home address. The Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 has added some new tools for our federal counterparts in addressing the concern of posting personal judicial information on the Internet. However, those tools are only applicable to the federal judiciary. Most states, as many Sheriffs’ are aware, having nothing to its equivalent. Furthermore, unlike the federal judiciary, most judges at the state and local level campaign for their office. This directly translates to judicial campaign websites.

Campaign websites have many purposes one of which is to personalize the individual running for office. The politician humanizes him/herself by showing pictures of their family, where they practice their faith, how strong his/her ties are to the community and even what neighborhood they live in. Without stating the obvious issues, this is problematic for an elected judiciary and those of us charged with their protection.

A colleague of mine relayed an incident to me of a politician that had come to him concerning threatening letters he had received. The politician was extremely concerned about how the subject, who had been sending him threatening letters, knew all this personal information about him and his family. He demanded from my colleague to immediately get to the bottom of how his family’s personal information had been disclosed to this threatener! My colleague, being the professional he is, politely pulled up the politicians’ election website and gently showed him all the information the subject referenced. To say the least, the politician immediately modified his campaign website.

To help combat these evolving Internet social networks, the court security threat assessment professional must engage with their counterparts in the field. We must share (what is legally permissible) with one another and ensure that we have a free flow of information to counter the threats that are being posed/posted out in cyber space and our local community. We must create our own ‘social networks’. Further we need to take advantage of the Internet and harness its information for our primary purpose, protecting the judiciary. Individual acts of subscribing to Internet news alerts, such as www.google.com/alerts helps us at a minimum to be aware of what is occurring currently out in cyberspace.

The idea that court security starts and ends in the courtroom is starting to fade. There are still pockets in our profession that maintain this perspective, but they are rapidly receding. The Internet communities are knocking loudly on our doors and forcing us to take notice.

The age of the Internet and its unabridged torrent of information has forced individuals, professionals, businesses and governments to seek new methodologies and paradigms to stay relevant in an era of constant change. In addition, the evolution of the Internet is becoming so rapid that it is difficult for Information Technology personnel to stay current yet alone those of us in the field of judicial threat assessments. Regardless we must. The Internet Genie is out of the bottle and our judiciary and communities need us to maintain our vigilance and intercept the next Darren Mack – whoever that may be….

[i] Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal, March 19, 2009