Deconstructing Judicial Attacks: China & Belgium

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