Cho Seung-Hui, a name that will live in infamy
National News
This is Cho Seung-Hui, the VT shooter who killed 32 people. The shooter who then like a true coward hiding behind a gun, took his own life rather than facing judgement for his atrocity.
A South Korean exchange student armed with a 9mm and a .22 caliber pistol was able to walk around campus for over 2 hours after starting his killing spree at 7:15 in the morning at the dorms on the complete opposite side of campus. When reports started coming in regarding this killing spree, I assumed he was a madman with some sort of assault rifle, something that would prevent people from engaging him due to the extreme visciousness of the weapon...not two side-arms, weapons that are relatively difficult to reload quickly and hold rather small magazines, and are rather inaccurate at any big distance. What I am trying to get at is that it is absolutely astounding this went on as long as it did. Were there NO campus police? Were there no former/off-duty police or prior service military or anyone with a modicum of courage who said to themselves, "THIS IS INSANE! When he goes to reload...." THIRTY TWO PEOPLE shot and killed with a semi-automatic weapon. Absolutely unacceptable.
I do not mean to trod over the memory of these victims by even hinting that it was their responsibility to confront a crazed gunman...merely that I find it very difficult to believe in a post-911 America neither the police, nor some would-be hero stopped this maniac before he could do so much damage.
Again, I'm on a rant....this makes me so mad, furious even. I can't understand why people do the things they do sometimes. Mass-murder, torture, suicide bombing...I just don't understand the mentality and it is extremely frustrating sometimes. My apologies if I have offended.
~Dubya
Vaughn Tolle said:
Dubya, I, too, am without understanding.
We have the luxury of arm chair quarterbacking concerning the actions (or lack thereof) of the VPI officials. However, at this point, from what I can ascertain out of the various media reports which I read/watch/hear, the only thing I criticize was the delay in notifying the students of the first shooting; some two hours. The notification was made over the campus email system, something which as I understand it, is quite common.
What I understand: there was a shooting in a residence hall which claimed the lives of two students; the resident of the room, and the Resident Assistant who apparently, from reports, had come to investigate the commotion. The campus police initially thought it a domestic matter, perhaps a murder-suicide. After a "lock down" of the residence hall, and questioning the residents (witnesses), the police reasonbly, IMO, believed the shooter had left. From the abcnews.go.com website report, a reasonable belief based upon his returning (apparently) to his dorm room in another residence hall. The campus police also had identified and picked up for questioning a "person of interest" who was being questioned at the time the shootings began in Norris Hall.
It is my understanding that once the 911 calls began from Norris Hall, there was a quick reaction by the campus police traveling to the location. The cell phone video made by a graduate students shows the campus police gathering outside the building as shots were heard being fired inside. Access to the building was hindered due to the shooter chaining the main doors thereto shut. I understand it took about a minute to gain access to the building, the campus police thereafter proceeding to the second floor where they heard a final shot, and no further shooting ensued.
The shooter apparently left his room and proceeded across campus to Norris Hall at some point; he was dressed, as I understand it, in typical student clothing. As you point out, the fact he had two hand guns in his possession made it easy for him to walk across the campus relatively anonymously; having attended KU, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of students and others walking across campus on the way to class at any time, passing by each other without any particular notice.
College campuses are "gun free zones"; whether this should be is a debate to be had at another time. However, from reports, it seems the person in question acquired his first weapon in March (the 9mm); from a report last night on CNN, he apparently acquired the .22 caliber on April 13. Again, from various media reports, we learn that he had taken steps to file the id numbers from the weapons; had no id on him; there was a receipt in his backpack relating to the purchase of the 9mm in March; and identification was delayed until his fingerprints could be positively matched with immigration records.
This raises the question; on a large campus (~2500 acres) with a total of 26000 students and 10000 employees, what could the administration have done, if anything, to prevent the Norris Hall shootings? A substantial majority of the students live off campus; how to cancel classes, notify them (and those already on campus)? From the maps shown of the campus on the tube, there appears to be multiple entrances/exits to the campus; is it reasonable, given what was known about the first incident, to totally block access to and from the campus? Again, the delay in notification is the only thing I can criticize, putting myself in the place of the President, et al, given what was apparently known at the time.
There are media reports that the attempt to obtain information about the shooter is difficult, as he was a loaner. Again, abcnews.go.com reports he left a disturbing note behind; without any positive id from the first incident, how could the authorities possibly narrow down the correct residence hall, much less the correct room?
It sounds to me that he had been planning this for a few weeks; what triggered it? Was it, as suggested by a profiler on the tube last night, a rejection by a former girl friend, coupled with a perception of failure caused by the university, that set him off? Was there something arising from his culture that triggered this? We're not likely to know for sure. However, given what appears to have been known at the time, not what is known now, I am without any reason to suspect this guy could have been identified or stopped, absent having armed officers in each building at all times.
Sorry for the length of this. Fire away.
We have the luxury of arm chair quarterbacking concerning the actions (or lack thereof) of the VPI officials. However, at this point, from what I can ascertain out of the various media reports which I read/watch/hear, the only thing I criticize was the delay in notifying the students of the first shooting; some two hours. The notification was made over the campus email system, something which as I understand it, is quite common.
What I understand: there was a shooting in a residence hall which claimed the lives of two students; the resident of the room, and the Resident Assistant who apparently, from reports, had come to investigate the commotion. The campus police initially thought it a domestic matter, perhaps a murder-suicide. After a "lock down" of the residence hall, and questioning the residents (witnesses), the police reasonbly, IMO, believed the shooter had left. From the abcnews.go.com website report, a reasonable belief based upon his returning (apparently) to his dorm room in another residence hall. The campus police also had identified and picked up for questioning a "person of interest" who was being questioned at the time the shootings began in Norris Hall.
It is my understanding that once the 911 calls began from Norris Hall, there was a quick reaction by the campus police traveling to the location. The cell phone video made by a graduate students shows the campus police gathering outside the building as shots were heard being fired inside. Access to the building was hindered due to the shooter chaining the main doors thereto shut. I understand it took about a minute to gain access to the building, the campus police thereafter proceeding to the second floor where they heard a final shot, and no further shooting ensued.
The shooter apparently left his room and proceeded across campus to Norris Hall at some point; he was dressed, as I understand it, in typical student clothing. As you point out, the fact he had two hand guns in his possession made it easy for him to walk across the campus relatively anonymously; having attended KU, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of students and others walking across campus on the way to class at any time, passing by each other without any particular notice.
College campuses are "gun free zones"; whether this should be is a debate to be had at another time. However, from reports, it seems the person in question acquired his first weapon in March (the 9mm); from a report last night on CNN, he apparently acquired the .22 caliber on April 13. Again, from various media reports, we learn that he had taken steps to file the id numbers from the weapons; had no id on him; there was a receipt in his backpack relating to the purchase of the 9mm in March; and identification was delayed until his fingerprints could be positively matched with immigration records.
This raises the question; on a large campus (~2500 acres) with a total of 26000 students and 10000 employees, what could the administration have done, if anything, to prevent the Norris Hall shootings? A substantial majority of the students live off campus; how to cancel classes, notify them (and those already on campus)? From the maps shown of the campus on the tube, there appears to be multiple entrances/exits to the campus; is it reasonable, given what was known about the first incident, to totally block access to and from the campus? Again, the delay in notification is the only thing I can criticize, putting myself in the place of the President, et al, given what was apparently known at the time.
There are media reports that the attempt to obtain information about the shooter is difficult, as he was a loaner. Again, abcnews.go.com reports he left a disturbing note behind; without any positive id from the first incident, how could the authorities possibly narrow down the correct residence hall, much less the correct room?
It sounds to me that he had been planning this for a few weeks; what triggered it? Was it, as suggested by a profiler on the tube last night, a rejection by a former girl friend, coupled with a perception of failure caused by the university, that set him off? Was there something arising from his culture that triggered this? We're not likely to know for sure. However, given what appears to have been known at the time, not what is known now, I am without any reason to suspect this guy could have been identified or stopped, absent having armed officers in each building at all times.
Sorry for the length of this. Fire away.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Thank you, Linda; just "doing the best I can". :-)
BTW, y'all may have noticed my reference to the university as VPI rather than Virginia Tech. That is for the reason that 1) the official name of the university is Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and 2) that's how I learnt it way back when.
BTW, y'all may have noticed my reference to the university as VPI rather than Virginia Tech. That is for the reason that 1) the official name of the university is Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and 2) that's how I learnt it way back when.
lindainks55 said:
Besides, if we abbreviate the college in other ways than VPI it leaves two letters which indicate one of our own and I don't like having that thoughful poster's nic associated with anything negative. ;-)
Dubya said:
I agree, Linda...I noticed that too this morning when I responded to Vaughns post this morning :)...Can't have negative context with one of our posters!!
My question at the moment, I guess, is HOW IN THE HELL is it legal for a Resident Alien to purchase a firearm of any kind? How many Islamic Extremists are armed and ready to reap chaos in the US because we allowed them to purchase weapons here?
Does that not freak anyone else out??
!Dubya!
My question at the moment, I guess, is HOW IN THE HELL is it legal for a Resident Alien to purchase a firearm of any kind? How many Islamic Extremists are armed and ready to reap chaos in the US because we allowed them to purchase weapons here?
Does that not freak anyone else out??
!Dubya!
Wendy said:
Dubya,
I would have to say that probably has something to do with all the gun control legislation that has been shot down.
At the same time, if they are a resident, have green card status in the us, is it fair to deny them the same rights we as naturalized citizens have?
Fine line, there...
I would have to say that probably has something to do with all the gun control legislation that has been shot down.
At the same time, if they are a resident, have green card status in the us, is it fair to deny them the same rights we as naturalized citizens have?
Fine line, there...
Dave Shuck said:
"As a permanent legal resident of the United States, Cho was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of any felony criminal charges, a federal immigration official said."
He was a permanent citizen... from this article:
__________________________________
Sources: College gunman left note
By Aamer Madhani
Tribune national correspondent
Published April 17, 2007, 10:48 AM CDT
BLACKSBURG, Va. -- The suspected gunman in the Virginia Tech shooting rampage, Cho Seung-Hui, was a troubled 23-year-old senior from South Korea who investigators believe left an invective-filled note in his dorm room, sources say.
The note included a rambling list of grievances, according to sources. They said Cho also died with the words "Ismail Ax" in red ink on the inside of one of his arms.
Cho had shown recent signs of violent, aberrant behavior, according to an investigative source, including setting a fire in a dorm room and allegedly stalking some women.
A note believed to have been written by Cho was found in his dorm room that railed against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus.
The English major from Centreville, Va., a rapidly growing suburb of Washington, D.C., came to the United States in 1992, an investigative source said. He was a legal permanent resident.
His family runs a dry cleaning business and he has a sister who graduated from Princeton University, according to the source.
Investigators believe Cho at some point had been taking medication for depression. They are examining Cho's computer for more evidence.
The gunman's family lived in an off-white, two-story town house in Centreville.
"He was very quiet, always by himself," neighbor Abdul Shash said of the gunman. Shash said the gunman spent a lot of his free time playing basketball, and wouldn't respond if someone greeted him. He described the family as quiet.
Marshall Main, who lives across the street, said the family had lived in the townhouse for several years.
According to court records, Virginia Tech Police issued a speeding ticket to Cho on April 7 for going 44 mph in a 25 mph zone, and he had a court date set for May 23.
Cho was found among the 31 dead found in an engineering hall. Police said the victims laid over four classrooms and a stairwell.
"He was a loner," said Larry Hincker, a university spokesman, who added that investigators are having some difficulty unearthing information about him.
A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information had not been announced, said Cho was carrying a backpack that contained receipts for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol.
Ballistics tests by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showed that one gun was used in Monday's two separate campus attacks that were two hours apart.
As a permanent legal resident of the United States, Cho was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of any felony criminal charges, a federal immigration official said.
Police said Cho killed 30 people in a Virginia Tech engineering building Monday morning and then killed himself.
Another two students were shot to death two hours earlier in a dorm room on the opposite side of the university's sprawling 2,600-acre campus, bringing the day's death toll to 33.
Students at Harper Hall, the campus dormitory where Cho lived, said they had little interaction with him and no insight into what might have motivated the attack.
Timothy Johnson, a student from Annandale, Va., said people would say hello to Cho in passing, but nobody knew him well.
People are pretty upset," Johnson said. "He's a monster; he can't be normal. I can't believe I said 'hi' to him in the hall and then he killed all those people."
Officials said the same gun was used in the attack in the dorm room and the larger-scale classroom killings.
"At this time, the evidence does not conclusively identify Cho as the gunman at both locations," said Col. W. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of Virginia State Police.
The new details were revealed as the university readied itself for a day of mourning. A convocation is set for today, which President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush said they would attend, and thousands of students and Blacksburg residents are expected to come together later in the day for a candlelight vigil.
All classes at Virginia Tech will be closed for the remainder of the week, said school President Charles Steger.
Some victims' names released
Among the dead were professors Liviu Librescu and Kevin Granata and G.V. Longanathan, 51, a civil and environmental engineering professor.
Ryan Clark, 22, of Martinez, Ga., biology and English major, was one of the students killed in the dormitory, according to the Columbia County coroner's office.
Students who were in Librescu's engineering class at Norris Hall told the Tribune late Monday that the professor tried to protect the students in his class when they realized a gunmen was loose in the building.
Alec Calhoun was in Librescu's solid mechanics engineering class when gunfire erupted in the room next door. He said Librescu, went to the door and pushed himself against it in case the shooter tried to come in.
Librescu, an Israeli, was born in Romania and was known internationally for his research in aeronautical engineering.
Fifteen victims, including three who originally were listed in critical condition, were listed in stable or good condition and two remained in critical condition, wire services reported.
He was a permanent citizen... from this article:
__________________________________
Sources: College gunman left note
By Aamer Madhani
Tribune national correspondent
Published April 17, 2007, 10:48 AM CDT
BLACKSBURG, Va. -- The suspected gunman in the Virginia Tech shooting rampage, Cho Seung-Hui, was a troubled 23-year-old senior from South Korea who investigators believe left an invective-filled note in his dorm room, sources say.
The note included a rambling list of grievances, according to sources. They said Cho also died with the words "Ismail Ax" in red ink on the inside of one of his arms.
Cho had shown recent signs of violent, aberrant behavior, according to an investigative source, including setting a fire in a dorm room and allegedly stalking some women.
A note believed to have been written by Cho was found in his dorm room that railed against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus.
The English major from Centreville, Va., a rapidly growing suburb of Washington, D.C., came to the United States in 1992, an investigative source said. He was a legal permanent resident.
His family runs a dry cleaning business and he has a sister who graduated from Princeton University, according to the source.
Investigators believe Cho at some point had been taking medication for depression. They are examining Cho's computer for more evidence.
The gunman's family lived in an off-white, two-story town house in Centreville.
"He was very quiet, always by himself," neighbor Abdul Shash said of the gunman. Shash said the gunman spent a lot of his free time playing basketball, and wouldn't respond if someone greeted him. He described the family as quiet.
Marshall Main, who lives across the street, said the family had lived in the townhouse for several years.
According to court records, Virginia Tech Police issued a speeding ticket to Cho on April 7 for going 44 mph in a 25 mph zone, and he had a court date set for May 23.
Cho was found among the 31 dead found in an engineering hall. Police said the victims laid over four classrooms and a stairwell.
"He was a loner," said Larry Hincker, a university spokesman, who added that investigators are having some difficulty unearthing information about him.
A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information had not been announced, said Cho was carrying a backpack that contained receipts for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol.
Ballistics tests by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showed that one gun was used in Monday's two separate campus attacks that were two hours apart.
As a permanent legal resident of the United States, Cho was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of any felony criminal charges, a federal immigration official said.
Police said Cho killed 30 people in a Virginia Tech engineering building Monday morning and then killed himself.
Another two students were shot to death two hours earlier in a dorm room on the opposite side of the university's sprawling 2,600-acre campus, bringing the day's death toll to 33.
Students at Harper Hall, the campus dormitory where Cho lived, said they had little interaction with him and no insight into what might have motivated the attack.
Timothy Johnson, a student from Annandale, Va., said people would say hello to Cho in passing, but nobody knew him well.
People are pretty upset," Johnson said. "He's a monster; he can't be normal. I can't believe I said 'hi' to him in the hall and then he killed all those people."
Officials said the same gun was used in the attack in the dorm room and the larger-scale classroom killings.
"At this time, the evidence does not conclusively identify Cho as the gunman at both locations," said Col. W. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of Virginia State Police.
The new details were revealed as the university readied itself for a day of mourning. A convocation is set for today, which President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush said they would attend, and thousands of students and Blacksburg residents are expected to come together later in the day for a candlelight vigil.
All classes at Virginia Tech will be closed for the remainder of the week, said school President Charles Steger.
Some victims' names released
Among the dead were professors Liviu Librescu and Kevin Granata and G.V. Longanathan, 51, a civil and environmental engineering professor.
Ryan Clark, 22, of Martinez, Ga., biology and English major, was one of the students killed in the dormitory, according to the Columbia County coroner's office.
Students who were in Librescu's engineering class at Norris Hall told the Tribune late Monday that the professor tried to protect the students in his class when they realized a gunmen was loose in the building.
Alec Calhoun was in Librescu's solid mechanics engineering class when gunfire erupted in the room next door. He said Librescu, went to the door and pushed himself against it in case the shooter tried to come in.
Librescu, an Israeli, was born in Romania and was known internationally for his research in aeronautical engineering.
Fifteen victims, including three who originally were listed in critical condition, were listed in stable or good condition and two remained in critical condition, wire services reported.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Dubya, from media reports, under Virginia law, a lawful resident alien may purchase firearms, said person to provide proof of his legal status in the country accompanied by some id which shows his residency within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Haven't resorted to "the google" to verify; I'm in the middle of a Form 5227, taking breaks therefrom as needed for sanity purposes.
Wendy said:
BTW,
Did a little lurking over on WEBlog this morning, and WOW - did their Vtech post get out of CONTROL! I'll let you all guess who did the honors there, but let me say, it was the most hateful post I have read to date... crazy...
Let's keep this situation what it is and not throw it into some political maelstrom until we have FACTS. The majority of what we have now is simple speculation, and honestly, with only that, none of us are going to get it right. What we should concentrate on now is the heartache of those students and family and friends who lost loved ones, and what, if anything we can do to assist THEM in their time of need - not start throwing around blame for things we cannot possibly know anything about...
Did a little lurking over on WEBlog this morning, and WOW - did their Vtech post get out of CONTROL! I'll let you all guess who did the honors there, but let me say, it was the most hateful post I have read to date... crazy...
Let's keep this situation what it is and not throw it into some political maelstrom until we have FACTS. The majority of what we have now is simple speculation, and honestly, with only that, none of us are going to get it right. What we should concentrate on now is the heartache of those students and family and friends who lost loved ones, and what, if anything we can do to assist THEM in their time of need - not start throwing around blame for things we cannot possibly know anything about...
Dave Shuck said:
Hmmm... I suppose there is there a difference between permanent legal resident and naturalized citizen. I honestly don't remotely know the difference in how that is viewed under law.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Dave, at the risk of appearing to be flippant, it depends upon the law in question. Much more than that is difficult to say relative to any difference in treatment of permanent legal residents compared to naturalized citizens.
Dave Shuck said:
I am sure that is true VT. So does anyone have any idea what is behind the term "Ismail Ax" that was reportedly inked on his arm? I found that kind of interesting.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Here's a blog post, Dave, on "Ismail Ax"; cannot tell the relevance, but FWIW.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/20...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/20...
Wendy said:
Wow, Vaughn, reading some of the posts on that blog - "all liberal professors teach hate". Nice to know that we have such great bigots out there... This has turned into exactly what I feared it would in my posts yesterday...
When will this stop being about "them or us" and just about "us" as a whole? I am sure the fact that he is South Korean is going to result in more than a few hate crimes, same as the islamic retaliations we saw after 9/11. No matter how you slice it, two wrongs don't make a right...
When will this stop being about "them or us" and just about "us" as a whole? I am sure the fact that he is South Korean is going to result in more than a few hate crimes, same as the islamic retaliations we saw after 9/11. No matter how you slice it, two wrongs don't make a right...
Vaughn Tolle said:
Wendy, that is why I hesitated in posting "over there" earlier this a.m. about the nationality of the alleged shooter, but decided to forge ahead in light of some of the comments.
From what is developing in the media, Ben Huie was correct in his observation that the nationality of the person was not relevant to discussions of motive. Depression seems to be a current favorite; erratic behavior listed in one article, setting a fire in his room, stalking female students. The excerpts from the multi-paged "note" are also disturbing; "debauchery", "you made me do this", "rich charlatans" (the quotes are from memory, so if they're a bit off, my apologies). To me, the young man's nationality has become irrelevant; what is relevant to any further discussion, speculation, whatever, is his mental condition.
From what is developing in the media, Ben Huie was correct in his observation that the nationality of the person was not relevant to discussions of motive. Depression seems to be a current favorite; erratic behavior listed in one article, setting a fire in his room, stalking female students. The excerpts from the multi-paged "note" are also disturbing; "debauchery", "you made me do this", "rich charlatans" (the quotes are from memory, so if they're a bit off, my apologies). To me, the young man's nationality has become irrelevant; what is relevant to any further discussion, speculation, whatever, is his mental condition.
Gster said:
What I found disturbing was the number of shots received by the victims. According to what I read at one of the news sites, the victims where hit 2 to 3 times each! That seems to give indication that he was in a cold calculating mode rather than white-hot, as I initially assumed.
That is disturbing.
That is disturbing.
Wendy said:
Vaughn,
I completely agree. But from reading "over there" (as you put it :) ) this morning, I have come to realize that some of those posters are quite simply INSANE. I couldn't even bring myself to respond to them because I don't want to get sucked in to their vitriol. GS especially went off the deep end about this shooters nationality, as if it had some bearing on the situation, nevermind the fact that all reports point to the contrary... I suppose, in some very limited way, perhaps his cultural upbringing affected his response to a specific situation, thereby triggering the response... but that is a remote possibility given what we DO know at this point (which is woefully little in the grand scheme of things) It just makes me sad that people are so ready to look for SOMETHING to blame, rather than try to identify the overall problem and fix it (i.e. islamo-facist terrorism, etc, etal.) They are too busy trying to lump people and actions into categories that exist only in their minds to stop and think - what, if anything could have been done to prevent this terrible tragedy so we can hopefully avoid this in the future, and what if anything can we do as a nation to help the victims of said tragedy. THAT is what should be important now - not whether or not this man was sleeping with this person, or cheated on that person, or got cheated on by so and so... and all the other useless speculations that we (unfortunately) as a gossip loving nation are so quick to judge by...
I completely agree. But from reading "over there" (as you put it :) ) this morning, I have come to realize that some of those posters are quite simply INSANE. I couldn't even bring myself to respond to them because I don't want to get sucked in to their vitriol. GS especially went off the deep end about this shooters nationality, as if it had some bearing on the situation, nevermind the fact that all reports point to the contrary... I suppose, in some very limited way, perhaps his cultural upbringing affected his response to a specific situation, thereby triggering the response... but that is a remote possibility given what we DO know at this point (which is woefully little in the grand scheme of things) It just makes me sad that people are so ready to look for SOMETHING to blame, rather than try to identify the overall problem and fix it (i.e. islamo-facist terrorism, etc, etal.) They are too busy trying to lump people and actions into categories that exist only in their minds to stop and think - what, if anything could have been done to prevent this terrible tragedy so we can hopefully avoid this in the future, and what if anything can we do as a nation to help the victims of said tragedy. THAT is what should be important now - not whether or not this man was sleeping with this person, or cheated on that person, or got cheated on by so and so... and all the other useless speculations that we (unfortunately) as a gossip loving nation are so quick to judge by...
Vaughn Tolle said:
Gster, an ER doctor interviewed on CNN today indicated that all victims he treated had three wounds each. It is clear to me that this was no "crime of passion", but rather a calculated massacre of innocents, given the purchase of the two weapons 1 month apart, filing off the serial numbers, etc.
WSClark said:
Posted on yesterday's open thread...... more appropriate here.
Well Dave, I would have to respectfully disagree with you. As a confirmed flame bait liberal, I have no problem with guns or gun owners. I have a problem with people that think guns are the answer.
For every crime that is stopped by a gun carrying CCW, there are many more people killed by the careless handling or storage of weapons.
There is this romanticized image of a citizen pulling his weapon and saving folks from a crazed killer. It's not going to happen.
The VTech massacre was horrific, but does anyone really think that if the professor or the RA been packing that they would have recognized the mortal danger and gotten off a clean shot? This is not about being a good shot or being a soldier in a combat zone. This is about recognizing mortal danger and responding accordingly.
When the killer stepped into the classroom, what would have prompted the professor to shoot? By the time he realized that people were in danger, he was on the floor dying of his wounds. Even if he had known that a killer could come through the door, it is unlikely that he could have defended himself.
As I have mentioned before, police officers, trained professionals have problems hitting a perpetrator at times. Soldiers in combat have difficulty firing their weapons at times. For Christ's sake, Mafia hit men have soiled themselves executing a hit. Shooting people is not a normal reaction.
The blame and responsibility for yesterday's incident lies strictly with the killer. It is not the fault of local law enforcement. It is not the fault of the legislators that defeated a motion to allow concealed carry on campuses.
The solution to the problem is not more guns, more concealed carry holders, armed professors or gun turrets on college campuses. The solution is to be able to identify those that would behave in a violent manner before the act on their impulses.
Well Dave, I would have to respectfully disagree with you. As a confirmed flame bait liberal, I have no problem with guns or gun owners. I have a problem with people that think guns are the answer.
For every crime that is stopped by a gun carrying CCW, there are many more people killed by the careless handling or storage of weapons.
There is this romanticized image of a citizen pulling his weapon and saving folks from a crazed killer. It's not going to happen.
The VTech massacre was horrific, but does anyone really think that if the professor or the RA been packing that they would have recognized the mortal danger and gotten off a clean shot? This is not about being a good shot or being a soldier in a combat zone. This is about recognizing mortal danger and responding accordingly.
When the killer stepped into the classroom, what would have prompted the professor to shoot? By the time he realized that people were in danger, he was on the floor dying of his wounds. Even if he had known that a killer could come through the door, it is unlikely that he could have defended himself.
As I have mentioned before, police officers, trained professionals have problems hitting a perpetrator at times. Soldiers in combat have difficulty firing their weapons at times. For Christ's sake, Mafia hit men have soiled themselves executing a hit. Shooting people is not a normal reaction.
The blame and responsibility for yesterday's incident lies strictly with the killer. It is not the fault of local law enforcement. It is not the fault of the legislators that defeated a motion to allow concealed carry on campuses.
The solution to the problem is not more guns, more concealed carry holders, armed professors or gun turrets on college campuses. The solution is to be able to identify those that would behave in a violent manner before the act on their impulses.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Wendy, spot on there. Wondering what the reaction of some of those would have been if the name of the alleged shooter would have been, say, Frederich Andersson, from Copenhagen, Denmark?
Back to the joys of IRS Form 5227....
Back to the joys of IRS Form 5227....
Gster said:
VT- I agree. I wonder if what happened at the Dormitory, the first shooting, was the "stressor (sp?)" that drove the subsequent violence?
It's beyond me how someone can get that bent around the axle and do this without taking a moment and thinking things through!
It's beyond me how someone can get that bent around the axle and do this without taking a moment and thinking things through!
Dave Shuck said:
@WSClark - For what it is worth, I never suggested that there should be more gun owners, nor did I state that I felt that more guns *are* an answer to anything. What I was trying to say was that making guns illegal is probably not a significant deterrent to people who are going to murder people. I also questioned the statement that armed instructors/trained students "can only lead to more bloodshed, confusion and sorrow". I don't feel that anyone, certainly not myself, could answer that as a known fact one way or the other. I just wanted to make sure that was clear, since you were addressing me directly.
WSClark said:
Well Dave, for obvious reasons, a potential murderer would have little concern for gun laws. I am not in the least bit interested in making guns illegal. I am a former and future gun owner and as a confirmed gearhead, I love the workmanship in a well designed and manufactured weapon.
The point I was trying to make - obviously I did a poor job - is that the VTech incident was not about guns. It was about a horribly deranged individual that had no concern for human life.
No one could have predicted yesterdays incident and realistically, no one could have prevented it except the killer or those who knew him.
I do not want guns to be illegal. I do not want anyone to be denied a reasonable right to carry.
Guns are not the problem nor are they the answer.
Perhaps I was not quite as articulate as I should have been. I did not mean to demean your point other than to say I don't think it would have made a difference had someone been carrying.
The point I was trying to make - obviously I did a poor job - is that the VTech incident was not about guns. It was about a horribly deranged individual that had no concern for human life.
No one could have predicted yesterdays incident and realistically, no one could have prevented it except the killer or those who knew him.
I do not want guns to be illegal. I do not want anyone to be denied a reasonable right to carry.
Guns are not the problem nor are they the answer.
Perhaps I was not quite as articulate as I should have been. I did not mean to demean your point other than to say I don't think it would have made a difference had someone been carrying.
Wendy said:
You know, I just can't comprehend what drives some people. What is it that causes a person to "snap"? Triggers are different for everyone. My hope from this is that MAYBE we will take a look at this shooter as a PERSON and what might have been wrong in his life, not to excuse his actions, but to LEARN from them.
And by the way, AaronS, since you want to read over here, I am not Condor. And my posts are quite frankly nothing like his - I am not sure where you get "identical" from. The simple fact of that matter is that I came in, as someone completely not involved in the conversation, yesterday or today, read statements everyone said, and formed my own opinions... I never said I agreed with anything ANYONE over there was posting, in fact, if you read most of my statements, I pretty much disagreed with ALL of them, regardless. Now, I admit to bringing out GS as radically responding to the situation, but that does not in any way trivialize or excuse what anyone else said... Perhaps you should read more closely before you start throwing things out. I stated over a week ago that I would no longer post on WEBlog because of the double-standards of a few, and I have not done so since the day I stated that. In fact, today is the first day I have even LOOKED at that site since that time, and quite frankly, I won't be returning, since obviously people have nothing better to do with their time than make vicious attacks on each other...
And by the way, AaronS, since you want to read over here, I am not Condor. And my posts are quite frankly nothing like his - I am not sure where you get "identical" from. The simple fact of that matter is that I came in, as someone completely not involved in the conversation, yesterday or today, read statements everyone said, and formed my own opinions... I never said I agreed with anything ANYONE over there was posting, in fact, if you read most of my statements, I pretty much disagreed with ALL of them, regardless. Now, I admit to bringing out GS as radically responding to the situation, but that does not in any way trivialize or excuse what anyone else said... Perhaps you should read more closely before you start throwing things out. I stated over a week ago that I would no longer post on WEBlog because of the double-standards of a few, and I have not done so since the day I stated that. In fact, today is the first day I have even LOOKED at that site since that time, and quite frankly, I won't be returning, since obviously people have nothing better to do with their time than make vicious attacks on each other...
Dave Shuck said:
@WSClark - Then there is no need to respectfully disagree. :) This is certainly not about gun control or politics, but rather just about sickness of society in general.
The only difference I might have with your view is that given the situation, and putting myself in one of the students' or teachers' positions, I am dang sure that I would have rather been carrying than not.
The only difference I might have with your view is that given the situation, and putting myself in one of the students' or teachers' positions, I am dang sure that I would have rather been carrying than not.
Dubya said:
Hmmmm...I did not realize he was a permanent resident. I thought the earlier reports said he was an exchange student from SK. Obviously with his parents owning a Dry Cleaner, they've been here for quite some time.
However, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that someone could have rushed him during his slaughter. People face guns all the time and show an amazing amount of courage fending off criminals, thugs, and would-be murderers. Whether that's out of a sense of responsibility or desperation, who knows?
WS, I do agree with you, though that this was no ones responsibility or duty to do anything but get the heck out of the way...I guess I just find it surprising.
~Dubya
However, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that someone could have rushed him during his slaughter. People face guns all the time and show an amazing amount of courage fending off criminals, thugs, and would-be murderers. Whether that's out of a sense of responsibility or desperation, who knows?
WS, I do agree with you, though that this was no ones responsibility or duty to do anything but get the heck out of the way...I guess I just find it surprising.
~Dubya
Dubya said:
Wendy - Well, you are definitely more than welcome over here!! :) Thanks for posting!
~Dubya
~Dubya
Gster said:
I wonder what the psychology is behind the fact that it is seemingly always a "guy thing" to commit such heinous crimes?
Like everyone else, I presume, I get PO'd ,and I have firearms, but don't put the two together as a solution for anything!
I don't "get" it.
Like everyone else, I presume, I get PO'd ,and I have firearms, but don't put the two together as a solution for anything!
I don't "get" it.
lindainks55 said:
In a world that can be absurd I'm glad we all have a sense of humanity. We've discussed, differed, respected one another. The world needs more of that! We are all feeling very emotional and that's normal. None of us can understand and I'm very happy and glad we can't. Understanding what happened yesterday would put our minds in places they shouldn't go. Kurt Vonnegut once wrote, "Life is no way to treat an animal."
Danny said:
I've been lurking on and off today. In regards to gun control, I'm not entirely certain it would have prevented him from getting a gun. Though perhaps it would have made it more difficult to all but the most determined.
All a law does is provide a punishment for when one is caught breaking it. Though, that punishment(under a classical sense of crime and punishment) is meant to be a deterrent to breaking a law in question.
I'm not necessarily saying it is bad to have restrictions how a gun is purchased, but it isn't likely to stop those who want to get them.
Gster,
I'm like you. I own a gun, if I get mad I don't go start reaching for the gun to be a solution, I step outside, take a deep breath and calm down. I think maybe that a history of this individuals past may show some indicators that could lead to this behavior, but then again the world may never know.
All a law does is provide a punishment for when one is caught breaking it. Though, that punishment(under a classical sense of crime and punishment) is meant to be a deterrent to breaking a law in question.
I'm not necessarily saying it is bad to have restrictions how a gun is purchased, but it isn't likely to stop those who want to get them.
Gster,
I'm like you. I own a gun, if I get mad I don't go start reaching for the gun to be a solution, I step outside, take a deep breath and calm down. I think maybe that a history of this individuals past may show some indicators that could lead to this behavior, but then again the world may never know.
Vaughn Tolle said:
(Surfacing for a moment from preparation of Form 5227):
Gster, the psychological types talking on the tube, etc., made the point that those involved in these kinds of things are almost always single males, who are "loners"; I've no explanation why.
Gster, the psychological types talking on the tube, etc., made the point that those involved in these kinds of things are almost always single males, who are "loners"; I've no explanation why.
lindainks55 said:
I think society does put too much pressure on males to act strong and not show perceived weakness. Phooey! Ignoring strong emotions isn't a sign of strength! Sometimes a good cry is as necessary as a belly laugh.
There are women who have committed some pretty bad crimes, i.e., the mother who drowned her children. Whatever mental instability is necessary to kill can't be attributed to any one age, gender, race... Insanity is insane!
Gster said:
VT- I'm a single guy and a loner-type, but that's as far as it goes!
These guys most be living in a type of fantasy world to get so far removed from reality, to be able to commit these abhorrent behaviors.
These guys most be living in a type of fantasy world to get so far removed from reality, to be able to commit these abhorrent behaviors.
Wendy said:
I think that unless we are in their shoes, we can never comprehend what is the driving force behind rampages. Why is it that one person with certain life experiences might wind up, say a millionaire, while another with the same life experiences winds up a serial killer. There were theories in the early times of this country that genetics played a role. This was a very promininent sociological theory for quite a while - and is in fact what led to forced sterilization for many, and continued in many states up into the 70's even. (That is 1970's) I don't know that we will ever know what it is that caused this man to break, but I hope we can find more insight so that we at least have the opportunity to study it... I wonder if the antidepressants he was reportedly on will not come under fire in all this, much like in the case of the 12 year old who killed his grandparents... having taken antidepressants myself, i can't understand why they would cause that type of reaction, but then again, they basically chemically alter your body, and, well, anytime you chemically alter your body, you run the risk of something going wrong...
And thank you, Dubya, I enjoy being here as well...
And thank you, Dubya, I enjoy being here as well...
darwinsdisciple said:
I heard on NPR that one of the professors who was killed was a halocaust survivor. They think he died trying to shield his students from the killer.
I posted this on the other blog:
It doesn't sound like this Cho guy was someone who "suddenly cracked". Mental illness in the form of at least depression had been obvious with him for some time. He was taking antidepressant meds.
http://www.kansas.com/197/story/46561.html
Multiple murders like this account for less than one percent of all homicides in the U.S. Since 1945 there have been approximatley 100 cases of such multiple killings.
Usually the perps are not known to the the Criminal system, but are known to the mental health system. This is not to say that psychiatric patients are more likely to commit these types of crimes than non-psych patients. In the majority of cases such perps gave warning signs concerning their intent to commit violence - often directly telling someone like a family member.
Most perps of multiple killings do not survive their murders - they either kill themselves like Cho did, or commit suicide by cop.
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/04/17.php#13158...
Because of the concerns raised by Cho's writing assignments he had been referred to the school's counseling division. So he left signs as well.
So, even in being alert to warning signs and responding appropriately to them is not always sufficient to prevent tragedies like this.
I posted this on the other blog:
It doesn't sound like this Cho guy was someone who "suddenly cracked". Mental illness in the form of at least depression had been obvious with him for some time. He was taking antidepressant meds.
http://www.kansas.com/197/story/46561.html
Multiple murders like this account for less than one percent of all homicides in the U.S. Since 1945 there have been approximatley 100 cases of such multiple killings.
Usually the perps are not known to the the Criminal system, but are known to the mental health system. This is not to say that psychiatric patients are more likely to commit these types of crimes than non-psych patients. In the majority of cases such perps gave warning signs concerning their intent to commit violence - often directly telling someone like a family member.
Most perps of multiple killings do not survive their murders - they either kill themselves like Cho did, or commit suicide by cop.
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/04/17.php#13158...
Because of the concerns raised by Cho's writing assignments he had been referred to the school's counseling division. So he left signs as well.
So, even in being alert to warning signs and responding appropriately to them is not always sufficient to prevent tragedies like this.
Vaughn Tolle said:
dd, there seems to be dispute about whether Cho was, in fact, on antidepressants according to the latest I read on abcnews.go.com; there appears to be no record thereof, insofar as prescriptions, etc. are concerned. If so, there was not only someone who was apparently suffering from depression, but untreated depression as well.
WSClark said:
It is my understanding that the use of anti-depressants is not the primary issue - it is the sudden cessation of use of the medicine that causes problem. This would apply to adults. In adolescents, the use of antidepressants can cause problems until they reach a therapeutic level.
darwinsdisciple said:
I thought I heard he was taking antidepressants on NPR, but I then heard later in the day that they were looking at his computer to try to figure out as much as they could about him. Not than many people seemed to know much about the guy.
I think rumors start when there is an information vacuum in the early hours of tragedies like this. I read on the other blog that he was a first person shooter video game player. I haven't heard that since reading it on the WE Blog.
I think rumors start when there is an information vacuum in the early hours of tragedies like this. I read on the other blog that he was a first person shooter video game player. I haven't heard that since reading it on the WE Blog.
Predestined said:
Excuse me while I post a message to AaronS, too.
Aaron, I posted to you on the WEBlog before seeing that a new thread had been started today. This is my first time to read this thread today (9:58 p.m.) For that, I apologize, but for mentioning your childish approach, I don't.
Aaron, I posted to you on the WEBlog before seeing that a new thread had been started today. This is my first time to read this thread today (9:58 p.m.) For that, I apologize, but for mentioning your childish approach, I don't.
Vaughn Tolle said:
In listening to the continuing (some might say ad nauseum) coverage of the VPI tragedy on CNN last night, I was struck by the interviews with the roommates and the English professor who had sought to obtain counseling for the shooter. I was also left wondering, after hearing the comments of the forensic psychiatrist interviewed to the effect that "he clearly fit the profile of a mass murderer" and "he was a psychotic paranoid", delivered after she had reviewed some of his writings, if there should be some way a professor, e.g., might be able to contact such a professional when presented with disturbing class work and behavior such as was described to obtain a "quick read" that could be acted upon in a responsible way. I fully admit this flies squarely in the face of my generally held position that as adults, absent criminal acts, no college student should be forced to take any action s/he doesn't want to do (in the area of counseling, for example); but if what the psychiatrist said was, in fact, the case, and the apparent danger could be so clearly identified, then doesn't the "greater good" of the university outweigh the burden placed upon an individual student in such a case? I'm not advocating expulsion from the university if such tendencies are identified; but should there not be a way to compel psychological counseling in such cases, perhaps as a condition to continued enrollment? This is done in some cases where a student is suffering academic difficulties; probation with conditions. Why not handle psychological (or psychiatric) issues the same way?
Vaughn Tolle said:
Interesting comment from Nikki Giovani, who taught at VPI and had Cho removed from her class; "he was mean".
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/in...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/in...
Gster said:
VT- RE: " removed from her class; "he was mean".
."- I wonder if that would work on Cheney?
He's definitely is mean and clearly has no class!
Might work....
."- I wonder if that would work on Cheney?
He's definitely is mean and clearly has no class!
Might work....
lindainks55 said:
It's a tough determination. Suppose YOU (anyone) decided I was emotionally or mentally unhinged? Would your judgment be enough to put conditions on me? Would one of you being the professor if a class I was taking make the difference and add credibility to your thinking? Don't people have personality clashes that could cause one to evaluate another more negatively than other people?
lindainks55 said:
Or, since Gary has already admitted to being a single guy AND a loner type, do we turn him in first? We've all read some of his posts and wonder what kind of mind could come up with that! Of course, I would need to be turned in quickly after Gary because when I wonder about his mind it's admiration and a little jealousy that I can't think of those great posts!
Gster said:
Linda- If "THEY" have good fringe benefits, hell I might turn myself in! Things are a little slow in this reality.
Vaughn Tolle said:
OK, Linda and Gster; I get it; BTW, Gster, let me know about the benefits and I (although married and not a particular loner) might join you! :-)
Serious response: Linda, that's why I raise the issue. Who should make the determination, and on what basis is central to this kind of discussion. There are many "crazy" college students who pose no threats to anyone, other than themselves (including, without limitation, being asked to leave for substandard academic performance). Where I was trying to go with this is, in a situation such as presented at VPI, should there be a way for a professor, students, et al, with legitimate concerns to have the student "looked at" by a properly trained professional, even against their will? The comments of the forensic psychiatrist were chilling; there was absolute certitude in her voice and demeanor in her description of Cho. These cases would, in all likelihood, be few; but, should there be a way, if the pointers are as clear as the doctor said, for such a person to be subjected to counseling, etc., as a condition to continued enrollment?
Serious response: Linda, that's why I raise the issue. Who should make the determination, and on what basis is central to this kind of discussion. There are many "crazy" college students who pose no threats to anyone, other than themselves (including, without limitation, being asked to leave for substandard academic performance). Where I was trying to go with this is, in a situation such as presented at VPI, should there be a way for a professor, students, et al, with legitimate concerns to have the student "looked at" by a properly trained professional, even against their will? The comments of the forensic psychiatrist were chilling; there was absolute certitude in her voice and demeanor in her description of Cho. These cases would, in all likelihood, be few; but, should there be a way, if the pointers are as clear as the doctor said, for such a person to be subjected to counseling, etc., as a condition to continued enrollment?
Gster said:
VT_ This sad event will surely supply plenty of food for thought in that regard. There has be something that can be done before this kind of worst case scenario is reoccurring.
Probably the problem will be the time between noticing someone is in trouble, and then taking some sort of action. The length of that time gap needs to shorter rather than longer. We , the public, need to be more aware of our Surroundings.
Probably the problem will be the time between noticing someone is in trouble, and then taking some sort of action. The length of that time gap needs to shorter rather than longer. We , the public, need to be more aware of our Surroundings.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Something I found which describes the Professor's efforts, the comments from fellow students, why the authorities could not become involved, all of which (had I read it previously) would have been the genesis of my earlier post.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/VATech/story?id=3050...
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/VATech/story?id=3050...
lindainks55 said:
Your question is a good one, Vaughn. Since the comments from everyone (roommates, professors, forensic psychiatrist) came after the fact we still don't know what their evaluations would have been without knowledge of his actions on Monday morning. And we all either know, are or were crazy students/adults so how do we take out the subjective? I think we have to go with innocent until proven, and I'm not for going down the path of taking freedoms away or imposing restrictions/requirements based on what might be.
Isn't this what our president and his bunch are doing with parts of The Patriot Act? They decide who is a terrorist, don't have to tell anyone why, including the accussed, they give themselves the authority to take away all their rights. They are guilty and don't deserve any opportunity for a defense. Who needs proof? I 'are" president!
Isn't this what our president and his bunch are doing with parts of The Patriot Act? They decide who is a terrorist, don't have to tell anyone why, including the accussed, they give themselves the authority to take away all their rights. They are guilty and don't deserve any opportunity for a defense. Who needs proof? I 'are" president!
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, at least some of the comments by the professors and roommates may be buttressed by records of actions taken pre-Monday morning by both groups. Thus, there were concerns extant.
As to the forensic psychiatrist, her comments surely were colored by the events; however, I found them interesting, as the same compared favorably with those of a profiler who was making generalized comments as to the make-up of individuals who commit such acts.
As to innocent until proven guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt); true enough, but this is limited to criminal acts. The civil (read noncriminal) standards, normally applied to issues of mental illness, presume that a person is competent mentally unless the contrary is shown by clear and convincing evidence, as I recall; a lesser standard, but not just a more likely than not based upon a preponderance of the evidence. This technical discussion, however, causes divergence from where I'm trying to go.
To try to articulate it better: should there be a resource available to professors/administrators/others in a college setting to whom to go with evidence of a severely disturbed student, evidence obtained from his/her writings, actions, etc., so that a properly trained and credentialed person might make a determination of potential psychosis, for example, which would cause one to fear for the safety of others in the campus setting, without the need for criminal acts, threats of suicide, etc., that are currently needed for intervention? If so, then should the student (for example) be required to take steps to address the mental condition as a condition to continued enrollment? Yes, if there is a decision that the student's mental condition is so serious that s/he should be expelled, there would need to be "due process" hearings, etc., for public institutions.
I'm finding it difficult to properly frame my concerns/questions here; maybe I should just go see someone.....
As to the forensic psychiatrist, her comments surely were colored by the events; however, I found them interesting, as the same compared favorably with those of a profiler who was making generalized comments as to the make-up of individuals who commit such acts.
As to innocent until proven guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt); true enough, but this is limited to criminal acts. The civil (read noncriminal) standards, normally applied to issues of mental illness, presume that a person is competent mentally unless the contrary is shown by clear and convincing evidence, as I recall; a lesser standard, but not just a more likely than not based upon a preponderance of the evidence. This technical discussion, however, causes divergence from where I'm trying to go.
To try to articulate it better: should there be a resource available to professors/administrators/others in a college setting to whom to go with evidence of a severely disturbed student, evidence obtained from his/her writings, actions, etc., so that a properly trained and credentialed person might make a determination of potential psychosis, for example, which would cause one to fear for the safety of others in the campus setting, without the need for criminal acts, threats of suicide, etc., that are currently needed for intervention? If so, then should the student (for example) be required to take steps to address the mental condition as a condition to continued enrollment? Yes, if there is a decision that the student's mental condition is so serious that s/he should be expelled, there would need to be "due process" hearings, etc., for public institutions.
I'm finding it difficult to properly frame my concerns/questions here; maybe I should just go see someone.....
lindainks55 said:
You know so much! You write very clearly. You know all those differences in criminal and civil. You not only believe in the law, you trust the system. Your rational, superior mind wants a trusted system of identifying madmen before they inflict harm. All I see is the possibility of subjective judgment. I understand what you're asking but can't write an answer that is even as clear as your question.
I wish there could be a way to identify the people who might be capable of all kinds of violence. All of us are hoping something good can come from the tragedy of Monday. We all hope someone learns something that prevents it being repeated.
I just don't see a way of making that identification fool proof. I see the possibility that someone could decide any one of us must be professionally evaluated. These professionals are still human so I assume they still make mistakes.
I wish there could be a way to identify the people who might be capable of all kinds of violence. All of us are hoping something good can come from the tragedy of Monday. We all hope someone learns something that prevents it being repeated.
I just don't see a way of making that identification fool proof. I see the possibility that someone could decide any one of us must be professionally evaluated. These professionals are still human so I assume they still make mistakes.
lindainks55 said:
Someday I will tell you of the time I was unfairly accused. And the horror inflicted on my life by a sick person who wanted revenge. It will probably be a story told in person because it still hurts and baffles too much to make it as public as a blog.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, your latest post has me cringing that something like that happened to you.
I think your concerns are implicitly contained within my questions. Assuming, arguendo, that such a process might be made available, what are the "rules", that is, the safeguards which need to be implemented and in place to minimize the false accusations which surely will be made by someone trying to take advantage of another by the existence of the process.
That's why I'm asking the questions; and, in case it isn't clear, I'm looking for an alternative to the current system. Lest we forget, the number of incidents on campuses, and indeed in high schools, is thankfully very small. I, like most, just want to see if we might come up with a rational way to make them darn near nonexistent.
I think your concerns are implicitly contained within my questions. Assuming, arguendo, that such a process might be made available, what are the "rules", that is, the safeguards which need to be implemented and in place to minimize the false accusations which surely will be made by someone trying to take advantage of another by the existence of the process.
That's why I'm asking the questions; and, in case it isn't clear, I'm looking for an alternative to the current system. Lest we forget, the number of incidents on campuses, and indeed in high schools, is thankfully very small. I, like most, just want to see if we might come up with a rational way to make them darn near nonexistent.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Some thoughts of Lou Dobbs on the VPI matter, and the greater issues of violence and deaths on college campuses.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/Dobbs.April18/ind...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/Dobbs.April18/ind...
Vaughn Tolle said:
ABC News' forensic psychiatrist suggests that the evidence to date shows Cho was schizophrenic; interesting to read.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/VATech/story?id=30504...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/VATech/story?id=30504...
Vaughn Tolle said:
Apparently, a court adjudication of mental illness in 2005. Wondering if Virginia law is similar to that in Kansas, that is, such a finding is needed to allow for involuntary treatment, and is not conclusive. It would be interesting to know what the eventual case outcome was.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page...
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page...
Vaughn Tolle said:
Answering my own question, after review of the PDF of the orders in the case, it appears that he was ordered to attend out-patient counseling. Does not appear any mechanism for follow-up was in place.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linked article discusses some of the issues Linda (in particular) and I were "discussing" yesterday.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/student.counselin...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/student.counselin...
Loading....