[wolf]

Thank goodness for multiquote, so I can do this as one big, long post rather than a series ...

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Now the big issue is "there were indications that this guy would go postal, but we couldn't do anything other than recommend counselling", and that VT should have "done something". Hopefully Wolf can shed some light on this, but it doesn't seem like some person or institution can force action on someone because they behave outside the norm.

Remembering that my experience is based primarily on Pennsylvania's very different commitment law ...

I did look at the Virginia law. Their standard for commitment is "imminent harm to self," "imminent harm to others," or "substantially unable to care for self." Their law does not define the criteria further. (Pennsylvania is a LOT more specific about dangerous behaviors, and also allows for threats with acts in furtherance of the threats to be utilized as grounds for commitment). Sure, folks were noticing Cho's bizarre behavior ... but until Monday morning, he hadn't crossed the line into observable dangerous behavior. The play posted on The Smoking Gun was weird, certainly showed disorganization of his thinking, but didn't represent any overt dangerousness.

Originally Posted by SadistSecret

I'm just dreading the news spectacle there will be on the 20th, since that's the 8th anniversary of the Columbine incident. I've already seen advertisements for programs that are covering that old story, as well as the VT one. I wonder who the fuck can't just let the dead horse lay there, and let the people in Colorado have some fucking rest already. I'm pretty sure they don't want to watch some thing about the most horrifying thing some of them had experienced, and I really don't want to watch it either.

This is a bad week for that sort of thing. Oklahoma City, Branch Davidian, and Columbine all share similar timing, not to mention Hitler's Birthday (anybody else catch the 88 reference in the page posted to the msnbc site?), and the date of the final entry (or was it the blowing up of some Federal Building in DC, I forget) in The Turner Diaries. April 16, the day of the shootings was "Patriot's Day" according to my calendar (which I thought was supposed to be April 19 because of the Battle of the Old North Bridge that's regarded as the beginning of the American Revoluntary War. Guess it was Monday Holiday Billed).

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I just remembered that I had an "encounter" in the early eighties. I sold glasses to a young woman. She told me that she had just been in the service for about six months (as I remember). I commented that it was strange to only be in for six months, and she said that she and the service made a mutaual agreement that she should be discharged. Her name was Sylvia Seegrist.

Interesting brush with infamy. I remember her well. Especially since I'd been at the Springfield Mall only a few days before the shooting.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Observation:

A lot of the pundits on the tube keep hanging their hats on the fact that this guy was found at one time to be "a danger to himself, and a danger to others." Further, he was at one time committed for this behavior, against his will. This is a snap shot of how our system works and how it is broken. He was committed one time for that behavior at that time. He was obviously released, because he was "no longer a threat" or he never would have been released. And so goes the revolving door of mental health care here in the US. Most people with serious mental health issues end up in jail, not getting the help they really need. We have closed the asylums and hospitals and replaced them with prisons. It is no surprise that this guy was out and about.

Mental health law, because of the civil rights issues of detaining a person against their will, and violating their right of self-determination of treatment, is based on the notion that a patient will be treated at the "least restrictive setting" for their care.

Emergency commitments are just that ... emergencies. A person's behavior two years ago may be interesting and helpful to understanding them and their situation as it provides context, it is not relevant to the commitment process. You can only be treated for what you're doing NOW, not what you did, or what you might do.

The door swings rather than revolves most of the time.

Interestingly, the state of Virginia has been, over the last few years, in the process of attempting to revise their commitment laws. I think that the speed at which those changes occur might increase.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I want to hear how this guy's life was like in high school. I have a feelign that will answer many questions.

I doubt it. While a lot of people who are severely mentally ill show signs of it in high school, a lot of the time they don't. He may have been a bit odd, shy, bookish, geeky, but then most of us here were. Schizophrenia, in particular, is like that. All of a sudden, entering into your early 20s, you start having some strange ways of perceiving the world that you become more and more convinced are absolutely true. You start believing that certain songs have special meanings inserted in them for you, and you alone, or that you can hear the thoughts of others, or god and the devil start talking to you, or that the way you pick colors of clothing has impact on world politics.

Originally Posted by Cloud

as far as I know, there's never been enough resources for the mentally ill anywhere. It looks as though people were seeing the warning signs, and were reporting them. It seems as though he had no one to step in and care for him, anyway. Maybe his parents were glad to ship him off to college.

Again, there needs to be a better safety net for teenagers.

There are a lot of resources for the mentally ill. People (patients and their families) don't necessarily take advantage of them, however.

This is particularly true in the Korean community. They have a much stronger stigma about mental illness than a lot of other cultures. They keep things in the family most of all, sometimes will seek help within their own community, and only very rarely approach their local mental health services. When I see a Korean parents and their pastor (to translate) show up, I know that the situation has deteriorated to the point where someone has gotten hurt. They don't come in to do a commitment otherwise.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Agreed, this guy had nothing to go back on and he has probably been living through a daily hell for the past 10 or so years. I gaurantee no one seriously tried to include him and he was the kid that everyone made fun of in high school.

There is no justifiable reason to do this because he directly affected over 10,000 people but if you make someone's life a living hell, exclude him from society, and give him a gun, what the hell do you expect?

It is too early to make that assumption. As I stated above, he was probably a bit odd, but pretty much normal in high school.

Now that we know he has a prior commitment on his record ... this should have prevented him from being able to purchase the pistols. I don't know how Virginia's version of the background check works, though. In Pennsylvania, involuntary commitment results in an automatic denial through PICS (Penna. Insta-Check System).

Originally Posted by Ibram

I think he just plain cared too much. I'm a social outcast, I guess, sure -- but look at me. I'm here conversing with and acting like a sane reasonable mature adult. You know why?

Because you're a basically normal kid. Actually, one with a better sense of self-esteem and independence than many.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Why not? The kids played just as much of a role in it then the chemicals and the broken mind. It is like telling a very badly treated slave that we shouldn't blame his slaveowner because he cared about his freedom too much.

I agree that it has to do with caring too much but that intertwines with his obvious irrational feeling of being opressed. He said he hated the self-centeredness of people and he had to kill because of their greedyness. This means he had goals and aspirations of being rich at a young age but this dream was repeatedly shot down while watching other people live up his dream. This comes down to jealousy and a unwillingness to accept the failures and realities of life.

You are trying to interpret his world through your own ... none of the things that he was concerned about were real.