Virginia Tech Tragedy (this thread is NOT for the debate of "gun control")

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by mrklixx

I think it would be a good idea for the admins to keep this thread handy to give to the FBI when one of the posters here does something similar. Because they are either starved for attention and trolling with macho bravado bullshit, or they are sociopathic timebombs. Cho Seung-Hui held the same amoral, "anti-rich" views as those expressed here. And I'd be willing to bet money that there are similar posts by Cho out there on a board/blog/chatroom.

Yes because everyone that is starved for attention or who think that the balance in this country is appalling is just going to go on a rampage

I have yet to see any trolling in this thread. All is see is differing opinions and the call to be more open about what defines a tragedy. The only close to trolling in this thread.. is.. your post.

[mrklixx]

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Yes because everyone that is starved for attention or who think that the balance in this country is appalling is just going to go on a rampage

Well why the heck not? Because apparently mass murder (or any murder) is no big deal, and if somebody (especially rich white people) piss a person off, then it should be no big tragedy if someone does go on a rampage. With no care for the taking of human lives, then a homicidal rampage would equate to a trip to Starbuckss.

I have yet to see any trolling in this thread. All is see is differing opinions and the call to be more open about what defines a tragedy. The only close to trolling in this thread.. is.. your post.

When there are people that have posted that they have friends/relatives that go to VT and then someone posts for them to basically "get over it" and that it's "annoying" that some people got shot, doesn't seem like the call for anything but a dig at an open wound.

[Ballzor]

Since most of us TFP'rs are going to hell anyways, hows about we set a date and time to pay ol Cho a visit. Figure I can stomp a pineapple through a garden hose

[World's King]

Originally Posted by mrklixx

Well why the heck not? Because apparently mass murder (or any murder) is no big deal, and if somebody (especially rich white people) piss a person off, then it should be no big tragedy if someone does go on a rampage. With no care for the taking of human lives, then a homicidal rampage would equate to a trip to Starbuckss.



When there are people that have posted that they have friends/relatives that go to VT and then someone posts for them to basically "get over it" and that it's "annoying" that some people got shot, doesn't seem like the call for anything but a dig at an open wound.

You wanna dig at an open wound?

For the past seven years I've had to deal with Columbine. And not like the rest of the country that only had to deal with it while it was on the news but EVERY FUCKING DAY. Do you understand that? Not just when the news decides it cares about it but every time I see friends. See a car with a faded "We Are Columbine" sticker. Drive by the school. Watch high school sports. And simply realize that I live in Colorado.


Now, I know that I'm the guy that doesn't have emotion. I don't give a flying fuck. I can't. The moment I dwell on death. Friends, family, kids, adults, students, teachers... rich, poor, Asian, white, black, retarded, straight, gay...


That's the moment I lose it and seeing as how I've already stated that I may or may not be a sociopathic time bomb...


Read the signature.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by World's King

You wanna dig at an open wound?

For the past seven years I've had to deal with Columbine. And not like the rest of the country that only had to deal with it while it was on the news but EVERY FUCKING DAY. Do you understand that? Not just when the news decides it cares about it but every time I see friends. See a car with a faded "We Are Columbine" sticker. Drive by the school. Watch high school sports. And simply realize that I live in Colorado.

Now, I know that I'm the guy that doesn't have emotion. I don't give a flying fuck. I can't. The moment I dwell on death. Friends, family, kids, adults, students, teachers... rich, poor, Asian, white, black, retarded, straight, gay...

That's the moment I lose it and seeing as how I've already stated that I may or may not be a sociopathic time bomb...

Read the signature.

yeah, i have the same problem living in Lower Manhattan... everywhere is 9-11.

:salute:

[n0nsensical]

oops, wrong thread i think

[ubertuber]

That's true. The first day I went without a conversation about that was May 26th, 2002.
I still haven't gone a week.

[mixedmedia]

Well, I'm not even in New York, but I live near one of the busiest airports in the world...a lot of the time I don't even notice the airplanes, but when I do, it always reminds me. I don't know if I'll ever go a week without thinking about it. I can't imagine what it's like for you guys.

[daretodream]

Well there's no doubt that those of us from Virginia will be remembering this for a long time...Thankfully everyone I know from Tech is fine.

It'll be interesting to see how Tech's admissions turn out, especially with this being in the midst of it. Everyone I've talked to who's mentioned the subject believes that admissions will suffer. The Morva incident from earlier in the year doesn't help their reputation either...

[Infinite_Loser]

In a nutshell... Shit happens. I don't see why people are so keen on dwelling on the past.

Anywho... I really wish the media would stop making this out to be some insanely tragic incident when it's not. That's what annoys me the most.

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Anywho... I really wish the media would stop making this out to be some insanely tragic incident when it's not. That's what annoys me the most.

Don't watch....don't watch!

Seriously though....

[JustJess]

I do think that the people *running* the media are seeing an opportunity here that isn't just an altruistic "let's report on this for the good of the people" thing... however, like shakran said, they wouldn't do this if we didn't watch. And so partially for that reason... I don't watch. I don't watch anything on ANS either (ick). I prefer not to be nauseous the whole day.

I recognize that is a negative thing for all involved. However, just like with 9-11, I really only appreciate the abstract aspects of it.... and I *live* in NYC, and have since before all that happened.
I'm sorry it happened. What's for breakfast?
/going to hell

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by JustJess

I do think that the people *running* the media are seeing an opportunity here that isn't just an altruistic "let's report on this for the good of the people" thing... however, like shakran said, they wouldn't do this if we didn't watch. And so partially for that reason... I don't watch. I don't watch anything on ANS either (ick). I prefer not to be nauseous the whole day.

I recognize that is a negative thing for all involved. However, just like with 9-11, I really only appreciate the abstract aspects of it.... and I *live* in NYC, and have since before all that happened.
I'm sorry it happened. What's for breakfast?
/going to hell

move over, you're hogging the seat.

One of the best benefits of TIVO. I don't have to watch this stuff over and over again. I don't even have to see the news teasers. In fact, it's funny to watch Boston Legal in the summer time, and see a teaser for WinterSnowStorm 2006.

Though I do get my news online, even that I have learned to become more selective of what I read.

I don't need to "know" all about this asshole that did this. I don't need to know that he had cheerios that morning. No the person isn't deserving of my time. In my world he doesn't get his 15 minutes. In fact, I can't even tell you his name, and I'm trying to keep it that way.

[ShaniFaye]

Im curious, if this doesnt qualify as "insanely tragic", because the guy was def insane and the event is certainly tragic.....what does?

[pig]

well, maybe he was just tragically insane?

edit: i'd also just like to take a second and throw my boy shakran some props for representing the media side in this thread. whether you like it or not, the media serves a purpose, and they simply have to report on something of this nature. its a necessary function in our society. everything else about the desensitization and relative tragicality (new word, piggy style) etc is just subjective reactions we have to it. including this post, you know?

[mixedmedia]

Just for the record, I want everyone to know that I apologized to shakran last night for being obtuse and reactive.

Still the gist of my feelings about the news, 24-hour news networks in particular, is the same. Yes, we need the media to tell us the news. We do not need the media to recycle sound bites and bits of video over and over and over for our consumption. We do not need to know every particular about this man's life. We DO NOT need to be watching the memorial service for these people. We do not need to be hawking over these people's lives like it's something that affects us directly. It's like a nationwide form of gossiping.

[pig]

yeah, think that's an interesting point mixed. my tendency is to agree with you, but with increased ability to communicate, i wonder if its not simply inevitable. or perhaps we'll learn to monitor ourselves because we'll have to? it would be interesting if our technology pushed so far that we had no choice other than to put the limits in ourselves. stop watching, etc. many in this thread already do that, but i mean en masse as a populace.

and just in case it wasn't clear, my above comment wasn't directed at your or anyone else. i just appreciate skakran for stepping up and representing the media side of the equation.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by pigglet

i'd also just like to take a second and throw my boy shakran some props for representing the media side in this thread.

Absolutely.
I've learned quite a bit from his insider's viewpoint. And not just on this thread, either. He's kinda handy to have around like that.

You'll find, I think, that that's one of the best things about the TFP. The broad range of knowledge and experience. There is usually someone around, that can give you the views from the other side of the river. Keep an open mind, and it can really open your eyes.

Now...back to the thread. I've been reading this thread for a couple of days now. And...I can empathize with both points of view. What I mean is, this is a tragedy. No if's and's or but's about it. A lot of people died in a short amount of time, in an environment that was...unexpected. Deaths in Iraq are, in their own right, a tragedy in and of themselves. But, they are not comparable. The environments are to dissimilar. Every day, people are killed in street violence. This too, while still a tragedy, is a tragedy of a different sort. These are the "mean streets" of our urban centers, and again...are not comparable. I would urge that we not attempt to minimize one, in an attempt to bolster the other. The tragedy is there. That tragedy is not added to, nor is it subtracted from, the fact that the majority of the victims were from well to do caucasion families. If you choose not to see it, then that is, in the end, your business. Let people grieve.
But...while we mourn for the victims of Virginia Tech, don't forget about those that mourn the loss of thier own loved ones...many half a world away from home.

This thread does, however, remind me of all the attention that is given to missing blonde haired, blue eyed, pretty little white girls, from affluent families, when there are countless other missing children, from families of lesser means, that get next to no attention at all. That is comparable. But...not for this thread.

[shakran]

**Parts of shakran's post are missing because I suck - mixedmedia**

**Fortunately it was still in my browser history, it's restored. No worries --Shakran**

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Just for the record, I want everyone to know that I apologized to shakran last night for being obtuse and reactive.

And I want everyone to know that I told you I step in and speak up when I think people are wrong, so I'm speaking up again. You weren't obtuse. I told you in PM's that the media has brought a lot of the ire toward it on itself. We should not breathlessly declare every damn thing to be breaking news, or action news now, or whatever other dumbassed buzzwords our consultants come up with this month. We should concentrate on telling you ISSUES and things that are important to YOU, not stupid crap. I can't tell you how many times even my station (which is far better than most) has nixed doing an important story about an issue that will effect everyone that watches us, in favor of "hey it's raining really hard and sometimes when it rains streets flood" type stories. I'm no defender of the media - just the people in the trenches who see its possibilities and are working to realize that potential. Unfortunately it's an uphill struggle because our bosses see only dollar signs, and hold no illusions of an altruistic service to their fellow citizens. Until you the viewer demands better, it's not going to get any better. Let's be honest - you watch that crap we do. You watch Dateline's "to catch a predator" even though it's not news, they're trying to make news, and in fact are violating some of the most basic ethical principals of journalism by getting involved with it. You watch crap like Cops and Fear Factor - why shouldn't my bosses think you want more of that when you watch the news? Help us out here everyone - tell them what I firmly believe to be true - that you want good news that covers the issues that effect you.

Still the gist of my feelings about the news, 24-hour news networks in particular, is the same. Yes, we need the media to tell us the news. We do not need the media to recycle sound bites and bits of video over and over and over for our consumption. We do not need to know every particular about this man's life. We DO NOT need to be watching the memorial service for these people. We do not need to be hawking over these people's lives like it's something that affects us directly. It's like a nationwide form of gossiping.

CNN was a great idea. Unfortunately it's lost its way. CNN and the other cablenets need to model themselves after NPR. Rather than breathlessly repeating the headlines all day, or taking us to live coverage of some idiot police chase in California or Texas, they need to do what NPR does. Give us the news at the top of the hour, and then discuss issues that matter to us.

Some of 'em are sort of doing that - even Fox "News" Channel has issue-oriented discussion shows, but they're going about it backwards. The presenter should not be the focus of these shows. NPR does this right - the presenter gets both (or more) sides together and facilitates a discussion between them without interjecting his own opinion. Bill O'Reilly could learn a lot from that if he'd just go through with that rectal-cranial inversion therapy he so desperately needs.

Infinite_Loser, I disagree with you that this is not tragic. It's tragic not only because 32 people were killed needlessly, but because it's another chip away at our national innocence. Colleges are supposed to be safe places. You're supposed to go there to learn, not to get slaughtered. It's a tragedy that we can't think that way anymore, just as 9/11 was a tragedy in part because we no longer could think we were immune to the turmoils of the rest of the world.

I don't have a problem with them covering the memorial service - it can be cathartic to people who are shocked, saddened, and mourning over this event, yet who cannot for whatever reason be at the memorial themselves. To people who don't need that catharsis, well, they don't have to watch.

I have covered enough funerals (especially lately with the soldier deaths) and have gotten enough viewer mail in response to it to know that people who can't make it to services like this appreciate and I will go so far as to say even NEED us to bring them there through their TV set.

I also disagree that we don't need to know as much about this man as possible. Only by understanding who he was and why he did it can we hope to prevent such an event in the future. We cannot close our eyes and ears to his obvious pain and/or derangement just because we're angry with him.

Let's think about this folks. This man killed 31 people before shooting himself. We obviously can't physically prevent this - we can't lock the entire population of the country up in strait jackets to prevent someone from going berserk. Only if we understand the factors leading up to such a crime can we hope to prevent it. Our motive for knowing what we can about him is not, or at least should not be, prurient interest in the deranged, but passionate interest in self preservation.

[mixedmedia]

OOPSY, LET ME FIX THIS!!

shakran, I'm afraid I flucked up your post, but I'm going to see if I can fix it, I'm so sorry.

I don't have a problem with them covering the memorial service - it can be cathartic to people who are shocked, saddened, and mourning over this event, yet who cannot for whatever reason be at the memorial themselves. To people who don't need that catharsis, well, they don't have to watch.

Well, shall I be so bold as to suggest that people would not be so shocked, saddened and mourning if they weren't immersed in the coverage of this story. And let's not equate this with being insensitive, please. I don't think I am insensitive. In fact, I can speculate, that if it were one of my children who died at VT that day, I would be distressed and demoralized at the spectacle being made of it. I haven't watched a single second of tv news coverage of this incident, but I know what is happening. Because I used to be one of those people glued to the tv, watching them repeat the same information again and again, waiting for the next "breaking" tidbit of information.

If you take a break from watching CNN or FOX or any other 24 hour news network for six months and then go back and watch it again with fresh eyes, you'll be surprised at how distasteful it seems to you. I can almost guarantee it.

I have covered enough funerals (especially lately with the soldier deaths) and have gotten enough viewer mail in response to it to know that people who can't make it to services like this appreciate and I will go so far as to say even NEED us to bring them there through their TV set.

I think this is a little different. Especially considering that we get next to no news coverage about the deaths of our military personnel in Iraq and those who are thankful to see it, probably have to go out of their way to find out anything about them at all.

I also disagree that we don't need to know as much about this man as possible. Only by understanding who he was and why he did it can we hope to prevent such an event in the future. We cannot close our eyes and ears to his obvious pain and/or derangement just because we're angry with him.

I don't think it's closing our eyes to it. The average citizen out there is not a criminal profiler. The people to whom the information is truly useful will get it. Everyone else is just ogling.

Let's think about this folks. This man killed 31 people before shooting himself. We obviously can't physically prevent this - we can't lock the entire population of the country up in strait jackets to prevent someone from going berserk. Only if we understand the factors leading up to such a crime can we hope to prevent it. Our motive for knowing what we can about him is not, or at least should not be, prurient interest in the deranged, but passionate interest in self preservation.

I agree, but I don't think the average citizen should be taking it on themselves to decipher personalities and decide whether someone is a danger or not. That's a pretty slippery slope in my mind.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

OOPSY, LET ME FIX THIS!!

shakran, I'm afraid I flucked up your post, but I'm going to see if I can fix it, I'm so sorry.

For some reason I had neglected to close the browser when I went off to make breakfast - - just restored from the back button

Well, shall I be so bold as to suggest that people would not be so shocked, saddened and mourning if they weren't immersed in the coverage of this story. And let's not equate this with being insensitive, please. I don't think I am insensitive. In fact, I can speculate, that if it were one of my children who died at VT that day, I would be distressed and demoralized at the spectacle being made of it. I haven't watched a single second of tv news coverage of this incident, but I know what is happening. Because I used to be one of those people glued to the tv, watching them repeat the same information again and again, waiting for the next "breaking" tidbit of information.

I don't think you're being insensitive - I just think that, not having seen how the media handled the coverage puts you at rather a disadvantage when trying to comment on that coverage.

I didn't get to see ALL of the memorial yesterday because I was busy trying to convince a recalcitrant live truck mast to come back down from it's 50' height where it was frozen in place, but what I saw of the actual memorial itself was respectful. I noticed that all the cameras were on the periphery of the event - no photogs were getting in anyone's faces, and the announcer (I was watching the CNN feed) only broke in to tell the viewers who was speaking - no commentary that I heard.

Now, the rest of it, I'm right there with you. We don't need to drag the viewer along through the newsgathering process. It's OUR job to work the information over and over again until we have enough to tell you, and only then should we break in and tell you. The reason we don't is because of this idiotic desire to be first with everything - there's this stupid fear throughout our profession that if someone else beats us by as much as 10 seconds to giving you new information, that you'll change channels and never come back to us. I don't believe that for a minute, but there it is. Like I said before, tell us where we're screwing up. Get vocal. Write letters. Call us. Tell us how we can improve - -- most of us already know it, but we can't convince the bosses. You can.

If you take a break from watching CNN or FOX or any other 24 hour news network for six months and then go back and watch it again with fresh eyes, you'll be surprised at how distasteful it seems to you. I can almost guarantee it.

I don't need to take a break to see how distasteful most of it is.

I think this is a little different. Especially considering that we get next to no news coverage about the deaths of our military personnel in Iraq and those who are thankful to see it, probably have to go out of their way to find out anything about them at all.

On a local level, you always find out about the deaths of the local soldiers. Always. You might not find out about the dead soldier from the neighboring state, but if he's a hometown kid, it WILL be on the news as soon as it's found out.

I don't think it's closing our eyes to it. The average citizen out there is not a criminal profiler. The people to whom the information is truly useful will get it. Everyone else is just ogling.

The criminal profilers aren't doing the job. This isn't an isolated incident. Society is becoming increasingly violent and insane. We MUST find out why, and act to fix the problem. And when I say we, I mean we as a society. We can't leave this to the "experts." They're the ones who got us here in the first place.

I agree, but I don't think the average citizen should be taking it on themselves to decipher personalities and decide whether someone is a danger or not. That's a pretty slippery slope in my mind.

That's not what I meant at all. I want to get to the root causes of these incidents - not to prevent the individual incidents themselves but to stop these kinds of insane thoughts from happening in people in the first place. I have long suspected that the human race is slowly going insane - Every generation sees greater violence and depravity than the previous one. Ever more inexplicable acts occur on a more and more regular basis. We must find out why. I've said this before - personally I have a feeling the cause is environmental. The average person today is walking around with more than 600% of the amount of lead that was in the average person 100 years ago. Lead is a neurotoxin. It MUST be effecting us somehow. And that's only one of the hundreds if not thousands of chemicals we've exposed ourselves to - many of which we don't even know the effects. There isn't a surface on the planet now that doesn't have traces of Scotchguard on it. What's that doing to us? To our minds? We must examine incidents like this and find their root causes if we want any hope of surviving as a species. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe it's not chemical - but SOMETHING is causing people to go nuts more and more often. It cannot be allowed to continue unchecked.

[roachboy]

it is very strange, this play of press coverage and "reality" in a situation that is traumatic. i found myself fascinated by the 9/11/2001 coverage because it seemed clear to me that the folk who make up this apparatus--the chain of information relay within the networks in particular, which is made up of human beings (which folk--including myself--tend to put aside behind the language of bureaucratic systems, across terms like "apparatus")
--these folk were themselves traumatized and were engaging in a bit of compulsive repetition as a way to neutralize the implications of what they were watching. so in that situation, i understood myself to be watching a breakdown of the normal type of coverage of death and so forth and its replacement with a kind of therapeutic ritual.
one asserts such control as one can over potentially damaging information by repeating it.
if the consequence of that repetition is the collapse of the meaning of an event back into the formal structures of the image, so be it, i guess.
what shakran has posted above is really quite interesting as in a strange way it dovetails into this idea that i have harbored about that particular phase of tv coverage.
(it is not the same interpretation, obviously--it simply dovetails into it)


on this shooting/murduer-suicide:
i find very strange indeed reports and emails that i have been getting about cranked up "security" at other campuses around the country in "response" to the vt shootings. what is that about? security at the art institute of chicago, for example, was tripled yesterday--cops everywhere. i do not understand this: it seems that administrations understand uniformed people as themselves therapeutic...all this in the interest of reducing the meaning of singularity, of arbitrariness, of uncertainty. this has bizarre political implications, when you think about it.
this perhaps for another thread....

[ubertuber]

Roachboy, it's almost certainly a combination of fear of the copycat effect and fear of the legal and media system. After one NYU student committed suicide by jumping off of their library, 3 others did it in the same year - so the copycat or lemming effect is real. If another incident happened at a school and there were no apparent precautions taken...it would go poorly for that institution in the media.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by roachboy

--these folk were themselves traumatized and were engaging in a bit of compulsive repetition as a way to neutralize the implications of what they were watching.

Yeah, I agree. We were all completely stunned, and honestly didn't know what to do - -so in that we were in the same boat as everyone else. We knew that we were telling people that the USA as they knew it was no more. That's a pretty heavy burden to have to tell someone. We were also grieving along with you, not only for the incident, but because many of our friends and colleagues died that day as well.

on this shooting/murduer-suicide:
i find very strange indeed reports and emails that i have been getting about cranked up "security" at other campuses around the country in "response" to the vt shootings. what is that about?

That one's easy. Just about every time something like this happens, some people decide to copycat it. Unfortunately, you never know where those people are, so you step up security everywhere to try and prevent it.

I saw an interesting article by a psychologist once on Columbine - -don't ask me to cite it because I can't remember where I found it, but it's message has stuck with me. Dylan and Kliebold got their 15 minutes of fame and then some because of what they did - - this psychologist theorized that at least in some of the cases, the shootings that followed were partially if not wholly motivated by this fact. Kid wants to be famous? Well one way to guarantee that is to become notorious.

This is just another incident like this - and some misguided kid somewhere might decide that he, too, wants to be famous. . .

[roachboy]

i considered the copycat notion as an explanation but didnt find it terribly compelling: but it you add in external pressure/coverage and the usual terror university p.r. administrators fall into at the thought of potential damage being done to the institutions reputation, i suppose it makes sense.

but it nonetheless seems to me kind of hysterical, only imaginable as routine via the past 6 years of routinized hysteria. as if people in uniforms wandering about entrances to buildings could reasonably be expected to stop or even influence an event that they are only anticipating in the most general sense, with nothing to link it to any particularity. given that, there is no greater effect to be had from what amounts to the arbitrary deployment of people in uniform around entrances to buildings: they might as well be sitting at desks somewhere.

what bothers me about this is more indexical than literal: the acquiescence in the face of uncertainty to increased official security, as if that security apparatus can reasonably be expected to protect folk from uncertainty or randomness. there is something of an acquiescence to authoritarian rule in it.

television information has a curious side-feature, which is an effect of the medium itself, in that it reduces the world to an arrangement of objects and politics to the fact of that arrangement. so what is given, what is encountered visually in your everyday experience, is de facto posited as self-contained, self-legitimating. people do not make meanings, they find them. the political order within which we operate is co-terminous with the world of objects, and the world is nothing but objects. this seems to me a set-up for an exaggerated fear of uncertainty or instability, which is excerbated by the simple fact that ideological adjustment is pretty hard to imagine if your world is framed for you as a collection of things. so people get unnecessarily anxious when they are confronted with images of violence because all of it seems equivalent in that all of it is equally arbitrary--and its arbitrariness is demonstrated through its effects on objects (human beings are a particular type of object in this curious world we live in...)---so it is that people not only consent to bizarre shows of "security" but even seem to want them.

i dont know if this is clear: this line of thinking is a preoccupation in the writing that i do that is not for here....but it informs this sense i have that the vt shootings are resonating at some level with the past 6 years of routinized hysteria that was called the "war on terror"...

it would be more than passing strange were these resonances to be something more than logical connections.

[ubertuber]

It's very clear - what you write makes perfect sense. And you're right, the guards are ridiculous, but somehow reassuring in a myopic way.

In large part, the amount of money and effort expended on preventing terror attacks or whatnot is a measure of denial. You could stop an army, but you can't stop every instance of a couple of crazy guys, particularly if they are willing to die. Similarly, you might stop or shortcircuit a massive assault on a university, but you can't anticipate all the sick individuals out there. The guards (like the DHS, etc.) are an assertion by action that we refuse to believe this - as if this faith in action makes something true.

[snowy]

MM, your comments about what I see as an overreactive media ring true, but Shakran's points are equally valid. I would say that my opinion of the media falls somewhere in between the two.

I grew up in a house where the television was always on the news. I watched the first Gulf War live on CNN. I was probably the most informed fourth grader you could ever imagine. News was everywhere in my house--one newspaper subscription, several newsmagazine subscriptions...if it happened, I knew about it. Would I say I was overexposed? No, not at all.

I think the OJ Simpson trial ruined us, really, and Court TV. Certain cable outlets began focusing on sensational news all of the time, and got ratings. Well, we see the result of that today in the media that now oversensationalizes everything.

I'm careful about where I get my news now for that reason. I read the NYTimes, both the online version and the paper copy. If there's a breaking story, I check their website, Google News, and CNN. I watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report daily. The only oversensational thing that has slipped through my nets is a picture of a dead body I didn't want to see. After Hurricane Katrina, the NYTimes printed a picture on their front page (their main web page) showing a dead man floating down the river in New Orleans. That may be a very truthful picture, but to me it's overly invasive. I don't need to see dead bodies; I can understand people died without seeing the carnage.

But regardless, I still see this as a tragedy. There's no denying that when people die, it's a tragedy. The more people die, and in a worse situation, it becomes a bigger and stronger tragedy. Perhaps we all have different ways of judging what constitutes a tragedy, but I think we can come to an understanding about that.

[powerclown]

all i can say is, interesting time to be online in america lol.
(sorry doh)

[hagatha]

Today's coverage is saying that the shooter was reported to administrators for his conduct and he was showing signs of violence for the past year. Apparently he stalked women and the authorities had to be called on a few occasions.
So, once again, like Columbine, the signs were there but did anything happen to prevent it? No.
He had a complete mental break and this was the result. Everyone who knew him saw it coming.
So what good is beefed up security? Once again, everyone is missing the point.

[marylandterp]

Since 9-11 it seems as though our Country has never been the same...

Just a senseless loss of students of the future work-world. Schools from elementary age students to college level are not safe to be further educating themselves.

My prayers are with their families, friends and fellow students of VT!

How can this endless loss of life be stopped? More security, but where are our freedoms?

[analog]

Lone gunman, psychological problems. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER be able to stop a mentally ill person with a viable idea- as in, it can be done, if only because you're crazy enough to do it.

There are, what, 26,000 students at that one school? Do you have any idea how common depression is among people that age, or how common something like being jealous over a lost love? No one would have investigated a male his age who was showing signs of depression and anger because he broke up with his girlfriend and wanted her back. No one in their right mind would take more than a glance at that.

The very fact that such an event was unprecedented should tell you that there was no way of seeing this coming.

Saying that counselors, administrators, etc., should have been able to weed out underlying homicidal thoughts in a depressed, love-sick male is just ridiculously unrealistic.

Here's why this keeps coming up, though- and I know i've said it before in another thread some time ago:

PEOPLE REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT MENTAL ILLNESS CAN CAUSE A PERSON TO KILL RANDOMLY, AND WITHOUT APPARENT PURPOSE. Why? Because that would be a scary thought, wouldn't it? You want to believe there was a real reason, that there was a series of events that preceded it and could have been seen ahead of time.

But NO. Sometimes, people just do bad, bad things because they're mentally ill. No one will admit to it and allow it as reality... they MUST blame something, or someone.

Nonsense.

The guy was mentally ill, snapped like a twig, and went on a rampage. There's no loss of support. There are no overt warning signs. There's just a killer. People need to wake up and smell the chemical imbalance.

[Elphaba]

Analog, I agree with much of what you have posted, except there is an additional twist that applied in this situation and many others. Many people came forward to express concern about this student, but they were unwilling or unable to take the next step. The female students chose not to file a complaint against him for stalking. The administration's hands were tied because he never made a specific threat to harm himself or others.

The very fact that such an event was unprecedented should tell you that there was no way of seeing this coming.

There was a precedent in 1962, Link , but this merely reinforces how rare college campus attacks have been. Of current concern is the copycat wannabe's that are making threats across the nation.

Under current law, this individual could not be brought in for a psych evaluation without his permission, let alone be temporarily hospitalized. If we are discussing how this might have been prevented, I believe it begins when he first drew attention by his writings. I am seriously torn about the idea of involuntary hospitalization that goes beyond the current statutes.

[powerclown]

I agree, if someone snaps like that, doesnt seem like much anyone could do about it. They said he floated his way through the system by being a quiet, low-key kid. How common is a quiet, sullen, angry teenage male anywhere in the world? This became a unique case when the guy recorded his madness for the whole world to see. Pretty dark stuff.

[analog]

Heh... as soon as you said '62, I knew what you were linking. By "no precedent", I mean there's nothing like it that's happened before. The only similarity between this and Whitman back in '62 is the setting, and the nutbar factor.

Also, stalkings are useless reports. You have to get proof of it first, and even then... the overwhelming majority line from police is "until he does something, we can't do anything" (unless you're a celebrity). At best, someone may have gotten a restraining order. Killing 32 people and injuring another how many doesn't sound like a guy who'd pay any attention to a piece of paper that says to keep back x feet.

It's not like if the stalking victims had come forward, he'd be in jail right now. If anything, there might have been more personal revenge bloodshed before the mass killings, if he'd had charges filed on him.

And again, I'm sure people come forward about disorderly, depressed, or odd behavior. Hindsight is great- if you asked any of those people prior to the incident, I don't think a single one of them would have said he was nearly disturbed enough to do this. If there was real evidence, like someone saw his threatening writings, then that's separate- planing on killing people is a punishable offense, and if someone didn't report it, then we're talking about a crime going left unnoticed.

The problem is, we live in reality... where people's confession letters of hate and anger and bloodlust aren't discovered until after the deed is done, and counselors don't (and reasonably so) assume every depressed/upset college student is a homicidal maniac.

"...he never made a specific threat to harm himself or others." <- You hit the nail on the head, right there. Like I said... hindsight and ass-coverage... if you were an administrator there and a student made no threats against himself or others, but was depressed and seemingly angry, and you brushed him off- then he killed 32 people... would you REALLY tell the news people, the whole world, that you brushed him off? Or would you say your hands were tied to act because he didn't specifically threaten himself or others?

People do not rehearse their story before the story even exists, that happens only after 32 are dead and the finger-pointing starts up.

[Elphaba]

Heh... as soon as you said '62, I knew what you were linking. By "no precedent", I mean there's nothing like it that's happened before. The only similarity between this and Whitman back in '62 is the setting, and the nutbar factor.

Uh...Whitman murdered his mother and his wife before he went to the clock tower, another simularity. Also: increasing behavior problems in both the Marines and college; eh...it's all there in the link if you choose to read it.

"...he never made a specific threat to harm himself or others." <- You hit the nail on the head, right there. Like I said... hindsight and ass-coverage...

No, it is NOT 20/20 hindsight, nor is it CYA. That is the freakin' law. I thought I made that clear near the end of my post. Did you read beyond "1962" ?

[Jetée]

Originally Posted by analog

"...he never made a specific threat to harm himself or others." <- You hit the nail on the head, right there.

There's an old Japanese proverb that goes something along the lines of 'the nail that sticks out is the first to get hammered down'.

If we are more readily-able to detect the effects of deppression in our fellow neighbors,
then maybe we are more likely to contain the negative response that might stem from such mental illnesses.
Then, a chance could arise that we will be able to effectively reduce such horrific occurences as this one.

[Elphaba]

Tiger Bunny, I think there was much more than depression at work here because depression turns inward. This kid was ill in ways that go far beyond depression.

(I love your bunny)

[analog]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

No, it is NOT 20/20 hindsight, nor is it CYA. That is the freakin' law.

I'm well aware, you misunderstood (or I wrote it weird). He didn't present danger to himself or others, therefore they could not hold him, by law. What I was saying in the "20/20 hindsight" department was related to brushing off a seemingly depressed college student (there are tons of them) and then the later different between saying you brushed him off or saying you couldn't do anything. He wouldn't have been brushed off if he exhibited any behavior that would allow lawful involuntary admission to a hospital facility. Since he didn't actually make any threat to himself... brushed off with the rest.

The physician's report on his evaluation back in December 2005 (so, over a year ago, not exactly "recent"):

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/04/18/cho.pdf

Oriented x 4. Affect is flat and mood is depressed. He denies suicidal ideation. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal.

In plain english, for those who want it:

Knows who he is, where he is, when it is, and what's going on (is aware of what's happening and what happed to get him there). His demeanor is flat and seems depressed. He denies thinking about committing suicide. He exhibits no signs of thought disorder when questioned to elicit such signs. His insight and judgment are normal.

That, right there, is a wholly unremarkable, very normal, completely uninteresting profile of a kid who is simply depressed, but not suicidal. Nothing special whatsoever.

From everything I've heard of his latest behavior, he added a little anger from the breakup (also totally normal) and stalked some girls.

Stalking (if it was proven- innocent until proven guilty, even if you're dead) has nothing to do with homicide, whatsoever.

Everyone can say it could have been prevented, could have "seen it coming"... but really, there's nothing to suggest it in the facts.

Originally Posted by Jetstream

If we are more readily-able to detect the effects of deppression in our fellow neighbors,
then maybe we are more likely to contain the negative response that might stem from such mental illnesses.
Then, a chance could arise that we will be able to effectively reduce such horrific occurences as this one.

Depression statistic:

"Depressive disorders affect approximately 18.8 million American adults or about 9.5% of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year."

You take the first 9.4 million, i'll get started on the other half. If you find any homicidal maniacs, let me know.

Then we'll go after the 10 to 15% of all teens who show some signs of depression at any given time.

[Elphaba]

I did misunderstand your meaning (or you wrote it weird). This kid managed to not cross the line that would have caused an intervention. I think we will learn much more when the family comes forward. He has a sister with a PhD (I think) from Princeton, and he goes to VT. The gap between high school graduation and his current standing at VT doesn't add up, either.

[hagatha]

Analog, I have to completely disagree with you when you say "stalking has nothing to do with homocide" ---it HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HOMOCIDE.
Do you know how many women are killed or assaulted by their abusive partners who stalk them after they leave because they dared to usurp their control?
Can you say restraining order?
And this guy was stalking women he never dated....he was stalking women online and subsequently at the university. And the cops had been notified.
So yes, there were huge flags going up around this guy...even his english prof was afraid of him and had notified campus police.