Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NascarFan19

Virginia Tech Shootings

Recommended Posts

Learnin'lady says:

"We can't police insanity..." and is certainly correct.

 

From the beginning this had the mark of deep depression touching on schizophrenia.

 

Unfortunately when you mix intense stress with depression and other mental illnesses, the primal instincts take over and those tend to be rather violent. We come from an extremely violent past and those instincts just do not go away.

 

Mental illness tends to over ride the cognitive functions to a huge degree and these unfortunate events happen. Apparently there was plenty of warning signs with this guy and no one could do anything for him.

 

The questions that should be asked are not how do we make more (useless) laws that (don't) keep us safe, but how to we work within our rights to not only protect ourselves but help these people out?

 

Gun control is not the answer: Criminals across the nation could care less about laws, and insane people can't be held accountable too them. Armed citizens can defend themselves from such individuals, but there is little reason to be concerned about your average citizen being a danger too society beyond freak accidents or negligence.

 

So do we trample people's First Amendment rights and detain them when we suspect them? I don't believe that is a good answer either, but perhaps we should consider what constitutes evidence of danger.

 

I'd like to think however that if people would stop being blatant c#*$%*@#*s too each other and maybe treated eachother with a little civility and friendly respect then maybe this wouldn't happen. Doesn't suprise me that it happened to someone from the DC area though... living around those people can make anyone want to rampage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Franks has a good point. As always its not the gun its the person behind it.

I find it interesting the different opinions of people here and notice that they differ in countries. Does one really know how things are if one doesnt actually live there?

As Ive seen guns replaced by bombs and or other violent acts.

As quoted above "Criminals across the nation could care less about laws, and insane people can't be held accountable too them. Armed citizens can defend themselves from such individuals"

What does one do, open our doors and say "tsk, scatter from here I dont want any of your foolishness"

 

Again, we cant police dumb*sses, all we can do is keep our eyes open and try to stay outta harms way.

 

One other thing we can do is to keep an concerned eye on our neighbor. Another peave is hearing "they seemed so normal"...wth! If what you concider normal activity is some of the things IVE seen on the news, then some people need a reality check!...

 

 

Also, there is a lifes fact that things just happen and there isnt anything we can do to prepare for it, we can try to learn from it so as not to repeat it, but with some things in life there is no preparedness, nor explaination

So we all need to get on our big girl and big boy pants and deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to budget restraints, the person must demonstrate an obvious willingness to harm themselves!

 

Otherwise, there is no money to deal with a 'possible' unstable person.

 

An event has to occur, a police report taken, and the community mental health people 'evaluate' the report, based upon the officers observations, and request an interview the the person in question.. Current time frame -- 8 to 12 months --" due to budget issues several department personnel have been reassigned."

 

The is the proceedure in Genesee County Michigan where a good friend works for the mental health dept. It's the same in most every county in most every state. If you identify a potential 'whatever' person, there is no money to deal with them..

 

:shrug::shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about budget constrains. It is a legal matter of individual rights.

 

 

Well before this happened it was proposed to put a guard at his classroom and drmitory doors....but they didn't. One of the prof's says this was the most disturbed student she had ever seen. She said the guards were an option but they couldn't do more because he expressed no direct threat.

 

 

1) Why didn't they use the guards if it was suggested?

 

2) If a student needs to be guarded, should they be there at all?

 

 

Perhaps the law does not provide for anybody to relieve you of your liberty except under specific circumstances....but certainly the University can remove you from class, and prohibit you from the dorms without violating your rights.

 

This guy had stalked some girls, he had some definite issues with his conduct. That is enough for the school to act. But they didn't......

 

 

I am not pointing fingers. I am not saying the university should have done something.

 

I am saying that perhaps the focus on individual rights of students has weakened schools from a disciplinary standpoint.

 

In the case of the universities, I see the inmates running the asylum these days. Worse than that...they are selecting the staff and profs based on the agenda of the inmates......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Doc.. I heard the budget news from a person who has to deal with it 40 hours a week.

You are welcome to your most informed opinion -- but the case workers and their supervisors know what is going on -- listen to them for a truly informed opinion.

Most of their attention is given to young mothers ( spoiled little girls, as they put it) who refuse to deal with the reality facing them when they have to take care of a baby. The kiddies take their anger out on the baby, and the county has to step in to save the baby's life.

 

:geezer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not they feel it has to do with the budget, a case like this is clear. He did not meet the legal criteria for involuntary treatment according to the information available in reports, hence the budget would have nothing to do with it.

 

Though budget constraints are a problem in psychiatric care, and I do not deny that fact, the fact remains that involuntary treatment is administered only under specific guidelines. Those guidelines, according to reports, were not met.

 

 

So, whether or not any treatment would have been compromised due to any budget is moot actually. Which was part of my point.

 

 

In addition, you are speaking only of people who do not have psychiatric health coverage. For those who do, the budgets of those you speak of have nothing to do with it. Of course, even good private coverage is severely lacking so that many with chronic problems end up "in the system" anyway. But initially their insurance does cover it.

 

Lastly, this was a university student. The facilities and benefits available on a modern university campus are excellent, especially for those with psychiatric problems. They aren't dependent on the "system" that you speak of....at least not at first. I am confident that were were services, support....help available on that campus that this young man simply did not connect with.

 

I have some confidence this because I worked in a university department that dealt specifically with assisting students in such a position. It provided free counseling, free tutors, special options to drop courses or take them pass/fail when needed, and preference in scheduling courses. We dealt with students with depression, bipolar disorders, post traumatic stress, and other issues. Any student could avail themselves of services, no referal or medical diagnosis was needed. We helped anybody any time. And it was free.

 

My CV includes formal academic work at no less than five universities and colleges in addition to clinical work at no less than four university hospitals. During those years I was involved to varying degrees in such programs at all of those institutions, so I am confident that such programs are widely available to students.

 

I also worked in a CLA, basically an assisted living setting for psychiatric patients. I am familiar with "the system".

 

 

 

A quick look at the Virginia Tech web site reveals that they provide health insurance for their students and in fact have a counseling center available on campus.

 

They also have a guide for identifying and refering a distressed student.

 

Services Offered at the CCC:

 

Individual and group counseling

Brief psychotherapy

Couples therapy

Crisis intervention

Medical and psychiatric referral

Career Counseling

Study skills counseling

 

 

ACCESS - (540) 961-8400 (Emergency Services clinicians that can meet with you at your location). A friend or family member can call for you.

 

CONNECT - 1-800-284-8898 or (540) 731-7385 (A mental health admittance and referral service of Carilion Health Care).

 

RESPOND - (540) 953-5324 (A mental health admittance and referral service of Montgomery Regional Hospital and Lewis Gale Hospital)

 

 

* In all situations counselors are NOT able to initiate contact with students. Students need to contact the Cook Counseling Center for services.

 

 

I also am submitting a truly informed opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think he had that gun lawfully? If he didn't then banning them wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

 

Even if they were outlawed, he could get an illegal firearm or another weapon.

 

If you make them illegal, everyone with good intentions will hand them back in, which leaves you with an armed criminal population and nobody to defend against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did buy both firearms legally. That is already known.

 

 

Personally, i don't think that legal residents should be able to purchase firearms legally. They are not citizens.

 

But in fact I don't really think it makes much of a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Choppie,

 

Your presentation of services and options is well stated and clearly well informed.

I too, have held similar positions in College and University settings.

I'm inclined to offer observations from my own experience of violent/menacing students on campus.

 

The various services, including medical and counseling services, ultimately exist under the Department of variously named "Student Services", under the direction of a Dean of Student Services.

That Dean is rarely a "professional" and invariably a "politician".

 

In my own experience, I have reported, written, called for emergency service, consulted, appealed, taken my concerns to the Dean, taken my concern to the Faculty Senate, appealed directly to the President, and in multiple instances directly intervened in dangerous situations where weapons and imminent threat were involved.

 

My experience of the various "authorities" and "service providers" and "support staff" has been much less than satisfying. In fact, response from College and University authorities has been "atrocious".

 

In one case, I received direct warning that a student had immediate plans to shoot their counselor.

I was off-campus at the time.

I called the counseling office to warn.

I called campus security to warn.

I called the Dean of Student Services to warn.

 

In all cases, my warnings were met with delay, denial, and brush-off.

 

I "raced" to the Campus Counseling Center and entered the waiting room just as the target counselor was exiting his office having completed a session. The hostile Student was sitting directly across the waiting room, about 15 feet from the counselors door, with her hand secreted inside of her purse, watching the target counselor and rising to a standing position.

I placed my hands around the purse, containing both the student's hand and a gun, and forceable guided the student to an outdoor location away from the intended target.

Staff, administrators, and counselors all witnessed my action, but would not come to assist.

Even when the Dean of Student Services walked my way, he would not assist.

I asked for him to make a call to campus security or local police. He wouldn't, even after he saw the gun.

I asked for him to sit with the Student, after I had secured the gun, so that I could make the call. He wouldn't.

 

Eventually, a fellow professor assisted by making the call.

The student was hospitalized on a 5150 status, which was eventually extended in Hearing on 5152 status, and extended psyciatric treatment.

_____

 

In another situation, that more closely resembles the current Virginia situation, a male on campus was widely known to have stalked multiple female students on campus. He was also seen in multiple situations to be "shadow boxing" in a martial arts style in the courtyard and while wandering around buildings. Several instances of students approaching the shadow-boxer resulted in assaults.

 

I appealed to the Counseling Center to provide services. I appealed to the Dean, to the faculty, and to the President. In all instances, I was told that the College did not want to make any intervention "on Campus" and that the authorities hoped that an intervention would be made to detain the suspect Student when off-Campus. The Student did ultimately attack and seriously injure a person off-campus and was jailed and subsequently placed in psyciatric hospital, only to be released on condition that they resume their ordinary routine --- of college classes!

 

My experience of many similar situations, and the response made by College and University authorities, has been one of "Not-in-My-Backyard".

 

The school authorities knew that danger was present, even imminent, and "didn't want to get involved".

 

Do you suppose something like that "mentality" had been going on behind the scenes in Virginia?

I do.

 

An after-note. I was eventually threatened with legal action for "unlawfully restraining" the female student with the gun. (please note that it is unlawful to have a firearm on campus) (and please note that I was acting on direct warning that the student intended, had made preparation and plans, and was poised to commit the intended action imminently, with loaded and weapon in hand as she oriented toward the target)

 

The Administration did nothing to support me.

 

The local psyciatric facility established that the student did in fact have both romantic and hostile intentions toward the target counselor.

They did nothing to support my position.

 

In fact, the treating therapists (two) demanded that I return the gun to the female student, since it was of family sentimental importance. It had been used by her father to commit suicide!

They wanted the gun to be returned to her so they would pursue a course of treatemtn that could include "desensitization" of the symbolic importance of that gun!

 

I didn't.

 

As you know I have been a licensed therapist for more than 25 years.

I have been the certified intervention service provider for court referrals dealing with violent perpetrators.

 

I do not have a particularly high regard for the community of my fellow therapists when it comes to dealing with potentially violent individuals.

 

Responsibility and accountability are often confronted by "rubber-backbone" when professionals are confronted with intervention that could be conceived as restraining "the individual's" civil rights.

 

It is much more than "unfortunate". It is administrative, legal, and professional "stupidity".

 

Just my thoughts and experiences.

 

Best Regards

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learnin'lady says:

"We can't police insanity..." and is certainly correct.

 

From the beginning this had the mark of deep depression touching on schizophrenia.

 

Unfortunately when you mix intense stress with depression and other mental illnesses, the primal instincts take over and those tend to be rather violent. We come from an extremely violent past and those instincts just do not go away.

 

Mental illness tends to over ride the cognitive functions to a huge degree and these unfortunate events happen. Apparently there was plenty of warning signs with this guy and no one could do anything for him.

 

The questions that should be asked are not how do we make more (useless) laws that (don't) keep us safe, but how to we work within our rights to not only protect ourselves but help these people out?

 

Gun control is not the answer: Criminals across the nation could care less about laws, and insane people can't be held accountable too them. Armed citizens can defend themselves from such individuals, but there is little reason to be concerned about your average citizen being a danger too society beyond freak accidents or negligence.

 

So do we trample people's First Amendment rights and detain them when we suspect them? I don't believe that is a good answer either, but perhaps we should consider what constitutes evidence of danger.

 

I'd like to think however that if people would stop being blatant c#*$%*@#*s too each other and maybe treated eachother with a little civility and friendly respect then maybe this wouldn't happen. Doesn't suprise me that it happened to someone from the DC area though... living around those people can make anyone want to rampage.

 

 

My keyboard bit the dust..but it was worth the effort to go get another for that...good post...v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An after-note. I was eventually threatened with legal action for "unlawfully restraining" the female student with the gun. (please note that it is unlawful to have a firearm on campus) (and please note that I was acting on direct warning that the student intended, had made preparation and plans, and was poised to commit the intended action imminently, with loaded and weapon in hand as she oriented toward the target)

 

The Administration did nothing to support me.

 

The local psyciatric facility established that the student did in fact have both romantic and hostile intentions toward the target counselor.

They did nothing to support my position.

 

In fact, the treating therapists (two) demanded that I return the gun to the female student, since it was of family sentimental importance. It had been used by her father to commit suicide!

They wanted the gun to be returned to her so they would pursue a course of treatemtn that could include "desensitization" of the symbolic importance of that gun!

 

I didn't.

 

As you know I have been a licensed therapist for more than 25 years.

I have been the certified intervention service provider for court referrals dealing with violent perpetrators.

 

I do not have a particularly high regard for the community of my fellow therapists when it comes to dealing with potentially violent individuals.

 

Responsibility and accountability are often confronted by "rubber-backbone" when professionals are confronted with intervention that could be conceived as restraining "the individual's" civil rights.

 

It is much more than "unfortunate". It is administrative, legal, and professional "stupidity".

 

Just my thoughts and experiences.

 

Best Regards

Doug

 

 

 

Common Sense on permanent hiatus. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,

 

I am very interested in your input. Your experience in these matters is invaluable in this discussion.

 

In my experience the various departments and administrations I have been in contact with have been a bit more helpful than what you have experienced. That may be because they were in general campuses connected with medical schools and hospitals. I also have to say that I have not had experience or contact with the kind of extreme cases that you indicate and don't doubt that I might not have been all too pleased with how things might have gone if I had.

 

In all of my time dealing with such things as a student the worst I ever saw was one guy who became paranoid schizophrenic....and that wasn't even something that involved my work....it was my room-mate. A little too close to home for me to be subjective.....but I feel he was done a great disservice by the university as far as how they "helped" him.

 

 

As it turns out:

 

 

After speaking with Cho "at length," the officers asked him to see a counselor, and he agreed to be evaluated by Access Services, an independent mental health facility in Blacksburg, the chief said.

 

"A temporary detention order was obtained and Cho was taken to a mental health facility" on December 13, 2005, he said.

 

After police spoke to Cho, they received a call from a student concerned that he might be suicidal.

 

So he was involutarily detained for treatment.......

 

 

Her is something:

"The student declined to press charges and referred to Cho's contact with her as annoying," Flinchum said of the November investigation.

Had charges been pressed, the course of events may have been different.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech...ting/index.html

 

 

 

 

So....as we go on, more details reveal themselves....as is the usual course.

 

 

So he had help....people had forced him to get help.....

 

But somehow there still was a failure to ultimately help him.

 

Obviously, the responsibility for his actions lies firmly with him. It looks like there were indeed mechanisms in place to help him and that they had been initiated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, the responsibility for his actions lies firmly with him. It looks like there were indeed mechanisms in place to help him and that they had been initiated.

 

True, but then again when you read Dougs post, he also initiated action and still nothing was done until a single person pushed the issue.

 

Its an example of two things

 

1. Poor Leadership/Management

2. A overly PC society unwilling to place blame and take action due to fear of the legal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case the guy was in fact detained for treatment. That says a lot. It does look like it was taken seriously and appropriate measures taken....up to a point at least.

 

 

 

 

 

One problem I see is that chrges were not made in the stalking case.....

 

Had their been charges....it might have been different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you cant blame this on charges not being filed. If he was diagnosed properly and people actually took the time to take what they saw serioiusly it could have been stopped. The same thing can be said for almost every other event like this, there were plenty of signs. Nobody wanted to or possibly could step up to the plate to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame it on a lack of charges. What I said is that the course might have been different. And I stand by that, it very well might have been different. That isn't assigning blame. I won't assign blame to anybody but him unless something demonstrates to me that somebody else has some responsibility in the matter.

 

 

 

 

Who said he wasn't diagnosed properly?

 

I haven't seen his crecords. I have no idea what if any diagnosis was made. We simply don't know.

 

His diagnosis and treatment may in fact have been just fine. That simply isn't always the solution in these cases. As a surgeon once told me: "The operation was a success but the patient died". He simply may have been beyond any effective treatment.

 

 

 

Actually, it looks like people were involved. They did take action. The guy was taken into custody for treatment.

 

We don't know what happened after that.

That is....until he cut loose and killed a bunch of people....

 

 

But....I am sure more details will come out....a bit at a time....

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

"My students are my first priority and I spent a lot of time yesterday doing everything I could to be of help to them. I was particularly concerned about the playwriting class I had with Cho. Some of those students had contacted me and expressed a sense of guilt at not having done something or said something that might have prevented this horror."

 

That is why Falco sent an e-mail to the class list of 22 students telling them it was not their fault.

 

"Cho's behavior was disturbing to all of us -- and the English Department tried, with the best of intentions, to both get him help and to make the appropriate authorities aware of his disturbing behavior," Falco wrote to his students. "We did all that we thought it was reasonable to do. (Watch a professor's take on Cho's writing )

 

"There was violence in Cho's writing -- but there is a huge difference between writing about violence and behaving violently. We could not have known what he would do. We treated him like a fellow student, which is what he was. I believe the English Department behaved responsibly in response to him. And please hear me when I say this: it was our responsibility, not yours. All you could have done was come to me, or some other administration or faculty member, with your concerns -- and you would have been told that we were aware of Seung Cho, we were concerned about him, and we were doing what we believed was appropriate.

 

"Look, all our hearts are broken. There's no need to add to the pain with guilt."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vatech.professor/index.html

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said he wasn't diagnosed properly?

I do, the guy went out and murdered 30+ people. If he was diagnosed properly he would have been in a psych ward. The simple fact is people and society in general are too afraid to not only recognize dangerous behavior but to actually have a method in place to prevent it in most cases.

 

That said, if the campus police responded properly its likely the number of dead would be much much less.

Edited by one2gamble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote of Chopdoc:

Had their been charges....it might have been different.

I absolutely agree.

However, this is where the "weak-knee/rubber-backbone" feature comes in conflict with doing the right thing.

 

In the unrelated but parallel situation of Domestic Violence, the most frequent "witness for the defense" was the "abused victim" who generally "recanted" their report claiming it was made in the heat of emotion.

That was... up until 1994, when at least in California, Domestic Violence Actions began being initiated by complaint from the District Attorney, instead of complaint from the Victim.

As a result, even if the victim "recanted", the action against the alleged perpetrator went forth based on the report that was gathered at the time of the incident. If a DV call was made, and resulted in a police visit.... "somebody" was going to get arrested and tried.

 

Also at the same time, 1994, a "caveate" was placed into law allowing for "Diversion Treatment" which, if completed successfully, would result in all charges and all record of the incident being "expunged" from the alleged perpetrator's record.

(Kind of like going to Traffic School, so that the ticket doesn't get placed in the driving record and therefore doesn't add "points" to the cost of Auto Insurance.)

 

This was an "easy-out", and public defenders handled the bulk of "pleading", such that huge numbers of alleged domestic violence perpetrators were referred to diversion counseling (whether or not there was an actual case against them - they were "guilty-if-accused"). This resulted in large numbers of "sentencing deferred clients" entering group treatment for domestic violence prevention "classes" who then just waited out their time. These "sentencing deferred clients" then had the "easy-out" that they were only attending, "because they had received bad counsel from public defenders". They resented having to attend classes, and screamed to high heaven about having to pay fees for the classes. The "system" was seen to be a "cash-cow" for the courts and for domestic violence prevention service providers.

 

You can easily imagine the impact that such a circumstance would have on the "effectiveness" of such "classes".

 

One might think that at least the "victim" would be satisfied that the perpetrator had been required to do at least "something". --- Not so. Victims complained just as loud about the required meeting schedule that impacted the perpetrator (usually their intimate partner/spouse) and the fees that took money out of the household budget. This was annoying to the victim, especially because the perpetrator often also had a suspended drivers license, and therefore the victim was the one who drove the perpetrator to class and waited until it was adjourned.

The "enemy" had become the "counselor". And both vicitm and perpetrator resented the "counselor".

 

Ironically, it was the "convicted offenders" (those whose behavior was so egregious, or against whom the evidence was so compelling that conviction was "easy") that made the best "progress" in such classes and obtained the greatest benefit, including freedom from future violent actions up to 5 years after treatment.

The "sentence deferred clients" did much less well.

 

Why did victims "recant" and why did they complain about classes... it's complicated and draws on many civil rights and humanitarian issues, as well as weak-knees and failure of personal responsibility/accountability.

 

I didn't want to take their father away from the children.

He was our only source of income.

He was my mate.

It really wasn't that bad.

He only did it.... when he was drunk, had lost his job, was tired, when I said something that offended him...

(this is the "walking-on eggshells" phenomenon.)

 

(I apologize to any readers who are themselves personally involved in domestic violence disputes and/or treatement.) (There are many self-respecting victims who do stand up for themselves, and are not "weak-kneed' and there are many "sentence deferred perpetrators" who take such classes seriously.)

________

 

Now back to Virginia-like situations....

 

"Not-in-my-backyard" is a tremendous incentive to Administrators who want their Campus to have an un-tarnished reputation.

What effect would it have on "other residents" in a dormitory situation to have a "guard" assigned to a resident of the same hallway?

Do you think this incident will have any impact on enrollment?

Sure it will.

But enrollment will not "decrease", since there are many more applicants than openings.

However, the kind and quality of entering students will change.

 

"I didn't want to say anything" is a tremendous incentive.

Just think about the amount of time, appointments, court hearings, representation, agency involvement, lost work/income, and family/social time, etc. that the victim or complaining/reporting person must navigate through. And the damage to personal reputation that results from becoming involved in such proceedings with such disreputable people.

Besides the above...... "couldn't you have handled the situation better?" "What were you doing with such a person in the first place?" <-- The presumption is that there is something wrong with you, if you allowed yourself to become a victim!?

 

"Our agency, office, department" is not setup to serve such individuals, or is not the appropriate referral" is a tremendous incentive.

The truth is that departments and therapists "hate" "treatment failures"

The truth is that treatment of such individuals is not very likely to succeed.

The truth is that these kinds of individuals have a "huge" impact on the treatment staff and agency resources.

The truth is that agencies and therapists don't want these kinds of referrals, for the above reasons.

 

Imagine the impact on an otherwise well-thought of family therapist or clinic, when they accept just one client who is an alleged child-abuser, rapist or domestic abuser!

If that information "gets out", how many parents, schools, referring agencies, would want to continue sending their "children" to that therapist? Would you want your child, spouce, friend, to be sitting in the same waiting room with someone (alleged to be an abuser) who is also waiting for his/her appointment.

 

(Again my apoligies to readers with other experiences. There are many Women's Shelters who also run high quality treatment programs for perpetrators, and many government, private agencies and private practices which successfully integrate a wide range of services to a wide range of client populations.)

 

Our culture has lost its Moral Compass. And along with that loss, individuals have lost their appropriate sense of shame for wrong-doings.

 

A domestic violence abuser should be terribly ashamed for their cowardly and hateful behavior.

But instead they feel free to complain loudly about the inconvenience and expense incurred when they are required to learn to behave better.

 

The parents and family of perpetrating individuals should (in most cases) feel shame for their failure in raising such an individual.

 

The campus, community, and authorities, should feel shame for their failure in allowing such behaviors or such individuals to continue unchecked.

 

Instead, we get excuses.

What was I to do?

We were both working.

I was a single parent.

The law does not support parentlal discipline.

It's the neighorhood we live in, or the peer group.

I/we couldn't afford or find a therapist.

It all developed so quickly. He/she wasn't like that before.

 

We (agencies) cannot compromise the individual's civil rights without due process.

We had no cause of action, until the event occurred.

 

Shame on all the above excuses.

And shame on us all for tolerating a culture in which those excuses can be made.

 

Hey, I really didn't want to say anything about it.

Afterall, it wasn't nearly as bad as what I see on TV every night.

________

 

I've painted with a broad brush.

Some may find what I've said to be offensive.

I do not. I find the situation of our country and culture to be highly offensive.

 

Still there are many fine people (most of us) in our country and in our culture.

We have a great land, a great people, and a great culture.

 

It's way past time to get it cleaned up again.

 

There's a new show coming to TV called "The Starter Wife".

I haven't seen it yet, but I don't want to, and I don't want it getting air-time either.

 

How about Rap/Hip Hop, celebrating the violent action of young men, or the glory of young women shaking their "money-box".

The recent statements of Don Imus should be condemned and he should have no place on the airwaves as a result.

But how about that sportcaster who used to wear or carry the panties from his conquest of the previous evening?

 

Do you want to see more polling about:

Who would you most like "to do" or be "done by"?

 

Where are the limits? Where is the shame?

 

Why are so many people "shocked" that something so egregious could happen on a College Campus.

Why do the authorities and services seem so impotent?

 

Occasionally one of our young people here at the Pit will post about a grievance.

Replies are varied.

Some advocate hitting the offender to show him the error of their ways.

Some caution against any/all hitting.

Some advocate involving the authorities

Some bemoan the ridiculous impotency of the authorities.

Some advocate avoidance, in fear the the offender will come back with a weapon.

Some advocate that the incident was "no big deal", and happens all the time.

 

A simple fist to the face, would have solved the situation in another time.

But there is too much entertainment=value/ego/laws-to-protect-individuals, to allow for simple person-to-person resolution of such matters.

I don't like hitting, to solve problems. I like walking away.

But there was a time when the whole community would have supported the offender getting what he had coming.

 

Hey!

What's happened in our culture, that a grandmother or a child cannot walk the streets unmolested?!

And the rest of us lock our doors and simply bemoan that the situation is terrible, but beyond our reach.

 

What's happened that a major University cannot act to kick a known crazy threatening guy off campus?

 

Parents. Love and discipline your children. That's Discipline (teach) not discipline punish.

In Parenting - it is too often "caught" and not often enough "taught".

 

People. Love and respect each other. Include in that love and respect, an unwillingness to tolerate anything else!

 

People. Vote! -- and vote Loudly!

 

Where's the Moral Compass?

 

End of rant......... for now, at least.

 

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do, the guy went out and murdered 30+ people. If he was diagnosed properly he would have been in a psych ward.

That isn't necessarily so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and update, the shooter, mailed nbc news some video an pictures in between the shootings :huh::angry: >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/ can't even imagine whats on the video he sent, says his grievances on video, but, still can't imagine what all he says, I guess all his"excuses" for doing this :mrsgreen:

Edited by Wademan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we have the media reporting on the media.....

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/1...=rss_topstories

 

Gives me a thought... we could use a few media cops...lol

what ever happen to stating the news and not the opinions and speculations?!!

I do a wonderful job of speculating and like my opinions I really dont want nor need thiers...lol

just give me the facts-

who

where

when

 

and Ill do the why...

thank you and good evening............. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and MSNBC is actually making the video available........

 

What a circus.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kinda makes me imbarrased to be a part of the human race....

 

Think Ill go live with the bears... oops too late...guess I already am!.... :rocks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...