Split--> VT shooter analysis thread - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-25-2007, 11:58 AM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unico
but then again, one of his roommates said he thinks that cho had a few relationships "in his head." but that is really random.
I think that is probably the case, if he was stalking girls and taking pictures of them inappropriately it's likely that he was fixated on her for some reason. He could have seen her outside of class and obtained information about her. I have no idea how he would have gotten in unless some unsuspecting person let him in, he was probably good at that sort of manipulation. I think if that's the case they would feel so sad/guilty about it that they wouldn't want to come forward, maybe they'd be scared to. Just speculating.

And that's what I have read, that Ryan was just going to help when he heard whatever sort of commotion there was, etc. I think the police are just trying to be very thorough.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 02:04 PM   #32
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
he was probably good at that sort of manipulation.
Why do you say this? Nothing I've read suggests that he was in the slightest good at charming or manipulating people and getting them to do what he wanted. On the contrary, he seemed to be altogether lacking in 'textbook psychopath' savvy. Incidentally, he also upset his roommates by taking unsolicited photos of them and making what they considered harassing phone calls and IMs to them, so female students weren't the only ones freaked out about what exactly his intentions toward them were and why he wouldn't leave them alone.

Dunno. I'm not really all that interested in the figure of Cho himself, more the larger 'preventive' issues of mental health awareness and gun control and bullying raised by this incident. Maybe he had some particular 'reason' in mind for killing Emily Hilscher (and for that matter targeting an engineering building full of people he had no known connection to for his 'main event'), but then again maybe he didn't. Killing one woman in a dorm (assuming he shot Ryan Clark only because he intervened) could've just as easily been a randomly chosen prelude, a point of no return to prove to himself he could do it, after which he was ready to mail off his manifesto and move on to the 'main event'. Or perhaps he was looking for someone else in that dorm and Emily Hilscher happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who knows. Laurie Dann, who I mentioned earlier, did somewhat the reverse--she first committed random killing and shooting at a local elementary school chosen for no apparent reason, then broke into a nearby house and shot its male occupant for no apparent reason before killing herself. She had clearly 'planned' her attack at least somewhat, but again, who knows why those particular targets. Just because a few other spree killers preceded their sprees by pointedly killing relatives or exes doesn't mean Cho necessarily had anything that specific in mind.

Agree though that for investigative purposes the police have to consider every possible scenario and connection they can think of.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 03:30 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 07:59 PM
Interesting article where Stephen King talks about the links between writing and violence:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20036014,00.html
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 04-25-2007, 04:40 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Why do you say this?
I guess I mean when you consider the ability he had to plan the whole attack, if getting into that dorm was part of it he would have come up with something. That's when he would have become good at relating to people, as awful and bizarre as that is to say. If it had nothing to do with Emily maybe he did plan on attacking people in that dorm and something stopped him until later. Something in his head or some outside factor, or he just couldn't go through with it until later when he did for whatever reason.

I don't care about him either but he is such an example of lack of proper intervention.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 06:01 PM   #35
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:59 AM
More of these complicated and obscure legal and enforcement procedures which leave pretty much every theoretically responsible party with a good reason for why they didn't do anything...
Quote:
Cho Didn't Get Court-Ordered Treatment

By Brigid Schulte and Chris L. Jenkins
Washington Post, May 7


Seung-Hui Cho never received the treatment ordered by a judge who declared him dangerously mentally ill less than two years before his rampage at Virginia Tech, law enforcement officials said, exposing flaws in Virginia's labyrinthine mental health system, including confusion about the law, spotty enforcement and inadequate funding.

Neither the court, the university nor community services officials followed up on the judge's order, according to dozens of interviews. Cho never got the treatment, according to authorities who have seen his medical files. And although state law says the community services board should have made sure Cho got help, a board official said that was "news to us."

It is impossible to know if the treatment, ordered in December 2005, would have prevented the massacre last month, which left 32 students and faculty dead before Cho killed himself. But interviews with state and university officials, lawmakers, special justices, attorneys, advocates and mental health agencies across the state made clear that what happened with Cho is not unusual in cases of "involuntary outpatient commitment" -- Virginia's name for the kind of order issued by Cho's judge. Cho, they said, slipped through a porous mental health system that suffers from muddled, seldom-enforced laws and inconsistent practices. Special justices who oversee hearings such as the one for Cho said they know that some people they have ordered into treatment have not gotten it. They find out when the person "does something crazy again," in the words of one justice -- when they are brought back into court because they are considered in imminent danger of harming themselves or others.

"The system doesn't work well," said Tom Diggs, executive director of the Commission on Mental Health Law Reform, which has been studying the state mental health system and will report to the General Assembly next year. Involuntary outpatient commitments are relatively uncommon in Virginia, officials said, because those in the system know they are not enforced. They are almost an act of faith.
.............................................................
New River Valley's Mike Wade maintained that the community services board's responsibility ended [with the temporary detention order]. "Unless, out of the commitment hearing, the judge issued outpatient treatment specific to our agency, that's where it ends with us," said Wade, the board's community liaison. "Since we weren't named the provider of that outpatient treatment, we weren't involved in the case."

Virginia law says community services boards -- the local agencies responsible for a range of mental health services -- "shall recommend a specific course of treatment and programs" for people such as Cho who are ordered to receive outpatient treatment. The law also says these boards "shall monitor the person's compliance." When read those portions of the statute, Wade said, "That's news to us."

A day later, on Dec. 14, 2005, Paul M. Barnett, the special judge, decided that Cho was an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness and ordered him into involuntary outpatient treatment. It is a practice that Terry W. Teel, Cho's court-appointed lawyer and a special judge himself, said they use "all the time" in Blacksburg. Special justices such as Barnett are lawyers with some expertise and training who are appointed by the jurisdiction's chief judge. Teel said he does not remember Cho or the details of his case. But he said Cho most likely would have been ordered to seek treatment at Virginia Tech's Cook Counseling Center. "I don't remember 100% if that's where he was directed," Teel said. "But nine times out of 10, that's where he would be." And there, he said, ended the court's responsibility. The court doesn't follow up, he said. "We have no authority."

Virginia Tech mental health officials declined to discuss Cho's case because of privacy laws. But they said they are never informed when a person is referred to their facilities by the court. "When a court gives a mandatory order that someone get outpatient treatment, that order is to the individual, not an agency," said Christopher Flynn, director of the Cook Counseling Center. The one responsible for ensuring that the mentally ill person receives help in these sorts of cases, he said, is the mentally ill person. "I've never seen someone delivered to me with an order that says, 'This person has been discharged; he's now your responsibility.' That doesn't happen."


Community service boards saw 115,000 mentally ill people in Virginia in 2005, at a cost of $127 million. Virginia is one of only eight states in the country to require that people be an "imminent" danger to themselves or others before they can even be brought before a judge. Advocates argue that that is such a high standard that only the most dangerous cases are considered and involuntary hospitalization is usually required. When involuntary outpatient treatment is ordered, officials say they often have no idea what happens to the mentally ill person once they leave the courtroom.

Tom Geib, director of Prince William's Community Services Board, who also serves on the Mental Health Law Reform Commission Task Force studying outpatient commitment, blames the lack of follow-up on a lack of resources. Caseworkers at his agency may make calls or write letters if someone ordered into involuntary outpatient treatment doesn't show up for appointments. "But in terms of going out and trying to find them, we don't have the resources to do that," he said.

Mary Ann Bergeron, head of the Virginia Association of Community Services Boards, which represents the 40 agencies within the state, said the boards are responsible for a person committed to outpatient care only "if he seeks treatment. But we can't give him treatment if he refuses it."

But advocates and some special justices disagree. "The services board job is not to say, 'We tried, and they don't want treatment.' Their job is to report back to the court," said Mark Bodner, a special justice in Fairfax County. He said that in his six-year tenure, that has happened only once.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com