Another School Shooting (Virginia Tech)

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian
I don't trust the benevolence of government. I'm simply saying that owning a handgun isn't going to stop the big, bad government if the government turns all oppressive on us. First off, they've got Tanks, etc. Unless you want citizens to have ready access to anti-tank rockets, ground to air missiles, and various other heavy-duty military equipment, the government is still gonna roll over the "armed citizenry" easily.

I dunno, the Iraqi insurgents have done a pretty good job of keeping the US military busy despite a lack of tanks etc.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Arrian
By the way, regarding mental health help... the article I just read made it sound like multiple people tried to get him to go to therapy and he wouldn't. There was concern, but realistically what could they do? The woman he stalked didn't press charges. He wrote odd, violent plays... ok, but he didn't actually *do* anything violent (until yesterday), so how do you have the men in white coats lock him up?

I mean, for those arguing that gun control is bad (violation of 2nd amendment! Frrrreeeeeeedom!!!!), how is forcing people into mental hospitals good?

-Arrian

solution: those that want guns cant have them, and those that dont want guns must have them

[Thorn]

I want guns does that mean I can't have them then.................grrrrrrrrrrrr

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
By the way, regarding mental health help... the article I just read made it sound like multiple people tried to get him to go to therapy and he wouldn't. There was concern, but realistically what could they do? The woman he stalked didn't press charges. He wrote odd, violent plays... ok, but he didn't actually *do* anything violent (until yesterday), so how do you have the men in white coats lock him up?

I mean, for those arguing that gun control is bad (violation of 2nd amendment! Frrrreeeeeeedom!!!!), how is forcing people into mental hospitals good?

-Arrian

Realistically, you can make some fairly minor changes to laws, and some policy changes with regard to how existing laws are enforced.

If he had had the clap and refused to stop having unprotected "consensual" sex (i.e. consent to sex, but without the disclosure of having a STD), existing public health laws in several states could have been applied to lock him up (albeit not for long, and with the ACLU whining)

Technically, under most state's stalking laws, it wouldn't require the stalkee's pressing charges to have charged him - it might take her cooperation to convict, but the authority to charge was most likely there. (I'm not familiar with those specific statutes in VA, nor with their criminal procedure, but given that librul California lets DA's do this, I doubt the good ol' Commonwealth has refused to define stalking as a public offense.

That's just one issue - the fire in the dorm, the stalking, the poetry and "plays," the threats of suicide (one of the rationale applied in most states for suicide or attempted suicide to be illegal is to give the state the authority to intervene without consent) - there was enough of a pattern of behavior, in the aggregate, that public health laws should allow for hospitalization and evaluation without his consent. Not to lock him up and throw away the proveribal key, but certainly a psychiatric evaluation which could/should have resulted in a public mental health record that would have disqualified him from legally buying firearms.

There was certainly enough behavior, in the aggregate, to kick his ass out of school. Maybe he would have done something elsewhere, but he might not have managed the same scale.

The cop-out argument is that nothing could be done without some major infringement of civil liberties. This guy didn't come up out of the blue, he had enough blips on the radar screen that it was possible to put together the pieces of the puzzle and figure out that there was trouble. It would be stupid (but typical) to either look for someone to blame, or to try to duck blame by whitewashing mistakes that were made, either directly or by following policy. The point should be to train people to look at patterns of acts and behavior and put them into context, and to allow those patterns of acts to be used in the context of civil commitment orders.

[Arrian]

I guess what I'm saying is that people DID see the patern of behavior and DID try to do something about it.

So you're saying VA's laws could be changed such that this fellow could have been forced to see a shrink? And if the shrink thought he was dangerous, he could be locked up?

I find it interesting that disallowing gun ownership is double-plus ungood, but locking people away because a shrink says he's crazy is a-ok. Kid in your class wierd? Call in the men in white coats.

Perhaps that's an exaggeration on my part. This guy *was* severely ****ed up and needed a psyche evaluation.

-Arrian

[Thorn]

Do you think I need pyschiatric evaluation, be honest........

[Arrian]

You? Nah, you're just an attention whore. Harmless.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

The cop-out argument is that nothing could be done without some major infringement of civil liberties. This guy didn't come up out of the blue, he had enough blips on the radar screen that it was possible to put together the pieces of the puzzle and figure out that there was trouble.

There are plenty of people with the same blips on the screen that don't shoot 30 people.

[Thorn]

Hmm mass murder and hitler's birthday hasn't begun yet........ oh woe april 25, lookout people, I think that day is blackend for all eternity...... it seems....... I'm staying indoors on that day....

[Kuciwalker]

I mean, if we lock up everyone who writes crazy suicidal rants or whatever on their Livejournal, we'd have to lock up... everyone who posts on Livejournal.

[Thorn]

Lock me up I say, then you all are doomed bwahahahahaha..........

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
I guess what I'm saying is that people DID see the patern of behavior and DID try to do something about it.

Referring him to counseling was pretty minimal. The fire in the dorm could have been technically charged as arson, then you use that.

So you're saying VA's laws could be changed such that this fellow could have been forced to see a shrink? And if the shrink thought he was dangerous, he could be locked up?

I'm saying that (probably) VA's laws already allow that outcome (California's and Oregon's do, and you do the blue state / red state math), based on his overt actions. You couldn't do it for crap writing with puerile faux-violent ideation, in and of itself.

When you take that stuff and spice it up a bit with harassment, stalking, trespass and arson (if you were going to take a hard ass, throw the book at him approach), you could certainly plead out the various criminal charges with a mental health alternative to jail time.

I find it interesting that disallowing gun ownership is double-plus ungood, but locking people away because a shrink says he's crazy is a-ok. Kid in your class wierd? Call in the men in white coats.

Perhaps that's an exaggeration on my part. This guy *was* severely ****ed up and needed a psyche evaluation.

-Arrian

Disallowing gun ownership across the board, regardless of legitimate use, is something different entirely. Even if this guy had an involuntary commitment order for a psych evaluation and was then kicked out, that order would have flagged him on the background check.

You are exaggerating, because this moron went well past the weird kid stage into criminally chargeable conduct, even if each incident could be considered minor in isolation from the overall context of his pattern of behavior. Maybe people wanted to not rock the boat, not push too hard, not be hard-assed, and hoped that there'd be a positive result. At the least, they looked at each incident in isolation, and tried to downplay the significance.

[Arrian]

By the way, I hadn't heard about the arson part. The article I read today didn't mention it...

It did, however, mention this:

According to court papers, on Dec. 13, 2005, a magistrate ordered Cho to undergo an evaluation at Carilion St. Albans Hospital. The magistrate signed the order because of evidence Cho was a danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness. The next day, according to court records, a special justice approved outpatient treatment for Cho.

A medical examination conducted Dec. 14 found that Cho's "affect is flat. ... He denies suicidal ideations. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal."

So he *was* sent for a psyche evaluation, albeit a year and a half ago...

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The cop-out argument is that nothing could be done without some major infringement of civil liberties. This guy didn't come up out of the blue, he had enough blips on the radar screen that it was possible to put together the pieces of the puzzle and figure out that there was trouble.

There are plenty of people with the same blips on the screen that don't shoot 30 people.

Really? In addition to his ****e writing, you have technical arson, stalking, possible cyberstalking? (depending on VA's state laws, but the conduct would violate Federal law if the calls/internet communications had been across state lines, and would violate analogous state laws in many states.)

How many people have those blips on the screen?

And of the ones which do, but haven't killed anyone yet, should you just ignore it and figure it's a phase they'll grow out of? Or should there be some more aggressive intervention, even if the net result is nothing more than a state public health officer mental health record?

A record that would prevent them, from, say, legally buying a firearm, working in a daycare facility, obtaining licensure as a physician or pharmacist, driving a school bus, or getting a contractor's license to purchase, store and handle explosives? Or maybe it's just adding to their burden to take away that possible range of career options?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
By the way, I hadn't heard about the arson part. The article I read today didn't mention it...

It did, however, mention this:



So he *was* sent for a psyche evaluation, albeit a year and a half ago...

-Arrian

Ouch, I can see the lawsuits coming.

It would be interesting to see the exam protocal and read the full report.