Virginia Tech Debacle/ Work of a Deranged Man............Or

eoe wrote:

Well, this morning in the NYTimes we read that a student can develop mental issues on campus and the parents are the last to know so, I wonder now if his parents were even aware that he was such a menace? We all know how kids may behave one way in the home and are completely different people outside of the home so there is the possibility that his parents didn't have a clue and in that case, my heart does go out to them.

That is interesting. I haven't read the Times yet this morning so I'm a little behind but yesterday while I was looking up some other things in the VA State Laws, they do have a provision that if a "student" communicates a suicide threat, the parents must be notified within 24 hours. (This is in addition to a bunch of other people/agencies that needed to be notified.)

After reading your post it dawned on me that it didn't mention who qualifies as a "student". Maybe that law only applies to High School and below...

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

I am not talking about the phrase "Person of interest". This I get. I am talking about the phrase "A shooter in custody".

I'm curious about this too. My best guess at this point is that they thought the boyfriend of the girl who was shot WAS the shooter. As in, the person that is now considered the "person of interest," was, at the time, thought to be the shooter.

That would fit with the fact that they thought it was over, that they knew what was going on, and were talking to the guy (boyfriend of shot girl) when the shootings started in the Engineering building, and then let him go.

Wait, did you say that was 10:53 or something on the timeline? Like after the second shootings? Hmmm.

Who was the email from? As in, if it was from Virginia Tech, maybe they were just confused.

I couldn't find the timeline. (Checked fishin's link, "timeline" just led to a slideshow, no particular info.)

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

I haven't read the Times yet this morning so I'm a littel behind but yesterady while I was looking up some other things in the VA State Laws, they do have a provision that if a "student" communicates a suicide threat, the parents must be notifoed within 24 hours. (This is in addition to a bunch of other people/agencies that needed to be notified.)

After reading your post it dawned on me that it didn't mention who qualifies as a "student". Maybe that law only appiles to High School and below...

You know, your reference to this notification requirement, and other points you have made regarding the NCIC and the requirements with regard to people who have been evaluated as a psychiatric risk and the purchase of handguns lead me to wonder if this event is not evidence of a blase attitude on the part of bureaucracies which are responsible for a train of events which did not take place, and that in large measure, this guy slipped through the cracks not because there weren't effective policies in place, but because they weren't acted upon.

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

Well, this morning in the NYTimes we read that a student can develop mental issues on campus and the parents are the last to know so, I wonder now if his parents were even aware that he was such a menace? We all know how kids may behave one way in the home and are completely different people outside of the home so there is the possibility that his parents didn't have a clue and in that case, my heart does go out to them.

From what I heard on the radio (which was almost non stop on for the past few days), they were worried that their son is suicidal. They alerted the school and the school did take action at that time (counseling? or perhaps that involuntary incarceration at the mental healh clinic? i didn't catch what they did exactly, but initiative came from the parents)

I do feel for the parents. What they're going through must be unfathomable.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You know, your reference to this notification requirement, and other points you have made regarding the NCIC and the requirements with regard to people who have been evaluated as a psychiatric risk and the purchase of handguns lead me to wonder if this event is not evidence of a blase attitude on the part of bureaucracies which are responsible for a train of events which did not take place, and that in large measure, this guy slipped through the cracks not because there weren't effective policies in place, but because they weren't acted upon.

That is the conclusion I have been coming to. I'm having a devil of a time finding out what the actual policies/laws are on the medical/mental health reporting side though. Their laws/policies seem to be shrouded in more privacy rules than our actual medical records are.

0 Replies

Did police not get there until after the shooter was already dead?

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

From what I heard on the radio (which was almost non stop on for the past few days), they were worried that their son is suicidal.

This on top of all everything else? His writings, the sneaky photographs and the stalking? I really don't understand why this guy was still in school. It's neither here nor there now, I know, but because he was over 21 years of age, there was no way for some authority to take charge of him?

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:
From what I heard on the radio (which was almost non stop on for the past few days), they were worried that their son is suicidal.

This on top of all everything else? His writings, the sneaky photographs and the stalking? I really don't understand why this guy was still in school. It's neither here nor there now, I know, but because he was over 21 years of age, there was no way for some authority to take charge of him?

They did take charge of him at one point. After the stalking incidents he voiced suicide threats to his roommate who reported it to the campus police. In December 2005 the campus police took him for a psychiatric evaluation. The group that did the eval then had him involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility.

So all of this was known in December 2005. Whether there was any follow-up and the quality of it remains to be revealed. One can only presume that someone determined he wasn't a threat to himself or his fellow classmates and allowed him to return to the dorm and classes.

0 Replies

one can only be held involuntarily for 48 hours. School officials tried to convince him to get treatment voluntarily, but i guess he didn't (don't know). They had to let him go after two days though, or they would break the law.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

fishin wrote:
I haven't read the Times yet this morning so I'm a littel behind but yesterady while I was looking up some other things in the VA State Laws, they do have a provision that if a "student" communicates a suicide threat, the parents must be notifoed within 24 hours. (This is in addition to a bunch of other people/agencies that needed to be notified.)

After reading your post it dawned on me that it didn't mention who qualifies as a "student". Maybe that law only appiles to High School and below...

You know, your reference to this notification requirement, and other points you have made regarding the NCIC and the requirements with regard to people who have been evaluated as a psychiatric risk and the purchase of handguns lead me to wonder if this event is not evidence of a blase attitude on the part of bureaucracies which are responsible for a train of events which did not take place, and that in large measure, this guy slipped through the cracks not because there weren't effective policies in place, but because they weren't acted upon.

More news this morning shows where the holes in the system are popping up:

"Campus killer's purchases apparently within gun laws
POSTED: 5:48 a.m. EDT, April 19, 2007

(CNN) -- When Cho Seung-Hui purchased two handguns this year, he apparently followed the letter of the law to get the weapons he eventually used in a shooting rampage on the Virginia Tech campus.

Some questions have been raised over Cho's mental health and whether that should have prevented him from being able to purchase the handguns.

A Virginia judge in December 2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment for him, according to court documents.

Special Justice Paul M. Barnett, who filled out the certification and order for involuntary admission to a mental health facility, checked the box that said: "The alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and deemed suitable."

"Only if I order them into a hospital is there any effect on their gun rights," Barnett told CNN on Wednesday.

Virginia and federal law prohibit the sale of guns to anyone who has been sent unwillingly to a mental institution."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the law says "institution" and Cho was sent to a "facility" and apparently there is a distinction.

I don't know the reason for that distinction but at the moment I'm inclined to say that it's bogus and should go away in a hurry. If someone is legally determined to be an "imminent danger" it seems to me that they are a danger regardless of the classification of the place where they receive treatment.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

I have vast quantities of sympathy for the victims and their families and I don't think there is anything that can come out that will make these actions excusable, but I do see room for the possibility of something akin to sympathy for his family (and even possibly for him) once I know more of the facts.

I've worked with some dozens of mentally ill offenders.

I've learnt during that time not to focus on what they did but have have sympathy with them as an ill person.

Sometimes, such seemed impossible.

0 Replies

If faculty and other students had been kind toward this student, he never would have committed such violent acts.

By the way, where are his parents?

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

If faculty and other students had been kind toward this student, he never would have committed such violent acts.

That's an assumption you can't possibly confirm. There is no way to identify precisely how he perceived his interactions with others vs how we was actually treated. And there is no way to predict what he might or might not done at some future time.

The relative measure of kindness given is subjective. Who was unkind? How were they unkind?

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

If faculty and other students had been kind toward this student, he never would have committed such violent acts.

By the way, where are his parents?

This is about the stupidest remark i've read on this topic. If you read this thread, you'll learn something about his parents.

0 Replies

It sounds like the professor who met with him individually was very kind. She really seemed to make an extra effort, and to try to get through to him.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Miller wrote:
If faculty and other students had been kind toward this student, he never would have committed such violent acts.

By the way, where are his parents?

This is about the stupidest remark i've read on this topic. If you read this thread, you'll learn something about his parents.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

i don't know what it's like in the united states , but in canada it is usually quite a long drwn-out procedure to have someone committed to a mental institution .
someone considered "a danger" may be put under observation for a short time , but unless the person has either committed violent acts or if psychiatrists can show that there is grave and imminent danger , a person would not be committed to a mental institurion - that is a pretty rare situation in canada .
i believe current thinking is that people should generally not be institutionalized but live in the community with assistance from mental health workers as required .
most (closed) mental health facilities in canada have been phased and been replaced by small home-like facilities within residental areas - we have one in our neighbourhood and it does not present any problems - or such people live on their own or with their families without direct supervision .
i guess incidents such as at virginia tech are the price that society needs to be willing to assume to give the majority of people with mental health problems a chance to live a life outside of large institutions .
of course the people killed at VT and their families paid a very high price for that "freedom" of people with mental health problems .
i doubt that it will ever be possible to eliminate such mistakes as happened at VT .
hbg

I would have to agree - we sometimes put the rights of individual above those the community.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I've learnt during that time not to focus on what they did but have have sympathy with them as an ill person.

I sympathize with both the deceased killer as well as his poor parents, who still have to claim his body.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

I would have to agree - we sometimes put the rights of individual above those the community.

We have what is called "balance of rights".
And therefor done by judge.
(You need the expertise of a physican and of a civil servant from the regulatory agency to get someone against his will in an hospital for mentally ill. Then, within 48 hours, a judge rules about the further stay.)

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

Miller wrote:
Who was unkind? How were they unkind?

Va. Tech shooter was laughed at
BLACKSBURG, Va. - Long before he boiled over, Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui was picked on, pushed around and laughed at over his shyness and the strange way he talked when he was a schoolboy in the Washington suburbs, former classmates say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting

0 Replies

Virginia Tech Debacle/ Work of a Deranged Man............Or

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know