More questions than answers

So, yesterday, I was having a conversation with a woman who shall remain nameless (let’s just say - she gave birth to me) about the Virginia Tech killings. Now, she is more conservative and more Republican than any of the people on this site put together (and then times that by 1000) - and yet, the conversation perplexed me, considering her take of life, politics and such.

It all started by her saying, “Someone should have done something before it got this bad. The school. The teachers. Someone.”
I said, “So, what you’re saying then is… it takes a village?”
She paused. “That’s not funny, Lisa”, she responded.

Hindsight is always 20/20..always. But considering our very liberal society - what could have been done, really? We have privacy laws, anti-discrimination laws and this funny thing that if someone has not actually committed a crime, we don’t incarcerate them. Not too mention the ever-looming threat of the ACLU and it’s band of merry attorneys around every corner, causing us to watch ourselves, every single step of the way for fear that if we offend someone - we, or our institutions, will be thrown into costly lawsuits. Civil liberties extend to the mentally ill, make no mistake. You cannot just take someone who is metally ill and lock ‘em up, for fear of what they may do next.

Yet, that seemingly would have been the only answer for Cho. If he had been locked up - none of this would have happened. 32 lives would have been spared. Virginia Tech would not have experienced this horrendous act.

What would he have been locked up for, though?

Based on what we’ve learned about Cho - there were definitley warning signs. Big. Flashing. Neon. Warning Signs. In his own words: “You had a hundred billion chances and ways to avoid today. … “

Consider privacy and anti-discrimination laws that are in place. Can you really imagine a kid getting kicked out of a college for writing a violent play? Or, more serious, locking someone up in a mental institution because of a piece of fiction they wrote? Where would Stephen King or Quentin Tarantino be today, if that were the case?

They did suspect that the kid was dangerous.. everyone, his fellow students, his teachers, the VA judge…. however, is that enough to take action? What action does one propose? Kick him out of the dorms? Recently, CUNY officials had to pay $65,000 to forestall a lawsuit by a student barred from her dormitory after her suicide attempt and hospitalization. Do you think the University would position themselves for a potential lawsuit for discriminating against a kid because he is thought to be dangerous? A miniority kid, at that? That would be an ACLU dream, wouldn’t it?

And what of the parents? A 1974 law, known as the Buckley Amendment in tribute to its architect, former senator, James Buckley, makes it illegal for administrators to tell parents almost any details about their child’s college life — including serious medical problems — without the student’s permission. HIPPA laws look at 18 years olds as adults, and therefore, their medical records are private. It is against the law to share thsoe medical (and psychiatric) records with anyone without the patients express consent. How many 18 year old patients want their parents knowing they’ve undergone psychiatric counselling and evaluation for dangerous behaviours like stalking, starting a fire, and the like? I’m not saying his parents do not have complicity, but did they know the madman that was emerging in their son while he was at VTech?

But the parents must have known that the kid had problems. Issues like these just don’t crop up one day.. but, rather, they fester for years. Do parents with troubled kids deny those kids the chance for higher education because he may someday do the unthinkable? Should parents not attempt to allow these types of kids the chance for a better life - - in hopes that a glimpse of a bigger world and better life may hold hope that something could switch inside the kids head and turn him around.. just a little. Just enough? Or should parents hold these kids back, in fear of what might happen if his head does not get turned around? What is the answer here? Strike a deal with the kid…. ‘we’ll only pay for college if you attend regular therapy sessions while you are attending.” Would that have stopped him?

Let’s be realistic - parents cannot stop an 18 year old child from doing anything, especially if that 18 year old child has his own thoughts and ideas of how his life should be lived. Parents can try - but ultimately, an 18 year old is an adult. Parents can kick and scream until they are blue in the face… and that 18 year old child can walk out the door and no one can stop him.

Where were the parents? Probably breathing a sigh of relief every single night when they laid their head down to sleep that their son didn’t do anything horrible by the end of that day. Until April 16, 2007, that is.

Do we put these people inside plastic bubbles? Insulate them from the rest of society? The clinically insane, or borderline insane, who roam our streets every single day - what of them? They pose a potential threat to society just merely based on certain aspects of their behaviour that is not considered normal…so do we lock them up based on a potential threat? What is the answer here? Is there one?

Flat affect.
Silent.
No friends.
Angry.
History of stalking.
Violent writings.

Should school officials have taken that information and tossed him out? That wouldn’t be enough. That would just be taking the problem away from Virginia Tech and placing it elsewhere in another community in the USA where he probably would have acted out in the same manner.

A judge in VA found him to be ‘a danger to self and others’ and recommended him for inpatient counselling. He was then seen by a psychiatrist. A patient that has not committed a criminial act and who denies the urge to hurt himself, or others, is released. End of story. A hospital cannot legally hold anyone in this country under those circumstances. There are legal implications - not too mention a shortage of hospital beds to house every single person that we think might hold a potential for dangerous behaviour sometime in the future.

Take it from someone who has worked in acute adult and adolescent psychiatric facilities - - there are some very dangerous people roaming free in our streets. People who cannot be sheltered by ‘the system’ because they have rights as human beings. Human beings who just happen to have some screws loose and rattling around. And let me just also state, as a former psychiatric nurse - - trying to get someone who is mentally ill hospitalized against their will is NOT and easy thing to accomplish. There is red tape, legal loopholes, evaluations, court rulings - and more often than not, the rights of the individual overrule.

It’s a slippery slope to head down…one that suggests something should have been done to someone who had not been charged with a criminal act and who displayed questionable behaviours deemed to be potentially dangerous in the eyes of the greater society.

Do not, for one second, get me wrong on this - - I am NOT defending Cho or those of his ilk. What he did was undeniably horrific, selfish and utterly, unforgiveable and inhumane. There is no excusing Cho’s behavior. His elaborate preparations show a perfectly lucid, resourceful, and intelligent malignant person hell bent on murdering as many people as possible.

He was crying out for help in the only way the insane know how to - - through his actions and behaviours. You don’t often find an insane person walking into a clinic and saying something like “I need help - I want to kill people” — so they communicate through their actions. Unfortunately, we tend to find out only when it’s too late that they really needed help. However, you cannot just pluck someone out of society because you think he might do something, maybe.

Hindsight tells us we should have seen it coming. However, in the meantime - what do you do? What can you really do?

We know the warning signs. Columbine taught us that much. What do we do with those warning signs, however? Do folks really want to take a hard look at our privacy and anti-discrimination laws and say they apply to everyone, except those who we (the royal we) consider to be dangerous to society? Somehow, I don’t believe that is the answer here, either. Would that not take us back to the mentality of the Salem Witch Trials, allowing the powers that be to decide who is mentally stable, and who is not? Don’t be fooled into thinking that the freedoms in this country come without a cost. There is a cost - and, at times, the cost is a very heavy one to pay.

Danger is a fact of life. It’s at every turn, and unless you live in a bubble - you probably come face to face with it every single day, without ever knowing it. I believe that if just one of those teachers were armed, it could have been stopped sooner before it got worse. I believe that Cho was determined enough to obtain the guns he killled with - - even if the gun laws were tougher, stronger - or even if it were illegal to obtain them.

FACT: Criminals do illegal things.

I believe that because our society is one where we do protect our ill and frail and where we do not arbitrarily lock people up because of questionable behaviours - then we do run the risk of dealing with some very dangerous types out there. There are Cho’s in this country everywhere. He could be the guy driving the cab you’re taking to 82nd and Lexington. He could be the kid bagging your groceries at the supermarket. He could be the kid dating your daughter.

He could be the kid living under your roof.

Does it take a village? Is there responsibility to be handed out to anyone aside from the murderer who comitted the act? If so, how would you propose that anyone in any of the situations could have..should have, done anything different that would have stopped this horrible act, before it began? If someone has answers… I’m all ears.

One last word on the proposed One Day of Blog Silence movement that has emerged in the blogosphere that suggests the following:

Silence can say more than a thousand words.

This day shall unite us all about this unbelievable painful & shocking event and show some respect and love to those who lost their loved ones.

On April 30th 2007, the Blogosphere will hold a One-Day Blog Silence in honor of the victims at Virginia Tech. More then 30 died at the US college massacre.

I, for one, will not participate. Silence is a problem, overall. Kate has it summed up: “I have found that atrocities, horrors and evil are best met with loud outrage shouted from the rooftops… not silences intended to be symbolic but representing little more than a token gesture.” - ElectricVenom

This blog will not be silent.

Must Reads:
In Loco Parentis - Not - NY Sun
A Moment of Silence - Washington Post, by Charles Krauthammer
‘That Was the Desk I Chose to Die Under’ - WaPo
Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster - CNN - Ted Nugent

And finally …. Was Cho taught to hate? - American Thinker, by James Lewis