Shooting at Virginia Tech

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Now the big issue is "there were indications that this guy would go postal, but we couldn't do anything other than recommend counselling", and that VT should have "done something". Hopefully Wolf can shed some light on this, but it doesn't seem like some person or institution can force action on someone because they behave outside the norm.

I actually faced a similar issue some semesters ago. From day one in my physiology class, a male student sat in the very back of class and spent a lot of the time talking to himself. He was loud enough that he was repeatedly asked to quiet down and the prof eventually pulled him aside and had a word with him, but the only thing he would say to her was that he "hated her" and "hated the class". Some days later after another class, the student punched another for no reason at all. Police were called, no charges were pressed (the victim later said he simply wanted to know what prompted the unexpected assault from this person he didn't know and didn't even speak to, but got no clear answer) and life went on. One day, he stopped showing up to class, much to everyone's relief. Most found him highly annoying and "just weird". We figured with the grades he was getting that he finally gave up and dropped.

We learned, later, that wasn't the case. He had snapped inside a Radio Shack in a local mall and killed two random people before killing himself.

He had acted strange in class, had at least one violent outburst, but there simply wasn't enough there to baker act him. For this student majoring in psychology, the professors that all had degrees in the field didn't pick up on enough of his warning signs to do anything about it.

[LabRat]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

He had acted strange in class, had at least one violent outburst, but there simply wasn't enough there to baker act him. For this student majoring in psychology, the professors that all had degrees in the field didn't pick up on enough of his warning signs to do anything about it.

It's a catch 22. We are supposed to have a right to act/say/do whatever we want as long as it doesn't 'hurt' anyone else. Unfortunately, the warning signs of potential future harm usually fall under this so that those who recognize the symptoms of someting serious can't do anything.

However, if we allow 'experts' to have people 'tagged' for closer examination, there will be a group of people who will pipe up about infringing on personal freedoms. It's a very very thin line in a murky grey area.

As a person with a history of mental illness, I rely on my family to point out to me when I need a little tweaking. If I didn't have them, or friends I could trust, I could easily get to a very low point, (though I doubt I would cause anyone but myself harm).

I'm not advocating for troops of rogue psychiatrists roaming the streets with rorschach cards and handcuffs, but it would be nice if we (americans in general) felt a little better about asking someone if they are OK, and reporting it to someone who might actually be able to DO something if there is obviously something off about a person. What the DO is, is the question to be debated for the next decade...

I haven't heard enough yet about Cho Seung-hui to make any conclusions myself regarding if there was anything that could have been done to minimize his potential for being dangerous to others.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by LabRat

..I'm not advocating for troops of rogue psychiatrists roaming the streets with rorschach cards and handcuffs, but it would be nice if we (americans in general) felt a little better about asking someone if they are OK, and reporting it to someone who might actually be able to DO something if there is obviously something off about a person. What the DO is, is the question to be debated for the next decade...
...

I'd like to report some strange behavior from the dork that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

I actually faced a similar issue some semesters ago. ...

I just remembered that I had an "encounter" in the early eighties. I sold glasses to a young woman. She told me that she had just been in the service for about six months (as I remember). I commented that it was strange to only be in for six months, and she said that she and the service made a mutaual agreement that she should be discharged. Her name was Sylvia Seegrist.

It was estimated that this woman had fired twenty rounds, and the toll that day was two dead and eight wounded. When she was stopped, she had 10 bullets left in one of her clips.