PDA

View Full Version : Va. Tech Killer Alarmed Students & Teachers in Past


samsung101
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:12 PM
Sadly, legally, they did what seemed right at the time.
Concern.
In our PC world, no one wanted to say he was 'crazy' before
we realize he was a murdering idiot. A public state school is
bound by federal and state laws on how to handle students.


A woman who thought he was stalking her, called the campus police,
and yet she did not wish to press charges. No police record in that
case.

Parents worried he was suicidal, warned campus officials, they talked
to him, he entered a mental health facility (voluntarily?) - again, no
police record for that sort of thing.

Other students feared him in class, and he alarmed professors.

Legally, they couldn't do much - being afraid of someone, being
alarmed by their writings, being annoyed he was such a freak -
isn't a crime.


Writing evil deadly things in a creative writing class, an english
class - is not a crime.

In the end, I think the University did do what it was supposed to do
regarding his mental issues, and professor concern. Without a crime,
without a specific threat - they could not do much more. He kept his
grades up enough I guess, to stay in good standing.

I do wonder had any of the girls he stalked, had pressed charges, perhaps,
he might have been expelled earlier. Just one more thing to think of.

It does make one wonder why he was at school at all. He was a 23
year old senior, who still lived at the dorm and not off campus by
that time, didn't have any friends, hated the place, hated life, and
wanted to die.

Hated rich kids, hated Christians, hated the school. Sounds like he
spent a lot of time on the internet and watching late night tv.



In the end, he was a fixated loser, not insane. He knew how to stay in
a good university, live off his parents money at school, exist day to day,
write enough for his class work, work computers, be active in computer
message boards or chatrooms, get over to a gun shop, buy a gun, wait,
buy another gun, get big chains, and maneuver his way around a campus
to kill people he didn't even know.

As a senior, that easy life he had on the parents dime was coming to
an end. What was this loser going to do with his English degree and
hatred of all things Virginia Tech? Nothing.

Lord Nelson
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:38 PM
He was a loser indeed. Even his roomates implied that he was one. He spoke to no one, had 0 friends and kept to himself. I still find it strange that he was not booted out oif his college for setting fire to a room there. If it was me at my old university I would have been kicked out immediately. Virginia tech has problems with discipline and security police are wholly inefficient. Glad that this loser killed himself instead of being caught and going into prison for rest of his life.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:52 PM
What does spending time on the net and watching late night TV have to do with your argument?
A good portion of this board watches late night TV and spends time on the net but I doubt they have the real capability to do what this guy has done.
Just being a devoted tennis fan like many are on here means a lot of late nights watching tennis or looking at scoreboards. :lol:

It's a pretty big leap you're making.

samsung101
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:15 PM
I don't see how the university could have foreseen he would do what
he did however.

2nd guessing and hindsight are easy at this point.

We can all do the 'connect the dots' scenario, and it makes
sense now. But, at the time, he was one of many college
kids with problems or issues the campus cops come in contact
with on a huge 30,000 student campus.

At best, I think the university could have expelled him for
non-academic issues and behavior. Whose to say he
wouldn't have taken it out on a professor or counselor or
someone else for any reason.



He was bent on killing and violence.
One way or another, he was likely going to do it to someone,
some place.

samsung101
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:22 PM
Could the university have kept the man (he wasn't a kid) off the campus
when he was allowed to have outpatient treatment by the court?

I don't think so.

This is a bigger issue than the guns - how far can a university
go to keep a student off campus who has not done anything illegal
or hurt anyone - yet. Can they bar a student on the possibility
he or she may hurt someone?



Now, the new info he made tapes and sent them to NBC.

He was not a victim.

He was a smart guy who had major problems, who wanted
fame after death, who wanted to use every excuse possible
for his own shortcomings. He'll get the attention he thought
he didn't get in life, by killing innocent people.

This is the part I hate in these things - they make the killer,
the loser, the victim on tv and print, and probably a movie
down the line. He's not worth the attention, other than to
find out how to prevent it in the future if possible. Not just
to get ratings on tv.

I hope they don't make him out to be a Timothy McVeigh,
Columbine duo, who get more fame in death and act, then
they deserve. Who spur on a new generation of wackos
who cling to their sick actions.

The guy was offered help by family, friends, professors who
went out of their way to deal with him, even the police, and
the girls he stalked gave him breaks. He was given a lot of
chances. Who the heck was paying for him to be in school
anyway? Who paid his room and board? This guys free ride
at college was going to end, and he was an English major
w/o merit or talent.

Family, friends, the school officials all seem to think his first
danger was to himself, more than others.



His problems were beyond anything a college cop or
English professor could deal with.

HippityHop
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:30 PM
The ACLU (and probably some who post here) would have been outraged had this monster been removed and locked up against his will. Does anyone doubt that?

griffin
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:36 PM
In fact, people get locked up (committed) against their will all the time because they're deemed unstable and a threat to themselves or others.

The ACLU has argued cases where the person committed wasn't given an opportunity to appeal, but they haven't attacked the principle.

HippityHop
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:46 PM
In fact, people get locked up (committed) against their will all the time because they're deemed unstable and a threat to themselves or others.

The ACLU has argued cases where the person committed wasn't given an opportunity to appeal, but they haven't attacked the principle.


Perhaps. But I wonder what their stance would have been in this particular case.

venusdemilo
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:55 PM
This freak sent a package to NBC news with photos, a CD, and a rambling statement, apparently in between the two shootings...he apparently WANTED the fame, WANTED the notoriety. He deserves to rot in hell for what he did.

Lord Nelson
Apr 18th, 2007, 11:40 PM
Perhaps. But I wonder what their stance would have been in this particular case.

They would have said it was racist. :rolleyes:
Anyway who really cares what this organization says. I prefer the government and that alone to take care of society. Maybe communism is not that bad after all.

griffin
Apr 19th, 2007, 03:18 PM
Perhaps. But I wonder what their stance would have been in this particular case.

spoken like someone who gets their information about the ACLU from blogs and message boards.

samsung101
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:31 PM
Mental illness is not a reason to be kicked out of a public school.

He was 21, 22, 23, an adult. Not a child. The university and his
family could not force him to do anything, unless he actually
did a crime. He was careful to avoid that point.

Being a creep isn't a crime.
Being a jerk isn't a crime on a campus.
The university followed the rules.

He was never charged with a crime.
He was never forced into a mental facility.

Mental illness and public records - there is a very clear
line what a public body can find out or get to - w/o permission
of the person or a crime being done.

Officials reviewing his mental health, did not put an urgent
warning on his records, nor did they encourage incarceration.
They could have. He knew enough to get by, and or fool them.

timafi
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:07 PM
I think the laws should be changed :mad:
This man had an history of mental disorder and his case unless I'm wrong was thrown out for some reason:shrug:
schools should have the authority to take actions without any fear of a lawsuit taken against them by the mentally sick student:mad:
parents should know about the kid being a danger to himself/herself and to society and take actions:mad:
authorities too should have legal rights to lock this person if parents and patient are refusing to seek help in all cases if probable violent act is possible:mad:

samsung101
Apr 20th, 2007, 04:33 PM
The young adult male (and he was a legal adult) somehow managed to
graduate from high school, get into a popular and good college locally,
and get to his senior year. The guy - for all his troubles - knew how to
get by, and do well, when he wanted to.

Autism is not a death sentence, and many people live with it
and have productive lives. Many do not.

But, the public school system today (maybe not when he was
younger) looks for it, and public funding helps family w/it as well.

If he had done any of the things he did in college as an adult, in
high school, as a minor, he would have been removed in todays
system. Most schools have zero tolerance for threats, threatening
behavior, violence, even violent writings. In college, the school
had no real recourse- being different and edgy and odd is not a reason
to be kicked out of school.



If he was passed along from grade to grade, it's quite an indictment
of the public school system. But, I think the guy probably did do more
than well enough. He was lousy at communication and talking. Lots of
people are as kids or adults.

He did not have to be in college.
He chose to be.

He didn't have to at that college, there are plenty in the state and region,
country. If he hated it, he could have left, w/or w/o parents permission
or help.

He comes across to me as a narcissistic, spoiled, indulged, troubled,
bully.

He was ill, that's not hard to see. But, he wasn't so ill he didn't know
how to survive in college, go to class, do his work, and be left alone.

The guys world revolved only around him.

I don't blame his parents or family for this. He was 23. Not 13.
He had a life unto himself, and he chose willingly to carry it out
as he did.

samsung101
Apr 20th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Cho was the personification of evil.

He had a lot of problems, issues, etc.

But, lots of people have social issues, mental problems,
family difficulty, loner personality, and they don't
shoot up a campus, kill 30+ people. He was evil.