VT SHOOTING: Background Checks, anyone? *updated

Ain't this grand...  the shooter was known as a stalker. UPDATE: in 2005, he underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation.

Not saying we need gun control, not saying we need to BAN anything.

Just saying- can we take the time to make sure we're not selling weapons to deeply troubled individuals?

As FleetAdmiral has noted in the comments, Virginia has a instant background check.  That background check apparently goes beyond a criminal record search:

Virginia: State law requires gun buyers to go through a state-based criminal background check in addition to the federal NICS check. This is the best system since it includes checking both state and federal records to prevent criminals and other prohibited people from buying guns.

But it apparently doesn't go deep enough to pick up prior complaints, either of criminal behavior or mental health issues. This from MSNBC:

The gunman involved in the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history had previously been accused of stalking two female student and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005, but no charges were filed, police said Wednesday.

Cho Seung-Hui worried one woman enough with his calls and e-mail in 2005 that police were called in, said Police Chief Wendell Flinchum.

He said the woman declined to press charges and Cho was referred to the university disciplinary system. The case was then outside the scope of the police department, he said.

In a separate incident, the department received a call from Cho’s parents who were concerned that he might be suicidal and he was taken to mental health facility, Flinchum said.

update #2 And, the background check apparently doesn't pick up court-ordered psychiatric treatment either. This from ABC:

April 18, 2007 — A Virginia court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous. Then the state let him go.

In 2005, after a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho was either a danger to himself or to others — the necessary criteria for a detention order — he was evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.

•  We do it for lesser things.

  how bout it?

  by commonscribe on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:09:29 AM PDT

•  He had an instant background check

  However, the stalking allegations never appeared to result in anything, so they didn't get into whatever system is used to do background checks.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:11:19 AM PDT

  •  Makes you wonder, don't it?

    how thorough those checks are...

    by commonscribe on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:16:48 AM PDT

    •  Well

      if he was never charged or anything, I'm not sure how much you can do.  There appears to be no evidence that he was otherwise disciplined by the school for it either.  I wouldn't think that you could be prohibited from buying a gun on a mere allegation which is in essence how far it went.

      They heard he was stalking, they went to talk to him, but nothing really happened.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:19:17 AM PDT

      •  well, there should be that one woman's report

        on file with the police.  it does seem odd that a background check didn't find that.  otherwise, it was handled through the university, who's records i imagine aren't included in such searches?

        so maybe we can at least all agree that maybe better implementing the gun laws and systems we have is more productive than throwing more laws into the mix?

        by Cedwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:16:02 AM PDT

        •  Hey?

          Aren't you the same person who thought that I was this guy who was cyberstalking you? ;-P

          I don't think that university records are part of the search. And when I talked to the counseling center at my own school, I had to sign a waiver in order for them to even admit that I had gone to talk to a counselor during my PhD comps semester. They take privacy issues every seriously when it comes to their services.

          by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:17:51 AM PDT

  •  She didn't press charges...

    Nothing would've appeared.

    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:28:24 AM PDT

    •  but the initial report

      should, right?

      by Cedwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:16:20 AM PDT

      •  a report is a report...

        Preamble...here's what happened (not stalking but relevant to the process).

        Here's what happened after I sat down in the middle of the sheriff's office and started crying...

        Sheriff told me to log a complaint with him. He said that he would send a deputy out there to scare the crap outta the guy. But he couldn't arrest him without me pressing charges.

        Then he told me to go down to the courthouse in the morning to press charges. I vaguely recall something about a warrant for his arrest being part of the process also.

        He could then be arrested for what he did complete with charges pressed.

        The problem was I couldn't actually prove that he was the guy who ran me off the road. It was literally the middle of nowhere and it was in the middle of the night and there were no witnesses.

        by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:26:18 AM PDT

      •  pea ess...

        It was great to see you...hope you're well.

        by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:26:51 AM PDT

  •  It took them

      A really short while after the fact -- less than 48 hours -- to dig up the fact that he was a stalker and a potential arsonist.

      If these facts could be discovered in 48 hours by the media, why couldn't they be discovered in 48 hours by a real (not a cursory) background check.

      When you apply for a job in defense or intelligence, they contact your family, past employers, friends, anybody who knows you to find out what kind of person you are.  You should pass the same hurdles to be able to hold a gun.

    by WIds on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:50:49 AM PDT

    •  That's information...

      But here's the thing. Charges would've had to have been pressed in order to make that stuff actionable.

      Say I have a fight with my boyfriend. I'm so pissed at him over what he's done that I go to the town sheriff and say that the guy is stalking me. But for some reason I don't press charges. A note goes somewhere. But it isn't actionable because at this point, it's speculative. Maybe he was stalking...maybe it was a relationship gone bad...who knows?

      I literally had an ex-boyfriend wander around telling people that I was stalking him and telling everyone I knew he knew that I was pregnant with his child.

      Someone we both knew asked me about it...I took off my jacket and asked "Do I look pregnant?" That ended that.

      The TS process is a long one. Not a week...not a month. Sometimes it can take up to 6-8 months. And yes, they ask neighbors and former profs and such. They run a check on your finances. They call you in for multiple interviews. You get to take a polygraph. And if your neighbor doesn't like the way you mow your lawn, but says something underhanded about you, that can stall the process until everything is straightened out.

      Real life example...
      A friend went through the process and it almost got derailed because one of the people interviewed had been a friend before the divorce...but took the wife's side during and after the divorce. The interviewee never mentioned that the reason for the divorce was this little adultery thing that happened while my friend was stationed overseas. Nor did she mention her part in the adultery.

      by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:08:50 AM PDT

    •  There were a number of

      documents released by the universtiy to the media, such as the stalking allegations, that would not have been released or releasable were he alive.    We still have some remnants of privacy rights here.

      by the OTHER rasmussen on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:28:39 AM PDT

  •  Right. A thorough check..

    would not have prevented him from obtaining a weapon legally.

    I don't think you can "regulate" society so much that this type of event is prevented.

    If this person had not been able to obtain a gun legally, he could probably have easily obtained a gun illegally. Or he would have done research on how Timothy McVeigh built his truck bomb. You can buy fertilizer and diesel fuel pretty easily in rural Virginia.

    If this person had been prevented from entering the classroom (the 2nd event) by some sort of instant campus "lockdown", he could have easily gone to the local McDonald's and started unloading clips into the patrons there. And then moved onto the Burger King next door. Or the office building with the "security guard" who makes you sign in but has absolutely no training or ability to deal with someone with a gun.  

    You can't anticipate or prevent madmen from acting madly by the imposition of "rules".

    That said, I think that our world would be much better off if there were no such thing as handguns.  

    by kmiddle on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:08:22 AM PDT

•  YES

  It seems pretty obvious that there needs to be a system in place where, even if there is not enough information to charge someone with something, that a flag can go on their record.  This flag would kick out when someone tries to buy a gun.

  When the teacher reported the guy to the police and also when the stalking was investigated, there could have been a note on this guys file.  

  by IowaEdwardsSupporter on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:16:45 AM PDT

  •  Potential for abuse

    The system you describe would seem to be tailor made for abuse...don't get me wrong, I think we need something different in the control of firearms, but giving someone the ability to flag me for rumor and speculation seems a bit much...

    by 8000 Meters Up on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:20:42 AM PDT

    •  What's the abuse?

        If you are making your neighbors angry enough that they want to see you not carrying a gun, then probably you shouldn't have one.

      by WIds on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:46:17 AM PDT

      •  Do you have any idea how many false allegations

        are made in the judicial system every day?  I represent an organization that helps people file stalking and abuse complaints with the court, and it is not uncommon for us to discover (typically at the court hearing) that our client's allegations of stalking and abuse are either complete fabrications or grossly exagerrated.  Most of them are legitimate, but the high incidence of false allegations is alarming.  That also goes for angry neighbors, custody fights, divorces, etc.  That is why we have hearings and trials - people lie.

        by Marinesquire on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:57:00 AM PDT

        •  true, some pretty wacko "victims"

          as well as wacko "perpetrators"

          by libertyisliberal on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:05:44 AM PDT

      •  And who will be the first to be threatened

        when Mr. not-quite-right finally does get his gun?

        The neighbors who just couldn't mind their own business!

        And the other neighbor he might have stolen the gun from won't be too happy either.

        by simaramis on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:58:34 AM PDT

      •  The abuse here

        Is that my neighbor would decide to report me because they don't like my Kerry sign or the cut of my lawn. Or that they just hate guns, period, no matter who has them. Either way, the opportunity for abuse is there. There has to be some kind of court finding, such as a restrining order at least.

        by maxomai on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:26:05 AM PDT

    •  Yeah

      but I think that maybe a delay in getting a gun for this guy would have been a good thing.

      by IowaEdwardsSupporter on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:50:54 AM PDT

  •  Here is the link...

    for the NICS process.

    Nothing can happen when stalking charges aren't pressed.

    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:34:25 AM PDT

  •  sort of like

    being put on the "no fly" list because you protest at a Bush rally.  Or write an op-ed criticizing the Iraq war.

    Or having your voter registration thrown out because you have a similar name to a convicted felon.

    No thanks.

    by lcork on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:35:44 AM PDT

    •  More like,

      not being sold a gun because your folks asked the police to escort you to a mental health institution... that's ground for pause,IMO

      by commonscribe on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:41:12 AM PDT

      •  escorted to campus counseling?

        or committed to an institution. Commitment is part of the NICS program.

        If I see a campus counselor to cope with the end of an engagement whilst trying to make it through exams, do I wind up being not able to purchase a gun because I talked to someone?

        by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:41:25 AM PDT

•  He bought a Glock

  made specifically to kill and maim as many people as possible as fast as possible, in close settings.  And I suspect not needing great marksmanship skills to spray death around.  Why does any college student need such a thing?  And how can we ever be sure they aren't or won't become disturbed?  The world's attention has been drawn right to our gun-loving culture again, and they are repulsed and nauseated.

  If I could pass any law I wanted, I might not ban all guns, but I'd get rid of the slaughter machines for any civilian use, and make those who want the privilege of selling or owning a gun, and who will subject society to risks and costs of puttin gthem into circulation, bear a heavy responsiblity for what happens with those guns.  There is precedent in the common law for this.  Chris Rock sort of joked about the same idea with his $10,0000 dollar bullet routine.

  by Riff on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:21:26 AM PDT

  •  All Gun Control is Local

    I used to live in rural PA.  We had a county sheriff no local police force.  Now if someone broke into my home or a situation evolved where a police unit would normally respond it could take 30 minutes.  That's a long time to wait when someone is threatening your life.  Having a gun or GUNS in that situation would not only be helpfully but would be the smart thing to do.

    I now live in Worcester, MA.   Gun control laws are much stricter here, in fact I don't even have my guns anymore.  Why? Because the cops come in 5 minutes.  The crime rate is twice as high here then where I used to live but I can honestly say the only reason to own a handgun in Worcester, MA would be to kill someone.

    Gun Control is a local issue and frankly one that most people who live in the Northeast have a hard time wrapping their brains around.

    by itsenbay on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:34:13 AM PDT

•  If a guy is stalking you...

  and you have solid evidence of the stalking, Press charges! If a woman is stalking you...and you have solid evidence of the stalking, Press charges!

  Please...if you are being stalked...you need to speak up and stand your ground.

  People can't help you if you don't tell them you need it.

  by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:31:29 AM PDT

  •  absolutely

    background checks would not have helped in this case - EXCEPT MAYBE if he had been charged in the stalking incident.  

    by lcork on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:41:46 AM PDT

  •  How many women

    are willing to antagonize their stalker by pressing charges?

    by mrblifil on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:44:31 AM PDT

    •  Me...

      for one.

      by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:46:17 AM PDT

    •  But then again...

      I have no qualms about doing what my mother would refer to as 'really stupid.'

      by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:50:43 AM PDT

•  I agree with you, but

  Check out some of the cynical and/or callous and/or idologically driven comments on this other Diary which amaze me; if this is what people on Kos think, I can just imagine what is going on right now on the right wing blogs.

  The problem seems to be that this is a non issue for the Repubs and a wedge issue within the Democrats, so it's an uphill climb to get legislative action.

  by Randian on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:33:30 AM PDT

•  No charges filed, no criminal record, and his

  referral to mental health conseling was not a commitment to institution.  I support criminal record backgound checks (and a three day waiting period) for handgun purchases, but nothing in this guy's history would have raised a flag on a backgound check.  Do you really want the government making judgment calls based on unproven allegations and non-mandatory mental health counseling?

  by Marinesquire on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:45:17 AM PDT

  •  Clean

      I think you should be squeaky clean to possess a gun.  These "unproven allegations" seem pretty damn substantial now, don't they?  Having a gun is a high responsiblity.  You should have to fulfil high obligations to possess one.

    by WIds on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:48:23 AM PDT

    •  hindsight is 20/20

      How many "unproven allegations" get logged every day that turn out to be...well...false or misunderstandings or someone's really bad day or revenge?

      by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:16:09 AM PDT

    •  ah so

      we are now being judged by 'unproven allegations'?  I've seen this movie before in other countries not so, shall we say, enlightened.  They were called 'denunciations'.

      I'm truly astounded how many people on this site, who in many other posts would rail against abu Gonzales' attack on our privacy rights are ready to throw them right out the window when it comes to gun laws.

      Accused but not convicted?  Doesn't matter.  How about if you're accused and found not guilty?  Do those 'unproven allegations' still count?  And if they would stop you from getting a gun, shouldn't they stop you from, perhaps, getting a gov't job?  Or maybe those unp;roven allegations should stop you from living in a certain neighborhood, right?  I mean, if you can't be trusted with a gun, you certainly shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets of nicetown USA.  And teaching.  We can't have you near children.

      C'mon folks.  You allow this s..t for one its gonna come in for everything.

      by the OTHER rasmussen on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:22:54 AM PDT

  •  It's a lot more substantive

    than much of the "profiling" currently used by law enforcement in the various wars on drugs and terror

    by commonscribe on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:51:00 AM PDT

    •  Who is going to pay for an army of investigators

      to so a "security clearance" style investigation of anyone who wants to buy a gun?  Are you going to charge a buyer an extra $500 (that would create a wonderful class divide)?  Will buyers have to turn over their medical records in case there is a mental health issue?  And who is going to make the final decision about who is "clean" enough to buy one once you start making judgment calls on people's complicated histories?  The current system is far from perfect, but the alternatives are difficult to implement.

      by Marinesquire on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:08:19 AM PDT

      •  The applicant should bear the fees

        Just as we do with other situations where we require a real background check.

        Will buyers have to turn over their medical records in case there is a mental health issue?

        I would instead argue for a standardized medical/psychological test, much as what we require for many types of professional licensing.

        Not difficult to implement at all. We are doing it in other areas of life.

        by sdgeek on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:19:54 AM PDT

        •  Let's apply this equally

          I also move that this litmus test be used before you can exercise any of your rights in America.

          by itsenbay on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:36:36 AM PDT

          •  Few of my other rights

            can end your life.

            by commonscribe on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:39:51 AM PDT

            •  Hidden Potential

              Is it guns that are the problem or our culture which glorifies violence and killing?  The coverage given to this event inspires every loner who wants to go out "in style" to do something bigger and badder.  Guns kill people but so do alot of things.  I truly believe we are empowering these people when we allow them to change everything that goes on.

              It's terrorism people, plain and simple.

              by itsenbay on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:43:51 AM PDT

              •  Distinction without a difference

                Is it guns that are the problem or our culture which glorifies violence and killing?

                In my mind, these are really one and the same. Without this type of culture, there would not be demand for guns.

                And without guns, this type of culture would likely collapse.

                That's not to say that there aren't other things that also contribute to this culture. But as long as guns are as freely available, the culture will continue to exist.

                by sdgeek on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:03:04 PM PDT

      •  Not necessarily expensive.

        Those records are already kept by the police agencies involved;  there's a record every time police respond to a call, whether it's reports of stalking or suicidal tendencies.  just requires a few keystrokes to move it into the existing database.

        by commonscribe on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:37:00 AM PDT

        •  Local police records are often very sketchy, and

          methods of recording calls that don't result in charges vary widely.  One county can have dozens of separate police departments, as well as overlapping state police jurisdiction.  Call records often only indicate that the call was "closed" whether in fact the police determined that the call was unsubstantiated, or they told the parties to go their separate ways, or if they suggested that someone file for a protective order (which the police will have no interest in following up on 95% of the time). It's hard enough sometimes to figure out what crimes an individual has been convicted of in a different jurisdictions.  Do you really want the government to keep a database of all complaints ever called in over the telephone to all local, state, and federal police agencies?

          by Marinesquire on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:10:25 AM PDT

  •  It was mandatory-- court-ordered n/t

    by commonscribe on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:29:31 PM PDT

•  Legal Gun, Illegal Gun...

  What are the odds that this individual who filed off the numbers off his gun would have found an illegal method to obtain the gun if the legal means were not provided?

  by itsenbay on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:56:01 AM PDT

•  "Instant" background checks are a joke

  To become a citizen, the background checks take months, sometimes years - and they still miss some people.

  To become a teacher, you have to get a background check that takes months.

  Anybody who claims that instant background checks are more than a useless feel-good measure doesn't know what he is talking about.

  by sdgeek on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:17:00 AM PDT

  •  fingerprints might help

    since other documents, such as a driver's license or some other identification that has the correct photo but an alias rather than the prospective purchaser's real name, can be easily forged.  Purchaser of a handgun from a federal firearms licensee is not required to provide fingerprints, but merely proof of identity based upon an "identification document." This should be changed.

    by Randian on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:25:07 AM PDT

    •  Fingerprints aren't a panacea

      For immigration background checks, fingerprints are required. The charge for them is $70 (on top of the fees for the applications themselves, which are supposed to rise to around $1000).

      INS actually had to scrap that process at one point. They had tried to make it user friendly and allow local police to take the prints. What happened was that the "bad people" simply submitted somebody else's prints - and also that the prints were of abysmal quality and often couldn't be read.

      Today, they are collecting the prints in their own facilities (ASC), sometimes 100+ miles away. Getting an appointment takes a couple of weeks (actually, USCIS schedules the prints for you so there is no delay in the first attempt, but if you have to reschedule, you may be waiting a couple weeks or even months).

      Worse: only about 70% of the prints are of acceptable quality (although the percentage has improved lately), so scores of people have to come back to get fingerprinted.

      And what about people who have lost a few fingers in an accident? USCIS regulations require that all ten prints need to be of acceptable quality. So those people get called back for reprinting. After the third time, USCIS gives up and basically doesn't check the prints.

      Sure, you may be able to come up with some improvements. But quite frankly, if major improvements were possible without compromising the system, why doesn't USCIS implement them?

      Bottom line: fingerprints will help to some extent, but they will also impose quite onerous requirements that the NRA probably won't accept.

      by sdgeek on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:42:58 AM PDT

•  This may shock many people here

  I think that enhancing the NICS system is a good idea.

  However, it looks pretty clear to me that the problem is that nobody pressed charges against Cho for what was probably criminally threatening behavior. I don't know how NICS or any other system is supposed to capture that without being overzealous. The last thing we need is another No Fly List.

  by maxomai on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:23:01 AM PDT

  •  It sounded

    like one of his teachers, at least, tried to get the police to take some notice of what was going on - and tried to get him some psychological help.  

    Very sad.

    by lcork on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:29:12 AM PDT

    •  yup...

      I've had students break down into tears because of the shit going on in their lives. And I've listened to them to figure out how I could help. But even then...there's only so much we can do. We can advise...we can cajole...we can suggest. Hell, I've even escorted one student to the campus counseling offices.

      But they have to make the decision to follow up on the advice.

      by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:48:35 AM PDT

•  Like all the screening we do for astronauts

  Or for those who work in national intelligence.

  Or the military.

  Sorry, but "background checks" to the degree necessary to catch nutty people are not possible - logistically or realistically.

  With the volume of gun sales that occur, the manpower needed to expand the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to investigate every buyer would be mind-boggling, not to mention the need to revamp medical privacy laws and recordkeeping to deal with that side of the issue.

  I had a "psychological screening evaluation" when I took the test battery for the CIA.  It was pretty amusing - part of it was something like a timed 500-word true/false test with reworded questions intended to test consistency in answers.  (I later withdrew my application after deciding I did particularly care to work for the CIA).  I also received background investigation calls from the FBI for friends who had applied to various government agencies - pretty standard and quick stuff.

  by cappy on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:41:16 AM PDT

  •  Don't remember the T/F test...

    But I did get to sit and be polygraphed. That was weird...as I sat there trying to figure out if I'd stolen anything...only to start wondering if the stripped book policy at my old bookstore job was considered theft...

    Wild ride there...only to find out that they are next to useless.

    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:51:27 AM PDT

    •  My favorite was another timed test

      You opened the cover and had 2 minutes to write down everything you could think of related to the paragraph that you read.

      One of the two of these tests that I had was along the lines of:

      "You are to enter a locked building at night, enter a locked office, and remove an item from a locked drawer, and exit the building, all without being seen."

      That one was pretty funny.

      by cappy on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:14:20 AM PDT

      •  Oh...now that...

        I woulda remembered.

        My favorite questions were related to whether or not I was a liar...cause Richard Hansen was a liar...and you can't work for us if you lie. But then they hand you stuff that you can't talk about at home.

        I spent the drive home trying to jibe "not talking about" with my mother's theory on lies of ommission. My head hurt until I stopped trying to figure it out.

        by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:21:43 AM PDT

        •  My testing was back in 1989 or 1990 n/t

          by cappy on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:43:55 AM PDT

        •  The other timed 2-minute test

          Was along the lines of:  "A heavy equipment manufacturer of farm equipment wants to do business with the Soviet Union.  What types of things come to mind relating to this issue."

          The other stuff I remember - it was an all-day test battery - was standard aptitude test stuff.

          by cappy on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:45:52 AM PDT

•  The problem

  In this case the problem is not with the gun laws so much as that the mental health system in the this country is completely broken. There were amply signs, reasons and opportunities to channel this disturbed young man into a mandatory mental health treatment program. His violent writings, the stalking incidents, the fact that his parents worried he was sucidal, his roommate reported to police that he was sucidal, his intimidating behavior in the classroom toward other students as well as his teacher, the lack of social network, his demeanor and even his style of dress, all taken together would be grounds for treatment. He was obviously deeply depressed, but without treatment he became a huge threat to himself and his community. Depression is a treatable disease and he should have been receiving treatment. If we didn't learn this from Columbine, maybe we will learn it now.

  by Grassroots Mom on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:07:17 AM PDT

  •  If his parents were worried...

    about him being suicidal, why didn't they actually commit him to the facility?

    A friend of mine ran his car into a brick wall. Once he got out of the ER, his parents had him put into the program. That move saved his extended life...

    As a prof...there's only so much that I can do. I'm not trained as a counselor...but I can advise and suggest that he see the school counselors.

    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:28:13 AM PDT

•  Background checks

  Has anyone read the brady bill/1968 gun control act? If your a pot head you can't buy a gun. If you have ever been convicted of using anykind of drug you can't buy a gun. In fact if you have ever been adjudicated as a mental deffective, by any "court, board, or other proper authority." You can't buy a gun. Sounds pretty vague, to me. In fact you can go to jail if you try to buy a gun and it turns out you are on their list. Don't you think that's a bit unfair?

  This law reminds me of those laws that ban any teacher who has ever used drugs, from teaching. Teachers have been fired because it was later discovered they had a minor drug conviction. In theory someone could go to jail if they accidently landed on the database.

  Another thing, obviously hindsite is 20/20 about Cho and we would be better off if he hadn't bought his guns. On the flip side what if someone with a similiar record to Cho's had gone to jail for trying to buy a gun? He was judged a mental defective by one psychiatrist, but was released within 72 hours, IIRC. That tells me that they concluded he was safe enough to be out on the street, out on the street where he could easily commit suicide, (which is why he had been detained anyway).

  The Bill of rights says that a man cannot be, "....deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....."

  Sounds to me like Cho was evaluated by a psychologist who filled out a checklist, that doesn't sound like do process. Do process would sound like a court proceeding, basically.

  by John Mirra on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:39:48 PM PDT