Hello, he was INSANE. By definition there is no point in trying to determine the “reason” for something an insane person does. He had no reason – he was fuckin’ NUTS.

Lehuster on April 25, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Actually, he gave quite an lengthy logos of his actions. Understanding it, including its flaws, may be interesting to political zoologists, and useful for everyone’s sake.

Looks as though some families are challenging VTech’s sovreign immunity on the grounds of gross negligence, potentially opening the door for lawsuits against the university.

Slublog on April 25, 2007 at 10:09 AM

“Sovereign immunity” is coming to light as imaginary, too. I’d leave it to the faculty of Virginia Tech’s political science department to make such a point, but most such faculties are too busy studying “voting patterns” to give much attention to any so “pre-scientific” as political philosophy.

VTech was a gun-free zone

It was just an imaginary gun-free zone, of course, and it seems it would be better always to be clear on the point. “Gun-free zone for magical thinkers” wouldn’t be too harsh.

Let it be as if he never existed.

Hello, he was INSANE. By definition there is no point in trying to determine the “reason” for something an insane person does. He had no reason – he was fuckin’ NUTS.

The MSNBC piece mentioned a Korean student hearing stories of discrimination and attacks on Asian students after the shooting. Where are those stories? Did that actually happen?

icelandicfarmer on April 25, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Heard Gov Kaine all fussing about this worry today and it was really annoying. I’d say that was a stinking smear against Americans. We were at a school ceremony just Saturday during which awards were presented to a number of students. The school has a lot of Korean nationals. Several Koreans received awards, two of whom were named Cho, to make it more cringe-worthy if one was from MSNBC, but they got as much applause for their work and awards as the other students with them, in front of a big crowd of students, parents and visitors. No problems. This after a minute of silence for the VT students killed, plus VT students in attendance, plus VT alumni mixed through the crowd. If that wasn’t an apparently volatile mix, what is? No one was bothered, no one took out anything against the Koreans nor their parents who were there.
In foreign countries, it is common to have riots against specific groups for the crimes or even just rumored crimes of one. How many Indian Sikhs were killed by Hindus in rampant rioting sparked by Indira Ghandi’s assassination by her two own Sikh bodyguards? Hundreds, houses trashed, businesses looted, etc.
Tired of Americans being smeared with habits Americans typically don’t engage in,but that other societies are guilty of. This sort of thing is what distinguishes Western culture from others: Individual accountability. The guilty one is responsible, not the group.

But Cho was also a paranoid-schizophrenic, which makes this an incredibly bad combination. He was nuts, and didn’t seek out other people for help, so he was just fanning his own flames, leading to this disaster.

In an interview Tuesday night with The Associated Press, State Police Superintendent Col. W. Steven Flaherty said authorities have found no evidence that could begin to explain the massacre that ended when Cho took his own life.

Except for the clinical evaluations prior to, by teachers, and others, saying he needed help. Plus his emails, plus is detailed video tape he left for us tell us why… And a complete medical/emotional history of mental problems…

And they just can’t figure it out…

{sigh}

VTech could be considered liable because they’d been advised that their forced helplessness policy put students at risk and not only continued it, they worked hard in the state legislature to make sure they could continue it.

Because they refused to let students defend themselves then by default the duty to protect those students would fall back on the University, along with the liability for their failure to do so.

Or at least that’s the basic theory people have expressed regarding possibly suing their employers who disallow CCW.

Comments?

SuperManGreenLantern on April 25, 2007 at 10:20 AM

Personally I wish they’d become more paranoid after what happened in 2006 with the convict, but I can understand why they assumed the earlier shooting was just an isolated incident.

So, I don’t know either, but I can bet the next time this happens the school will be as paranoid as humanly possible, just like what happened with Hurrican Rita the one that came right after Katrina.

While the state constitution contains a provision disavowing “soverign immunity,” there is also a provision that allows the legislature to “immunize the state” in certain areas. The DOT is explictly “immunized.”

She, instead, subrogated her claim via her insurance company, which will persue the case on their dime. She’ll receive the same percentage of her deductible back that the insurance receives on the gross dollar amount of the total damage.

It will take years…..

I hope they pull it off.

I really do.

The question is whether they were negligent or grossly negligent.

Question for the lawyers (you know who you are):

What’s the standard for gross negligence versus negligence?

Respectfully bury the dead.

Heavily arm the living.

Move on.

My “target of opportunity” theory is sounding more likely.

I guess, but it still seems odd to me. He wanted to be seen as some kind of martyr, so why go out and kill the pretty freshman unless he had some reason?

But really, as many have said before, it isn’t logical to kill 32 kids in the first place. I shouldn’t bother trying to make this part make sense.