The Columbine Killers

NY Times ^ | April 24, 2004 | DAVID BROOKS

[neverdem]

Five years ago, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up Columbine High School. Now it's clear that much of what we thought about that horror was wrong.

In the weeks following the killings, commentators and psychologists filled the air with theories about what on earth could have caused those teenagers to lash out as they did. The main one was that Harris and Klebold were the victims of brutal high school bullies. They were social outcasts, persecuted by the jocks and the popular kids. But there were other theories afloat: they'd fallen in with a sick Goth subculture; they were neglected by their families; they were influenced by violent video games; they were misfits who could find no place in a conformist town.

All these theories had one theme in common: that the perpetrators were actually victims. They had been so oppressed and distorted by society that they struck back in this venomous way. In retrospect, it's striking how avidly we clung to this perpetrator-as-victim narrative. It's striking how quickly we took the massacre as proof that there must be something rotten at Columbine High School.

As we've learned more about Harris and Klebold, most of these misconceptions have been exposed. The killers were not outcasts. They did not focus their fire on jocks or Christians or minorities. They were not really members of a "Trenchcoat Mafia."

This week, in a superb piece in Slate magazine, Dave Cullen reveals the conclusions of the lead F.B.I. investigator, Dwayne Fuselier, as well as of the Michigan State psychiatrist Frank Ochberg and others who studied the Columbine shootings.

Harris and Klebold "laughed at petty school shooters," Cullen reports. They sought murder on a grander scale. They planned first to set off bombs in the school cafeteria to kill perhaps 600. Then they would shoot the survivors as they fled. Then their cars, laden with still more bombs, would explode amid the rescue workers and parents rushing to the school. It all might have come off if they had not miswired the timers on the propane bombs in the cafeteria.

What motivated them? Here, Cullen says, it is necessary to distinguish Klebold from Harris. Klebold was a depressed and troubled kid who could have been saved. Harris was an icy killer. He once thought about hijacking a plane and flying it into Manhattan.

Harris wasn't bullied by jocks. He was disgusted by the inferior breed of humanity he saw around him. He didn't suffer from a lack of self-esteem. He had way too much self-esteem.

It's clear from excerpts of Harris's journals that he saw himself as a sort of Nietzschean Superman — someone so far above the herd of ant-like mortals he does not even have to consider their feelings. He rises above good and evil, above the contemptible slave morality of normal people. He can realize his true, heroic self, and establish his eternal glory, only through some gigantic act of will.

"Harris was not a wayward boy who could have been rescued," Cullen writes. Harris, the F.B.I. experts believe, "was irretrievable."

Now, in 2004, we have more experience with suicidal murderers. Yet it is striking how resilient this perpetrator-as-victim narrative remains. We still sometimes assume that the people who flew planes into buildings — and those who blew up synagogues in Turkey, trains in Spain, discos in Tel Aviv and schoolchildren this week in Basra — are driven by feelings of weakness, resentment and inferiority. We cling to the egotistical notion that it is our economic and political dominance that drives terrorists insane.

But it could be that whatever causes they support or ideologies they subscribe to, the one thing that the killers have in common is a feeling of immense superiority. It could be that they want to exterminate us because they regard us as spiritually deformed and unfit to live, at least in their world. After all, it is hard to pull up to a curb, look a group of people in the eye and know that in a few seconds you will shred them to pieces unless you regard other people's deaths as trivialities.

If today's suicide bombers are victims of oppression, then the solution is to lessen our dominance, and so assuage their resentments. But if they are vicious people driven by an insatiable urge to dominate, then our only option is to fight them to the death.

We had better figure out who these bombers really are. After Columbine, we got it wrong.

[neverdem]

I was afraid he would say something about gun control.

[Mr. Mojo]

In retrospect, it's striking how avidly we clung to this perpetrator-as-victim narrative.

We? You, perhaps.

[stylin_geek]

Hear that sound? It is the NY Times editorial staff yelling "ouch!"

[sharktrager]

What motivated them? Here, Cullen says, it is necessary to distinguish Klebold from Harris. Klebold was a depressed and troubled kid who could have been saved. Harris was an icy killer. He once thought about hijacking a plane and flying it into Manhattan.

So the point is that they weren't victims of anyone, except of course Klebold being a victim of Harris.

The author really doesn't add much or have any original thoughts. His greatest "insight" comes from FBI reports, but one thing that has been proven is that the psychological profiling and research done by the FBI is usually worthless. So Harris' journals were arrogant and hateful. This doesn't mean he had high self-esteem. In fact, it is just as likely it was overcompensating for very low self-esteem.

Clearly there is blame to be placed here beyond the killers. Their parents were clueless. The police and legal system ignored reports that these were dangerous kids. Just because we point out mistakes made by others does not mean we are excusing the actions of the killers.

[DuncanWaring]

Their parents were clueless.

Does anyone know if there has been any sign of the Klebold/Harris parents at any point in the last five years?

I certainly haven't heard of any.

[elli1]

Here's the original Slate article--much better than this NYTimes recap of the article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/fr/ifr/

[cricket]

"If today's suicide bombers are victims of oppression, then the solution is to lessen our dominance, and so assuage their resentments. But if they are vicious people driven by an insatiable urge to dominate, then our only option is to fight them to the death."

'If"?

Too bad, the NYT's is still grapling with the truth here; re 9/11. . .if Columbine helps them to get a better picture; to accept, their 'unthinkable'; then so be it.

But they will never connect the dots of Liberalism in either of these tragedies.

[3catsanadog]

I was afraid he would say something about gun control.

So was I when I saw it was a NEw York Times article. But it turned out to be a very good article. While so many of the warm and fuzzy ones are worried about our kids alleged lack of self-esteem, I've been convinced for many years that they suffer more from too much.

[Jason Kauppinen]

"He didn't suffer from a lack of self-esteem. He had way too much self-esteem."

Yeah right.

[Texas_Jarhead]

The Slate piece was interesting and easily understood. Thanks for posting.

[Wilhelm Tell]

I was also releived to read a NYT article that was mostly good. I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think a term such as "self-esteem" has much meaning when you are dealing with a pathological person. Did Hitler have so much self-esteem that he saw himself as a Superman who would destroy all the "inferior" people? Or did Hitler have such low self-esteem that he overcompensated by waging war and genocide? One can imagine a context for really evil people that makes the idea of self-esteem meaningless.

What the article did not touch on enough is the amoral, nihilistic subculture that is turning some people into little more than killing machines. If you mix that with the American obsession with celebrity status, you have something really sick. The Columbine killers wanted to be "famous" for something that would make a normal person horrified and ashamed. But the left has for years told us that shame is old-fashioned. No, the important thing they told us is for there to be a supreme self-esteem that is liberated from obsolete things such as morality and a sense of shame. And the best way to assert one's self-esteem was to do outrageous acts that shocked conventional morality. So now society has to deal with the amoral, souless creatures this mentality creates.

[Straight Vermonter]

This "profile" of the killers also describes the Dartmouth killers.

[Houmatt]

Does anyone know if there has been any sign of the Klebold/Harris parents at any point in the last five years?

Only Michael Moore's attempt to exploit one set for his anti-American ficticious diatribe.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[Vision]

All these theories had one theme in common: that the perpetrators were actually victims. They had been so oppressed and distorted by society that they struck back in this venomous way. In retrospect, it's striking how avidly we clung to this perpetrator-as-victim narrative.

Yes, that's your bias toward guns(and every American's security) you dumb liberal half wit. It's disgusting and devastatingly pathetic to watch you "marvel and grow" at the "spectacular notion" that the bias you pushed with every ounce of your being is completely wrong.

Harris wasn't bullied by jocks. He was disgusted by the inferior breed of humanity he saw around him. He didn't suffer from a lack of self-esteem. He had way too much self-esteem.

And who are the folks who are always telling people they should feel good about themselves no matter what?

We still sometimes assume that the people who flew planes into buildings — and those who blew up synagogues in Turkey, trains in Spain, discos in Tel Aviv and schoolchildren this week in Basra — are driven by feelings of weakness, resentment and inferiority. We cling to the egotistical notion that it is our economic and political dominance that drives terrorists insane.

But it could be that whatever causes they support or ideologies they subscribe to, the one thing that the killers have in common is a feeling of immense superiority. It could be that they want to exterminate us because they regard us as spiritually deformed and unfit to live, at least in their world.

Wow, way to grow up and become an adult after you write in a worldwide propaganda machine. Most people get that out of their system in college. Now it's time to think about ALL the damage you've done to our country.

After Columbine, we got it wrong.

You get everything wrong, you're liberal New Yorkers

[jude24]

You get everything wrong, you're liberal New Yorkers

Wow... I think I can feel your hate.

Tell me... do you actually have evidence of the NYTime's alleged liberal bias, or are you just repeating what Rush Limbaugh says?

[eno_]

So they finally get it: Exterminating terrorists while they are still in the chest-beating and fulminating stage is the only answer.

[Vision]

Are you serious?

[Vision]

Since you asked, I'll assume you are serious.

I was thinking about how I would frame my argument. Then I thought about posting some links to you. I checked your profile as I can't believe a real conservative would need evidence of the Times bias. You seem like a great person. So, I've come to this. Why don't you google "NY Times bias" and do a little research yourself. That will give you the most thorough information and you can choose to believe what you like.

If you would like the last screaming outrage I've read, check out last week's New Yorker column on Bush and the war. We can dissect that sentence by sentence if you'd like.

And I'd try to get over whatever problems you have with Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure it effects other areas of your life.

[Vision]

Since you asked, I'll assume you are serious.

I was thinking about how I would frame my argument. Then I thought about posting some links to you. I checked your profile as I can't believe a real conservative would need evidence of the Times bias. You seem like a great person. So, I've come to this. Why don't you google "NY Times bias" and do a little research yourself. That will give you the most thorough information and you can choose to believe what you like.

If you would like the last screaming outrage I've read, check out last week's New Yorker column on Bush and the war. We can dissect that sentence by sentence if you'd like.

And I'd try to get over whatever problems you have with Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure it effects other areas of your life.