IMO,
Clayton Cramer observes a swinging pedulum.deserves a look.
But because this might effect a large majority of the Liberal Left and the Democrat voting block, I'm sure it will be ignored, especially by the MSM. Maybe Bill Bennett can take up the cause, maybe, if us conservatives and moderates clamor enough, we can make this - and the right to self-defense - unavoidable presidential campaign issues.
Having said that, I must now apologize for posting and running. I should be working on a paper for my Constitutional Law class at university, due today, not posting on FR! :^)
Are you suprised to see that the media will use anything to put a political hit an anyone in the Bush administration?
It’s incredibly unfair to target the sister.
Good post. And I am disgusted to see the media is hounding the killer’s family.
Just goes to show why we have the Second Amendment. You can’t trust the government with your security..
Is there no end to AP’s sickness?
The standard of proof that someone is a “danger to others” is very high and very hard to prove to a level to involuntarily “commit” a mentally ill person, or persuade a judge to commit them for very long if you do.
The standard of proof that someone is a danger to themselves requires that they convince a psych and a judge that they will kill themselves unless comitted.
Mentally ill people especially like Cho, who are paranoid or blame others for their unhappiness, are not dumb. If they really want to hurt other people, not themselves, most are crafty enough to NOT admit being suicidal when they come before a judge, most do NOT want to be held in a mental hospital.
Catch22.
Its becoming crystal clear VT has quite a bit of explaining to do.
Cho's sister attended Princeton.
Maybe Cho picked up some "pro-death culture" from Princeton's Professor Peter Singer who thinks it is all right to kill flawed babies.
Cho viewed college students as flawed and thought they did not deserve to live.
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the logical extension of the culture of death and that society will eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of life.
I don’t get what decision Special Justice made in this case. They decided not to involuntarily commit someone?
Bump! No kidding. Anything they can use to smear-by-association to make political hay.
How long before we hear, "We just need more money."
“The Associated Press has decided to hound the VTech maniac’s sister. Why? Is there evidence that she knew of his plans or was aware of his murderous tendencies? No. The AP doesn’t report that. Instead, the entire article focuses on her employment in the Bush State Department. And this is relevant how?”
!!!!Why don’t you know, she MUST have put her brother up to it at the suggestion of one of CHENEY’S MINIONS BURIED IN AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT!!!!!! /sarc
“There is very little liability in this country when it comes to releasing the mentally ill back into the community or not taking dangerousness seriously.”
It is taken seriously in many quarters, but he’s right. There isn’t a lot of liability involved. A colleague I worked with at a center for children and adolescents noted one eleven year old in particular who scared us, his clueless parents, and his teachers to the point that everyone was trying to offload this psychotic child onto another system. This kid has no history of abuse, parental or otherwise, no neurological injury, tested well above average IQ, and a fairly stable family.
There are some cases out here that aren’t going to be helped no matter what you do medically or otherwise.
This particular kid was so evil, and I use the word advisedly simply because it isn’t PC in the mental health realm to do so, he shouldn’t be walking around unattended, ever, but I’m sure he is doing just that somewhere.
Charles Whitman, who murdered 18 people sniping from a tower at the University of Texas in 1966--and who autopsy showed had a golf-ball sized tumor in his brain, and had been receiving psychiatric treatment that didn't look for this physical cause.
People who are so convinced that psychiatric commitment is "the solution" need to look again. Whitman was under treatment. The treatment was stupid and ineffective (common for the era.) But it's not that much better today, especially when the side effects of some drugs are exactly what is supposed to be suppressed (violence, suicide, etc.)