tyme said:
Quote:
|
Warning signs? You mean like the violent and sex-themed, not-remotely-creative plays he wrote, including overt themes of hatred toward father figures? You mean like being committed in 2005? You mean like several people going to the campus police to complain about him? You mean like a professor willing to quit before she has to continue teaching a class with Cho in it? You mean like allegations that he'd only talk to his roomate via IM? You mean like that he set (partial?) fire to a room? You mean like his fellow students, classmates and professors couldn't really get him to talk at all? You mean like the allegations that he wore sunglasses pretty much all the time, indoors too?
|
Yes, that could be what I'm talking about (note Cho wasn't actually committed, though; he was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, the result of which concluded that "his insight and judgment are normal." I wonder how the guy who wrote that is feeling now).
Isn't it curious how the initial reaction to spree killings like this one go along the lines of "no-one could have foreseen this, the guy just snapped," and that claim is maintained even as it rapidly emerges there was a host of warning signs going back months, even years, but no one wanted to acknowledge them, much less act on them?
Quote:
|
Has liberalism gotten so bad that suggesting there might be a problem with Cho a month and a half ago, based on his behavior, writing, and previous commitment, would be challenged by the ACLU? [...] Is the ACLU incapable of tempering its cries of discrimination and free speech violations no matter how deranged and antisocial someone is?
|
For the record, I am a (pro-RKBA) liberal, and, as it happens, a card-carrying member of the ACLU, so you'll have to excuse me if take statements like that a little personally. Can you cite any concrete examples of the ACLU taking action that directly hampered any effort which could have been made to stop Cho before he went on the rampage?