Showing Cho video is "social catastrophe"

Beleth

FAQ Creator
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
4,125
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/VATech/story?id=3056168&page=1

I will let the impression that ABC is perhaps having some sour grapes (Cho sent his video to NBC) slide, and move on to the meat of the article.

[Forensic psychiatrist and ABC News consultant Michael] Welner believes that instead of offering insight, these videos merely offer validation of delusional behavior.

"I think that's very important for the viewing audience to understand. This is not him.These videos do not help us understand him. They distort him. He was meek."
[...]
"If this rambling showed up in an emergency room, my colleagues and I would listen carefully and, when we reflected that it was delusional, would go see the next patient and start the medication," he said. "This makes it sound like he was tormented. He wasn't."
One might just argue that if Cho had been listened to by people like Welner and not ignored, perhaps 32 more people would be alive today.
 
I think he was listened to, but there's only so much help you can give someone who is not interested in feeling better. Whatever the reason for saying this I do agree that his behavior should not be validated with media fame.
 
I for one have only seen snippets of photos and the video. I turn it off as quickly as anything that has to do with Anna Nicole Smith.
 
I think he was listened to, but there's only so much help you can give someone who is not interested in feeling better.
So we just throw up our hands and say "oh well, there's nothing we can do to stop folks like him from killing innocent people"?
 
So we just throw up our hands and say "oh well, there's nothing we can do to stop folks like him from killing innocent people"?

What do you want from me; a solution no one else in the history of the world could provide? Crazy people being able to do crazy things is a concequence of living in a free society.

Though...we could try to instill a sense of shame and guilt in children, so that when they feel bad, they will understand it as thier fault and just shoot themselves. That may work.
 
One might just argue that if Cho had been listened to by people like Welner and not ignored, perhaps 32 more people would be alive today.

one might argue that, but it would seem a little unfair. With post-hoc analysis you can find cause and place the blame where ever you see fit.

If Cho hadn't been able to buy a gun, maybe 32 more people would be alive today,

If the US didn't allow South Koreans to emigrate to the country, maybe 32 more people would be alive today,

If all people with mental illness were indefinitly sectioned, maybe 32 more people would be alive today,

etc.


Is there any evidence of specific professional failings within accepted professional practice?

Or does the case highlight institutional failings in professional practice?

How would you suggest reforms were made - and would they prevent such an event happening again?
 
Last edited:
I would argue that until my dying breath.

Do you think there is evidence of specific professional failings within accepted professional practice?

Or do you think the case highlights institutional failings in professional practice?
 
So we just throw up our hands and say "oh well, there's nothing we can do to stop folks like him from killing innocent people"?

Yes, pretty much, it might not be the answer you're looking for, but it's the truth.
 
Though...we could try to instill a sense of shame and guilt in children, so that when they feel bad, they will understand it as thier fault and just shoot themselves. That may work.

I thought religion is already in the business of doing that!?
 
"Social catastrophe" sounds overblown, but I definitely think NBC should have held off on showing the "multimedia pack." What are the relevant arguments? Does NBC say "the public has a right to know"? Or "people want to see it." Or, "it would be paternalistic of us to 'protect' the public." Ugh. The NYTIMES held off on that one story for an entire year pending administration approval. When it comes to power the press is deferent. Cho was a sick, twisted, demented little **** who talks about being martyr rather than being the friendless, virgin loser he really is. The network could always broadcast his ******** weeks from now after the victims' lives are celebrated and all this stuff dies down. In the wake of these grizzly murders leading to Cho's newfound popularity, this kind of **** can resonate with crazy, mommy-didn't-love-me types seeking to continue the work of the Colombine killers. Also, naturally, people need to be protected from the words ****, ****, ****, and so on (even on this forum, apparently) but the images, messages and state of mind of a homicidal freak moments before he massacred 30 people is worth replaying dozens of times mere days after the atrocities.
 
Do you think there is evidence of specific professional failings within accepted professional practice?

Or do you think the case highlights institutional failings in professional practice?

I can't really answer. My opinion is based on personal observation. Not scientific. I only know I have been highly dissatisfied in seeking help with my current mental and emotional difficulties. If--big if--my experience is representative in general, I would conclude there are problems in the practice, yes.

I'd also think that's a given. Most systems, however professional, can stand improvement on an ongoing basis.
 
I think he was listened to, but there's only so much help you can give someone who is not interested in feeling better. Whatever the reason for saying this I do agree that his behavior should not be validated with media fame.


This is the kind of thing where I sort of/kind of wish there was an afterlife with hell and all so he could watch his video for eternity as his flesh kept being slowly pulled off his bones and regrowing. But then, if there really was, it would mean none of this would have happened.
 
If they didn't show it, they'd be criticized for that... and probably by the very same people.
 
This post is modified from one I posted elsewhere on another forum, so all of it may not seem to fit here exactly. But it needs to be said a few more times. When you've seen people who have lined their houses with tin foil literally, or swallowed a bed sheet (I am not kidding) or castrated themselves you do at least realize they are ill and not living in the real world. Some people just shouldn't be held responsible for psychotic delusions. It makes no sense.

I didn't have any sympathy or empathy for Harris and Klebold. And it makes you ponder where you should draw the line and why. But when you get to the end of the spectrum where Cho clearly was, you are looking at a person whose brain was seriously malfunctioning. I really don't think a lot of people comprehend that, especially considering the news coverage has focused on evil and revenge motives. The reporters want to make this about something other than what it is about. They want a motive. The fact that motive is irrelevant, a fantasy, a delusion, gets lost between the psychiatrists who recognize Cho's symptoms immediately upon seeing the recordings and writings, and what the reporter wants or expects to hear. So the psychiatrists' diagnoses get honorable mention, but the reporter moves on and the prize focus of the story goes instead to the reasons the reporter is looking for, because that's what the pattern is supposed to be. It's supposed to be revenge for relentless teasing of an outcast. Or it is supposed to be an evil person. Mental illness is merely one more opinion, no better or worse than the opinion Cho is the result of the loss of prayer in school or whatever claim is being made. The tragedy moves on to blame liberals who fought for patient's privacy rights to conservatives who refuse any gun regulations claiming each and every one is a slippery slope. All the while every story dilutes the facts. It was a serious mental illness, not merely a creep with a personality disorder.

They can't even get the blame right. All the attention is paid to whether or not the university notified the students of some nebulous threat sooner than they did. And some attention is paid to why being evaluated for suicidal risk didn't trigger a system alert a year later when a gun was being purchased. Can you imagine what the gun rights people would say if everyone who had a court ordered psych eval lost the right to buy a gun?

Have you seen a single news report that said the university had not implemented any of the FBI task force recommendations on preventing school shootings? See any reports that asked which other schools or school districts have also not implemented the recommendations? Has there been any news coverage of the need to monitor adult paranoid schizophrenics for ongoing risk of deteriorating and becoming a risk to themselves or others the same way we might monitor someone on parole or keep tabs on a sex offender? There's been reports on why nothing happened when Cho was seen by various agencies/people but nothing on the fact people's conditions change over time.

So we hear again the claims that something needs to be done, but what? Or we supposedly will do "everything possible" or some other generality so that "this never happens again". It's always, "never to happen again." Yet here we are with recommendations from an FBI task force no one had heard of, no one implemented and not enough schools will implement tomorrow either so it will almost certainly "happen again".

Share this information with your child's schools/universities and make them listen to you. In a few weeks the momentum will be lost...until the next time.

Here are three important resources you can share:

The School Shooter, a Threat Assessment Perspective

Understanding Subjects with Paranoid Schizophrenia; From: The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin | Date: 12/1/1999 | Author: DUFFY, JAMES E.

Center for the Prevention of School Violence, North Carolina's Critical Incident Response Kit Project

The Internet almost always has the answers to major issues like school shooting incidents because people have developed extensive plans following the last horrible tragedy and the one before that and the one before that. But memory of tragedies fades quickly and risk perception fades with it. No one remains motivated for very long. You can get results if you push this stuff right now. In a month, good luck getting anyone's attention.
 
Last edited:
I can't really answer. My opinion is based on personal observation. Not scientific. I only know I have been highly dissatisfied in seeking help with my current mental and emotional difficulties. If--big if--my experience is representative in general, I would conclude there are problems in the practice, yes.

I'd also think that's a given. Most systems, however professional, can stand improvement on an ongoing basis.
Investigate the latest research yourself about what you need and take what you find to the professionals you have access to. There may not be any good solutions, but you can at least look for the latest science and know you are getting at least the best option out there.
 
And, much as I only watched Cho's tapes once then couldn't stand any more of it, I am glad NBC aired it. If I only had the reporters' summary of the material to go on, I'd probably not know Cho's thoughts showed the classic disorganization of a schizophrenic. Another person posted Cho's writings from the English class that worried the professor. Again, it showed the classic disorganized thought diagnostic of mental illness. It's hard to watch, but reporters just don't get medicine and science right. It was useful it was aired.
 
So we just throw up our hands and say "oh well, there's nothing we can do to stop folks like him from killing innocent people"?

No, but handling it requires that the pendulum (social and legal) swing back a bit to before we decided to just put persons with these and similar/related problems out on the streets (uh, freeing them from the confines of.....) and allowing them to decide whether or not to take medications/show up for treatment, etc. And, of course, not allowing them to own/possess anything in the intended- as- a -weapon line.
 

Back
Top Bottom