Since my first post on the subject of Cho, the Virginia murderer, I have received some very interesting blog comments and personal emails.
There’s a common theme running through these which can basically be summed up as:
You’re being too harsh on Cho. Believe me, I almost did what he did…
There are numerous issues I have with these statements and their unspoken implications.
Firstly, if you nearly did what Cho did then I congratulate you – _because you didn’t do it_ . You realised that killing people indiscriminately was wrong. Cho didn’t. Or, more probably, he did and decided he wanted to anyway.
Up until the moment he pulled the trigger, someone like Cho would’ve had my utmost sympathy. The second he pulled the trigger, the second he elected to kill people then he became a scumbag undeserving of mitigating circumstances. Race, autism, gender – whether any or none of these played a part is irrelevant the second you murder people.
The underlying motive for Cho’s actions according to lots of people is this bullying element. Is there any actual clear evidence that he _was_ bullied? I don’t mean that rant he sent to get his posthumous 15mins of fame, I mean actual evidence. Further is there any evidence that the pupils and staff he murdered were the people doing the alleged bullying?
Cho’s first victim was a girl who rejected his romantic overtures. How did it come to pass that it is OK to virtually disown this murder victim as a bully and try and find excuses for Cho’s inability to get over his rejection? Cho’s second victim was a man who tried to help this first victim. How did it become OK to disown this murder victim as a bully?
Last year, several autistic kids were killed by their parents. Utter outrage was voiced in the community I am part of and the utterly correct stance was taken that murder is murder and to attempt to rationalise (in terms of a lack of services for example) was wrong. I am bewildered to see some people in this same community now suggesting, or implying, that we need to look deeper on this issue. What happened to murder being murder?
Left Brain Right Brain 
I agree with you Kev.
Very well said! This was not something that just happened quickly. He had to acquire the guns, practice shooting and locate his first victum.
My heart goes out to the victums and their families.
Victims – sorry for not reading prior to sending.
I agree with you Kev, and have gotten a lot of flack for saying the same thing publicly. I’d brace yourself.
As for whether or not the murder was something that happened quickly, it’s no better when an autistic person is murdered in the heat of the moment than not.
As someone who spoke out quite loudly against the awful autism speaks video (the one where the mother talks about having wanted to drive her and her kid off a bridge), and seeing the justified outrage from that video in the autistic community, I can’t see how we could say “But we *really* have a good reason to want to kill people.” Uh, no, we don’t.
I also believe very strongly that bullying is a major issue, one that we absolutely need to keep bringing to the public. However, I don’t think that needs or even should be done in by using Cho as an example – an implied threat if you will (“Bully us and we’ll eventually come and get you!”).
I also do not want to give any of my peers who are bullied the emotional support they need to decide to commit murder – I will not allow them to be justified by me, because I feel life is precious, NT or autistic. I will support my peers, I will show my anger and outrage about any mistreatment they are experiencing, etc, but I will not justify murder. Ever.
Oh, the image verification requires me to switch to a different browser than what I normally use. I don’t even see the image or the text input box on my preferred browser.
“What happened to murder being murder?”
Interestingly, this was never my point. It was simply a fact that I considered given, but that you seem to think those who contacted you need to be reminded of.
Since I wasn’t talking about murder not being murder nor about excusing it in any way but about preventing death, let’s do some reminding because, until Cho, you weren’t trying to make a point about murder, either. You accepted it as a fact that everyone understood and went on to make more important points.
From your own blog (name of murderer given):
Roy Kerry:
“Mixed up? How can a trained Doctor who ostensibly was a chelationist mix up medications? I guess it could happen but it doesn’t seem likely.”
Dr. McCarron:
“I wish that Karen McCarron had not been looking so hard for clues to the puzzle of her daughters autism. I wish instead that she had concentrated on looking for clues to the reality of her daughter. I wish that she had read the recent paper on acceptance bringing benefits instead of reading every book, pursuing every lead to find clues to autism. Her friends go on to say that she had become disillusioned and worried as Katherine seemed to ‘begin regressing’. Up until then she had been attending a specialist autism clinic in North Carolina. I wonder what sort of clinic it was. Maybe it was this one with what seems to be a TEACCH style program. Then again, with someone who ‘knows so much about biomed’ it seems doubtful. Who knows for sure? Not me.”
WIlliam H Lash III:
“This is such a difficult thing to comprehend. Can it truly be that there are levels of love where murdering the target of that love is acceptable? And that that love can be used as an excuse or a vindication?”
Mr. Stable:
“What is going wrong in our culture that these things are happening? A parent cold bloodedly deciding to kill their own child. How? Why?”
Ms. Williams:
“What the hell can you say about someone who would tie up and scald their own child? That they’re scum? Sub-human? Yes, you can say that but it won’t bring Brandon back.”
Seung-Hui Cho:
“Cho showed no respect for his victims and I have no respect for a man who’s solution to his problems was to slaughter people.”
And in response to the pressures that might have contributed to this tragedy:
“So?”
So… you tell me. What makes him so different that asking why that, as you did for Katie McCarron’s mother, looking at the things that might have lead to this unhinged, violent act is, somehow, unforgivable?
“I am bewildered to see some people in this same community now suggesting, or implying, that we need to look deeper on this issue.”
I find it bewildering that you find doing so, in this case, different.
33 people are dead. They were murdered in a single incident that has happened before and may be repeated in the future.
Several autistic children are dead. They were murdered individually as has happened before and may be repeated in the future.
Isn’t it just as valuable to look into the factors contributing to 33 deaths as it is to look into the factors that contributed to 1?
I agree with you, Kev. But this was the first I’ve ever read of the killer being romantically linked to his first victim. I live in Virginia and have been immersed in this story, too. I think the source you linked to is inaccurate.
Yes, the minute he pulled the trigger everything changed.
Kevin, I don’t know how you could possibly be too hard on a mass murderer. To accuse you of that takes some serious leaps of logic and frankly a lack of character.
The whole bullying argument baffles me. I have the scars to prove how much I have been bullied. I haven’t ever used that for an excuse for my wrong doing. I’ll bet I was bullied more than Cho. But I haven’t murdered anybody.
Evil is real. I wish some people would come to grips with that.
What Cho did, and bullying are actually very similar. There is nothing “positive” about bullying, it is only destructive and damaging of the person who is bullied and provides nothing positive to the perpetrator. Similarly, there was nothing “positive” about what Cho did. He didn’t set out to accomplish something positive, he only set out to be destructive of a number of individuals and of himself.
That is exactly like bullying. Bullying doesn’t do anything positive for anyone, not the victim, not the bullier.
Bullying is not a zero-sum game, it is a negative-sum game. No one “wins” at bullying. If the bullier had spent the time and effort they put into bullying into doing something positive, they and everyone else would be better off.
It is similar to how I discribed war to my children, no one “wins” at war. Everyone loses. Some lose more than others, but no one ends up better off (other than war profiteers, but that was too abstract a concept for them at the time).
Similarly, most discrimination is simple bullying. It doesn’t produce anything positive for either those who discriminate, or for their victims. The only ones who do benefit are the “discrimination profiteers”, those who derive benefits (usually political) from discrimination.
_”I agree with you Kev, and have gotten a lot of flack for saying the same thing publicly. I’d brace yourself.”_
That’ll make a change ;o)
Cho is small fry, why does anyone worry about him, it is part of the western media machine that we bother more about what is a relatively rare event than the daily carnage in Baghdad.
On the one hand we have the virginia militias, or whatever you call them who reckon it would have been less of a blood bath if every student were armed, (yeah wild west situation and the devil take the hindmost, when the smoke clears)
and then the same Government who reckons that universal right to bear arms is such a fundemental protection of liberty in the US, but then go wondering why the populace of Iraq can’t live in peace, armed to the teeth after the American revolutionary ideal. Heck why were we Brits considered so bad in Washingtons time, did we do anything that the US does not in Iraq?
Anyway stay on topic … What drives a suicide bomber, to out Cho, Cho practically every time?
Actually they are heroes in there own society a fame and status, which Cho could never hope for in the US, It is nonetheless the desperation of the situation of the whole family that drives them to it, no future, but in the next world. I don’t know whether Cho had an afterlife to look forward to in his reckoning, or maybe like the Vikings, it was fame amongst the living he craved (remember Havamal)
It is a mad mad world, where the body count from B52’s in Vietnam is forgotten in the annals of mass murder.
Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands ….
I was fairly certain I left a comment earlier. Please, let me know if I somehow failed to or if it was removed so I can know if I should attempt to recreate it or not.
_”So… you tell me. What makes him so different that asking why that, as you did for Katie McCarron’s mother, looking at the things that might have lead to this unhinged, violent act is, somehow, unforgivable?”_
Oh, I have no problem asking ‘why’. What I have an issue with is, as I’ve said, some half-arsed attempt to _justify_ what Cho did. That’s what I mean by looking deeper.
Asking ‘why’ about Cho is no problem at all. Offering an answer that attempts to absolve him such as ‘he was bullied’ or ‘there but for the grace of god go I’ or ‘you don’t understand’ is an issue.
In the quotes of mine you selected, I indeed ask ‘why’. However, I don’t attempt to answer that. In terms of justification of their act, I couldn’t possibly care less.
_”Isn’t it just as valuable to look into the factors contributing to 33 deaths as it is to look into the factors that contributed to 1?”_
Its not valuable in any of their cases. I’ve never made a case for trying to justify the actions of a murderer.
What I have an issue with is, as I’ve said, some half-arsed attempt to justify what Cho did.
Again, that was not my point.
In the quotes of mine you selected, I indeed ask ‘why’. However, I don’t attempt to answer that.
No, you don’t. You also don’t attempt to answer them in this case. Instead, you answer them then go that one step further. You pass summary judgment, condemning him and forgiving everything that contributed as unimportant. Even when you came close to doing so for Ms. Williams, you finish with a statement that indicates that very judgment is what is unimportant because her son will still be dead.
Read what you wrote about Katie McCarron’s mother. Read what you wrote in all of those posts, and read what you wrote in reference to Seung-Hui Cho. Compare the tone of those posts.
Its not valuable in any of their cases. I’ve never made a case for trying to justify the actions of a murderer.
To respond to these statements in reverse order:
Neither did I. However, It’s not valuable? Do you really believe that now? Once again, read what you wrote for Katie McCarron’s mother. You obviously considered wishing that things hadn’t happened for her the way they had to have some value, or if I’m wrong about that, why spend so much space looking “into the factors contributing” to that death?
You accuse me, as a member of a group, of having a double standard. I can’t speak for everyone in that group, only myself. I try to be careful to choose my words when talking about issues such as this, and I don’t always succeed.
Yes, I have a point of reference for Cho’s experience. No, I did not do what Cho did. Alison Tepper Singer did not kill her autistic daughter, either. Admitting these things, for her or me, isn’t brave, and not doing it isn’t something to be congratulated about. That these thoughts occur, for anyone, is a matter for grave concern. That some act on these thoughts is itself a call for action.
You fight for one of these causes.
You fight to debunk chelation and other dangerous ‘treatments’ for autism. You fight to debunk the myths that autism is an epidemic, a tragedy, and that autistics are not human but a disease that steals human children. You fight the underlying reasons for the death of autistics children, and you do it without justifying their actions, true, but also without once castigating the parents who understand Dr. McCarron’s state of mind at the time unless they do attempt to justify her actions.
I hear a lot about Theory of Mind, and I am genuinely curious. Is this one of those situations where it plays a major role? Can you avoid passing judgment on every parent who, even for a moment, thinks of doing something tragic because, even if you do not understand that state of mind, you understand what it means to be the parent of an autistic child?
I’m not here to praise Cho nor attack you. I can see the difference in the way you respond, the way that many people have responded, to these two types of events, and I don’t understand that. it doesn’t seem rational to me to look into the underlying factors in one set of events and dismiss cold-heartedly the underlying factors in another, when in both cases, those factors are still applying pressure to people who are alive today.
Read the differences for yourself. Please, think about them.
Cho: “he became a scumbag undeserving of mitigating circumstances”
Ms. Williams: “What the hell can you say about someone who would tie up and scald their own child? That they’re scum? Sub-human? Yes, you can say that but it won’t bring Brandon back.”
You can say that about Ms. Williams, but what’s the point? You did say that about Seung-Hui Cho. Why hedge about parents and come down so adamantly on this man?
When it came to parents, you asked why. When it came to this, you stated emphatically, “However, respect does not and should never extend to finding reasons to excuse or even understand a murderer.”
Let’s not find reasons to excuse or understand any murderer. Instead, lets find reasons to help those who are on that path not reach the same, final destination.
_”Again, that was not my point.”_
Sorry, I think that was exactly your point. Every contribution you have made to this thread has been an attempt to do the same.
_”Read what you wrote about Katie McCarron’s mother. “_
Be very, very careful with your words. You are stepping close to the edge of a very thin line.
_”You can say that about Ms. Williams, but what’s the point? You did say that about Seung-Hui Cho. Why hedge about parents and come down so adamantly on this man?”_
You are basing the whole of your point on a very pedantic examination of the way I wrote things down. This is what I mean by a half-arsed attempt to rationalise what Cho did. Look at this:
_”When it came to parents, you asked why. When it came to this, you stated emphatically, “However, respect does not and should never extend to finding reasons to excuse or even understand a murderer.—_
Rubbish. The questions I asked following the murders of kids were quite clearly rhetorical. I spent no time soul-searching or wringing my hands or hoping society would understand their actions. If you want to engage in that then be my guest. For me, I’d put all these ‘parents’ and Cho (if the coward was still alive) in a single room each with a gun and one bullet), lock the door and leave them alone. I’ll leave the whining about causes to others.
Kill 1 you’re a murderer, kill 33 you’re sickening, kill thousands and you’re a president….tadaa…
Every contribution you have made to this thread has been an attempt to do the same.
“Let’s not find reasons to excuse or understand any murderer. Instead, lets find reasons to help those who are on that path not reach the same, final destination.”
You are stepping close to the edge of a very thin line.
My sincere apologies. I wasn’t aware that the line existed, and unfortunately, I still don’t know what the line actually is so I hope you’ll be forgiving if (when?) I cross it in the future; I’ve crossed a lot of those lines in my life because I couldn’t see them.
The questions I asked following the murders of kids were quite clearly rhetorical.
Yes, they were.
I’ll leave the whining about causes to others.
I can only hope I’ve given you something to think about with my “whining.” If not you, then someone else here.
I came here to talk about understanding, hope, and shared responsibility, but I won’t impose upon you with this particular conversation anymore. I regret that I couldn’t enlist your aid.
_”Let’s not find reasons to excuse or understand any murderer. Instead, lets find reasons to help those who are on that path not reach the same, final destination”_
Yeah. Sorry, but that’s namby-pamby crap. People have been studying paedophiles (for example) for decades in an attempt to find out why they do so they can stop it happening. You let me know how that’s working out. Meanwhile, I’ll be recommending that they’re put in a dark room with the parents of their victims.
_”I’ve crossed a lot of those lines in my life because I couldn’t see them.”_
Hence the warning.
_”I came here to talk about understanding, hope, and shared responsibility”_
No, you didn’t. You came here to find a way to legitimise what Cho did, if only to yourself. I’ve seen nothing from you but an attempt to abdicate Cho. You’re even doing it now – ‘shared responsibility’? What Cho did was no ones responsibility but Cho’s. Its about time we went back to a culture of _self_ responsibility. Good grief.
brilliant, don’t take anything into consideration when it comes to murder. kids or adult, mentally sound or otherwise, self defense or plain offense. Kill them all and let God sort them out.
Nice, talk about seeking justice in the lawless land.
Gun free zones do not permit guns at all, except by police from a local, state or federal branch of law enforcement; they are generally required to be armed at all times. Most universities are rarely patrolled by law enforcement, schools have hired their own security forces. Many of these security forces are quite large because some of the schools are the size of small cities; 20,000 to 40,000 people. The school administration makes a decision about arming their security force.
When the administration makes a decision to have a gun free zone their security personnel are not permitted to carry firearms. The security force is then relegated to traffic control, issuing parking tickets and picking an occasional drunken student up from the curb. That is the case at many universities in the U.S.. I am sure that they hold very stimulating debates regarding guns and gun laws and each side becomes emotionally entrenched in their positions.
But the reality of these decisions is a very clear statement that we will not protect our students against armed intruders. I would not care to see an entire student body armed, but the security force hired to protect the school needs to be able to respond.
Selection of people in security needs to be tightened, they need to be trained and given the proper equipment.
It is all crazy, when only the police have guns how do you protect yourself against the lawless law enforcer, (how many heads of state have been killed by there own bodyguards?)take a look what is going on in Afghanistan if you really want a disability take on this all and a deconstruction of victim and victimiser,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070507.SUICIDE07/TPStory/Front
We are all guilty of murder who even think of it, we are complicit in murder and injustice whenever we make an economic transaction or pay our taxes.
No one is guiltless, and we will be punished one way or another. For instance we are punished for our complicity in wars with a poor health service, because all those wasted taxes.
Think outside of your emotions, think outside the box, take a global view, look down on earth as a martian might.
Do you class war as murder too?
Murder is apparently an unlawful premeditated killing.
I would class war as murder, but I’m guessing many people wouldn’t.
An unjust war is murder.
“collateral damage” in war is murder, however it is always the victors who decide who the war criminals are.
Killing of foe soldier in war is not murder
Killing of civilians some say ‘yes is murder’
The conflict is debated in every corner
What to call as ‘righteous murder.’
Conflicts may begin with
A single sting from a terrorist
To make any heart break to remember it.
(And there are serious disorders
Other than my autistic disorder!)
Civilians get punished in most war causes
When war begins or if war pauses
When terrorists blow some innocent place
To shake the world in suddenness
Some say martyrs some say terrors
Some say casualties some may say murders
(And there are serious disorders
Other than my autistic disorder.)
–
Tito Rajarshi Mukhopadhyay
laurentius-rex said,
It is all crazy, when only the police have guns how do you protect yourself against the lawless law enforcer, ….
I don’t have a way to protect myself from the “lawless law enforcer†and I have never felt the need for such protection. I don’t feel I have experienced a particularly sheltered life, when I have needed help they have been the first to respond.
Virginia Tech Police Homepage
Virginia Tech has a security force that consists of trained law enforcement officers that are recognized by Virginia as genuine police. No different from the police in any Virginia city (in fact they may have more power being chartered by the State instead of a city). They are every bit as competent as the police anywhere in the nation. Sadly, they screwed up during the attack, but that wasn’t because they weren’t real police. They certainly aren’t a private security force.
But that doesn’t matter and is off-topic.
I also continue to stand with Kevin and say that Cho, and Cho alone, was responsible for the deaths at that campus. No one else pulled the trigger. Cho did. Cho’s life was NOT at risk before this began, so it was NOT self defense. It was not a war, and Cho was not a soldier. It doesn’t matter what Cho’s reason is, Cho is wrong, and we cannot blame society for Cho’s acts. In fact, society needs to make a strong statement that this behavior is not acceptable, will not be romanticized, and will not be blamed on others.
I will also object to any use of Cho as a threat, implied or otherwise, to get society to treat autistics (or anyone else) properly. I write about parental murders being used to seek services on my page remembering autistic murder victims, and in that writing I express my view that this is a very inappropriate thing to do. Using Cho, Columbine, or whatever else as an example of “Be nice to us or else” is a pretty lousy thing to do, and is a horrible way of remembering the victims.
We can argue for our rights to not be bullied without the need for support from murderers.
Joel Smith,
Thank you for that clarification regarding the VT campus police.
Also, thank you for all of the work you invest in your blog. I followed the link you posted.
Carlos Menendez needed protection from the lawless law enforcer.
I’m not saying it is any better in Brazil where he came from, but there have been many killings of unarmed civilians by armed police, and what was done to Carlos Menendez was a cold blooded execution that would shame a mafia enforcer.
There are just too many guns on the streets period.
How many people here have experience of being mistaken for being an armed suspect on a University campus? I have, many years ago. I have to say on that occasion the police behaved with sobriety and calm, and so did I fortunately else I might not be here to talk about it.
It is wrong… no doubt, but to consider it as black and white will not teach us anything useful to try and avoid history repeating itself. Life does not happen in a vacuum. Cause and effect. Biochemistry plays a part too.
Actually there was evidence that he was “bullied” It was quickly squashed by the media but I say the interview live as it happened. One of those God Awful “poor little rich boys” was asked what kind of person Cho was. He said that Seung-Hui was a loner and quiet. He then went on to tell me exactly what kind of crap they did to that poor child. He stated that they offered Seung-hui $10 if he would just say one word. Now it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to picture the kids all ganged up on him while one of them offers the “question mark kid” money to hear him talk. I can hear their laughter and ridicule ringing in my ears and I wasn’t even there. I have seen it. I have experienced that level of cruelty. I understand Sueng-Hui and when I think about his mother I say, “There but for the Grace of God Go I!” My child completed suicide. He died alone. Sueng-Hui inflicted revenge on his persecutors before he died. My son inflicted revenge by his death. 5 children came to me at his funeral to ask me to forgive them for picking on my son. Of course it really isn’t me that they will have to get forgiveness from, it is my son. What those kids did to Seung-Hui was horrible. There is no difference in what they did and walking up to a paraplegic and offering him $10 to get up and walk. It was demeaning and disgusting!. Personally as the mother of a non-verbal Autistic I would like to rip their little voice boxes right out of their little throats for a week and be able to let them experience what it is like to be the person getting picked on all the time.
Athena’s right – but so is Kev when he implies that no matter what, there is no excuse for what Cho did. Especially as there was help available and he refused to take it – possibly because he’d already made his decision as to what he was going to do.