in my head, mileage variable
Apr. 18th, 2007 01:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aruanAbout Virginia Tech, the phenomenon of people willing to speak to journalists during a crisis, why we seek to blame, and why there's no acceptable solution.
I've been a crime reporter in Polk County for almost four months, and I've never yet written a story about a murder, a fatal car crash, a fire, a work-related accident, where someone either on the scene or intimately connected with the deceased wasn't willing to speak with me.
We all probably shook our heads at some of the idiotic things the reporters have said during coverage of the massacre at Virginia Tech, but it's hard to say something that isn't trite, obvious or stupid when you're foundering in the face of something that scares you almost as much as it hurts the people you're talking to. That could've been my mother some idiot decided to put a bullet in her head because she evicted him for not paying rent. That could've been my brother late for a party who wrapped his car around a telephone pole. My classmates gunned down. And it's while grappling with those emotions that you're trying to ask the people it's actually happened to what they are thinking. It's a wonder I ever get those stories written, and I'm surprised at the end of every one.
But this was, of course, bigger. And so are the stories.
- The student who admitted first cowering behind a podium in the room along with the rest of his class, then realizing they were next in line and got another kid to barricade the room with a table, even knowing not to stand in front of the door and therefore avoiding being hit when the gunman shot through it. He finally broke down on camera when the reporter asked him about being called a hero.
- The son of the Israeli professor who survived the Holocaust talking about how of course his father would sacrifice himself to save his students, would not have hesitated.
- The rescuers who told an Associated Press reporter how as they were carrying out the dead students, they had to listen to their cell phones ring in their bags and pockets, knowing their parents and friends would be hearing the worst from a stranger.
- The father of one of the students killed talking about his daughter who loved to dance and wanted to save the world.
The bigger surprise, every time, is that these people find words for the unimaginable.
One of this story's predictable consequences is the resurgence of debate about gun control. This blog post criticized the politicizing of this tragedy, but I think that misses the point. The point isn't capitalizing, although god knows there are plenty of people who do, but about saying, "Something should be done."
I think there is something admirable about the reaction of needing to find something to do when faced with a crisis. We could say, "God works in mysterious ways," and do everything the same tomorrow. We could say it's an isolated, freak incident, that this was a bad person and what can you do? But saying, "There's something wrong in the world that brought about this atrocity, and we should change it," is valuable to society.
But it can be dangerous. Red herrings can come up, like the hysteria over violent video games and Marilyn Manson after Columbine, all Arabs after 9/11, etc. Obvious answers conform to Occam's Razor - but more than that, they're deceptively easy. Looking for something more sinister but just as common, closer to everyone's home are always harder to recognize.
People who think they know the answer because it feels right in their gut - sorry, Stephen Colbert - are the ones who should be ignored. Listen to the experts. Listen to the peers of the people they're talking about. Mostly, LISTEN. A lot of the time, people listen to the loudest person, to the one who says the most controversial thing, and maybe a thing that already makes people uncomfortable. Especially that last makes it too easy to turn a tragedy into a personal agenda item.
On that note, is gun control the answer? Well, the fact is that we'll never EVER get rid of the Second Amendment, and there doesn't seem to be anything that would've kept this student, or any other resident without a felony record or documented psychiatric problems, from getting a gun. So what's a feasible solution? Mandating a psychologist stand next to the gun dealer behind the counter? Hardly. Limiting firearm ownership? That might be possible, but good luck. Our streets are not Baghdad's, and yet the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. So where's the line? And who draws that line? The gun debate, as it's been since it began, is virtually moot.
What IS the solution? Before getting to that, an important disclosure: The foundation of my opinion is that almost everything about people is written in their genetics, with little to no credit to whatever nurturing that occurs. Yes, it works for dogs, but most sex offenders don't rape because they've been told it's right; most serial killers don't murder because they've been lead to think it's permissible. Sure you can instill a disregard for life, but there's a whole rest of the world that will challenge that. And vice-versa. At the end, people are a product of a confluence of forces, and what they walk away with is what sense they've made of it, with what's inside them. Personality disorders are as real and immutable as allergies.
For some we've discovered behavioral or chemical treatments, but (once born, with today's technology) there's nothing to be done about a person's DNA. Maybe we'll get to the point where more symptoms will be manageable, or simply eradicated in a petri dish altogether. But to that end, in this situation, I'm not sure there is a solution short of periodic comprehensive mental evaluations for everyone, which is not only infeasible, but so Brave New World it makes me ill. Who makes such a test? Who analyzes the results?
You punish actions, not thoughts - otherwise, I'm sure anyone who's sat in gridlock would be behind bars. We punish intent (or offer leniency) after the fact - the assassin is different from the battered wife when it comes to murder, and that's as it should be.
But this kid hadn't done anything violent. Stalking, voyeurism - unsettling, yes. But how does a person cross over from different to dangerous? Most mental health professionals probably couldn't bat even close to a thousand. And what if there is a problem found? We can't make up our minds about sex offenders, whether they can be treated or should be castrated, if not locked up for the rest of their lives. Where do a "broken" person's rights end and the greater good takes over? Again, take a poll and get a million answers.
One of this shooter's former roommates said they did what they could - campus police, Virginia police, warning girls he was showing interest in; and so did everybody else - psychiatric counseling, the teacher who brought his paper to the department head, the other one who had him removed from her class and the one who gave him one-on-one tutoring, the girls who filed police reports. So as far as this case, there seems to be no answer as to what could have stopped this, and what could've been done short of taking a much harder look at how we handle the responsibility of dealing with potential before it becomes reality.
I've been a crime reporter in Polk County for almost four months, and I've never yet written a story about a murder, a fatal car crash, a fire, a work-related accident, where someone either on the scene or intimately connected with the deceased wasn't willing to speak with me.
We all probably shook our heads at some of the idiotic things the reporters have said during coverage of the massacre at Virginia Tech, but it's hard to say something that isn't trite, obvious or stupid when you're foundering in the face of something that scares you almost as much as it hurts the people you're talking to. That could've been my mother some idiot decided to put a bullet in her head because she evicted him for not paying rent. That could've been my brother late for a party who wrapped his car around a telephone pole. My classmates gunned down. And it's while grappling with those emotions that you're trying to ask the people it's actually happened to what they are thinking. It's a wonder I ever get those stories written, and I'm surprised at the end of every one.
But this was, of course, bigger. And so are the stories.
- The student who admitted first cowering behind a podium in the room along with the rest of his class, then realizing they were next in line and got another kid to barricade the room with a table, even knowing not to stand in front of the door and therefore avoiding being hit when the gunman shot through it. He finally broke down on camera when the reporter asked him about being called a hero.
- The son of the Israeli professor who survived the Holocaust talking about how of course his father would sacrifice himself to save his students, would not have hesitated.
- The rescuers who told an Associated Press reporter how as they were carrying out the dead students, they had to listen to their cell phones ring in their bags and pockets, knowing their parents and friends would be hearing the worst from a stranger.
- The father of one of the students killed talking about his daughter who loved to dance and wanted to save the world.
The bigger surprise, every time, is that these people find words for the unimaginable.
One of this story's predictable consequences is the resurgence of debate about gun control. This blog post criticized the politicizing of this tragedy, but I think that misses the point. The point isn't capitalizing, although god knows there are plenty of people who do, but about saying, "Something should be done."
I think there is something admirable about the reaction of needing to find something to do when faced with a crisis. We could say, "God works in mysterious ways," and do everything the same tomorrow. We could say it's an isolated, freak incident, that this was a bad person and what can you do? But saying, "There's something wrong in the world that brought about this atrocity, and we should change it," is valuable to society.
But it can be dangerous. Red herrings can come up, like the hysteria over violent video games and Marilyn Manson after Columbine, all Arabs after 9/11, etc. Obvious answers conform to Occam's Razor - but more than that, they're deceptively easy. Looking for something more sinister but just as common, closer to everyone's home are always harder to recognize.
People who think they know the answer because it feels right in their gut - sorry, Stephen Colbert - are the ones who should be ignored. Listen to the experts. Listen to the peers of the people they're talking about. Mostly, LISTEN. A lot of the time, people listen to the loudest person, to the one who says the most controversial thing, and maybe a thing that already makes people uncomfortable. Especially that last makes it too easy to turn a tragedy into a personal agenda item.
On that note, is gun control the answer? Well, the fact is that we'll never EVER get rid of the Second Amendment, and there doesn't seem to be anything that would've kept this student, or any other resident without a felony record or documented psychiatric problems, from getting a gun. So what's a feasible solution? Mandating a psychologist stand next to the gun dealer behind the counter? Hardly. Limiting firearm ownership? That might be possible, but good luck. Our streets are not Baghdad's, and yet the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. So where's the line? And who draws that line? The gun debate, as it's been since it began, is virtually moot.
What IS the solution? Before getting to that, an important disclosure: The foundation of my opinion is that almost everything about people is written in their genetics, with little to no credit to whatever nurturing that occurs. Yes, it works for dogs, but most sex offenders don't rape because they've been told it's right; most serial killers don't murder because they've been lead to think it's permissible. Sure you can instill a disregard for life, but there's a whole rest of the world that will challenge that. And vice-versa. At the end, people are a product of a confluence of forces, and what they walk away with is what sense they've made of it, with what's inside them. Personality disorders are as real and immutable as allergies.
For some we've discovered behavioral or chemical treatments, but (once born, with today's technology) there's nothing to be done about a person's DNA. Maybe we'll get to the point where more symptoms will be manageable, or simply eradicated in a petri dish altogether. But to that end, in this situation, I'm not sure there is a solution short of periodic comprehensive mental evaluations for everyone, which is not only infeasible, but so Brave New World it makes me ill. Who makes such a test? Who analyzes the results?
You punish actions, not thoughts - otherwise, I'm sure anyone who's sat in gridlock would be behind bars. We punish intent (or offer leniency) after the fact - the assassin is different from the battered wife when it comes to murder, and that's as it should be.
But this kid hadn't done anything violent. Stalking, voyeurism - unsettling, yes. But how does a person cross over from different to dangerous? Most mental health professionals probably couldn't bat even close to a thousand. And what if there is a problem found? We can't make up our minds about sex offenders, whether they can be treated or should be castrated, if not locked up for the rest of their lives. Where do a "broken" person's rights end and the greater good takes over? Again, take a poll and get a million answers.
One of this shooter's former roommates said they did what they could - campus police, Virginia police, warning girls he was showing interest in; and so did everybody else - psychiatric counseling, the teacher who brought his paper to the department head, the other one who had him removed from her class and the one who gave him one-on-one tutoring, the girls who filed police reports. So as far as this case, there seems to be no answer as to what could have stopped this, and what could've been done short of taking a much harder look at how we handle the responsibility of dealing with potential before it becomes reality.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: April 18th, 2007 08:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: April 18th, 2007 08:33 pm (UTC)It's not quite believable, for its magnitude but also because it defies that part of us that wants to do something but also preserve individual liberty. Ben Franklin would be ashamed of me for some of the thoughts I'm having, but this shouldn't happen. But then, I also don't think there's anyone qualified to keep it from happening without harming a lot of innocent people. [sigh]
no subject
Date: April 18th, 2007 11:53 pm (UTC)And the more that's learned about the gunman, the worse it all sounds. But you're right - what else could have been done? That wouldn't have violated his civil liberties? If he hadn't been able to purchase guns legally, he'd have found other means to carry out his killing spree. He couldn't be arrested without committing a crime. He couldn't be institutionalized without demonstrating severe psychological problems. Teachers, classmates - everybody raised warnings. They weren't blind to the potential danger, there just wasn't a means to stop him.
It's so incredibly sad. Him, all the dead, the injured, the traumatized, the friends family members left behind - I feel horrible for all of them.
no subject
Date: April 19th, 2007 01:25 am (UTC)I don't know if you've seen the photos and excerpts they've been airing from the package he mailed to NBC, but this was an incredibly lonely kid who was bullied, abused, and at best ignored by his peers. And nobody is talking about any of that save for saying he's blaming everyone else. Anyone who's ever been the outcast knows what it's like to always feel like the outsider even when they're supposed to belong, like in a classroom. And I'm not saying mowing down a bunch of innocent people was justifiable, or even that it was the fault of the people who hurt him that he did what he did, but there is really no safety net in our society for people on the fringes who hurt quietly. Same for drug addicts - the resources are few, and there is no help for people who can't make their loved ones take advantage. This kid was angry at a fundamental flaw in our increasingly isolated, individualistic society, and I'm contemplating a follow-up post saying that that's what's really wrong here - us.
The people who spoke up on this kid's behalf, and there were many, are admirable, but there was really nothing to be done as long as he didn't hurt any of them, according to law enforcement. But there should be help, beyond a short stint in an institution, for kids like him. Loneliness should be recognized as the crippling, horrifying thing that it is.
no subject
Date: April 19th, 2007 12:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: April 22nd, 2007 03:34 am (UTC)My "blame" is more complicated, in that it's something that I have trouble with doing in a friendly crowd, let alone asking strangers. But if there is something to be gleaned from this, hopefully it'll be some navel-gazing on the part of everyone who contributed to this kid's disenfranchisement. Our exclusionary, individualistic society ridicules the different and provides little sense of community to those who don't conform, and then wonder when those people won't take it any more. Disenfranchisement is a powerfully ugly and hateful thing, when just being yourself is a daily chore. This kid had other problems - apparently, he was autistic - but that exclusive, demeaning culture he hated finally drove him to do something about it. He's responsible for what he did, sure - I'm just saying, happy people don't kill others (thanks, Legally Blonde). Investing him in society would've gone a long way, in my opinion.
I remember how impossible it was for me after coming to the States at 9 years old and not speaking a word of English - besides culture shock, I couldn't communicate with anyone and was teased and stolen from because the kids knew I couldn't tell anyone, teachers didn't have time to teach me, and it wasn't until I was put in a different school, in ESOL classes that I found others like my. Luckily, after grade school I had advantages - my looks are not distinctly foreign, I am fairly pretty and intelligent, and there's no trace of accent in my speech. I can't imagine the person I would've grown up to be without those things. From reports, it seems Cho never really lucked out with any of them except for smarts, which are hardly rewarded by peers anyway. Would I have ever taken up a gun about it though? Probably not, because I'm not aggressive by nature (but then, how aggressive do you have to be to shoot someone? Not very. Angry, yes, but it's a pretty cowardly thing to do.)
That got long, sorry. There's just a lot in my head about this, and all the idiots blaming everything under the sun but modern society aren't helping.