Real story behind Columbine

Care to back that up?

What is?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Damn pesky links. Ok here

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/356465_dangerousmain26.html

Signal is commenting on what I said about there being no way to give someone a meaning of life. You have to go back and see our exchange. Its the existentialist response to anomie. In the absence of a religious framework telling you what the meaning of life is and your place in it, you are forced to come up with your own or rather give meaning to your life. I'll elaborate or re-post the links if you like but I think you get it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From that link:

Civil liberties over-riding civil safety?

Ah, I did see that exchange.
The idea of "meaning of life" doesn't have any resonance with me.
The main thing I query is Signal's "most people in the West... etc."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read on. The link I mean.

Well existentialism and even the term anomie does come from the West. Its a western outlook for western angst in the post god is dead or almost practically period.

 

What exactly is the situation we are in right now? Universal crisis: social, economical, environmental.
If people would have acted right, we would not have this crisis.

What life on Earth supposedly is about.

 

And none of these things are happening anywhere else?
Just in the West?
Or is the West's fault for it being all over?
Plus there's a difference between "knowing right from wrong" and being able to implement policies/ practices etc that will work correctly at some unspecified time the future - which was (still is) the problem when everything kicked off.

"Supposedly"?
For whom?

 

Signal why don't you simply state what you think life on earth is about

 

And the continuation -

Somebody's thinking about it.

Except that they (we do).
Certain mental patients are designated a potential danger to themselves or others.
The net is there...

Yup, so was aerodynamics at one time, but it didn't stop people making and flying planes.
Incarcerate of suffer the consequences.

And we know more now than we did then.

Er, no.
I suggested that an investigation into the claims should/ could have been made, not a straight committal.
And THEN it could maybe have been found that there was more evidence.
Possibly sufficient evidence...

PS bedtime

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Catch you later.

 

If the net was there without holes then a mentally ill Williams with a history of violence and prison sentence wouldn't have been able to kill that young woman.

They are thinking of how to do so with people of the criteria they now deal with, not the people with no priors that you refer to. They are speaking about the mentally ill violent who pose an IMMINENT threat based on priors. You are suggesting bringing in people who are not in the system based on what can easily be deemed dubious allegations. This will never happen in the States less we re-write the constitution and bill of rights. The law can only go so far to intervene on those who haven't posed a threat. You still ignore the fact that these boys were not a disintegrated mess like Williams. Williams was not a psychopath, he did not suffer from a personality disorder. Personality disorders are a mental health issue only when a person has done something because it isn't a problem per se but an indication of WHO THEY ARE. Psychopaths do not crack like a schizophrenic. They are disposed to narcissim and show a great clarity of thought, charisma and to are large degree social functioning (school, work, marrige, children etc). If they even thought they did have a personality disorder IT STILL ISN'T ENOUGH GROUNDS TO HOLD THEM. Why? BECAUSE YOU STILL LEGALLY CANNOT HOLD SOMEONE BASED ON WHAT THEY MIGHT DO. God guys what is it you cannot comprehend about that? That is not something that will never legally change. Personality disorders are not treatable so what would you do with them? I don't understand why you can't see there are limitations to this and what can be done to prevent sociopathic violent acts.

 

The West is definitely heading the trend.

If you really know right from wrong, then you will also know how to implement it.
This is a truism.

For those who believe that each person has to find their own meaning of life, on their own, and that there is no direct instruction.

The downside of this individualistic thinking is that people do all sorts of things in the pursuit of 'their own meaning of life', and this leads, among other things, to lesser social cohesion, increased stress, and of course, a considerable toll on the environment and difficulties in governing a society and its functioning in general.

 

I am not so concerned about trying to detect potential criminals and reform and/or remove them from the rest of the society.

What I find most interesting in all this is the discourse that takes place about this phenomenon - what people think is the cause of criminality, issues of responsibility, issues of prevention, issues of strategies suggested for victims to recover.

I am interested in finding out how people explain why things happen the way they do, how people explain how to counteract them, and what attitude to have in the case where it seems that it is impossible to counteract something.

 

Life on Earth is for the most part about sense gratification and dominance - eating, sleeping, mating and defending.

 

Not in the system, eh?

One of the issues in those other lawsuits is whether deputies could have prevented the massacre if they had fully investigated warning signs from the gunmen, such as a violent essay Klebold wrote for his English class.

CBS News recently obtained evidence suggesting that, more than a year before the rampage, law enforcement officials tried to link Harris's violent Web site to pipe bombs found near his house.

They filed an affidavit for a search warrant but it was never issued.

After a court battle, 60 Minutes II obtained the affidavit (Warning, document contains graphic language) pertaining to the Web site which suggests the sheriff's department may have known more.

The document indicates that in March, 1998, sheriff's investigators were checking out a Web page put up by Harris on which he threatened to blow up a number of people in the Denver area.

A month before, investigators had been called to a field and found a pipe bomb. According to the affidavit, one investigator matched the bomb to details provided on Harris Web page.

"Investigator Grove described the device as a one-and-a-quarter inch by 6- to 8-inch PVC pipe with a red fuse," the affidavit reads.


Within days of the April 20, 1999, shooting investigators were aske about the report of Harris' Web site, but Sheriff's Department's Lt. John Kiekbush said merely, "We got some information about some kids who didn't get along. Some information that was provided on a Web page that we could not verify. Kids in virtually every high school in the country at times don't get along."

After the shootings, sheriff's officials downplayed tips about Harris making death threats - even though they relied on them to get a search warrant for his home hours after the bloodshed.

Randy and Judy Brown, whose sons were threatened by Harris, made several attempts to get the sheriff's department to investigate.

Sniffy note: It is my understanding that in the US a death threat against another student is certainly enough to warrant an investigation by Police and social services and was at the time of Columbine.

The tips started in 1997, when one of the Browns' two sons gave a deputy a printout of a Web site on which Harris boasted of going on nighttime missions with Klebold, firing weapons and vandalizing property.

The Web site later included boasts by Harris and Klebold about
building pipe bombs and referred to "ground zero."


In another controversy, authorities have admitted numerous complaints were made against Harris and Klebold before the attack. They were never followed up.

Kelly Fleming’s father, Don Fleming, says, "You know they had 15 contacts with law enforcement over the previous two years. They were in trouble with the school. They were constantly in trouble with their parents."

Families of the victims say the warning signs were clear: Misplaced police reports, prophetic videos made by the killers at the school itself, a father's secret journal, a Web site and an essay promising death.

.............................

Pretty big needles. Pretty small haystack.

100 weapons. 13 lives (excluding the killers) and 36 wounded. 49 families devastated. Those numbers just keep adding up don't they?

God bless civil liberties, God bless Guns and God bless America.

 

Because someone decided to change the net.

No I'm suggesting that someone should have looked to see if they actually were dubious allegations.

Of course.
I mean, the constitution is still implemented exactly as originally written, isn't it?
No new laws heve ever been introduced or old ones changed.

Fine: like I said.
Let's just stay with the odd slaughter now and again.
God forbid there should ever be a change in the law.

But not implemented by every single person in the West.

No that's a facile argument.
Sometimes you aren't (and never will be) in a position do what is right.
You only get limited options.

 

Sniffy: One of the issues in those other lawsuits is whether deputies could have prevented the massacre if they had fully investigated warning signs from the gunmen, such as a violent essay Klebold wrote for his English class.

CBS News recently obtained evidence suggesting that, more than a year before the rampage, law enforcement officials tried to link Harris's violent Web site to pipe bombs found near his house.

They filed an affidavit for a search warrant but it was never issued.

Well if there were legal grounds to issue a warrant they would have...but they didn't did they. Violent prose isn't proof of anything. Are you suggesting that any violent film or novel filled with violence is created by a future killer? All of your examples are being highlighted AFTER the fact because Columbine was such a huge tragedy in the minds of the american public. You need just cause to issue a warrant not individual fears.

Sniffy:A month before, investigators had been called to a field and found a pipe bomb. According to the affidavit, one investigator matched the bomb to details provided on Harris Web page.

And how many copies of the 'Anarchist Cookbook' are there in population? Hell I can find it online for $8.50!

Recipes for Disaster. An Anarchist Cookbook
Bookseller: Smith Family Bookstore Downtown
(Eugene, OR, U.S.A.)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 8.50
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within U.S.A.:
US$ 4.95
[Rates & Speeds]
Book Description: CrimethInc, 2005. Trade Paperback. Book Condition: Very Good. mild shelf wear. clean, tight. Bookseller Inventory # 400542

[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask Bookseller a Question]

Are we going to arrest every white male who owns the Turner Diary as well on suspicion of another Oklahoma bombing or Texas dragging?

Sniffy: Within days of the April 20, 1999, shooting investigators were aske about the report of Harris' Web site, but Sheriff's Department's Lt. John Kiekbush said merely, "We got some information about some kids who didn't get along. Some information that was provided on a Web page that we could not verify. Kids in virtually every high school in the country at times don't get along."

Well that proves my point. These are not pretty big needles nor is it a pretty big haystack it only looks that way to you now. Are you suggesting that every teenager who is disliked, bully, writes vicious stories be dragged in and investigated? You don't even have the man power to investigate KNOWN criminals who are a threat.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Keep looking for Bin Laden mate.

 

Show me proof that there is a change in law?

Who should have looked Oli? The only people who should have looked were perhaps the parents. Schools can only do so much and can only take action on actions taken. The law can only maneuver within the law. In other words they hadn't done anything illegal until they did. If you read the piece on Williams you can see it isnt easy to either monitor nor keep track of someone who had already committed violence and was already under care. How do you expect them to check into every single allegation based on hearsay and fear.

Of course there are new laws. But as indicated in the article there is still no way to prevent violence 100%. These laws have limits less you have policemen able to come into your house willy nilly under any pretext whether its warranted or not.

Remember the gruesome Fred and Rosemary West. They raped their kids, they raped the babysitter, they murdered and buried bodies under floor boards, wall and garden, they practised zoophilia and incest maybe the weirdness was picked up on, maybe it wasnt but it still took all this before they were considered serious suspects:

"In May 1992, West raped his 13-year-old daughter at Cromwell Street and filmed it and then raped her twice afterwards. She discussed the incident with friends at school. On 4 August one of the friends told her mother and she approached a local policeman explaining her concerns. On 6 August 1992, the police decided to investigate, eventually leading to Fred West being charged with 12 counts of murder, with Rosemary as an accomplice. She was also charged with child cruelty and the remaining children were placed in foster care. The rape case against the Wests collapsed when the two main witnesses declined to testify at the court case on 7 June 1993. However, the police continued investigating the disappearance of their daughter Heather, six years earlier. After taking statements from social workers about the joke about "Heather being buried under the patio" and the children themselves, they obtained a further search warrant in February 1994, allowing them to excavate the garden in search of Heather. They started searching the house and excavating the garden on 24 February 1994."

They had been killing for years! But you still need reasonable proof to go digging about someone's garden.

 

The problem is that when a person is found guilty, sentenced and imprisoned, this act sends out the message to the rest of society: 'This criminal is the bad guy, everyone else is good an innocent. The one that has been put into prison is the one who is wrong, all others are good, right and innocent.'

The whole blame for the crime is shouldered solely and exclusively on the person who committed the crime. But nobody else is given any punishment.

Incarcerating someone has the effect that many other people feel good about themselves.


Take for example a woman who is a prostitute, alcoholic, as a single parent has a teenage son whom she regularly yells at beats him and the son is witness to her prostitutional activities. One day, the young man gets a gun and shoots some of the prostitute's 'customers'. The young man is imprisoned, while the mother faces no consequences in terms of punishment.

Common sense will say that this woman didn't do a good job as a mother, and that the way she acted has been detrimental to her son - and that if she had not acted the way she did, chances are her son would not kill all those people.

Therefore, it would only be fair to punish her as well. Not with a sentence as severe as the son, it after all wasn't her who pulled the trigger, but there should be some prison sentence for her as well.

I realize such a principle of law enforcement is practically impossible to carry out, yet it would be the only fair principle.

But the way we have it now, with the individualistic approach to punishment, it makes the rest of people look innocent - and society doesn't change, criminality continues stronger than before.


When I think of 'prevention of criminality', I am not thinking of picking out potential criminals and refraining them from the rest of society.
I am thinking of picking out tendencies in society that lead to criminality and counteracting and eliminating those tendencies.

It is - only to a different extent.
Even the homeless and the beggars are, for example, participating in the destruction of the environment as they accept the help of those who participate in that destruction more intensely.

I just don't buy this sort of relativism.
There is either right, or wrong, and nothing else.
If we allow for a 'grey zone', the notions of right and wrong become meaningless altogether.

 

Signal your example of the prostitute. Does it have any relation to reality? Its easier to deal with life examples than a conjured fantasy as it doesn't support nor negate any arguments in this case. But if you insist, there are many people who grow up in examples worse than that and do not pick up a gun and harm others. What do you make of that?

I find it incredibly weak and disingenuous to say that the fault of one person is to blame for an entire society which manages to keep themselves from acting out in this way, as I have pointed out before surely you have to give the same credit to the same society for turning out a majority of people who do not behave in this way. What kind of argument casts the actions of the weak and unstable as the fault of the strong and able? You want to blame society for the act of a few? Why? I can understand blaming a society for a larger social incompetency that is self-destructive towards itself and others like for example nazi germany. In these cases when people EN MASSE place an incompetent leader in place advocating inefficient policy then yes 'society' is to blame, but what you want to do is victimize the majority for the work of a minority.