Red Herring?

Karen Bower says: ” no court has found a college liable for failing to prevent violent outbursts.”

Just because courts have not ruled thus does not take away the filing of lawsuits. That’s why specific outlines of what should be allowed should be established. Senator Lieberman is correct.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 7:45 am EDT on April 27, 2007

Changing the Mental Health Care conversation

Let’s take the conversation one step in the other direction — and not assume that Cho qualified as being mentally ill.

The facts we have tell us he acted in a socially unacceptable way around others. He can do that and retain his citizen rights.

The facts also tell us he broke the law — an important personal safety law — when he stalked 2 female college students.

He cannot do that and retain the right to be with others.

Discrimination laws protect our right to act in a way that “others” deem to be socially unacceptable. We have a nasty history of doing so -hence the need for a law that says no person, group, media personality, institution, or group of ‘do-gooders’ has the right to discriminate on the basis of what “they” want to call “normal”

THAT SAID

No one has the right to intimidate,scare, or hurt others in a civil society — ANYONE who violates the rights of another needs to be removed from that society.

No excuses — Violent behavior is not a sign of mental illness. It is violence.

We need to address the social madness affecting our moral compass... and ask ourselves-

What type of reasoning allows for fuzzy time periods where we fiddle around trying to be omnipotent under some silly premise of caring for (read “labeling for")someone’s supposed ‘mental health’ when that someone hurts or intends to hurt others.

To do so is what I call crazy.

Pamela, Graduate Student/Instructor at University of MO- STL, at 9:50 am EDT on April 27, 2007

The demarcation of our civil rights

I agree with you Larry, and needto be more specific. We have the right to not be afraid of bodily harm, which is what the two college women were afraid of when they wanted Cho to stop stalking them. Which is why he needed to be held accountable.

Yet,communities often write policies that limit lewdness, profanity, and hate propoganda said in public, and there are laws that limit my speech,such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. Sorta,

kinda.

but then maybe it is...

When we yell “mentally ill” over every communication media available,

well,... some social service professionals stampede easily and only calm down by spreading labels.

Makes me wonder what purpose is served to create mental illness posthumous?

Cho was mean. He was hateful. He became a criminal. He left uncountable victims, who need support. Cho doesn’t benefit from attempts at social understanding-he’s infamous. and the legend of his mental anguish benefits who?

Pamela, Graduate Student/Instructor at University of MO- STL, at 3:10 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

good law/ wrong point

I appreciate the opportunity to weave more legal framework into the present discussion and believe you picked a perfect statute for our conversation.

First, I hear your point that one’s fear, in and of itself, does not make my case. To tell you I am afraid of someone’s intentions is to voice my apprehension — an act of calling attention to the situation that constitutes the first criteria: I must be afraid that I am in danger.

I believe the wording of Missouri. Mo. Rev. Stat. 565.070 clarifies the second criteria

“The person PURPOSELY places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;”

If I purposefully place a person in harm’s way, I’ve committed a crime. If I claim or reveal my intention-the case is closed.

If I do not admit my intention and my actions result in harm to others, was it on purpose?

Now our conversation returns to the accountable — unaccountable continuum we like to call mental health...and the first straw man argument in play ( the second being scared white people)

We cannot-despite our hubris to the contrary-pin down this jello concept called “intent” and that’s the problem w/ playing god.

We can say that if someone follows me around, takes pictures of me w/ their cell phone, and pays me undue attention- that I have a right to be afraid -black, white or green, those actions are violating my personal space and the person needs to be arrested and held accountable.

As far as scared white people go, you may have something- but your minority argument does not hold water. I can be afraid of anyone but I have to have “cause” for fear to make a case for third degree assault.

I think white fear is about holding people accountable — or maybe its about closing our faviorite escape hatch for criminal behavior?

Pamela, Graduate Student/Instructor at University of MO- STL, at 6:40 am EDT on April 28, 2007

Let’s learn from this horrific tragedy and not worry about potential lawsuits. The bottom line is we need to start listening to our students and doing everything in our power to help them, regardless of the “rules.” Where did we lose our humanity as teachers?

Ilene P., at 4:25 am EDT on April 30, 2007