Just passing this along.
Has anyone heard from the ACLU yet?
Don't you just love it when the media and the our Representatives stating that the problem is our constitution and the US Supreme Court telling the government to stop abusing our rights as defined by the constituion?
Apparently the privacy rights of whackjobs that have been throwing off signals of impending violence for a DECADE surpass those of the rest of society. Hit2. Arson
3. Stalking - Twice
4. Weird antisocial behavior
5. Adjudicated mentally ill.
6. Extremely violent writings (bad enough for a professor to threaten to resign over his presence in her class)
7. Suicidal tendencies
What was this bag of dung doing at VT in the first place and why was he not being treated in a rubber room?
Really? I missed that in the news. Doesn't surprise me though.
So, he lied on his 4473?
Yes he did. The ACLU should not have the ability to stop the BATF from actually doing it's job and having the records necessary for a true evaluation of a person's condition - including all court-related mental health records. (Jesus, I can't believe that I'm defending the BATF here...)
This does not bode well for us freedom loving folk...
thread on that here but that was before this came out.
It's so easy in hindsight to blame people for not catching this guy, but to be honest, until the moment he shot someone he was not in the red. This kind fo behavior prior to his shooting rampage is not the most extreme and antisocial behavior you'll see in college campuses.
The FBI themselves noted that Cho was a "lone wolf" and as if with most lone wolve cases, the red flags only become apparent after the fact!
I saw the VT shrink on the toob last night. As I suspected he would do, the prick stonewalled and acted all liberal uppity about the whole thing...AS IF HE WASN'T TO BLAME!
IF he and his fucking colleagues had taken the fucking time to inform our judicial system that they had a FUCKING WALKING TIME BOMB on their campus, then Cho would never have been sold those guns. They didn't and when the gun seller ran his background check, Cho passed. How fucked up is that...when we now know he had a LOOOOOONNNGG rap sheet...but was protected by the school shrinks' policy.
The school libtards, in a vain attempt to protect the "rights" of that sicko nutjob, are partly responsible for the deaths of all those poor people.
I FUCKING HATE LIBERALS!!!!
This article argues that it was technically legal for him to buy the gun, mostly due to different federal and state standards:
There's no "loop hole" in the brady act. Adjudications of mental defect are to be reported to NICS. Reporting agencies apparently are not reporting what they are supposed to. But it appears, at least according to the article, the Supreme Court ruled reporting agencies did not have to provided the records. Probably because the fed did not provide the funds to do so.
He was free, because others had declined to follow through when his behaviour impacted them. Perhaps they didn't want to take the time for a trial, or didn't want to adversely affect his future, by saddling him with a criminal record.
Despite the good intentions, it is clear that minimizing his destructive behaviour allowed this to grow beyond the ability of anyone to curb it. Without a criminal history, he didn''t meet the criteria to entered into NICS either as a felon, or as having been adjudicated as mentally defective. after having been found not guilty for reason of mental defect or disease, in a criminal trial.
Lessons learned after 23 years in the Marines: I've always been hesitant to refer charges for infractions, if I thought the Marine's behaviour could be dealt with unofficially in-house. The danger of that, is that if he later repeats or escalates to a worse offense, the opportunity was lost to officially document and correct the behaviour. Without documentation of previous infractions and measures taken to correct the behaviour, it makes it difficult for the Commanding Officer justify a punishment commensurate to the offense, because the Marine appears to be a first time offender.
I don't believe that article you posted is accurate. Here's the details of the final determination in Cho's mental evaluation case:
CHO 'PRESENTS AN IMMINENT DANGER,' JUDGE WROTE IN '05
By LEELA de KRESTER Post Correspondent
April 19, 2007 -- BLACKSBURG, Va. - A judge refused to send Cho Seung-Hui to a mental institution in 2005, ignoring his own conclusion that the troubled student "presents an imminent danger" to himself and others, court records show.
Cho had been accused of stalking two female Virginia Tech students in 2005, leading to a mental evaluation when an acquaintance feared the future killer might become suicidal, campus Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said. Cops had wanted to hospitalize Cho at the time, and the judge seemed to agree.
"He presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," Magistrate Paul Barrett wrote.
Despite that, Barrett eventually sided with a psychologist who called only for outpatient treatment.
"Alternatives to involuntary hospitalization were investigated and deemed suitable," he ruled.
The judge's decision was influenced by counselor Roy Crouse's evaluation of Cho. Crouse said the student had mental problems, but didn't need to be locked up. There was "sufficient cause to believe that he's mentally ill, but he does not represent an imminent danger to himself or others," according to Crouse, who worked at Access, a Blacksburg mental-health clinic.
The shrink's horrifically off-target report, signed Dec. 14, 2005, was unsealed yesterday in court.
Cho had been accused of stalking two women on Nov. 27 and Dec. 12 of that year, and Crouse noted Cho's unemotional demeanor and depressed mood.
"He denies suicidal intentions," Crouse wrote. "He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal."
Crouse, who has since left Access for a counseling job at Virginia Tech, could not be reached for comment last night.
Had Cho been involuntarily hospitalized, he wouldn't have been able to legally buy the massacre guns.
Karan Grewal, 21, who shared a dorm suite with Cho and four others, said university officials did not warn them that he had a history of stalking.
"I understand that maybe because of privacy reasons," he said. "It would have been better to know he was like that."
Meanwhile, Cho's parents remained in hiding yesterday. Cops guarded their house in the Washington suburb of Centreville, Va., and said the Chos had left town on Monday night.
The Cho family arrived in the United States from South Korea in 1992 and gained legal, permanent residency.
Cho's parents had long been worried about their son because he was so quiet - particularly in comparison to his overachieving sister and Princeton graduate Sun-Kyung.
She now works as a State Department contractor helping rebuild Iraq, officials said.
Cho's mom called her own dad periodically in Korea and happily chatted about how Sun-Kyung had gained acceptance to Harvard and won scholarships to Princeton, according to the Hankyoreh newspaper in Seoul.
When the grandfather asked about his grandson, the mom replied only, "He is doing OK."
With Marianne Garvey, David K. Li and Jeane MacIntosh
Here's a list of most of the mental illnesses identified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the U.S. standard reference for psychiatry. If any "mental illness" precluded someone from owning or purchasing a gun, there is not an American alive that could own a gun. Check out the list, I'm sure at least one applies to you.
Acute stress disorder
Alcohol and substance abuse
Alcohol and substance dependence
Antisocial personality disorder
Asperger syndrome, also known as Asperger's disorder
Attention deficit disorder, abbreviated as ADD.
Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, abbreviated as ADHD.
Avoidant personality disorder
Binge eating disorder (proposed)
Body dysmorphic disorder
Borderline personality disorder
Brief psychotic disorder
Chronic tic disorder
Circadian rhythm sleep disorder
Cyclothymia (or Cyclothymic disorder)
Dependent personality disorder
Disorder of written expression
Disruptive behavior disorder
Dissociative identity disorder
Expressive language disorder
Female and male orgasmic disorders
Female sexual arousal disorder
Folie à deux
Gender identity disorder
Generalized anxiety disorder
General adaptation syndrome
Hallucinogen related disorder
Histrionic personality disorder
Hypoactive sexual desire disorder
Impulse control disorder
Intermittent explosive disorder
Male erectile disorder
Munchausen by proxy
Narcissistic personality disorder
Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder
Oppositional defiant disorder
Paranoid personality disorder
Pervasive Developmental Disorder
Posttraumatic stress disorder
Schizoid personality disorder
Schizotypal personality disorder
Seasonal affective disorder
Separation anxiety disorder
Sexual Frustration disorder
Shared psychotic disorder
Sleep terror disorder
Specific developmental disorder
Stereotypic movement disorder
Transient tic disorder
Traumatic Stress Disorder
The DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), the U.S. standard reference for psychiatry, includes over 300 different manifestations of mental illness. Psychiatrists themselves are in dispute over how common some of these conditions are, or whether they should be listed as 'mental illnesses', and each version of the DSM is slightly different from the previous ones. The DSM is currently being revised and updated, and the next version will include new and refined diagnostic criteria and information. This is a portion of the currently recognised list of mental illnesses.
LOL @ Male erectile disorder. Considering how many people use Viagra (not that there's anything wrong with that) that disqualifies about half the men in this country.
Exactly what I figured, though. The libs will abuse measures taken to prevent true psychos from getting guns in order to implement backdoor gun grabs.
OH SNAP, homosexuality is listed in DSM? If it is listed as a mental illness then this pretty much wipes out any argument for allowing gays in the military. That is unless the libs care to admit that the DSM is not a good a standard as they want it to be.
The simple fact is there is no way that laws can protect us from maniacs bent on mayhem. Laws that attempt to do so merely inconvenience the criminals, while disarming the lawful.
Arm yourself, train, have the right mindset.
Oh no, it's truely a sign of the end of the world.
As soon as he was referred by a court for mental evaluation due to concerns that he might harm himself or others and DIAGNOSED (he was) mentally ill, that information should have been referred to NICS.
I am not nearly as concerned about someone being inconvenienced when trying to make a purchase or even having to clear their good name every time they do than I am for the apparent association between people like this and law-abiding gun owners that is inevitably drawn by the media and soccer moms after something like this happens.
We aren't talking about someone who is a little "down", sees a therapist and gets a prescription for Prozac here. We are talking about someone so overwhelming with creepy vibes that he gave college professors who probably had rosters made up of 1/2 Quentin Tarantino wanna-bees the heebie-jeebies. He was a complete fucknut and it was obvious to about 60-70% of the people he had any meaningful contact with. Forget "adjudicated" mentally ill, he was referred by a court and diagnosed as such. He should have been locked up, but they don't "lock up" (not that they shouldn't) a lot of mentally ill people these days.
Call me a shill for Ms. Brady, but I don't believe that NICS had been given enough or the right information to properly screen this turd and others like him.
IF the victims had pressed criminal charges.
Until there is a criminal complaint, he is just another person with one of the psychiatric disorders listed in the DSM-IV. Any discussion of his endangering others is moot, until someone will follow through with criminal charges or otherwise provide substantiated and documented proof that his condition makes him unsuitable for interacting with society.
There is this little thing called "due process" in the US Constitution. See 14th amendment. In Cho's case and specifically pertaining to his mental evaluation, until a court declared him "mentally incompetent" (or whatever term you want to use), then according to the constitution, he should have the right to purchase a firearm.
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship,
Due Process and Equal Protection
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
He got due process but his condition wasn't reported in so that it turned up in the NCIS check. There's no reason that someone who is mentally ill and has exhibited things like Cho had should have had a firearm. Once he found his way in front of a judge that's all the due process he needed.
Reread my post. I said disallowing a firearm purchase based on being mentally incompetent before due process is completed is not allow by the constitution. The poster I responded to said Cho should have been denied a firearms purchase before due process was complete. Cho's due process determined that "he was NOT a threat to himself or others" and that he had "sound insight and judgment". He was not adjudicated to be mentally incompetent.
It appears that I incorrectly understood the article in assuming that the magistrate sided with the psychologist and ruled that Cho did not present a danger to himself or others. The magistrate did rule that Cho presented a danger to himself