http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/index.html

Now that we have a little more info on the person behind the Virgina Tech slaughter yesterday (and know that he is not either middle eastern or muslim as some of the narrow minded BIGOTS on this site wished to be true) - I am trying to piece together some puzzle as to why he did what he did.

I notice in the above CNN article that it makes no further mention of the "looking for girlfriend" thing. Apparently he wanted to kill rich people, debaunchers, and charlatans (braggers and boasters).

I guess it's safe to say that someone pissed the guy off or atleast set him over the edge. And if, and I'm assuming it is, the girlfriend aspect is still viable: here's my theory.

This nutjob hated people that sort of people and one of them banged his girlfriend. (The two dead in the first dorm)....then he just goes off and kills 30 more across campus? Why that particular dorm? Why target the engineering people?

The report says that he was a loner and all that - but given some of the vocabulary he uses - I'd say he was an intelligent fellow. (Book smart anyway)


This whole thing just seems out of wack. Call me a skeptic - but something huge is missing from this. I wonder if the police know who the girlfriend is in the first place? Or if that part of the story is even true?

Anyway - I'm just spitballing here. Tell me what you all think about it.

Look, if you can't start spelling bigots correctly, you're going to find some former Virginia Tech students show up on your doorstep in bunny costumes with grammar swastikas on them.

I think he was really a North Korean spy sent here for subversive activities. We need to show those fuckers who's boss!

No Questions. Just Nukes.

Interesting stuff, jere--my thoughts..

I'd say he had a long history of explosive and sometimes violent anger. He may not have physically lashed out at others, but he harbored those kind of thoughts many many times.

i'd say he was a controlling kinda anal-retentive sort who liked having things go his way at all times.

Apparently he was a loner--this doesn't surprise me. He may have also been described by others who knew him as a , quote, loser or wierdo. He probably had zero social graces.

He harbored tremendous resentment against his classmates and the world at large. They all had it so good while he alone was misunderstood and picked on.

He didn't snap; he planned this for some time.

It was to be the highlight of his life--the taking out of others who were "responsible" for his sorry lot in life.

Rendova - let me begin this post by thanking you for staying on point (and very good points by the way.)

I just finished reading some reports by fellow classmates and former teachers about certain things he did while a student. He signed his name on the roster with a question mark. He would only shrug his shoulders when asked to particpate and discuss topics in class.

It's also being reported that he was believed to set a dorm on fire and was alleged to stalk female students and take cell phone pictures of his female teachers.

My first reaction to reading this is: how did he stay in school through all this? Is there no procedures in place to remove someone like this from school, or perhaps even better, get him some emotional help?

My second initial thought is: he must have some sort of psychological problem that was pre-existing prior to his behavior. In order to live the kind of secluded and anti-social lifestyle that he apparently lead and then blame others for being secluded - there has to be a trigger even further in his subconscience.

One of the two plays he wrote in his playwriting class delt with a child who kills their molester father. Perhaps he too was a victim earlier in life. (please know that I am not defending him in the least - just trying to dive deeper into this story)

I read that an English teacher of his was so concerned about something he wrote in class that she suggested he get counseling but she never followed up to see that he got it.

Rendova - let me begin this post by thanking you for staying on point (and very good points by the way.)

I just finished reading some reports by fellow classmates and former teachers about certain things he did while a student. He signed his name on the roster with a question mark. He would only shrug his shoulders when asked to particpate and discuss topics in class.

It's also being reported that he was believed to set a dorm on fire and was alleged to stalk female students and take cell phone pictures of his female teachers.

My first reaction to reading this is: how did he stay in school through all this? Is there no procedures in place to remove someone like this from school, or perhaps even better, get him some emotional help?

My second initial thought is: he must have some sort of psychological problem that was pre-existing prior to his behavior. In order to live the kind of secluded and anti-social lifestyle that he apparently lead and then blame others for being secluded - there has to be a trigger even further in his subconscience.

One of the two plays he wrote in his playwriting class delt with a child who kills their molester father. Perhaps he too was a victim earlier in life. (please know that I am not defending him in the least - just trying to dive deeper into this story)

There most likely was a "stressor"--one final "blow" that finally set him off--like, he was fired, or a romantic breakup.

It may have been, to us, a very trifling thing.
Maybe somebody laughed at him in class one too many times.

I've read the school offered counseling, but don't know as yet if it was taken.

i'd say he probably didn't go. Remember, HE didn't have a problem, but everyone else sure did.

He wasn't a psychopath but I'd classify him as a narcissist. He was the only one who was important. Other people's problems meant very little to him.

I think the school and maybe others did try to help but with that many students, and an unwilling patient, it probably would'nt have helped.

I would classify him as a sociopath.

I wonder what he meant by "you made me do this"?

Anyway - I'm just spitballing here. Tell me what you all think about it.I think your profiling assumptions resemble the same type of thought process you refer to as bigotry when others do it.

I think your profiling assumptions resemble the same type of thought process you refer to as bigotry when others do it.

Interesting. Where do you get that?

I used facts that were actually given by the media - and put those together in as logical a fashion as I could as I began this thread. I think its important for everyone to have some sort of theory as to what happened.

That doesnt mean that the first time a lot of people get killed - the first criteria we need to mark off the list is "Are they Islamic? Yes or No?"

However, when media gives us the information that a kid felt depressed, suppressed, and voluntarily withdraws themself from the group - and then goes onto kill 30+ people...its not too hard to logically connect those dots.

I am more than open to hearing your take on this, however.

I am more than open to hearing your take on this, however.

Brooks' typical MO is that he is more interested in criticizing you then talking about the topic at hand.
It would be a glorious achievement if he could relax his sphincter enough to have a decent conversation for a change.

1. I used facts that were actually given by the media - and put those together in as logical a fashion
2. I think its important for everyone to have some sort of theory
3. That doesnt mean that the first time a lot of people get killed - the first criteria we need to mark off the list is "Are they Islamic? Yes or No?"
4. However, when media gives us the information .....its not too hard to logically connect those dots.
5. I am more than open to hearing your take on this, however.
1. So you were speculating, like the other people were.

2. Who gets to approve other people's theories?

3. "I think it's important for everyone to have some sort of theory"

4. Logically connecting the dots is one thing, but it sounds like you've spun it to conclude that this guy had a girlfriend and she was banging rich guys.
Up until about thirty years ago rape victims were treated similarly until those organizations progressed past that.
(Your speculation about her is far more creative than someone asking "was he Islamic?")

5. I think it is human nature to need a reason but one doesn't always exist.

I wonder what he meant by "you made me do this"?

It was his heart -wrenching, self-serving farewell to the world, and conveniently puts the blame not on himself, but on his victims.

Let me start by saying that I in no way defend what this person did. This was a horrible "incident". (I really can't think of a good word for it.) And I admit I'm drawing from other threads here. This seems the best place to respond to all of it.

People have been very quick to attribute all kinds of things to this person. But as someone who has been where he was, let me just say that some of these assumptions are just that: assumptions. In many cases they are formed out of, please forgive the word, ignorance. Ignorance as in simply not being aware, not as in disregarding facts or anything negative like that. But the world doesn't always, or perhaps often, work as some imagine it does.

Most of the facts that rendova says in her first reply also apply to me. I have a history of explosive and sometimes violent anger. I'm a loner and have often been described by certain others as weird and a loser.

Now, as to the things I am not and cannot be ascribed to the shooter either, unless there are things I'm not aware of. I am not anal retentive. Things do not have to go my way all the time. I do not harbor resentment against people, and certainly not because I think they have it better than me. I do not have zero social graces. I am certainly not a narcissist, other people's problems DO matter to me, and I am not the only one who is important.

I understand being angry at the shooter. But ascribing those things to him "just because" is ignorant (good meaning) about these sorts of psychological issues, and is just plain mean and wrong. People do a great disservice to those who need help when they insist on profiling people this way.

The assumption by people who have never personally dealt with these issues is that either we can just get over it, or we should just somehow see that life isn't fair and all the pain and hurt will just magically go away. If there was even the slightest shred of truth to that, we wouldn't be loners. The truth is that all that pain and hurt are very damaging psychologically. And sometimes that damage makes it literally impossible to think clearly.

Most people don't become loners because they like to live in a world of 1. They are loners because they've gotten the message time and time again that there is something wrong with them (often untrue) and/or they will never fit in and/or they are unworthy to fit in. Imagine getting this message every day of your life for years, especially during your formative years. Darned right his anger was directed at others. May you never have to know even one thousandth of that pain.

OK, so why haven't I bought a gun and killed people? That's easy. Although there are a number of people who don't deserve to live, I'm the only one who deserves to die. I have tried to kill before, but I tried to kill me. (And please, no sanctimonous speeches about how it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem, or how selfish it is to do that, or any of that other crap. You can judge when you get to that point, and not a step before.)

I can understand his desire to hurt those people like they hurt him. I'll admit it, if you push me too far I rather enjoy hurting you emotionally. (We're working on that.) I seriously doubt he blamed them for how his life turned out. Where does that idea even come from? That's part of the ignorance (positive use) I was talking about earlier. I also have no doubt that he was either trying to end his own pain or was punishing himself when he killed himself.

If we just want this guy draw and quartered, we can ascribe all the things we want to him. If we want to understand how these things happen and hopefully prevent them from happening in the future, we really need to get our own concept of the way things work out of our way and try to see what really happened.

myownpath,

I'd like to state that in no thread on these boards have I ever stated that every individual who displays anger, narcissism, social isolation, or has few to no social graces becomes a mass murderer.

Ninety nine thousand out of a hundred thousand such folks do not.

But the ones who do display the same characteristics and I do stand by that.

Lastly, if we knew why that miniscule percentage decided to go out that way and take countless others with them, we'd never be having this conversation.

Good luck to you and welcome to the boards.