--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 4/19/07 9:26:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> There have been a bunch of good points about many aspects of this
> problem and lots of good counters. The fact is that this kid had
> mental problems and "went off". Plenty of people saw "warning
signs"
> but there lots of kids showing "warning signs" so perhaps greater
> awareness of risky kids might help, and maybe not. We can't exactly
> just lock up all the risky kids. This situation may not have a
solution.
>
>
>
> And here is our problem. We see people like Cho who have mental
problems and
> some brave soul may try to seek help for them but everybody else
seems to be
> afraid to force the issue because *we might be violating his civil
rights*
> or ask ourselves*Who am I to judge*, or be afraid of being called
a *racist*
> if we reported some minority as being odd. So in the name of being
politically
> correct we just ignore the situation and hope somebody else does
the dirty
> work or nothing happens. Had Cho been asked to leave VT until he
was mentally
> stable, how long would it have taken before the ACLU would have
filed a law
> suit against the University on Cho's behalf?
The point is, as Curtis noted, there are lots and lots
and lots of people who act really weird but never hurt
anybody and very, very few who go on shooting rampages,
and we have no way of reliably telling the difference
before the fact. Plus which, there are people who *don't*
act weird beforehand who go on shooting rampages.
So it's a cost-benefit thing ("cost" in lost civil
liberties and administrative time as well as financial),
a huge cost for very little return.
Granted, those who have lost loved ones in these
disasters will see the benefit side of the equation very
differently. It's not a slam-dunk choice either way.
