<p>I believe that a background check is mandatory for the purchase. I’m not sure that anything would have shown up though, as he did not actually have a criminal record from what I read.</p>
<p>Psychiatrist on CNN is supporting everything I said, & some things others have said regarding intervention & (actually mandatory) further evaluation that was called for with clear warning signs. Spokesman is talking about a complete “breakdown of systems,” including but not limited to the mental health system." Indeed.</p>
<p>Regarding the gun purchase, <em>had</em> Hui received <em>mandatory</em> treatment (for example, in a mental health institution, even temporarily) that data would have been reflected in the Instant Background Check, which would have DENIED him the opportunity for purchase.</p>
<p>I agree with the poster who suggested that maybe the U.S. has become too PC for its own good. Certainly in some areas, I would agree with that.</p>
<p>New information seems to be indicating that the shooter should have been gone from that campus long ago and precautions should have been taken to protect students. Given his mental health record, I don’t understand why he could buy weapons.</p>
<p>"BLACKSBURG, Virginia (CNN) – Cho Seung-Hui was referred to a mental health facility in 2005 after officers responded to accusations he was suicidal and having inappropriate contact with female students, police said Wednesday.</p>
<p>Police first investigated Cho in November 2005 after a student complained about him calling her and contacting her in person, university police Chief Wendell Flinchum said. </p>
<p>“The student declined to press charges and referred to Cho’s contact with her as annoying,” Flinchum said of the November investigation. </p>
<p>Police investigated him again the following month when a female student complained about instant messages Cho sent her, Flinchum said. After police spoke to Cho, they received a call from a student concerned that he might be suicidal.</p>
<p>After speaking with Cho “at length,” the officers asked him to see a counselor, and he agreed to be evaluated by Access, an independent mental health facility in the area, the chief said.</p>
<p>“A temporary detention order was obtained and he was taken to a mental health facility” on December 13, 2005, he said. …</p>
<p>Cho’s roommates, who asked to be identified only as Andy and John, had similar accounts. Andy recalled police coming to the dormitory to investigate Cho’s involvement with a female students and when Andy told police that Cho had spoken of suicide, “‘they took him away to the counseling center for a night or two…’”</p>
<p>The same story quotes renowned poet and Va. Tech prof Nikki Giovanni as saying, "Cho’s poetry was so intimidating – and his behavior so menacing – that Giovanni had him removed from her class in the fall of 2005, she said. Giovanni said the final straw came when two of her students quit attending her poetry sessions because of Cho…</p>
<p>Giovanni went to the department’s then-chairwoman, Lucinda Roy, and told her she wanted Cho out of her class, and Roy obliged.</p>
<p>“I was willing to resign before I was going to continue with him,” Giovanni said. “There was something mean about this boy.”<a href=“Killer's manifesto: 'You forced me into a corner' - CNN.com”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html</a></p>
<p>Within the law - voluntary vs involuntary - is the difference here. Within the law - he did receive voluntary treatment at a facility - which would not require it being reported on his record - where an involuntary would have been handled differently. If and until his mental health records are made public little will be known what transpired regarding his treatment. Within the law - the facility was not able to give the university any information regarding this guy or his treatment.</p>
<p>There is such a fine line to be drawn when trying to get someone who may be mentally ill the help they need. I am comforted and saddened that the creative writing teacher made such efforts to get this troubled young man the help she clearly felt he needed, but disturbed that the system was unable/unwilling (the facts are still developing, so I won’t draw a conclusion) to respond. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there was a case last year of a young person who went to seek help for depression at GWU and was expelled from the school. As a society, we still tend to stigmatize those who seek treatment, whether through talk therapy or medication, yet when something horrible happens, there is a collective rush to say “why didn’t he get treatment?”</p>
<p>I’m not intending to start a flame war – just pouring out my conflicted feelings as I sort through my emotions.</p>
<p>If you go to the CNN article, you can access a video clip from the interview with the roommates. It is really creepy.</p>
<p>CountingDown - you are absolutely right - that fine line is where many teeter - ethically, legally and professionally.</p>
<p>What was discussed on the news last night is that often campus police try and keep things “in house” and that is why the local police, with much more experience and resources weren;'t called in a timely enough fashion</p>
<p>And he was accused of stalking but the women did not press charges</p>
<p>We as women need to follow through and use all the legal resources available to protect ourselves…to not press charges was probably an error in judgement, we need to take this stuff much more seriously</p>
<p>As we have seen in the past, stalkers seldom just stop, they get smarter and it can turn deadly</p>
<p>As well, the police termed the first attack a domestic dispute, which really downplayed the seriousness of the incident, as someone said, if he had shot a male or a professor first, the campus police might have looked at the incident in a very different light</p>
<p>"On the other hand, there was a case last year of a young person who went to seek help for depression at GWU and was expelled from the school. As a society, we still tend to stigmatize those who seek treatment, whether through talk therapy or medication, yet when something horrible happens, there is a collective rush to say “why didn’t he get treatment?”</p>
<p>The student was involuntarily hospitalized after saying she felt she was going to kill herself. After being released, she was suspended or expelled and escorted off the campus.</p>
<p>I was among the few posters who supported the university’s actions. I actually have also been a counselor at GWU’s counseling center, years ago when I was a psychology doctoral student there.</p>
<p>As I stated in the original thread, any person who is suicidal can also be homicidal. A person who is so suicidal that they need to be hospitalized doesn’t belong on a college campus. The campus is not equipped to protect them or others whom they may harm. Such a student needs to be sent home so they can be watched closely by relatives who know them well and are in a position to help ensure that the student gets the mental health care that they obviously need.</p>
<p>If Va. Tech had done with GWU had done, the massacre may have been prevented.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link berurah! It explains a lot. It was a little disconcerting to read, in an AOL article, the info about the affidavit immediately after discussion of the authorities still investigating the accomplice angle.</p>
<p>chocoholic, did you not hear me? I said that authorities have confirmed that <em>mandatory</em> psychiatric record of institutionalization, even brief, would have indeed flagged this student as unable to purchase, even on the “instant background check” that is triggered with every purchase attempt in VA. This was just moments ago re-confirmed by an additional source on CNN.</p>
<p>One does not need a criminal record to be a red-flag-name.</p>
<p>From Newsweek:
“Hours later, a friend of Cho’s called campus police to say he seemed suicidal, Flinchum said. Police then contacted Cho again and convinced him to undergo an outside psychiatric evaluation. Officials said they did not send Cho to the campus counseling center because staff there do not have the authority to involuntarily hospitalize patients.”
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800834.html?hpid=topnews[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800834.html?hpid=topnews</a></p>
<p>Seems that the university counseling center needs staff with that authority.</p>
<p>From the same article:
“Cho was admitted to Carilion St. Albans Psychiatric Hospital in nearby Radford, Va., on Dec. 13, 2005. Officials said they believe Cho entered the hospital voluntarily. They would not say how much time he spent there, citing privacy rules”</p>
<p>I would bet that “voluntarily” mean that he was told, “commit yourself or we’ll have police commit you.” I think that very few people who commit themselves to mental institutions “volunteer” to do so without a lot of coersion.</p>
<p>Would have… should have… could have. Blah, blah, blah. Fact it, this WILL happen again, just like it’s happened before. Fact is, the very existence of people with psychiatric problems is why other societies restrict the sale of guns. And since THIS society can’t get itself to do so – we only set ourselves up for future heart break. Because we all know, it will happen again.</p>
<p>
are you talking to me? Cause I did not hear you. 
And brilliant though I am, I did not read yout post # 642 before I posted my post #641. Chill.</p>
<p>Just asking a question here…how do HIPPA and FERPA privacy laws play into this? I know we’ve discussed this before on other threads, how we are only privy to the bills and not the grades or health information for our students. Could it be that some of this information was protected or withheld for legal purposes?</p>
<p>As for the gun permit applications, my husband has worked several cases where the applicant checks “no” on the mental health questions even though they received medication/counseling/treatment and for whatever reasons the background check did not find the records. His first case was Laurie Dann (circa 1988), who legally obtained a gun by lying on the application about her mental health status. She later entered a second grade classroom in Winnetka and shot a student and a teacher. (I believe this is the first time my children’s schools developed closed door and lock down policies.)</p>
<p>While more information is available 20 years later, more databases interface, and so forth…I do wonder if people do not disclose this information-- can be ferreted out if it is protected?</p>
<p>Northstarmom,
The instance I was referring to was a young man who was depressed, but specifically said he was not suicidal. I will see if I can find a link so I can be more clear.</p>
<p>Northstarmom,
Here is the case I was referring to:
Wash Post story – <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/09/AR2006030902550.html?sub=AR[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/09/AR2006030902550.html?sub=AR</a>
Bazelon Center for Mental Health law who backed the young man in his lawsuit (summary of case, links) <a href=“http://www.bazelon.org/newsroom/2006/3-13-06-Nott.html[/url]”>http://www.bazelon.org/newsroom/2006/3-13-06-Nott.html</a>
Filing made on behalf of student: <a href=“http://www.bazelon.org/issues/education/incourt/nott/nottcomplaint.pdf[/url]”>http://www.bazelon.org/issues/education/incourt/nott/nottcomplaint.pdf</a></p>
<p>I am thankful this person was able to get help and that he successfully transferred to another school. The privacy vs. public interest conflicts here are incredibly difficult.</p>
<p>NSM…‘‘Seems that the university counseling center needs staff with that authority’’</p>
<p>Only state designated/authorized agencies have that right. (edit - change of wording here) have that authority - and can work with the court to have someone admitted/evaluated.</p>
<p>NSM…‘‘I would bet that “voluntarily” mean that he was told, “commit yourself or we’ll have police commit you.” I think that very few people who commit themselves to mental institutions “volunteer” to do so without a lot of coersion.’’</p>
<p>Voluntary is just that - and can also mean that the patient can also sign themselves out as well. Seems that there were no legal violations that this was based - but on mental health basis.</p>
<p>As I recall, when my son applied to VT, he was not required to submit high school letters of recommendation or essays. Basically we were told at the tour that test scores and grades were what they look at. Maybe they also need to rethink that policy. If he acted anything like this in high school, I would think it would be communicated in a counselor letter during the application process.</p>
<p>TTM…‘‘how do HIPPA and FERPA privacy laws play into this? I know we’ve discussed this before on other threads,’’ - Could it be that some of this information was protected or withheld for legal purposes?‘’‘’</p>
<p>Those laws play a huge part of this situation - actually for all situations related our privacy rights. - so in a nut-shell - BIGtime.</p>