<p>This is why I am annoyed:
I resent the rude dismissal of actual repercussions that those who cross the politically connected in my town have faced. Something Jeepmom could not possibly speak about with any authority.</p>
<p>^^I have the same right to my opinion as you do - yet you ‘dismiss’ my commnets - thinking for some reason that I know nothing about being in a situation such as you described. My comment stands - and I do have such experience to speak from - tho I will not discuss it in this forum. So be annoyed as you wish to be - you think it was rude?? - it was a comment.</p>
<p>Time to move on.</p>
<p>Not meaning to stick my nose into this fracas, but just thought I’d mention that in many states (don’t know about NJ) anonymous complaints can be made to the psychology licensing board. Ok-- I am ducking and quickly getting outta here!! I am just trying to be helpful.</p>
<p>^^no need to duck LOL - differences of opinion and experiences and how different folks handle stuff - that’s all :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not that poor and apparently not that naive, either. Lawsuit against Vtech pending?</p>
<p>Probably more worried about getting sued themselves. But a daughter works for the State Department, so even if the parents are naive, she’s in a position to make sure they get advice from people who aren’t.</p>
<p>The Chos do NOT have a case against VTech. However, if I were VTech I would lawyer-up pronto, anticipating filings by the <em>actual</em> victims. (Warnings from 2 profs, etc.) Not saying that the innocent families will win, only that I wouldn’t be surprised if there were attempts.</p>
<p>If I were Katelynn Johnson’s parents, I would be very proud of her showing compassion for that obviously very troubled killer, and for having the courage to stand up for what she believed in.</p>
<p>"BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) – A senior at Virginia Tech said moral responsibility led her to add a stone for gunman Seung-Hui Cho to a memorial for his 32 shooting victims that was set up at Virginia Tech late last week. The stone was later removed, but was restored by Wednesday morning.</p>
<p>Katelynn Johnson, a senior sociology-psychology major, identified herself in a letter to the Collegiate Times as the person who added the stone for Cho.</p>
<p>“My family did not raise me to do what is popular,” she wrote in her letter to the campus newspaper. “They raised me to do what is morally right. We did not lose only 32 students and faculty members that day; we lost 33 lives.”</p>
<p>In her letter, Johnson said she feared a backlash from students and possibly faculty members who did not agree with having a stone for the killer included in the memorial. But she said feedback since the letter was published has been largely positive."</p>
<p>Katelynn’s heart is in the right place.
On Monday, didn’t the bells toll 33 times at VTech?</p>
<p>I actually think that whoever moved the 33rd stone slightly apart from the others had the right idea, symbolizing the tragic isolation (on many levels) of the shooter.</p>
<p>There’s going to be a show about the VTech shootings tonight at 10pm (ET… not sure if that’s significant) on the History Channel. It might be worth watching.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although on some level I recognize this, I feel it may have been slightly insensitive in some ways. I don’t know that many people on campus are personally grieving him (I am not being sarcastic, I really don’t know - but I don’t think so). These memorials were a way for people to deal with the grief of lost loved ones - people whose lives and promise were cut short through no choice of their own. IMO these things are for the living and not the dead…I think there’s a certain level of detachment if it wasn’t your family, your close friend, but these things really mean a lot to people, they aren’t really like judgement grounds or anything against Cho.They may not exactly be the place to invoke the presence of the person responsible. I realize - or I think - that he was very sick, and I have also been touched by the fact that his life was so full of sorrow and disturbance, but I will admit I do not really grieve for him. There is just not enough energy to grieve for that. More like recognition, but not really grief. </p>
<p>However if she felt she had to do it, then she felt she had to do it. I fully recognize someone’s right to (peacefully) express themselves. However I also dislike the statement that this is “morally right” as if those grieving loved ones are wrong for not grieving their killer too, somehow. I feel that there is nothing moral or immoral about these memorials or any absence within them. They are a way for people to deal with their grief and celebrate lives cut short. If she personally felt it was necessary to add another stone, then that is her prerogative. I do wish she would express it more within terms of her own personal motivations and needs, rather than making absolute statements. I do not think she intends to be callous or make this an argument, however in some way it almost does come off like that. I think she only intended compassion but somehow it just rubs me the wrong way.</p>
<p>Very nicely said, Princedog. You put words to what I was feeling, and I thank you.</p>
<p>
I would concur with this completely. I, for one, neither could nor WOULD grieve the death of a killer of someone I knew. I bristled, too, at the immediate way in which the Amish community did this same thing with the killer of their precious children. It seems…well, unnatural and “forced” to me. </p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>There are those who have an amazing ability to forgive - or to at least recognize that there is a morrally right thing to do - I admire this young lady for doing what she deemed to be the right thing to do. There were 33 white balloons released on monday as well - during one of the memorials.</p>
<p>For some - there will never be any form of forgiveness - or even recognition relating to Cho in this horrid thing that happened.</p>
<p>To me, forgiveness and equity are two different things. Perhaps this killer should be forgiven on the basis of his mental capacity (and because we find it healing for ourselves). But to me, forgiving a killer doesn’t mean you automatically grant him the same kind of memorials that you do his victims.</p>
<p>Rape victims are sometimes told that if their attacker is remorseful, they should “forgive” instead of pressing charges. One woman recently confronted with this asks the question why she can’t forgive and want justice both?</p>
<p>(A side issue is whether people who don’t show remorse should be forgiven, but I don’t think this applies to Cho, because I don’t think he had the mental capacity to understand his actions that well.)</p>
<p>I also believe that only the victim or their survivors has the standing to grant any meaningful “forgiveness” to a killer. Again this differs from justice/equity. Someone else can decide that prosecution is just or unjust, but no one else can “forgive” someone for a crime against you any more than they can sign away the title to your car.</p>
<p>We attended the funeral of the of of the victims. Her father read from a small notebook she kept with quotations. The last entries she made in her book were on the topic of forgiveness. These are some of the quotes that her father read: </p>
<p>“The weak can never forgive, forgiveness is an attribute of the strong.”</p>
<p>“When a deep injury is done to us… we never recover until we forgive.”</p>
<p>“Forgiveness doesn’t not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.”</p>
<p>“The naive both forgive and forget. The stupid neither forgive nor forget; but the wise forgive yet never forget.”</p>
<p>A message for all of us from one of the victims.</p>
<p>Singersmom - what an amazing tribute from this young lady and her thoughts. That must have been such a difficult service - and thank you for sharing</p>
<p>From The Washington Post. If you read the whole story showing how various agencies dropped the ball, you’ll see that some officials apparently thought that a person a judged said was “dangerously mentally ill” should have been treated at a college counseling center! </p>
<p>"Seung Hui Cho never received the treatment ordered by a judge who declared him dangerously mentally ill less than two years before his rampage at Virginia Tech, law enforcement officials said, exposing flaws in Virginia’s labyrinthine mental health system, including confusion about the law, spotty enforcement and inadequate funding.</p>
<p>Neither the court, the university nor community services officials followed up on the judge’s order, according to dozens of interviews. Cho never got the treatment, according to authorities who have seen his medical files. And although state law says the community services board should have made sure Cho got help, a board official said that was “news to us…”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18525242/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18525242/</a></p>
<p>NSM, This article teases out the meat of the problem. The other major problem, of course, were the available firearms to Cho. This article really gets to the heart of some of the problem, so thanks for posting.</p>