Kowabunga

As usual, the abundance of idiocy never fails to astound me. This time from the mail room of the Red Star Tribune:

I am saddened that most people say there were 32 victims of the Virginia Tech slayings on April 16. I do agree that Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people before taking his own life; however, Cho was a victim as well.

The writer goes on to reiterate some of what was known about Cho: that professors and students felt intimidated and threatened by him. But the writer focuses on the fact that Cho wore dark glasses and a hat to his classes, not on the writings he is reported to have written, dark pieces on murder and killing. Even some of his classmates figured out who the gunman was that day before it was revealed it was Cho.

Cho gave out many warning signs, all of which seem to have been overlooked by society. He threatened to kill himself, there was a temporary detention order issued, and he was placed in a mental health facility. With enough time in an inpatient facility, a professional should have been able to see there was something else going on.

Was Cho a crazed lunatic who thought of death every minute of the day and finally just snapped in a fit of rage and decided to kill 32 people before killing himself? No, Cho was a victim of an undereducated, underfunded society that lacks the resources and will to give him, and others like him, the help they need.

Warning signs are easy to recognize in the aftermath of a tragedy like the Virginia Tech Massacre. But to call this animal a victim of society puts the blame for what happened on society, not on the animal who pulled the trigger and snuffed out 32 lives in a rage of hatred.

To say Cho was also a victim is irresponsible at best; it provides some justification to the next animal who wants to go out in a rage of bullets. It is more accurate to say it is a sickening claim to say Cho was alos a victim.

Tags:

Seung-Hui Cho Star Tribune Virginia Tech