Placing blame

[rainbowbob]

Gee Bob, I thought that's what I said in my own way!

george29:

My apology and red face.

I spaced and misread your words, "I blame the mentally healthy..." as, "I blame the mentally ill..."

You said it better and much more concise.

Mea culpa.

 

[JKimball]

The thing is, it is 100% true. The administrators of VT do indeed have blood on their hands, as illustrated:

10Ring,

I still disagree. Maybe the term "blood on their hands" means something different to you than it does to me. To me if someone has blood on their hands that means they should be standing at trial on charges of murder, accomplice to murder, conspiracy to commit murder, or manslaughter.

Don't we all tend to say that individuals should take responsibility for their own protection? If we are going to start throwing the blame around on people besides Cho, then we would have to hold the student body accountable as well. Would you say that the students that were killed had their own blood on their own hands? How many of them joined the fight the previous year to make CCW on campus possible? My guess is that it wasn't many. (In any case, it wasn't enough. And the surviving students still haven't done it.) But the fact of the matter is that it is not their fault they were killed, it was Cho's fault. Sure, they made some wrong decisions too, but they didn't kill themselves.

Now if you want to start talking conspiracies, I'd really like to know how much evidence the psych drug companies and FDA have regarding the violent/suicidal side effects of these drugs that are making them billions of dollars.

 

[Soybomb]

I still disagree. Maybe the term "blood on their hands" means something different to you than it does to me. To me if someone has blood on their hands that means they should be standing at trial on charges of murder, accomplice to murder, conspiracy to commit murder, or manslaughter.

There are different degrees of culpability. One doesn't have to literally get their hands bloody to be partially responsible. To pull from wikipedia for a minute

Modern crimes codes in the United States usually make distinct four degrees of culpability.

Legal definitions are:
1.) A person acts intentionally with respect to a material element of an offence when:
if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and
if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.

2.) A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:
if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and
if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.

3.) A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and intent of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

4.) A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and intent of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

Wouldn't one of these fit the VT admins who actively worked against allowing students to be able to protect themselves while on campus?

Don't we all tend to say that individuals should take responsibility for their own protection? If we are going to start throwing the blame around on people besides Cho, then we would have to hold the student body accountable as well. Would you say that the students that were killed had their own blood on their own hands? How many of them joined the fight the previous year to make CCW on campus possible? My guess is that it wasn't many. (In any case, it wasn't enough. And the surviving students still haven't done it.) But the fact of the matter is that it is not their fault they were killed, it was Cho's fault. Sure, they made some wrong decisions too, but they didn't kill themselves.

We generally don't blame the victims for being victimized. You'll find few people would say something like those soviets peasants are partially to blame for not arming themselves against stalin.

 

[JKimball]

Wouldn't one of these fit the VT admins who actively worked against allowing students to be able to protect themselves while on campus?

Soybomb,

Thanks for the definitions. I actually don't believe any of the definitions meet the actions of the VT administration. The closest you might say would be reckless, or negligent, but if you notice the bolded phrases:

3.) A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and intent of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

4.) A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and intent of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

The VT administration's policy was far from a gross deviation from the standard. In fact it was right in line with the standard policy of practically every other college in America.

 

[george29]

My apology and red face.

Thanks

 

[FourNineFoxtrot]

As a college student and youngish-person, I guess I'll add my vote to the pile.

I think the poster is good how it is.

Yeah, it's a brutal image, and the accusation of the VT administrators is equally brutal. But the poster is a pale shadow of the brutality of the action that spawned it. We need strong images. I know my generation needs strong images to have any sort of emotional effect. Innuendo and inference don't do it for us. A corpse sprawled on the floor, however, we can understand. The medium is the message, and this medium is one that can have an effect.

We must not be afraid of strong images and strong words. If our message is less than decisive, we will accomplish nothing. We are fighting for a right we believe is so fundamental to the human condition, to life itself, that we are horrified at the thought of it being taken from us, indeed, from anyone. Better that we share that horror with our political opponents in words and pictures. If we are determined enough, and lucky enough, perhaps words and pictures will win this fight... it is certainly better than any of the alternatives. So let's not hamper ourselves by pulling punches. Communication is today's battleground. We need to use it to the fullest possible extent.

 

[Grey_Mana]

Not realistic enough.







Tech doesn't have grey rugs like that, and what girl would wear white on white? No earrings, jewelery or body art?