"Clearly, mental health professionals have a legal and moral responsibility," when a student presents a possible risk we have a duty to warn."—Christoper Flynn, Head of Virginia Tech Counseling Center
We are a litigious society that loves to place blame. As Liberals root around to find the latest fall guy to blame for the 4/16 massacre at Virginia Tech the number one culprit that will be blamed is guns and the lack of gun control. Liberals if they had their way would make it virtual impossible for a citizen of the United State to get a gun.
One small problem with this thinking, every citizen of the United States has a Constitutional right to have a gun. So if liberals are going to blatantly disregard the Constitution, as they always do, they must have a compelling argument for violating the second amendment. So what is it?
Liberals will undoubtedly say, if Seung-Hui Cho, the deranged and mentally ill gunman of Virginia Tech was not able to purchase a gun 33 people would not have died on 4/16. It is much to simplistic a view.
So according to Liberals the Second amendment, a Constitutional guaranteed right, is at fault for the 4/16 massacre.
Also anyone who supports this Constitutional right to own a gun namely Conservatives are indirectly at fault because they are the ones standing in the way of anti-gun advocates’ ability to take away the Constitutional second amendment right to own a gun.
Courts let him Go
Still there is another way of seeing this. If we must have someone to blame then why not blame the court that found Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous. Then it let him go. We blamed President Bush for the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita when the State and City were the actual first responders.
President Bush’s administration has been accused of incompetently handling Katrina so by that same logic who are the incompetents that allowed Cho Seung-Hui to kill 33 people?
In December 2005 -- more than a year before Monday's mass shootings -- Justice Elinor Williams, a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.
Psychologist Roy Crouse found Cho's "affect is flat and mood is depressed.”
After Dr. Crouse's psychological evaluation of Cho, Special Justice Paul M. Barnett certified the finding, ordering follow-up treatment on an outpatient basis.
What’s so tragically laughable about this situation is the so-called experts in psychology offering their assessments of the pathology, which would allow someone to perform such a grotesque attack against innocents after the fact. So where were these “experts” when the courts where attempting to determine what to do with Seung-Hui Cho?
And contrary to what pundits and so-called experts are saying now the courts did have the power to hold Seung-Hui.
According to the court documents: The judge may rely solely upon the evaluations and reports of the appointed examiner and of the Community Services Board, to order your involuntary commitment, if these reports are not contested by you.
But regardless of whether Seung-Hui contested the reports there was enough evidence to demonstrate that Seung-Hui was a danger to himself and to others.
Justice Elinor Williams, Psychologist Roy Crouse, Special Justice Paul Barnett, the Police Department, Virginia Tech Counseling Center and Virginia Tech Administrators all acted incompetently and negligently by allowing Seung-Hui Cho to remain at Virginia Tech thereby remaining a threat to himself and his fellow students.
Had one of the professionals that came in contact with Seung-Hui Cho had done his or her jobs correctly Cho would not have been able to purchase a gun because he would have received the help that he needed. But instead the worst massacre in the history of the United States was allowed even though at any time someone could have prevented it.
It’s not gun control that we need to waste our time discussing. We need to know why people who we entrust to protect us did not do their jobs.
Their egregious negligence is the best argument for second amendment rights making the point ever so cleary that we can not expect anything but post massacre investigations and media coverage of tradegies however if you want protection, as always, you’ll have to do it yourself!