Maybe this is why he did it: a theory

[noose papier]

Decided to re-post at a later time. My bad.

[jameth]

Perhaps some raver boy hit on him, and he was turned on by it, and then maybe one of his straight pals found out, so he flipped out and decided to shoot everyone. It also sounds like the plot to a Lifetime movie special.

[pernapi]

The doctor will say he did it because there was a physiological imbalance. The psychologist will say he did it because he needed counseling. The teacher will say he did it because he didn't learn a sense of community in school. The mother will say he did it because he wasn't loved enough. The father will say he did it because he wasn't brought up with a firm enough hand. The church will say he did it because Satan had power over him.

All of these things may be true. What you said has truth in it. What we will never know is THE truth.

All of us have to take responsibility for our actions. I have been reading a lot of "Right to bear arms" posts on here. Fine. If people feel that way, that is part of what we call America. I will vote my beliefs, you vote yours. The point is that if you are choosing to bear arms, because you are afraid that someone is going to get you in some capacity, whether it be the government or someone else, it is does not change the fact that the fault lies with you when you shoot someone. You are culpable.

If someone you love gets shot and killed, no analyzing, no blaming brings the person back. That is what all of the friends and families of the vistims of this tragedy are dealing with right now.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter why he did it, he did it. What can you do? What can I do?

I support therapy for people who are troubled, but who is going to decide that? The government? Schools? Who do you propose mandates therapy or medication for people? In Washington, if someone is a threat to themselves or others, they can be picked up, but I don't think that is what you are talking about. Yes, it is good to be aware and supportive. It is a piece of the puzzle. It is not the only answer though.

The real answer to preventing these tragedies is multi-layered. Gun control alone is not going to solve the problem. Neither is education, medication, love of God, or anything else all by itself. It will be a combination of many positives and needs being met.

[slor6]

In response to your observation. Clearly you have some kind of background to support your allegations, but honestly people can speculate and they can bring in as many professionals on the matter that they want to. In the end he really took the reason for the crime to his grave no one will ever really know. So instead of trying to figure out why he did it maybe we need to turn the other way and support those who are affected by this tragedy. Give them the support that they need.

[AllisonWonderland]

It's true, Not as bad as coke though

[Keeso]

Originally Posted by noose papier

And no, this has nothing to do with 911, TWA, or the Skull and Bones. We are going to focus on the perpetrator.

It has to do with the stigma associated with psychology.

Wow, well-written ... very calm and thoughtful. Probably more thoughtful than my first post, when the more I thought about what happened, the more I considered how lame Seattle is in dealing with problems ... more of a "wring your hands and light candles" approach to mayhem. And I still think human beings have to be careful with all the freedoms they have and think long and hard about self-control. But I do, indeed, have great sympathy for the families of the victims and think this was a horrible deed. I knew many people would be predictably knee-jerk and point fingers in convenient directions (gun control being one); but I believe self-protection with a firearm is both a grave responsibility, although one that some people should not be allowed to take on or be allowed to have. But how to determine that? And as long as more people are saved by being to protect themselves from violent crime (which statistics bear out) when compared to the number of victims of the occasional crazy shooter, *sigh* ... as horrible as it is, it's a numbers game. I hate to say it, it just is ... but that certainly doesn't help the families of these particular families and the more I hear about the details the more awful it seems. But it still doesn't change my opinions about either gun-control or people reining in their impulses and how that's the important part of this picture.

We have to be supportive of each other but we also can't cut each other too much slack -- I think personal responsibility (and issues about local or national politics aside) is something every person in every region, every city, every family, should give a great deal of thought. Human beings like to think of themselves as being so giving, so expansive ... but if you look very closely, people are basically selfish. And that's OK ... to an extent -- that's part of an important survival mechanism, but only up to a point. The challenge of living in a society with lots of other people (many of them quite different) is to learn to play the game, to balance your own naturally selfish desires with the rights, needs, and desires of others. Like young kids on a playground, learning to "play nice." When too many people step on each other's toes, things get out of balance.

When people are too selfish, self-absorbed, and irresponsible, it becomes a "cult of the self" solo act: "I can do what I feel like, when I want. It's all relative." Seattle has never been a place where absolutes are entirely relished -- that "free-thinking spirit." But taken to an extreme, it can all get pretty ugly. Demar Rhome is the poster child of that syndrome. I hate to say it, but Seattle grew him like sh*t grows mushrooms. He has to take responsibility for his actions (which he won't), but his environment that allows him to develop in that twisted way has to also take some responsibility.

Which brings me to the wonderfully humanistic overview you gave; even being the former-humanist/now-misanthrope that I am, I applaud your post even as I question how it can genuinely be implemented. By what mechanism do your really save those that perhaps cannot be saved ... and do you drag them into treatment, kicking and screaming? The local civil right activists would certainly not stand for that. Can you identify possibly latent or overt mental problems and gently cajole them into treatment? It really does get very sticky. It's not an easy thing to do. I think many agencies (DSHS comes to mind) are often alternately lame and too-hands-off and then perhaps occasionally heavy-handed. Where to go from here?

In a perfect world, your generous approach would work and the Columbine-outcast-killers and the like would all be identified and helped to deal with their rage; but the truth is, that is simply impossible. I suppose minimizing the human cost by saving at least a few (so that more events like this don't occur) could be a start ... but it won't save all the innocent lives lost. Whether you ban all guns, ban all cars so that there would be no more (numerous!) hit-and-runs ... well, people -- often being the f*ck-ups they are -- will still find a way to hurt others if they are irresponsible enough or just outright mean. And the uncertainty that comes with that knowledge remains a bitter pill for many to swallow.

I expected more from the staffers of "The Stranger" -- something amounting to commonsense mixed with the deservedly anxious rage, but all I saw was the usual, predictable diatribes and spin. Pretty knee-jerk stuff. They reduce everything to politics these days and completely lame out. They're pretty irrelevant when it comes to really getting to the "meat of the matter." Dan used to be less of a group-think person but even he has wussed out. But reading something as thoughtful as your post makes up for that stuff. However, psychological puzzles -- as intriguing as they are -- don't get us to where we need to be, even if we figure 'em out.

Read Knute Berger's piece in the Weekly ... lately he has surprised me with interesting and insightful (not to mention fair) editorials. I think he understands there are no easy answers. He used to infuriate me, but maybe age really does make a difference in one's understanding of the world (even a few years). His take on the recent tragedy makes more sense to me than anything I've read so far ... except your post, which (unfortunately) is easier detailed than implemented.