Aurora CO Theater Massacre

[compared2what?]

---

^^^

That sounds like what happened. I've seen the whiplash mood effects, including the suicide of a close friend, that often occur with switching SSRIs. Including paranoia. In the case of my late friend, I believe it pushed him over the edge. AND, unlike his old self, he had talked about getting violent with some people who pissed him off. At least he didn't take others with him.

I'm so sorry for your loss.

...

Honestly, thinking about that just makes me too angry at too many different people, interest groups, professions and assorted other culpable entities for it even to be useful. So I don't know what else to say, much to my regret.

People should know better than to do that, if they know no single other thing, though.

______________________

To start again, somewhat more directly on-topic:

That sounds like what happened.

I'm kind of getting that feeling.

But, you know....The other meds-related possibility that's a natural, logical strong contender would be the exact opposite -- ie, that the SSRIs were beginning not to work and she didn't make any changes. Because that would lead to the exact same result in someone with that disposition.

I need to read up on the phone call Holmes made "9 minutes" before the theater attack.

I don't think there's much out there to read yet. There's really no way it can look anything but really, really bad for UC, Fenton and Pharma if meds are implicated, though. I mean, people might begin to wonder: If you can't get good enough treatment and oversight for 70 people not to get shot when you're in surrounded by the academic-psychopharmaceutical cream of the crop and are one of them yourself, when can you?

I do. Speaking for myself.

[compared2what?]

Right. But who does all that kind of leg work if indeed whacked out nuts, assimilating all the weapons, planning it around the opening date of Batman, with roomies in his presence supposedly? In the care of a psychiatrist as well? In a competitive neuroscience program at a top school?

That seems way too possible to me. But maybe it's just me.

---

I can't completely discount a "Manchurian candidate" scenario

There's not really enough public information to rule anything out. But at least so far, I don't see much of a case for that in any of it. I mean, nothing about the victims, consequences, who stood to lose and/or gain, etc. really strikes me as pointing very definitively that way. But, again, maybe that's just me.

[lupercal]

^ if there's a drug that turns a zombified graduate student totally lacking military experience or inclination into multiple trained special forces shooters and then poof, back into a zombie dozing in his Pinto, in a matter of seconds, I too might nod my bobble head in agreement with you C2W, but there isn't, and we both know it.

Now as for the why: we also know there are multiple motives behind these operations, known only to the planners whoever they are, but at least one of them was Syria. "NATO" launched a major shock-and-awe offensive on July 18, lost Aleppo decisively early July 20, and then a few hours later, surprise, a game changer hits the media and we all instantly forget about Syria, Pavlov style.

Next question?

[compared2what?]

^ if there's a drug that turns a zombified graduate student totally lacking military experience or inclination into multiple trained special forces shooters and then poof, back into a zombie dozing in his Pinto, in a matter of seconds, I too might nod my bobble head in agreement with you C2W,

You conjure a vivid image there.

but there isn't, and we both know it.

Except that one of us also knows that isn't what happened.

Now as for the why: we also know there are multiple motives behind these operations, known only to the planners whoever they are, but at least one of them was Syria. "NATO" launched a major shock-and-awe offensive on July 18, lost Aleppo decisively early July 20, and then a few hours later, surprise, a game changer hits the media and we all instantly forget about Syria, Pavlov style.

Next question?

There wasn't a first question. So this is it:

Did you ever wake up to find a day that broke up your mind and destroyed your notions of circular time?

[Elvis]

when you're in surrounded by the academic-psychopharmaceutical cream of the crop and are one of them yourself

It occurred to me that his teachers and colleagues, especially the teachers, might have an attitude of "crazy only happens to other people---not smart scientists like us, who study craziness." Some denial might have been going on.


And thanks for your kind words about my late pal Bob.

[compared2what?]

I was thinking that there might have been reluctance to hospitalize in a form that's kind of a tacit admission about whom and what psych wards are for -- ie, she might not have wanted to burden someone whom she saw as having a future with the stigma of institutionalization.

Which would arguably be a thoughtful and caring impulse if universally applied, assuming that nobody died as a result of it. Actually.

But six of one. Essentially, I agree! The scenario you describe or something roughly analogous to it seems very plausible.

[Luther Blissett]

When I was at a highly progressive, large, urban art school, violent and revolutionary rhetoric was at a fever pitch. We would have had to institutionalize scores of my classmates, possibly including myself. This was while the riots were raging in Seattle and the RNC came to visit our city with many violent ends. I had many friends who discussed open insurrection, and there was some overlap between that sort of organized discussion at Stalag 13, Wooden Shoe, the Rotunda, communes and anarchists' spaces, with perceived mental illness / substance abuse. One would hope that one would be able to recognize a splintering away into darker realms of the individual mind, but really I'm not so sure. At this point I think there's a distinct split between those who are alcoholics / addicts and those who are far-left progressives - 9/11 really tamped down the insurrective dreams of the youth in my peer group. It was like someone flipped a switch and all of a sudden there was no more open discussion of extreme tactics.

[Luther Blissett]

I'm stopping my walk to summarize that point: there are only subtle variations between focussed, righteous rage (which I tend to be in favor of), and focussed yet illogical rage, and I'm not sure I'd have the moral right to "report" a friend espousing either, or necessarily been able to decipher the differences between them. Especially not at age 18 or 19 (which I know Holmes was not, but I'm talking about my experiences with angry classmates).

[compared2what?]

I'm stopping my walk to summarize that point: there are only subtle variations between focussed, righteous rage (which I tend to be in favor of), and focussed yet illogical rage, and I'm not sure I'd have the moral right to "report" a friend espousing either, or necessarily been able to decipher the differences between them. Especially not at age 18 or 19 (which I know Holmes was not, but I'm talking about my experiences with angry classmates).

What's been reported has been more along the lines of "I'd like to/am planning to kill some people when my time comes." Or words to that effect.

I hear what you're saying, though. And...I don't really know if this works differently in other states. But fwiw, in New York, the kind of talk you're describing just wouldn't make it as grounds for involuntary commitment. I mean, obviously, deciding whether or not someone is going to act on a threat to kill others or self is, to some degree, always a judgment call. But it's not like there are no criteria at all for making it beyond that.

At least here, it's actually kind of an act against institutional/financial self-interest for psychiatrists to go around hospitalizing people on whims. Both they and the hospitals can (and do) get sued for that kind of thing. Plus it's not covered when there's not really a threat. So there are some systemic disincentives to abuse. Is my point.

That's certainly not to say it never occurs, however. Just that it doesn't occur freely and regularly, without checks and balances of any kind.

[Luther Blissett]

I'm stopping my walk to summarize that point: there are only subtle variations between focussed, righteous rage (which I tend to be in favor of), and focussed yet illogical rage, and I'm not sure I'd have the moral right to "report" a friend espousing either, or necessarily been able to decipher the differences between them. Especially not at age 18 or 19 (which I know Holmes was not, but I'm talking about my experiences with angry classmates).

What's been reported has been more along the lines of "I'd like to/am planning to kill some people when my time comes." Or words to that effect.

I hear what you're saying, though. And...I don't really know if this works differently in other states. But fwiw, in New York, the kind of talk you're describing just wouldn't make it as grounds for involuntary commitment. I mean, obviously, deciding whether or not someone is going to act on a threat to kill others or self is, to some degree, always a judgment call. But it's not like there are no criteria at all for making it beyond that.

At least here, it's actually kind of an act against institutional/financial self-interest for psychiatrists to go around hospitalizing people on whims. Both they and the hospitals can (and do) get sued for that kind of thing. Plus it's not covered when there's not really a threat. So there are some systemic disincentives to abuse. Is my point.

That's certainly not to say it never occurs, however. Just that it doesn't occur freely and regularly, without checks and balances of any kind.

Yeah there's definitely a difference between what allegedly happened in Colorado and what has been said to me at various points throughout my life, but these were still friends confiding to me, either intoxicated or sober, that they were willing to commit violent acts / property destruction if it "came to that." Of course it's difficult to recall specific conversations from 10-15 years ago, but there were exclamations made against institutions AND individuals, depending upon how that person perceived themselves or their self-assigned groupings to have been oppressed.

Speaking for myself, I would make a distinction between a threat against a fracking or logging operation, McDonald's, or a bank, and against a faculty or "rich people" or "freemasons." And at least at this point in my life, the former type of threat can include harm to people — and I'm still not sure I'd say anything. I've been a pacifist for a long time, but I recognize that pacifism comes from a very privileged place and that I don't really have the moral right to push my pacifism on others who don't have the same privilege as a white male. Would others make these same distinctions, and is that right? Is promotion of more selective society, more surveillance of one another really a good thing? Can't this possibly lead to the eventual suppression of more mild forms of dissent?

Some 18-year old kid is going to tell their friend that they want to spike trees, build tiger traps, post warnings, and set up barricades, but their audience relates it to that time that the kid in Colorado made idle threats and ended up shooting up a Batman theater because standard earth first tactics aren't part of their worldview or experiences. We know, as adults, that we shouldn't discuss our operations, but that 18-year old didn't and wound up institutionalized because their party interpreted their words as those of a psychopath and not as an established traditional revolt against a specific entity. In this case, testimony could go a long way against a point of view that exists in a moral grey area and is far outside the American mainstream already.

[lupercal]

Some 18-year old kid is going to tell their friend that they want to spike trees, build tiger traps, post warnings, and set up barricades, but their audience relates it to that time that the kid in Colorado made idle threats and ended up shooting up a Batman theater because standard earth first tactics aren't part of their worldview or experiences. We know, as adults, that we shouldn't discuss our operations, but that 18-year old didn't and wound up institutionalized because their party interpreted their words as those of a psychopath and not as an established traditional revolt against a specific entity. In this case, testimony could go a long way against a point of view that exists in a moral grey area and is far outside the American mainstream already.

Whoa. Good call bro. Scary as hell though especially if they roll out legislation to make finking even more compulsory. Also explains the business with the letter, which they appear to have botched, but seemed intended to make an object lesson out of the shrink for not reporting the guy at the first sign of wrong-think. Also might explain that weird business with Nikki Giovanni, a widely known poet who by strange coincidence happened to have taught Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho in a poetry class, and alerted authorities about his expressed tendencies, which became part of the official story. All in all another brick in the road to 1984, to mangle a metaphor....

............
ETA: This is not to say that I suspect Giovanni of complicity, because I didn't then and don't now, just that her complaint against Cho was widely reported.

[8bitagent]

56 pages, whoah. Usually this sort of smaller event would elicit 12, *maybe* 20 posts. I guess it's been a relatively slow year for RI dissemination events.

I fear what the hundred/thousand page event will be...

[compared2what?]

Some 18-year old kid is going to tell their friend that they want to spike trees, build tiger traps, post warnings, and set up barricades, but their audience relates it to that time that the kid in Colorado made idle threats and ended up shooting up a Batman theater because standard earth first tactics aren't part of their worldview or experiences. We know, as adults, that we shouldn't discuss our operations, but that 18-year old didn't and wound up institutionalized because their party interpreted their words as those of a psychopath and not as an established traditional revolt against a specific entity. In this case, testimony could go a long way against a point of view that exists in a moral grey area and is far outside the American mainstream already.

Whoa. Good call bro. Scary as hell though especially if they roll out legislation to make finking even more compulsory.

But it's not compulsory at all. Tell me something, lupercal. Is there anything non-existent that doesn't scare you with its enormous menace?

Also explains the business with the letter, which they appear to have botched, but seemed intended to make an object lesson out of the shrink for not reporting the guy at the first sign of wrong-think. Also might explain that weird business with Nikki Giovanni, a widely known poet who by strange coincidence happened to have taught Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho in a poetry class, and alerted authorities about his expressed tendencies, which became part of the official story. All in all another brick in the road to 1984, to mangle a metaphor....

............
ETA: This is not to say that I suspect Giovanni of complicity, because I didn't then and don't now, just that her complaint against Cho was widely reported.

And look at where we are today as a result. Just look.

[compared2what?]

56 pages, whoah. Usually this sort of smaller event would elicit 12, *maybe* 20 posts. I guess it's been a relatively slow year for RI dissemination events.

I fear what the hundred/thousand page event will be...

Warm, fun and engaging, as always.

[compared2what?]

Some 18-year old kid is going to tell their friend that they want to spike trees, build tiger traps, post warnings, and set up barricades, but their audience relates it to that time that the kid in Colorado made idle threats and ended up shooting up a Batman theater because standard earth first tactics aren't part of their worldview or experiences. We know, as adults, that we shouldn't discuss our operations, but that 18-year old didn't and wound up institutionalized because their party interpreted their words as those of a psychopath and not as an established traditional revolt against a specific entity. In this case, testimony could go a long way against a point of view that exists in a moral grey area and is far outside the American mainstream already.

Whoa. Good call bro. Scary as hell though especially if they roll out legislation to make finking even more compulsory. Also explains the business with the letter, which they appear to have botched, but seemed intended to make an object lesson out of the shrink for not reporting the guy at the first sign of wrong-think.

And anyway, she did report him.