Mass Murderers and Women: What We're Still Not Getting About Virginia Tech

[Triana]

Evidence shows that many mass murderers begin and end their rampages with violence against women. With over 30 dead in Virginia, can we finally begin to take the issue seriously?

James Ridgeway
April 20 , 2007

Of all the lessons contained in the horror at Virginia Tech, the one least likely to be learned has to do with the deadly danger posed by the dismissive way we still view violence against women.

The first person killed by Cho Seung-Ho, a freshman named Emily Hilscher, was initially rumored to be Cho's current or former girlfriend – the subject of his obsession or jealous rage. It now appears that she never had a relationship with Cho, but the rumors were spread quickly, especially by blogs and by the international tabloid press. The UK's Daily Mail headlined the "Massacre Gunman's Deadly Infatuation with Emily," while Australia's Daily Telegraph published a photo of a smiling Hilscher with the line "THIS is the face of the girl who may have sparked the worst school shooting in US history." (The page is still up.) Some accounts stooped to suggesting, with zero evidence, that the victim had jilted Cho, cheated on him, or led him on.

More significantly, local police and university administrators appear to have initially bought this motive, and acted accordingly. In the two hours between the murders of Hilscher and her dorm neighbor Ryan Clark, and Cho's mass killings at another university building, they chose not to cancel classes or lock down the campus. (They did choose to do so, however, in August 2006, when a man shot a security guard and a sheriff's deputy and escaped from a hospital two miles away.) Virginia Tech President Charles Steger said authorities believed the first shooting was a "domestic dispute" and thought the gunman had fled the campus, so "We had no reason to suspect any other incident was going to occur." The assumption, apparently, is that men who kill their cheating girlfriends are criminals, but they are not crazy, not psychopaths, and not a danger to anyone other than the woman in question. (Or, as one reader commented at Feministe sarcastically, "Like killing your girlfriend is no big deal.")

In fact, these attitudes ignore past evidence of both "domestic disputes" and a more generalized misogyny as motives in mass killings. Multiple murders in homes and workplaces often begin with a man killing his wife or girlfriend. Mark Barton, who in 1999 shot nine people in an Atlanta office building, began the day by bludgeoning to death his children and his wife; six years earlier he had been a suspect in the death of his first wife and her mother, who were also beaten to death. In another high-profile case, the December 1989 mass shooting at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, Marc Lepine was after women, whom he hated, and had a list of feminists he wanted to kill. He murdered four men and 14 women, and wounded 10 more women. In September 2006, Duane Roger Morrison walked into Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colo., and took six female students hostage, killing one. And last October, Charles Carl Roberts IV took over an Amish schoolhouse, let the boys go, and killed five girls.

One warning sign in such cases is a history of stalking and harassment of women. At Virginia Tech, in September 2005, poet Nikki Giovanni had Cho removed from her class at Virginia Tech after female students complained that he was using his cell phone to take pictures of their legs underneath the desks; some refused to come to class while Cho was there. In November and December of that year, two female students reported receiving threatening messages from Cho, and one said he was stalking her. But charges were never filed, and police and university officials didn't seem especially worried about the women. Yet, as Arlen Specter pointed out in comments on the VT shooting made during the Gonzalez hearings Thursday, Cho had been accused of a "crime against the state as well as against the students," and the local DA could have taken up the case.

MORE...

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2007/04/virginia_tech_women.html

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. I can't believe this is actually being said. I feel like a huge weight...

has been lifted at the same time I want to break down from the crushing blow. I hate to sound melodramatic, but James Ridgeway deserves a Pulitzer for this insight. It's about time someone said it.

[Triana]

5. That's sort of how I felt...

He hit it dead center...

[happyslug]

2. Good Article, but NONE of the laws mentioned, would have prevented this crime.

Cho used a LEGALLY PURCHASED PISTOL, It was NOT an "Assault Weapon". He was over 18. He did suffer from mental problems, but he did CLEAR the Background test, do to the fact Virginia does NOT put its people adjudicated with sever mental problems (i.e. involuntarily committed) on its own criminal database.

Now what would have prevented Cho? First whenever someone is committed involuntary he or she should be banned from possessing a Weapon for at least a year after the commitment UNLESS a Psychiatrist rules he is NOT a danger to himself or others (With an exception if someone seeks mental help themselves, you want to encourage people to seek help and NOT give them ANY EXCUSE NOT to seek Help). Such people MUST be subject to periodic rechecks to make sure no decomposition had occurred since the adjudication (i.e. monthly check ups for one year). If the person misses his check ups he or she never gets off the list.

Remember in Cho's case, he had been arrested by Police to stalking another woman, and committed involuntary. He apparently NEVER sought treatment himself. Given that set of facts Cho should have been under some sort of ORDER to undergo treatment for his problems. Cho should have been subject to monthly check to check on his mental status. None of this occurred, for it is all expensive.

What I expect to come out of Congress is a law requiring States to put every person adjudicated a danger to themselves or others on the list. Thus you will have people refusing to go to get mental care for their fear losing their guns. With NO medical finding that the person is a danger, he or she will keep his or her guns till another disaster occurs.

Hopefully Congress will do something good, get people like Cho who did NOT seek help but had been in the mental Health system involuntary to be on the list (i.e. be unable to buy guns), but at the same time let people seek help with the minimum of fears. One of the problem with people with mental impairments is that by definitions they are NOT thinking right. As such any excuse NOT to seek treatment will be jumped on NOT to seek help. Thus the careful balance between these two situations. When someone seeks help and is involuntary committed, no ban on possessing guns should apply to such a person, but if someone does NOT seek mental care and is forced into the Mental care system such a person must be on the list. The reason the later must be on the list is you have NO Contrary reason NOT to put him on the list. He has enter the system AGAINST his will, thus the encouragement to seek help did NOT work. Since the encouragement did not work, there is NO reason to strip him of his right to own a gun until he can show he is capable of doing so.

[SemperEadem]

16. what good is a list

when he could have gone to a gun show and bought what he needed?

It boils down to the fact that no one took the women seriously when they complained about his harassing behavior. Even when the first woman was killed, it wasn't taken seriously enough to lock down the campus. No one took the female teacher seriously when she kicked him out of her class to put Cho under monitoring.

[happyslug]

17. Schizophrenic go to a Gun Show? That is a good one.

Schizophrenics have a problem getting outside their own home, let alone to a gun show where there are hundreds of people around. Cho probably had a tough enough time to go to the Gun Shore for his weapons. Sorry, yes he could have gone to a Gun Show to buy his weapon, he could also have walked backward to NYC. Both would have been difficult for him, with the walking backward to NYC the easier of the two for Cho for it would have involved less contact with people.

As to the "Gun Show" exception, you must understand it is NOT a gun store exception, but a private party exception. i.e. it is legal under Federal Law for one person to sell his personal weapons to another. In my home state of Pennsylvania that is still the law for Rifles and Shotguns (All pistols must be sold either through license Gun dealers OR the via the County Sheriff).

This is the problem with eliminating the "Gun Show Exception" for it is a question about "Private party Sales" which include most sales at Gun Shows. How do you permit people to sell weapons from one private person to private another? Do you restrict ALL SALES, or just Pistols? Given the Nature of most gun shows, AND the fact 95% of all crimes involve Pistols, I see no need for all gun sales to be subject to a background check, but I can see a need for a background checks for Pistols.

Also remember, given that Cho Involuntary commitment would NOT have appeared on any background check, closing the "Gun Show" exception would NOT have prevented what happened at Virginia Tech. THe problem was NOT the lack of the background check, but the fact Cho was NOT on any list to be checked (Even through he should have been).

[brainy]

3. Thanks for posting this...

http://now.org/
NOW Welcomes Introduction of Comprehensive Hate Crimes Bill
"We know that hate crimes are more than individual assaults -- they send waves of shock and fear throughout an entire community and through segments of our diverse population," says NOW President Kim Gandy. "Hate violence also sends two messages to the targeted group: 'not knowing your place is dangerous' and 'your kind is not welcome here.'"




http://www.now.org/press/04-07/04-12b.html
NOW Welcomes Introduction of Comprehensive Hate Crimes Bill

April 12, 2007

The National Organization for Women is proud to stand today with Senators Ted Kennedy and Gordon Smith they introduce the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a law that will penalize and help to prevent hate-based violent crimes. The most comprehensive hate crimes legislation ever introduced in Congress, this law will finally classify as hate crimes certain violent, criminal acts that are motivated by the victim's gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.

Current federal hate crimes laws define hate crimes as those in which the victim is targeted because of her or his race, color, religion or national origin. At NOW, we know that these are not the only groups that are targeted. Many NOW members know first hand how deeply these vicious crimes of hate can affect our lives, and expanding the classification is critical to women’s health and safety.

"We know that hate crimes are more than individual assaults — they send waves of shock and fear throughout an entire community and through segments of our diverse population," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Hate violence also sends two messages to the targeted group: 'not knowing your place is dangerous' and 'your kind is not welcome here.'"

"Girls' and women's lives are restricted and often ruined by the fear of, as well as the reality of, hate crimes, whether they are based on our real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, because we have a disability, or just because we are women," said Gandy.

We saw an example of gender-based violence last October when Charles Roberts took hostages and eventually killed five children at an Amish school in Pennsylvania. But these were not just any five children — they were five girls, victims chosen solely because of their gender, as their male classmates were released by the gunman. "This is just one example, among many, of the way in which people can be terrorized because of their gender or other characteristics," said Gandy. "This law will help to prosecute, reduce, and hopefully eliminate, such hate-based crimes.

[Triana]

6. Hate crimes against women and gays...

...two of the biggest hate crimes ignored (and allowed) today.

Thanks for this. I wasn't aware of this Bill. I will damn sure support it!

[roguevalley]

4. it sickens me to see men killing women so much. always women.

great article. either we all have worth or none of us do. I am not surprised a bureaucracy like this failed. They almost always do.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. And if it had been 2 men who were the initial victims...

They would have shut down the campus and put up roadblocks, and warned all the students to be aware...but since it was simply a woman who was his apparent victim..what the hell. No need to be worried.:puke:

I was mortified and astounded at the explanations that were given to explain the TWO HOUR delay in notifying the other students, and taking the expected precautions after there had been a double murder on campus.

[Triana]

10. It definitely seemed to say something about how seemingly

...acceptable "domestic violence" is in our society.

[Recursion]

8. VA Tech has had to deal with the issue of violence against women before

I was a townie in Blacksburg when Brzonkala v. Morrison went up before SCOTUS (I think it was US v. Morrison by that point). To Tech's credit, the institution was trying as well as it could to enforce the VAWA, but the court ruled a key section of that act unconstitutional (as much as I disliked that particular outcome I must admit the legal principle was sound IMO -- the Interstate Commerce Clause is not a catch-all to pass whatever legislation Congress wants to).

I don't know. Sometimes I think we need to look at the idea of single-sex schools more closely -- I think they're safer.

[Triana]

9. Hey dmesg....

..did bu$hit even reinstate the VAWA? Seems there was some controversy as to whether the mysogenist creep would or not a while back. Embarassingly, I haven't kept up.

[Recursion]

13. It was reauthorized in '05

Shrub signed it; it's up again in 2010.

[bettyellen]

11. k+r

[lukasahero]

12. Bob Herbert made similar revelations after the Amish girls were killed

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem America wants to hear/learn this little lesson.

[Triana]

15. WHY am I not surprised that Americans want to ignore this issue?

?

[raccoon]

14. K&R. nt