This is an extremely disturbed person, but it is clear, if one listens to his words, that conditions in society were playing on his mind. He felt many resentments. This doesn't justify any of his insane acts, but the resentments have a real basis. He was mentally unbalanced, but that doesn't mean there was no connection between social life and what he did. And now television analysts begin heaping abuse on his head, as a substitute for taking the problems seriously. "He was a coward," and so on. This is almost a provocation, an incitement of others.

The resentments are real. Huge social divisions exist on a college campus. Snobbery and elitism exist. With Cho, the resentments were psychotically internalized and developed in a pathological manner. The society denies that social classes exists, it papers over social inequality. The contradictions emerge in a malignant fashion, they explode in this anti-social form.

This is the ongoing price American society pays for the absence of a progressive and revolutionary social movement that offers a way out of the present impasse, for the lack of class consciousness and social solidarity. The emergence of such a movement would have a wonderfully regenerative and healthy effect on the national psyche, and pose a mortal threat to the social and financial status quo. That is why the ruling elite fears the emergence of such a movement a thousand times more than it does a deranged individual with a gun.

I wish it were different, but even with superhuman efforts on the part of Cho's parents, I do not have enough confidence in the mental health 'system' (to use the term 'system' is actually dignifying the disorganized, fragmented state of mental healthcare in this country) to effectively deal with an individual like Cho (Prisons hold more documented mentally ill individuals than psychiatric hospitals in this country).  Add to the fact that we are talking about an individual from another culture and you compound the weaknesses in the system.

These words are not aimed at or intended for any particular commenter on this website or in other media.

First, I am a registered counselor in my state, with a card in my wallet & a framed certificate on the wall.  Second, I am not a lawyer, but must know some very specific aspects of the law as it applies to my work.  For example, I am required to "violate" confidentiality if any evidence of child abuse comes up through client contact.  And there's more stuff like that; re: domestic violence, parts of the drug enforcement laws, certain types of threats, etc.  Third, both my first & second statements are extremely, very rigidly, focused at the state & local level with a small bit of federal influence.

OK: I've read a lot & heard a little analysis of Cho Seung-Hui by many people who have no knowledge, education, experience, or capability at psychological analysis, counseling, therapy, or treatment.

Please, I wish all of you know-nothings would shut up.  Your faux analysis of a mass murderer are stupid, boring, false & misleading.  Most of you are simply, & simple-mindedly, attempting to make inane arguments about meaningless "pet" social theories or political preferences that have no bearing on public policies about mental health.  Really--SHUT UP!  Unless a person is a functioning mental health counselor in the Commonwealth of Virgina, such opinions are very likely worse than useless misinformation.
- - - - - - - - - -
Further: this site is mostly intended for working lawyers.  To that extent, I notice a wondrous lack of expert legal commentary on Che Seung-Hui.  Thank you!  My experience & observation over the decades has been that most skilled attorneys recognize that the field of mental health law is so complex that very few "non-experts" will venture there with statements & opinions.  This is a good thing.  The laws in each state differ from others & the standards are often interpreted differently by the courts--some states even have special courts.

I'd like to commend all of the competent attorneys-at-law here who have professionally restrained themselves from adding to the nonsense about mental health legal opinions.  This massive silence re-inforces my opinion that TalkLeft attracts reasonable legal professionals who try to stay within their areas of expertise.

Not so much here, but at the national level (& on some websites populated by mostly wingnutz) the free, stupid & worthless legal opinions about insanity law in Virginia, or nationwide, is just moronic.  'Nuff said.

In my opinion, speculation about Cho Seung-Hui may be useful & instructive.  Comments about his access to mental health services can inform the readers.  Attempts to analyze & diagnose are totally idiotic.  Interpretations of Virginia law should be left to members of that bar & very clearly those with appropriate specialization.  And the second-guessings (of various counselors who may have had contact with Cho Seung-Hui, law enforcement officials & university employees) do not inform any of us unless the commenter knows the specifics (which is unlikely because of the confidentiality requirements).

i feel sorry for mr. cho's family, but they had the opportunity, early on, to get him help. this they failed to do. va tech had the opportunity to remove him from the campus setting, and get him the help he so obviously and desperately needed. they too failed.

with regards to mr. cho's privacy rights: the right of his fellow students, and school employees, to be safe on campus, trumps any rights to privacy mr. cho, or anyone else similarly situated has.

  Sometimes, though, with people of certain agenda,  that is the case. More often, while not an attempt to justify the bad act,  these expositions are an attempt to cast blame on the people within the environment. ("Sure the snobs, bullies and elitists shouldn't be killed, but they did do bad things deserving sanction and their existence unleashed the rage which simply resulted in too extreme a sanction...)

  On the other hand, many are not doing that but simply seeking to explore fully the environment. This can be valuable but it does often lead us astray. This world is Hobbesian. Human beings are very imperfect and our interactions at all levels are self-centered and competitive far more often than they are cooperative and altruistic. We tend to  view this through the lens of value judgment and choice, but the entirety of human history tends to suggest it is as defining a characteristic of human beings as opposable thumbs and language.

  In other words, we do and will continue to live where the environment will always be characterized by the external factors which compel some few to act out their rage. We're not going to be entirely successful at addressing this problem from any angle, but earlier identification of and treatment, monitoring or even sequestration these few individuals is  more attainable  than a sea change in human behavior.

  It's also beyond dispute that our understanding of human psychology is extremely limited. Given the almost infinite permuations of thoughts, emotions and behaviors operating in  environments which are to some degree always unique to each individual, we can't really expect much more than a descriptive analysis. To the extent possible, accurate and complete descriptions are preferable to inaccurate and incomplete ones but, none of the "experts" can truly do more than identify flaws in the  descriptions of other "experts" and the unreliability of the conclusions reached. However, all the "conclusions" are essentially speculation.

  Speculation is not without value. ALL advances in knowledge and understanding begin with speculation, but speculation should be understood as the start of the process and not misrepresented as conclusions from which to devise solutions.

 But, we need to look at all the factors not so much because it is important  

all of these are factual, not speculative, with respect to mr. cho. it didn't require a massive gov't database, tracking everyone, for the va tech administration to know all this, they were told, by disparate parties, all of which, in the aggregate, pointed to someone who clearly had dangerous mental health issues.

had the administration acted on this data, and suspended mr. cho, until such time as he received the help he so clearly needed, his acts would have been that much more difficult to accomplish.