Columbine: Case Closed

[Thiussat]

Did anyone catch this documentary on the National Geographic Channel last night?

I still wonder how the parents did not know that Eric Harris was building bombs. I still don't know how they didn't know that he had bought a small arsenal of firearms (which cost a LOT of money). As far as I know, the parents have never given a single public interview.

The Sheriff's department investigated a threat Eric made on his website about a month before the shootings, but never followed through with it. A former friend of Dylan's had filed a complaint because he was named as a target on the website. Kids or not, death threats should be taken with the upmost seriousness. The sheriff's department said they "didn't have probable cause for a search warrant."

I had never seen the home videos that Eric and Dylan had made. If nothing else, this documentary is worth watching because of this footage. Very disturbing stuff. The boys were throwing fits at the camera, almost like those wrestlers on WWE, except they weren't acting, they were saying they were going to "blow your GD head off." They would look right in the camera and point and scream and yell with maniacal faces. They looked like maniacs.

One thing most people don't realize is that the duo did not plan on this being a mere school shooting. Their plans were to blow up the entire school, and then take the carnage into the city streets - an ultimate battle with the police until the death. Really, it is my opinion, that they wanted to be the new Tim McVeigh -- a home grown group of terrorists. The all-American boys next door inflicting carnage, just like McVeigh.

The reporter in the segment said that it is a total myth that the boys were outcasts.

There are other tapes they made where they discussed their plan for Columbine and went into their motive, but the Cops refuse to release these tapes to the public. I think this is a mistake. If anything, they should release it to a team of psychologists for a case study.

I think this case illustrates perfectly how some psychopaths may indeed just be born, not created. Acting alone, neither one may have actually acted, but in the company of another psychopath, bad things happen.

[Corky Kneivel]

[QUOTE=Thiussat]
I think this case illustrates perfectly how some psychopaths may indeed just be born, not created. [QUOTE]

Is this your opinion or are you paraphrasing what the Nat'l Geographic special was saying. Either way, I think that's a tremendous leap in logic and inference to make based on the horrible deeds of those kids.

[Kane]

Pardon me for saying it, but this sounds like a topic unrelated to Unsolved Mysteries. The show never did a segment related to the Columbine high school massacre.

But as long as I'm on the subject, I have to admit that I was touched by the TV commentary made by Brian Rohrbough last October. In that commentary, Mr. Rohrbough mentioned the Amish school shootings that had just occurred in Pennsylvania, and discussed the flaws that have been plaguing the overall public school system for many years. His son Daniel was among those who were killed in the Columbine massacre.

[Thiussat]

[QUOTE=Corky Kneivel][QUOTE=Thiussat]
I think this case illustrates perfectly how some psychopaths may indeed just be born, not created.

Is this your opinion or are you paraphrasing what the Nat'l Geographic special was saying. Either way, I think that's a tremendous leap in logic and inference to make based on the horrible deeds of those kids.

You're being sarcastic, right? Surely so?

I didn't base this opinion on what I heard someone on the special say (even though the FBI profiler also thinks theey were psychopaths). I think it is clear these two were psychopaths -- they fit the very definition to a "T."

[Thiussat]

Pardon me for saying it, but this sounds like a topic unrelated to Unsolved Mysteries. The show never did a segment related to the Columbine high school massacre.

Does every topic have to be related to the show itself? I figured any true crime story would fit into the category this board was intended for. I see topics quite often that are started and there was no UM segment done on them.

If I have broken some cardinal rule, I apologize.

[Awsi Dooger]

Originally Posted by Thiussat

Does every topic have to be related to the show itself? I figured any true crime story would fit into the category this board was intended for. I see topics quite often that are started and there was no UM segment done on them.

If I have broken some cardinal rule, I apologize.

It would have fit better into one of the two Sub-Forums above, which were started last year. I imagine this thread will be transferred there shortly.

[Corky Kneivel]

Originally Posted by Thiussat

You're being sarcastic, right? Surely so?

Nope. Not at all, though perhaps I wasn't clear about what I was referring to. I don't care if you call them psychopaths. However, you originally said this:

Originally Posted by Thiussat

I think this case illustrates perfectly how some psychopaths may indeed just be born, not created.

I'm not saying its a leap of logic to label them "psychopaths", I can understand that and agree that if anyone is deserving of that title it would be them. What IS, in my opinion, a TREMENDOUS leap of logic is to assert that what they did proves that they, and others, are born that way and that there were no other factors involved.

I don't see how you get from one to the other.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by Awsi Dooger

It would have fit better into one of the two Sub-Forums above, which were started last year. I imagine this thread will be transferred there shortly.

That's the point that I was making. Obviously, this thread should be transferred to one of the sub-forums.

By the way, just in case there has been any misunderstanding, I wasn't being rude or critical when I noted that the Columbine massacre had nothing to do with UM. I was just a bit confused as to why such an unreleated topic was discussed in a thread under the UM forum.

[Thiussat]

I'm not saying its a leap of logic to label them "psychopaths", I can understand that and agree that if anyone is deserving of that title it would be them. What IS, in my opinion, a TREMENDOUS leap of logic is to assert that what they did proves that they, and others, are born that way and that there were no other factors involved.

I don't see how you get from one to the other.

Ok, Corky, that is a fair question you raise. Thanks for clarifying.

Basically, I make that leap of judgement from the fact that I can find no signs of abuse or a "bad childhood" in either boy. Both of them lived in nice middle-upper class households.

Columbine high is quite a "ritzy" high school if you will. I personally know two people (I am related by marriage) who went to Columbine High, and both of them come from well to do families. Neither one of them were at school the day of the shootings (they both had transferred to other schools earlier in the year), but they both had friends who survived the shootings. One of their friends was sitting right beside a guy who was shot in the head in the library. One thing they told me, that I was not aware of, is that several survivors of Columbine had later committed suicide. They said this is one of the facets of the case that is not widely publicized. Anyway, I am digressing...

This all is not to say you can't have a bad childhood if you have money, but I just have not heard any such reports. There is, of course, the old tale that the boys were picked on etc., but the reporter in the segment, who has followed this case from day one, says that is largely a myth. Eric had numerous girlfriends and dates, and Dylan was liked by a lot of people. Were they ever teased? Probably. But if every student who was teased brought a gun to school and killed people, no students in America would be alive.

The segment also claimed that Eric and Dylan had NO specific targets. This further fortifies my "theory" that they were psychopaths. They were not out for revenge or to get at a bully or the jocks -- they made it clear they wanted to kill everyone, and then take their carnage into the city.

I think they were born psychopaths, not made. Of course, you MUST take into account the sociological factor in this. It has been shown that two people have a different psychology than a single person acting alone. Often times they compliment each other to the point of making a crime more bizarre or vicious than it would have been if one acted alone. In certain cases it has been shown that the crime may have not even happened at all if the accomplice was not involved.

[nohwheregirl]

I really don't think we're going to prove or disprove either side of the nature vs. nurture debate on this discussion board. I'll just come out and tell you that I, as a social scientist, prefer to focus on environmental factors that shape people's lives, but that is not to diminish the role or importance of biology. In fact, the nature vs. nurture arguement sets up a false dichotomy...one must acknowledge that the interaction of environment and biology are at play.

Anyway, to get back to Thiussat's point, I think the fault in your argument is your assumption that just because satisfactorily awful environmental factors have not been *observed*, then it must be biology alone that created the pathology. You and I don't have enough information about those two boys to make the conclusion that there were no environmental factors that contributed. Even if we could sit down and talk with the two boys and their parents, we still would not be able to determine or measure all of the *unobservable* environmental factors at play. I really do think that biology plays a part, but I just don't think you have enough information, or ever will to rule out environmental factors.

[Corky Kneivel]

Originally Posted by nohwheregirl

I really don't think we're going to prove or disprove either side of the nature vs. nurture debate on this discussion board.

Aww...c'monnnn...you don't? I think your selling us, as a message baord community, rather short. First we'll knock out this whole "nature/nurture" puppy, then we really get down to work and solve the immigration problem. After that? Cancer! Cancer's getting cured! I'm absolutely confident this board could get a handle on that, if we work weekends, maybe by early June? Just in time for Summer! Next, I say we finally show the damned chicken that the damned egg came first, dammit! That chicken's getting uppity!

Go TEAM!!

Originally Posted by nohwheregirl

I'll just come out and tell you that I, as a social scientist, prefer to focus on environmental factors that shape people's lives, but that is not to diminish the role or importance of biology.

Seriously, you're a social scientist? What exactly is it that you do? I find the study of civilizations and social anthroplogy fascinatin'.

[Thiussat]

I really don't think we're going to prove or disprove either side of the nature vs. nurture debate on this discussion board.

It depends on what aspect of nature vs. nurture you want to talk about. I know in this case we are talking about violent behavior, but there are a lot of aspects of personality and human ability where the nature vs. nurture argument comes into play. For example, intelligence is one of the most popular aspects that is debated in this regard. I think most psychologists and neuroscientists would agree that it is roughly 80% genetic. This doesn't mean violent behavior is 80% genetic, but I do think there is a strong genetic component. For example, there are MANY people who were beaten, tied up, and sexually abused as children who have never killed anyone. So, are we to say that all abused children kill? Obviously we can't. All we know is that there is a correlation between abuse and emotional maladjustment. Correlation, as you know, does not equate to causation. Since we know that some abused children do grow up to be relatively law abiding citizens, it follows that the opposite is true -- there are people who have never been abused, grown up in wealthy homes, and who become killers. Could there be environmental factors in this phenomenon of non-abused children growing up to be criminals? Sure, but the environmental factors are, as of now, unexplained. This is why I think it can be largely genetic and/or a result of a mental pathology. Eric did see a psychiatrist but the shrink apparently did not see any violent tendencies in him. It has been said that Eric was an extremely good manipulator and would write in his journal about how well he lied to his parents and to the judge that had sentenced him to community service for theft. Manipulative ability and lack of consciouss (he exhibited both) is the very definition of a psychopath.

I'll just come out and tell you that I, as a social scientist, prefer to focus on environmental factors that shape people's lives, but that is not to diminish the role or importance of biology. In fact, the nature vs. nurture arguement sets up a false dichotomy...one must acknowledge that the interaction of environment and biology are at play.

I agree. I think there is enough data to show that both play a role.

Anyway, to get back to Thiussat's point, I think the fault in your argument is your assumption that just because satisfactorily awful environmental factors have not been *observed*, then it must be biology alone that created the pathology. You and I don't have enough information about those two boys to make the conclusion that there were no environmental factors that contributed. Even if we could sit down and talk with the two boys and their parents, we still would not be able to determine or measure all of the *unobservable* environmental factors at play. I really do think that biology plays a part, but I just don't think you have enough information, or ever will to rule out environmental factors.

See my above paragraph. The fact is, there are people who certainly went through worse than Eric and Dylan who have never committed a crime, much less a murder.

[Thiussat]

Aww...c'monnnn...you don't? I think your selling us, as a message baord community, rather short. First we'll knock out this whole "nature/nurture" puppy, then we really get down to work and solve the immigration problem. After that? Cancer! Cancer's getting cured! I'm absolutely confident this board could get a handle on that, if we work weekends, maybe by early June? Just in time for Summer! Next, I say we finally show the damned chicken that the damned egg came first, dammit! That chicken's getting uppity!

Go TEAM!!

I have no answer for nature vs. nurture or cancer, but the chicken and egg paradox has been satisfactorily resolved. The major problem in the question is that the term "egg" is not clearly defined. I will assume that the question asks "Which is first, a chicken or an egg containing a chicken?" If that is the question, then the answer is the egg because when genetic mutations occur that separate a new species from its parent species, these mutations generally occur at the reproductive level.

If the question is "what came first, an egg laid by a chicken or a chicken" then the answer is the chicken based on the logical construction of the question. Something that has to be laid cannot precede the species that had to lay it. If you say "well the first chicken that laid the egg had to be hatched from something" then I counter that the egg that the first defined chicken hatched from was not an egg laid by a chicken (look at the construction of the question).

Most people, when they think of the question, think of the first scenario.

[nohwheregirl]

Originally Posted by Corky Kneivel

Aww...c'monnnn...you don't? I think your selling us, as a message baord community, rather short. First we'll knock out this whole "nature/nurture" puppy, then we really get down to work and solve the immigration problem. After that? Cancer! Cancer's getting cured! I'm absolutely confident this board could get a handle on that, if we work weekends, maybe by early June? Just in time for Summer! Next, I say we finally show the damned chicken that the damned egg came first, dammit! That chicken's getting uppity!

Go TEAM!!

You're so right Corky! I just need to get out of the Ivory Tower once in a while and party with the commoners Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

[Thinman]

Guys, the bottom line is these two bast@rds killed 13 people and tried to kill more. You can debate the reasons why until the cows come home. But, the only two that knew that information for sure are the killers themselves. They are dead, so we cannot ask them. Their reasons are probably a combination of all the factors mentioned. They were probably born with homicidal tendencies, something went wrong in their childhood, their parents didn't do something right, and they were ridiculed by their peers. The reasons are probably not much different than the normal suburbanite who comes home from work one day and hacks his whole family to death. Some people just do evil things.