School Killers--Evil, Sick or Socially Toxic?
Last night I had the pleasure of discussing school killers and the characteristics of mass murderers on the Hugh Hewitt Show (welcome to his readers and thanks for stopping by). Mr. Hewitt, like everyone else is America, is struggling to understand what would lead a man to kill innocent young Amish girls execution-style yesterday. One of Mr. Hewitt's commenters is wary of psychologists who discuss psychological reasons for extreme acts of violence:
I understand this suspicion of mental health professionals, after all, many of us are Whores of the Court.
That said, psychologists can add to the discussion of why people commit mass murder. After all, who has more access to the minds of killers and criminals than we do? If information is used in the proper way, without a political agenda, mental health professionals can help laypeople to understand and make sense of the worldview of a murderer. Does this excuse it? No. Does it mean that evil does not exist in the world? Not in my opinion. However, psychological data can be useful in preventing the next round of senseless killings, and I, for one, am not willing to say that doing nothing is the best tactic to take in protecting innocent victims from the next atrocity.
In my opinion, school killers -- and other mass killers -- are a combination of many variables--all of them complex, yet rational in the mind of the killer. Why choose an Amish school house? Because there is no or little security and the victims you are looking for are readily available. Why did Charles Carl Roberts kill innocent Amish girls in the first place? We may never know, but there are a few clues. He said he was avenging a wrong done to him 20 years ago and he had an infant daughter die 9 years before, meaning that his female victims were close in age to the daughter he never held. What does this mean in his mind? Who knows? But it is possible that someone could have understood and helped him make sense out of his anger, depression and suicidal feelings before it was too late. I believe that this could have happened, for I have seen patients who have teetered on the edge be brought back again to functioning without killing. Male suicide is prevalent in this country. 24,000 men take their lives every year--yet no one gives a damn. Now that they are taking others with them, will the country listen?
For those of you who wish to learn more about the characteristics of mass murderers and school shooters, take a look at the FBI report on school shooters or read the more in-depth work of J. Reid Meloy, author of Violence Risk and Threat Assessment: A Practical Guide for Mental Health and Criminal Justice Professionals.
Update: You can read a transcript of my radio show with Hugh Hewitt on school killers here.
We have become inured to the idea that such a thing as "pure evil" exists, despite the constant evidence of its existence.
I heard a bit of Dr. Smith's commentary. In my opinion, to try to find a pschological root cause for this man's behavior is to attempt to excuse it.
What could be more evil than terrorizing the children of one of the most innocuous and inoffensive religious sects in existence?
I understand this suspicion of mental health professionals, after all, many of us are Whores of the Court.
That said, psychologists can add to the discussion of why people commit mass murder. After all, who has more access to the minds of killers and criminals than we do? If information is used in the proper way, without a political agenda, mental health professionals can help laypeople to understand and make sense of the worldview of a murderer. Does this excuse it? No. Does it mean that evil does not exist in the world? Not in my opinion. However, psychological data can be useful in preventing the next round of senseless killings, and I, for one, am not willing to say that doing nothing is the best tactic to take in protecting innocent victims from the next atrocity.In my opinion, school killers -- and other mass killers -- are a combination of many variables--all of them complex, yet rational in the mind of the killer. Why choose an Amish school house? Because there is no or little security and the victims you are looking for are readily available. Why did Charles Carl Roberts kill innocent Amish girls in the first place? We may never know, but there are a few clues. He said he was avenging a wrong done to him 20 years ago and he had an infant daughter die 9 years before, meaning that his female victims were close in age to the daughter he never held. What does this mean in his mind? Who knows? But it is possible that someone could have understood and helped him make sense out of his anger, depression and suicidal feelings before it was too late. I believe that this could have happened, for I have seen patients who have teetered on the edge be brought back again to functioning without killing. Male suicide is prevalent in this country. 24,000 men take their lives every year--yet no one gives a damn. Now that they are taking others with them, will the country listen?
For those of you who wish to learn more about the characteristics of mass murderers and school shooters, take a look at the FBI report on school shooters or read the more in-depth work of J. Reid Meloy, author of Violence Risk and Threat Assessment: A Practical Guide for Mental Health and Criminal Justice Professionals.
Update: You can read a transcript of my radio show with Hugh Hewitt on school killers here.
posted by Helen at 8:53 AM
72 Comments:
Dear sweet Helen, you are too rational for your own good. The US is no longer about solving its problems through mediation, compassion and understanding, but much more about showing everyone who's the boss. We kick Osama in the butt, we like to carry a big stick and sometimes we use it too. We are big and tough, and when we have a problem we use a big and tough solution. Roll in the troops, drop some bombs, shoot some Amish school children, that will show them all!
The guy in Lancaster was busy supporting his family, I doubt he was going to be interested in talking to a therapist and showing his vulnerability. Our federal government is very interested in reducing costs by eliminating mental health services so we can have more money for the military and other programs it deems worthy.
Don't expect much to change, our cultural mindset will never let it.
(I use the Anonymous option because I know posts like this will surely come back to bite me. Freedom of speech is a myth)
Dr. Helen,
Thank you for pointing out that there is a difference between attempting to understand criminal behavior and excusing it. How else can we fight evil unless we know how, why, and where it is likely to strike?
And not to feed the trolls, but the irony of this killer not wanting to "[talk] to a therapist and show his vulnerability" is precisely what made him vulnerable. Thinking you're bad just for being flawed and human-- and subsequently hating yourself for it-- that comes out in the worst ways, that is, the ones where people get hurt.
I remain convinced that the "experts" on this topic are just not asking the right questions. On the radio this morning, a Philly Inquirer reporter quoted one of these "experts" as saying that these kinds of killings were mostly out of "revenge." Revenge for what? Is that what the surviving killers say? Does anyone actually look into whether or not what they say is the motivation is really the motivation?
Because this kind of thing is almost exclusively being undertaken by males, and because it really hasn't been happening in this way all that long, I'm STILL not convinced that it isn't a backlash to feminism: so far, on one has convinced me that the question has been adequately explored. People want to dismiss the question before it's even considered.
I'm an engineer, not a psychologist. I'm just not prepared to study this. But I wish someone would at the very least, take the question and convince me that I'm wrong. But convince me, don't just dismiss me.
anonymous 11:29:
I think you raise a legitimate question--the problem is, I do not think "experts" or the media will touch it with a ten foot poll. They just want information that makes a good 30 second sound bite. If the problem is some backlash at feminism--I do not know for sure either way--then we should explore this and why it is happening. The problem is, if it is politically incorrect or does not confirm biases already in the system, no one will deal with the reality of how these men feel and think. Honestly, part of me gave up a while back on this issue because I realized the media, schools and the "system" do not want the truth, but rather, a politically correct interpretation of events or one that gives one simple solution for a complex problem that requires serious analysis and a real look at how some of these men think and feel.
It is valuable to study serial killers and other violent criminals but it is also problematic because, inevitably, with understanding comes some degree of forgiveness. I believe it is inappropriate to forgive those who express no remorse and make no effort to earn forgiveness. It results in a one-sided gift where society reaches out and the perpetrator reciprocates with hatred and harm.
In my view, the key is for mental health practitioners to willingly express condemnation of both the act and the unrepentant actor. Today's psychiatrists and psychologists are unwilling to condemn the actor and sometimes not even the act, if it is viewed as the logical result of a diseased mind. That might be appropriate from a professional standpoint but it is - at the very least - amoral, and I cannot accept that any human would embrace amorality when it comes to the execution of Amish schoolgirls.
Dr J wrote: "Today's psychiatrists and psychologists are unwilling to condemn the actor and sometimes not even the act, if it is viewed as the logical result of a diseased mind."
Too often true. Helen does not fit that category in my reading of her posts, and she has expertice in this area, so I am hopeful that change in the psychological community is possible. Not optimistic, but hopeful.
"That might be appropriate from a professional standpoint but it is - at the very least - amoral, and I cannot accept that any human would embrace amorality when it comes to the execution of Amish schoolgirls."
I wonder if it is appropriate. I think it is freakish. People can become TOO neutral. Most of the time, my complaint is that the psychological community has become too leftist, to the point of disordered thinking. But too neutral is unnatural too. What happened was indeed abhorant, but the mystery is why it is happening more now. And I hope people like Dr. Helen can help figure that out. I worry that it is a more sociological issue involving the breakdown of society.
Trey
DRJ and Trey,
It is no wonder that juries believe the statements of mental health defense experts about as much as they believe the statements of the defendant--which is to say, not much. Psychiatrists and psychologists have become so liberal that they are willing to excuse the unexcusable. I went into forensic psychology because I was interested in helping people from becoming victims of some very dangerous people. Too many mental health professionals see their job as getting criminals off the hook instead of providing courts with objective information. It is rampant in our profession and I think, very wrong. Liberalism is ingrained so deep into the profession that I fear they can no longer police themselves.
It does take a village, a vigilant village where citizens notice unusual behaviours which common sense would tell almost rational adult are potentially leading to a tragic event.
I have just gone through 2 years of helping a friend of mine develop a case and ultimately convict and incarcerate a man who was stalking her. The problem is that our laws do not call many of the signals sent out by obvious psycopaths crimes. Until the tragic event actually occurs, no crime has been committed, and the police can do virtually nothing.
I'll bet that many people who were acquainted with this killer had all sorts of suspicions that something was wrong with him psychologically. But the law offers no mechanism for investigating fears that someone might ultimately commit violent acts.
We all have to be vigilant all the time, and be prepared to act heroically, sometimes risking our own lives, when the bad thing happens.
Perhaps I should clarify the details of my comments regarding the stalker posted at 12:48 pm.
My point is that in this society we have to take a little more responsibility to watch out for each other. It would be a slippery slope creating laws that allow someone to be arrested simply because a group of people feel that they might commit a crime. (However certain laws do presume this already. For instance in California, possession of more than a pound of marijuana is automatically prosecuted as "possession for sale". I disagree with the law but that is the fact.)
People seem to have come to the point where they expect the government to protect them in all cases from all perils. I do believe that evil exists in certain people. Treatment may be able to curb the evil tendencies but society usually does not, and should not, force people into treatment. Everyone has met someone who gives them "the creeps", but what if this person starts watching you, sending you gifts, pictures of yourself with others, and notes implying (not quite threatening) that you will die if you continue doing the things he sees you doing.
The stalker in question had a girlfriend who died of cancer in 1991. He then stalked a woman who looked just like his dead girlfriend through 1996 and 1997. He was prosecuted for this incident but made a deal with the DA that if he moved out of the county to live near his mother in our county the charges would be dropped. That case did get him fired from his job as a corrections officer in the California state prison system. He has re-applied for the job 3 times since then and been declined. He has now submitted a 4th application, listing his address as the jail where he is now incarcerated.
He then moved to our county, where in 2001 he met my friend, who also resembles the dead girlfriend from 1991. He began the behaviors I described above with her. She reported him to the police numerous times but was always told that no crime had been committed, and they could do nothing. Early in the game the mistake she made was not to insist that the police take a report. They are required to do so but many times don't want to because it is time consuming and they are busy. (Anyone facing a similar situation should always insist that the police take a report, even if they have to go to the police station and file it themselves. This paper trail establishing a long term pattern of behavior is crucial to getting the DA to take on the case)
As the incidents became worse she finally had to move. The stalker hired a private investigator to find her. We tried on several occasions to obtain restring orders, but the stalker hired one of the best defense lawyers in town to fight them. Finally, in July of this year we were successful in getting a restraining order; he violated it 45 minutes after being served, was arrested, made bail in two days, and violated it again within 24 hours. This was the point where the DA finally agreed to take the case. Another week went by while police detectives got him on tape violating the restraining order numerous times and finally a judge issued a felony arrest warrant.
Faced with all the evidence, most of it gathered by me her other friends over the entire 2 year period (they are the "village" I speak of) his high priced lawyer advised him to plead guilty. His sentence was 1 year in the county jail and 3 years on probation, and you can bet that our little “village”, will be watching him like hawks the day he gets out.
Again, I imagine that neighbors of these school shooters might have suspected that they were a little off. No, we can't harass someone before they commit a crime, but we can be vigilant and hopefully head off more of these tragic incidents before they happen.
TO: Dr. Helen
RE: In Loco Parentis?
While most of us struggle with how it is someone would attack children like this, I'm wondering why it is a teacher would allow them to do such.
In both of the recent instances the teachers just up and walked away from those children that they are supposedly responsible for.
A REAL parent would likely lay down their life for their children.
Apparently not so with teachers.
In loco parentis? HAH!
Another reason for home schooling. Not so many fish in a barrel.
Regards,
Chuck()
"Certainly, the population of Europe exceeds that of the U.S., yet these tragedies are exceptionally rare over there."
Perhaps becuase the Europeans an Japanese prefer their mass murders to be episodic. And much more organized and thorough.
Roll in the troops, drop some bombs, shoot some Amish school children, that will show them all!
Brilliant analogy. There's a reason to drop some bombs and roll in the troops and none to shoot Amish girls.
In your "If Only We Could Understand these women" post, you said, "Face it, if two similar crimes this close together had been committed by males against females and their babies (take the Scott Peterson case, for example), the press coverage would be different, with the horrors of the perpretrator being discussed -- and with good reason given the nature of these crimes. But with the female perpretrators, the first thing called for is a psychological evaluation and, of course, a little understanding..."
Your message seemed to be that just because the perps were women, society tries to understand their psychological underpinnings instead of just sentencing them to death. So how does that square with your pleas for us to do psych evals on male perps so we can understand THEM? You seem to argue one way for women and another for men.
2 points according to the press conference,
#1 this guy wasn't reacting to a wrong done to him but instead to a wrong that he himself committed 20 years ago (the molestation of 2 young relatives)
#2 He was home schooled so that is not an automatic fix for all of societies problems.
Al Czervik, I have to disagree about such incidents being more commong in the U.S. than in Europe or elsewhere. All one needs to do is look at the number of women and girls killed in Islamic "honor killings" in Muslim countries, as well as in European countries where Muslims have immigrated. There was a case the other day in Sweden where a man murdered all three of his sisters. Granted that is a different pathology than murdering strangers, but still just as violent and sick.
Whaddaya mean he needed therapy?
If the parents had just sent the 7-year-olds off with a Glock apiece, they'd have been a pack, not a herd, right?
Roberts didn't need access to guns. Without that, the rest of the debate is beside the point, isn't it?
Anonymous @ 12:48 & 12:59,
Hindsight lets us view this as inevitable but don't you think his family would have sought help if they had realized he was this troubled? There are resources available to troubled people and families, and surely everyone knows they can call 911, but even a village can't see into a man's soul.
Al Czervik,
School killings do happen in Japan--the methods are just a bit different. For example, in two separate incidents, one high school student stabbed his teacher because she dared scold him for not having his homework and another 14 year old severed the head of another child and stuffed hand-written notes in his mouth. You can see more about this in my article on the topic at:
http://www.violentkids.com/articles/violence_article_1.html
Japan has high rates or suicide at around 34,000 in 2003 (higher than the US) and suicide is part of the culture there. I think American culture is different--those who used to kill themselves are now taking others down with them. Typically, when children are bullied in Japan, they choose suicide--and when the media bombards young people with messages about charismatic indiviudals killing themselves, more suicides follow. The same can happen with the media in the US--turn on any channel and you are inundated with information about the killer etc. making it more likely that there will be copycats--that is why these killings seem to happen in waves.
As for Europe, one of the worse school shootings anywhere took place in Germany in 2002:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/26/germany.shooting/
Harry Eagar, "gun control" laws only disarm law-abiding citizens, and provide an easier target for criminals to prey upon, since they no longer have to worry about being ventilated by irate victims. Take a look at what has happened in Great Britain if you want to see how that plays out. After "gun control" laws were put in place, the crime rate skyrocketed.
Anonymous 1:49:
I am not calling for psychologicals to be done on the male killers as a response to what they have done--I advocate for justice.
Note that these school shooter cases are all over the news with calls for something to be done--when women were killing other women for their babies, there was no such concern. In my post, I was noting the differences in media coverage for when women kill as opposed to men. I am not advocating for understanding after the fact--I am advocating for it before--for both men and women. I think that women who go around cutting the fetuses out of other women can be just as dangerous as school killers, but no one seems to take them seriously--not even the media.
"Last night I had the pleasure of discussing school killers..."
I know you didnt mean it that way, but it was an unfortunate choice of words.
To drj:
In the experience I had, the family went to great expense in attempts to exonerate their son and to prevent him from developing a record within the legal system. No evidence was ever provided that he had sought medical help, or that his family encouraged him to do so.
I always remember Dunblane in terms of European schoold shootings. This was a horrendous one.
Mar. 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, dressed in black and wearing earmuffs to protect himself from the noise, entered an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and sprayed 105 bullets into the gym striking 29 people before killing himself. Sixteen five and 6-year-olds and a teacher died.
anonymous 2:27:
Yes, I meant I had the pleasure of talking with Hugh Hewitt--I think he is an excellent radio host.
Dr. Smith:
You said "I think you raise a legitimate question--the problem is, I do not think "experts" or the media will touch it with a ten foot poll."
I don't know whether "poll" was an inadvertent misspelling, a Freudian slip, or an intentional pun, but I love it!
The "experts" and media often are more concerned with how something polls than with the facts underlying their opinions!
Why is it no one is calling this an act of terrorism?
Anonymous 2:44:
Yeah, it was an intentional pun...well, no, sadly, only a typo but of course, subconsciously, a Freudian slip.
Socrates argued that improper conduct is a product of ignorance rather than weakness of the will. Too simple, but probably mostly true of inexplicable crimes against innocent victims. Why? Because there is no profit in such crimes, hence no rationale. Often, perpetrators have real grievances, but only irrational logic leads them to a response of killing another person.
Not all of these incidents are preventable. But today, we choose not to institutionalize many marginally stable individuals who would have been locked up fifty years ago. Whe shouldn't be surprised when some of them run amok.
AP is now reporting that the killer told his wife in a note that he'd molested two young relatives 20 years ago (when he was 12) and that he dreamed of molesting girls again. Police say he brought sexual lubricant to the school though it's not clear he had time to molest his victims. He'd bought the flex ties seven days earlier.
-- Joanne Jacobs
Regardless of their cause, these threats exist and these incidents continue to occur. I think that we have to accept that fact and prepare ourselves for action when they do.
In all of the 3 cases over the last week, the initial response of the victims was to comply with the orders of the gunmen. What if thay had instead simply attacked him and overpowered him. Yes, some might have been hurt or killed, but it would certainly be a disincentive to future copycats if they knew they were going to be attacked.
Of course the gunman could strap on a bomb and go out jihad style, but I have a feeling that most of them like to torment their victims for a while.
Anonymous @ 2:28: "In the experience I had, the family went to great expense in attempts to exonerate their son and to prevent him from developing a record within the legal system. No evidence was ever provided that he had sought medical help, or that his family encouraged him to do so."
What makes you believe the authorities (e.g., the village) could stop the son from committing violent acts while the family was protecting and enabling him? How were they to know?
Al czervik,
Yes, I do think that we move around a lot, do not know our neighbors and no one steps in when problems occur. I have watched kids slip into violence at times because they are not corrected in any way starting at a young age. We are taught not to judge others and kids often grown up feeling that whatever they do is okay.
Think about it, even 20-30 years ago, if you wrecked havoc in your neighborhood, someone usually intervened and took you to mom and dad who then disciplined you. Now, anything goes and we live among strangers who do not get involved or let kids off the hook for whatever they do. Our society glorifies villains and the oppressed, leaving those who feel like they are oppressed (and who doesn't feel oppressed?) in the position to feel like they can strike out in against those who oppress them--usually American society or women, or men or whoever. Combine a feeling of victimhood with unstable untreated mental health (no, it's not the military spending cutting in,it is the laws making it impossible to get anyone treament and spending on social security and everything else), 24 hour tv touting the infamous last killer's life and think about the next guy who wants to commit suicide. In his mind, why should he suffer alone?
TomCal,
Good points--I doubt little girls know how to overpower a killer--but isn't that the point? These killers are not as crazy as people think. They use predatory violence, that is, they come up with a plan that will allow them to kill as many people as possible. They look for easy targets with the most "bang for the buck." Schools, since no one will carry a gun and they will get the most infamy because people are always concerned when it comes to children.
Dr. Helen,
I read the transcript of your excellent interview at HH. The suicide statistics are eye-openers.
Years ago, when I was in college, there was a month during the Fall semester where 6-8 students committed suicide, most by jumping off buildings. They intentionally did not cover the suicides in the college newspaper at the direction of the college administrators - back in the days when college administrators could still tell students what to do. The administrators believed that suicide in the student population was contagious, and they based their belief on prior years' experience in which depressed students saw or read of suicides and decided to "go ahead and jump" because it seemed like an acceptable solution.
I confess that the contagious nature of suicide was the first thing I thought of when i read about the Amish executions and the similarity to last week's murder in Bailey CO. Suicide is bad enough but what makes people need to take others down with them?
On the same day this occurred, four people were also murdered in Philadelphia. Just last week, Philadelphia families marched on Harrisburg asking for help to get the guns out of the hands of criminals. The Legislature, dominated by the gun lobby, ignored them. This tragedy demonstrates that gun violence isn't just a big-city problem. It's awfully easy for sickos to get their hands on guns. How many children have to die before we take some common-sense steps to protect them?
I am Annonymous of 12:48 and 12:59, the posts regarding stalking. I finally signed up and got myself a real name.
Helen: Yes, it is a bit much to expect little girls to fight back aggressively, however when these incidents started there were more than little girls in the classrooms; there were boys and there were teachers.
It seems to me that we as a society have the same mentality that was taught to(in fact required by regulation of) airline pilots pre 9/11. The rules back then were to do exactly what what a hijacker told you to do. No one imagined that the hijackers' plan was to ultimately die himself.
In virtually all of the school incidents (and many other mass killing and stalking cases), we see a repeated murder-suicide pattern. So in my mind once the perpetrator makes his move, we have to assume that he intends to kill himself and take as many victims with him as possible.
If we accept that assumption, victims should should almost always attack preemptively, no matter how old they are. Once you are tied up it is very easy for someone to shoot you execution style in the head. If you are moving, it is difficult for even an expert markman to hit you.
And by the way, even small children can resist pretty strongly to being restrained. Have you ever tried to hold down a 4 year old who didn't want to get an injection? Imagine trying to single handedly hold down 8 or 10 of them at a time.
Perhaps I should be concerned that I think I understand the motivation of the killer. I've struggled with anger all of my life. Most of the time I'm rational and calm, but a series of frustrations, some of them very small, eventually lead to an "episode" where I am just overwhelmed with anger. The fact that I understand the process and what is happening doesn't actually help. I simply have to isolate myself until the feeling passes.
My frustrations are sometimes "political" in nature and I must confess that I've had dark thoughts about ridding the world of specific classes of malefactors. Intellectually I realize that public figures are just icons of societal forces, but anger isn't a rational element in anyone's makeup. It appears to be related to an intense desire to control one's destiny and the normal obstacles of life can produce both suicidal (yes, I can be an obstacle to my own will), and homocidal thoughts (because others are perceived as obstacles to my will).
All personalities have both positive and negative elements, but I suspect most people learn to mitigate the more negative aspects. Those who don't end up seriously disturbed and seriously dangerous.
I'll hazard the opinion that this wasn't so much a 'school shooting' - the school had nothing to do with the act it seems as it was a shooting at a place that met the killer's criteria.
For starters, it was an Amish school, which means no phones or ways to immediately contact authorities from within the building.
The building was small and easily controllable
and the guy had no apparent connection to the kids he killed and wounded.
This doesn't evoke Columbine for me. My hunch is that this attack is more like the shootings which took place at (generally) Jewish organizations.
For whatever reason this guy snapped - if he snapped during the summer, my hunch is that we'd be reading about a standoff with hostages taking place in a Girl Scout camp cabin.
People also resist suicidal and homicidal thoughts for many reasons, including evolutionary reasons (a survival preference) and personal conviction (for both religious and moral reasons). My guess is that something happens weaken those inhibitions or that some people have weaker inhibitions to start with.
As a Belgian citizen, it is not for me to comment on this atrocity, but I would like to comment on something one commenter said, namely :
Why is it that this type of violence is so much more common in the U.S. than Europe, Japan etc.?
This is a common perception, even in Europe but it is simply not true. In recent years, Europe has had actual school killings or "near-miss" attempts in France, Germany, The Netherlands and the UK. Just a couple months ago in my own country, a young man dressed like the Columbine killers went on a shooting spree in broad daylight, killing an infant child and a woman.
The difference between Europe and the US is that our media market is fractured in 25 national segments whereas the US is one single country. Shooting sprees in the US add up in people's minds while shooting in the various European countries tend to be considererd as isolated incidents.
A Columbine-type shooting with young people able to amass an arsenal of weapons is indeed unlikely over here, that would be about the only difference between Europe and the US.
We may live in different continent but we share the same - Western - culture, which means we share both in the benefits and in the downsides.
If they didn't have guns, homicidal/suicides would still find another means of killing their victims. I used to think things were so much better in the "old days" until I began to read microfiche newspapers from the 1800s to mid-1900s: murders by ax, fire, poison, and suffocation were used. I remember particularly a story about the 1881 capture of a widow who poisoned and smothered all her children, then married an unsuspecting bachelor in Ontario.
The murdering of the Amish children reminded me very much of Andrew Kehoe, "the maniac bomber of Bath", who murdered over 40 people in Bath, Michigan. Thirty-nine were children who died when he blew up the school. Bath was (and is) a small town. If some of his explosives hadn't failed, he might have killed a whole generation in one swoop.
He did this in May 1927, using explosives legally obtained for farm projects. He detonated it from his auto so he could watch the carnage. He saw the superintendant helping the survivors, so he called Superintendent Huyck to his auto - which he promptly detonated, killing himself and the other man.
He was also a member of the school board - the treasurer - and used his position to gain access to the school. Before going to the school, he bashed in his wife's head and destroyed parts of his farm (e.g. killing his orchard, burning buildings, etc.)
Supposedly his "reason" was his anger over a millage for the new school.
In the late 1980s, I wrote my master's thesis on mass murderers. Some were truly mentally ill. But most of them seemed much like the ones choosing to hit schools now - they had a range of difficulties in their lives that they didn't have the support or coping skills to work through. Their solution was to strike out at the most easily identifiable (to them) source of trouble - fellow workers (Patrick Sherrill), Hispanics (James Huberty), family members (John List). Their solutions weren't in the range of "normal", but they were rational when they planned. I don't think school shooters are very different from those who kill in other places; a teen shooting people at school is pretty much the same as Patrick Sherrill shooting fellow postal workers. And I agree with Dr. Helen - it would be very helpful to understand the psychology of these killers, which isn't the same as giving them a "you're crazy or abused, so it's okay" pass.
I also agree with her on the suicide. "Suicide by cop" is a known phenomenon, and I seriously doubt any of the killers who attacked in public places, including the ones who didn't kill themselves, thought they'd make it out alive. They just wanted to take people with them when they died.
The case that stuck with me most from my research involved a different kind of suicide - what I think of as "extended suicide". A man in Oregon killed his wife, two sons, the family dog and then himself. It seemed to me that his killing the dog was confirmation that he'd meant to kill everything he was responsible for - his family, pet included. He thought of them not as individuals, but as extensions of himself, so to truly kill himself he had to kill them too.
We just need to bring scientific questioning to the problem rather than an agenda of any sort. If you're trying to protect women's rights or gun rights or whatever you won't ask the right questions or hear the actual answers. It's hard to do good research when you do everything you can to diminish bias; it's impossible if you take some possible answers off the table before you even start.
His note said that he was was filled with self-hatred and with hatred of God, presumably for the death of his child and perhaps for a childhood incident resulting in loss of his own innocence.
He took revenge on God by killing His purest and most innocent.
TomCal, I must point out something that perhaps you don't know. Amish are nonviolent. Really and truly nonviolent.
I grew up in a rural Michigan community with a large Amish population. Once some tourists decided to "have fun" with the Amish and proceeded to push them, shove them, etc. until some "English" (that's non-Amish people) intervened. The Amish teenager involved put himself between his younger relatives (including girls) and the attackers, but he didn't fight back. Asking Amish girls and their teacher to "fight" is like putting a fish in a tree and expecting it to fly.
TomCal,
I think that prior to the killing, you can sometimes talk with someone who is in a state of depression, anger, suicide etc. Yet, once a person is in a place where they have rehearsed over and over the killing scenario in their head, they are hell-bent on carrying out their plan. The perpretrator is in an almost trance-like state once they are in their killing destination which is the last big hurrah they will have on earth. They expect to die at that point. So, given their state of mind during their spree, the only thing to do generally is to use force to stop their acts. Naturally, people will be reluctant, particularly with children to teach them any self-protective measures. One of the problems is the way our society deals with violence. Many see it as something random, unable to be stopped and deny that it happens much (unless you are a detainee at Gitmo). To defend yourself, you have to believe that violence can happen to you and that your life is worth saving. Do your really think that schools will teach students how to defend themselves? They will probably just wait for the government to come in and rescue them or they will scream about how we should rid ourselves of all of the horrible guns that are causing these crimes, forgetting that the only way people usually live through these crimes is with a gun--whether by the police or civilians who had a weapon.
Missjean:
Yes, the Amish do not believe in violence. It reminds me of the Lillelid murder that I made a film about in which six teens killed a family of Jehovah's Witnesses after kidnapping them from a picnic area. Funny, there were many other people in the area to kidnap, but I suspect they would have been too much trouble. Killers often choose their targets based on their weaknesses, not their strengths.
To missjean:
Yes, I am aware of that with respect to the Amish, although I question whether a group of Amish men would simply stand by in a community meeting while a lone gunman went through their group randomly executing men, women, and children.
My comments were really directed at American society in general, and at all three of the recent school incidents, not just the one in the Amish school.
Helen,
At a minimum, I would hope we begin to use the press to shame people for these acts. Billboards mocking and belittling the perpetrators, news articles denigrating them (rather than expressing a sort of awe, as now seems the case) would be adviseable.
I suspect the knowledge that one will be mocked after death, not given the kind of negative attention one craves, might deter a few would-be copycats.
Harsh medicine is needed while we repair our frayed social fabric.
Helen: Unfortunately no, I don't think that schools will teach children to defend themselves, but I think they should.
Your comment does make me wonder about something else - here in California almost every parent sends their kids to martial arts classes at some point in their upbringing. I imagine it is the same in other parts of the country. So why is it that in so many of these incidents we don't see at least a few of the kids taking a "let's roll" stance?
Ronin1516
Truly, you are a parody of yourself.
"We also have to look at the population of dorks and geeks in this country - and find out why and what push them into being asocial, and lacking empathy."
"I better stop my rambling right here now, before y'all conclude I am a loser dork too :)"
Could it be they lack empathy and are asocial because people like yourself call them dorks, geeks and losers? Just a thought.
Dr. H- I am very pleased to hear what you have to say about the liberal mindset in psychology. I am an MD but not a psychiatrist, and I took a course in psych rehab last year, which was very interesting. My topic for my final paper was the rehabilitation of violent offenders, and I felt I really had to tiptoe around that one, because it was evident that the literature, at least, doesn't even want to admit people with mental health problems can be violent because of the sterotyping that has gone on in the past. I think there is a resistance into even looking into violence and mental illness for this reason. It's not PC to even ask about it.
My brother was one of the 60-year-old statistics you mention. In his case, I am sure it was a situation where he felt rather worthless as compared to the society in which he ran. I think the competitive pressure on men is extreme. I also have one of those gifted, sensitive (geek, dork, whatever) sons and have actually homeschooled him in the past to get him away from "The Lord of the Flies" mentality at his (get this) small, parochial school. He just needs to toughen up- but that won't happen.
I have always said, "I don't know whether he'll be the next Unabomber or win the Nobel Prize when he grows up." I wonder if I am really joking when I say that. The thing about these boys and men- others have to ask them what's up. They will not tell you. Families have got to be on the lookout and not be in denial, which is what they do. Fortunately, my son is doing pretty well right now, but it takes vigilance. I am certain that families are just missing the signs because they are too busy, because that used to be the way it was around here.
I wonder whether this killer might have blamed little girls for his desire to molest little girls, much like Islamic extremists blame unveiled women for their own sexual desires.
If he'd just been plain mentally ill but not evil, he would've castrated himself or something, and not murdered other people.
About fighting back.
You have forgotten one of the most common things that are taught today in schools.
'All Violence is wrong'
'All Fighting is wrong'
'Violence doesn't accomplish anything'
etc.
And people wonder why students / teachers / etc don't fight back. They are like the Amish they believe that they shouldn't.
It is like drinking, if it is wrong, evil to drink then if you take one drink you might as well get drunk. If all violence is wrong then there is no difference between hitting some one and shooting them. The teachers and people stopped teaching the idea of acceptable levels of violence. A school yard fight. Punching is fine picking up a baseball bat is not.
There might be more fights but a lot less killing.
``Struggling to understand...''
He had some grudge, and decided to borrow an audience (women) from the daytime news channels to validate it.
Both he and the daytime news channels win. He gets his audience, and the media holds their audience.
It's entertainment, like every disaster told right.
According to Thurber, the formula for soap opera is inner struggle, soul-searching and everladting frustration.
One report I read quoted his coworkers was saying that he'd been very depressed recently, then suddenly his mood lifted within the several days preceding his attack at the school.
No doubt, his family and friends thought that this was a sign that he'd gotten past whatever had been troubling him. But, as I understand it, it's typical of the suicidal.
He probably could have been helped, but it's difficult to find help, and nearly impossible to get an unwilling adult to cooperate. Unless he did something criminal or really over the top, his family couldn't have even gotten him checked into a psych ward for evaluation over his objections.
Heck, most of the time the family can't even get them involuntarily committed for evaluation IF they've done something violent or made threats.
I'd be interested in hearing some discussion from professionals on that aspect, i.e. involuntary commitment for psychiatric evaluation.
Anybody else wondering why he would bring so many guns? a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle. how do you even carry so many guns.
I think the police are covering up that the bullets in that classroom came from their own guns. I'm not just saying this because of the movie Witness.
Based on what I've heard, he was mad at God, presumably for causing the death of his newborn daughter. He took revenge by killing "God's daughters". His goal was not just to kill the girls but to hurt God by killing those girls. Sexually molesting them before killing them would only add to God's pain. As to their position as "God's Daughters", what could be closer to that definition in many people's minds than little Amish girls from a one-room schoolhouse?
When an event like this occurs, you always think of your own kids. My boy are fifteen and seventeen, and my daughter is nine. They all have black belts. The boys are second degree. The problem is, how do you explain to a kid when its ok to use what they know. Should you explain, knowing that they might not be effective because of their sizes.
What I have told them is not to use anything but blocking with another kid their age. However, if they are attacked with a weapon, then deadly force is being employed. In that circumstance, they are required to defend themselves regardless of the personal risk. They are to use force and preferrably to strike in the zones forbidden in sparring. Whether this will save them from a prepared attacker, I don't know, but I consider the fact that it may save their friends to make it an ethical response.
Hello Helen Smith,
Once anger loosens its grip on an observer of a crime like this, a sense of sickening impotence, and sorrow, takes over. This is especially true if the observer is a parent.
I, like most of the commenters here, would have happily blown the gunman's head off to keep him from harming a hair on the head of any of these innocent girls. But we will likely never have such a chance to intervene violently to stop a killer before he has killed. Such interventions happen, unfortunately, only in the movies. In the real world such strategies, while attractive, are ineffective.
If we want to slow down this kind of violence, we must understand what is going on in the twisted minds of these killers. Only once we have gained some understanding will we have any hope of averting more of these indescribably horrible crimes.
This is not a "soft" or a lenient approach. Once we have some insight into the thinking of the killers we can, and should, design an effective way to stop them. If the most effective way is a ruthless one, so be it.
But my guess is that we will find the most effective approach is to find a way to break the juvenile but deep, emotionally-based conviction, held by the potential killer, that his lashing out violently makes him more of a man. By the way, the reason he had so many more guns than he could use is because they made him feel manly, like Rambo fighting an army of bad guys.
If we can inculcate in him instead a deep, emotionally-based conviction that killing innocents is the act of an unmanly and pathetic loser, we will have come up with an effective strategy.
How do we do this?
Not a clue. Maybe you have some ideas.
But if we can figure it out, this is the answer to stopping terrorists too.
Our military should organize a Manhattan project to develop this kind of effective, emotionally / psychologically-focused approach to fighting terrorism.
If we don't develop such a capability, that feeling of sickening impotence and sorrow is going to become even more familiar.
R. Freeman
Winchester, Kentucky
Two additional items: We have had a recent series of these events. It seems the publicity creates a kind of pseudocommunity for this behavior. Durkheim, in perhaps the first social psychology report now remembered, noted that suicides in France were less during the Franco-Prussian war. It was thought that the war reduced anonymity in the society. Perhaps these murders, in their number, are an aspect of the lack of cohesion in our society and, paradoxically, the promotion of a 'community' of murderers by the publicity. The other point is the dog that didn't bark. We spend a lot of money and people's lives in this country locking people up for possesing various drugs. A lot of people use them but is there any evidence that that was associated with any of this pathology? Maybe we're focusing too much in a way on the drug Satan.
A few commenters have mentioned transience as a factor affecting social alienation, which may undermine safeguards against such incidents.
But there's evidence indicating that domestic mobility is actually below historic levels. It appears that people are moving around far less than is commonly assumed. This isn't to say that social alienation doesn't exist, and hasn't increased in recent years, but that if has we can't necessarily blame transience.
CHART: http://www.prb.org/images2/PercentPopAged1Year.gif
articles..
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=3258
and
http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=12347
To Anonymous 6:24 pm: Guns are merely a tool. The weapons carried into the school could easily be carried by one person. But more interestingly, the same results could have been accomplished with the battery powered tools available at any home improvement store. Once the kids allowed themselves to be tied up, almost anything, including bare hands could have been used to slaughter them.
As long as we and our children are of the mindset that all violence is wrong (read dan hamilton's comments above)and we make no distinctions of degree or purpose, we are allowing ourselves and our children to be led to slaughter like farm animals.
I believe that the emergence of so-called "zero-tolerance" policies have a lot to do with this. Possession of a nail file, a knife, a gun, or a bomb will lead to the same result at my childrens' school - permanent expulsion. Same goes for fighting, whether it is a simple scuffle on the football field or an attack on an unsuspecting victim with a baseball bat in the cafeteria.
The juvenile court system may treat these incidents differently, but the school system does not. I won't even start on drugs, where no distinction is drawn (in the schoolyard) between sneaking a beer into a school dance and shooting heroin.
We have to re-learn (everyone used to know how) to draw distinctions of degree and we have to teach our kids and ourselves to fight back (another thing our ancestors knew) when we are faced with life threatening situations, regardless of age.
A couple of items. Dr. Helen mentioned that some claim that the school shootings have something to do with feminism, she isn't sure. How about this, part of the rise of feminism is the fact that boys are given far less attention these days. When I was a schoolboy girls did not participate in class nearly so much as now. As the father of a daughter I am pleased that she got more attention than my sister did. As the father of sons I would wish that the schools could figure out how to stike a happy medium between what we had in the fifties and sixties and what we see today.
I can catagorically say that it ain't the guns. I was on my school rifle team. During the seasons we'd ride the bus to school with our rifles or shotguns and then hunt our way home. There were days where if we ate meat for supper it was some critter I shot, we were not nearly alone, either. The Principal's Office had a large closet, full of our shootin' irons and fish poles.
A boy or two on bikes with .22s or single shot shotguns with a dog runnin' alongside was once the symbol of small town America. Now they'd call the SWAT Teams.
I miss the country I grew up in. It had it's problems (racism, Polio, etc) but nobody shot little girls in their schools.
Here is an outside-the-box potential solution for unhappy people who might turn violent: Free therapy centers in every community. Okay, quit laughing.
You have a bad day, you feel angry, violent destructive. Instead of wallowing in your misery and think about a destructive solution, you go on down to the therapy place and talk your problems out with a trained therapist.
Someone should do a cost-benefit analysis on this idea. Crime diminishes, incarceration diminishes and medical costs diminish, people are able to retain employment so tax revenues increase.
Think about it.
Helen... I heard you yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt show. I agree with you completely. I cringe when I hear Criminology profs espouse their pet theory that explains "why". I was talking about the incident today in an undergrad Crime and Delinquency class. I teach at a Christian liberal arts university so I am actually at more liberty to talk about the "whys and wherefores" than my coleagues at state universities. Anyway... the integrated approach works best. From the Christian perspective... we're all lost, the heart is desperately wicked and unable to fix ourselves. That is the paradigm in which individual choice, environment, psychology, biology, et al. work to make offenders.
I'm not one of those who think psychology and faith are at odds (in fact we're starting an MA in forensic psych next Fall) and both explain quite a lot.
Another interesting aspect -- I don't knwo if you've seen this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=408428&in_page_id=1811
Anonymous 11:12 AM: Dear sweet Helen, you are too rational for your own good. The US is no longer about solving its problems through mediation, compassion and understanding, but much more about showing everyone who's the boss.
Cute. The Patriarchy is Teh Evil, Helen, so I will patronize you and all but virtually pat you on the head like a silly girl child.
Don't expect much to change, our cultural mindset will never let it.
Then shut up and quit whining.
(I use the Anonymous option because I know posts like this will surely come back to bite me. Freedom of speech is a myth)
Freedom of speech never meant, "People have to swallow anything I say and they can't make any nasty, poopy judgments about my intelligence, or lack thereof."
Which reminds me, you're a stupid twat regardless of your sex.
ronin1516: please dont blame me for your son's problems. I am glad that you recognised the symptoms, and took corrective steps. People become weird, becasue of themselves, outsiders calling them dorks or geeks or pointing out their asocial behaviors or their lack of social skills are not responsible for the lack fo social skills or social ineptness.
"Look, I was friendly. The four of us pantsing the little faggot, shoving him into the girls' locker room and then refusing to own up to it to the principal was just a friendly attempt to teach him how to be a man. I only called that new kid a nigger to let him know I was down with it and not some kinda racist, just like I call the girl next to me in class a fat cow, to remind her to take her head out of the trough once in a while. I mean, she's at least 20, 30 pounds overweight. She's a f*#king pig."
It takes a village to assemble pitchforks, rakes and torches to take out a monster. I vote we start with ronin1516 and work our way up.
I was lucky with my schools. No uniforms, no calling parents, they just had an unwashed bin of clothes in case you showed up with a Heineken or pot leaf t-shirt. People got the message. The male teachers stood like sentinels next to their classroom doors to monitor the halls and enforce order.
Kids in school are not free, they are trapped there. We trapped them there. We need to monitor them against the worst abuses.
And as regards the shooting, when will we get the message that doing what the gunman tells you is a ticket to death?
From The Guns of Broxton by the Clash.
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?
Those socialist boys from England got that one right.
Trey
will the banning of guns stop school murders.. no. criminals will get guns no matter what.
is there more violence due to homeowners having guns.. possibly
shouldnt everyone who has a gun have to undergo training on when to fire when not to fire.
look at the UK, they dont have many crimes of these nature. the problem is when people think guns are the answer to every question.
just my opinion.
Just some thoughts on this topic.
Firstly, I don't believe that anybody is "pure evil". There is really no proper definition of the term anyway, and any definition you apply will most certainly not be an accurate description of any real person. To take an extreme case to illustrate my point: we can easily refer to Hitler as "pure evil" but he genuinely believed he was actually making the world a better place. Unfortunately he was both demented (OK you can say that's in effect the same as evil; but really it isn't) and in a position of supreme power which allowed him to give full rein to his dementia. And he was of course utterly and tragically wrong. But he remained convinced of the correctness of his actions to the bitter end.
My point is that just dismissing someone as pure evil is no answer to anything, and will never allow us to get to the bottom of why people act in a particular way, and how to stop them. Distasteful though it may be, the only way you will arrive at understanding is to take an objective approach, and not just condemn. This is not the same as making excuses.
Secondly, the availability or otherwise of weapons is irrelevant. Millions of people have ready access to the means of destruction of fellow humans, but would never dream of using them for that purpose. Whereas the determined killer will find a way to kill regardless of the obstacles you put in his path. If this killer had beaten those girls to death with a baseball bat, do you think banning baseball would stop any future massacres?
Thirdly I don't accept that these killers want to commit suicide first and foremost, but then decide they are going to take others with them. I think it is the other way round. They want an explosion of violence and destruction that will engulf others; they want to kill. But they choose a situation in which it will be all but impossible for them to come out alive themselves. They always make sure they leave one last bullet. They have no intention of being taken alive, with all the attendant rituals that they probably deeply despise: being examined by psychologists, put on trial, kicking their heels in jail, being haunted by what they have done while they know 99% of the world wants to tear them to pieces. Suicide is then the only way out.
Finally I sometimes despair at the way the final words or suicide messages of killers are not treated with the seriousness they deserve. Too often they are dismissed just because they sound too incomprehesible or unreal to be true. But they always are true! How do I know? Ask yourself this. Under what circumstances is a man most certain to tell the truth? The answer is when he knows he is about to die. What is the point in saying anything other than the truth at such a juncture? That's why deathbed confessions carry so much weight. You can believe them because deceit no longer has any currency; it's time and value have passed. Those who kill others as a prelude to killing themselves will often tell us exactly, and truthfully, why they are doing it. Just because we don't understand, does not mean we should dismiss their statements and start substituting our own ideas. To do so is to walk away from any chance of understanding, which is the necessary prelude to stopping others in future.
I won't claim to understand any more than the next person, but I believe in what I have said for two reasons: firstly I have seen a lot of this stuff going on, and find it is very predictable when you begin to see it from the killer's eyes - however much you hate and condemn it. Secondly because I have been right down there in the place that these killers come from.
Oligonicella, i live in the UK, which doesnt have guns, only criminals, or farmers really have them and people are vetted for having them a complete check on everyone.
you missed the point, in the UK gun crime is lower, accidental murders by gun in the home are virtually non existent. one question, all these stories about women shooting their husbands with their own gun.. would it happen if there was no gun..
criminals get guns no matter what. to let people have assault rifles, rather than hand guns, is that defence or overkill.
i say possibly, as it is possible. not that it happens it may or may not so it is possible..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-2395882,00.html
13-year-old opens fire in school
A 13-year-old wearing a mask fired an AK47 inside his school in Joplin, Missouri, yesterday morning. No one was hurt, and he was arrested, authorities said.
ask yourself why is it always boys that have to shoot, what is the reason behind all the MALE shootings..??? ask yourself that if you dare
is that why the crime rates in the UK are less, because we poison people instead..
sorry it doesnt hold water. and your taking a band as gospel,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm
check this out
1996)police-recorded murders totaled 19,650 in the United States and 681 in England .
the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 times higher than England's (0.074 per 1,000 population versus 0.013
can nobody see the see a correlation with gun ownership, having guns is not the problem, using guns is. if you have a gun, the criminals will have bigger guns, then you will have to have bigger, then they will. and if there is a risk of being killed by stealing, then why not kill everyone in the house first..
thats the real problem. the idea that guns will protect you, when the criminals will have access to bigger guns.
There were a total of 859 homicide offences recorded in 2004/05, an increase of one per cent compared to the previous year** thats in a population of 60 million,
perhaps its the culture, the old wild west idea, if there were no guns there would be no accidental killings, kids with automatic rifles in schools, etc..
Did anyone speculate that this pedophile was turned on by the Amish schoolgirl uniform? After all, he seemed prepared to get funky. KY Jelly isn't otherwise required for a mass murder.
Just a variation on Catholic schoolgirl uniforms?!
So he didn't pick them because they're pacifist, he picked them because they were HOT in those cute little dresses and bonnets.
GROSS!!!!
I liked the layout of Hugh Hewitt's website better before it was absorbed by Townhall.
anonymous @ 3:39 pm said: "On the same day this occurred, four people were also murdered in Philadelphia. Just last week, Philadelphia families marched on Harrisburg asking for help to get the guns out of the hands of criminals. The Legislature, dominated by the gun lobby, ignored them. This tragedy demonstrates that gun violence isn't just a big-city problem. It's awfully easy for sickos to get their hands on guns. How many children have to die before we take some common-sense steps to protect them?"
Getting the guns away from criminals is a great goal, but probably very difficult to achieve. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will make the problem worse not better. This is why the second amendment lobby is so important.
tmink said: "From The Guns of Broxton by the Clash."
I just recently downloaded that song for my uncle. But I thought
that part was talking about the cops.
This is from Wikipedia:
"The song pre-dates the race riots that took place in the 1980s in Brixton but the lyrics depict the feelings of discontent that were building due to alleged "heavy-handedness" of the police that lead to the riots, the recession and other problems at that time."
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home