New book alert

Can't remember anyone posting about this but there's a new book coming out called Columbine, 20 Years Later and Beyond: Lessons from Tragedy,

Description:

In their newest collaboration, Jaclyn and co-author Glenn W. Muschert will provide a critical retrospective of the 1999 Columbine High School shootings as the 20th anniversary approaches. Columbine was a watershed event that changed the way America views mass shootings, both in and out of schools. In this book, the authors will consider Columbine's impact on public opinion about mass shootings, school security, law enforcement practices, threat assessment, legislation, and more. In addition to considering the changes made in the past 20 years since the shooting, the authors also offer consideration of how the nation continues to move forward as we surpass this milestone anniversary.


All royalties from this project will be donated to the Columbine Memorial Foundation. Visit their website at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to learn more about this organization or to contribute to maintaining this memorial site.

Link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sounds interesting, not just focused on the motive and what lead up to it but aftermath as well.

Hell I'll read anything new on Columbine at this point.

I'm right there with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]!!

How many minutes until the depositions?

Are they here yet?


Are they here yet?


Are they here yet?


Are they here now????


In all seriousness I think it’ll be an interesting book.

I have half of mid just to write a film based on a mothers reckoning and see if I could sell it to a production company. Just so we can have something different ;)

The approach sounds interesting, detailing how Columbine has influenced the public response and legislation/handling of mass shootings. Always happy to have a different perspective weigh in on this event.
I see the Foreword is by Frank DeAngelis, which will not be so enlightening, IMO.

Screamingophelia wrote:

How many minutes until the depositions?

Are they here yet?


Are they here yet?


Are they here yet?


Are they here now????


In all seriousness I think it’ll be an interesting book.

I have half of mid just to write a film based on a mothers reckoning and see if I could sell it to a production company. Just so we can have something different ;)

that honestly sounds like a great idea :O, I don't know how it could turn out if it was made into an acting one, but a documentary about Sue sounds real interesting.

Screamingophelia wrote:

How many minutes until the depositions?

Are they here yet?


Are they here yet?


Are they here yet?


Are they here now????

BAHAHAHAHAH!

23september wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

How many minutes until the depositions?

Are they here yet?


Are they here yet?


Are they here yet?


Are they here now????


In all seriousness I think it’ll be an interesting book.

I have half of mid just to write a film based on a mothers reckoning and see if I could sell it to a production company. Just so we can have something different ;)

that honestly sounds like a great idea :O, I don't know how it could turn out if it was made into an acting one, but a documentary about Sue sounds real interesting.

A documentary does sound interesting because you're right, the acting in a movie like that may not be great to say the least...

Though Dawn Anna wasn't too bad. I think the actress who played Lauren's mom won an award for her performance.

Well, I'll read it of course. I just hope it doesn't turn out like Cullen's book.

Found this, but there is no listed date of release beyond saying "2019" and it's not on Amazon yet like the other one so don't know when it's coming out:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I pre-ordered the Columbine 20 Years Later book; am looking forward to it.

I finally got the 20 Years Later book. I'm not very far into it; I'll post my thoughts as I go along.

- The author is a criminal justice professor so the book reads more like a dissertation than a "story", which is fine but probably means it's not for everybody and more for those who are hardcore into learning about Columbine.

- She does just a few page summary of the shooting; most of it is accurate but there are a few mistakes, in particular:
She says that Evan Todd was hit by buckshot. He wasn't; it was splinters from the counter
She says Patrick Ireland saw Hall and Steepleton get shot and tried to flee, and that's when he got shot in the head. That's not true. Ireland was trying to come to Hall's aid and apply pressure to his wounded leg; Dylan shot him when his head came above the table.
She says Hall threw away a bomb that landed by him but doesn't mention he did it because it actually landed on Steepleton and he was saving Dan.

She says that in reaction to Columbine, schools began focusing on worst case scenario even though school shootings are still rare. And they still don't put enough resources towards the everyday problems like bullying, assault, and sexual misconduct.

She talks about the "crisis coverage" of the press and how they are so quick to be first on scene that they get the facts wrong and then try to correct things later.
She follows No Notoriety and doesn't use Eric and Dylan's names. She calls them Shooter H and Shooter K. She says that in the national press, E & D got mentioned 6.5 times more than any of the victims.
She also says that the victims didn't get equal coverage. In order of most press coverage to least:
Dave Sanders
Isaiah Shoels
Rachel Scott
Cassie Bernall
Everyone else
Kyle Velasquez

thelmar wrote:

She follows No Notoriety and doesn't use Eric and Dylan's names.

I'm happy to say this is a book I'm going to avoid like the plague now.

QuestionMark wrote:

thelmar wrote:

She follows No Notoriety and doesn't use Eric and Dylan's names.

I'm happy to say this is a book I'm going to avoid like the plague now.

This is stupid given how integral Eric & Dylan to understanding the whole thing, if you cut the criminal/s from the crime than you're losing more than half of the story. If people really want to understand why these things happen in the first place than look at the people who cause them, stop trying to shelter and safespace yourself and other people. But I guess it's not "PC" to name killers or try to understand the things they do.

UncontinuedProcess wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

thelmar wrote:

She follows No Notoriety and doesn't use Eric and Dylan's names.

I'm happy to say this is a book I'm going to avoid like the plague now.

This is stupid given how integral Eric & Dylan to understanding the whole thing, if you cut the criminal/s from the crime than you're losing more than half of the story. If people really want to understand why these things happen in the first place than look at the people who cause them, stop trying to shelter and safespace yourself and other people. But I guess it's not "PC" to name killers or try to understand the things they do.    

I understand the whole point of not giving the killer the infamy they crave but at the same time, if you don't study them then how can you prevent them? And since it's been 20 yrs and people who weren't even born then know their names today, it seems a little much to refuse to name Eric and Dylan. You can't hear Columbine without thinking of their names.

[quote="UncontinuedProcess"]

thelmar wrote:

She follows No Notoriety and doesn't use Eric and Dylan's names.

I'm happy to say this is a book I'm going to avoid like the plague now.

This is stupid given how integral Eric & Dylan to understanding the whole thing, if you cut the criminal/s from the crime than you're losing more than half of the story. If people really want to understand why these things happen in the first place than look at the people who cause them, stop trying to shelter and safespace yourself and other people. But I guess it's not "PC" to name killers or try to understand the things they do.

This!

[quote="thelmar"][quote="QuestionMark"]

thelmar wrote:

She follows No Notoriety and doesn't use Eric and Dylan's names.

I'm happy to say this is a book I'm going to avoid like the plague now.

This is stupid given how integral Eric & Dylan to understanding the whole thing, if you cut the criminal/s from the crime than you're losing more than half of the story. If people really want to understand why these things happen in the first place than look at the people who cause them, stop trying to shelter and safespace yourself and other people. But I guess it's not "PC" to name killers or try to understand the things they do.    

I understand the whole point of not giving the killer the infamy they crave but at the same time, if you don't study them then how can you prevent them? And since it's been 20 yrs and people who weren't even born then know their names today, it seems a little much to refuse to name Eric and Dylan. You can't hear Columbine without thinking of their names.

That’s what really drives me up the wall when another mass shooting takes place across this country and a chunk of people believe we should not display any information whatsoever about the perpetrator. Knowing the psychology and life circumstances of mass murderers is the key to stopping these acts.

thelmar wrote:

I finally got the 20 Years Later book. I'm not very far into it; I'll post my thoughts as I go along.

- The author is a criminal justice professor so the book reads more like a dissertation than a "story", which is fine but probably means it's not for everybody and more for those who are hardcore into learning about Columbine.

- She does just a few page summary of the shooting; most of it is accurate but there are a few mistakes, in particular:
She says that Evan Todd was hit by buckshot. He wasn't; it was splinters from the counter
She says Patrick Ireland saw Hall and Steepleton get shot and tried to flee, and that's when he got shot in the head. That's not true. Ireland was trying to come to Hall's aid and apply pressure to his wounded leg; Dylan shot him when his head came above the table.
She says Hall threw away a bomb that landed by him but doesn't mention he did it because it actually landed on Steepleton and he was saving Dan.

She says that in reaction to Columbine, schools began focusing on worst case scenario even though school shootings are still rare. And they still don't put enough resources towards the everyday problems like bullying, assault, and sexual misconduct.

She talks about the "crisis coverage" of the press and how they are so quick to be first on scene that they get the facts wrong and then try to correct things later.
She follows No Notoriety and doesn't use Eric and Dylan's names. She calls them Shooter H and Shooter K. She says that in the national press, E & D got mentioned 6.5 times more than any of the victims.
She also says that the victims didn't get equal coverage. In order of most press coverage to least:
Dave Sanders
Isaiah Shoels
Rachel Scott
Cassie Bernall
Everyone else
Kyle Velasquez

I would have thought that Rachel got more coverage than Isaiah.

That is what I thought at first but then I remembered when the Schoels went on the talk show circuit for a while after it was revealed what Dylan said in the library before they killed Isaiah.

Maybe I paid more attention to the news regarding Rachel.. because I also feel like Rachel was talked about more. Was hers the only one televised?

I don't remember Lauren or anyone's. We have photos from Danny Mausers and Isaiah's I know.

I still can't believe in 2.5 months it would have been 20 years I was talking to my friend who is a survivor that I sum up the second semester of my senior year with these big moments and Columbine is one of them and she actually understood.

Screamingophelia wrote:

That is what I thought at first but then I remembered when the Schoels went on the talk show circuit for a while after it was revealed what Dylan said in the library before they killed Isaiah.

Maybe I paid more attention to the news regarding Rachel.. because I also feel like Rachel was talked about more. Was hers the only one televised?

I don't remember Lauren or anyone's. We have photos from Danny Mausers and Isaiah's I know.

I still can't believe in 2.5 months it would have been 20 years I was talking to my friend who is a survivor that I sum up the second semester of my senior year with these big moments and Columbine is one of them and she actually understood.

Maybe that's why I am thinking Rachel was talked about more, her funeral was televised. I don't recall anyone else having their funeral televised.

Rachel was the saint of Colorado for a long time. Not only was she televised but she was praised highly. Almost everyone knew her name from the news. And she is still the most talked about today among non Columbine enthusiasts imo

Idk, I feel like the arguments for reporting info about shooters to help "prevent future massacres" doesn't hold water. I mean really, Dylan and Eric's behavior should have been a no brainer for the school and police of Jeff co.
Time and again with the mass shootings today there are tons of red flags that were swept under the rug, because you can't lock people away from the general population just for being weird. Well not anymore anyway.
The Vegas shooting proved that you can dig all you want but you will never understand or find a motive (usually). So making the killer famous is stupid and useless IMO. Again, lots of flags that were just ignored or overlooked. All the time it's like "well they did boast about having guns" or "they threatened to kill people on the internet"
There, there is your prevention!
I don't need to know who Eric and Dylan are to know that if a kid at my school who bragged about having pipe bombs and guns, that was threatening to kill me on a website, should be sent away to a detention center for a while.
Stop trying to psycho analyze these people hoping there will be some magic universal clue to identify future mass shooters. That doesn't exist. They are usually pretty good and leaving plenty of obvious clues, but like I said you can't throw a kid in prison for threatening people on the internet. Well maybe, but not for any extended period of time.

HanShotFirst wrote:

Idk, I feel like the arguments for reporting info about shooters to help "prevent future massacres" doesn't hold water. I mean really, Dylan and Eric's behavior should have been a no brainer for the school and police of Jeff co.
Time and again with the mass shootings today there are tons of red flags that were swept under the rug, because you can't lock people away from the general population just for being weird. Well not anymore anyway.
The Vegas shooting proved that you can dig all you want but you will never understand or find a motive (usually). So making the killer famous is stupid and useless IMO. Again, lots of flags that were just ignored or overlooked. All the time it's like "well they did boast about having guns" or "they threatened to kill people on the internet"
There, there is your prevention!
I don't need to know who Eric and Dylan are to know that if a kid at my school who bragged about having pipe bombs and guns, that was threatening to kill me on a website, should be sent away to a detention center for a while.
Stop trying to psycho analyze these people hoping there will be some magic universal clue to identify future mass shooters. That doesn't exist. They are usually pretty good and leaving plenty of obvious clues, but like I said you can't throw a kid in prison for threatening people on the internet. Well maybe, but not for any extended period of time.

You're right, there is no universal clue that's going to shine a spotlight over the head of a prospective school shooter. This book outlines a number of theories on school shooters and I only agree with parts of them. They try too hard to shove these kids into categories instead of recognizing that an individual is not going to check all boxes for what a school shooter "should be". She does outline what she calls "the pathway to violence" which seems to fit quite well. The steps are:

- From Grievance to Decision- a grievance can be something major like a significant loss or it can be a perceived grievance like unfair treatment. The person uses this grievance to justify to themselves that they should commit a violent act of revenge.

- Research Planning and Preparation- this includes armament, attack-related behaviors (like going to Rampart Range to practice), probing and boundary pushing (e.g., mapping out the cafeteria and attack plan), and leakage (talking about/hinting about the coming attack online or in person).

- Implementation- the attack itself

The problem I see with using this as a guide to intervene before an attack is that, aside from leakage, a lot of this stuff is probably done under the radar and no one will notice it.

With regard to how Columbine has influenced other school shooters in the US, here are some stats from the book:
-Over a 15 year period after Columbine, there were 74 copycat cases. 21 of those came to fruition leaving 89 dead and 126 wounded.

- In 13 of those cases, the perpertrator directly stated they hoped to exceed the body count from Columbine.

- In 10 of those cases, the perpetrator wrote or spoke of Eric and Dylan being martyrs, heroes, idols, or gods

- At least 3 of these copycats actually traveled to Columbine as part of their planning. Of those 3, 2 carried out their attack. The third, who was caught before he did anything, was a 16 yr old from Utah who, with a friend, was planning to bomb his high school. This kid actually posed as a student journalist and interviewed Frank DeAngelis. I had never heard about this! Here is a link to an article I found on it: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
One of the two that went went through with their attack was Alvaro Castillo. He killed his father then drove to his high school in NC and opened fire, injuring 2 before he was brought down by school personnel. Castillo visited Columbine and purchased a trench coat in CO which he wore during his shooting.