Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum

A place to discuss the Columbine High School Massacre along with other school shootings and crimes.
Anyone interested in researching, learning, discussing and debating with us, please come join our community!
 
HomeHome  PortalPortal  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  
 

 Refute or Affirm Please

Go down 
3 posters
AuthorMessage
BurnIt




Posts : 170
Contribution Points : 81092
Forum Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-03-18

Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeTue Mar 26, 2013 11:56 am

I think I know the answer to this but I would like a backup source please. Is it true that Eric and Dylan didn't kill anyone they spoke to during the massacre? (I''m thinking of the whole She Said Yes thing, regardless of who said it. Would it have mattered what she said just so long as Val said something?)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
queenfarooq




Posts : 709
Contribution Points : 81787
Forum Reputation : 10
Join date : 2013-03-17
Location : England

Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Re: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeTue Mar 26, 2013 12:32 pm

There's brief descriptions on a columbine site about the victims deaths and the only mention of any kind of 'talking' taking place were racial slurs directed at Isaiah Shoels and Erics 'peek-a-boo" comment to Cassie Bernall. Their deaths are described as the following taken from witness statements on a columbine site:

Cassie Bernall
"Eric Harris came around the table where Cassie and another girl were hiding. He slapped the top of the table twice with his left hand and said to the two frightened girls: "Peek-a-boo!". He then bent down, pointed his sawed-off shotgun under the table and fired once, shooting Cassie in the right side of the head. She died immediately."

Isaiah Shoels
"When Dylan Klebold saw him hiding beneath the table, he called Eric Harris over. They flanked the table on either side then Klebold made a racist comment toward Isaiah, and tried to pull him out from under the table. When that failed, Harris opened fire, killing Isaiah."


(All taken from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Also off the top of my head I don't believe they did kill anyone they had an actual conversation with.

As always it's so sad reading those descriptions.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BurnIt




Posts : 170
Contribution Points : 81092
Forum Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-03-18

Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Re: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeTue Mar 26, 2013 12:56 pm

Sorry, my bad. I knew about those. What I meant was, I wanted to confirm that they didn't kill anyone to whom they spoke and from whom they received a response. Any exchange that wasn't one sided.
I think no matter what Val said she would have been spared, as long as she said something.

I have wondered why they didn't shoot anyone who spoke to them. All I can come up with is that they either
A) saw more humanity in those who spoke to them, making it harder to kill them (this sounds fangirly to me but I will put it out there anyway, so other posters know I've considered this)
B) went into NBK feeling that no one would be able to ignore them that day and were feeling more charitable towards those who fit with that expectation/angrier at others who still had nothing to say
or
C) those who spoke to them were very clearly scared out of their minds and E&D were happy enough to see that person terrified and so felt less of a pressing need to kill them.

I've also considered that they might have wanted to leave survivors behind for some purpose, whether that be to continue torturing people for years after after 4/20 or to have witnesses to speak of the devastation or some other reason.

_________________
"If it moves kill it, if it doesn't burn it."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest




Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Re: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeThu Mar 28, 2013 1:25 am

I think A and C. Eric also mentioned in the basement tapes how he hoped people would have flashbacks of that day and would drive them insane for years. I think he also mentioned haunting them as ghosts. By sparing people's lives it would cause physiological turmoil. which I think is huge revenge. But I don't think that was the case for why Dylan decided to spare John Savage's life.
Back to top Go down
tfsa47090
Global Moderator & Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 898
Contribution Points : 80372
Forum Reputation : 81
Join date : 2013-03-18

Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Re: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeThu Mar 28, 2013 4:08 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
Sorry, my bad. I knew about those. What I meant was, I wanted to confirm that they didn't kill anyone to whom they spoke and from whom they received a response. Any exchange that wasn't one sided.
I think no matter what Val said she would have been spared, as long as she said something.

I have wondered why they didn't shoot anyone who spoke to them. All I can come up with is that they either
A) saw more humanity in those who spoke to them, making it harder to kill them (this sounds fangirly to me but I will put it out there anyway, so other posters know I've considered this)
B) went into NBK feeling that no one would be able to ignore them that day and were feeling more charitable towards those who fit with that expectation/angrier at others who still had nothing to say
or
C) those who spoke to them were very clearly scared out of their minds and E&D were happy enough to see that person terrified and so felt less of a pressing need to kill them.

I've also considered that they might have wanted to leave survivors behind for some purpose, whether that be to continue torturing people for years after after 4/20 or to have witnesses to speak of the devastation or some other reason.

At this time I honestly believe it's choice A. I feel that in many ways once that day arrived they had to convince themselves to actually do it despite any bravado elsewhere.

I said this on the last board that closed, in a conversation with Jenn: I think for the longest time, both of them thought the other would back out at some point. And I really do believe that both of them had strong feelings about abandoning the plan during multiple stages.

I think a lot of Eric's writing is him convincing himself that he didn't care about anyone or anything, and that "this is what" he "wanted to do with his life". There'd never be this constant downplaying of other emotions if they didn't exist in the first place.

Some say it's a sign of psychopathy, and that he did that to be "charming" and "fool people"...errr, how? He was going to die himself, he wouldn't be facing a trial, he was already hiding and distancing himself from most people, particularly family. So, I really do go with choice A at this time, and I've thought that for quite a while.

I know that some people have said here (specifically to you, I believe, BurnIt) that perhaps when people don't view things about these two in a clean cut, "they were screwed up", definite and final way that it implies that maybe they're in denial about who they actually were. Personally, I don't agree. I was repulsed by the two of them at first. I went through all of the thoughts about how I'd gone through many similar things, and how I wasn't as fortunate as them, and asking why they chose to take such a cowardly way out. And, I also thought at the same time "it was going to happen eventually" regarding the scale of the planned attack. As time went on and I really delved into things, and then a few years later in 2006, when they released the portions of their journals and documents, I began to see things through an entirely different lens, and they were all too human to me. Very frankly, I didn't want to feel any empathy for them at first, but, they were indeed human. And this whole thing, in my opinion, is a showcasing of just how acutely and profoundly sensitive the human soul actually is, and how impossibly broken it can become.

I do apologize for trailing off, but all of this has to do with which option I chose, and seeing that my choice is "A", I thought I'd explain a bit.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BurnIt




Posts : 170
Contribution Points : 81092
Forum Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-03-18

Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Re: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeThu Mar 28, 2013 10:05 am

I would like to believe it was A. It would fit with my own beliefs that centre around yin and yang. Both good and bad qualities within a person, shades of grey (not 50 of then though) etc etc etc
But I often go with C. I think, as horrible it is to think of, killing kids got boring. A gunshot will only wreak so many kinds of havoc. Every scream sounds basically the same. Death comes pretty fast when you aim a Tec 9 and pull the trigger They got their fill of that pretty fast. .But you can drag sheer terror on for a long time. Which they apparently enjoyed doing. The library survivors recall a lot of taunting.
I think they were just as happy after a while to scare people. The extended 911 call is gruesome...Val Shnurr begging for mercy is, I think, an example of what really got them off. The alarms going off, the screaming, the pleading, the desperate attempts by kids to hide or to protect themselves, the kind of terror that leaves you on your knees unable to stand...I don't think they liked shooting any more than they they liked the feeling of control, which they never had in school. They must have felt truly godlike.

The only objective thing that makes me hold on to A as a possibility was the order in which the events unfolded. They wanted to use the bombs (bombing people to kill them is pretty impersonal). When the bombs didn't work they started shooting. At first from a long distance, but when their aim wound up so terrible they pushed through to shooting point blank.. They had knives but never used them, possibly because knifing someone is about as up close and personal with death as you can get. With kids still alive in the library and lots of ammo left, they just quit and returned to try the bombs again. That might, but only might, have indicated that they wanted the bombs to work so they didn't have to go kill anyone else themselves. They went roaming the halls and knew there were kids in there to kill but didn't bother. They might have been turned off by killing, finding killing to be harder than they thought it would be. But I think they just got bored.


_________________
"If it moves kill it, if it doesn't burn it."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest




Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Re: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeThu Mar 28, 2013 5:24 pm

I'd say A in the case of Evan Todd. The more Dylan spent time interacting with Todd, the more Dylan started to wake up from his numbed-out killing trance.
You'd think Dylan would've gleefully killed a jock. This was an opportune moment as he absolutely hated jocks and it was the crux of his revenge on the school.
And yet, there he was face-to-face with bonafide jock. In his hestitation, Todd spoke up challengingly and then noticed the change in demeanor as the mask came down
and the vestige of humanity was revealed on Dylan's face. It's just lucky Eric was wobbly from his broken nose because he likely would've done the honors for Dylan .
Then again, Eric was majorly obsessing over the bombs in the cafeteria. He seemed done with the library altogether. In this example, the more time spent engaging the 'enemy'
the killers lose their nerve as faceless targets become 'real people' again. Seems reasonable to apply this to Val Schnurr and why she survived too. Too much interaction
makes them become too emotionally engaged with their target. I also think they would've justified sparing many lives ( C ) as they wanted people to be emotionally
scarred so they would never ever forget - forever haunted.

Evan Todd's story on Ricki Lake

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest




Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Re: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeThu Mar 28, 2013 6:48 pm

I'd go with A and C. I think it was harder for them to kill people face to face than they anticipated. In the library they were shooting indiscriminately under the tables, not even targeting people. Many library witnesses only saw their feet and the barrel of a gun. What they enjoyed about the shooting was the power trip it gave them, the power over life and death and playing god. The taunting they engaged in seems to dehumanize the victims in their minds. Isaiah wasn't a person in their minds but a merely a thing, a n****r. They wanted a high body count, but wanted the bombs to do the dirty work for them. Also the did leave some alive to "live to tell the tale" like in the nbk movie.
Back to top Go down
BurnIt




Posts : 170
Contribution Points : 81092
Forum Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-03-18

Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Re: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeThu Mar 28, 2013 7:52 pm

I have always thought that Evan Todd got out of that library only because Eric had broken his nose. I think if Eric had had his wits about him, he would have shot Todd point blank with no remorse.

_________________
"If it moves kill it, if it doesn't burn it."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest




Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Re: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeThu Nov 21, 2013 5:27 pm

@BurnIt wrote:
I have always thought that Evan Todd got out of that library only because Eric had broken his nose. I think if Eric had had his wits about him, he would have shot Todd point blank with no remorse.
He already had shot him a couple of times, when they first entered the library. So you're absolutely  right imo.
Back to top Go down
queenfarooq




Posts : 709
Contribution Points : 81787
Forum Reputation : 10
Join date : 2013-03-17
Location : England

Refute or Affirm Please Empty
PostSubject: Re: Refute or Affirm Please   Refute or Affirm Please Icon_minitimeFri Nov 22, 2013 5:03 am

gustopoet wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
I have always thought that Evan Todd got out of that library only because Eric had broken his nose. I think if Eric had had his wits about him, he would have shot Todd point blank with no remorse.
He already had shot him a couple of times, when they first entered the library. So you're absolutely  right imo.
Evan Todd claims that Eric shot  at him twice. One of the bullets hit a wooden counter causing splinters to fly. Evan suffered injuries to his eye and back/ shoulder caused by the flying splinters.
From Todd's 11k statement pg(161 - 179):

"He said as he looked around the pillar he was hiding behind he saw Eric looking into the library and they made eye contact. Evan said at this point Eric immediately "racks a round" (referring to his shotgun) and fired the weapon. According to Evan he saw Eric work the pump action for the shotgun, Eric then pointed the weapon into the library. Evan stated the shotgun was pointing in his direction at the time. Evan believed Eric had seen him peering around the pillar at the point he charged the weapon and pointed it into the library. Evan then ducked behind the "copier." Evan saw Eric fire first and later clarifies he was positive it was Eric who fired the initial shotgun rounds into the library. He believes two shotgun rounds were fired into the library in his direction. Evan was hiding behind a wooden counter that he believed held a copy machine. Evan stated he knew one of the shotgun rounds had hit the wood counter causing splinters to fly which caused him injuries to his eye and back."

I agree that Eric's injury (wheather that was actually a broken nose or not) caused him to be distracted and perhaps this could have been a reason he did not shoot Todd. However in my opinion I think Eric was more concerned about the cafeteria bombs not exploding and perhaps this was also a factor in saving Todd. I don't believe him hitting himself in the face was the only reason Todd was saved.

We had a discussion about Evan Todd here which may be of interest: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 
Refute or Affirm Please
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum :: Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum :: Thoughts on the Shooting-
Jump to: