EDIT: Susan Klebold talks about bullying (ketchup, tobacco spit, etc.)

EDIT: I have edited the title of this thread, because in her book Susan Klebold does describe some of the alleged bullying incidents.

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

Q: Many people think of Columbine in terms of losers vs. jocks. But jocks were not targeted in the killings and your son wasn’t a loser, was he?

A: No. That was some of the mythology that sprang up afterwards. He was in the gifted program. From my perspective he had many friends, males and females. He did the sound for school plays, went bowling with friends, they had a fantasy baseball league.

I don't think this is accurate.
Yes, Dylan was better liked than Eric and had more friends, but people who did know him like Brooks and Devon Adams and people who only knew him by sight like the Marjorie girl who wrote a book, talked about seeing him bullied with their own eyes.

In the Washington Post article, Sue stated that:

"Trouble escalated during Dylan’s junior year. He was suspended for lifting locker combinations from the school’s computer system; he quit his job at a pizza place; he endured bullying. He became irritable, unmotivated. Most serious, Dylan and Eric were arrested for stealing electronic equipment from a parked van."

sororityalpha wrote:

In the Washington Post article, Sue stated that:

"Trouble escalated during Dylan’s junior year. He was suspended for lifting locker combinations from the school’s computer system; he quit his job at a pizza place; he endured bullying. He became irritable, unmotivated. Most serious, Dylan and Eric were arrested for stealing electronic equipment from a parked van."

She is but one woman who is (presumably) saying the same things to lots of different reporters, and her words are getting interpreted in all sorts of different ways. Interesting.

But Dylan did talk about how much he hated jocks, both in his journal and in person. He talked about jocks more than Eric did.

Jocks were the guys who could get the girls that boys like Eric and Dylan wanted, but couldn't get.

I wonder if we'll hear from any of Dylan's friends.

Dylan Klebold hated jocks. He wrote in his journal:

I get rejected for being honest about fucking hate for jocks.

Gee, I wonder where that hatred came from.

Envy was a big part of it, doubtlessly. Jocks got girls that Dylan wanted but couldn't get.

LPorter101 wrote:

Dylan Klebold hated jocks. He wrote in his journal:

I get rejected for being honest about fucking hate for jocks.

Gee, I wonder where that hatred came from.

Envy was a big part of it, doubtlessly. Jocks got girls that Dylan wanted but couldn't get.

you are right with envy. and i think that some of the jocks were assholes didn´t help in this situation.

em81 wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Dylan Klebold hated jocks. He wrote in his journal:

I get rejected for being honest about fucking hate for jocks.

Gee, I wonder where that hatred came from.

Envy was a big part of it, doubtlessly. Jocks got girls that Dylan wanted but couldn't get.

you are right with envy. and i think that some of the jocks were assholes didn´t help in this situation.

It seems to me that this envy was a big, maybe as big as the bullying/being picked on, factor in the cause of NBK.

eli27 wrote:

em81 wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Dylan Klebold hated jocks. He wrote in his journal:

I get rejected for being honest about fucking hate for jocks.

Gee, I wonder where that hatred came from.

Envy was a big part of it, doubtlessly. Jocks got girls that Dylan wanted but couldn't get.

you are right with envy. and i think that some of the jocks were assholes didn´t help in this situation.

It seems to me that this envy was a big, maybe as big as the bullying/being picked on, factor in the cause of NBK.

Yes, for both boys. They were angry at a world that valued skills that they didn't have over the ones that they did.

Ketchup incident:
One day, Dylan came home, his shirt spotted with ketchup. He refused to tell me what had happened, only that he’d had “the worst day of his life.” I pressed, but Dylan downplayed it, and I let him. Kids have disagreements, I thought. Whatever it is, it’ll blow over—and if it doesn’t, I’ll know. There has been reporting that the incident was more serious than I could ever have imagined: a circle of boys taunting Dylan and Eric, shoving them, spraying them with ketchup, and suggesting they were gay. That incident alone may not explain the deadly kinship forged between the boys, but it is the kind of shared humiliation in which a bond is formed.

Tobacco spit:
It mirrors our own conversations, too. One of Dylan’s friends told me he’d never seen any examples of students mistreating other students—and then, in the very next breath, told me about kids hurling a soda can full of tobacco spit in his direction at a school sporting event.

She doesn't talk about the "cup of shit" incident.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think it was in No Easy Answers, but didn't one of his friends catch the tail end of the Ketchup incident and then help Dylan clean up in the bathroom?

LPorter101 wrote:

Q: Many people think of Columbine in terms of losers vs. jocks. But jocks were not targeted in the killings and your son wasn’t a loser, was he?

A: No. That was some of the mythology that sprang up afterwards. He was in the gifted program. From my perspective he had many friends, males and females. He did the sound for school plays, went bowling with friends, they had a fantasy baseball league.

Sue is and always has been out of touch with reality and still to this day has no clue who her son is or was.

She said no in that answer then she went and stated that he was in the gifted program.. LMAO she said no and yes in the same sentence. She doesn't comprehend what school is and the hierarchy at all. It's baffling that she can even remember to breath and doesn't constantly pass out.

He was in the gifted program when he was young, then when he was in 8th grade I believe he was asked to take an advanced math class at CHS but they decided not to.

I imagine it had to have been hard to talk to her if you were Dylan. It seems like he had a good relationship with his dad though. My heart goes out in some ways more for him than his mom sometimes.

When the only person you really feel like you can open up too is someone who shares your beliefs and is willing to exact revenge (Eric) you do have a dangerous dynamic to be honest.

I bump, therefore I am.

From Devon about how Dylan was ostracized. Also she spoke about an incident in another interview about a jock shoving her for talking to Dylan and calling him names.



DEVON “Dylan Klebold was one of my best friends. And when I hung out with him, there was just something that happened. I mean, whether they were wearing jeans and a T-shirt, or whether they were wearing their black trench coats, people would give them looks. Just like, “You don’t belong here, would you leave?”

The thing about this case and some true crime cases in general is that it feels like you want to tell people "we have LITERALLY been arguing about this for 20 years" and new people are like "umm.. I just heard of the state of Colorado let alone Columbine, give me a second to catch up"

I say this because I was thinking "why are we arguing about this? We know there was bullying..."

Screamingophelia wrote:

The thing about this case and some true crime cases in general is that it feels like you want to tell people "we have LITERALLY been arguing about this for 20 years" and new people are like "umm.. I just heard of the state of Colorado let alone Columbine, give me a second to catch up"

The newbies gotta learn sometime!

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

The thing about this case and some true crime cases in general is that it feels like you want to tell people "we have LITERALLY been arguing about this for 20 years" and new people are like "umm.. I just heard of the state of Colorado let alone Columbine, give me a second to catch up"

The newbies gotta learn sometime!

Honestly better they learn from us than Dave Cullen....

Screamingophelia wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

The thing about this case and some true crime cases in general is that it feels like you want to tell people "we have LITERALLY been arguing about this for 20 years" and new people are like "umm.. I just heard of the state of Colorado let alone Columbine, give me a second to catch up"

The newbies gotta learn sometime!

Honestly better they learn from us than Dave Cullen....

To true!

I honestly think that Dylan could have turned out OK if someone had picked up on him. As for Sues accounts, Ive read the book and they, in fact, had no idea what Dylans school life was like. They were only aware of one incident in particular, where he had come home with spots of ketchup on hes shirt. Yet, she believes Dylan to have been bullied, and she cites the Columbine report, which, rightfully, argues that they were bullied and bullied others. Yet, some of the experts Ive looked at now argues that they were not bullied. And if you look at statements from many of their friends and classmates, you find that the statements are contradictory. Nate Dykeman argues that only Eric Harris was bullied and harassed, and Nate was a close friend of Eric and Dylan. Robyn Anderson never did see Eric and Dylan getting picked on. Devon Adams talked about how people would give them 'dirty looks', yet, such statements needs to be taken into context. Its possible that it means that they may have been regarded as outcasts. However, they were also known to get into fights with people, bully and intimidate others. In other words, its also possible that we are talking about animosity..

They were bullied and they bullied other people. There are lots of examples of both; I think the Gleason book outlines this best as there is a chapter for each scenario.

A few I recall are:
Devon mentioned more than dirty looks. A jock slammed her into a locker for talking to Dylan. He asked if she was a dyke or a fag lover, just because she was talking to him in the hall.

Several of their classmates said they were both made fun of in gym (Dylan because of his height they called him things like Jolly Green Giant and because he was poor at most of the sports, Eric mostly because of his appearance- one jock saying they made fun of him because he had a big head on a tiny body, another jock saying they teased him relentlessly).

There was mention of Eric being targeted in gym where all the jocks threw balls at his head.

Lots of kids ripped on them because of the way they dressed (Cale Kennedy did it to Eric so much that Eric confronted him about it), Dylan was teased a lot because of the trench coat and always wearing the same clothes and Brett O'Niell, an acquaintance who'd sometimes sit with them in the cafeteria, said that Dylan was often the brunt of jokes behind his back but that he may have been aware of it.

It seems Eric got it more, at least the physical aspects of bullying, but they both received a lot of verbal harassment.

Eric and Dylan bullied other people with the missions and "dubbing" on freshman as Dylan put it.

Dylan defacing a kid's locker (although some say this was in retaliation for that kid bullying Dylan- I'm not clear on the details)

The locker break-in which targeted Devon's ex-boyfriend, Kevin Starkey. Though this was mostly driven by Zach. According to Starkey's cousin, Kayla Kathol, they stole a book out of his locker which Starkey then had to pay to replace.  

Regardless of bullying they received or dished out, it wasn't the cause of Columbine. Just like Dylan's depression wasn't the cause. Both things likely contributed but there seemed to be a lot more going on with these two. How much or how little any individual factor contributed to their actions, we will never know.

She only got slammed into a locker once, from what shes saying.

It's true that there are many withness accounts which claims to have seen them being harassed and them harassing other people.
But theres also a number of people that withnessed none of those things.

I used to be quite skeptical until I read Frank Ochbergs piece. Frank Ochberg was a leading expert in the Columbine investigation.
And he argues that they werent bullied
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'Bullying and revenge

We have too many bullies and too many youngsters at the mercy of bullies. But we also have a growing system of anti-bullying school programs. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied. There is no evidence that America, compared to other nations, has more bullies, more bullying, more victimization, and more victims who are ticking time bombs, hatching plots of lethal vengeance. However, we certainly can and should promote school programs that protect all children from stalking, hazing, and the new, evolving forms of abuse: Ostracism and humiliation through electronic social networks'

When you have journalists and so on, its one thing. But its a lot more complex when we have key experts making this claim. Im still fence sutring on the issue. Because on the one hand, we now have a leading expert denying that they were bullied. Yet, we still have reports such as Governor Bill Owens Columbine report, and a number of withness accounts arguing that they have seen them getting bullied.


Like Peter Langmann argues in hes article 'The search for truth at Columbine', a lot of people claimed never to have seen the bullying first hand, and this include close friends.

Plus, some of the withness statements turned out to be wrong in the first place. A lot of people have cited Todd as evidence that he bullied them, but he probably didnt. I dont think single handed incidents should be cited as evidence, and a lot of this could be in retaliation to their own harassment. But I see your point and Ive been trying to see what other experts have said in regards to Columbine. I dont necessarily think that people have to be bullied in order to commit a school shooting. I still think that it's a factor, however. Is it possible that they would have done it even if they werent bullied? I think the answer to that is 'yes', given that not all school shooters are bullied. But what are the likelihoods? IDK.

Norwegian wrote:

She only got slammed into a locker once, from what shes saying.

Once isn't enough?!

Norwegian wrote:

It's true that there are many withness accounts which claims to have seen them being harassed and them harassing other people.
But theres also a number of people that withnessed none of those things.

Not sure I get the point. We have a bunch of people, including friends and Dylan's mom, who confirm that they were bullied. We have Eric writing in his journal about "people always making fun of me because of how I look, how weak I am" and Dylan writing about the bully in gym class "who worries me." Just because some other people didn't witness this how does that mean that it didn't happen or it's questionable that it happened?

Norwegian wrote:

I used to be quite skeptical until I read Frank Ochbergs piece. Frank Ochberg was a leading expert in the Columbine investigation.
And he argues that they werent bullied
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'Bullying and revenge

We have too many bullies and too many youngsters at the mercy of bullies. But we also have a growing system of anti-bullying school programs. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied. There is no evidence that America, compared to other nations, has more bullies, more bullying, more victimization, and more victims who are ticking time bombs, hatching plots of lethal vengeance. However, we certainly can and should promote school programs that protect all children from stalking, hazing, and the new, evolving forms of abuse: Ostracism and humiliation through electronic social networks'

I agree that bullying didn't cause Columbine but it was not "rumors" to indicate that they were bullied. It was Devon, Sue, Eric, Dylan, Robert Perry, Brian Sargent, Joe Stair, Chris Morris, Cory Friesen, Kristi Epling, etc, etc, who outright said that they were bullied. No where in this article you quoted does he explain how he came to the conclusion that they weren't bullied.

Norwegian wrote:

When you have journalists and so on, its one thing. But its a lot more complex when we have key experts making this claim. Im still fence sutring on the issue. Because on the one hand, we now have a leading expert denying that they were bullied. Yet, we still have reports such as Governor Bill Owens Columbine report, and a number of withness accounts arguing that they have seen them getting bullied.
Like Peter Langmann argues in hes article 'The search for truth at Columbine', a lot of people claimed never to have seen the bullying first hand, and this include close friends.

Again, I fail to see how Nate Dykeman not thinking Dylan was bullied equals Dylan was not bullied when there are many, many others who knew Eric and Dylan who say that they were bullied. It's not necessary to have a consensus from every person that knew them.

Norwegian wrote:

Plus, some of the withness statements turned out to be wrong in the first place. A lot of people have cited Todd as evidence that he bullied them, but he probably didnt.

The witness statement wasn't wrong. Columbiners who wanted to construct a narrative about Evan Todd being a Harris/Klebold bully misrepresented his statements. Anyone who has read his TIME article quote and his witness statement should be able to figure out that Eric and Dylan didn't even know Todd. When he spoke to TIME he was talking about the weirdos and outcasts, in general, maybe some of those being TCM or people friends with them. But his statement never referenced anything about Eric or Dylan specifically and Dylan's conversation with him in the library ("are you a jock?") proves Dylan had no idea who he was.

Norwegian wrote:

I dont think single handed incidents should be cited as evidence, and a lot of this could be in retaliation to their own harassment.

Maybe Eric getting punched by Dan Lab was because Eric was mouthing off. But the kids who made fun of him in gym class pointedly said it was because of the way that he looked, not anything he did. Same with Dylan, because he was so gawky and not great at sports. Eric and Dylan didn't seem to pick on the kids who picked on them. They seemed to target those younger and weaker. As was pointed out in this or another thread- why did Eric choose Brooks to hate on when Rocky was the biggest bully in school (not saying he targeted Eric or Dylan, there's no evidence of that)? Because Brooks was not a threat, whereas Rocky was.
If they were receiving bullying in retaliation for their own actions, wouldn't that mean that they had been bullying their bullies? The evidence doesn't support that.

Norwegian wrote:

But I see your point and Ive been trying to see what other experts have said in regards to Columbine. I dont necessarily think that people have to be bullied in order to commit a school shooting. I still think that it's a factor, however. Is it possible that they would have done it even if they werent bullied? I think the answer to that is 'yes', given that not all school shooters are bullied. But what are the likelihoods? IDK.

Thanks, and I hope I don't come off as too antagonistic over this. But I have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that so called experts can just dismiss that they were bullied in the face of so much documented evidence that they were, in fact, bullied. I in no way believe that they planned to destroy hundreds of people because they got picked on. Their hate was way bigger than that. But the proof is there that it did happen and I can't understand why it's so hard for "experts" to acknowledge that.

thelmar wrote:

Again, I fail to see how Nate Dykeman not thinking Dylan was bullied equals Dylan was not bullied when there are many, many others who knew Eric and Dylan who say that they were bullied.

It's also worth mentioning that bullying is largely subjective. The quote from Sue where she talks about a student denying bullying happening while admitting they had a can of tobacco thrown at them seems relevant here.

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

She only got slammed into a locker once, from what shes saying.

Once isn't enough?!

Norwegian wrote:

It's true that there are many withness accounts which claims to have seen them being harassed and them harassing other people.
But theres also a number of people that withnessed none of those things.

Not sure I get the point. We have a bunch of people, including friends and Dylan's mom, who confirm that they were bullied. We have Eric writing in his journal about "people always making fun of me because of how I look, how weak I am" and Dylan writing about the bully in gym class "who worries me." Just because some other people didn't witness this how does that mean that it didn't happen or it's questionable that it happened?

Norwegian wrote:

I used to be quite skeptical until I read Frank Ochbergs piece. Frank Ochberg was a leading expert in the Columbine investigation.
And he argues that they werent bullied
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'Bullying and revenge

We have too many bullies and too many youngsters at the mercy of bullies. But we also have a growing system of anti-bullying school programs. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied. There is no evidence that America, compared to other nations, has more bullies, more bullying, more victimization, and more victims who are ticking time bombs, hatching plots of lethal vengeance. However, we certainly can and should promote school programs that protect all children from stalking, hazing, and the new, evolving forms of abuse: Ostracism and humiliation through electronic social networks'

I agree that bullying didn't cause Columbine but it was not "rumors" to indicate that they were bullied. It was Devon, Sue, Eric, Dylan, Robert Perry, Brian Sargent, Joe Stair, Chris Morris, Cory Friesen, Kristi Epling, etc, etc, who outright said that they were bullied. No where in this article you quoted does he explain how he came to the conclusion that they weren't bullied.

Norwegian wrote:

When you have journalists and so on, its one thing. But its a lot more complex when we have key experts making this claim. Im still fence sutring on the issue. Because on the one hand, we now have a leading expert denying that they were bullied. Yet, we still have reports such as Governor Bill Owens Columbine report, and a number of withness accounts arguing that they have seen them getting bullied.
Like Peter Langmann argues in hes article 'The search for truth at Columbine', a lot of people claimed never to have seen the bullying first hand, and this include close friends.

Again, I fail to see how Nate Dykeman not thinking Dylan was bullied equals Dylan was not bullied when there are many, many others who knew Eric and Dylan who say that they were bullied. It's not necessary to have a consensus from every person that knew them.

Norwegian wrote:

Plus, some of the withness statements turned out to be wrong in the first place. A lot of people have cited Todd as evidence that he bullied them, but he probably didnt.

The witness statement wasn't wrong. Columbiners who wanted to construct a narrative about Evan Todd being a Harris/Klebold bully misrepresented his statements. Anyone who has read his TIME article quote and his witness statement should be able to figure out that Eric and Dylan didn't even know Todd. When he spoke to TIME he was talking about the weirdos and outcasts, in general, maybe some of those being TCM or people friends with them. But his statement never referenced anything about Eric or Dylan specifically and Dylan's conversation with him in the library ("are you a jock?") proves Dylan had no idea who he was.

Norwegian wrote:

I dont think single handed incidents should be cited as evidence, and a lot of this could be in retaliation to their own harassment.

Maybe Eric getting punched by Dan Lab was because Eric was mouthing off. But the kids who made fun of him in gym class pointedly said it was because of the way that he looked, not anything he did. Same with Dylan, because he was so gawky and not great at sports. Eric and Dylan didn't seem to pick on the kids who picked on them. They seemed to target those younger and weaker. As was pointed out in this or another thread- why did Eric choose Brooks to hate on when Rocky was the biggest bully in school (not saying he targeted Eric or Dylan, there's no evidence of that)? Because Brooks was not a threat, whereas Rocky was.
If they were receiving bullying in retaliation for their own actions, wouldn't that mean that they had been bullying their bullies? The evidence doesn't support that.

Norwegian wrote:

But I see your point and Ive been trying to see what other experts have said in regards to Columbine. I dont necessarily think that people have to be bullied in order to commit a school shooting. I still think that it's a factor, however. Is it possible that they would have done it even if they werent bullied? I think the answer to that is 'yes', given that not all school shooters are bullied. But what are the likelihoods? IDK.

Thanks, and I hope I don't come off as too antagonistic over this. But I have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that so called experts can just dismiss that they were bullied in the face of so much documented evidence that they were, in fact, bullied. I in no way believe that they planned to destroy hundreds of people because they got picked on. Their hate was way bigger than that. But the proof is there that it did happen and I can't understand why it's so hard for "experts" to acknowledge that.

I cant answer to that, either, but I think it's possible that it's based on contradicting and conflicting statements. What else is there to say when some people deny it, whereas others confirm it? And theres little solid evidence, other than statements from other withnesses. Keep in mind that Ochberg was on the team of experts that investigated the Columbine shooting. Also, many of their close friends argued that they never did see them getting picked on, in fact. Not only that, but if we look at the 11k documents, Peter Langmann would argue that some withness accounts were highly questionable. So, again, I think it's complicated. As for Frank Ochberg, he explictly states that 'despite rumours to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied'.

As for Todd, you got a point, but I think hes argument was wrongly attributed to Eric and Dylan at the time. The media misconstructed it as though he talked about Eric and Dylan. Ive seen this pop up even in Books such as No Easy answers and Comprehending Columbine. I have absolutely no idea as to wether they just accepted the Times article as factual or what it was.

As for Sue Klebold, she doesnt actually confirm that they were bullied. IShe says that she believes that Dylan was bullied. She confessed that she had no idea of what was going on in hes life at school. She can remember one incident in particular, where he had come home with ketchup on hes shirt, which is likely the ketchup incident. I honestly have no idea how one weights in on evidence and withness statements in cases like these, but I would assume that key experts oftentimes have a methodology that they use.

Do we have other key experts? Im only aware of a few that has been publicly outspoken.

And where can I find interviews with their friends? Except for online documentaries.

As for Dylan, 'worrying about that asshole', someone. It doesnt say much about bullying. It says that he worries about an asshole in gym class. He doesnt say much of why hes being an asshole. As for Eric, I can only come up with two accounts where he talks about getting picked on/ made fun off.

Norwegian wrote:

I cant answer to that, either, but I think it's possible that it's based on contradicting and conflicting statements. What else is there to say when some people deny it, whereas others confirm it? And theres little solid evidence, other than statements from other withnesses. Keep in mind that Ochberg was on the team of experts that investigated the Columbine shooting. Also, many of their close friends argued that they never did see them getting picked on, in fact. Not only that, but if we look at the 11k documents, Peter Langmann would argue that some withness accounts were highly questionable. So, again, I think it's complicated.

I don't see how it's complicated when even the bullies admit that they were bullying them. When the bully in the gym class says, "Yeah, I did it" and multiple classmates from gym say it was done, how is this not evidence of bullying?

Norwegian wrote:

As for Frank Ochberg, he explictly states that 'despite rumours to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied'.

Honestly this statement means nothing unless he can delineate why he considers reports of bullying "rumors." Has he proven that Devon's account is false? Has he proven that 2 of the kids from Eric's gym class that admit that they ragged on him all the time were lying? These statements are only rumors if you can show that they are not true; simply stating something is a rumor does not make it so regardless of what degree you hold.

Norwegian wrote:

As for Sue Klebold, she doesnt actually confirm that they were bullied. IShe says that she believes that Dylan was bullied. She confessed that she had no idea of what was going on in hes life at school. She can remember one incident in particular, where he had come home with ketchup on hes shirt, which is likely the ketchup incident.

He was really upset, said he'd had the worst day of his life and his shirt was covered with ketchup. Just because she doesn't know the details of exactly what happened does not dismiss the fact that something really bad happened to Dylan at the hands of other people, i.e. he was bullied.  

Norwegian wrote:

And where can I find interviews with their friends? Except for online documentaries.

The police documents- this is your best source. The majority of their friends had multiple interviews with police and everything they have to say about them is in there. There are pages and pages of great information here.

Norwegian wrote:

As for Dylan, 'worrying about that asshole', someone. It doesnt say much about bullying. It says that he worries about an asshole in gym class. He doesnt say much of why hes being an asshole. As for Eric, I can only come up with two accounts where he talks about getting picked on/ made fun off.

Why would they have to continuously whine on and on about being bullied before it can be considered bullying? If Eric writes one time that people are "always" making fun of him, why wouldn't this be a piece of evidence to support that people were always making fun of him? If Dylan writes about the asshole in gym, tells a friend he's having trouble with the jocks, has acquaintances that admit he's the brunt of jokes behind his back, and has other friends who explicitly mention ways in which he was bullied, why is this not evidence that he was bullied?

I struggle to figure out why this has to be made so black and white. There is ample evidence to show they were bullied. Just because we admit they were bullied, it doesn't give them "an out" for the horrific things that they did. It doesn't lessen the heinous nature of their crimes nor does it make them less culpable for what happened. It also doesn't mean that bullying was the cause of their actions. It simply means- they were bullied. It's so strange to me why there seems to be such as struggle for some experts to acknowledge that and then move on.

QuestionMark wrote:

thelmar wrote:

Again, I fail to see how Nate Dykeman not thinking Dylan was bullied equals Dylan was not bullied when there are many, many others who knew Eric and Dylan who say that they were bullied.

It's also worth mentioning that bullying is largely subjective. The quote from Sue where she talks about a student denying bullying happening while admitting they had a can of tobacco thrown at them seems relevant here.

Completely agree.

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

I cant answer to that, either, but I think it's possible that it's based on contradicting and conflicting statements. What else is there to say when some people deny it, whereas others confirm it? And theres little solid evidence, other than statements from other withnesses. Keep in mind that Ochberg was on the team of experts that investigated the Columbine shooting. Also, many of their close friends argued that they never did see them getting picked on, in fact. Not only that, but if we look at the 11k documents, Peter Langmann would argue that some withness accounts were highly questionable. So, again, I think it's complicated.

I don't see how it's complicated when even the bullies admit that they were bullying them. When the bully in the gym class says, "Yeah, I did it" and multiple classmates from gym say it was done, how is this not evidence of bullying?

Norwegian wrote:

As for Frank Ochberg, he explictly states that 'despite rumours to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied'.

Honestly this statement means nothing unless he can delineate why he considers reports of bullying "rumors." Has he proven that Devon's account is false? Has he proven that 2 of the kids from Eric's gym class that admit that they ragged on him all the time were lying? These statements are only rumors if you can show that they are not true; simply stating something is a rumor does not make it so regardless of what degree you hold.

Norwegian wrote:

As for Sue Klebold, she doesnt actually confirm that they were bullied. IShe says that she believes that Dylan was bullied. She confessed that she had no idea of what was going on in hes life at school. She can remember one incident in particular, where he had come home with ketchup on hes shirt, which is likely the ketchup incident.

He was really upset, said he'd had the worst day of his life and his shirt was covered with ketchup. Just because she doesn't know the details of exactly what happened does not dismiss the fact that something really bad happened to Dylan at the hands of other people, i.e. he was bullied.  

Norwegian wrote:

And where can I find interviews with their friends? Except for online documentaries.

The police documents- this is your best source. The majority of their friends had multiple interviews with police and everything they have to say about them is in there. There are pages and pages of great information here.

Norwegian wrote:

As for Dylan, 'worrying about that asshole', someone. It doesnt say much about bullying. It says that he worries about an asshole in gym class. He doesnt say much of why hes being an asshole. As for Eric, I can only come up with two accounts where he talks about getting picked on/ made fun off.

Why would they have to continuously whine on and on about being bullied before it can be considered bullying? If Eric writes one time that people are "always" making fun of him, why wouldn't this be a piece of evidence to support that people were always making fun of him? If Dylan writes about the asshole in gym, tells a friend he's having trouble with the jocks, has acquaintances that admit he's the brunt of jokes behind his back, and has other friends who explicitly mention ways in which he was bullied, why is this not evidence that he was bullied?

I struggle to figure out why this has to be made so black and white. There is ample evidence to show they were bullied. Just because we admit they were bullied, it doesn't give them "an out" for the horrific things that they did. It doesn't lessen the heinous nature of their crimes nor does it make them less culpable for what happened. It also doesn't mean that bullying was the cause of their actions. It simply means- they were bullied. It's so strange to me why there seems to be such as struggle for some experts to acknowledge that and then move on.

Because calling someone an asshole, doesnt necessarily mean that we are talking about bullying.

2: There are two instances where Eric either talks about being made fun of and another where talks about being the brunt of society and the 'bottom of the food chain'. You could argue that thats an evidence for being bullied, but he also contradicts himself all the time, so Im not really sure if it really prooves much of anything. Allthough it could be wrong.

3: No, bullying isnt only subjective. Its just as much relevant to look at the actual definition of bullying

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

Norwegian wrote:

Because calling someone an asshole, doesnt necessarily  mean that we are talking about bullying.

No, but when taken in context with everything else we know (statements from his mom, friends, acquaintances, and classmates) it can certainly be interpreted that way.

When Dylan was called to the Dean's office for vandalizing the locker front, the Dean said Dylan got very worked up and "advised that he was very upset with the school system and the way CHS handled people, to include the people that picked on him and others."
So here you have Dylan telling a school administrator, "I am being picked on." How is this not clear evidence that he was being picked on? This is a kid who, despite being in a lot of emotional pain, never asked any of the adults around him for help. He hid everything and let it fester. Here is an instance when he was actually verbalizing something wrong that was going on in his life, and nobody paid attention to it.

Norwegian wrote:

2: There are two instances where Eric either talks about being made fun of and another where talks about being the brunt of society and the 'bottom of the food chain'. You could argue that thats an evidence for being bullied, but he also contradicts himself all the time, so Im not really sure if it really prooves much of anything. Allthough it could be wrong.

I think it only seems contradictory if you subscribe to the idea that Eric actually viewed himself as a god. If you do, then our perceptions of his personality are so disparate that I have learned, from many years of similar discussion, that we will never reach a a mutual understanding.

Norwegian wrote:

3: No, bullying isnt only subjective. Its just as much relevant to look at the actual definition of bullying

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

We didn't say it was "only" subjective. But that, if one person views someone throwing something at another person with the intent to scare them or to hit them with it as not being bullying, than that is subjective. Because legally, that type of behavior can be considered assault [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Because calling someone an asshole, doesnt necessarily  mean that we are talking about bullying.

No, but when taken in context with everything else we know (statements from his mom, friends, acquaintances, and classmates) it can certainly be interpreted that way.

When Dylan was called to the Dean's office for vandalizing the locker front, the Dean said Dylan got very worked up and "advised that he was very upset with the school system and the way CHS handled people, to include the people that picked on him and others."
So here you have Dylan telling a school administrator, "I am being picked on." How is this not clear evidence that he was being picked on? This is a kid who, despite being in a lot of emotional pain, never asked any of the adults around him for help. He hid everything and let it fester. Here is an instance when he was actually verbalizing something wrong that was going on in his life, and nobody paid attention to it.

Norwegian wrote:

2: There are two instances where Eric either talks about being made fun of and another where talks about being the brunt of society and the 'bottom of the food chain'. You could argue that thats an evidence for being bullied, but he also contradicts himself all the time, so Im not really sure if it really prooves much of anything. Allthough it could be wrong.

I think it only seems contradictory if you subscribe to the idea that Eric actually viewed himself as a god. If you do, then our perceptions of his personality are so disparate that I have learned, from many years of similar discussion, that we will never reach a a mutual understanding.

Norwegian wrote:

3: No, bullying isnt only subjective. Its just as much relevant to look at the actual definition of bullying

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

We didn't say it was "only" subjective. But that, if one person views someone throwing something at another person with the intent to scare them or to hit them with it as not being bullying, than that is subjective. Because legally, that type of behavior can be considered assault [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think that a bad attitude incident isnt necessarily bullying. Thats just harassment. Its important to keep in mind that the two had a lot of altercations with people and not all of this was related to bullying. Plus, Langmann argues that Dylan had a tendency to be paranoid/ schizoid..

I dont think we can speculate that much over the sentence 'I worry about that asshole in gym'. We need to look into everything else we know about Dylan, Eric and their interactions with other students at CHS:

Were they bullied? Some statements offer support for this, yes.
But we also know that they obviously got into altercations with others, so I dont see such a statement as providing or debunking evidence for much of anything. Of course, it may imply that he was bullied, but it can also imply that he just didnt like the other student for whatever reason.

Norwegian wrote:

I think that a bad attitude incident isnt necessarily bullying. Thats just harassment.

Uh, what? How does that make it better, exactly?

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

I think that a bad attitude incident isnt necessarily bullying. Thats just harassment.

Uh, what? How does that make it better, exactly?

Im not saying it makes it better. Im arguing that bullying has to be repeated over time for there to be classified as bullying(which is a fact). Neither one of them are specifically good.

What Im trying to say is that Dylan doesnt offer much of an explanation by saying 'I worry about that asshole in gym class'. Obviously, its speculative to argue that it has to be one thing or the other.

Norwegian wrote:

I think that a bad attitude incident isnt necessarily bullying. Thats just harassment.

It's unnecessary semantics but your definitions are off. It's true that bullying and harassment are not exactly the same, but harassment is used to describe:
"

Quote :

bullying behavior directed at the target is also based on a protected class, that behavior is then defined as harassment. Protected classes include:
race
color
religion
sex
age
disability
national origin

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

It is also untrue that bullying must be done on a continual repeated basis to be called bullying. If there is the threat or high likelihood that the bullying may continue (e.g., bully and victim are in the same class together every day) then it is still bullying. This comes from the CDC link on bullying you have posted.

Finally, you seem stuck on the "asshole in gym class" quote but ignored my pointing out that when Dylan had to go to the Dean's office because he defaced a locker, the Dean said Dylan got very worked up and "advised that he was very upset with the school system and the way CHS handled people, to include the people that picked on him and others."

No matter what your definition is, it still hurts and it still sucks

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

I think that a bad attitude incident isnt necessarily bullying. Thats just harassment.

It's unnecessary semantics but your definitions are off. It's true that bullying and harassment are not exactly the same, but harassment is used to describe:
"

Quote :

bullying behavior directed at the target is also based on a protected class, that behavior is then defined as harassment. Protected classes include:
race
color
religion
sex
age
disability
national origin

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

It is also untrue that bullying must be done on a continual repeated basis to be called bullying. If there is the threat or high likelihood that the bullying may continue (e.g., bully and victim are in the same class together every day) then it is still bullying. This comes from the CDC link on bullying you have posted.

Finally, you seem stuck on the "asshole in gym class" quote but ignored my pointing out that when Dylan had to go to the Dean's office because he defaced a locker, the Dean said Dylan got very worked up and "advised that he was very upset with the school system and the way CHS handled people, to include the people that picked on him and others."

I dont see anywhere in the article that bullying doesnt have to be repeated. Im not saying that they werent bullied, either. What Im saying is that there are contradictory statements, and that it's possible to find arguments on both sides, and that any altercation shouldnt be interpreted as bullying. But I apologize if I may have overlooked certain things you said, and I think both sides of the fence may have a point somehow. Also, I find some of the statements in the 11k documents slightly questionable. Yet, fortunately, Peter Langmann put a q in the more questionable statements, so Im still hoping for it to give a better outlook. Look: Im not trying to justify any bullying or harassment that they recieved. Columbine did seem to have a lot of problem with bullying. What Im trying to say is that any statements have to be put into context. I think that bullying should be taken seriously, as its a horrible problem. I, myself experienced a fair share of bullying or harassment in school. I honestly even think that the terminology bullying are a cause for much confusion, and should be replaced with something else. Whatever it was that troubled Dylan, though, its fair to say that he should have gotten help for hes depression. And Eric for hes anti- social behaviour. What I hope is that eventually we are able to offer treatment towards people with ASPD.

I understand what you're saying and I understand that some statements are questionable. But I believe that both Eric and Dylan made enough statements about being bullied (Basement Tapes, journals, Dylan to Eric in his yearbook, and to other friends) and that enough of the people who knew them corroborated these statements (by actually seeing them bullied or talking with them about it) that it proves that they were bullied. I think that when the preponderance of the evidence indicates bullying, it doesn't have to be 100% supported by everyone's experiences to be true. That's all I am saying.

And FYI, from the article, 2nd sentence, and second bullet point:

Quote :

The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.
Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.

I misquoted you, it's from the stopbullying.gov article you posted not a CDC one
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

thelmar wrote:

I understand what you're saying and I understand that some statements are questionable. But I believe that both Eric and Dylan made enough statements about being bullied (Basement Tapes, journals, Dylan to Eric in his yearbook, and to other friends) and that enough of the people who knew them corroborated these statements (by actually seeing them bullied or talking with them about it) that it proves that they were bullied. I think that when the preponderance of the evidence indicates bullying, it doesn't have to be 100% supported by everyone's experiences to be true. That's all I am saying.

And FYI, from the article, 2nd sentence, and second bullet point:

Quote :

The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.
Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.

I misquoted you, it's from the stopbullying.gov article you posted not a CDC one
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They rarely mention bullying in their journals. Most of the testimony are Second hand. Some of them had no basis in reality as they were quoted from people that did not know Harris and Klebold and a lot of those statements turned out to be untrue. The rest are classmates, friends and experts. Theres also the governor Bill Owens' report. Next to that theres experts such as Langmann and Frank Ochberg. I think Langmann testifies that they were teased/ bullied, but not to the extent that people believed them to be. Frank Ochberg denies it, alltogether, from what Ive learned.

Theres also another complex issue, though: The way that school shooters, by and large, seems to think. And this have a tendency to be extremely complicated.