Cullen helped Sue Klebold write her book

This is tremendously disappointing.
I'm so sorry for Sue, her loss and endless pain and I don't blame her at all for wanting to tell her story and get a fuller picture of her son out there by one of the few people to love him the most in the world but to do it at the expense of further demonizing and spreading the false image of her son's best friend even further is not something that I can ever agree with.

"Helping her recount." By whispering his bullshit right in her ear?

I want to find him and stop him. Find something from him, or from his puppeteer Dwayne Fuselier that will discredit him permanently, shut him up and keep him away from Columbine forever.

Fuck this man so very much.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],
I agree with a lot of what you have to say and the way you say it:)

I am betting that if Sue was Eric's Mom instead of Dylan's she wouldn't have wanted any help from Cullen. Just a guess.

Not that I am at all a fan of Cullen or his work, but I'm trying to put myself in Sue's shoes here. We are an obscure minority who have done enough research on Columbine to be able to see through Cullen's bullshit. Nevertheless, his book is considered the ultimate source. I'm not discounting the possibility that she was drawn to his pro-Dylan narrative, but at the same time I can imagine that she's largely naive to the inaccuracies and thinks she's just using the best fact-checker there is given his reputation.

If there is bias involved, I am wondering if her apparent regard for Cullen is more to do with his humanizing Dylan and less to do with him offering a convenient scapegoat, because Sue was adamant in her interview that Dylan was a killer (I believe she used that title, which is more direct than framing it as an action he did) and she didn't say anything indicating she blames Eric. Given how she seems to feel regarding her own responsibility I'm not sure she would consider it her place to blame Mr./Mrs. Harris either.

It should be noted, in Sue Klebold's defense, that she does quote from Larkin's book about the bullying and social atmosphere at the school.

In fact, she repeats Larkin's mistake that Dylan was the one holding the camera during the "wall of jocks" incident.

(It should also be noted that Larkin's book contains some howlers as bad as anything you'll find in Cullenbine, if not worse.)

fatlittleparasite wrote:

Not that I am at all a fan of Cullen or his work, but I'm trying to put myself in Sue's shoes here. We are an obscure minority who have done enough research on Columbine to be able to see through Cullen's bullshit. Nevertheless, his book is considered the ultimate source. I'm not discounting the possibility that she was drawn to his pro-Dylan narrative, but at the same time I can imagine that she's largely naive to the inaccuracies and thinks she's just using the best fact-checker there is given his reputation.

If there is bias involved, I am wondering if her apparent regard for Cullen is more to do with his humanizing Dylan and less to do with him offering a convenient scapegoat, because Sue was adamant in her interview that Dylan was a killer (I believe she used that title, which is more direct than framing it as an action he did) and she didn't say anything indicating she blames Eric. Given how she seems to feel regarding her own responsibility I'm not sure she would consider it her place to blame Mr./Mrs. Harris either.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],
Sure, there is truth to what you said above, but one would think that especially coming from one of the boy's Mothers who also had many years to research that she would be at least slightly aware of the Cullen controversy. Maybe she just think he told the truth about her son and liked that and didn't look into Cullen any further. At any rate it's a big let down for some of us who have spent years waiting for the book because being from one of the Mom's you'd expect to it to maybe the most accurate book ever written about Dylan and his life and if she puts stock into Cullen for whatever reason then that can't be the case.

PaintItBlack wrote:

fatlittleparasite wrote:

Not that I am at all a fan of Cullen or his work, but I'm trying to put myself in Sue's shoes here. We are an obscure minority who have done enough research on Columbine to be able to see through Cullen's bullshit. Nevertheless, his book is considered the ultimate source. I'm not discounting the possibility that she was drawn to his pro-Dylan narrative, but at the same time I can imagine that she's largely naive to the inaccuracies and thinks she's just using the best fact-checker there is given his reputation.

If there is bias involved, I am wondering if her apparent regard for Cullen is more to do with his humanizing Dylan and less to do with him offering a convenient scapegoat, because Sue was adamant in her interview that Dylan was a killer (I believe she used that title, which is more direct than framing it as an action he did) and she didn't say anything indicating she blames Eric. Given how she seems to feel regarding her own responsibility I'm not sure she would consider it her place to blame Mr./Mrs. Harris either.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],
Sure, there is truth to what you said above, but one would think that especially coming from one of the boy's Mothers who also had many years to research that she would be at least slightly aware of the Cullen controversy. Maybe she just think he told the truth about her son and liked that and didn't look into Cullen any further. At any rate it's a big let down for some of us who have spent years waiting for the book because being from one of the Mom's you'd expect to it to maybe the most accurate book ever written about Dylan and his life and if she puts stock into Cullen for whatever reason then that can't be the case.

If someone close to me committed a suicide attack on a public place, I guess I wouldn't know what to believe past a certain point and I would look for any explanation that was being offered--if it seemed out of character for them I would go with whatever and not discount anything. I give credit to Sue for exploring all the possible avenues and not just settling on one pat answer for everything, but I am very nervous about the reduction of existential crises to brain diseases that can be cured like an inflamed wisdom tooth.

That said, Cullen is a Wormtongue and needs to GTFO.

Ugh! Say it ain't so Susan!!!!!

No offense, but it strikes me as kind of bizarre that you guys would criticize Sue Klebold just because she received assistance from a writer you don't like.

Is she supposed to vet her editorial decisions with anonymous message board posters? Why would she do that?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],a writer who is the opinions of many is a liar and con artist.

So funny. Sums up Cullen's propaganda well.

Columbine, according to Dave Cullen
Eric: Dylan, WTF? Why haven't the bombs gone off yet?
Dylan: I can't hear what you're saying, Eric. I'm on the other side of school, waiting for all the innocent survivors to come fleeing out of the building so I can give them first-aid, remember?
Eric: Dude, did you even bring your first-aid kit?
Dylan: No, but I brought my Tec-9 and sawed-off shotgun and 400 rounds of ammunition.
Eric: Never mind. Just get over here so we can figure out what to do next.
Dylan: Actually, Eric, I think it would be better if you came over to me, because remember how scared you are that I'm going to run away? You keep forgetting that I don't want to be here.
Eric: Dude, are you drunk? You don't sound like the Dylan I know.

LPorter101 wrote:

It should be noted, in Sue Klebold's defense, that she does quote from Larkin's book about the bullying and social atmosphere at the school.

In fact, she repeats Larkin's mistake that Dylan was the one holding the camera during the "wall of jocks" incident.

(It should also be noted that Larkin's book contains some howlers as bad as anything you'll find in Cullenbine, if not worse.)

Who was the one with the camera?

Well honestly... Like, what exactly do you pro-Eric guys expect from Sue Klebold? I mean, would you want to believe your son was just as bad as Eric Harris was/also a psychopath? No, you'd probably want to believe your son was atleast a little misguided into killing innocent people.

I'm not "pro-Eric". The constant ,unrelenting and unfair characterization of him forces me into a position of defending him with what I believe is the more truthful and wider picture of him as a person.
The pro position I have is both boys getting equal amounts of blame and responsibility, along with caring, understanding and sympathy.
This tragedy doesn't need any more mischaracterizations attached to it.

Belladonna wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

It should be noted, in Sue Klebold's defense, that she does quote from Larkin's book about the bullying and social atmosphere at the school.

In fact, she repeats Larkin's mistake that Dylan was the one holding the camera during the "wall of jocks" incident.

(It should also be noted that Larkin's book contains some howlers as bad as anything you'll find in Cullenbine, if not worse.)

Who was the one with the camera?

Eric V.

Cullen's conclusions about the case are endorsed by many doctors, writers, and medical professionals. His book is assigned in college classrooms and studied by violence prevention experts.

Why should Sue Klebold count the objections of a few anonymous message board posters over the weight of the opinion of the experts listed above?

Do you really think Klebold should say to herself, "Yes, Dave Cullen has the endorsement of all the doctors and professionals, but some people on some message boards don't like him so I am not going to consult with him?"

lasttrain wrote:

Cullen's conclusions about the case are endorsed by many doctors, writers, and medical professionals.  His book is assigned in college classrooms and studied by violence prevention experts.

Why should Sue Klebold count the objections of a few anonymous message board posters over the weight of the opinion of the experts listed above?

Do you really think Klebold should say to herself, "Yes, Dave Cullen has the endorsement of all the doctors and professionals, but some people on some message boards don't like him so I am not going to consult with him?"

The problem is that Cullen's book is a fictional story. It's not what really happened. His book should have that notice on the front of it, you know like movies that are 'loosely' based on a true story? That's what Cullen's book is. It is loosely based on Columbine with a bunch of other things he made up.

And of course Sue is going to back up Cullen. Why wouldn't she? He is the one who made her son into this innocent little follower. That's what she wants to believe but that is not the truth. I am interested in the truth not some made up story that Cullen wrote.

Exactly, Jenn!

"I believe we have a choice in this world about how to tell sad stories. On the one hand, you can sugarcoat it. When nothing is too messed up that can’t be fixed by a Peter Gabriel song. I like that version as much as the next girl does.

It’s just not the truth.” - Hazel Grace Lancaster, The Fault In Our Stars

If I was in Sue's position I'd sugarcoat Dylan's part a little too.

WendlaBergman wrote:

"I believe we have a choice in this world about how to tell sad stories. On the one hand, you can sugarcoat it. When nothing is too messed up that can’t be fixed by a Peter Gabriel song. I like that version as much as the next girl does.

It’s just not the truth.” - Hazel Grace Lancaster, The Fault In Our Stars

If I was in Sue's position I'd sugarcoat Dylan's part a little too.

I don't mind her trying to soften Dylan's image or trying to point out his good qualities or that he was a lot more than just a killer.
That he was once a loving son,a brother ,a good friend, an intelligent and gifted boy.
All those things are true.But let's face it after what he did people will refuse to see or acknowledge any of that without something huge being presented to argue that he's not as culpable as he appears to be.
The only way to do that in Dylan's case is to demonize Eric and try to put more of the blame on him while painting him as a bad seed who led a depressed, vulnerable kid astray.
It may not be shocking for a Mom to do that and I can't blame her for coming to that conclusion privately to make this easier to live with but to do that Eric publicly is again something I can never agree with.The majority of people here seem to agree with me about this aspect of the book so I hope it can be understood where I am coming from.

Jenn wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

Cullen's conclusions about the case are endorsed by many doctors, writers, and medical professionals.  His book is assigned in college classrooms and studied by violence prevention experts.

Why should Sue Klebold count the objections of a few anonymous message board posters over the weight of the opinion of the experts listed above?

Do you really think Klebold should say to herself, "Yes, Dave Cullen has the endorsement of all the doctors and professionals, but some people on some message boards don't like him so I am not going to consult with him?"

The problem is that Cullen's book is a fictional story. It's not what really happened. His book should have that notice on the front of it, you know like movies that are 'loosely' based on a true story? That's what Cullen's book is. It is loosely based on Columbine with a bunch of other things he made up.

And of course Sue is going to back up Cullen. Why wouldn't she? He is the one who made her son into this innocent little follower. That's what she wants to believe but that is not the truth. I am interested in the truth not some made up story that Cullen wrote.

But the doctors and medical professionals agree with Sue Klebold's opinion. And with Cullen's. It would be one thing if Sue Klebold said Dylan was a depressive against the weight of the evidence. But she is backed up here by every doctor who has examined the case.

You can state that their opinion is "fictional" but that has little standing behind the weight of evidence they've assembled. Just calling something "fictional" doesn't make it so.

PaintItBlack wrote:

WendlaBergman wrote:

"I believe we have a choice in this world about how to tell sad stories. On the one hand, you can sugarcoat it. When nothing is too messed up that can’t be fixed by a Peter Gabriel song. I like that version as much as the next girl does.

It’s just not the truth.” - Hazel Grace Lancaster, The Fault In Our Stars

If I was in Sue's position I'd sugarcoat Dylan's part a little too.

I don't mind her trying to soften Dylan's image or trying to point out his good qualities or that he was a lot more than just a killer.
That he was once a loving son,a brother ,a good friend, an intelligent and gifted boy.
All those things are true.But let's face it after what he did people will refuse to see or acknowledge any of that without something huge being presented to argue that he's not as culpable as he appears to be.
The only way to do that in Dylan's case is to demonize Eric and try to put more of the blame on him while painting him as a bad seed who led a depressed, vulnerable kid astray.
It may not be shocking for a Mom to do that and I can't blame her for coming to that conclusion privately to make this easier to live with but to do that Eric publicly is again something I can never agree with.The majority of people here seem to agree with me about this aspect of the book so I hope it can be understood where I am coming from.

Yes, and as I have argued (not so tongue-in-cheek as it may seem, I might add), I believe Cullen has a bit of an obsession, dare I say "crush," on Dylan and romanticized some of his journal writings to such an extent that he has lost ALL objectivity in fully examining Dylan's role in the massacre.

lasttrain wrote:

Jenn wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

Cullen's conclusions about the case are endorsed by many doctors, writers, and medical professionals.  His book is assigned in college classrooms and studied by violence prevention experts.

Why should Sue Klebold count the objections of a few anonymous message board posters over the weight of the opinion of the experts listed above?

Do you really think Klebold should say to herself, "Yes, Dave Cullen has the endorsement of all the doctors and professionals, but some people on some message boards don't like him so I am not going to consult with him?"

The problem is that Cullen's book is a fictional story. It's not what really happened. His book should have that notice on the front of it, you know like movies that are 'loosely' based on a true story? That's what Cullen's book is. It is loosely based on Columbine with a bunch of other things he made up.

And of course Sue is going to back up Cullen. Why wouldn't she? He is the one who made her son into this innocent little follower. That's what she wants to believe but that is not the truth. I am interested in the truth not some made up story that Cullen wrote.

But the doctors and medical professionals agree with Sue Klebold's opinion.  And with Cullen's.  It would be one thing if Sue Klebold said Dylan was a depressive against the weight of the evidence.  But she is backed up here by every doctor who has examined the case.

You can state that their opinion is "fictional" but that has little standing behind the weight of evidence they've assembled.  Just calling something "fictional" doesn't make it so.

Cullen's book is a fictional story. It is not the truth and everyone aside from you knows it so just stop it already. Why do you take what I say and make something completely different out of it? And I'm not the only one you do it to either. It's getting tiring really fast and I am about to stop responding to you since you constantly try to change what I'm saying into something I never even mentioned and I'm really starting to think you're just trolling my forum.

I didn't say a word about 'the doctors' what I said is the problem with Cullen's book is that it is fictional, because it is. Cullen's book was loosely based on Columbine. It is not the true story.

I am not trolling the forum.  My posts are often backed up with citations of evidence, usually involving actual page numbers from the 11k.  Agree or disagree, you cannot say that I am just spinning off opinions without making an effort to back them up.

I think it is wrong to use Sue Klebold's association with Dave Cullen as a referendum on her book.  You can disagree with his findings if you like or call them fictional, but the fact is that his work is extensively researched.

Dave Cullen lived in Littleton for several years while working on the book.  He drove their streets, shopped at their grocery stores, and went to their bars  He worked closely with the Ireland, Rohrbough, Sanders, and DeAngelis families, and also with the school, which allowed him to enter the premises in order to walk through and reconstruct events.  

Cullen's account of Eric's and Dylan's psychologies is based on what Dr. Frank Ochberg and Dr. Dwayne Fuselier concluded, which was a peer-reviewed finding.  You may not agree with Ochberg and Fuselier's conclusion, but it is not irresponsible by any means for a journalist to rely on the opinion of doctors when explaining the behavior of mentally disturbed individuals.

Some have come forward claiming that Dave Cullen got their part of the shooting wrong.  But his narrative of the events of that day is drawn from the 11k.  He is using the police interviews to reconstruct the events of the massacre.  As far as his interpretations of Eric's and Dylan's actions, those are drawn from Fuselier and Ochberg, which again you may disagree with, but it is not wrong for a journalist to rely upon doctors.

Dave Cullen in my opinion got two things wrong, Brenda Parker and also his belief that Eric had had sex.  But these errors are not central to the events of the massacre, so I do not believe that thy detract from the book's main arguments.

In short, while anyone is free to disagree with Cullen or call him anything you want, it should not be surprising that Sue Klebold would rely upon him for some aspects of her book. His work is extensively researched, relies upon the expertise of law enforcement and doctors, and has been met with acclaim by teachers, law enforcement, mental health professionals, and suicide prevention activists.

Quote :

Dave Cullen lived in Littleton for several years while working on the book. He drove their streets, shopped at their grocery stores, and went to their bars He worked closely with the Ireland, Rohrbough, Sanders, and DeAngelis families, and also with the school, which allowed him to enter the premises in order to walk through and reconstruct events.

So you admit that he lacks objectivity?

DeAngelis has always had a vested interest in making the school look good. And Cullen goes out of his way to try to make DeAngelis look good.

Welll I wanted to read sues books...then I read this shit and became massively disappointed

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], it is still an amazing book. Read it - you won't regret it!

LPorter101 wrote:

Quote :

Dave Cullen lived in Littleton for several years while working on the book.  He drove their streets, shopped at their grocery stores, and went to their bars  He worked closely with the Ireland, Rohrbough, Sanders, and DeAngelis families, and also with the school, which allowed him to enter the premises in order to walk through and reconstruct events.

So you admit that he lacks objectivity?

DeAngelis has always had a vested interest in making the school look good. And Cullen goes out of his way to try to make DeAngelis look good.

Why would this cost him objectivity? I would think that embedding himself with major figures in the case would give him a more accurate perspective than anyone else.

See, even in death, by some, Eric is still looked at as a loser and the demon and Dylan is just the cool, nice kid who was influenced by the "loser demon" Eric Harris....Sad

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

Jenn wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

Cullen's conclusions about the case are endorsed by many doctors, writers, and medical professionals.  His book is assigned in college classrooms and studied by violence prevention experts.

Why should Sue Klebold count the objections of a few anonymous message board posters over the weight of the opinion of the experts listed above?

Do you really think Klebold should say to herself, "Yes, Dave Cullen has the endorsement of all the doctors and professionals, but some people on some message boards don't like him so I am not going to consult with him?"

The problem is that Cullen's book is a fictional story. It's not what really happened. His book should have that notice on the front of it, you know like movies that are 'loosely' based on a true story? That's what Cullen's book is. It is loosely based on Columbine with a bunch of other things he made up.

And of course Sue is going to back up Cullen. Why wouldn't she? He is the one who made her son into this innocent little follower. That's what she wants to believe but that is not the truth. I am interested in the truth not some made up story that Cullen wrote.

Eric was desperate for acceptance when you look at his journals. He was the one most likely to back out. He still showed emotions up to the very end. Dylan seemed to be more robotic. I mean Dylan was way more effective at making his life seem together. While Eric seemingly craved attention.

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Norwegian wrote:

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Throw monster out and replace it with psychopath then. Not every psychopath is a swaggering ladies man, people are multi-dimensional (Dylan included). One thing the murderous variety have in common is an insatiable lust for bloodshed, terror and destruction and that includes DK.

As for the "depression" argument - I don't think Dylan even knew what depression entailed nor do I think he recognized what he was.

Dylan was a very dark, conceited person.

survivingman wrote:

Jenn wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

Cullen's conclusions about the case are endorsed by many doctors, writers, and medical professionals.  His book is assigned in college classrooms and studied by violence prevention experts.

Why should Sue Klebold count the objections of a few anonymous message board posters over the weight of the opinion of the experts listed above?

Do you really think Klebold should say to herself, "Yes, Dave Cullen has the endorsement of all the doctors and professionals, but some people on some message boards don't like him so I am not going to consult with him?"

The problem is that Cullen's book is a fictional story. It's not what really happened. His book should have that notice on the front of it, you know like movies that are 'loosely' based on a true story? That's what Cullen's book is. It is loosely based on Columbine with a bunch of other things he made up.

And of course Sue is going to back up Cullen. Why wouldn't she? He is the one who made her son into this innocent little follower. That's what she wants to believe but that is not the truth. I am interested in the truth not some made up story that Cullen wrote.

Eric was desperate for acceptance when you look at his journals. He was the one most likely to back out. He still showed emotions up to the very end. Dylan seemed to be more robotic. I mean Dylan was way more effective at making his life seem together. While Eric seemingly craved attention.

Yes. I agree with this 100% and have said it many, many times. Eric tried to write this journal for an audience but once in a while, he let his real feelings/emotions slip through. If you read the journal, you can easily see it. Like when he is complaining no one wanted to hang out with him or invite him to anything.

I mean, he flat out said he wished he had no emotions so this would be easier for him. He said he wasn't spending time with his Dad any more so there would be no more bonding and his Dad would be able to get over his death easier. I mean, that is just sad. He thought so little of himself that he really thought his Dad would just "get over" his death because Eric was distant the last few weeks of his life.

In the end, yea, he is a murderer. He killed innocent people and there's never an excuse for doing that, but he is not what Cullen is trying to portray him as. Nowhere near it and neither was Dylan. That book is mostly fiction with a little bit of truth here and there.

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Throw monster out and replace it with psychopath then. Not every psychopath is a swaggering ladies man, people are multi-dimensional (Dylan included). One thing the murderous variety have in common is an insatiable lust for bloodshed, terror and destruction and that includes DK.

As for the "depression" argument - I don't think Dylan even knew what depression entailed nor do I think he recognized what he was.

Dylan was a very dark, conceited person.

I dont think most school shooters are psychopaths either. From most of the research Ive seen, most of them are not. I think most of them deal with some sort of hopelessness that they cant get out of. And bullying, dellusional thoughts of percecution, mental illness, sometimes, but usually not, child abuse, is a factor. Its easy to Just pass them of as evil. But lets face it. Theres no clear cut answer for why people commit murder. DK litterary wrote down that he was constantly sad and 'wanted to die so bad'. Depression is like that. Theres constant and recurring sadness over a long period of time. Thats why I have a problem with the term 'monster' or 'psychopath' being thrown around. Because, certainly, not everyone that do henious crimes fit into this category. We want a quick fix answer, but frankly, I dont think that exists.

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Throw monster out and replace it with psychopath then. Not every psychopath is a swaggering ladies man, people are multi-dimensional (Dylan included). One thing the murderous variety have in common is an insatiable lust for bloodshed, terror and destruction and that includes DK.

As for the "depression" argument - I don't think Dylan even knew what depression entailed nor do I think he recognized what he was.

Dylan was a very dark, conceited person.

I dont think most school shooters  are psychopaths either. From most of the research Ive seen, most of them are not. I think most of them deal with some sort of hopelessness that they cant get out of. And bullying, dellusional thoughts of percecution, mental illness, sometimes, but usually not, child abuse, is a factor. Its easy to Just pass them of as evil. But lets face it. Theres no clear cut answer for why people commit murder. DK litterary wrote down that he was constantly sad and 'wanted to die so bad'. Depression is like that. Theres constant and recurring sadness over a long period of time. Thats why I have a problem with the term 'monster' or 'psychopath' being thrown around. Because, certainly, not everyone that do henious crimes fit into this category. We want a quick fix answer, but frankly, I dont think that exists.

Dylan Klebold enjoyed the act of murder. He laughed at the suffering of others and relished the chance to see blood and even "brains".

I've quoted a doctor who believes Dylan meets the diagnosis of an introverted narcissist with psychopathic features.

Not every murderer is a psychopath - but someone who meticulously plans out, executes and enjoys the act of causing terror and destruction along with deception certainly meets the criteria. His act was not haphazard. He didn't just grab a gun and act on impulse. It was premeditated, callous and calculated.

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Throw monster out and replace it with psychopath then. Not every psychopath is a swaggering ladies man, people are multi-dimensional (Dylan included). One thing the murderous variety have in common is an insatiable lust for bloodshed, terror and destruction and that includes DK.

As for the "depression" argument - I don't think Dylan even knew what depression entailed nor do I think he recognized what he was.

Dylan was a very dark, conceited person.

I dont think most school shooters  are psychopaths either. From most of the research Ive seen, most of them are not. I think most of them deal with some sort of hopelessness that they cant get out of. And bullying, dellusional thoughts of percecution, mental illness, sometimes, but usually not, child abuse, is a factor. Its easy to Just pass them of as evil. But lets face it. Theres no clear cut answer for why people commit murder. DK litterary wrote down that he was constantly sad and 'wanted to die so bad'. Depression is like that. Theres constant and recurring sadness over a long period of time. Thats why I have a problem with the term 'monster' or 'psychopath' being thrown around. Because, certainly, not everyone that do henious crimes fit into this category. We want a quick fix answer, but frankly, I dont think that exists.

Dylan Klebold enjoyed the act of murder. He laughed at the suffering of others and relished the chance to see blood and even "brains".

I've quoted a doctor who believes Dylan meets the diagnosis of an introverted narcissist with psychopathic features.

Not every murderer is a psychopath - but someone who meticulously plans out, executes and enjoys the act of causing terror and destruction along with deception certainly meets the criteria. His act was not haphazard. He didn't just grab a gun and act on impulse. It was premeditated, callous and calculated.

He also suggested that Dylan was depressed. There are tons of reasons why people plan to execute murder. In regards to school shootings, they are both carefully planned out, but few of them are in the psychopathic category. So, I think thats more likely to be accurate. For most of us it doesnt make sense. But it doesnt make sense because its complicated, not simple.

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Throw monster out and replace it with psychopath then. Not every psychopath is a swaggering ladies man, people are multi-dimensional (Dylan included). One thing the murderous variety have in common is an insatiable lust for bloodshed, terror and destruction and that includes DK.

As for the "depression" argument - I don't think Dylan even knew what depression entailed nor do I think he recognized what he was.

Dylan was a very dark, conceited person.

I dont think most school shooters  are psychopaths either. From most of the research Ive seen, most of them are not. I think most of them deal with some sort of hopelessness that they cant get out of. And bullying, dellusional thoughts of percecution, mental illness, sometimes, but usually not, child abuse, is a factor. Its easy to Just pass them of as evil. But lets face it. Theres no clear cut answer for why people commit murder. DK litterary wrote down that he was constantly sad and 'wanted to die so bad'. Depression is like that. Theres constant and recurring sadness over a long period of time. Thats why I have a problem with the term 'monster' or 'psychopath' being thrown around. Because, certainly, not everyone that do henious crimes fit into this category. We want a quick fix answer, but frankly, I dont think that exists.

Dylan Klebold enjoyed the act of murder. He laughed at the suffering of others and relished the chance to see blood and even "brains".

I've quoted a doctor who believes Dylan meets the diagnosis of an introverted narcissist with psychopathic features.

Not every murderer is a psychopath - but someone who meticulously plans out, executes and enjoys the act of causing terror and destruction along with deception certainly meets the criteria. His act was not haphazard. He didn't just grab a gun and act on impulse. It was premeditated, callous and calculated.

He also suggested that Dylan was depressed. There are tons of reasons why people plan to execute murder. In regards to school shootings, they are both carefully planned out, but few of them are in the psychopathic category.  So, I think thats more likely to be accurate. For most of us it doesnt make sense. But it doesnt make sense because its complicated, not simple.

What I described is a psychopathic act. Depression on its own is not enough to incite that level of aggression.

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Throw monster out and replace it with psychopath then. Not every psychopath is a swaggering ladies man, people are multi-dimensional (Dylan included). One thing the murderous variety have in common is an insatiable lust for bloodshed, terror and destruction and that includes DK.

As for the "depression" argument - I don't think Dylan even knew what depression entailed nor do I think he recognized what he was.

Dylan was a very dark, conceited person.

I dont think most school shooters  are psychopaths either. From most of the research Ive seen, most of them are not. I think most of them deal with some sort of hopelessness that they cant get out of. And bullying, dellusional thoughts of percecution, mental illness, sometimes, but usually not, child abuse, is a factor. Its easy to Just pass them of as evil. But lets face it. Theres no clear cut answer for why people commit murder. DK litterary wrote down that he was constantly sad and 'wanted to die so bad'. Depression is like that. Theres constant and recurring sadness over a long period of time. Thats why I have a problem with the term 'monster' or 'psychopath' being thrown around. Because, certainly, not everyone that do henious crimes fit into this category. We want a quick fix answer, but frankly, I dont think that exists.

Dylan Klebold enjoyed the act of murder. He laughed at the suffering of others and relished the chance to see blood and even "brains".

I've quoted a doctor who believes Dylan meets the diagnosis of an introverted narcissist with psychopathic features.

Not every murderer is a psychopath - but someone who meticulously plans out, executes and enjoys the act of causing terror and destruction along with deception certainly meets the criteria. His act was not haphazard. He didn't just grab a gun and act on impulse. It was premeditated, callous and calculated.

He also suggested that Dylan was depressed. There are tons of reasons why people plan to execute murder. In regards to school shootings, they are both carefully planned out, but few of them are in the psychopathic category.  So, I think thats more likely to be accurate. For most of us it doesnt make sense. But it doesnt make sense because its complicated, not simple.

What I described is a psychopathic act. Depression on its own is not enough to incite that level of aggression.

Neither is psychopathy. Dylan was depressed, as a lot of other school shooters. But he wasnt Just suicidally depressed. He may have been bullied, which is an unsafe assumption. And he had difficulty getting into relationships with women. He wanted and tried atleast once, to commit suicide, two years prior to the attack. He felt that everyone was against him, and its possible some of this may have been due to paranoid dellusions. Atleast, I dont think its true that most school shooters are psychopathic,even though what they do is vicious. I think they are more the depressed type, but in any given case they are depressed, theres a whole lot more.

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Throw monster out and replace it with psychopath then. Not every psychopath is a swaggering ladies man, people are multi-dimensional (Dylan included). One thing the murderous variety have in common is an insatiable lust for bloodshed, terror and destruction and that includes DK.

As for the "depression" argument - I don't think Dylan even knew what depression entailed nor do I think he recognized what he was.

Dylan was a very dark, conceited person.

I dont think most school shooters  are psychopaths either. From most of the research Ive seen, most of them are not. I think most of them deal with some sort of hopelessness that they cant get out of. And bullying, dellusional thoughts of percecution, mental illness, sometimes, but usually not, child abuse, is a factor. Its easy to Just pass them of as evil. But lets face it. Theres no clear cut answer for why people commit murder. DK litterary wrote down that he was constantly sad and 'wanted to die so bad'. Depression is like that. Theres constant and recurring sadness over a long period of time. Thats why I have a problem with the term 'monster' or 'psychopath' being thrown around. Because, certainly, not everyone that do henious crimes fit into this category. We want a quick fix answer, but frankly, I dont think that exists.

Dylan Klebold enjoyed the act of murder. He laughed at the suffering of others and relished the chance to see blood and even "brains".

I've quoted a doctor who believes Dylan meets the diagnosis of an introverted narcissist with psychopathic features.

Not every murderer is a psychopath - but someone who meticulously plans out, executes and enjoys the act of causing terror and destruction along with deception certainly meets the criteria. His act was not haphazard. He didn't just grab a gun and act on impulse. It was premeditated, callous and calculated.

He also suggested that Dylan was depressed. There are tons of reasons why people plan to execute murder. In regards to school shootings, they are both carefully planned out, but few of them are in the psychopathic category.  So, I think thats more likely to be accurate. For most of us it doesnt make sense. But it doesnt make sense because its complicated, not simple.

What I described is a psychopathic act. Depression on its own is not enough to incite that level of aggression.

Neither is psychopathy. Dylan was depressed, as a lot of other school shooters. But he wasnt Just suicidally depressed. He may have been bullied, which is an unsafe assumption. And he had difficulty getting into relationships with women. He wanted and tried atleast once, to commit suicide, two years prior to the attack. He felt that everyone was against him, and its possible some of this may have been due to paranoid dellusions. Atleast, I dont think its true that most school shooters are psychopathic,even though what they do is vicious. I think they are more the depressed type, but in any given case they are depressed, theres a whole lot more.

Where the information about him attempting to commit suicide is coming from? He wanted to kill himself for years, but never attempted to.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Throw monster out and replace it with psychopath then. Not every psychopath is a swaggering ladies man, people are multi-dimensional (Dylan included). One thing the murderous variety have in common is an insatiable lust for bloodshed, terror and destruction and that includes DK.

As for the "depression" argument - I don't think Dylan even knew what depression entailed nor do I think he recognized what he was.

Dylan was a very dark, conceited person.

I dont think most school shooters  are psychopaths either. From most of the research Ive seen, most of them are not. I think most of them deal with some sort of hopelessness that they cant get out of. And bullying, dellusional thoughts of percecution, mental illness, sometimes, but usually not, child abuse, is a factor. Its easy to Just pass them of as evil. But lets face it. Theres no clear cut answer for why people commit murder. DK litterary wrote down that he was constantly sad and 'wanted to die so bad'. Depression is like that. Theres constant and recurring sadness over a long period of time. Thats why I have a problem with the term 'monster' or 'psychopath' being thrown around. Because, certainly, not everyone that do henious crimes fit into this category. We want a quick fix answer, but frankly, I dont think that exists.

Dylan Klebold enjoyed the act of murder. He laughed at the suffering of others and relished the chance to see blood and even "brains".

I've quoted a doctor who believes Dylan meets the diagnosis of an introverted narcissist with psychopathic features.

Not every murderer is a psychopath - but someone who meticulously plans out, executes and enjoys the act of causing terror and destruction along with deception certainly meets the criteria. His act was not haphazard. He didn't just grab a gun and act on impulse. It was premeditated, callous and calculated.

He also suggested that Dylan was depressed. There are tons of reasons why people plan to execute murder. In regards to school shootings, they are both carefully planned out, but few of them are in the psychopathic category.  So, I think thats more likely to be accurate. For most of us it doesnt make sense. But it doesnt make sense because its complicated, not simple.

What I described is a psychopathic act. Depression on its own is not enough to incite that level of aggression.

Neither is psychopathy. Dylan was depressed, as a lot of other school shooters. But he wasnt Just suicidally depressed. He may have been bullied, which is an unsafe assumption. And he had difficulty getting into relationships with women. He wanted and tried atleast once, to commit suicide, two years prior to the attack. He felt that everyone was against him, and its possible some of this may have been due to paranoid dellusions. Atleast, I dont think its true that most school shooters are psychopathic,even though what they do is vicious. I think they are more the depressed type, but in any given case they are depressed, theres a whole lot more.

Where the information about him attempting to commit suicide is coming from? He wanted to kill himself for years, but never attempted to.

.

He did. This is referenced in the beginning of hes journal, Where hes trying to kill himself with a screwdriver.

PaintItBlack wrote:

So funny. Sums up Cullen's propaganda well.

Columbine, according to Dave Cullen
Eric: Dylan, WTF? Why haven't the bombs gone off yet?
Dylan: I can't hear what you're saying, Eric. I'm on the other side of school, waiting for all the innocent survivors to come fleeing out of the building so I can give them first-aid, remember?
Eric: Dude, did you even bring your first-aid kit?
Dylan: No, but I brought my Tec-9 and sawed-off shotgun and 400 rounds of ammunition.
Eric: Never mind. Just get over here so we can figure out what to do next.
Dylan: Actually, Eric, I think it would be better if you came over to me, because remember how scared you are that I'm going to run away? You keep forgetting that I don't want to be here.
Eric: Dude, are you drunk? You don't sound like the Dylan I know.

This cracked me up. Good way to make your point.

'Columbine' is hardly a propaganda book that so many members of the TCC wants it to be. The reason why hes ripped on is because he denies that they were bullied and because he says Eric was a psychopath and Dylan was a follower.

Lets look at bullying:

Sources like Brooks Brown suggests that he did see much of the bullying First hand. Yet, looking at other accounts, its very clear that not everyone that knew Harris and Klebold support this view. On top of it, some experts have denied that they were bullied. I think this offers the question: Do we know this? Will we ever get the answer? IDK. I cant answer that question, even though I wish that I Could.

The pshychological makeup: This is all the more complex, and many experts have put Eric Harris somewhere along the lines of ASPD/psychopathy. This isnt Cullen making things up. It came from the FBI and Jeffco.

Now, of course, he says something so horribly ridicilous such as 'Eric Could score the entire chearleading squad'. IDK Where that came from, even.

On top of this hes been critisized for a number of inaccuracies, some of which I believe he retracted eventually.

My take on Cullen: while I havent read the whole book, its not as bad as some people make it out to be. Yet, its not like you would have learned everything simply by reading Dave Cullen.

Is it wrong of Sue to have Cullen help her with the book? I dont see why.

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Throw monster out and replace it with psychopath then. Not every psychopath is a swaggering ladies man, people are multi-dimensional (Dylan included). One thing the murderous variety have in common is an insatiable lust for bloodshed, terror and destruction and that includes DK.

As for the "depression" argument - I don't think Dylan even knew what depression entailed nor do I think he recognized what he was.

Dylan was a very dark, conceited person.

I dont think most school shooters  are psychopaths either. From most of the research Ive seen, most of them are not. I think most of them deal with some sort of hopelessness that they cant get out of. And bullying, dellusional thoughts of percecution, mental illness, sometimes, but usually not, child abuse, is a factor. Its easy to Just pass them of as evil. But lets face it. Theres no clear cut answer for why people commit murder. DK litterary wrote down that he was constantly sad and 'wanted to die so bad'. Depression is like that. Theres constant and recurring sadness over a long period of time. Thats why I have a problem with the term 'monster' or 'psychopath' being thrown around. Because, certainly, not everyone that do henious crimes fit into this category. We want a quick fix answer, but frankly, I dont think that exists.

Dylan Klebold enjoyed the act of murder. He laughed at the suffering of others and relished the chance to see blood and even "brains".

I've quoted a doctor who believes Dylan meets the diagnosis of an introverted narcissist with psychopathic features.

Not every murderer is a psychopath - but someone who meticulously plans out, executes and enjoys the act of causing terror and destruction along with deception certainly meets the criteria. His act was not haphazard. He didn't just grab a gun and act on impulse. It was premeditated, callous and calculated.

He also suggested that Dylan was depressed. There are tons of reasons why people plan to execute murder. In regards to school shootings, they are both carefully planned out, but few of them are in the psychopathic category.  So, I think thats more likely to be accurate. For most of us it doesnt make sense. But it doesnt make sense because its complicated, not simple.

What I described is a psychopathic act. Depression on its own is not enough to incite that level of aggression.

Neither is psychopathy. Dylan was depressed, as a lot of other school shooters. But he wasnt Just suicidally depressed. He may have been bullied, which is an unsafe assumption. And he had difficulty getting into relationships with women. He wanted and tried atleast once, to commit suicide, two years prior to the attack. He felt that everyone was against him, and its possible some of this may have been due to paranoid dellusions. Atleast, I dont think its true that most school shooters are psychopathic,even though what they do is vicious. I think they are more the depressed type, but in any given case they are depressed, theres a whole lot more.

Where the information about him attempting to commit suicide is coming from? He wanted to kill himself for years, but never attempted to.

.

He did. This is referenced in the beginning of hes journal, Where hes trying to kill himself with a screwdriver.

OMFG! Dude, i am not english speaker myself, but it really seems that language barrier is influencing your opinions. Screwdriver is an alcoholic drink.
Or you are just trolling at this point.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

lol wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Im OK with it. I think it matters more how much of the information is accurate

And there lies the problem. It's inaccurate. Sue's book was very disappointing. It was all about blaming Eric, and making excuses for her monstrous son. I don't care if that was her son. You have to accept it. In the end he was a murderer. I don't care what he did at 12 years old. Don't try to make me feel any sympathy for some piece of shit who had no problem laughing at kids and blowing their jaws out. Screw Dylan. He was no better than Eric, and just as destructive and bad.

Sue has been very clear all along that her main focus has been on her own son. And no, its not about making excuses. For the record, monsters arent real. They are fictional characters. Besides, we have to trie and understand what makes people do what they do imo. Thats not about excusing them. Its about trying to understand them. Not an expert, but I think that the terminology monster is oftentimes too simple. Im aware of psychologists and criminologists that works with anything from murderers to rapists and child sex offenders and they tend to suggest that the term monster is misleading or sometimes dangerous, because it makes us incapable of identifying people in our own midsts. But in some cases, they are inherently bad, yes, and I can definitely see this with some school shooters. But as a general rule, I think most of them are more likely to be the desparate, depressed kind. That doesnt absolve them from any responsibility, but it does suggests that society should take mental illness much more seriously even though most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrate violence towards others

Throw monster out and replace it with psychopath then. Not every psychopath is a swaggering ladies man, people are multi-dimensional (Dylan included). One thing the murderous variety have in common is an insatiable lust for bloodshed, terror and destruction and that includes DK.

As for the "depression" argument - I don't think Dylan even knew what depression entailed nor do I think he recognized what he was.

Dylan was a very dark, conceited person.

I dont think most school shooters  are psychopaths either. From most of the research Ive seen, most of them are not. I think most of them deal with some sort of hopelessness that they cant get out of. And bullying, dellusional thoughts of percecution, mental illness, sometimes, but usually not, child abuse, is a factor. Its easy to Just pass them of as evil. But lets face it. Theres no clear cut answer for why people commit murder. DK litterary wrote down that he was constantly sad and 'wanted to die so bad'. Depression is like that. Theres constant and recurring sadness over a long period of time. Thats why I have a problem with the term 'monster' or 'psychopath' being thrown around. Because, certainly, not everyone that do henious crimes fit into this category. We want a quick fix answer, but frankly, I dont think that exists.

Dylan Klebold enjoyed the act of murder. He laughed at the suffering of others and relished the chance to see blood and even "brains".

I've quoted a doctor who believes Dylan meets the diagnosis of an introverted narcissist with psychopathic features.

Not every murderer is a psychopath - but someone who meticulously plans out, executes and enjoys the act of causing terror and destruction along with deception certainly meets the criteria. His act was not haphazard. He didn't just grab a gun and act on impulse. It was premeditated, callous and calculated.

He also suggested that Dylan was depressed. There are tons of reasons why people plan to execute murder. In regards to school shootings, they are both carefully planned out, but few of them are in the psychopathic category.  So, I think thats more likely to be accurate. For most of us it doesnt make sense. But it doesnt make sense because its complicated, not simple.

What I described is a psychopathic act. Depression on its own is not enough to incite that level of aggression.

Neither is psychopathy. Dylan was depressed, as a lot of other school shooters. But he wasnt Just suicidally depressed. He may have been bullied, which is an unsafe assumption. And he had difficulty getting into relationships with women. He wanted and tried atleast once, to commit suicide, two years prior to the attack. He felt that everyone was against him, and its possible some of this may have been due to paranoid dellusions. Atleast, I dont think its true that most school shooters are psychopathic,even though what they do is vicious. I think they are more the depressed type, but in any given case they are depressed, theres a whole lot more.

Where the information about him attempting to commit suicide is coming from? He wanted to kill himself for years, but never attempted to.

.

He did. This is referenced in the beginning of hes journal, Where hes trying to kill himself with a screwdriver.

OMFG! Dude, i am not english speaker myself, but it really seems that language barrier is influencing your opinions. Screwdriver is an alcoholic drink.
Or you are just trolling at this point.

Its also a device

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

He was partially drunk with a device or with alcoholic drink? Oh, it's really impossible to tell.

Sorry to go off-topic here... but wouldn’t Dave Cullen’s book just be a fanfiction he wrote to fantasize about Dylan in his sleep? Whatever helps him and Sue sleep at night I guess... Sue’s book was pretty good though.

DF978 wrote:

Sorry to go off-topic here... but wouldn’t Dave Cullen’s book just be a fanfiction he wrote to fantasize about Dylan in his sleep? Whatever helps him and Sue sleep at night I guess... Sue’s book was pretty good though.

Its not really as much of a fan fic as hes fierce opponents would want it to be, but it has a few wholes here and there.


The first version was probably full of horrible inaccuracies, such as the Brenda Parker story. Eventually Dave Cullen went back on this, though.

I would say my doubts are more on hes focus on the psychopathology. He seems a bit simplistic and to be narrowing it down to depression and psychopathy. I notice that Reid Meloy critisized him over this. I thought this was kind of strange, too, given that I had the same impression. Im not sure wether that was intentional or not.


People dont commit mass murder, simply because they are depressed or psychopathic. Thats Just not true.

It certainly can be a part of it, but its not the only thing.

And than theres 'Eric got lots and lots of dates'. To my knowledge, he dated and had a few GF here and there, but not like the way Cullen portrays it. I believe that he experienced a lot of setbacks.