Dylan and PTSD Hypervigilance: a symptom of bullying

An interesting compare and contrast of the McDonalds incident.

"There was one more odd incident on our way home, which at the time Tom and I chalked up to Dylan’s desire to get back to his friends. The three of us stopped at a packed McDonald’s in Pueblo for a quick bite. A large group of teenagers had taken over a couple of tables against the wall. We’d just unwrapped our sandwiches when Dylan leaned forward, hardly moving his lips, and said urgently, “We have to go. Those kids are laughing at me.” I looked over. The teenagers were hooting and hollering and having a great time, and none of them was paying the slightest bit of attention to us.
“Relax, Dyl. Nobody’s looking at you,” I said. Besides, if a person didn’t want to be noticed, why wear a floor-length leather coat? But Dylan grew more insistent, casting quick, paranoid glances over his shoulder at the oblivious kids. He was so uncomfortable that we bolted our burgers and hustled out of there; the teenagers didn’t even look up at us as we left. The rest of the ride home was uneventful.”

What is PTSD Hypervigilance?
One of the many hyper-arousal symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is hyper vigilance and this refers to the experience of being constantly tense and ‘on guard’- your brain is on high alert in order to be certain danger is not near.
This state of increased awareness, anxiety, and sensitivity to the environmental around you often manifests as a need to always scan your surroundings for potential threats. With the brain resources on constant alert, the results can be inappropriate or even aggressive reactions in everyday situations.
People displaying hypervigilance can be so involved in their scrutiny of whats around them, that they tend to ignore their family and friends. Often, they will overreact to loud sounds and bangs, unexpected noises, smells, etc. They can get really agitated and irritated, when they move into a crowded or noisy area as there is too much to scrutinise.
Even familiar surroundings and people can be an issue as hyper vigilance can make people acutely aware of subtle details normally ignored – body language, a persons voice and tone, their mood, their expressions – all things which are continually assessed.
Some of the common behaviours of hypervigilance are:
Lack of objectivity – reading too much into situations
An over awareness of what people see or think about us
Looking for others to betray constantly
Constantly concerned about others
Not being aware of what is obvious to others
Over scrutiny/analysing behaviour of situations

this is relatable to me, I used to be like this, still am at times. It's more than obvious that Dylan had this issue. Vastly different from what most teens go through with insecurities, being self conscious and all that. Thing is I haven't asked myself this - did Eric have the same issue? Cause to me it seems like Eric thinks he's far more superior than the world hence with not being popular or accepted - he gets mad rather than, cowering at the corner thinking he's not good enough.

I know i'm not being very eloquent here.

Dylan was diagnosed with Avoidant personality disorder posthumously, which could also account for his paranoia, desire to suddenly leave, and feelings of inferiority.

Randy Brown talks about hypervigilance in this video

I do know first hand that if you are bullied a lot, you will always be self conscious and paranoid that it will happen anywhere you go so I think that this can point to him being pretty badly bullied, yes.

PaintItBlack wrote:

I do know first hand that if you are bullied a lot, you will always be self conscious and paranoid that it will happen anywhere you go so I think that this can point to him being pretty badly bullied, yes.

I read an article on this very thing, and I'd like to share it here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think Eric may have been showing some symptoms as well, based on this article:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

lilypadlane wrote:

PaintItBlack wrote:

I do know first hand that if you are bullied a lot, you will always be self conscious and paranoid that it will happen anywhere you go so I think that this can point to him being pretty badly bullied, yes.

I read an article on this very thing, and I'd like to share it here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think Eric may have been showing some symptoms as well, based on this article:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: you too?  Same here, I could tell much about it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: good reading material, thanks for sharing! I have always thought that both Eric and Dylan had had some kind of complex posttrauma.

(I might over-analyze the whole story, but is it possible that they went NBK before graduation because they did not want to face the adult life?
I mean: both of them were clever guys and they probably understood that there were bullies in the adult world too? Maybe they thought "we have already gotten enough of this s**t, why would we go through even more of it?"
Were they so tired of their lives that they wished nothing else but going away forever - after having taken revenge? At least this is my impression. I assume this is why nothing and no-one could have stopped them.
This sounds very romantic and I am sure many teenagers have similar ideas and thoughts...)

The other thing I noticed is Dylan's feeling of being stigmatized as "a bad one".

In the love letter he did not send, he wrote about his "being a criminal" and that this girl whom he wrote the letter to would surely hate her if she had known what he had done.
What do you guys think?
"I am a criminal, I have done things that almost nobody would even think about condoning."
Isn't it a sign of that Dylan overestimated his earlier "crimes" - which were not that heinous: there are many youngsters who do such things and have affairs with the police, but grow up to be normal and non-criminal adults-?
"I won't be able to survive in this world after this legal conviction" - even if he did not end up in prison?

Again: it is possible that I am over-analyzing, but this gives me an impression that Dylan had already felt himself bad enough (scapegoat-like), otherwise he could have gotten over this legal conviction.

Moonshadow wrote:

lilypadlane wrote:

PaintItBlack wrote:

I do know first hand that if you are bullied a lot, you will always be self conscious and paranoid that it will happen anywhere you go so I think that this can point to him being pretty badly bullied, yes.

I read an article on this very thing, and I'd like to share it here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think Eric may have been showing some symptoms as well, based on this article:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: you too?  Same here, I could tell much about it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: good reading material, thanks for sharing! I have always thought that both Eric and Dylan had had some kind of complex posttrauma.

(I might over-analyze the whole story, but is it possible that they went NBK before graduation because they did not want to face the adult life?
I mean: both of them were clever guys and they probably understood that there were bullies in the adult world too? Maybe they thought "we have already gotten enough of this s**t, why would we go through even more of it?"
Were they so tired of their lives that they wished nothing else but going away forever - after having taken revenge? At least this is my impression. I assume this is why nothing and no-one could have stopped them.
This sounds very romantic and I am sure many teenagers have similar ideas and thoughts...)

The other thing I noticed is Dylan's feeling of being stigmatized as "a bad one".

In the love letter he did not send, he wrote about his "being a criminal" and that this girl whom he wrote the letter to would surely hate her if she had known what he had done.
What do you guys think?
"I am a criminal, I have done things that almost nobody would even think about condoning."
Isn't it a sign of that Dylan overestimated his earlier "crimes" - which were not that heinous: there are many youngsters who do such things and have affairs with the police, but grow up to be normal and non-criminal adults-?
"I won't be able to survive in this world after this legal conviction" - even if he did not end up in prison?

Again: it is possible that I am over-analyzing, but this gives me an impression that Dylan had already felt himself bad enough (scapegoat-like), otherwise he could have gotten over this legal conviction.

Hm hard to say. It isnt' dated but is between the Feb and Aug 98 entries. Perhaps he was feeling guilty as well about planning NBK? He is a criminal...yea they were charged with criminal trespassing. If he wrote this after March 19 the diversion would already be decided.

Moonshadow wrote:

(I might over-analyze the whole story, but is it possible that they went NBK before graduation because they did not want to face the adult life?
I mean: both of them were clever guys and they probably understood that there were bullies in the adult world too? Maybe they thought "we have already gotten enough of this s**t, why would we go through even more of it?"
Were they so tired of their lives that they wished nothing else but going away forever - after having taken revenge? At least this is my impression. I assume this is why nothing and no-one could have stopped them.
This sounds very romantic and I am sure many teenagers have similar ideas and thoughts...)

The other thing I noticed is Dylan's feeling of being stigmatized as "a bad one".

In the love letter he did not send, he wrote about his "being a criminal" and that this girl whom he wrote the letter to would surely hate her if she had known what he had done.
What do you guys think?
"I am a criminal, I have done things that almost nobody would even think about condoning."
Isn't it a sign of that Dylan overestimated his earlier "crimes" - which were not that heinous: there are many youngsters who do such things and have affairs with the police, but grow up to be normal and non-criminal adults-?
"I won't be able to survive in this world after this legal conviction" - even if he did not end up in prison?

Again: it is possible that I am over-analyzing, but this gives me an impression that Dylan had already felt himself bad enough (scapegoat-like), otherwise he could have gotten over this legal conviction.

Pretty much all that you said seems true enough.
Dylan beat himself up so hard about the crime he did and then thinking of himself as a whole as wasteful. It's so unhealthy! Reading all of that I wish I could tell him to calm down. If there's a perfect example of someone who over-romanticises everything it's him.

Lizpuff wrote:

Hm hard to say.  It isnt' dated but is between the Feb and Aug 98 entries.  Perhaps he was feeling guilty as well about planning NBK?  He is a criminal...yea they were charged with criminal trespassing.  If he wrote this after March 19 the diversion would already be decided.

I agree it is hard to say, this is why I am so careful about forming any opinions
It is pretty possible that he had already seen himself as a perpetrator - even if the shooting had not happened yet? He seems to be very determined, it is clear that his words about suicide were not empty threats.

ultraviolencelv wrote:

Pretty much all that you said seems true enough.
Dylan beat himself up so hard about the crime he did and then thinking of himself as a whole as wasteful. It's so unhealthy! Reading all of that I wish I could tell him to calm down. If there's a perfect example of someone who over-romanticises everything it's him.

Yeah, and exactly this black-or-white thinking - that you see as so unhealthy - makes me think he had serious problems with coping with shame and his own bad deeds. (Most of us have the ability to cope - at least, to a certain grade - with them and have a healthy feeling of "I am OK, even if I did something what is not OK at all." Identifying oneself with their own shameful deeds might be a sign of not having mature coping methods.)
Over-idealizing certain things and individuals, projecting his idealistic fantasies into them, while being completely helpless when it comes to shame-related questions shows that he had extremely great problems related to self-esteem and self-worth. "If I am not perfect, so I am a non-humane criminal... and so I might as well behave as one." Something like this?

Yeah, I have the same impression! Reading his thoughts, I feel like telling him "hey, the fact that you did this-and-that does not make you an immoral criminal for life! Not everyone who breaks the law is a notorious and unfixable criminal!" and "what you did (the happenings that led to January) was really not THAT bad." I wonder if anyone had said this to him?

If this was about the Jan incident which I think it may be, I think it shows he was way more upset about it than he let on.

He seemed to be very meh about diversion and trying to repent for his crime. It seems he was more distraught about this then

Moonshadow wrote:

Yeah, and exactly this black-or-white thinking - that you see as so unhealthy - makes me think he had serious problems with coping with shame and his own bad deeds. (Most of us have the ability to cope - at least, to a certain grade - with them and have a healthy feeling of "I am OK, even if I did something what is not OK at all." Identifying oneself with their own shameful deeds might be a sign of not having mature coping methods.)
Over-idealizing certain things and individuals, projecting his idealistic fantasies into them, while being completely helpless when it comes to shame-related questions shows that he had extremely great problems related to self-esteem and self-worth. "If I am not perfect, so I am a non-humane criminal... and so I might as well behave as one." Something like this?

I wish I knew what bred him to have this sort of perspective. From his minor crime, to his pornography taste/fetish, I mean every single thing that he thought would annihilate him from being a good person, he punished himself way too hard at it. Even in terms of his fetish he apologised for it and said something like he tried to stay away from it but he couldn't - or sth like that, can't recall right now.

I feel like if a girl he liked told him that he was okay and not everybody's perfect, it might help him chill out a little and feel that who he was can still be appreciated.
And I wouldn't say it's much of a coping method he needed but more like accepting his flaws, accepting his guilty pleasures, putting a limit to things he might deem as sinful, and grow as a person. as a man. Teens these days are lucky as we have progressed in the whole self-acceptance movement and they learn pretty hastily to appreciate who they are, etc etc.

ultraviolencelv wrote:

Moonshadow wrote:

Yeah, and exactly this black-or-white thinking - that you see as so unhealthy - makes me think he had serious problems with coping with shame and his own bad deeds. (Most of us have the ability to cope - at least, to a certain grade - with them and have a healthy feeling of "I am OK, even if I did something what is not OK at all." Identifying oneself with their own shameful deeds might be a sign of not having mature coping methods.)
Over-idealizing certain things and individuals, projecting his idealistic fantasies into them, while being completely helpless when it comes to shame-related questions shows that he had extremely great problems related to self-esteem and self-worth. "If I am not perfect, so I am a non-humane criminal... and so I might as well behave as one." Something like this?

I wish I knew what bred him to have this sort of perspective. From his minor crime, to his pornography taste/fetish, I mean every single thing that he thought would annihilate him from being a good person, he punished himself way too hard at it. Even in terms of his fetish he apologised for it and said something like he tried to stay away from it but he couldn't - or sth like that, can't recall right now.

I feel like if a girl he liked told him that he was okay and not everybody's perfect, it might help him chill out a little and feel that who he was can still be appreciated.
And I wouldn't say it's much of a coping method he needed but more like accepting his flaws, accepting his guilty pleasures, putting a limit to things he might deem as sinful, and grow as a person. as a man. Teens these days are lucky as we have progressed in the whole self-acceptance movement and they learn pretty hastily to appreciate who they are, etc etc.

yea I would also like to know when he started to feel like his thoughts ideas and actions were shameful.

Do you guys think his parents might have been hard on him in the form of shaming, and that could be why he was so hard on himself? My mentality was pretty similar to this when I was younger - everything I did made me feel like a terrible unworthy person, I was highly embarrassed and extremely hard on myself, and looking back for me it was the result of always being shamed, guilted and criticized growing up. If this was the case I'm not saying his parents didn't love him or anything, but that might have been their way (or one of his parent's way) of trying to steer him in the right direction?

Kiwik wrote:

Do you guys think his parents might have been hard on him in the form of shaming, and that could be why he was so hard on himself? My mentality was pretty similar to this when I was younger - everything I did made me feel like a terrible unworthy person, I was highly embarrassed and extremely hard on myself, and looking back for me it was the result of always being shamed, guilted and criticized growing up. If this was the case I'm not saying his parents didn't love him or anything, but that might have been their way (or one of his parent's way) of trying to steer him in the right direction?

I'm not sure, because his parents seem like pretty chill and laidback parents. Ever since Sue came out into the media she seemed like someone who was quite relaxed and artsy and would implement discipline when things get way out of hand. I think Dylan had a case of extreme self-loathing to an extent where he felt someone like him don't get to indulge in the things that he did, and cannot do any wrong, since he thought him as a being was already trash. He grew self-conscious from the way he looked up till the things that he did. Adding on with liking a girl he thought was perfect and an angel, it put him down way lower than he already felt. edit: the self-loathing could definitely be the result of all the years of bullying he took.

Kiwik wrote:

Do you guys think his parents might have been hard on him in the form of shaming, and that could be why he was so hard on himself? My mentality was pretty similar to this when I was younger - everything I did made me feel like a terrible unworthy person, I was highly embarrassed and extremely hard on myself, and looking back for me it was the result of always being shamed, guilted and criticized growing up. If this was the case I'm not saying his parents didn't love him or anything, but that might have been their way (or one of his parent's way) of trying to steer him in the right direction?

I think so in a way. Sue was presented in Kass' book as being someone who was also ashamed of her thoughts and fears. I think as nice and supportive as Sue was that she may have projected this kind of thought onto Dylan in a way. This isn't to blame her at all but I do think kids read into that kind of thing

yeah! its always struck me as super weird with how ashamed he was of his sexuality etc almost like he was raised in a very religious household or something...which he wasn't. so, i was always puzzled as to why he would beat himself up so hard and have such huge black and white thinking. like, for example, i have huge black and white thinking because i have BPD...but i dunno if he had that, we can't really diagnose him post mortem (even though Sue thinks he had a PD) but i've always found that odd. because Sue has always seemed very open minded but it could also be what you said [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .

Guest wrote:

Randy Brown talks about hypervigilance in this video

Is he a credible source, though? Ive seen him claim some really bizarre stuff and I cant make sense out of any of it.

For instance he claims that bullying causes school shootings.

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

'Stop the bullying. Stop the humiliation. Stop the humiliation that creates the anger that makes these angry children go to a school and want to kill. Stop the anger before the humiliated bullied child gets a weapon and goes to the school to get revenge. Why can’t you see this?'

Im honestly a bit troubled by this statement. Not because I think its wrong to stop bullying. And not because I dont think its Connected to school shootings. But because, both A threat assessment perspective and similar research and expert opinions Ive looked at seems to suggest that its far more complex than simply narrowing it down to bullying. Kids and adults all over the world are bullied everyday. How many of them take a gun to school to shoot up their classmates? Very few. That is not to say that its not a connection, but its to say that issues like these, imo- and as extremely rare as they are- are a subset of different factors coming together. That doesnt mean bullying shouldnt be addressed as its quite serious and also the effect that it has. It means that there are many viewpoints to look at in such extreme cases Where school shootings are involved. Focusing solely on bullying doesnt cut it


Theres also another example of how he argues that he thinks Eric father was very emotionally abusive. Now, this is also something I find extremely puzzling given that I havent seen this anywhere else.

Now, where they bullied? I cant make the statement that they werent. Who knows, maybe we Will never get that answer. I think making sense out of all the information out there in regards to Columbine is so complicated that I experience it as too complicated, to be exact. Its not the amount of information that I see as the problem(well, sort of that too. Given that I live outside of the US, sometimes Im blocked from entering an online address to foreign news outlets, and interviews from friends has been kind of hard to get a hold onto. Plus, some sources have been taken down). Its making sense of them and validating them, imo. So far, the only expert Ive seen denying that they were bullied is Frank Ochberg and a woman I know that was mentioned in this podcast

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


Yet there are a number of friends that have adressed that they saw bullying towards Eric and Dylan and Sue Klebold says she believed her son to have been bullied(even though she did not actually know about any bullying going on). Jeff Kass suggests that they were bullied, yet, I did get the impression that he relied in large part on Brooks Browns book and I personally think that you should rely on what other accounts are saying as well. The Governor Bill Ovens report mentions that they were both bullied and bullied others. But than theres that idea of not taking information at face value. A very difficult issue is that people have biases in one way or another. For the time being I do believe that there was bullying going on, but at this stage Id rather be undisputed until Ive learned more

Peter Langmann suggests that Dylan was paranoid. Not really sure what is accurate because Ochberg has a different view.

'My closest friend in the neighborhood knew the Klebolds well and he told me that Dylan was one of the shyest and quietest teenagers he had ever met. This jibes with a picture of Dylan painted by psychologist Peter Langman in his 2009 book, Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. While Langman is not surprised that Harris--a hate-filled and raging bigot--would have become a murderer, he is fascinated by what he considers the saddest part of the Columbine story, and that is how a nice kid like Dylan Klebold, with no history of violence, prejudice or even unkindness towards others, could have participated in one of the worst acts of violence in American history.'

I digress. Im not really sure that Dylan was always unkind. Some sources suggests that he bullied other students, for example. But this ressummates well with everything else Ive read about Klebold- a well liked, sweet, good kid. Allthough, some sources does suggest that he also was troubled.


And, this:

'A psychopath is not the same thing as a psychotic. A psychopath lacks a conscience and it doesn't have the capacity to feel guilt or remorse or to truly identify with a role model. And when you have a mind that doesn't have a conscience, it goes in a certain direction, not necessarily sadistic. But again - and it appears to me that Dylan Klebold had a very different personality, persona, set of issues, probably more depressed and angry, probably not psychotic'

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


Thats interesting, but also very confusing. IDK what makes sense here. What makes most sense? Im no psychiatrist, but these are some fascinating analysis. Yet, I have no idea why Langmann says one thing and Ochberg the other. Does it make any sense that Dylan was merely depressed? Most likely no. Yet, somehow, Langmanns view makes a bit more sense to me, here.

Of course that doesnt make the answer more or less correct.

Both of them are full of shit.
No history of violence my ass. He was bigger bully than Eric ever was. Harassing kids, hitting girls, insulting teachers. He literally did EVERYTHING that Eric did, and more, but somehow Eric is a psychopath, while Dylan is a sweet boy with no history of violence.
The only thing Eric did separately is throwing this snowball in Brooks' car, and that's literally it.
I just really want to know, what those people read? Did they read Eric's sites when he says they were building and using bombs together with Vodka? His missions they did together with Vodka? Reports of arrest of Eric and Dylan?
That's absolutely unbelievable. That's why I don't give a crap about all those experts with their theories and post-mortem diagnosis. They ignore obvious facts that don't fit into their nice tidy little theories.

Ligeya wrote:

Both of them are full of shit.
No history of violence my ass. He was bigger bully than Eric ever was. Harassing kids, hitting girls, insulting teachers. He literally did EVERYTHING that Eric did, and more, but somehow Eric is a psychopath, while Dylan is a sweet boy with no history of violence.
The only thing Eric did separately is throwing this snowball in Brooks' car, and that's literally it.
I just really want to know, what those people read? Did they read Eric's sites when he says they were building and using bombs together with Vodka? His missions they did together with Vodka? Reports of arrest of Eric and Dylan?
That's absolutely unbelievable.  That's why I don't give a crap about all those experts with their theories and post-mortem diagnosis. They ignore obvious facts that don't fit into their nice tidy little theories.

Im pretty sure Langmann knows this, and just because you are wrong on one or two points(everyone is at some point) that doesnt mean you are full of shit. Dylan was described as kind by many, but they were both also feared by others.

Langmann has obtain several documents and he does address that both engaged in an alienating behaviour. He even references Browns book in hes own book. He even interviewed the Browns for hes book. So, I assume that, yes, he died.


My only point is that there are many possible explanations for Dylans so called 'odd' behaviour. How do we know that psychosis did not play a role?

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Both of them are full of shit.
No history of violence my ass. He was bigger bully than Eric ever was. Harassing kids, hitting girls, insulting teachers. He literally did EVERYTHING that Eric did, and more, but somehow Eric is a psychopath, while Dylan is a sweet boy with no history of violence.
The only thing Eric did separately is throwing this snowball in Brooks' car, and that's literally it.
I just really want to know, what those people read? Did they read Eric's sites when he says they were building and using bombs together with Vodka? His missions they did together with Vodka? Reports of arrest of Eric and Dylan?
That's absolutely unbelievable.  That's why I don't give a crap about all those experts with their theories and post-mortem diagnosis. They ignore obvious facts that don't fit into their nice tidy little theories.

Im pretty sure Langmann knows this, and just because you are wrong on one or two points(everyone is at some point) that doesnt mean you are full of shit. Dylan was described as kind by many, but they were both also feared by others.

Langmann has obtain several documents and he does address that both engaged in an alienating behaviour. He even references Browns book in hes own book. He even interviewed the Browns for hes book. So, I assume that, yes, he died.


My only point is that there are many possible explanations for Dylans so called 'odd' behaviour. How do we know that psychosis did not play a role?

Oh, he talked to Browns.
That's explains everything.
If he knew this, he wouldn't call Dylan "a kid without any history of violence or unkindness to others". So either your quote is wrong, or he is full of shit.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Both of them are full of shit.
No history of violence my ass. He was bigger bully than Eric ever was. Harassing kids, hitting girls, insulting teachers. He literally did EVERYTHING that Eric did, and more, but somehow Eric is a psychopath, while Dylan is a sweet boy with no history of violence.
The only thing Eric did separately is throwing this snowball in Brooks' car, and that's literally it.
I just really want to know, what those people read? Did they read Eric's sites when he says they were building and using bombs together with Vodka? His missions they did together with Vodka? Reports of arrest of Eric and Dylan?
That's absolutely unbelievable.  That's why I don't give a crap about all those experts with their theories and post-mortem diagnosis. They ignore obvious facts that don't fit into their nice tidy little theories.

Im pretty sure Langmann knows this, and just because you are wrong on one or two points(everyone is at some point) that doesnt mean you are full of shit. Dylan was described as kind by many, but they were both also feared by others.

Langmann has obtain several documents and he does address that both engaged in an alienating behaviour. He even references Browns book in hes own book. He even interviewed the Browns for hes book. So, I assume that, yes, he died.


My only point is that there are many possible explanations for Dylans so called 'odd' behaviour. How do we know that psychosis did not play a role?

Oh, he talked to Browns.
That's explains everything.
If he knew this, he wouldn't call Dylan "a kid without any history of violence or unkindness to others". So either your quote is wrong, or he is full of shit.

That wasnt Langmann. Langmann was the one that talked to the Browns and Sue Klebold. The other person knew a friend of the Klebolds.

But I agree with you that its a misguided setting. Even though I believe its true that a lot of people liked Dylan. Langmann doesnt say that Dylan was always nice, because he suggests that Dylan was a bully. Now, I dont think thats the same as saying Dylan was always a bad person(he wasnt). I dont think you can say that most people are Just 100% good or bad. Most people have good and bad in them. But in School Shooters: A typology, he argues that Dylan alienated many, along with Eric. He says the same here:

'Also, harassment was not a one-way street. Eric engaged in his own harassment of other students. In fact, Eric, Dylan, and other boys threatened and intimidated another student to the point that he was in tears and afraid to attend school. Thus, Eric was not only a victim of harassment but a perpetrator, too. He had a bad temper and there were many students who were alienated by his belligerent behavior'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This, and also the paper he wrote, says that they were both highly participating in harassment towards other students. For instance, Langmann mentions that they both sent threatning letters to a girl as far back as 8th grade.

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Both of them are full of shit.
No history of violence my ass. He was bigger bully than Eric ever was. Harassing kids, hitting girls, insulting teachers. He literally did EVERYTHING that Eric did, and more, but somehow Eric is a psychopath, while Dylan is a sweet boy with no history of violence.
The only thing Eric did separately is throwing this snowball in Brooks' car, and that's literally it.
I just really want to know, what those people read? Did they read Eric's sites when he says they were building and using bombs together with Vodka? His missions they did together with Vodka? Reports of arrest of Eric and Dylan?
That's absolutely unbelievable.  That's why I don't give a crap about all those experts with their theories and post-mortem diagnosis. They ignore obvious facts that don't fit into their nice tidy little theories.

Im pretty sure Langmann knows this, and just because you are wrong on one or two points(everyone is at some point) that doesnt mean you are full of shit. Dylan was described as kind by many, but they were both also feared by others.

Langmann has obtain several documents and he does address that both engaged in an alienating behaviour. He even references Browns book in hes own book. He even interviewed the Browns for hes book. So, I assume that, yes, he died.


My only point is that there are many possible explanations for Dylans so called 'odd' behaviour. How do we know that psychosis did not play a role?

Oh, he talked to Browns.
That's explains everything.
If he knew this, he wouldn't call Dylan "a kid without any history of violence or unkindness to others". So either your quote is wrong, or he is full of shit.

That wasnt Langmann. Langmann was the one that talked to the Browns and Sue Klebold. The other person knew a friend of the Klebolds.

But I agree with you that its a misguided setting. Even though I believe its true that a lot of people liked Dylan. Langmann doesnt say that Dylan was always nice, because he suggests that Dylan was a bully. Now, I dont think thats the same as saying Dylan was always a bad person(he wasnt). I dont think you can say that most people are Just 100% good or bad. Most people have good and bad in them. But in School Shooters: A typology, he argues that Dylan alienated many, along with Eric. He says the same here:

'Also, harassment was not a one-way street. Eric engaged in his own harassment of other students. In fact, Eric, Dylan, and other boys threatened and intimidated another student to the point that he was in tears and afraid to attend school. Thus, Eric was not only a victim of harassment but a perpetrator, too. He had a bad temper and there were many students who were alienated by his belligerent behavior'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This, and also the paper he wrote, says that they were both highly participating in harassment towards other students. For instance, Langmann mentions that they both sent threatning letters to a girl as far back as 8th grade.

Even this quote is misleading. Dylan bullied and threatened Adam Kyler. Adam never named Eric as his bully. Dylan harassed him, threatened to kill him, to the point where Adam's mother got involved, complained to school officials and bullying from Dylan stopped.
So Langmann lies about Eric's involvement and downplays Dylan's role.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Both of them are full of shit.
No history of violence my ass. He was bigger bully than Eric ever was. Harassing kids, hitting girls, insulting teachers. He literally did EVERYTHING that Eric did, and more, but somehow Eric is a psychopath, while Dylan is a sweet boy with no history of violence.
The only thing Eric did separately is throwing this snowball in Brooks' car, and that's literally it.
I just really want to know, what those people read? Did they read Eric's sites when he says they were building and using bombs together with Vodka? His missions they did together with Vodka? Reports of arrest of Eric and Dylan?
That's absolutely unbelievable.  That's why I don't give a crap about all those experts with their theories and post-mortem diagnosis. They ignore obvious facts that don't fit into their nice tidy little theories.

Im pretty sure Langmann knows this, and just because you are wrong on one or two points(everyone is at some point) that doesnt mean you are full of shit. Dylan was described as kind by many, but they were both also feared by others.

Langmann has obtain several documents and he does address that both engaged in an alienating behaviour. He even references Browns book in hes own book. He even interviewed the Browns for hes book. So, I assume that, yes, he died.


My only point is that there are many possible explanations for Dylans so called 'odd' behaviour. How do we know that psychosis did not play a role?

Oh, he talked to Browns.
That's explains everything.
If he knew this, he wouldn't call Dylan "a kid without any history of violence or unkindness to others". So either your quote is wrong, or he is full of shit.

That wasnt Langmann. Langmann was the one that talked to the Browns and Sue Klebold. The other person knew a friend of the Klebolds.

But I agree with you that its a misguided setting. Even though I believe its true that a lot of people liked Dylan. Langmann doesnt say that Dylan was always nice, because he suggests that Dylan was a bully. Now, I dont think thats the same as saying Dylan was always a bad person(he wasnt). I dont think you can say that most people are Just 100% good or bad. Most people have good and bad in them. But in School Shooters: A typology, he argues that Dylan alienated many, along with Eric. He says the same here:

'Also, harassment was not a one-way street. Eric engaged in his own harassment of other students. In fact, Eric, Dylan, and other boys threatened and intimidated another student to the point that he was in tears and afraid to attend school. Thus, Eric was not only a victim of harassment but a perpetrator, too. He had a bad temper and there were many students who were alienated by his belligerent behavior'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This, and also the paper he wrote, says that they were both highly participating in harassment towards other students. For instance, Langmann mentions that they both sent threatning letters to a girl as far back as 8th grade.

Even this quote is misleading. Dylan bullied and threatened Adam Kyler. Adam never named Eric as his bully. Dylan harassed him, threatened to kill him, to the point where Adam's mother got involved, complained to school officials and bullying from Dylan stopped.
So Langmann lies about Eric's involvement and downplays Dylan's role.

Just because its incorrwct it doesnt mean irs a lie.

I wonder why we don't hear a lot of this from other students, especially those who really liked Dylan. He seems to be someone that others really liked,where as you hear Eric demonized by so many people.

Screamingophelia wrote:

I wonder why we don't hear a lot of this from other students, especially those who really liked Dylan. He seems to be someone that others really liked,where as you hear Eric demonized by so many people.

I think we heard some good, some bad things about both of them. There is the idea that Dylan was universally liked by everybody. There were testimonies from classmates and co worker who didn't like him. I mean, even his best friend Zach was rather critical of him.

Like @Ligya said.

What one person sees in you and me, may not be what someone else sees in you and me.

LMAO, this is funny to me because I have something similar. I definitely don’t have post traumatic stress disorder, but I have a thing where I literally NOTICE everything, more then I’d like to. I literally once had a psychiatrist tell me I have great intuition. Anytime I go out in public I notice anyone who looks at me, stares at me, or gives a look. I will hear anything anyone says about me in public if that happens to happen. I always tell the people I’m with about it and they are always oblivious and didn’t see it and didn’t hear it. And I’m not imagining it lol it’s not paranoia, I’m just like super aware of everything. Even at the grocery store, I notice how everyone is nosy and looks in my cart out of curiosity what food I’m buying. I think some people are just super aware, like I said I’m not traumatized by anything and definitely don’t have post traumatic stress. Any time I’m talking to someone, I Will also notice when certain things I say makes them make a certain facial expression, and I will notice when certain things make them change there tone of voice in the middle of conversation. I’ve just always been like this I can’t help it I don’t chose to but yes I literally notice everything.

I think Dylan had undiagnosed Asperger's.

Speculation

Ivan wrote:

I think Dylan had undiagnosed Asperger's.

I have thought this, as well.

Pure speculation, anyway, to speculate about autism

Norwegian wrote:

Pure speculation, anyway, to speculate about autism

Yes. It is... much of what is discussed is just speculation. Individual opinions. No one is stating otherwise.

I also have this but it developed slowly over time.
I was bullied in primary school.
Crowds and eating somewere with a lot of people I do not like.
One time I was out eating somewere and it was super crowded and there was someone behind me talking very loudly and after that when my family went back to the hotel I just broke in the car and started just crying because of the headache I had.
It is no fun having hypervigilance
If we now go to a crowded place I can just walk out and go outside and after a few minutes go back in