Randy Brown's review of Dave Cullen's Columbine

A very accurate review in my estimation. Cullen is by all rights a very good writer, he can grip you and tell you a good story. It's just a pity it's not an accurate story in this case.

It's strange that out of anyone that could speak out against the "Eric is a psychopath" point of view on Columbine, it's Randy Brown. Especially considering it was Eric that threatened his son and from I heard and read from interviews and articles by Randy, Eric seems to be the one that he has the most "beef" with.

I actually think most of that beef came from Judy. Yes, Randy has also made his fair share of comments about Eric but it has always seemed to me that Judy had the real ax to grind.

While much of the main thrust is interesting, both "crazy" and "bullying" seem to me very, very easy. Brooks was not his closest friend, and "rewriting history" like a pejorative is silly. It's possible, even likely, to get something wrong the first time around.

It's very interesting to re-read Randy's review 10 years later. I have a few thoughts on the matter. Mr. Brown's personality came through in this thread, and I could discern his anger, although I wasn't sure why he exploded at a few posters, who disagreed with his points, namely on psychology. I remember he got into an explosive exchange with a forensic psychologist (I think?) who stated, correctly I might add, that psychopathy isn't insanity, and Dave Cullen never insinuated that Eric was insane. Also, another poster stated that bullying was an easy answer, too. However, Randy lashed out at these people who refuted his theory without just cause. I am with emphatic to his anger with JCSO and the officers' obfuscation, but his responses make him seem so silly and irresponsible.

Granted, I didn't like Cullen's book, as he seems to embellish the truth to fit his thesis(albeit a doubtful thesis); however, some of the Amazon posters didn't deserve to be treated in that fashion. They were raising valid arguments that deserved a thoughtful, mature approach. If I disagreed with someone's hypothesis, I don't have the moral high ground: I have to point out what's wrong with the person's conjecture because that's what scientists do. I have heard he's mellowed out over the years; a good sign, I might add. I hope his book can answer some unsolved mysteries.

I see you saw my reddit post! Just kidding.
If there is anyone I would trust in this case, it is the Brown family.

HydraForce wrote:

I see you saw my reddit post! Just kidding.
If there is anyone I would trust in this case, it is the Brown family.

If we want to talk trust, I would most trust Randy. I think his intentions are all right. I do not trust Brooks nor Judy at all. Both seem to be cut from the same cloth

Well, at least Randy is on our side!

HydraForce wrote:

I see you saw my reddit post! Just kidding.
If there is anyone I would trust in this case, it is the Brown family.

No, you misunderstand me. I don't distrust Randy Brown. It's just that I thought his responses to other Amazon reviewers rude and immature.

jada887 wrote:

HydraForce wrote:

I see you saw my reddit post! Just kidding.
If there is anyone I would trust in this case, it is the Brown family.

No, you misunderstand me. I don't distrust Randy Brown. It's just that I thought his responses to other Amazon reviewers rude and immature.

I agree. He sees his opinion as THE opinion and doesn't think anything of name calling or profanity to get his point across. He makes himself look bad

It seems rather silly, doesn't it? Here you have the Brown family, who have purposely - and quite aggressively at times - placed themselves at the center of the Columbine discussion and yet all they seem to care about is ensuring that everybody knows their opinion. Randy seems like he knows what he's talking about most of the time but if his response to criticism or differing opinions is to call people names and use profanity, he's really no better than his wife and eldest son.
If anything I would consider him worse for masquerading as the voice of reason, only to turn around and lash out at people who have just as much a right to put forth their opinion as he does.

SandraSmit19 wrote:

It seems rather silly, doesn't it? Here you have the Brown family, who have purposely - and quite aggressively at times - placed themselves at the center of the Columbine discussion and yet all they seem to care about is ensuring that everybody knows their opinion. Randy seems like he knows what he's talking about most of the time but if his response to criticism or differing opinions is to call people names and use profanity, he's really no better than his wife and eldest son.
If anything I would consider him worse for masquerading as the voice of reason, only to turn around and lash out at people who have just as much a right to put forth their opinion as he does.

This is exactly what I believe.

I think the Main reason why people are saying that bullying was not a main problem has to do with the fact that it wasnt a main contributor for the attack.And I believe this to be accurate. I dont think it was. I definately believe that they were bullied, contrary to what Cullen says, But it's not actually a motive for the attack itself. The rest IDK. It kind off speak for itselves that the targets were random. I do find the whole Cassie Bernall-story too good to be true. The whole story that she supposedly said yes or that they singled out Isaiah for being Black. It really seems all to good to be true when you think about it.

Other than Im still trying to learn about it, so I cannot refute everything that Cullen says. But the whole thing about them as goths, part of the TCM and loners, the Cassie Bernall- story and the story of targeting specific groups. I bought it, too, but once you think about it doesnt make much sense. Theres this thing about stories that just seems to good to be true.

Also, the sex life of Eric Harris. Isnt it actually true that many school shooters have a problem with sexual relationships? I havent seen anyone else point out that Eric Harris was dating around other than Cullen

HydraForce wrote:

I see you saw my reddit post! Just kidding.
If there is anyone I would trust in this case, it is the Brown family.

I found Dave Cullens book educational, but I question some of the stuff that he says

Other than that I can't say much about antisocial personality disorder. From what Ive heard it's a variety of personality traits, but Im no expert to say for sure. I believe that it's very likely true that Eric must have had some sort of anti social behaviour problems. It seems like people are kind off denying reality when they are denying this. Denialism can sit very strong with people. This is why people can deny that climate change or natural disasters are real . Cause it's hard to aknowlpdge the fact. Facts are facts, no matter how horrible it is for people to realize. And probably harder if you have to deal with something like this.

Norwegian wrote:

I found Dave Cullens book educational, but I question some of the stuff that he says  

We have a big thread here for refuting all the things in Cullen's book. It's almost entirely bullshit.

We just have to wait and see on that. I found that much of what he says isnt exactly different from others who have made exstensive reseach.

This whole thing about bullied into retaliarion definately isnt true. Were they occasionally bullied? There are accounts to support this theory, yes. Did it have anything to do with why they did it? Im almost 100% positive that it didnt. Theres too much evidence to the contrary. Were they part of the TCM? I seriously doubt that. Did Cassie Bernall said yes? It's way too good to be true. Did they target specific groups? No.

Norwegian wrote:

We just have to wait and see on that. I found that much of what he says isnt exactly different from others who have made exstensive reseach.

This whole thing about bullied into retaliarion definately isnt true. Were they occasionally bullied? There are accounts to support this theory, yes. Did it have anything to do with why they did it? Im almost 100% positive that it didnt. Theres too much evidence to the contrary. Were they part of the TCM? I seriously doubt that. Did Cassie Bernall said yes? It's way too good to be true. Did they target specific groups? No.

You have said many times that bullying wasn't the cause and you have also said a couple of times that Eric was probably a psychopath but what do you think the actual motivation for the shooting was? I don't think Dave Cullen answered that question very well by echoing the psychopath/follower narrative, despite his claims that he was finally explaining why it happened.

Even if it's true that Dylan was simply going along with it, looking for a way to die (not likely, in my opinion, but beside the point), why did Eric the psychopath come up with this idea? Psychopaths are reckless and seek constant stimulation, sure, but they aren't usually suicidal people. Eric could have spent an entire lifetime wreaking havoc upon the world but he chose a path that left him dead before his high school graduation. Why? Wouldn't he have to be absolutely obsessed with the idea in order to sacrifice his life for it? Why was he so obsessed? And psychopaths are motivated solely by personal gain so what did Eric have to gain? We could say that he wanted to be famous but that's sacrificing a potential lifetime of thrilling misdeeds for an abstract concept that he would never actually get to see play out. Would a psychopath truly feel that "infamy" was a reward worth dying for?

If we say that Eric just wanted to cause some major destruction but didn't necessarily want to die, like in his destructive fantasies where he escapes, then would this mean that it was Depressive Dylan's hyperfocus on suicide that actually caused Columbine to manifest into reality?

What's your personal theory behind Columbine?

Sources that psychopaths can't be suicidal?

Than I believe that we are never going to find a correct answer as they are both dead. Also, I dont think that anyone has said that Eric was suicidial. IDK that much about suicide, but from what Ive heard people dont necessarily have to be suicidial in order to kill themselves.They wrote an article about misconceptions about suicide in regards to Chris Cornells suicide.

Just did a quick reseach on this and it turns out that both depression, alcoholism and personality disorders are all risk factors in comnitting suicide. And they did actually gain something. Fame after death. It's impossible for me to know exactly why they killed themselves. Dylan had attempted suicide before. So the theory is not that far fetched that he killed in order to commit suicide. I know that it's been talk about this in the media. Apparently, its called murder- suicide. When you take as many people with you in the process of comnitting suicide.

From what I know, Sue Klebold suggested in an interview that she believed Dylan had got to a point where he had dehumanized all the students as representative of the school. Peter Langmann, on the other hand, suggests that Dylan had a schizoid personality disorder and frequently suffered from paranoid dellusions. Allthough he wasnt out of hand with it. But that he believed the society to conspire against him and so on. And considered himself an outcast because of that. And therefore he attached himself to Eric.

I believe that both of them are wrong in their own ends. Randy Brown narrows it down to bullying. Cullen glosses over it. I personally fall somewhere in the middle after flicking through the Columbine documents and so on. There are certainly many accounts suggesting harassment and bullying from both sides(both of them or either one of them getting harassed or picked on, and them picking on or harassing others). Im of the opinion that if you weight them up against each other there are conflicting statements about the harassment and bullying. They dont talk about it in their journals, but their friends argue that they had withnessed the bullying towards either just Eric or both
It's possible that Dylan wasnt bullied as much as Eric, given hes height. Also, the bullying that they themselves participated in was quite serious. Much more severe than many people in here likes to argue. Langmann argues, for instance, that both of them sent threatning letters to a girl as far back as eight grade. I think it's possible that they may have done some bullying and that they may have  been bullied at the same time. That doesnt explain their motive for murder, however. I dont think it's adequate to argue either that Eric was a psychopath and thats it. Sure, its probably a very big part of the picture. But not in its entirety. Most psychopaths dont go out killing people.

From most of the research Ive done there are several factors that come into play, when someone commits a mass shooting. And when we are talking about bullying: its important to do something. Not because people may shoot up a school. But because people are suffering as a result. And thats not just in schools. Its just as much a problem in the worklpace, online and at home. Especially the Internet is a hotbet of both harassment, racism hatred and bullying.

From most of the research Ive done, as far as school shootings, there are complicated factors, and in some cases there doesnt seem to have a lot to do with bullying, but other setbacks. But according to a finish study Ive read, and according to some other researchers and psychiatrists, and even Cullen himself, bullying seems to be a part of the issue. Other experts have dismissed this, but given that its been pointed out I wouldnt disclose it entirely. But in that regard, there are other factors we also probably needs to look out for at the same time

But true, bullying wasnt the cause. It may or may not have been a factor, but it wasnt a cause. Most people get this all wrong.

jada887 wrote:

It's very interesting to re-read Randy's review 10 years later. I have a few thoughts on the matter. Mr. Brown's personality came through in this thread, and I could discern his anger, although I wasn't sure why he exploded at a few posters, who disagreed with his points, namely on psychology. I remember he got into an explosive exchange with a forensic psychologist (I think?) who stated, correctly I might add, that psychopathy isn't insanity, and Dave Cullen never insinuated that Eric was insane. Also, another poster stated that bullying was an easy answer, too. However, Randy lashed out at these people who refuted his theory without just cause. I am with emphatic to his anger with JCSO and the officers' obfuscation, but his responses make him seem so silly and irresponsible.

Granted, I didn't like Cullen's book, as he seems to embellish the truth to fit his thesis(albeit a doubtful thesis); however, some of the Amazon posters didn't deserve to be treated in that fashion. They were raising valid arguments that deserved a thoughtful, mature approach. If I disagreed with someone's hypothesis, I don't have the moral high ground: I have to point out what's wrong with the person's conjecture because that's what scientists do. I have heard he's mellowed out over the years; a good sign, I might add. I hope his book can answer some unsolved mysteries.

I think a lot of this may boil down to emotions? When people are emotional, its hard to deal with facts. We have to keep in mind that mass shootings like these traumatizes people and shatters whole communities. When you on top of this have people blaming each other and so on. I can definately realize that its also personal. And when people act on emotion, they arent thinking rationally. When the fact is that theres not a one single explanation for this. From what I know, antisocial personality disorder is a set of personality traits, so I dont think it's wrong to say that its not a mental illness, but I could be wrong, of course

sscc wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

We just have to wait and see on that. I found that much of what he says isnt exactly different from others who have made exstensive reseach.

This whole thing about bullied into retaliarion definately isnt true. Were they occasionally bullied? There are accounts to support this theory, yes. Did it have anything to do with why they did it? Im almost 100% positive that it didnt. Theres too much evidence to the contrary. Were they part of the TCM? I seriously doubt that. Did Cassie Bernall said yes? It's way too good to be true. Did they target specific groups? No.

You have said many times that bullying wasn't the cause and you have also said a couple of times that Eric was probably a psychopath but what do you think the actual motivation for the shooting was? I don't think Dave Cullen answered that question very well by echoing the psychopath/follower narrative, despite his claims that he was finally explaining why it happened.

Even if it's true that Dylan was simply going along with it, looking for a way to die (not likely, in my opinion, but beside the point), why did Eric the psychopath come up with this idea? Psychopaths are reckless and seek constant stimulation, sure, but they aren't usually suicidal people. Eric could have spent an entire lifetime wreaking havoc upon the world but he chose a path that left him dead before his high school graduation. Why? Wouldn't he have to be absolutely obsessed with the idea in order to sacrifice his life for it? Why was he so obsessed? And psychopaths are motivated solely by personal gain so what did Eric have to gain? We could say that he wanted to be famous but that's sacrificing a potential lifetime of thrilling misdeeds for an abstract concept that he would never actually get to see play out. Would a psychopath truly feel that "infamy" was a reward worth dying for?

If we say that Eric just wanted to cause some major destruction but didn't necessarily want to die, like in his destructive fantasies where he escapes, then would this mean that it was Depressive Dylan's hyperfocus on suicide that actually caused Columbine to manifest into reality?

What's your personal theory behind Columbine?

I think you find much of this in hes journal. Psychiatrists argue that he exhibited many of those traits you just mentioned, and it wasnt just the school. They were looking out for killing cops aswell. Furthermore, their aim was to copy the Oklahoma City bombing. 'I want to leave a lasting impression on the world'. Thats what he said. I think this speaks volumes that we are dealing with something far more sinister and dark. In why kids kill, Langmann argues that the school represented authority, he was teased/ bullied, hes status was threatned when he was arrested. Everything tested hes authority. And for this he sought out revenge by killing people. According to division programme I believe that they said he was also suicidal.

Besides didnt he also prescribe luvox?

UncontinuedProcess wrote:

It's strange that out of anyone that could speak out against the "Eric is a psychopath" point of view on Columbine, it's Randy Brown. Especially considering it was Eric that threatened his son and from I heard and read from interviews and articles by Randy, Eric seems to be the one that he has the most "beef" with.

Hmm. Im not really sure he denies that Eric was a psychopath.

But he argues that bullying was the main cause. This isnt exactly true, though. It hardly is, in cases like these. Its an overlap of different factors, for the most part. It certainly isnt true when we look at Erics motive. It had very little to do with bullying, all in all.

'The biggest problem I have with Cullen's book is his 'conclusion that Eric is a psychopath," Brown adds. "Whether that's true or not, Dylan wasn't a psychopath -- and these children had motivation for what they did. As misguided and ridiculous as their response was, they had a motivation: bullying at the school, and the atmosphere there. You can't bully and humiliate people without them having a response to it. Now, in this case, that response was ridiculous and violent and wrong. But to just say they're psychopaths is so easy. People don't have to think anymore. They don't have to worry. They can say, 'There's nothing I can do about it.' But that's not true. You can do something. You can stop bullying and harrassment in schools and in the workplace'.

He argues that Dylan wasnt a psychopath. Dylan was, however, as Cullen rightfully points out, depressed. I havent seen Cullen argue that Dylan was a psychopath. He argues that Dylan was depressed and than Eric was a psychopath. And that they both fed off from each other. I would say Langmann argues, on the other hand, that Dylan was a micro- psychopath. Im not sure what that means, though.