Columbine

[dejavu]

14.)  We begin reading of the parents responses in '1 Bleeding to Death.'  Were you able to put yourself in their place?  Are there any particular responses that stood out to you?

Although I’m not a parent, it was easy for me to identify with the fear and panic of the parents once they realized their children might be in danger.  I thought it was a good technique to choose one couple – Misty and Brad Bernall – to introduce us to the parents’ point of view.  Misty went through the agony of getting a worrisome phone call, calling home to check, being turned away at the high school, and finally having to choose between two gathering locations where her children might be, if they had survived.

Even the unidentified parents’ reactions were easy to identify with, particularly the hugging and relief of those who got the word that their kids were safe.  One thing that did stand out to me was that some parents who were at home that day opened their doors to tens or hundreds of students.  I wouldn’t expect that to be the usual reaction of people living in “nice houses” – letting hordes of strangers inside.  But this was such an emergency that any possible property damage that might result seemed unimportant.

[dejavu]

15.)  What was your opinion of Sheriff John Stone at the beginning of the book?  Did your opinion change as you read on?

Before beginning to read the book, I had only heard that there was a lot of controversy concerning Sheriff Stone’s actions during the crisis.  In ‘1 Bleeding to Death’ he is first introduced to us as a politician at heart, and doesn’t come across as a professional enough law enforcement officer to be in charge.  I can picture him, looking “the part of an Old West sheriff” with his potbelly and mustache, but it  was disheartening to learn that he’d been a county supervisor for twelve years until the last few months.

My first impression was only confirmed as I read on in Part 1.  He didn’t handle the news conference well, when he took the microphone from his spokesman and gave answers without knowing the real facts of the case.  He helped to create a lot of media confusion right off the bat, IMO.

[dejavu]

16.)  We read of the reactions of Robyn Anderson and Nate Dykeman after the attack started.  What did you think of their reactions?  Should they have given the police information?  Or were they just as scared and shocked as everyone else?

Robyn Anderson appeared shocked that anyone would attack the school, but I can understand her suspicions of Eric and Dylan when she saw that their cars were missing, because she would have remembered helping them buy guns.  When she was briefed by the police at Clement Park, I can understand her fear of admitting any knowledge of the shooters or the guns because she was hoping to avoid incriminating herself, and I can also understand the guilt that plagued her later when she confided part of her story to a friend.  In the end, it would have been better for her to have come clean right away, but it’s easy to see why she didn’t.

Nate did have some knowledge of Eric’s suspicious behavior that morning (and I think we learn more about his background knowledge of Eric’s activities in Part 2), but as far as I can tell, Nate didn’t have the 
guilty knowledge that he himself had had any connection to the shootings.  So he seems more genuinely concerned for Dylan rather than Robyn seemed.  He was doing the right thing when he called Tom Klebold, Dylan’s father, even though I know Nate was hoping to hear something different from Tom – that Dylan was home sick, for instance. 

[Sandy]

Michael, I apologize, as this is probably out of order. But someone asked for a list of misprints, so the text could be corrected in subsequent printings/editions. I noted just one-and-a-half.

Page 39, line 16 (from top): "Dave was all laughs that might with Linda" s/b "Dave was all laughs that night with Linda."

Page 28, lines 1-2. In the italicized German phrase kein mitleid 'no mercy', the /m/ in mitleid (and all other nouns) should be capitalized according to German spelling conventions, e.g., kein Mitleid. It's pretty clear that Dylan didn't observe this spelling nicety in his notebooks.

Back to topic.

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

Michael, I apologize, as this is probably out of order. But someone asked for a list of misprints, so the text could be corrected in subsequent printings/editions. I noted just one-and-a-half.

Page 39, line 16 (from top): "Dave was all laughs that might with Linda" s/b "Dave was all laughs that night with Linda."

Page 28, lines 1-2. In the italicized German phrase kein mitleid 'no mercy', the /m/ in mitleid (and all other nouns) should be capitalized according to German spelling conventions, e.g., kein Mitleid. It's pretty clear that Dylan didn't observe this spelling nicety in his notebooks.

Back to topic.

Sandy, it is KittyHawk who wants to know about the misprints-- probably best to PM her!

thx

[KittyHawk]

Sandy and Ellen, thanks very much for remembering that I'm collecting a list of typos.

I was aware of the might/night error, but the capitalization is a new one for the list. Many thanks!

When other errors are found, either listing them here or sending me a PM is fine. I'll take 'em any way I can get 'em.

Thanks,

- Lydia

[Sandy]

~snip~
20.)  What is your opinion of the news media's questions such as 'were they outcasts' - and they use of the word 'they' to indicate some sort of groupthink?  Why do you think that the notion of the 'Trenchcoat Mafia' was seized on so readily?  Why do you think these early notions were not corrected as it became clear they were wrong?  Do you think that mistakes of this sort lead to the 'school shooter profile'?  To what degree does looking for easy explanations for complex problems come into play to explain these sorts of notions?
~snip~

This application of boilerplate--they were outcasts, loners, members of the Trenchcoat Mafia, etc.--is probably very hard to avoid when reporters are covering rapidly breaking news, particularly when there are competing reporters for different newspapers, television stations. In addition to getting the facts of the story, readers/viewers expect some interpretation, some explanation, and a news source that doesn't offer that Johnny on the spot is likely to lose readers and viewers to another than offers some interpretation, no matter how premature. There is an economic pressure to scoop, own and package the story.

This is somewhat different from the persistance of the story that the one girl died as a martyr to her faith, one which appears to have solidified so strongly in her parents' and congregation's hearts that it resists alternative descriptions or explanations of her sensless death. I'll wait to weigh in on that when it comes up in discussion.

A good deal of the work that Dave has undertaken is to rectify that rush to explanation. While that work is an exemplary piece of journalism, it also merges into historical writing, trying to discover what can be discovered about the why and wherefore and placing in its human and historical context.

[Desecra]

Debbie - here is the wiki on Dunblane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

Des, I was actually aware of Dunblane as well - but I tend not to think of it in the same light as Columbine for the same reason I don't think of the shooting of the Amish children in Nickle Mines in the same category - it was an adult shooter from outside of the school who comes into the school.  In that way it reminded me more of cases like the shooting in the Capitol in 1998 when Russell Watson entered the building and shot and killed two officers.

I tend to think that three things separate Columbine from these other shootings - students were killing students, there were two shooters and the shooters were right on the cusp of becoming adults legally.

Thanks, Michael.  And thanks, Des, for bringing this to our attention, even though it does sound much different with an older man as the shooter.  Still horrifying to think of the little children killed.

Thanks for explaining, Michael.  Yes, the circumstances were quite different, and I don't know if anybody really knows why Hamilton did it, although it looks as if he was planning it.   It led to changes in the gun laws in the UK.     What really surprised me was that doing a search for it brings up so little compared to the vast amount about Columbine.    I was just wondering why that is. 

One of the things that touches me (and many others, I'm sure) about both Columbine and Dunblane is that they remind me that parents can't protect our children - for all our best efforts, we can't keep them safe.    In that way, the two events are similar.   Columbine also makes me think, as a parent, of fighting whatever drove Harris and Klebold (i.e. making sure my child doesn't grow up like that).    I don't feel that way about Dunblane, presumably because Thomas Hamilton was older.     But thinking about it - if parenting has an influence at 17/18, it may still have an influence later in life - I should be just as worried about my child growing up like Hamilton.   

[dejavu]

17.)  What did you think of the reaction of the Klebolds?  Were you surprised that Tom suspected his son right away?  Does it seem particularly odd that he reacted this way, given the response of the Harrises?

Tom Klebold appeared to base his suspicion of Dylan on the fact that Nate Dykeman suggested Dylan’s possible involvement to him, and then when Tom found Dylan’s trenchcoat missing, he could do nothing to refute the possibility.  At that point, awful and unbelievable as it might have seemed to Tom, it was a possibility he knew he had to deal with.  I think it was a reflection of his moral code and his personality that he chose to deal with it by being more cooperative than the Harrises.  His first instinct was to help the police defuse the situation if possible (by calling 911); and then to protect his son and get assistance for himself (by calling a lawyer).  The Harrises, by comparison, just struck me as putting themselves and their own reputation first.

[dejavu]

18.)  In 'First Assumption' we get to meet Dwayne Fuselier.  What do you think of his response to the attack as opposed to the other law enforcement officers?  Were you impressed by his competence right off?  Do you think that (because we have been introduced to others such as Sheriff Stone) we are more inclined to view him favorably in contrast?

I really took a liking to Dwayne Fuselier, because of his professional manner and competence.  His background as a hostage negotiator and psychologist sounded perfect, coupled with the fact that he didn’t come across in a high and mighty know-it-all manner that said “FBI agent.”  I was impressed that he was able to keep doing his job despite the pressure of having a son in danger at the school.

After reading about Sheriff Stone and some of the other cops who didn’t seem to be doing enough to resolve the standoff, it was a relief to know that someone with Fuselier’s experience had appeared on the scene.  I think he deserved to be viewed favorably, but it couldn’t hurt the reader’s perception of him to have already read about Stone.

[dejavu]

19.)  What is the 'First Assumption'?  Is it that there was a terrorist attack?  That there were hostages?  Or that it was a large conspiracy?  Or does this refer to the assumptions of the news media?  In retrospect do these assumptions make sense (i.e., can you understand why there was this confusion)?

The book uses all of these terms at one point or another.  They are actually an interrelated set of circumstances, not mutually exclusive, and seem at first to apply to the Columbine situation because of the number of apparent gunmen.  

“The detective brought Fuselier up to speed before he arrived at the school … He assumed it was a terrorist attack.”  It’s not clear to me on rereading whether “He” is supposed to mean the detective or Fuselier (top of page 70) but in any case I took that to be Fuselier’s assumption going in, either because the detective had said so or because Fuselier determined that the facts fit what he knew of terrorist attacks based on his own background on the domestic terrorism task force.

Since the FBI distinguishes between hostage and nonhostage situations, and Fuselier organized a negotiation team upon arrival, his first assumption also included the idea that there were hostages.  And because of the apparent magnitude of the attack, the detectives’ assumption was that a large conspiracy would have to be involved.  One other assumption on the part of Fuselier is mentioned:  “multiple gunmen demanded multiple tactics.”  He couldn’t afford to lump a large number of shooters into a “they,” the way the media first did.

In truth, it wasn’t a terrorist attack, there weren’t hostages, and only two shooters were involved, but it’s understandable how the multiple appearances of Eric and Dylan in different outfits and in different locations gave rise to these other assumptions.  

[dejavu]

20.)  What is your opinion of the news media's questions such as 'were they outcasts' - and the use of the word 'they' to indicate some sort of groupthink?  Why do you think that the notion of the 'Trenchcoat Mafia' was seized on so readily?  Why do you think these early notions were not corrected as it became clear they were wrong?  Do you think that mistakes of this sort lead to the 'school shooter profile'?  To what degree does looking for easy explanations for complex problems come into play to explain these sorts of notions?

This application of boilerplate--they were outcasts, loners, members of the Trenchcoat Mafia, etc.--is probably very hard to avoid when reporters are covering rapidly breaking news, particularly when there are competing reporters for different newspapers, television stations. In addition to getting the facts of the story, readers/viewers expect some interpretation, some explanation, and a news source that doesn't offer that Johnny on the spot is likely to lose readers and viewers to another than offers some interpretation, no matter how premature. There is an economic pressure to scoop, own and package the story.

I agree with Sandy regarding the difficulty of getting facts right while covering breaking news stories.  It is easy for the media to jump on sociological explanations with which readers or viewers can easily identify (outcasts, loners) or which, conversely, have an unusual name and will  therefore stick out in their minds (like the term Trenchcoat Mafia).  

To a degree, this reflects a tendency to look for easy explanations or complex problems – a tendency to grab at obvious things without getting below the surface.  It also reflects a tendency to want to answer the question of “Why” right NOW, when in truth it may be impossible to do justice to this question without a lot of detailed research after the immediate crisis has passed.

The persistence of these notions over time may be attributed to several things.  First, the daily media moves on to cover other breaking news stories and has no time to dig into the accuracy of previously reported stories.  Second, even if follow-up feature stories attempt to clear up notions like these, it must be hard to catch the public’s attention again and get the public to unlearn notions which it now holds as truth.

Mistakes of this sort do seem to be involved in “profiling.”  Other people here have already pointed out some of the mistaken ways in which profiling has been used.  (I always think of Gus Van Sant – I believe that’s his name – as someone called to breaking news stories to predict who might be involved, based on profiling.)  However, I will say, when the person doing the profiling is a so-called professional with a former FBI background, I would expect more accuracy and less tendency to embrace the stereotypes than the general public might have, so there must be more complex reasons why the professional profilers get it wrong.  Perhaps, rather than thinking that profilers are guilty of the same sloppy thinking that news media and the general public fall into, the truth is that it’s often simply impossible to profile accurately despite all the precautions one might take.  

[dejavu]

21.)  In 'The Boy In The Window' we are told the story of Patrick Ireland's survival.  What struck you most about the events involved in his rescue?  Were you surprised at the level of detail we were presented about this event?

The level of detail was considerable, but since Patrick Ireland will be one of the survivors, it helps to read the full story of what he endured in the library, and how he managed to get out.  Furthermore, his story is one of the most inspiring, and this section of the book is one of the most gripping.  I felt so sad when his friends, Makai and Dan, had to leave him in the library to flee for their own safety.  Without having the medical knowledge to say for sure, Patrick’s brain and body appeared to be acting like that of a stroke victim after he finally regained consciousness:  I was struck by how little he could do, and yet how hard he tried.  I was amazed that it took him three hours to get to the library window.

After he got to the window, I had to reread the description of how he actually got over the ledge several times before it made sense in my mind.  The second full paragraph on page 78 talks about how he “worked himself upward” against the wall and then “he flipped around.”  On first reading, I thought that after he flipped around, he was sitting on the window ledge with his feet dangling out the window, and I didn’t understand why he couldn’t just jump.  After reading the third paragraph closely (several times), I realized that he “worked himself upward” must have meant that he got himself into a standing position with feet on the floor inside the library, and that “he flipped around” must have meant that he turned himself around to face the window, but still with feet on the floor.  That’s the only scenario that would correspond with the information that the window ledge was still at his waist level, and that he would have to lean over it and “fold in half” to tumble out head first.  Perhaps this could have been written a bit more clearly.

Other than that, I was struck by the confusion on Patrick’s part (due to his brain injury) about what the SWAT team was doing and about how he hoped to “get out” using the armored truck.  He didn’t seem to recognize the SWAT team as his rescuers, and the SWAT team was confused about his behavior.  “What was he trying to do?  They assumed he understood he was the patient.  He did not.  He had to get out of there.”  This was very dramatic reading.  I was also struck by the way he could perform some speech functions but not others, and seemed to understand at least part of what had happened to him.  He knew his phone number and could say it, but couldn’t say his first name although he did know it.

[dejavu]

22.)  Miscommunication seems to have begun as soon as the first press conference was held - that there were three shooters, that 25 people were dead and errors about the motives.  What was the impact of these erroneous assumptions?  Do you feel that they should not have had the press conference - or if it was held, what should have been done to improve on it?

Considering the national (and international) prominence of this story, and the number of worried parents and residents locally, I think a news conference was necessary.  But I think there should have been tighter control of – and better judgment used about – what was said.  Basic facts regarding what was known should have been released (the time of the attack, the number of responders, whatever could be pinpointed with certainty).  But there should have been no release of conflicting information and uncertain assumptions. 

Sheriff Stone had been thrust into uncharted waters, for him, and may have been trying to seem important by giving out answers (was that political grandstanding?).  The press may have felt he had “no hedging, no bluster, no bullshit,” but the excerpts from the press conference (page 86) show quite a few inconsistencies and erroneous off-the-cuff statements.  The impact of these assumptions was probably to further obscure the truth, which was already in peril from all the assumptions the press had been making.

[dejavu]

23.)  As opposed to Robyn and Nate, Chris Morris called police right away.  Given what happened to him, do you think he did the right thing?  Do you think he accidentally made himself the center of the investigation, as Eric and Dylan were dead?

Since Robyn and Nate had not admitted having knowledge of Eric and Dylan’s activities to police, and since Eric and Dylan were dead, Chris Morris did become at least a “person of interest” and a prime source of information, if not actually a suspect.  But I think he did the right thing by calling police right away.  Chances are, the police would have found out about his connections to the primary suspects anyway, because they had worked together at Blackjack.  By cooperating, he provided police with important information sooner than it otherwise would have become available.  And Chris's cooperation, and that of his parents, probably made it easier for his innocence to eventually be established.