Collegiate Times

Daniel was a senior math major ready to graduate. What reason could he possibly have to want to commit suicide? Did he have any exterior stresses like rejection letters from graduate schools he might have applied to? Who was this person who sent the email? Did he have a roommate off campus? My brother and his friend roomed with Daniel summer of 2007 (this past summer), and Daniel didn't show signs of attempts or suicidal feelings. There must be more. How did he get the gun? Was the gun found in the car with him? What is "protocol"? Did they really do everything possible to help him if he did show warning signs? Did they really think that he would openly admit that he wanted to commit suicide or that he had possession of a gun?

I understand all of Yuna's questions and would like to know the answers to them, but I also know that the school and police can only do so much. You can't arrest or force into treatment everyone who is reported to have problems. For one thing, there aren't enough resources available and for another, you could be acting on false alarms. No matter what happened, the loss of another life is a horrible tragedy.

Here is the Korea Times article with some more info: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/nation_view.asp?newsIdx=15583&categoryCode=117 Also a Roanoke Times article: http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/143522

I'm one of the two people he told, and I sent the email, Yuna Leem He never met both of us in real life, we just played World of Warcraft together, so I'm sure he felt comfortable telling us he was going to kill himself. He was probably pretty good at hiding his feelings. He was cool as hell to talk to over the microphone while playing the game with him, but on AIM, he was pretty depressed.

While it sucks that he died and all, our anonymous reporter is right. He pretty much denied treatment when refusing to know me. And it is possible for people to pull pranks, so the police didn't really know who to believe. Just sucks that they didn't email me telling me they decided to stop caring about him after the visit.

Shaun, I applaud your efforts to help someone. I'm not sure that the police "stopped caring" though. If they found nothing to indicate a problem and they continued to visit him, it could be viewed as harassment. Our society seems to have a need to blame someone. If this was indeed a suicide, then the the fault lies with Daniel. If it was not, then the fault lies with whoever pulled the trigger.

Yeah, didn't really mean to point a finger at them, obviously he chose to do it himself or whatever. Simply saying I'm pretty disappointed they didn't email me after they visited or anything.

Why was he depressed? Of all the articles I have read about Daniel Kim, they have failed to mention why he was depressed. If in fact he had committed suicde because of his "depression", what had caused it? His own family does not even know all the details of his suicide. Virginia Tech did not release any of the information to his family and they had to read it through articles just to find out how he died. His family claims he had nothing to be depressed about and yet the school failed to mention they had received a alarming email about their own son. The parents should be informed about the police department checking up on Daniel and the reasons why they did especially if it had to do with suicide.

I'm not sure that anyone is trying to point fingers. These kinds of questions are only normal after an unexpected death like Daniel's. Perhaps people are just wondering what more could have been done to prevent this tragedy. Maybe more could have been done. Maybe things could be changed to prevent deaths in the future. It is terribly sad that a life was lost, but there is always room for improvement in the future. If the current protocol is not effective, then improvements should be made to ensure that it is.

That's the thing about depression - there doesn't have to be a reason.

the family isn't adamantly disagreeing that it was a suicide... the article in the korea times was written without the korea times even speaking to the family. a lot of the information that is posted here or on the other articles are all one sided, without the journalists making an effort to contact the family to the the TRUTH. whats wrong with all of you?

I'm confused about the last post -- the Korea Times article says "The police have assumed the cause of death to be suicide, though family members refuted that, saying he had no reason to kill himself." The Roanoke Times article says the number for the family was disconnected. It's very obvious that there's a search for the truth.

It's unfortunate that this student did this to themselves, but at least he didn't go on some sort of spree against others on campus. Thank goodness for that!

I'm not saying that Virginia Tech's response was correct - only that the Roanoke Times article clearly says the family's line was disconnected. I highly doubt they would ignore that angle of the story. I'm not sure how much you know about Virginia, but there are no formal documents to be had -- everything they would want (police report, academic records, etc.) are not accessible to journalists because the state has determined them to be private information. If the family wants to talk, I imagine many news organizations (including the Roanoke Times and the Collegiate Times) would be willing to listen. If you want to know the truth, I'd recommend lobbying the state legislature to put limits on the school's and police's ability to keep secrets. Not much more journalists can do.

IF ALL THIS INFORMATION WAS RELAYED TO TECH, why didn't they DO ANYTHING? you would assume after the april massacre that tech would learn from their mistakes (how they knew of cho seung hui's mental state etc)... You are kidding RIGHT?? "Why didn't tech do anything?" Uhh, because 1. tech didn't want to spend any money investigating/assisting the student 2. (refer to item #1). Go Hokies! Yeah right....

What was Tech supposed to do? Lock this kid up in a rubber room somewhere? Is that what Tech should do anytime they get a random tip that someone might be depressed? And then how many times would they get sued for infringement of rights?

What Tech could have done was to inform his family so that even if the school couldn't do anything, his family could make appropriate arrangements. Oh, and the school didn't receive a "random tip" that there was a chance that Daniel "might be depressed." Tech received TWO tips informing the school that Daniel had plans to take his own life and had the means to do it. No one here is saying that it is completely Tech's fault that Daniel took his life. What people are asking is if Tech really did EVERYTHING they could to help the situation at hand. What is this protocol that every article seems to mention? Depression is not a joke. Neither is suicide. When there is even a tiny possibility that someone may be considering suicide, it should be taken seriously.

let me introduce myself... i am daniel's sister. he was my only brother and he left me on december 9th. to the person who posted on december 25th ("what was tech supposed to do? lock this kid up..."): do you even understand how i might be feeling right now? how my family might be feeling? when we had absolutely NO IDEA about any of this when tech knew all along? they received TWO to THREE warnings about my brother's depression and his suicidal thoughts but they failed to do anything about it. the least they could have done was called US, his FAMILY, and told us about it so that we could have brought him home. their first mistake was not even informing us and letting us find out in this way... with his death. it wasn't a random tip - they were both sent from his friends. HIS FRIENDS. that's not a random tip. they each said to tech "i have a friend at tech who is extremely depressed and suicidal and i am very worried about him." the email that was sent to tech's health center had some disturbing information, a direct quote what my brother said about committing suicide. that is something that you don't take lightly or as a joke. have you ever experienced going through something like this? having your own brother or your own sister, someone who's looked over you for as long as you've been alive, take their own life? HAVE YOU? if you haven't, please don't even say anything. IF it is for the benefit of the student to have their family be notified THEN tech should not even have to worry about getting sued. if anything the family would be grateful towards the school. IF tech continues to take action in this way then they should expect more problems to bark up their alley. THE FACT IS - we were not notified of my brother's depression. tech was first notified in october. that was TWO months ago. then again in november. do you realize that my brother could have been saved? DO YOU REALIZE ANY OF THAT? no, you don't. none of you do. if you are going to write comments about how it's only daniel's fault or some other ignorant sh-- like that then please DO NOT write anything AT ALL. it is insulting to read certain comments that have been written below. this is MY PERSONAL LOSS, not any of yours (unless you are a friend of daniel's or a family member). if you have any comments about wanting to help my family in trying to figure out why tech ignored the warnings then please do so by emailing me.

To Jeannette and your family: I'm sorry for your loss. The only thing I can say is that there are privacy laws. Also, Daniel was an adult so VT can't go around calling parents and telling them they have received warnings. That sucks because lives could be saved, but that's not Tech's fault. People don't seem to understand that. The student has to sign a release just so parents can see GRADES. So it's very hard to get around laws to call parents or family and say, "We have reason to believe your son is suicidal..." Sad and unfair? Yes, but what can you do?

Jeannette, I am so sorry for your family's and your loss. Tech did everything they legally could. When a tip comes in regarding something like this, the most a university can do is go to the individual and ask them if they need help. Believe it or not, sometimes people will ask for help, or at least admit that they are a danger to themselves or others. If they refuse help, you cannot take them forcibly. If authorities detain someone, even if it is for their own sake, it is a violation of their civil rights. I'm sorry that he did hurt himself, but what if it was a prank e-mail and Tech or the Blacksburg Police detained him and sent him for evaluation, you would be as equally as outraged about what was done. As far as your parents not being notified, your brother was a legal adult. He was responsible for himself. Because of HIPAA and other privacy laws, your brother's information could not be shared unless he expressly gave permission. He obviously did not grant that permission. Both of these issues were discussed extensively after April 16th. I believe Tech is extremely sensitive to this type of situation and will do anything within its legal limits to protect its students and faculty. Again I am sorry for your loss.

Jeanette, I've also been hurt by depression in my family, and I am so sorry for what you are going through. I tend to agree that Tech did everything it legally could have, although I wonder if the police could have investigated further. This isn't to say, however, that this is the way it SHOULD be. I think you could get your story out and let lawmakers know that there is a very dark side to HIPAA, FERPA and other privacy laws that needs to be addressed.

Jeanette, I would love to get in touch with you but am not sure how to. My brother was murdered in April at Virginia Tech. I would want to talk to you privately but am not sure how to since I am not comfortable posting my email address on here. I am on facebook however if that is way we could communicate. Let me know. I am sorry you are also having to go through this horrible loss. I wish I could make it better for you or say it will get easier. All I can do is be friend who has also lost their only brother this year. Please contact me sometime. Angela

I am extremely sorry for your loss. My heart goes out to your entire family.

I'm sorry for your loss, Jeanette.

OK. we now know that Tech asked police to do wellness check. How that wellness check is done by police ? What kind of reports were given to Tech to decide the warning was UNTRUE. Did Tech followed care manual ? Then he must have been interyiewed by psychologist-on-call. That is according to MANUAL. Was it done ? Just that Kim denied knowing Shaun gave Tech enough reason to find the warning to be UNTRUE? COME ON Mr.Hincker , are u dealing with a elementary school kids ? Enough is Enough. Stop blaming Kim.The fact is that YOU (Mr.Hincker and all of your staff ) didn't care. You never followed up except calling police. If just calling police is following up , then I pray for all Tech students. I hope all students know now how Tech is treating a warning.

1 ; How long did it take CARE TEAM to be notified of situation ? 2 ; How long did it take police to repond ? 3 ; Are the police officers trained to do psychiatric evaluation ? ( Also how long did the police talk to him ? ) 4 ; Is there any report to support Tech and police's claim that they did everything they could ? 4 ; Is it still ongoing investigation ? 5 ; Is Tech in close contact with Kim's family ? 6 ; Is there a report of the FIRST WARNING ? ( i only read about warning in early November ) 7 ; What was basis of Tech's decision to make the WARNING to be UNTRUE ? (Was it just because of Kim's denial of knowing Shaun ?) 8 ; Did Tech follow the MANUAL ? 9 ; Was there a note or witness ? 10 ; Did Tech give all the help the family need ? I can probably go on for 100 more , but these questions shoud be answered by Tech . Everything i read is so vague , i would like to have a detailed answers. Not just excuses but the facts.

Questions, you make 10 great points, and could probably make 100 more great ones. The problem is that the police have ruled this an ongoing investigation, meaning they can keep their files closed indefinitely. And Virginia Tech doesn't have to release anything because of privacy rules. There could be legitimate answers to all of your questions, but we may never know because no one is asking and, very likely, no one would tell us the facts anyway.

I know for sure that there is no investigation going on by any police dept. I am not sure about Tech.I am also sure that someone will be asking a lot of questions than I did.

jeannette, i am so sorry... there is many things could not understand... but the TRUE will be WIN!!!

it is not an ongoing investigation. they closed this case.

Privacy laws exist for a very specific and very important reason - individuals, generally, don't want the state, its institutions, or its agents, interfering with their personal lives. The fact of the matter is that depression is unfortunate and suicide is terrible, but neither is something that is efficiently or ethically handled by any sort of state institution. Mr. Kim, as a legal adult in the Commonwealth of Virginia, is entitled to not have the state intrude upon what he considers his own personal physical or mental issues unless one of two conditions is met: either he asks the state to intervene on his behalf (i.e., he checks himself into a hospital), or he demonstrates that he poses a significant danger to others (i.e., he routinely writes notes that indicate he wants to commit murder). If I understand the facts of this case correctly, he simply did not wish to have the state (or anyone else) intervene. We can argue forever about whether or not that is his prerogative, but at the end of the day (and this will likely sound especially cruel, even though such is not my intention), Mr. Kim chose to disregard the help offered to him by his friends and the police and made the decision to take his own life. My condolences go out to Mr. Kim's family, but I urge people to take caution in their assessment that Tech and the police 'didn't do everything they could.' Try to remember that the law restricts them from doing a lot of things (the laws were equally restrictive in how state institutions could deal with Cho's mental disorder, as you will recall), and try to consider also how it would feel to be in a position where the police and others routinely knock on your door to let you know that someone thinks you have a mental problem. Think before pointing fingers.

to Kyle Minor, You must have information about how Tech and police handled this case. well... why don't you share it with us. please. No one is pointing fingers to anyone. It's just that too many things kept from public. I think we have right to know.

To 'just a friend,' please tell me where it is written in any legal document that you have a 'right to know' anything at all. I'm all for transparency in government, but you have to keep in mind here (and I keep going back to this) that Mr. Kim was legally an adult, and as such is entitled to privacy of his records even postmortem. You wouldn't ask a hospital to open its ER records and divulge every cause of death and every set of conditions for every ER patient who dies - you aren't entitled to that information. That's why police and doctors have 'boards of inquiry' and such rather than open court trials - in order to protect the privacy of the records of individuals who ostensibly would not want their records divulged. I don't have any more information about this case than what has been printed in the article and the comments posted below.

Ok well ..... , I think it's time to let the dogs out. Here is the email Tech received from Shaun. Please read this and share it with your parents so you can have a better understanding of the pain Kim's family is suffering. Knowing that the school, they entrusted with their son's well being was just sitting on this kind of warning. Even trying to convince people that they didn't have a choice but decide this warning to be UNTRUE .So I will share it with all of you. You can all decide if this warning wasn't serious enough for school to really act on it. Dear health center, This is serious email,this is not a joke. I am Shaun Pribush, a student at RPI, but I am emailing because me and some other individuals are very worried about our friend at Virginia Tech, Daniel Kim. Daniel has been acting very suicidal recently, purchasing a $200 pistol, and claiming he'll go through with it. In one incident, he said on Friday, he would do it after the weekend, but then told us he failed to go through with it. On about November 2nd, Daniel told me and a friend over "Instant Messenger" that he just swallowed 22 pills and said this is the end and signed off, but on the morning of November 5th, he logged onsaying "third time will be a charm i made myself puke up the pills when i was on the road and then i f***ing couldnt shoot myself so then i was thinking about getting into a car accident then i got all depressed over that shit and slept in my car. next time i wont be a f***ing p***y " We are very concerned for his safety and are unsure the next time he might attempt suicide or go through with it, please forward this to whocan give him the best care. Once again, this is very serious, this is not s joke. Please update me if you acknowledge this and take action so I know if I reached the right email address.Thank you. - Sincerely Shaun. Now I want Mr. Minor and Mr. Coward to tell me what they think. I don't have a right to know but i would like to know . Please.

Kyle, I understand the needs for privacy, but the "right to know" is clearly defined in federal and state freedom of information acts, look at www.opengovva.org for a primer. My fear is that the the police are using one of the loopholes, an ongoing investigation, to keep information from the public -- the roanoke times article, granted its old, said that it was an open investigation. There may be more information for the public now. I'm hoping the CT tries to find out more information.

Kyle Minor is right... that's the bottom line. As unfortunate as it is, there is nothing anyone could have done to prevent this! If someone wants to commit suicide THAT BADLY they're going to find a way to do it. If they aren't going to do it, they seek help like Minor said. That letter is very telling, but again what can they do if Kim said he didn't know the kid from RPI or didn't want help? Should they drag him to the health center? People have rights and you can't just strip them of those even if you are trying to save their life. When we go away to college we're adults and the school, parents, friends can only do so much. Blaming VT and asking why didn't they do more won't bring him back. It should be looked at so they can see if it can be prevented from happening again, but I suspect they did all they could LEGALLY do.

To Bottom Line and Kyle Minor , here is CARE TEAM MANUAL ; PSYCHOLOGICAL EMERGENSY PROTOCOL . iF A STUDENT MADE AN ACTUAL SUICIDE ATTEMPT AND/OR EXHIBITS SUICIDAL IDEATIONS, HE OR SHE MUST BE SEEN BY THE PSYCHOLOGIST ON CALL. Do you know if that was done ? Do you know if Tech really followed PROTOCOL ? Tell me please.

I am not pointing fingers like you might say. I just want to know what was done. I can't find anything about what was done except calling police. And finding this warning to be UNTRUE. Only god knows when any of us may be going through same thing as Kim did. All I am trying is know the facts so we can make changes.

Just a friend, yes it does say that, but again what are they going to do, drag him there? What if he says, I am fine, I have never thought about committing suicide... I refuse to go. I don't know for sure, but I don't think they can force a person. I don't even know how you would. You're in your apt and say no I'm not going, slam the door, and ignore them. You're off campus, an adult... what are they going to do?

Bottom Line, From what i understand , Tech didn't even try. How can they say they did all they could when they didn't even try ? I believe the PROTOCOL is there for Tech to follow it or try to follow it. When Tech failed to do that Tech can't never say 'WE DID EVERYTHING WE COULD.'

I can't find the Care Team manual because the entire Dean's website is down. In any case, I'd like to approach this from a different angle. If anyone in this situation had the freedom to do whatever he wanted without worrying about legality, it is Shaun. Daniel apparently told Shaun of his suicide plans, and Shaun sent an email to the health center. Shaun may have been the only person who could have directly contacted Daniel's family to tell them what he knew. Certainly the email he sent had noble intentions, and it's not as though we've all thought about what we'd do if someone confides their suicide plans in us, but perhaps the lesson learned is that we can't (and maybe shouldn't) rely on VT care team or the Blacksburg PD in these matters. No matter how wrong we may think it is, they are subject to laws and regulations that encumber their actions. As a side note, I'd be curious to see statistics describing the success of programs like Care Team anyway. It sounds like something the university has to have because it sounds good, but I wonder if it, or any similar programs elsewhere, are really all that effective.

Jason , you have a point there. So i guess Shaun was expecting a follow up from Tech, and when he didn't hear anything about how Tech handled his email, Shaun must have assumed that Tech did whatever they need to take care of it. Correct me if i am wrong.

Bottom Line, the care manual states "CARE TEAM MANUAL ; PSYCHOLOGICAL EMERGENSY PROTOCOL . iF A STUDENT MADE AN ACTUAL SUICIDE ATTEMPT AND/OR EXHIBITS SUICIDAL IDEATIONS, HE OR SHE MUST BE SEEN BY THE PSYCHOLOGIST ON CALL". From Shaun's email, Daniel made 2 suicide attempts in one day. First by swallowing pills then trying to shoot himself. His family is not blaming VT because they think it's going to bring him back, they're blaming VT because VT should have done more. We entrust VT to take care of our children yet they seem to not give a crap about the welfare of them. VT stated that they went to visit Daniel at his apartment and he appeared to be fine and he said he didn't know the student from RPI. Shaun and Daniel never met in real life - they met over the internet. So maybe Daniel didn't know that Shaun attended RPI. Everyone puts on a facade when they are trying to hide their emotions or their mental state, if you're a police officer or even a teacher, you should know that. You are supposed to take psychology in order to pick things like this up. The fact that VT said they did "everything" in order to prevent that from happening, is disgusting. They did not do "everything" in order to prevent that from happening. They didn't even care when they got the warnings about Daniel's welfare. What if ONE person from the health center "broke the law" and told his family about him, don't you think that Daniel would still be here? He wanted to take a semester off and collect himself again. The police and VT are hiding many things from the public and also from the family and they are despicable for doing so.

And again Friend of Fam, what are they to do when someone (not just Daniel, but ANYONE) refuses to see the oncall psychologist? I know the care team manual says that. I read it. And he said he didn't even know Shaun from the Internet? It sounds like he refused knowing him at all and refused any allegations about committing suicide. Their hands are tied from that point forward! Imagine if they had broken the law and then Daniel could sue them for sooo many things! There are 27,000 students @ VT and I am willing to bet a lot of them have thought, threatened, and attempted suicide. Hopefully VT does what they can to save them, but not everyone can be helped. It's all coulda, woulda, shoulda. Maybe the Kim family should join lawsuit w/ the 4/16 victims as it is sure to bring solace to their life.

Bottom Line, let's not make a statement here unless you know for sure. For all i know Tech never offered him a chance to see the oncall psychologist. I don't know if oncall psychologist was even notified of situation.And where do you read that Daniel denied knowing Shaun from the Internet. I didn't see that. Can you point it out to me , please ?

Just a Friend, I am not making a factual statement. I am just posing the question/situation where the person refuses to see the oncall psychologist. What can you do then? I was asking did he say he didn't know Shaun from the Internet? It lists above in the article: The allegations that were made in the e-mail (in regards) to Kim were not true; he denied knowing the person that sent the e-mail." Even if he denied knowing him, you'd think he would say, "I don't really know him" or "I know him from the Internet." It SEEMS (and I know we don't know), but that he denied knowing him @ all. Also, if he denied know Shaun and said the statement was untrue then Tech has no proof he ever threatened or tried to kill himself therefore they wouldn't be liable to take him to the oncall psychologist.

Interesting dicsussion. Note, however, that, according to the most recent posts, the VT CARE team would have failed to perform its duties if a student attempted to commit suicide, failed, and nobody ever found out, and subsequently tried again and succeeded. This same argument was had about Cho's mental state; it is not in the best interest of the protection of individual freedoms to have the state intervene whenever someone thinks someone else is mentally ill. Suppose I were to call the health center right now and say "Just a Friend told me he was going to kill himself! Please help him!" Despite the fact that you have not done so, I have invited a sort of harassment on you since now the CARE team needs to get involved. So they show up at your door and you say "nope, never said it. See ya!" and they leave (because that is their legal obligation). That is, in effect, what happened to Cho prior to April - someone (not himself) assessed that he might have a mental problem. He, as far as I can tell, showed up in court like he was supposed to (a different case, since the assessment indicated that he was a danger to others as well), and pretty much said "I'll go to outpatient care" which you can do in VA without penalty. It wasn't an admission of insanity; it's the way the state opts to mesh the freedoms of the individual with its obligation to protect the general public. So I ask again. . . what is it, exactly, that VT should have done? Should they have harassed him until he admitted he was suicidal? Should they have forced him to see the psychologist against his will? I'd argue no - VT has an obligation to protect its students against external threats (such as mass murderers - not to bring up a sore subject, since I think VT did everything it could legally have done in April and I commend them on a difficult job well done); the responsibility for individuals to contend with their own problems, however, falls with the individual. Tech makes psychologists available as part of the health fee. If you choose not to utilize them, that's your business. But you can't seriously tell me that it is the reponsibility of the administration to break into peoples' homes and dorms to drag them to counseling they don't necessarily believe that they need.

Anonymous coward, I also am aware of the privacy laws and their applicability. You might try contacting the Christiansburg PD to see if the case is closed - since this really isn't much of a 'high importance news story' (especially now with the situation in Pakistan), it is unlikely to recieve any more coverage in the Roanoke Times. As always, CT reporting is shoddy at best (and, of course, is even more mediocre while we are on semester break), so I'd go straight for the source. Keep in mind also that, despite all the evidence (and the hand wringing on this forum), the police for whatever reason may still have reason to believe that this particular case is not a suicide (again, I haven't been following this too closely so I'm not sure about that). If that's the case, they may still have the case open in order to facilitate a speedier assessment. Either way, the case won't remain open indefnintly and at some point the facts will become a matter of public record. Again, though, the PD will be the best source for information at this point.

For all of you who think that VT should have done something here, you're wrong. Bottom Line has the right point here, in that people have their own rights and we as Americans have to pay a certain price for our freedom (after we reach adult age). That price is responsibility for oneself. Noone will be looking out for your every step, noone will be asking you if you are sad and if you need attention. You are expected to take control of yourself and the course of your life. Without definitive information regarding a possible crime or some sort of observable endangerment, police, counselors, doctors, and other authority figures can do nothing to us against our will. As for the people who can reach out and help (counselors, etc), their hands are tied until a person does something for which the government can institutionalize them. Otherwise, the individual has to ask for help, and follow up by showing up to receive that help. Virginia Tech offers these resources, and as an adult, you are expected to take responsibility for yourself by seeking the help you need. I can't fathom how has this turned into Virginia Tech's fault. The school had no rights to do anything to this young man. When a person has been accused of being a threat to themselves or others, a school is not the body that investigates. At that point, which the letter clearly stated had been reached, the police are the people who investigate. Had he lived in a dorm, perhaps the VT Police or the RAs in the building may have been able to intervene, but a private adult citizen living off campus can't (or at least shouldn't) be investigated by the university. When the police arrived, the information they gathered (whether it was true or not) lead them to believe that the email Shaun sent was not true. What additional actions should they have taken? What additional actions could they have taken? As far as the online friend knew, they 'suicide attempts' could have never happened! It could have been all attention-desiring free speech. The only thing that isn't mentioned here that I might think should be done in this case is that the officers who investigate should at least let the person know where to go to get help if they want it. Virginia Tech, Police departments around the country, and all of our institutions of higher learning are not day care centers. Most people that go to colleges are about 18 years old. That means they are legally adults. That means they should be taking responsibility for themselves, and if they (very sadly) decide that they want to end their own lives, well, what do we do? All we can, mourn. I'm sorry for this senseless loss of a young man's life, but I am sick and tired of people taking everything that happens in Blacksburg and making it into incompetence of the university.

Friend of Family - "they're blaming VT because VT should have done more. We entrust VT to take care of our children yet they seem to not give a crap about the welfare of them" - this is pure garbage of the highest order. Virginia Tech gave this student and thousands of others the opportunity to take advantage of an education to make something out of their life. But in return, Virginia Tech, nor any other college, will drag someone kicking and screaming to success. Each student at that school (and all other schools) just has to take advantage of the opportunity. The fact that you 'entrust VT to take care of our children' is exactly what is wrong with a situation like this. Instead of raising a well adjusted kid, you blame the last person holding the hot potato before it drops. I see this whole enraging case as a lack of responsibility by a family that lead to their son not taking responsibility for himself. Seems like the whole family is taking it out on the school, and I haven't heard a drop of input suggesting that the family is taking any sort of responsibility for what happened, or even saying that it was the kid that should have taken responsibility for himself. They're just handing all the blame off to someone else, which appears to be this family's M.O. When did Blacksburg become the land of the blame-someone-elses?

Here, here to Minor, Not A Day Care, and needs to check themselves. I am so sick of VT getting caught in these firestorms of "they should have done more." It's what I have been saying all along. When you go away to college you're an adult and responsible for yourself. Drink too much, act like an idiot, and get arrested? It's your fault. And I agree, I think 90% or higher of kids go off to college and learn to live as adults b/c their parents raised them to succeed, but taught them to seek help when they need it to. Sorry to be harsh, but these are the facts of life. Although this is a sad and tragic loss, we are responsible for ourselves.

Wow .... That's cold. Now it's family's fault. Just how much do you know about this incident ? Did you know Daniel ? Do you know Kim family ? If you are going to post something do it based on a FACTS. Don't take anyone's side . Blaming VT. is family's M.O.? I am sure as time goes by we are going to know about this. You make your call then.It's too early to say that.

It is in no way too early to make an assessment about how the situation has proceeded. I don't think a single person on here blames the family for the tragedy - really, 'blame' is not an appropriate word anyway for a situation like suicide because the only person who caused the death here was Mr. Kim himself. You can't 'blame' VT for not interfering, because the law tells them that they are not allowed to interfere in such a situation. The same goes for the police. Knowledge of the individuals involved in this situation doesn't lend the least bit of credit to your non-argument, "just a friend." The initial outcries, as I recall, was that "Daniel would never do such a thing to himself" and so it could not have been suicide. The fact of the matter is, other people (including our own families) know precisely as much about us as we allow them to know. Daniel, clearly, didn't tell too many people that he was interested in killing himself; he denied the pleas of the ones who tried to help him, and ended his life anyway. That is his perogative; there is nobody to be held responsible for this situation. Not VT, not the police, not Kim's family. Nobody is responsible for a man's actions except for himself.

I've been holding off a response to this article to see where this conversation was going. Nothing can bring Daniel back but there are things that can be done to prevent parents from losing their kids in the same way, and that is what the Kim's are looking for. If Tech did follow proper procedure is there anyway that it can be amended to help families prevent this from happening. The day the cops came to the door, the conversation with Dan lasted less then 20 seconds. How do I know this? I answered the door. By the time I got back downstairs from waking him up the door was shut. He told me that all the cops asked him was if he knew a person named Shaun, from RPI. Dan even told me he didnt know anyone from RPI and didnt know what RPI was, we had to google it. I'd be lieing if I said I wasnt losing sleep over this, for the last 3 weeks I have been going over every situation where I might have seen something or heard something in the way he talked that might have given me an inclination that he was depressed. The way he acted was how I knew him. I was probably the last person to see him and we were joking around while watching tv, everything seemed fine. This was something that he didnt want the people around him to know about and has come as a shock to everyone that saw him that week because no one saw it in him. For the type of person that Dan was, suicide did not seem like an option. As for the investigation, the only time I have been notified by the police was the day they found him, and they came to my door asking for his parents phone number and when I called them to find out information. They have not contacted me since. His family are good people and should not be blamed or blame themselves for his death, it was his choice. However they have not been recieving very much help from the police or the school on this matter. As for the language barrier, there is none I have talked to his dad many times and he is probably easier to understand then I am and I am from this country.

I just wanted to bring up some questions and address some statements. I knew Danny from high school and when we went to separate colleges I still talked to him over AIM. To say that there were no signs of depression/suicide is not completely accurate. A friend of mine and I both talked to Danny occasionally and we both noticed a change in his personality. He'd have away messages with cursing and also at one point quoted Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody in his away message. Mama, just killed a man, put a gun against his head Pulled my trigger, now he's dead Mama, life had just begun But now I've gone and thrown it all away Mama oooh... Didn't mean to make you cry If I'm not back again this time tomorrow Carry on, carry on, as if nothing really matters Though the song isn't about suicide, there are definitely hints about escaping reality and violence. He even referred to himself as an "angry asian" in conversation frequently. Months leading up to the suicide my friend and I never got responses from him and suspected he was ignoring us for no apparent reason. To address any responses about why I observed these things about him and didn't go forward...from my conversations with him, conversations regarding his anger weren't uncommon. Extreme statements were also not uncommon. Knowing Danny, it was difficult to figure out when he was serious and when he wasn't. I would also agree with (and know about) the statements about how reserved someone can be while dealing with suicide thoughts. You can't expect him to have even told people close to him about his depression and suicide thoughts. It's a very private matter and it's not something you want people to know about. I won't really say much about the claims of murder but I never knew anyone to hate Danny and I'd like to know why anyone thinks it's such a case. I did have one question regarding one of the articles. It says "Tech's police department did a background check on Kim and discovered that there was no report of him owning a gun, Hincker said." Shouldn't there be some kind of regulated database on guns and their owners? How come the police didn't find Danny in it? Can someone say for sure whether he bought the gun or not? I don't recall seeing anything saying he definitely bought it, and I apologize in advance if I don't have my facts straight the gun ownership. It just raises questions about how safe someone can feel in Virginia if the police don't have accurate information about gun owners (assuming that Danny did buy the gun). To Danny's family and friends: I'm really sorry for all the misfortune and if anyone wants to contact me through email I'd gladly talk.

Julian, to answer your question about gun ownership, if Daniel lawfully purchased a gun from a dealer, the dealer would have done a background check either over the phone or online in federal and state databases to ensure his eligibility. However, there are not currently any federal or VA laws requiring gun owners to register their weapons. This is actually a very hot topic, as a quick internet search will show. For what it's worth, at first glance I side with the "what good does gun registration do" argument, since it is unlikely that anyone with an illegally obtained weapon would register it anyway. The only "paper trail" that would exist is if someone obtains a concealed carry permit. Then you could find out that they have the permit, but not what guns they own. For what it's worth, I'm sure that information about whether a background check was ever initiated on Daniel is available on the federal and state servers. This would most likely provide the information needed for the authorities to trace the point of sale.

For all of you who did not personally know Daniel or his family, do not even dare speak one word about this. "Friend of Family need to check themselves" - How DARE you even speak about blaming the FAMILY? His family had absolutely NO IDEA that this was going to happen, the difference is that the SCHOOL DID. "Friend of Family needs to go check themselves" - go to hell. You have done nothing but insult the family AND insult Daniel. If his family were to ever find out who you were, you better be looking over your shoulder every where you go. This is a very sensitive topic and it is so obvious that you have not one ounce of sensitivity in you. The school found out about Daniel TWO MONTHS beforehand and did not follow their care manual. Don't you think that maybe Daniel was waiting for someone to help him? NOT EVERYONE ACTS THE SAME WAY. You people all assume that every person who wants help will ask for help. EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. Please be more open minded.

There is a difference between open-mindedness and blanket acceptance of someone else's impassioned point. Like I said before, the blame here (if you can really call it blame) really lies with n person at all. I suppose that you could most logically 'blame' Daniel for his own action, but even that would be a mischaracterization, since he acted neither criminally nor (arguably) immorally. I go back to my example from before - if I were to call up the police and announce to them that 'friend of the family is crazy and is gonna kill himself,' they would be (per the VT CARE standards) obligated to check on you. To my knowledge, the police in this instance did so. The fact that Mr. Kim either didn't want their help or, perhaps, didn't understand what was going on isn't necessarily a failing of the police department or Virginia Tech. Worst case scenario, it was a misunderstanding - but from my perspective, it seems like if you were suicidal and someone knocked on your door to tell you they wanted to help and you didn't want help, you'd lie to them. I wasn't party to the conversation Mr. Kim had with the police, but the fact that no follow-up was conducted indicates that Mr. Kim probably led them to believe that the assessment of himself as suicidal was unfounded. And here's the ultimate problem with 'friend of the family's' argument: I accept that not everyone acts or thinks the same way. That is patently true. The problem here is that the law defers to the rights of the individual to act as he pleases so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others. Think of it as a non-interference principle. The police can't arrest you, for instance, when you are turning your car on based on statistics that say you might cause an accident later - similarly, they can't detain you for posing a danger to yourself unless you or your legal guardian asks them to do so. It's been pretty clear through the course of this discussion that Daniel never clued his parents in to his depression (even if he had, as an adult he was his own guardian so they would have had no legal standing). Virginia Tech as an entity may well have 'known' that someone assessed him as dangerous, but they are an educational institution and not a babysitting service. They provide an on-call psychologist in the event someone needs immediate assistance - but the school isn't responsible for leading adults around on leashes to ensure that they are doing everything they should (if we started MAKING people who are depressed go to psychologists, perhaps the school ought also MAKE all students attend every class every day or otherwise arrest them for truancy - clearly a ludicrous suggestion). I want you to note, "friend of the family," that nowhere within any of my posts have I accused Mr Kim, his family, the police department, virginia tech, or anyone else of anything at all. This case presents an important intellectual and legal challenge about the rights of the individual, and it is to that end that I have been making arguments. To insinuate that I don't have the standing to abstract away the human element of this situation and focus instead on the barebones issues it presents is intellectually dishonest. Open-mindedness really only comes (as it did after April 16) when we take a step back and look at what exactly happened with the intention of fixing problems (if they exist), rather than 'finding someone to blame for unfortunate circumstances.'

Mr. Minor , So now we have someone knew exactly what police did . and you still believe that the police did 'EVERYTHING THEY COULD' by asking ONE question ? And spending less than 30 SECONDS to make an evaluation ? I know you are not accusing anyone. but I tend to believe you are speaking for them. How does Daniel know that they were there to help him when the police didnt mention anything else but just ask if he knew someone ? And to my understanding there were no reports of what police did. Is it the way blacksburg police operate ? No report of an assignment. or are they hiding something ? The school didnt follow the PROTOCOL they set up for public to see. What good is it when it's just a formality ? Or just a jesture to make the school look better in public's view. And why Tech was still using same PROTOCOL from 2006 ? Didn't they see the need to amend it after april shooting? And you are so wrong about "no follow-up was conducted indicates that Mr. Kim probably led them to believe that the assessment of himself as suicidal was unfounded" .I hope you read comment by a witness. In 20 SECONDS ? What would be his answer if he only knew him as a screen name ? What we have - just my opinion - here is a negligence by police officers and school. I think they didnt do the LEAST they can do. not "WE DID EVERYTHING WE CAN DO " like they claim. Again its just my opinion.

http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/report/26_APPENDIX_H.pdf Go read the above web address for accurate info on FERPA and HIPPA. "When may a school disclose information to parents of dependent students? Under FERPA, schools may release any and all information to parents, without the consent of the eligible student, if the student is a dependent for tax purposes under the IRS rules. Can a school disclose information to parents in a health or safety emergency? The Department interprets FERPA to permit schools to disclose information from education records to parents if a health or safety emergency involves their son or daughter. In all of our programs here at the Department of Education, we consistently encourage parents’ involvement in their children’s education. FERPA is no exception. While the privacy rights of all parents and adult students are very important, there are clear and straightforward ways under FERPA that institutions can disclose information to parents and keep them involved in the lives of their sons and daughters at school." The above statements are from the first listed web site. If you want more here is the home address for the total report http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html

To 'a thought,' we have to keep in mind here that the school was not alerted to an 'ongoing problem.' There existed no medical history for Mr. Kim to suggest that he was having mental problems (aside from the email his friend had sent) and so the school, for all intents and purposes, had nothing to report. To 'just a friend,' I don't have the police report in my hands and I'm willing to bet that you don't either. Thus, we settle this by looking at the police report when it is released. It isn't worth speculating on what took place, but evidently the police didn't consider him a threat to others so their jurisdiction was nil. Keep in mind here that the police, the school, etc. are not here to protect us from ourselves, but rather to protect us from other people. You can't simply demand that the police intervene in all cases where someone might be depressed - not only does it stretch the resources of the PD too thin, but it also denies the inherent autonomy of an adult citizen. Again, we keep coming back to 'what could have been done.' From what I see, the only way to prevent things like this from happening is to insinuate that you believe that the other person is a threat TO OTHERS AS WELL. That's somewhat beside the point though - we seem to have a difference in opinion as to what the police are actually supposed to do. You seem to want them to have probed Mr. Kim until he admitted that he was depressed and suicidal. I contend that it isn't their job to do so, and rightfully so because of the necessary respect for individual autonomy. That difference of opinion is fine, that's why we have discussions like this. I'm just at a loss as to why we keep finding ourselves on the hunt for 'someone to blame.' The thought never seems to be entertained that maybe, just maybe, Mr. Kim really wanted to end his life (unfortunate though that might be) and he simply wasn't going to let other people interfere with that. I don't know (and nobody else does either) because I was not in his head. I just want to ensure that we think about this issue from all sides and realize that, while our emotions suggest that we want to hold someone responsible, there may not be a logical party to hold responsible.

Programs like counseling, the Care Team protocols, etc. are offered as a service to the VT community. The problem is that once they exist, many somehow irrationally expect them to solve everyone's problems. In reality, they are only useful for those who seek help. Many here are implying that Daniel Kim might still be alive had someone done more. But let's say the police questioned him further and VT told his parents. Maybe this would cause him to kill himself sooner to avoid further questioning. We can't argue what could have happened. There is no definite right or wrong way to handle this situation, and in the end I believe we can only appeal to Mr. Kim's wishes. He apparently wished to die, and he did so. Everybody is so caught up in the fact that someone should have been able to stop him. Why? Just because we all believe that living is more important than dying, that doesn't mean he felt the same way.

Mr. Minor, Did it ever occur to you that maybe he was mistreated by someone after april shooting ? What if that was the case and he decided to take revenge upon the person or persons that mistreated him ? Luckily for us he was not a violent man, but just thought of that gives me big chill. Considering that he was an asian - korean to be exact , and cho was a korean . We will never know the cause for his action but there is a possibility of something might have happened to him. What if there was a another shooting at the school. Wassn't it enough for school and police to do better than what they did ?

So now an at large member of society may be responsible? Perhaps we should place the neurons in Daniel's brain on trial next. Kyle is on point that we need to stop looking for blame. I also certainly hope that you're not insinuating that the fact that he's Korean means that his mentality resembles Cho's, though that is how your words read. The fact is that if someone else decides to copy April 16, they probably could, so long as they follow the formula: don't have any recorded mental illnesses or felony convictions, don't have any regard for your own life or the lives of others, purchase a gun, prey on the defenseless masses on campus who aren't allowed to carry guns. That's quite a difficult procedure for most people to follow. Why do you think such incidents are so rare? In general, it is an imperceptible minority of people who are willing to go to such extremes. Not that we should ignore it if someone says they're going to perpetrate such a crime, but as far as I can tell, Mr. Kim never insinuated that he would be a danger to others.

I'm simply not going to entertain a discussion that revolves around all of the possible hypothetical situations that might have led to the incident. This is among the most important issues we as a society face (that is, how to ensure that the mentally ill maintain their autonomy while protecting the rest of the citizenry from potential harm they may inflict). Are all depressed people hazardous to others? Are all suicidal people hazardous to others? At what point is the state required to step in to ensure the safety of other citizens? Is the state ultimately responsible for an individual's safety and health, or does that responsibility lie with the individual himself? These are the questions we ought to be asking, because the answers to those questions dictate the policies of the police department and the VT care teams etc. Such organizations don't just get to assert authority over people as they see fit - certain circumstances have to be met before they can forcefully engage themselves. For the police, some sort of statute has to be broken (or be about to be broken) before they can force people to do anything. Kim, as far as I can tell, didn't break any law, so the police didn't have authority. VT CARE isn't an organization that is designed to go door to door to assess mental health; as Jason T suggested, it is a service provided by the school. Are there things that can be done to prevent people from committing suicide? Sure. But those actions come at a cost of personal autonomy. I remind you here of Ben Franklin's saying, "Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Many seem to think that the difference between life or death could have been a few extra questions, or a counseling session, or parental notification. I submit to you that someone who is suicidal is not likely just "kind of" suicidal. Put yourself in his shoes: what course of events would lead you to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger? Most of us can't even fathom such a scenario. Someone who feels that suicide is the appropriate action is pretty far down the path from what we'd consider mental stability. Intervention may work in rare instances, but I'd have to think that it's quite a longshot to bring someone back from the throes of a suicidal mentality.

Jason , you are so wrong about the "Intervention may work in rare instances" . My wife was depressed for over an year, that is after she had cancer operation. We, our family , was successful in bringing her out of depression. She had attempted to take her life 3 times. But with our care and intervention she is out of danger now. She doesn't need medication either. Intervention is very important because depression is illness. With right care it can be cured. Also there are many medicine that will help your hormone balanced. Don't make a depression as an uncurable disease.

I don't think that was necessarily his point. There's a difference, though, in the different ways our society treats different diseases. Cancer, for instance, is ultimately a personal choice as to how to deal with it: you can let it eat away at you, or you can have it treated. Nobody will come to your door to drag you to the hospital and force you to have your disease treated; it's a personal decision. So, if depression is an illness (I'm not totally convinced of that, but I'll conceede it now for the sake of argument), is it our responsibility as a society to compel people to seek treatment? "Just a friend" seems to think so. I think not; it shouldn't be the responsibility of other people to care for someone who doesn't want to be cared for. You wouldn't call the police to force your wife to seek cancer treatment, so why would you call the police to force Mr. Kim to seek psychological treatment?

Kyle while that may hold true for conventional disease, depression is a condition that attacks your self-esteem, disabling a persons ability to even want to seek treatment. It is for that reason that intervention and 3rd part detection are crucial. You wouldn't blame someone's "weak immune system" for the reason AIDS was killing someone (because AIDS attacks the immune system) so you can't hold people solely responsible for "choosing" not to seek attention for depression...

And that is certainly a valid argument. But does that necessarily translate into an obligation for society to intervene? "Just a friend" seems to indicate that the responsibility for Mr. Kim's death falls squarely on the shoulders of the police and VT CARE for 'not doing more about it.' I, on the other hand, don't really think that it is appropriate or even desirable for us to have some sort of mental health police force - the very nature of the suggestion sounds eerily big-brotherish. Nonetheless, this still brings us back to the point of whether or not you can force someone else to obtain treatment. What I have been saying all along is that the concept of BLAME isn't relevant in this situation. The point here is that, for some reason, Mr. Kim didn't want treatment. You can't arbitrarily assume that people who are depressed or suicidal want treatment simply by virtue of the fact that you and I assess their condition as undesirable. It isn't about blame, or responsibility, but rather about autonomy and choice.

Mr. Minor , Like I said i have been there , and I am aware of how depressed person react. That's why i really believe the Vt. should've done more than just alerting police . And police should've spend more that 20 seconds and asked more than just one vague question before they determined that Mr. Kim is in no danger to himself or anyone else. Like his roomate said he didn't know what RPI was. it would've been different if they just asked about knowing Shaun not Shaun from RPI. Also police said they are not trained to evaluate a person's mental statue , they can only do physical part of evaluation. Police also mentioned that evaluation is done by school. So what was done then ?

We're going in circles here. You want 'more to be done' for people who are 'too depressed to seek help themselves.' I'm all for helping people who need help; what I'm afraid of is that the state (which would be the necessary purveyor of the desired assistance) will try to foist its help upon people who genuinely don't want it. I mean, if all it would require for 'augmented help' to be forced would be a short note from a friend, the floodgates for governmental intervention into the private lives of citizens would be flung wide open. It's unfortunate, certainly, that Mr. Kim did not actively seek out help. But it has struck me as odd from the beginning that Shaun, the writer of the note, knew exactly where VT was (or, at least, had heard of it presumably from Mr. Kim). It would be logical to assume that Shaun similarly indicated to Mr. Kim his own place of education (RPI). Again, this isn't meant to blame anyone, but is merely meant to illustrate that, perhaps, Mr. Kim may not have wanted any intervention. It seems quite presumptive to me to simply assume that everyone wants to be alive, and that therefore everything possible must be done to ensure that he remains alive. Suppose for a second that Mr. Kim was NOT mentally ill, and that his desire to die was both rational and deliberate. In that case, it would have been most unfortunate to have intervened at all in what would have been his personal right to make decisions regarding his own life. My position is one of non-intervention: it is presumptive to interfere with someone else's decisions unless they explicitly exhibit behavior which suggests that they pose a direct danger to my own well-being. Remember again, the role of the police (and, also, of the VT administration) is one of interpersonal protection, not 'babysitting.' The resources for Mr. Kim to have accessed help were in place and functioning (thus, both the state and Virginia Tech upheld their ends of the deal); the fact that, for whatever reason, he did not make use of those resources is wholly unfortunate, but also not relevant to a discussion of 'what should have been done.'

If a person commits suicide, there is no more unhappiness for their earthly body. This remedies their unhappiness, although they may be leaving a trail of sorrow in their wake. If someone truly believes that they are better off dead, then they will be. Death may have zero happiness value, but this is still better than unhappiness. If someone believes that achieving zero happiness is a better strategy than putting in the arduous work to achieve positive happiness, then so be it. Attempting to attain happiness may be a point of diminishing returns for some, so the easiest solution may be death. For those who feel this way, they should have the right to take their own lives. We are basing much of this discussion on the assumption that self-preservation is everyone's goal. As Kyle has pointed out, this is not always the case, and there is nothing inherently "wrong" with someone wanting to die. I have no problem with loved ones attempting to intervene if they notice a problem, but I don't expect, nor do I condone, the intervention of society at large.

As i read the e-mail , i couldn't help crying. I can picture Mr. Kim crying for help. that's what depression does to you.Impair your judgement, you can't see the help near you. You look for a help from strange places. It must have been painful 5 weeks for Mr.Kim , waiting for help that didn't come. He must 've felt deserted by everybody, must've said "ok, no one loves me" before he actually take his own life. What a sad story. We as a society need to understand more about depression. It's an illness not a disease. It impairs your judgement. Person who really wants to die, most likely never mention their plan to anyone.Because the person really wants to die. When a person talk about the missed attempt and the next plan , that is a cry for help. Please try to understand that. people with depression think much more different than normal people think.

But who is supposed to answer that cry for help? Let's leave speculation about Mr. Kim's mental state aside and simply discuss how society ought to deal with people who are depressed. At what point does a depressed person forefit his right to make an autonomous decision regarding the state of his own life? Should depressed people simply be locked away at the behest of friends and family who don't want them to kill themselves? I mean, if we say that about depression, we could easily extend that to simple reckless behavior. Call up the police when one of your friends goes out drinking every night, because he is inherently causing a danger to himself and perhaps his alcoholism is clouding his good judgment. I don't think I'd find many people who would agree with that last statement, but I don't think it is logically too far off from what people seem to want the police to have done with Mr. Kim. If we take at face value that people with severe depression are mentally incapacitated to the point where they can no longer make rational decision for themselves, then they ought to be sent to mental institutions for people who, similarly, have mental defects which prevent them from thinking rationally. Is that really what we ought to do?

Kyle , have you ever been depressed ? Or any of your family mamber went through depression ? Why don't you just keep your rationalizing to yourself ? Perhaps you are getting paid to put your comments here to make it a non issue. Is it what you are doing ? All i said was what i know about depression. It was unnecessary for you to make comment to what i said.

I don't get paid to post here. It's a public forum. I don't doubt your competence to comment on depression, and that was never in question. There are bigger questions to ask here, specifically about how society ought to handle cases just like these. Clearly, it is not enough to simply say 'there are depressed people, and they think differently and need help.' Yes, there are depressed people. Yes, they think differently. Yes, they need help. But the question is really whose responsibility it is to provide that help, and in what manner should it be provided. Depression is a SERIOUS issue, and I think how society handles people with depression is a more serious issue yet.

I am very saddened by this event and send my sympathies to the family. One thing that strikes me in a lot of these comments is that this young man's family "entrusted" him into Tech's care. People need to realize that colleges do not parent students.

I just wanted to say I'm very sorry for this families loss and I agree this could have been prevented. I am a poker friend of William and when I found this out I was deeply saddened by this for him and his family. To me breech of privacy is a small price to pay to save someones life is way more important. I hope the VT and everyother school looks at this situation and do something about it to prevent it from continueing on like this. As for the friends who sent the emails I agree that maybe they should have took the next step in contacting the family. As for blaming someone there is no one not the family or daniel himself. All the facts are not know. I again want to say I'm truely sorry this has happened to such kind hearted and good people. I have never lost someone in this manner so I do not know ur pain I will keep the Kim family in my prayers I'm sorry there is nothing more I can do to help.

Friend of the family, I'm sure you didn't really mean to publish a threat: ""Friend of Family needs to go check themselves" - go to hell. You have done nothing but insult the family AND insult Daniel. If his family were to ever find out who you were, you better be looking over your shoulder every where you go" Perhaps this threat should also be reported to the police.

I'd like to address the ridiculous nature of the idea that the police didn't do 'everything they could'. What, exactly, does that mean? It would usually mean that the police will deal with any existing situation if it creates a situation where people are not safe. I can reasonably expect that the officers spoke with him when they went to his apartment, presumably due to the email that lead them to believe that the guy was a danger to himself. From the postings below, people have indicated that they were speaking to him for less than a minute. You know what this tells me? Nothing at all about whether the officers did 'everything they could' to help him. Instead, it tells me that he did everything he could to make sure the officers left him alone as quickly as possible. What, exactly, do you want them to do if he doesn't want their attention? When will this idea of pushing your kids to be parented by a school or looked after by cops and psychologists going to end? When are people going to stop blaming a school (lately it seems to be all Virginia Tech's fault - death, global warming, watch out maybe Bhutto will be next) for crying out loud?

If you consider 20 seconds are enough time for them to do their job. Well I hope you are satisfied with 20 seconds when something happens to you.

Sometimes it takes the police 20 seconds. Sometimes it takes them 20 days. A lot of it depends on what you think 'their job' entails. I personally think that the police exist (and are paid) to protect the individual interest. That is to say, the police are charged with ensuring that nobody infringes unjustly upon anyone else's rights. Taken literally, that means that the police actually had no business showing up at Mr. Kim's home in the first place, since none of the indication they received demonstrated that he was a danger to anyone else. Mr. Kim was not engaged, I presume, in any unlawful activity, and the police aren't really charged with ensuring the mental health of every person whom they meet, so I really have trouble understanding how '20 seconds just isn't enough.' Seems to me that it was 20 seconds that they could have spent keeping other people safe from external threats - which is what they are trained to do. That they stopped by Mr. Kim's home was courteous and nice, but it cannot be rationally argued that they ought to have been ethically bound to compel an otherwise coherent and rational individual (with rights) to confess that he was in fact depressed and suicidal. Would there be outrage if the police spent 20 seconds on a murder case? Absolutely - but it is their job to solve such cases. That's why there is no outrage here - the police protect us from each other, not from ourselves.

Mr. Minor , I have some informations that you may be interested. If you are willing to post your e-mail add. here I will share it with you.

I'd rather not put my email address on here.

Well.... then I don't know how. I thought you will be really interested. Anyway i am done debating. It's just going aroud circle like you said Mr. Minor. It was good experience for me. Thank you for your opinions. One correction I want to make,"OUTRAGE " didn't start yet. I 'as a friend' won't give up until all the facts come out.

My personal opinion is that there is more truth to this story than just a young man committing suicide and his "refusal of help". I believe that before anybody speaks of Daniel and his family, you need to know all the facts involved in this investigation.

Part of the issue this discussion has had from the beginning is that half the commenters here view this as a personal struggle - everyone versus Mr. Kim, or something like that. I think the issue is FAR more broad than that, and while Mr. Kim's case provides a relevant example, his is not the only incident in consideration. To that end, not all the facts need be known, since I am forming an opinion on a general principle and not a specific event.

When people kill themselves its their own "fault." Did cavemen commit suicide, no. Why, because they had work to do and they did it. If they didn't, they got eaten by the tyranosaurus. This generation has unfortunately forgotten about free will and a life outside of computer games. I feel sorry for the troubles he went through and what his family is going through. This however, is not fault of the police, administration or anyone else.

Julian , I left my e-mail address here for you, It got deleted.Is it against rule ? Anyway here it is again ; macmkt012805@verizon.net. Please contact me.

What is this interesting information you have Friend?

What is this ? I dont know why my post was deleted. i 've posted that there is an article about how CORNELL is handling student crisis in FRIDAY, DEC. 28 2007 edition of WALLSTREETJOURNAL. i HOPE IT DOESN'T GET DELETED ANYMORE.There is no foul language and I am not attacking any one. It is just an information that we should know about. DO NOT DELETE THIS PLEASE.

CT Sucks

why was jeannette kim's comment flagged? i don't see anything inappropriate in it at all. what was the reason for the flagging?

I love that some comments are deleted for absolutely no reason. So much for open discussion and all that. Way to go, CT.

Yeah , where is Daniel Kim's mom's post ? Mom can't even try to talk to someone who knew her son ?

chances are it was someone impersonating her...which is pretty f'd up. hopefully CT traced the IP and was able to verify it couldn't have been her...

Is there a rule that you can not post youe email address here ? It was Daniel's mom. I know her email address. And they were deleted for second time. what is it really ? Is someone afraid to see her email address here ?

Don't be delete my e-mail! yoonjung63@hotmail.com

to JULIAN, what is your email?

Perhaps the CT should post their terms of conduct somewhere so people will know what is not accepted on their message boards. At the very least there should be some description of the procedure by which messages are deemed inappropriate.

I second that Jason.

i was dans roomate freshman year and got to know him somewhat well despite our very different personalities. Deep down Dan was a great guy, but i knew he had somewhat of an anger issue with what ive read below with the "angry asian" and away messages and such, but i never thought it would end in this. I always felt that the kid felt he was under alot of pressure academically and i hope that is not the reason he did this, but on a side note i have not seen dan in over a year so theres alot i may know. For me, i will always remember Dan as the brilliant kid who loved the washington wizards,who i was somehow able to make laugh at times, and was well liked by my entire hall freshman year, im sorry this had to happen and you will be missed buddy

Posted by: Just a Friend at 12/31/07 "If you consider 20 seconds are enough time for them to do their job. Well I hope you are satisfied with 20 seconds when something happens to you." Well, if I commit suicide, then that 20 seconds will be just fine

huh, you are real bas***d. i hope you do that then. good luck.

Here everyone. I was going over the comments that were made in here earlier. and was shocked to see most of the comments made to question credibility of police and VT. has been deleted. Who make the decision to delete ? CT or VT. ? I would like to know.

CT is completely independent from VT, and VT definitely doesn't wield any influence over it.

actually they are completely independent.

why can't anyone have any compassion? geez. huh, you are real insensitive. don't you think daniel's family might be reading all these comments? have a heart.

You're going to have to define 'compassion' for me. It seems like you want to say "If you don't agree with the assessment that the police and/or VT failed in their obligations to Mr. Kim, you don't have a right to speak." I don't buy that argument at all - this is an important social issue, and one which needs to be discussed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/12/AR2008011202871.html?referrer=emailarticle http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/12/AR2008011202871.html?referrer=emailarticle

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119881134406054777.html articl about Cornell University

One conclusion of the final report on the 4/16 incident was that the Care Team failed for several reasons, one of which was "passivity," the term the report used. Seems like this is a pattern that continues and needs serious examination. University follow up after the police contact would have been appropriate requesting a face to face interview to discuss with Daniel he was doing. While he might have refused; but he might have been willing to come and talk when his history might have come out and his family become involved through Care Team contact directly with them about reported concerns. VT could provide better care to students by more active follow up directly with their students living on or off campus. A concerned follow up call seems always to be appropriate. Perhaps the Care Team needs to create a concerned follow up sub group that reachs out and provides information in cases directly to student about university services available. Wellness assessments by police can be assumed to be minimal and an invitation and information about unviersty services from a university staff member seems appropriate in cases such as this. Establishing a policy and practice of active follow up even to the point of perhaps feeling intrustive communicates that concerns about suicide are serious and the unviersty wants to be helpful to students. How can this not be the direction in which to act? Please read these comments as intended to present an alternative model for Care Team efforts that operates on the premise that it is better to over-intervene than under-intervene. Wishing the university success in making positive changes.

OK, so the care team calls me up (hypothetically) and says "Someone told us you were having problems, is it true?" And I say "No." And your suggestion is that they call me back again, and again, and again, until I admit that they can help me? Personal responsibility enters into the equation somewhere here, and unless an individual is a direct threat to other people (even Cho, I would assert, didn't quite fit that description - being strange and lonely isn't a crime). There is a line to be drawn between the responsibility of the state and the responsibility of the individual in matters of mental health, but I'm especially wary of people who simply advocate that 'someone should do more to keep stuff like this from happening.' What should be done? How do you regulate it so that people don't have their rights infringed? At what point, in this case, would 'no mean no' when it comes to intervention? You can't just force people to get help - and it is fairly presumptive, I think, to assume that it is some kind of mental disorder to think that death is better than life.

Kyle. I suggest you keep your opinion to yourself until more facts are known to us. Then we can have real debate. I suppose that you don't have any facts to base your arguement in this case. All you have is what was written in roanoke times and collegiate times.

This isn't really a fact-based argument in the first place. It is a policy argument. I contend that the policy being advocated by many in this forum is flawed based on an assumption of the sanctity of individual rights and the protection of those rights from governmental intrusion. It's not a 'Daniel Kim specific' argument, and while the event is itself a tragedy (from a human standpoint), it presents several important questions about what our legal policy ought to be regarding conditions of mental health and how they ought to be regulated by the state.

why is the article here so different from the one on the washington post? the WP didn't say he denied knowing the email. so is that true?

the article here is different than the washington post one because the washington post one has more information. this article doesn't have all the facts. i'd say to just rely on the washington post one instead of this one.

I'd suggest that anyone, including Kyle, be respected for having a difference in opinion from others. Thus far, all of the things he has said have been relevant and nonoffensive. That is, unless you're overly sensitive to hearing people disagree with you. Another note, if something as horrible as this happened to someone I loved, I would never go on a discussion board about it. Understand that not all things said about the situation will be positive, and some might hurt to hear. I would just stay away.

this is not what happened...he suffered from depression and the school never did anything to intervene, again...just like Cho, they did nothing. The parents had no idea he was depressed and needed help because the school never informed them.

What a misleading statements :We followed up, and the police department followed up and visited with the student. When the e-mail came into the university, (Blacksburg Police Dept.) had the jurisdiction to do the wellness check,"

I would have to agree with Kyle. There are laws in this country to protect one's civil liberties and rights. We cannot pick and choose when to follow them. Yes, what happened to Daniel is a awful, but the Care Team and the Police did what they could do with the law. I do not think for a second that they were careless or did not take this matter seriously. I highly doubt that after what happened in April that any faculty at Virginia Tech or Blacksburg police didn't care. They do not have the man power, resources, or time to do a full investigation into every person that is depressed. Furthermore, having worked in the Health Center and in conjunction with Cook's Counseling Center I can tell you that Virginia Tech had excellent resourses and couselors in 2006 when I graduated, and I'm sure they have improved following the shootings in April. If you CHOOSE to take advantage of those resources and opportunities that are offered then they can be helpful and possibly life saving. I'm sorry for what happened to this student, and my heart goes out to his family and those who knew him.

oh please. the care team and police did not do anything. why don't you call them and get the exact time frame of everything that happened? you'll see that NOTHING was done.

If you have such little faith in Virginia Tech and the Blacksburg police then why are you still there? A lot of college students suffer from depression, and the majority of them don't committ suicide. Putting the blame on someone else does nothing to change what happened. Daniel Kim made the decision to kill himself. The police talked to him and addressed the situation with him he said he was fine, what more do you want them to do? Arrest him and take him to court to prove he is a danger to himself?

Question to 9:54 : Did you talk to the Blacksburg police department for that answer? Or are you just assuming that is what happened?

the majority of students who suffer from depression might not have killed themselves, but they probably have thought about it several times. many people think about it over and over again before they actually muster up enough courage to just do it. some people think about it over and over again and don't go through with it. if you've ever suffered from depression or suicidal thoughts then you would have known that fact. obviously, you, poster @ 9:54a.m. don't know that. when this type of situation happens to you, THEN you can begin to understand.

The school has no legal right to intervene in mental health cases like these, as the student was a legal adult and must seek treatment on his own. Its a legal issue - I'm sure the school would step in if they could.

I'm going to eat you!

It's serious fitzwilliam nh speeding tickets with radar faymiv

Very interesting tale cheap tickets hotel umgyxu

ticket master in tennessee fpz

It's serious paying a speeding ticket in pheniox arizona ziusa