Collegiate Times

This is a pathetic attempt at sympathy for the family of a MASS MURDERER, and you sound rediculous. "...and ignore that he or his family ever existed" Are you serious? There are at least 32 things to remind us that they DO exist, you fool. No one is blaming the family (least im not) but what HAVE they dont to deserve any of the memorial fund? The memorial fund only exists because of what Cho did... therefore your weak "he was a hokie for three years" rant is pointless. So what if he was a hokie (in your mind) he forfeited that distinction when he decided to kill people. And what is this "horribly mistreated" you keep talking about? Amish people live with a system of beliefs so its easier for them to come to a universal decision to forgive and uplift... but here there are too many backgrounds. For every one person (like you) who wants to share with Cho's family, there are one-hundred who dont. So get off of your high horse and wake up. The victims of the shooting could not help what happened to them but Cho could. I wouldnt give them a dime.

I didn't know the guy, so I can't say for sure, but every report I read told me that he was NEVER one of us. He was NEVER a Hokie. He was a ghost on campus, even to his own roommates. He might as well have never been here, except for that one day. The Spirit Fund was not set up for the consolation of the murderer's family. I'm not heartless - I mean, how'd you like to be the mom of that kid? But even if we were ready to forgive - and I don't think we are - "forgiveness" and "compensation" are not the same thing.

I agree with bxl..."forgiveness" and "compensation" are not the same. Yes, we should forgive. And yes, his family is hurting as well. But that doesn't mean that we should give them money. What's the point? Will the money really make his family feel any better? Of course not. Monetary compensation in no way equates to forgiveness or healing. If he hadn't died along with the other 32 would you still want his family to get money? Should we start giving money from Hokie Funds to family members of every individual that commits acts of violence? And I'm sure that very few (if any) would appreciate their donation dollars going to honor Cho.

Forgiveness is not applicable to Cho; he cannot make ammends for his wrongdoings. We cannot forgive Cho. Neither can Cho's family receive forgiveness for his actions. We can display compassion toward them for the grief he caused. Such compassion can help us deal with our loss. From that, we can grow. But Cho cannot grow. He cannot be forgiven by us. Neither can he be forgiven by anyone or group.

...I mean, the guy *is* dead. So he won't be making "ammends" [sic] for anything or doing any "growing". However, forgiveness is *always* possible.

First off, the initial memorial did include a stone for Cho (that was sanctioned by Tech) so they aren't complete heartless bastards as you seem to imply. Second, to receive Christ like forgiveness & healing (which wasn't money in the Amish case) towards the family, they have to be available. That was kinda hard since they went into hiding and spoke through a lawyer. Third, from what I have read they are a devout Christian family. Why would they want to receive this money...would this promote healing amongst the families who have lost so much? (WWJD) BTW, you seem to be mixing up the "Hokie Spirit" which brings together a diverse student body of various faiths with the "Holy Spirit" (forgiveness of all sins). We are united in our pain & sorrow, but forgiveness & healing is an individual matter...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18232853/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/7/

To Thinkthenspeak: You should research, then think, then speak... the first memorial and the stone that was included for Cho was not sanctioned by VT, they "allowed" it to remain... but that stone was placed by a student, privately... when Hokies United placed the stones originally at the memorial, they only placed 32. Get your facts straight. And if the family should be blamed for his actions, then is your family to blame for yours if you should commit some horrible crime? Those who support providing some money to the family are not handing it to Cho... we are asking that his family, who lost a son, a brother, a human being, be allowed the same things that the other families who lost got... don't you think they've suffered enough? Of course they are in hiding, they had death threats within hours of the news breaking about their son, they have been in protective custody for much of this because of hateful and misled individuals like yourself. Hokie spirit indeed means bringing together a diverse student body of various faiths... but don't most faiths teach forgiveness and to punish the actor in the crime... not those who loved and tried to help him? Either way, before you pounce on others... make sure you have your facts straight... VT has never "sanctioned" anything to help remember/forgive/memorialize Cho... that was done by Hokies who remember that for good or bad, Cho was a Hokie.

Ok, they "allowed it to remain" there...added by K. Johnson which was a beautiful individual act. I feel compassion and charity for the Cho family and think more could have been done for them. But as for the dispensation of the HSMF, I respect the wishes of the other victims' family (CT, Sept. 21)...or don't you think that matters? Yes, Cho was a "victim" of untreated mental illness for which the blame can be shared by all of us (university, professors, classmates, etc) but that does not exclude his family. Particularly with his mental illness (probably paranoid schizophrenia) responsibility falls on those who care about him the most. True, Cho was a Hokie and no one is stopping anybody (including you) from starting a fund just for his family....any takers? You seem to be quite "hateful and misled" yourself for someone who is into forgiveness.

To Thinkthenspeak: "have thought and spoke at 2:41 pm" had not said anything "hateful and misled", he or she merely corrected you and put you in your place, and you simply did not like that.

To Gary: The insinuation was "they have been in protective custody for much of this because of hateful and misled individuals like yourself." Sounds like Amish values to me

The "Gary" that posted at 4:54 in response to think then speak is not me. I posted on 9/26 and was the first "Gary" on this comment page. So, I'll add the letter of my last name to this post. Not sure who the other guy is or what he's trying to convey.

I don't think that the Cho family should receive any part of the Hokie Memorial fund. I'm sure that many of those who contributed to the Hokie fund would be mortified if part of that fund was given to Cho's family. Certainly, if individuals want to put their own money towards a fund for Cho's family, they are free to do that. I understand that Cho's family is not responsible for their son's actions. I just don't think that they should receive any profit from the Hokie Memorial fund, which was established in memory of the 32 victims of April 16, 2007.

Tech (us) have already had to shell out $8 million for what Cho did and then there are probably lawsuits to follow.

Jordan - Very well said in your opinion article. The Amish families embracing the family of the killer of their loved ones set a powerful example of forgiveness and compassion. This example is one that, hopefully with time, some of the Hokie community can follow.

Obviously no parent would ever raise a child with the aim or hope that he or she grows up to be a mass murderer. All accounts show that Cho was a difficult child from birth and that his parents did everything that they could to seek help for him. There never were any hints of violence (except for his writings) that showed he personally was capable to exhibit so much destruction. His family lost their son. They did not choose to lose their son anymore than any of the other families did. They are going through the same grievances that the other families are going through, but in all honesty, theirs may be worse because they also have to deal with shame, regret and the horrific memories of their son that may stand out in their minds as being "hindsight" or what may trigger feelings that they should have acted differently in attempt to avoid this situation. I do not agree that any of the money from the Hokie Fund should go to the Cho family. That money was donated by individuals to the university and to the victims. I also do not think that the Cho's deserve a memorial on campus. Cho's family did receive their tuition back from last year (or maybe just spring semester). I think the only thing that the VT community can offer is just the public show of compassion to the Cho family, which I think on a whole is being portrayed. You never will have an entire community (except maybe the Amish) that would be able to publicly forgive someone who caused so much pain and terror to a community.

I think the Cho family should be excluded, but not for the typical reasons people say. They should not be excluded because of what Cho did; it wasn't their fault. However, they should be excluded simply because the families of the 32 victims (not to mention the two dozen students wounded, and friends, girlfriends, roommates who are also devastated by their losses) would be hurt if Cho was considered in all of this. He's not a victim - the Hokie Spirit Fund is for victims. Yes, it's really easy to say that his family should be included, but not to those close to the victims- they can't act rational, and shouldn't be expected to, and will be hurt (no matter how little sense it makes) because their son or daughter was MURDERED and they can't be expected to not be hurt by every little thing. There are some situations where people just can't sit there with a level head and accept things, and this is one of those situations. The families cannot be expected to accept inclusion of the Cho family, and if the Cho family were somehow included, many would be very upset. Another thing: I think more important than forgiveness, in this situation, is being brave enough to stand up and undoubtedly say something is wrong, even if it means being harsh and stepping on some toes. What Cho did was wrong and is still unacceptable. We can forgive, but we have to keep focused on recognizing the wrong. If we are so sissy that we can't make recognition of wrongdoing our first response, then horrible, disgusting, unthinkable, sickening, horror-movie like events will plague us again. While I forgive Cho in my heart for taking my friend's life, he had no excuse for what he did. Plenty of people have mental illness, violent desires, and were picked on in school --and didn't do something like this. Everyone gets picked on- the popular kids get rumors spread about them, and the dorky kids get made fun of for stuff like speech impediments. It happens to everyone in different ways. Have some strength and courage for goodness sake.

Forgiveness requires two things. First, I must be willing to forgive you for your transgressions. Second, you must acknowledge that you have wronged me, and you must explicitly request my forgiveness. It is fruitless to forgive people who do not wish to be forgiven, and Cho certainly did not want to be forgiven. I'm not going to get into the politicking about where the money should go; it seems to me that a lot of the families implicitly blame Cho's parents for his actions, and I think that such a blame is unwarranted and perhaps even immoral itself. Only one person was at fault here.

There was film shown at the Lyric 2 weeks ago. The Power of Forgiveness. The film showed numerous different communities that had experienced tragedies and showed the power of forgiveness. One of the main themes was that forgiveness is not based on 2 things like Kyle Minor stated below. The film examined the role forgiveness can play in alleviating anger and grief, as well as the physical, mental and spiritual benefits that come with forgiveness. It showed the forgiveness is entirely a personal experience. You do not need Cho to ask for our forgiveness (which obviously never will happen) to grant forgiveness. Forgiveness is something that you accept internally so that you are able to let go of the pain and anger that you hold. Forgiveness would not, even if he was alive, impact Cho at all. It is simply the process of letting go of your own personal anger, it is not there to help the person who committed the offense to feel absolved.

Everybody is capable of what Cho had done, even if they were not crazy. There are more people that kill and are killed from anger and hatred, than crazy people going on a rampage.

You are saying that anyone who murders 32 innocent people - and wounds two dozen others - is sane?

Are you saying you are not capable of murder?

Additionally it is easy for you to say "Have some strength and courage for goodness sake." as much as you said that "AND "....Plenty of people have mental illness, violent desires, and were picked on in school --and didn't do something like this. Everyone gets picked on- the popular kids get rumors spread about them, and the dorky kids get made fun of for stuff like speech impediments. It happens to everyone in different ways." You probably are a part of those "popular" kids that pick on "dorky" kids correct?

My point is, though Cho may had not been completely sane, his sanity was not the main factor of his rampage. MANY crazy people dont hurt people nor hurt people intentionally, as to MANY angry people and hateful people commit harm. A kind hard working man that catches his wife having sex and cheating on him, might go "crazy" at that event, and kills his wife and the guy witha shot gun. Yet you have to ask "how/why did he go crazy enough to kill?" --ANGER, AND HE FELT HATE. Hate for his wife, the guy, and himself. Had Cho been alive you'd probably hate him so much you'd want to kill him yourself. Are you crazy then?

A very interesting poem by a VATECH colleague here. ...."Much of the poem, called "So I know," includes thoughts about Cho, notably a line in which the speaker expresses his wishes that he would've taken Cho's life and then his own to prevent the deaths of many more. "Maybe I should've shot the kid and then myself given the math. 2

A very interesting poem by a VATECH colleague here. ...."Much of the poem, called "So I know," includes thoughts about Cho, notably a line in which the speaker expresses his wishes that he would've taken Cho's life and then his own to prevent the deaths of many more. "Maybe I should've shot the kid and then myself given the math. 2 than 33," the poem reads.http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2007/09/27/professor_publishes_april_16_poem".... Now stop and think for a minute. This professor--suggesting premeditated murder had he known Cho might go on a rampage. Can anybody say that is not hypocritical to how Cho made stories about violence? He thinks he should have murdered Cho then killed himself to save 33, heroic of him. Then what if Cho's rampage of killing more that 30 people actually prevented another Hitler amongst his victims, and saved 33 million people? People like English Professor Bob Hicok need to realy think what he is "expressing". True he is expressing his thoughts and grief, yet as an actual former professor(Hicok) that had Cho as a student, did he pass of Cho's writings as merely "expressing" grief, like how he wants his poem read as then? (Complete poem http://www.aprweb.org/issues/current/hicok.html )

English Professor Bob Hicok and his poem that suggests he should had shot Cho, then himself "Maybe I should have shot the kid and then myself given the math." Perhaps he is now extremely distraught and tramautized, and now a "crazy" man. He might "GO ON A RAMPAGE LIKE CHO" against the media, the VATECH officials, the NRA, the Roanoke store that sold Cho the guns, ebay, NBC, dick sporting goods, the people that made Cho's shoes, the hooker Cho had sex, are we to actually know he might. Are you people just going to let him get away with his "potentially" violent poem?

English Professor Bob Hicok and his poem tht suggest premeditated murder waaaayyyy before Cho and 416 actually sure sounds crazy. Remind yourself now, Cho made "essays" about killing, right after Columbine as he was a middle school student then. English Professor Bob Hicok now writes a poem right after the VATECH killings, and expressing his "very self-reflective honesty" as Erika Meitner, assistant professor of English, said, so like Cho is that what she meant. Probably some people might cheer Prof Hicok and consider him a hero if he "GOES CHO" against the media, officials, NRA, etc, etc, for their responses about the tragedy. Probably the professor does "GO CHO" against them, he might turn hero for us all that Cho hurt o much, just like how Cho and the Columbine gunmen are heroes to Cho and many more "nerdy, dorky, geeky kids" that get hurt by their tormentors today.

Professor Hicok is an amazing Professor who, like many others who taught Cho, was mostly likely reflecting upon his inability to stop the massacre. Everything is clearer when you are looking to the past. You must also realize that not all poetry has to be realistic. If you take everything you read literally then you simply will misunderstand, and consequentially miss out in feeling the deeper meaning within the text of the poem. Think of the great poet Ezra Pound- we may judge his beliefs and writings as that of a lunatic, but his writings are brilliant, and in some way express the irrationality of the human psyche. They human psyche does not always make sense, and often times we find ourselves thinking things that we would never say out loud; kudos to Bob for having the guts to express a moments thought, a deep rooted passion, a desire to have been heroic, and yet accept his inability to have been. Not a day goes by when I do not think of my friend that was lost or the many others who perished and suffered that day. If it were possible, I think there a number of people who would have done exactly what Bob expressed. If only we could go back. How dare you compare a victim of that slaughter to Hitler? Perhaps you are correct sir/ma’am, perhaps in the very slight chance of one of them being criminal, dictator or mass murderer, Cho might have saved lives. But that is extremely unlikely. In concern to those who continue to suffer the losses, the families and friends who mourn their loved ones I must ask; who do you, think you are to slander their names or disgrace their memory? How callus can you be to make such outrageous claims. It is pathetic to sit there a chastise people simply because you are behind a computer and can judge others without confronting them face to face. Unfortunately humans are cruel to each other. That is a fact of life. But in order to survive we must continue to focus on the positive aspects of life, the more humane and loving characteristics of our fellow beings and have hope for the future. Your writings, however disturbing, are allowed- and they may be a way for you to vent and express yourself. But please, out of respects to the rest of us who are suffering, please be more tactful and less abrasive.

Then according to your logic, murder is justifiable, and you support the murder of Cho, even before he committed the massacre. How does that differ you, and prof. Hicok from Cho, that felt right to murder those that wronged them or potentially can harm them. You agree that my theory may have been correct, that Cho may have saved lives from killing a potential murderer at his rampage, just like how you know people who thought about killing Cho back then to also save lives and turn heroic. Then who are you to know who to kill, and who are going to be the killers? How do you know Cho is going to kill people? Are you going to round up all "crazy" people into a gulag or a concentration camp. My point is killing is completely wrong for any account. You ask "how dare of me" to compare a victim to potentially have become a murderer. Yet you don't ask yourself, how dare do people suggest the premeditated murder of Cho in order to save lives from this tragedy. You ask me "who do you think you are?" My answer--NOBODY. Yet a human as much as Cho, as much as you. You then say "we may judge his beliefs and writings as that of a lunatic, but his writings are brilliant, and in some way express the irrationality of the human psyche. They human psyche does not always make sense, and often times we find ourselves thinking things that we would never say out loud; kudos to Bob for having the guts to express a moments thought, a deep rooted passion, a desire to have been heroic, and yet accept his inability to have". Yet you still fail to look at yourself in the mirror. Cho also had writings that "human psyche does not always make sense, and often times we find ourselves thinking things that we would never say out loud to anybody". Therefore, are you giving "kudos" to Cho "for having the guts to express a moments thought, and a desire to have been heroic" for people that suffer torment from bullies, as much as you give "kudos" to the English professor.

Here is the newest rampage for all those who merely blame "craziness", guns, violent video games, etc, etc. http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272616537.shtml Tyler Peterson went on a shooting rampage and gunned down an ex-lover and five of the people that he called friends. He was a police officer and was reportedly upset because he was taunted and called a "worthless pig." The victims were gathered for pizza and movies after a festive a bonfire and a football victory. Hmmn. Probably, nice White man. US Citizen. All-American blue-eyed, Cop(Legal to use firearms), from middle-class, suburbia, that had a girlfriend and ANGRY. Now, the "experts" again blame "craziness" saying the gunman was not screened for mental issues prior to being a cop. Guess we need to blame the government again. Here again, blame craziness, and the the failure of government. Yet we never look at ourselves and take the simple fact that, anger, disrespect, and hatred can turn even the best of us to the edge. The gunman, the taunters, and his reaction to the taunting are the cause of this tragedy. Cho is responsible for his murderous act. Yet the bullies and tormentors that brought Cho to hatred are also responsible for this rampage. Most of you people here want to have killed Cho for giving you grief and thetorment he brought to countless people. How are you different from Cho then. About my "disturbing" writings that are abrasive and need more tact as you suggested-- that "insult" that you feel is not my intention here, and also not a vent to express myself. You also really need not keep on using the victims and your emotions as a shield to a controversial conversation. Take into consideration that we actually both had somebody that we know that Cho killed, so it is not only you grieving about your friend. Continously using the victims does not further the arguement. None of you protested about that "free concert" for VATECH. You are playing on the emotional factor too much. The purpose of my writings are not to justify Cho and crap on the victims, rather to give an understanding that you all are aware of to have truth(everybody is capable of murder) yet people would rather not hear.

The Wisconsin town mourns 6, and killer Ellen Gabler / Associated Press Jenny Stahl and her son Ryan Coulter talk about Lindsey, 14, the daughter and sister who was one of six dead after a weekend shooting rampage. The people of Crandon saw the six victims and the gunman grow up. "That's what makes it so hard." http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-crandon9oct09,1,4541885.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage Seven red roses lay in front of the sign -- one for Peterson as well as for those he had killed. "Jon and Tyler, Chunk and Schultzy -- they hunted together, they skied together, they cruised up and down the streets together," Farr said. "That's what makes it so hard, that he's one of us, he is one of ours. And we won't turn our back on him." Peterson, who worked as a Forest County sheriff's deputy and a part-time Crandon police officer, came into the duplex and argued with those gathered there, authorities said Monday during a news conference. He left -- but came back with a rifle, forced his way inside and started shooting, according to the lone survivor of the attack, Charles Neitzel, 21, who described the events to the authorities. The AR-15 rifle was the type used by the Forest County SWAT team, of which Peterson was reportedly a member, though Crandon Police Chief John Dennee told reporters his office had not confirmed whether Peterson had used a gun issued by police. Peterson then fled the residence. Out front, a fellow officer had pulled up to the house, responding to neighbors' calls about the shootings. Peterson fired at him, shattering the patrol car's window and spraying glass and debris onto the officer, Dennee said. Peterson eventually made his way out of town, hiding in a cabin in Argonne, a heavily wooded area about seven miles to the north. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-crandon9oct09,1,4541885.story?page=2&coll=la-headlines-frontpage Authorities surrounded the cabin. But the standoff ultimately crumbled when they couldn't reach an agreement with Peterson about surrendering. Shots were fired on both sides. Peterson was killed. J.B. Van Hollen, the state attorney general, declined to say whether Peterson died by shots fired by police, or whether he committed suicide. Jenny Stahl, Lindsey's mother, was bordering on hysterics when speaking with reporters. "I can't believe this. She'll be 15 next month," Jenny Stahl said. "She had just started her life. The police are supposed to help us, protect us. This doesn't happen here." Malora and her boyfriend, Derek Dehart, were struggling too. The couple sat in the back of the flower shop and solemnly leafed through the pages of their old yearbooks. One featured a portrait of Dehart's old baseball teammate, Schultz, in a slugger's pose. On the opposite page was a picture of a smiling Peterson, blue-eyed and in a navy shirt and jeans. "None of us could have seen this," Dehart said. Then he added, "I keep wondering. . . if I missed something."

The Peterson family released a statement Monday making clear that it too was having a hard time understanding. "We also feel a tremendous amount of guilt and shame for the horrible acts Tyler committed," the statement said. "We are struggling to respond, like most of you. We do not know what we should do." When news of the shooting first raced through Crandon on Sunday morning, rumors swirled, and voice mailboxes filled up with the same questions: "Are your kids OK?" "Are you OK?" "Why did he do it?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/09/wdepshef109.xml Karly Johnson, 16, said Peterson had helped her with her schoolwork. She said: "He graduated with my brother. He was nice. He was an average guy. Normal. You wouldn't think he could do that."

This gunman, had a girlfriend, killed his girlfriend, had friends, killed his friends, not like CHO, correct. Unlike Cho, he did not "struggle to fit in, nor told to go back to China" He was part of the SWAT team, possibly used the AR-15 from the police. He was a nice man -- until, they taunted him "worthless pig." His relatives "are sorry", they do not know what to do, nor imagine he was capable of such violence. The killer's neighbors could not believe this happened to them in their town. Yet his neighbors forgave him, keeping him a part of the tributes as a community friend, and possibly helping his relatives cope. They might even include him in their future "Crandon Stone Arch" or give his relatives a "Crandon Tragedy Tribute Fund". Then why not Cho here?

CHOKIE HOKIE

He was NEVER a Hokie and will never be one. Hokie Spirit memorial funds are given in honor of the deceased HOKIES, and he has no honor. 32, not 33.

Also, his family does not deserve anything for their "plight." The parents themselves have made no contact with the university. Additionally, is it any wonder that his parents did not want him home on breaks and he had to stay in Harper while everyone was home with their family? His parents are largely responsible and I'll be damned if they receive a penny for this. Nobody gave money intending for it to go toward the gunman's family.

You're correct. He was not a hokie. HE WAS A CHOKIE HOKIE.

Alright, if you don't want to give any money that is fine. Although blaming his parents like they didn't care about Cho is really ill informed of you. The other kids going to their parents for the holiday break, are you kidding me, yeah? Are you sure they didnt just spend daddy's credit card to go on a drunk session at Cancun, Mexico having sex with stangers randomly? Cho is poor remember, and his parents are legally powerless to dictate to him about his decisions about going to school and not telling them his condition. Ask yourselves, are you so open to your parents about everything that goes on about you? You mean to say the school should tell your parents you smoked pot, skip classes, got drunk at a frat/sorority party, made a sex tape, etc, etc? The parents CAN NOT ask the university about Cho, because he is an adult, and U.S. laws protect his right to privacy. How would you feel if your parents constantly asked your college how you are doing academically or mentally. This is not high school anymore, and even if Cho parents told VATECH about his condition, VA TECH can't ban Cho from going to VATECH since his prior therapy showed his condition was manageable. Anyway who's to say had Cho been banned from VA TECH, that he would not go on a rampage at another college or at work from the rejection he got here. That could easily triggered his anger more and probably even killed more people. People, anybody is capable of Cho's murderous rampage, only the names, numbers, places, armaments, and days are different, yet the cause and motive are the same; CAUSE- ANGER AND HATRED FROM BULLYING AND TORMENT, MOTIVE- REVENGE.

Yet more school shootings again happen. A 14-year-old gunman opened fire at a high school in Cleveland, Ohio yesterday, shooting at least five people, authorities said, in the latest in a string of incidents in the United States. http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NjY2NzY2NDI0 Police: Pennsylvania boy planned 'Columbine' event at high school http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/11/student.arsenal/index.html Police have taken into custody a 14-year-old boy who is suspected of planning a "Columbine" type event at a Pennsylvania high school, a police spokesman said. Police took a 14-year-old boy into custody after a search of his home turned up dozens of weapons. Police in Plymouth Township near Philadelphia took the boy into custody after a search of his home turned up a number of weapons, including a 9 mm rifle with a laser scope and dozens of air guns. Police also found an operational hand grenade, three other hand grenades in the process of construction, bomb-making equipment and manuals. The boy's mother bought the assault rifle for him several weeks ago at a gun show, police said. No ammunition was found for the rifle.

I love your article and totally agree with you. What Cho did was horrible, and for some, unforgivable. The family of the victims suffered pain beyound in imaginable. But take a look at Cho's family. They too lost a loved son, no matter how much of a monster he was. But further more, I think Cho's family got it much worse than anyone else. Because not only did they lose a son, they also had to carry the burden of guilt on their shoulders. Could you imagine? Having a son or brother as a killer of so many? The humiliation that must be! The guilt! THE SHAME. We need to open our hearts and arms to them, not because we love Cho, but because we are human beings who can empathize. I cry for the victims and their families, but I cry and am deeply saddened for Cho's family. How can they start a new life after this? Ironically and unfortunately, Cho's family got the shortest end of the stick in this tragedy. They lost a son and they lost their pride in their name.... God help and love them!

Right on Eunice, you understand human forgiveness.

I'm going to go out a limb here and suspect that his family would refuse the money even if offered. If I were them (and thank God I'm not), I'd be a little bit insulted. I haven't been following this by the hour, but its possible they are sitting around wondering why we're spending so much time yammering about forgiveness and monetary compensation (BIG NOTE : THESE ARE NOT ONE IN THE SAME) that they didn't even ask for.

In case, I wasn't clear, my point was they are clearly working through their grief privately (On the whole not a bad idea), and are probably not wondering how or if they can make a buck off of it. After they've (the family - not the son) had the honor and decency to grieve privately (and NOT on every news program under the sun who surely would have paraded them around for ratings), it wouldn't surprise me if they were a little insulted that WE would assume THEY would be sitting around disappointed that they weren't receiving monetary compensation. Somehow the Amish managed to do all that wonderful forgiving without millions of dollars of donations. Think about it...

I absolutely agree with the opinions expressed in this letter. I have been upset since the tragedy, about 32 being the number used for everything in the media, when 33 is the real count of victims. Yes, Cho was not a victim like those that he killed, but he was a victim in his own way. He had clearly struggled with mental health issues for years, and no one can understand how much this can affect a person unless they have experienced depression or other similar issues first hand. It can overtake a person completely, and when it is allowed to progress to the extent it did with Cho, I truly believe he was not in his right mind, and had not been for quite some time. This by no means excuses his actions, but he was clearly not behaving as a "normal" person would behave. I ache for the families of the 32 killed by Cho, but I also ache for Cho's family who not only have to deal with the loss of their son, but also with the guilt of knowing what a horrible thing he did. It would be very wrong to ignore the need for compassion for the Cho family too. What about Hokie Spirit? The common "We are all Hokies" statements? Yes, we are all Hokies...Hokies who should be compassionate to all. Everyone suffered in this great tragedy in one way or another, so let's not forget to express concern for everyone.

Well, then the implication is that the "other" 32 victims families are "cold-hearted" too...the full quoatation of Feinberg's actions (CT September 20): "But the Cho's, Feinberg said, were not eligible to receive any Hokie Spirit Memorial funds under his discretion. "I decided not to include them," Feinberg said. "I understand that it would be extremely provocative to make them eligible because we are trying as best we can to promote healing. I've have had in-depth conversations with the families of the victims and they AGREED with my decision that it was inappropriate to make the Cho family eligible. I have not heard one voice of criticism of making that decision.""

Do you people really believe this stuff you are writing?? Weren't we all, the entire "Hokie Nation" victims of this horrible event "in our own way"? Who among us is not a changed person as a result of 4/16? Following your logic, we should all be lining up to receive our "just compensation" for all we've suffered. Perhaps Bill can take a break from the campaign trail to join Bush 41 to join a tsunami-relief-type effort to raise immense amounts of money to soothe our souls. That should make us all feel better (although you won't find me in line). Stop and think about the Amish, since you insist on comparing us to them. (I'm not entirely sure they would appreciate the comparison) The families of the slain reached out the the family of the killer. That truly is a beautiful act of forgiveness. If that has happened between 32 families and 1 family, thankfully it hasn't been discovered by the news media, nor should it. The rest of the Amish community may have grieved at the funerals, or brought food to the wake, but then I suspect they went back home and quietly went on with their lives. All this without large sums of money changing hands. And most certainly without endless commentary about who didn't get enough money or who didn't get any but should have. I don't think Dave Matthews made it to Lancaster for a concert... The Amish understand real charity better than any of us could (myself included). That comes from having a strong community. "Hokie Nation" does not automatically a community make. For those concerned that the Cho family is not receiving "foregiveness" (i.e. monetary compensation), I'm sure it is possible to find the address of a representative of the family. Feel free to mail them a check. Be generous. Real charity involves personal giving, not the dividing of other people's money. (I sort of wonder how much money was contributed to the Spirit Fund by all the people lamenting about its distribution). I stand by my earlier assertion that the Cho family is likely to reject this "forgiveness" that they haven't asked for. If they're reading the posts here, they're likely insulted, along with the Amish.

That is understandable that money can make us independent. But what to do if someone doesn't have money? The one way is to get the <a href="http://goodfinance-blog.com/topics/credit-loans">credit loans</a> and just secured loan.