HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

OT: Tragedy at Dawson College ON TOPIC THREAD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-17-2006, 01:23 PM
  #301
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I'm not talking about whether Gill's parents should have been able to anticipate the fact that their son was going to go on a rampage. I don't think they could have anticipated that. I do think they had many opportunities to see their son sliding down a slippery slope of depression and anger.

I don't think a gun club is a perfectly normal place for a depressed, and angry 25-year old to socialize. In any logical family, a 25-year old who's unemployed, has no self-motivation, and is increasingly depressed and angry is not permitted to own guns. They're not encouraged to join a gun club.

Really, this is common sense.

If you've got a child who, for whatever reason, you allow to live in your home despite the fact that they're not doing anything constructive, would you allow them to purchase three guns? So that they can potentially make friends at a gun club?

This apologizing for the parents is just mind-boggling to me.
I think you see the world too much in black/white. The guy could have had his guns and been a member of the gun club for several years without doing anything wrong, leading to the thinking that it was a "harmless" hobby. You seem to forget that not everyone sees the world as you do.

I have known my share of people in the past who were 25 without a job living at their parents house, not particularly integrated in society, and yet I would never ever think they would take guns and go kill people.

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 01:23 PM
  #302
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealer View Post

If they had kicked him out, seeing what he wrote on his webpage, I doubt it would have stopped him from doing what he did. In fact, I could see you blaming them for triggering it.
Then you're clearly misunderstanding every part of my argument.

I do not blame Kimveer Gill's parents for what he did. I firmly believe in personal responsibility. Gill is responsible for his actions. His parents are not blameless, however.

Had his parents tossed him out, they would have done the right thing. Actually, in the basic scenario we're discussing (of a 25-year old with no drive to take part in society, and increasingly depressed), I would have likely sought some medical help for the 'child.' If that didn't work, then I would have shown the 'child' the door.

If one of those two options were not being used then the parents were supporting Gill's lifestyle--albeit, in all likelihood, doing so out of ignorance.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealer View Post
See all my "could have"s up above? That's my point. You don't know how he acted around them. You don't know what they were aware of, and if he demonstrated anything horribly out of the ordinary around the parents. I don't know if you have any experience with depression - I do, and I know how easy it is to mask most/all of it if you really want to. The fact his parents tried to help him shows that they knew more than a lot of parents would have.

The support to the claim is that you seem to have passed judgement on them already; feel free to do so if you like. I'm not so sure.
You're right that there are plenty of 'could haves'. Many of them are likely to be true. I feel these are convenient excuses to avoid confronting one's child to wake up and realize they're letting life pass them by.

I say 'convenient excuses' because they have some validity to why a parent would avoid pushing the child, and it is not a comfortable nor an easy thing to do: force a child to make a decision and live life, or get out of the house. It sounds heartless, but it isn't. By not doing this, his lifestyle of depression and isolation was being supported.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 01:32 PM
  #303
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside Cowboy View Post
I think you see the world too much in black/white. The guy could have had his guns and been a member of the gun club for several years without doing anything wrong, leading to the thinking that it was a "harmless" hobby. You seem to forget that not everyone sees the world as you do.
They had an interview with some armed-car security who met Kimveer Gill at the gun club. He had just purchased a gun(s) in April or May of this year.

It doesn't matter though. These are semantics. A 25-year old with no ambition, leeching off their parents, should not live at home.

This is indeed black and white for me. I have a hard time understanding how this is not a black and white situation, you are correct. So enlighten me, and I say this with no hostility: if you have a 25-year old who has no interest in taking part in society, is increasingly depressed and angry, whose primary interest seems to be their guns, would you permit them to continue living in your home? Would you not do anything, and just hope they get out of their depression? Or would you present them with the following (fairly standard) options:

a) grow up and start behaving as an adult. Do something constructive; whether it be as small as getting a regular job, volunteer work, or school

b) get some medical help for your depression or whatever's preventing you from living life. We, as parents, will pay for you while you seek this help so long as you do it regularly

c) if neither of the above two are done, you're outta the house.

Forget Gill for a second. Tell me in this hypothetical situation of a 25-year old leeching off of you, what you would do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside Cowboy View Post
I have known my share of people in the past who were 25 without a job living at their parents house, not particularly integrated in society, and yet I would never ever think they would take guns and go kill people.
It's not about taking guns and killing people. I find it ironic that you claim I am seeing this in black and white terms, which may be true, when you yourself are seeing my argument in simple black and white terms as well.

I do not believe it is standard for 25-year old leeches to go on shooting rampages. I do not believe it was Gill's parents responsibility to foresee him doing this. I don't think they could have anticipated this.

I do believe it is part of parenting to give your child one last shove out the door if they're not doing anything constructive by the time they are adults, and refuse any help. It does a child no good to stay at home into their late 20s and 30s if they are not at school, not working, and not enjoying life.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 02:42 PM
  #304
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
This is indeed black and white for me. I have a hard time understanding how this is not a black and white situation, you are correct. So enlighten me, and I say this with no hostility: if you have a 25-year old who has no interest in taking part in society, is increasingly depressed and angry, whose primary interest seems to be their guns, would you permit them to continue living in your home? Would you not do anything, and just hope they get out of their depression?

I do not believe it is standard for 25-year old leeches to go on shooting rampages. I do not believe it was Gill's parents responsibility to foresee him doing this. I don't think they could have anticipated this.

I do believe it is part of parenting to give your child one last shove out the door if they're not doing anything constructive by the time they are adults, and refuse any help. It does a child no good to stay at home into their late 20s and 30s if they are not at school, not working, and not enjoying life.
As a parent, I don't know what I would do. It's easy to say: "I would do this or that", but when you really get into the situation, it's really something else.

When asked what they would do if there was an agression on the street right before their eyes, most people say they would react one way or another. When the situation happens, a huge majority just walks by and do nothing.

My uncle has been living with his parents (forever), he's not employed, he's not an active part of society. Are his parents to blame for this? I don't know, and frankly it's not my place to judge that. Would I do the same? I don't know, probably not, but it's hard to judge until you're the one in the spotlight.

Kicking someone out often doesn't give out the results you wish it would. Would you rather have an inactive child safe at home or on the streets without any news?

Are his parents to blame? I don't know, I'll leave it to them to judge it for themselves. It's not my role or my place to judge their actions or lack of actions, and there's nothing to say that whatever they would have done could have prevented this, nobody knows.

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 03:04 PM
  #305
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside Cowboy View Post
As a parent, I don't know what I would do. It's easy to say: "I would do this or that", but when you really get into the situation, it's really something else.

When asked what they would do if there was an agression on the street right before their eyes, most people say they would react one way or another. When the situation happens, a huge majority just walks by and do nothing.

My uncle has been living with his parents (forever), he's not employed, he's not an active part of society. Are his parents to blame for this? I don't know, and frankly it's not my place to judge that. Would I do the same? I don't know, probably not, but it's hard to judge until you're the one in the spotlight.

Kicking someone out often doesn't give out the results you wish it would. Would you rather have an inactive child safe at home or on the streets without any news?
These points are true, and valid. It is easy to sit here and say the parents made a mistake. With that in mind, I don't think we're incapable of pointing out glaring errors made.

Using a hockey metaphor: it's easy to say Ribeiro's not putting on weight and training hard enough. And that he's not putting enough effort on the ice in the defensive zone, and so on. But we're not Ribeiro, we're not in the NHL, and we're certainly not professional athletes, so who are we to judge him? There are many potential reasons for why he's not a well-rounded player, and we're not in any position to know any of them.

But we still reserve our right to judge him. And I don't think we're wrong to do so. Nor do I believe we're completely incapable of making good judgments, so long as we don't stray off track of reality and logic too much.


Regarding your uncle: I have no knowledge of the background of him or his family. If he's not enjoying life and doesn't particularly enjoy his parents and vice versa, then I would say it's an unhealthy situation. If he's not an active member of society and is unhappy with this, then I would say it's unhealthy. If he's content at doing absolutely nothing constructive in society, and his parents accept that and enjoy him regardless, then I think it's a little unfortunate but OK.


Regarding your question, about whether I'd rather have an inactive child safe at home, or abandoned on the streets without any news: that's a little difficult. It's difficult because the question isn't representative of a realistic situation. If the inactive child at home is unhappy, then it would be important to identify why they're unhappy. If they're unhappy because they're inactive, then I would look to encourage activity. If the child refused the encouragement, then I would not want to support the self-destructive behaviour. I would look to give the child some money, assuming they weren't openly self-destructive (with drugs, alcoholism, or the like), and send them packing. They could live on their own, find their own apartment, and that would force them into the world; just having to deal with getting their apartment would be a sense of accomplishment, perhaps, for this inactive, unhappy child.

I think it would be selfish to make the decision of keeping the inactive, unhappy child at home purely because you did not want to not know about the child's whereabouts or news after they left home.

Now if we're to take the other side of the coin of the inactive child and say they're happy and content with being inactive, then that's an entirely different beast to handle.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 03:23 PM
  #306
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,076
vCash: 500
Parents would've been exposed to trouble signs.

Not sure if people understood my earlier posts entirely.

I basically said that it would've been difficult for the family to significantly confront or deter Kimveer, from an unhealthy path. This does not mean that more external assistance could not be attempted and applied. I've heard some mention of an attempt at intervention for Kimveers depression, not sure of the extent of that, whether he was taking antidepressants, etc.

I also said the sociopathic state which Kimveer pretty clearly evoked was likely cloaked to the outside world(save for anonymous online dissociated disclosure) but many of the facets, behaviors, characteristics, WOULD have been displayed to the family.

Anger, rage, frustration, depression, hopelessness, despair, aimlessness, listlessness, lack of caring about his life path WOULD very likely have been displayed.

Kimveer was very clearly a 25yr old failure to launch, that showed limited to zero interest to launch that reported no interest in going to a college to pursue any link to career. In addition he also failed to launch any significant realworld attempt to have a girlfriend or significant others.

At the very minimum Kimveer would've exhibited critical signs of failing to engage in his life in any meaningful way to his family. He very likely had a TV, dvd player, stereo, Computer, internet, gameplayer, in the basement, had videos like zero day laying around that he obsessed over. Likely many more disturbing titles of movies, games, magazines, posters, t shirts around. HAD SEVERAL FIREARMS.

Kimveer likely spent countless days, weeks, in that basement evading life and trading it with non-stop escape. The family likely saw him at meal times and probably left him alone a lot in the basement for reasons I detailed earlier.

Of course nobody knew what Kimveer was going to do but the presentation of what he WAS doing ought to have been disturbing enough to have warranted significant concern that the boy was displaying no interest in his own maintanence, or life.

Being empowered to be a failure to launch, depressed, couch potato, that spent much time obsessing about people, the world, that he was not in, allowed him the time to further dissociate entirely until there was no connection at all.
Each day, week, and year, drifting by(7years!) would've further enhanced feelings of utter detatchment and despair.

He needed real world instead of fantasy outlets. He needed to be encouraged, made to, engage in the real world instead of his immersion in fantasy.

His life was fairly screaming loneliness and lack of meaning.

edit: I'm not blaming the family exclusively as much as pointing out some significant things that would have been present that should have pointed to the need for further help. Very unfortunately the unproductive patterns shown here are epidemic in our society with many of our young non engaging in their own productive lives. Whether it leads to this worst scenario result or just a profoundly unhappy lifepath its still a tragedy unfolding that many young people are walking on. Which is not to be viewed as me dissing the younger generation as a far greater amount in my view are being very productive, motivated citizens but theres a significant subset that just gets lost, or never, or very late, started.


Last edited by Replacement: 09-17-2006 at 03:38 PM.
Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 03:27 PM
  #307
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Of course nobody knew what Kimveer was going to do but the presentation of what he WAS doing ought to have been disturbing enough to have warranted significant concern that the boy was displaying no interest in his own maintanence, or life.

Being empowered to be a failure to launch, depressed, couch potato, that spent much time obsessing about people, the world, that he was not in, allowed him the time to further dissociate entirely until there was no connection at all.
Each day, week, and year, drifting by(7years!) would've further enhanced feelings of utter detatchment and despair.

He needed real world instead of fantasy outlets. He needed to be encouraged, made to, engage in the real world instead of his immersion in fantasy.

His life was fairly screaming loneliness.
Agreed entirely. Good post.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 04:15 PM
  #308
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside Cowboy View Post
As a parent, I don't know what I would do. It's easy to say: "I would do this or that", but when you really get into the situation, it's really something else.
I think back to a time and place not so long ago when parents knew there was something wrong with chronic couch potato syndrome because they wouldn't stand for it. Financially couldn't stand for it. Not sure if its todays affluence resulting in some kids being allowed to be non contributing or what but I don't think its any great mystery what to do about it. Previous generations of parents knew perfectly well what to do about it

Quote:
My uncle has been living with his parents (forever), he's not employed, he's not an active part of society. Are his parents to blame for this? I don't know, and frankly it's not my place to judge that. Would I do the same? I don't know, probably not, but it's hard to judge until you're the one in the spotlight.
Sorry in advance but this to me demonstrates perfectly well whats wrong with todays societal expectations. Layabout shiftless behavior is WORTHY of being judged and confronted. It OUGHT to be. To do anything else is not to care. Again there was a time not so long ago where this kind of behavior would not be acceptable. It shouldn't be still. Its not good for anybody.

Quote:
Kicking someone out often doesn't give out the results you wish it would. Would you rather have an inactive child safe at home or on the streets without any news?
But poising it as an either or ,equally bad proposition is in itself leading to and a framework of theres nothing much we can do so let it ride. Theres many things you can do to exert self interest like suspending allowance, living money, providing basic essentials only, encouraging the kids self means and job interest. Many parents today in effect pay their kid to sit on the couch flippin channels while they're off hard at work paying for it all. Good job if you can get it

Quote:
Are his parents to blame? I don't know, I'll leave it to them to judge it for themselves. It's not my role or my place to judge their actions or lack of actions, and there's nothing to say that whatever they would have done could have prevented this, nobody knows.
As a longtime family counselor it often seems that society has lost their way a bit in parenting and expectations and that today we make it much more confusing and difficult than it needs to be.

Nothing wrong with a return to common sense values and expectations of productivity and creating, imparting, self worth. Its good for everybody.

ps if this seemed a little too sharp take it with a large grain of salt in that your comments just raised triggers that I see all too much of today. I do mean this to be helpful feedback and hope its taken that way.

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 04:35 PM
  #309
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I'm not talking about whether Gill's parents should have been able to anticipate the fact that their son was going to go on a rampage. I don't think they could have anticipated that. I do think they had many opportunities to see their son sliding down a slippery slope of depression and anger.
I agree. That should be enough to initiate significant concern.

Quote:
I don't think a gun club is a perfectly normal place for a depressed, and angry 25-year old to socialize. In any logical family, a 25-year old who's unemployed, has no self-motivation, and is increasingly depressed and angry is not permitted to own guns. They're not encouraged to join a gun club.

Really, this is common sense.
Again I agree entirely. I frankly don't think ANYBODY with any currently operating depression or signficant anger should have ANY access to guns. I'm amazed really that there'd be any disagreement on this basic of a point.

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 04:39 PM
  #310
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
I agree. That should be enough to initiate significant concern.

Again I agree entirely. I frankly don't think ANYBODY with any currently operating depression or signficant anger should have ANY access to guns. I'm amazed really that there'd be any disagreement on this basic of a point.
Most depressed macho farmers have guns

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 04:41 PM
  #311
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
I think back to a time and place not so long ago when parents knew there was something wrong with chronic couch potato syndrome because they wouldn't stand for it. Financially couldn't stand for it. Not sure if its todays affluence resulting in some kids being allowed to be non contributing or what but I don't think its any great mystery what to do about it. Previous generations of parents knew perfectly well what to do about it

Sorry in advance but this to me demonstrates perfectly well whats wrong with todays societal expectations. Layabout shiftless behavior is WORTHY of being judged and confronted. It OUGHT to be. To do anything else is not to care. Again there was a time not so long ago where this kind of behavior would not be acceptable. It shouldn't be still. Its not good for anybody.

But poising it as an either or ,equally bad proposition is in itself leading to and a framework of theres nothing much we can do so let it ride. Theres many things you can do to exert self interest like suspending allowance, living money, providing basic essentials only, encouraging the kids self means and job interest. Many parents today in effect pay their kid to sit on the couch flippin channels while they're off hard at work paying for it all. Good job if you can get it

As a longtime family counselor it often seems that society has lost their way a bit in parenting and expectations and that today we make it much more confusing and difficult than it needs to be.

Nothing wrong with a return to common sense values and expectations of productivity and creating, imparting, self worth. Its good for everybody.

ps if this seemed a little too sharp take it with a large grain of salt in that your comments just raised triggers that I see all too much of today. I do mean this to be helpful feedback and hope its taken that way.
Great psot. As a Psychologist I would agree. In these types of situations the offender is usually running the house, has mucho power. Reality is the reality of the family system.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 05:02 PM
  #312
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
I think back to a time and place not so long ago when parents knew there was something wrong with chronic couch potato syndrome because they wouldn't stand for it. Financially couldn't stand for it. Not sure if its todays affluence resulting in some kids being allowed to be non contributing or what but I don't think its any great mystery what to do about it. Previous generations of parents knew perfectly well what to do about it

Sorry in advance but this to me demonstrates perfectly well whats wrong with todays societal expectations. Layabout shiftless behavior is WORTHY of being judged and confronted. It OUGHT to be. To do anything else is not to care. Again there was a time not so long ago where this kind of behavior would not be acceptable. It shouldn't be still. Its not good for anybody.

But poising it as an either or ,equally bad proposition is in itself leading to and a framework of theres nothing much we can do so let it ride. Theres many things you can do to exert self interest like suspending allowance, living money, providing basic essentials only, encouraging the kids self means and job interest. Many parents today in effect pay their kid to sit on the couch flippin channels while they're off hard at work paying for it all. Good job if you can get it

As a longtime family counselor it often seems that society has lost their way a bit in parenting and expectations and that today we make it much more confusing and difficult than it needs to be.

Nothing wrong with a return to common sense values and expectations of productivity and creating, imparting, self worth. Its good for everybody.

ps if this seemed a little too sharp take it with a large grain of salt in that your comments just raised triggers that I see all too much of today. I do mean this to be helpful feedback and hope its taken that way.
What I don't like in your tone, and in anyone's tone, is when they know what's the best for others? Have you ever received death threaths? Have you ever lived in a ***** hole with no hope of anything better? Have you ever been depressed? If not, how can you place judgement on those people, from your well-being point of view?

I don't really want to go back ten years ago, but let's just say I've seen the best and worse of society. I've known couch potatoes, druggies, street workers (heh), etc. Often people that become total trash are people who lacked fundamentals to survive in our world. They weren't particularly effective in society, they'll never be really, and their parents kicked them out. Now those parents will never know what happened to their child as those people don't really mail in notices of how degraded their life is once they've been kicked out. Or what about the poor girl that had a set of skills to be successfull but at some point in her life was what you call a couch potato, but she had parents who did what you advise to do, being strict on her and whatnot, well she ran away, got caught by a street gang and used as a sex slave. Now she's alive but she would be as good dead.

I do believe that society is not a big brother, that everyone chooses their paths, makes their own mistakes, and grow up with them. However, everyone makes mistakes, everyone has a different judgement upon a situation, no two situations are exactly alike, and decisions are hard to come to. If you look at someone's situation, anyone's situation, you will find them at fault for at least one thing. Which fault is the biggest? Parents who still had faith in their child, that were willing to work for their progeny? Parents who kicked out someone and that person's life after being hell? What tells you that the gunman wouldn't just have gone out with his guns and right away start a killing if he had been kicked out? Then you'd be blaming the parents for their action which led to the killing of "x" people? It's too easy playing the blame game.

What can I say though, some people have their pre-conceived opinions. Some people base their own existence judging others and how they do compared to them. That ain't my cup of tea. And I believe every situation needs to be assessed differently. That's my prerogative.

As to saying it was better with the previous generation of parents and that good old physical punishment technique, that's your opinion as well. Times are changing though, but some people's mentalities aren't.

As long as Gill's parents did the best they could with who they are and what they are (which nobody here knows), then I don't think they can be blamed. Whether they did all they could as persons or not, they're the only ones who know, and I can bet you right now they're thinking hard about it. In the end, despite the fact it's their child who did the killing, they must hurt just like the parents of that poor girl who died that day. Putting the blame on them is just a way for someone to feel better about themselves, since in the big scheme it doesn't really change a thing to what happened. However, like you say, the same should be expected from all parents and any imperfection (to the way you're thinking) is a fault to be punished, despite the limits of each individual. So be it...

Oh and about the societal expectations??? What is that? There's no societal expectations.. one day you are born, the next your dead, it's called the life cycle. What happens in between is up to each individual to decide. Whether you're a slug all your life or whether you're active and helpful, in the end you're the person that will benefit from it. The work pattern is there for labour class alone, the rich can be slugs all they want and there will be no bad repercussions on their life. Abusers will leech off other people and make a living of it, but it's been like that for thousands of years. Any intelligent individual will find out early enough that the point is to live your own life, who cares about societal expectations? As in, if you were my neighbour, would I really care about your opinion of what I do right or wrong? Would it be really any of your business?

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 05:13 PM
  #313
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
Great psot. As a Psychologist I would agree. In these types of situations the offender is usually running the house, has mucho power. Reality is the reality of the family system.
There's been a lot of talk about depression and different personality disorders. I've been exposed to people and the effects of said situations quite a bit. At a point, it's hard to tell whether the disorder or the person with the disorder is running the house. It sounds like a minor distinction, but it's the one that governs a lot of actions in similar family situations. It can be very difficult to set the boundaries of responsibility around some conditions.


Mike, at some point you posted kind of a checklist of things that can make a difference including getting medical help. Keep in mind that the medical help for this kind of thing isn't as easily forthcoming as you'd think, and the help received is extremely trial and error.


It isn't black and white. I've seen families total refusal to deal with situations, I've seen the best efforts fail, and I've seen parents just want a little peace for awhile.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 05:15 PM
  #314
HH
GO HABS GO!
 
HH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,303
vCash: 500
My neighbour who got shot had a panic attack last night, went briefly to the hospital he's back home now...poor guy.

HH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 05:21 PM
  #315
Talent Analyst
Registered User
 
Talent Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 100th years
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,055
vCash: 500
What the tree weapon he use ?

Talent Analyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 05:22 PM
  #316
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habs911 View Post
My neighbour who got shot had a panic attack last night, went briefly to the hospital he's back home now...poor guy.
Events like that are devastating. My best wishes for his recovery, although it can take some time when stuff like that happens.

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 05:24 PM
  #317
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
Mike, at some point you posted kind of a checklist of things that can make a difference including getting medical help. Keep in mind that the medical help for this kind of thing isn't as easily forthcoming as you'd think, and the help received is extremely trial and error.


It isn't black and white. I've seen families total refusal to deal with situations, I've seen the best efforts fail, and I've seen parents just want a little peace for awhile.
I don't think the medical system is all that difficult to use, in all honesty. It may seem daunting, but having doctors in the family--some of whom work in the field of psychiatry--I think society, now more than ever, is able to confront these sorts of issues and help with them.

There is some trial and error, but the trial and error process will even help put a constructive spin on the 25-year old in question's life. It'll give them some hope, which is important here.

I know it's not black and white, but on the surface it is: the parents need to take action. That's a black and white statement, and it's true. The parents can't afford to sit idly by. It's an unhealthy situation for everyone involved. That part of the puzzle is black and white. The rest becomes more difficult.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 06:04 PM
  #318
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I don't think the medical system is all that difficult to use, in all honesty. It may seem daunting, but having doctors in the family--some of whom work in the field of psychiatry--I think society, now more than ever, is able to confront these sorts of issues and help with them.

There is some trial and error, but the trial and error process will even help put a constructive spin on the 25-year old in question's life. It'll give them some hope, which is important here.

I know it's not black and white, but on the surface it is: the parents need to take action. That's a black and white statement, and it's true. The parents can't afford to sit idly by. It's an unhealthy situation for everyone involved. That part of the puzzle is black and white. The rest becomes more difficult.
I agree that taking action is black and white, you have to do something. What , becomes the question.

In this case though, it sounds like there was little connection with the buildup.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 06:14 PM
  #319
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tritone View Post
Two brothers. Just curious, why do you ask?
The media has made quite a few "faux-pas" of integrity by showing the house (including the ADDRESS) which in turn has left Gill's family quite vulnerable to anyone who feels that retribution could be had through Gill's family. I am actually slightly fearful that someone might go commando on them and I think this is tragic.
Anyone who has siblings can certainly understand that the responsability lies within Kimveer and NOT the family surrounding him. If my older brother went nuts and killed people I don't think I'd feel any responsability to pay for his actions. Hopefully nobody takes it upon themselves to seek this vengeance through Kimveer's family members.

Side note: Definition of irresponsable journalism : Journal de Montreal had an article in yesterday's paper about how disgusting and irresponsable the Ontario media has been to the parents by invading their privacy and publishing information that goes beyond the realm of responsable journalism.....in the very same article the Journal thought it was acceptable to have a huge picture of Kimveer's parents' house with the ADDRESS SHOWING!....hypocrite much?
By no means do I intend to go commando on the Gill residents. I feel devastated for them.

The reason I ask about whether he has any brothers/sisters is because I would love to know whether they got along with kimveer. I sure hope the brothers are in a far better mental shape than kimveer but the eldest son often plays as a role model to the younger brothers.

Do the brothers fit into society better than kimveer?

Hackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 06:28 PM
  #320
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,076
vCash: 500
Its clear that we won't agree and that your perspective makes you averse to my comments or suggestions. I won't continue to engage this beyond this post unless you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside Cowboy View Post
What I don't like in your tone, and in anyone's tone, is when they know what's the best for others?
Over two decades of crisis family intervention, often in home, offers me a unique perspective on family dynamics that most of society doesn't see. I have informed knowledge on the subject but one of the very interesting things one occasionally encounters in this field is a resistant response like yours to very basic parenting or familial suggestions. In contrast if I was a mechanic who was giving a diagnosis on whats wrong with your car would you respond with "when they know whats best for others"
Quote:
Have you ever received death threaths? Have you ever lived in a ***** hole with no hope of anything better? Have you ever been depressed? If not, how can you place judgement on those people, from your well-being point of view?
I've had ample hardship in my life which I've overcome which has made me a stronger person for overcoming it. Its a choice to look at anything thats occurred to us as a crutch or a character building challenge to our perseverence.

Quote:
that I don't really want to go back ten years ago, but let's just say I've seen the best and worse of society. I've known couch potatoes, druggies, street workers (heh), etc. Often people that become total trash are people who lacked fundamentals to survive in our world. They weren't particularly effective in society, they'll never be really, and their parents kicked them out. Now those parents will never know what happened to their child as those people don't really mail in notices of how degraded their life is once they've been kicked out. Or what about the poor girl that had a set of skills to be successfull but at some point in her life was what you call a couch potato, but she had parents who did what you advise to do, being strict on her and whatnot, well she ran away, got caught by a street gang and used as a sex slave. Now she's alive but she would be as good dead
.When did I ever advise to kick anybody out? I advised to have clear and consistent expectations beyond them being a couch potato and heres the critical point, for their own good!!! So that they avoid worst outcome. Meeting life head on is akin to getting back up on the horse after a fall. Hard, but we know its the best way to overcome. Saying we can't feeds self fullfilling prophesy.

Quote:
I do believe that society is not a big brother, that everyone chooses their paths, makes their own mistakes, and grow up with them. However, everyone makes mistakes, everyone has a different judgement upon a situation, no two situations are exactly alike, and decisions are hard to come to. If you look at someone's situation, anyone's situation, you will find them at fault for at least one thing. Which fault is the biggest? Parents who still had faith in their child, that were willing to work for their progeny? Parents who kicked out someone and that person's life after being hell? What tells you that the gunman wouldn't just have gone out with his guns and right away start a killing if he had been kicked out? Then you'd be blaming the parents for their action which led to the killing of "x" people? It's too easy playing the blame game.
I, and most of society, believe that humans have an approximate 18 year gestation period(sometimes longer) and that kids require the utmost guidance, and vigilance in empowering them to be the best that they can be.

Quote:
What can I say though, some people have their pre-conceived opinions. Some people base their own existence judging others and how they do compared to them. That ain't my cup of tea. And I believe every situation needs to be assessed differently. That's my prerogative.
But you say this without any working knowledge of how one gets to be a complete and utter sociopath capable of walking into a school and killing absolute strangers and then themself. This entire dissociation freefall took much time in an apparent void of redirection from parents who society(because it doesn't want to be big brother in peoples homes)entrusts to raise children.

Quote:
As to saying it was better with the previous generation of parents and that good old physical punishment technique, that's your opinion as well. Times are changing though, but some people's mentalities aren't.
When did I ever advocate physical punishment?!? I advocate clear effective guidelines confidently applied by parents that have some common sense expectation consistent with what society will later expect their children to be i.e. reasoanbly productive citizens.
Quote:
As long as Gill's parents did the best they could with who they are and what they are (which nobody here knows), then I don't think they can be blamed.
I have no idea what this means.

Quote:
Whether they did all they could as persons or not, they're the only ones who know, and I can bet you right now they're thinking hard about it. In the end, despite the fact it's their child who did the killing, they must hurt just like the parents of that poor girl who died that day. Putting the blame on them is just a way for someone to feel better about themselves, since in the big scheme it doesn't really change a thing to what happened. However, like you say, the same should be expected from all parents and any imperfection (to the way you're thinking) is a fault to be punished, despite the limits of each individual. So be it...
Any imperfection should be punished?! Failure to launch should be addressed effectively. period. To avoid doing so is to risk that persons very livelihood, self esteem, and any sense of well being and further fuels their dissociation from the productive world. Read more into my comments if you want..

Quote:
Oh and about the societal expectations??? What is that? There's no societal expectations.. one day you are born, the next your dead, it's called the life cycle. What happens in between is up to each individual to decide. Whether you're a slug all your life or whether you're active and helpful, in the end you're the person that will benefit from it. The work pattern is there for labour class alone, the rich can be slugs all they want and there will be no bad repercussions on their life. Abusers will leech off other people and make a living of it, but it's been like that for thousands of years. Any intelligent individual will find out early enough that the point is to live your own life, who cares about societal expectations? As in, if you were my neighbour, would I really care about your opinion of what I do right or wrong? Would it be really any of your business?
? It seems like you applaud the lack of community values and associated anomie that comes with it thats so effecting young people in a world without clear values. Thats too bad.

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 06:37 PM
  #321
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
I think maybe we're confusing personal situations with that of someone who opened fire on innocent strangers. There's a huge difference between rejecting societal norms and taking violent action. Maybe we're arguing different points here.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 06:54 PM
  #322
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
? It seems like you applaud the lack of community values and associated anomie that comes with it thats so effecting young people in a world without clear values. Thats too bad.
I won't comment on the whole, as it seems either I don't understand what you mean, or either you don't understand what I mean.
Situation is:
1- We don't know what happened at the Gill's home, whether the parents did multiple interventions or whether they didn't. We don't know how manipulative (or not) was the son, etc. In my regards, since we don't know those things, who are we do give blanket judgements?
2- Not everyone copes with situations the same way. Sometimes I do disagree with how someone treats a situation, but those people tend to think what they are doing is the best they can. How can we fault them for doing what they think is the best, even if it isn't? In the end, there isn't a book of truths around to check if your answer or the neighbours answers is really the good one.

And yet, some posters will say that the family is definately to blame? Heh...

About what you just wrote, well no, I don't agree that everyone should have the same values. I probably don't have the same values as you, and you probably don't have the same values as many people in this forum, yet we're all functionnal happy individuals. I disagree with the values that are vehiculated through the medias and the image that society projects to youth, yet the real way to solve this imo, is by acting the way you have your values and just not by blaming everyone but yourself. Do you buy clothes at outfits that use cladly dressed juveniles in their ads? Do you buy products from companies that promote societal inequities? Or when you buy you just take the best deal without considering the rest? Passing judgement over what you do or don't won't change a thing in this world, while acting in the sense of your values will. That's what I believe in. I like to think that people that I know start asking themselves questions about what's wrong in this world and what they can do about it instead of *****ing about this and that and putting the blame on others. As to the current "community" values, I can't really applaud them or support them, as I think that these values are full of general hypocrisy. Don't you think it's odd that while Canadians have as a high priority the "environment", Canada is a country where the laws are soft in regards to preserving the environment and our investments towards increasing environment quality is low compared to other industrial countries? How about the number of people that "arrosent leur gazon" all summer long? There's a whole lot of difference between what's your "up front" values and how you really act. I also believe that you don't get imposed values, they must grow on you otherwise it's just an outside shield that you wave when someone looks.

Edit: Just did correct a few sentences. As well, I do my best to express myself clearly, but english ain't my first langage and I don't usually debate all that much in english either, so sometimes sentences may not sound totally right, especially since you don't do a draft and then a final revision on message boards before posting. I apologize for that, so please try to find the meaning behind what I'm expressing and not the words at face value. Thanks.


Last edited by SuperUnknown: 09-17-2006 at 07:00 PM.
SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 07:08 PM
  #323
Montrealer
Registered User
 
Montrealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chambly QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,470
vCash: 500
I should mention that I think Mike8 might have gotten the impression I condoned his having guns.

I don't. I don't condone anyone having guns, to be honest, other than people in professions that require them. I certainly don't understand how it's legal to own a semi-automatic rifle that is capable of firing 50+ rounds during a single assault.

I should also note I wouldn't let my children bring guns into the home. Zero tolerance for that.

I was trying to look at it from the parent's point of view... but now that I've reflected, I suppose taking away the guns would have been the right thing to do. I wonder how he would have handled that particular request, though.

No easy answers, any way we look at it.

Montrealer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 07:22 PM
  #324
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealer View Post
I was trying to look at it from the parent's point of view... but now that I've reflected, I suppose taking away the guns would have been the right thing to do. I wonder how he would have handled that particular request, though.
I hate guns and I wouldn't have any home either, but how can you take away guns from a 25 years old? The kid could probably have sued his parents if they did, according to canadian laws.

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2006, 07:40 PM
  #325
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,269
vCash: 500
Montrealer: No, I didn't get the impression that you felt it was okay for him to own guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside Cowboy View Post
I hate guns and I wouldn't have any home either, but how can you take away guns from a 25 years old? The kid could probably have sued his parents if they did, according to canadian laws.
As long as the 25-year old lives in his parents' house, he is subject to their rules. If he doesn't like it, he can find himself a new place to live.

Chances are, given the fact that Gill could not hold a job and didn't work all that much, he would not be able to afford a car and his three guns (which were expensive) had he not been supported financially by his parents.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.