CHO

CHO

1. Leakages.

   • Selective mutism
     • Cho rarely spoke, was diagnosed with selective mutism and anxiety disorder. His teachers noted extreme social withdrawal. He was described as painfully shy.
   • Social Withdrawal
     • His peers described him as silent, avoiding eye contact, and socially invisible. He was known as the "question mark kid"
   • Disturbing writings
     • During his high school years, he wrote about wanting to repeat the Columbine massacre. At VT, he submitted plays and writings filled with graphic violence and revenge fantasies. This deeply alarmed the English faculty.
   • Secretly photographed classmates
     • He secretly took photos of students during class. This made students feel targeted and uncomfortable.
   • Stalking of female classmates.
     • He followed female students, and sent obsessive messages. He sent direct online messages as well as wrote messages on dorm room doors, quoting Shakespeare. Campus police intervened twice.
   • Psychiatric detention / court order
     • In December 2005, He was found to be a danger to himself, and he was ordered to get outpatient mental health treatment. After his release, there was no follow-up. Cho never received the care as he was ordered to.
   • Disturbing encounter with Prof. Lucinda Roy
     • Professor Roy found his writings and demeanor to be menacing and, as a result, requested that he be removed from class and reported to the administration.
   • Alter ego / imaginary girlfriend
     • He created an alter ego, "Ismail Ax." He also imagined a girlfriend named "Jelly," talking about her as if she were real, blurring the line between fantasy and reality. imaginary
   • Preparatory behavior.
     • Purchased two handguns, ammunition, and sent materials to local media.
   • Attack & manifesto.
     • On April 16, 2007, he shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others. Before he died, he sent a video manifesto blaming "rich snobs" and "deceitful charlatans." These words that he used to justify the violence.

2. Seung-Hui Cho was the Virginia Tech student who suffered from severe social anxiety and possible psychosis. For several years, his behavior deteriorated from isolation to stalking, violent writings, and finally, the mass shooting on April 16, 2007.

   • https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/virginia-tech-shootings/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/prevail/docs/VTReviewPanelReport.pdf https://www.wired.com/2007/04/ho-stalked-wome/ https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/31/state-report-finds-failure-share-information-about-virginia-tech-shootings https://threatassessment.vt.edu/ https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/08/FATAL-GAPS-RESEARCH-070218B.pdf

3. Legal / Ethical / Institutional Barriers.

   • Privacy Law Caution
     • VT staff were overly cautious about privacy laws, such as FERPA and HIPAA, which led to hesitancy in sharing information even when safety concerns existed.
   • Fragmented information
     • Information about Cho's concerning behavior was fragmented across campus police, counseling staff, and faculty. There was no system in place to connect these dots. VT faculty even had no idea that other members had similar issues regarding Cho's behavior. This fragmentation hindered the response to the emerging threat.
   • Lack in continuity of care.
     • Cho was ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment. However, there was no system to ensure compliance with this order, and he did not receive the mandated treatment.
   • Legal issues
     • Virginia law required a clear demonstration of "imminent danger" before someone could be involuntarily committed. This strict criteria made it difficult to intervene in this case.
   • Incomplete counseling records
     • Cho's therapy notes weren't complete, and follow-up appointments weren't properly tracked. Without a full picture of his mental health, it was hard for anyone to assess the risk he posed.
   • No designated threat assessment team.
     • VT did not have a group in place to regularly review students who might be at risk. As a result, disturbing or troubling behaviors weren't looked at collectively, and as a result, warning signs were missed.
   • Lack of defined roles
     • Faculty and staff were uncertain about their roles in addressing concerning behaviors and feared overstepping legal/ ethical boundaries. This ambiguity led to a reluctance to act
   • Lack in formal procedures
     • There weren't clear procedures for reporting or evaluating students who showed threatening behavior. Without a system, warning signs weren't addressed consistently, letting the problem grow unchecked.
   • Limited peer referral systems
     • Students who noticed or experienced Cho's troubling behavior did not have a clearly established, safe way to report it. Peer programs existed for general conflict resolution, but they weren't designed to capture serious threats, so critical warning signs weren't always passed to proper authorities or otherwise underaddressed.
   • No formal guidelines for Communication between staff
     • Staff didn't have clear, written rules about how or when to share or pass along concerns about a student's threatening behavior. Without formal guidelines, everyone had to make judgment calls based on their limited experiences with Cho, which created uncertainty and slowed responses.

4. Changes or recommendations in "fatal gaps"

   • Improved mental health reporting laws
     • After the VT shooting, 35 states passed new laws requiring or authorizing the reporting of mental health records that prohibit firearm possession. This made it much harder for high-risk individuals to slip through the
   • Federal incentives for record submission
     • The 2007 NICS Improvement Act created financial incentives for states to submit mental health records to the FBI's background check system, encouraging more comprehensive reporting.
   • Federal funding to upgrade state systems
     • 29 states received federal NARIP funding to improve their record-keeping systems, making it easier and faster to report prohibited mental health records.
   • Mandatory submission of court and health records
     • States are required to report both court orders and mental health facility commitments quickly to the FBI, ensuring that relevant prohibitions are included in background checks.
   • Inclusion of past records
     • Reporting laws have been revised to include mental health records created before the law was enacted, closing gaps that previously allowed some prohibited individuals to buy guns.
   • Regular audits of the submission processes.
     • States now audit their submission systems regularly to make sure no records are missing, helping prevent dangerous gaps in the NICS.
   • Increased gun sale denial rates.
     • As more records are submitted, the number of firearm purchase denials for prohibited individuals has grown. This had made it harder for dangerous people to obtain guns legally.
   • Safety overrides legal privacy concerns.
     • Federal guidance clarified that reporting mental health records for background checks does not violate privacy laws when public safety is at risk.
   • Federal incentives for record submission.
     • The 2007 NICS Improvement Act created financial incentives for states to submit mental health records.
   • Nationwide compliance
     • By 2017, most states had laws requiring mental health records to be submitted, and ongoing efforts aim to ensure all states fully participate in the NICS system.