Liberal compassion disorder has afflicted Portland, and, in a different way, Seattle. Here, the sacrosanct rubric of "closure" engenders costly vagaries. The Seattle Police Department has announced it will contract with James Alan Fox of Boston University, "The Dean Of Death," to head a panel searching for motives in the Capitol Hill mass murder of six, perpetrated by Kyle Huff, who then took his own life when confronted by police.
In response to my call this evening, SPD spokesperson Officer Rich Pruitt told me it's not clear yet what the price tag to taxpayers will be for the hiring of Fox, and for any attendant costs related to the commission's work. Whether the cost is modest or not: we don't need yet another show-panel to provide political cover after yet another big Seattle crime story (think WTO, Mardi Gras).
As Fox himself noted in a recent article, and as we all can ascertain from Huff's recent particulars, the 28-year-old, painfully shy pizza deliveryman was a socially-isolated, under-achieving loser with a lot of anger. The outstanding questions can be answered by police, and include the following:
1) When did Huff's father exit from his life? This otherwise useful Stranger report on his family in Montana unaccountably drops the ball on that question, saying just that his father Willis vanished "some time ago." Such details are always uncomfortable for liberal apologists of fractured families. Shouldn't we know when Dad vamoosed; whether Huff had any contact since; and how often? We don't need the "Doctor of Death" to find the answer.
2) While news reports make clear Huff used alcohol and pot the night of the shootings, and had what appears to be six bags of pot in his apartment, was he on anti-depressants?
Mind you, neither a long-gone Dad, nor anti-depressants - should Huff have even used them - is an excuse. But it's about all that's really left to know, in my opinion.
It should be noted that regarding the possibility of anti-depressants, we may never know, without the cooperation of Huff's mother. Pruitt, of the SPD, read me an e-mail to the department from Dr. Richard Haruff, Director of the King County Medical Examiner's Office. Among other things, Haruff stressed that the results of Huff's toxicology report - which Haruff told the SPD will be known in 10 to 14 days from today - cannot and will not be released to the public without consent of Huff's legal representative, or his family.
If Huff was on anti-depressants - and who knows if he was - it would be a worthwhile piece of information, a strand of understanding, although still no excuse for his killing of six innocent people. Nonetheless, it is in the public interest that we know.
When the King County medical examiner gets the toxicology report results from the state's crime lab, the information will be forwarded to Seattle Police. Then, unless the department chooses to simply leak the results - which Pruitt says Haruff warned against in his e-mail to the police - it will be incumbent upon the department to secure permission from Huff's "family" (read: mother) to release the results publicly.
If there is no permission granted by the family for the toxicology report results to be made public, that will be a clue there is something disturbing in the report.
The public deserves to know more about Kyle Huff's father, and if Kyle Huff was on anti-depressants. That can be done within existing City of Seattle resources. There is no need for a specially-appointed investigative panel to speculate - at added taxpayer expense - on why Huff did what we did. The "Dean of Death" will not tell us anything we could have not already surmised. The real question is whether our local government's professed agents of conscience have the actual courage to ask and publicize the answers to the big questions that remain unanswered, without the prophylaxis of yet another "blue-ribbon panel."
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 31, 2006 10:37 PM | Email ThisThe easy access to guns was the primary contibuting factor in the commission of the crime.
Posted by: JCM on March 31, 2006 10:48 PMSo, Seattle is contracting out investigating police officer duties? What is the point, other than to waste millions?
... cause it feels so good.
Posted by: huckleberry on March 31, 2006 11:34 PMJerk your knee and a thousand Seattleites will follow you. Even non-comfornists have an orthodoxy after all.
Posted by: speedloader on March 31, 2006 11:45 PMPerhaps Matt can return to explaining why killing the innocent is a bad thing, even if the defenseless victims might someday have voted for liberals. (He felt the need to explain that point, in his initial post on these killings.)
Remember, only a Vice-President gets to shoot human targets without enduring any consequences!
Huff was raised in a dysfunctional family.
Huff was marginally socially functional.
Huff used drugs.
Huff had trouble expressing himself.
Huff had access to guns.
Huff was familiar with killing (hunting).
The problem for the left has if they hold Huff responsible, and judge his actions as evil, it will erode the underpinnings of liberalism.
For liberalism to function liberalism needs victims for the state to care for.
Welfare requires the recipients to be victims of society and a capitalist economy. They are more sympathetic than a drug using women impregnated by 7 different men.
Socialized Health Care requires victims of big medicine. Not folks who fail to plan for their own needs.
Social Security requires victims of big business, instead of people who save and plan.
Holding someone responsible requires making judgments.
When you start making judgments, liberalism goes out the window.
I know a bunch of mid 20's guys. I wouldn't catch a single one of them out to 4-am on a Sat. morning, then going to a house filled with drugs and 14 to 15 year old girls. They spent 4 years of toil getting engineering degrees, now they hold down $50 -$75K jobs, and get sent all around the world to assist customers.
I will make a judgement. The 20 somethings are know are better people than the 20 somethings at the after party. They are producing and contributing to society.
When we start making judgments we will eventually come to evil. That evil exists, and people can give themselves over to evil. Evil is an active and malevolent force in the world. Evil uses drugs and non-responsible lifestyles to spread it's work.
When a person is raised without values, good and evil. When that person is always told everything is equal valid just different choices, it becomes impossible to draw lines on behavior.
If you extend this reasoning to the extreme end, it was just culture expression for Huff to go on a killing spree, we need to respect and accept his lifestyle choices.
In order to preserve the liberal house of cards Huff cannot be held responsible for his action, he must be come a victim.
When you start doing that, holding people responsible you also start calling other things wrong.
It's wrong for people to party at 7-am in a house full of drugs.
It's wrong for 20 something guys to hang all night with a 14 year old girl. (I can think of only one reason a 24 year would be hanging around a 14 year old all night).
When you start call things wrong, and destructive to a person and society you call no longer support that behavior. Calling wrong requires actions to discourage the behavior.
For Liberalism to continue it requires classes of victims to care for. It requires non-judgementalism of behaviors that lead to the individuals situation.
Don't read this as a blaming the victims in Huff rampage.
What I am saying is that for liberals to blame Huff as individually and evilly responsible would require then working back up the chain. When they do that their whole world view collapses onto itself.
Liberals lack the courage, integrity and logic to do that. Instead they need to study the situation and make it fit their world view.
Posted by: JCM on April 1, 2006 09:05 AMThat's a stupid comment, even for a mouth-breather like you paddy-cakes.
Why don't you go back to your auto-asphyxiation....maybe this time you'll succeed...
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 1, 2006 09:14 AM"Remember, only a Vice-President gets to shoot human targets without enduring any consequences!"
Look up the police reports and then the definition of accidental.
Only a Kennedy could commit vehicle homicide, leaving the scene of vehicle crash, failing to report an injury collision and still get elected to the Senate.
I would rather go hunting with Dick Cheney, than go for a ride with Ted Kennedy
Posted by: JCM on April 1, 2006 09:38 AM"Guns" -"guns" - "guns". Anyone remember Juan Corona in California who used a machete to kill 25 people? What about Dan Van Ho who knifed to death an innocent victim near the Kingdome in '97? Did Ridgeway use a gun? What about Seattle's own Ted Bundy?
I'm more fearful of sociology majors on the loose in Seattle than I am of guns, knives, boomerangs, slingshots, poison darts, etc. ;0)
Posted by: glock on April 1, 2006 10:44 AMThis raver has become so brazen that as part of a "care package" request that he put out over the internet for survivors of the shooting, he requested that ravers might consider donating weed.
He even made a map to where they can drop the care package off at.
Go to this web page for the message I am refering to.
http://tinyurl.com/ovx2r
Is that brazen or what? I guess he thinks that the SPD won't do anything about it.
I guess he is probably right.
Posted by: J,J, on April 1, 2006 11:42 AMThis psychic says she knows. Check what she says on her blog.
http://www.dragonflypsychic.com/blog/2006/03/what-was-eating-kyle-huff.html
She said that Kyle Huff came to her in a Dream and explained it all to her.
There. Question answered.
So, I say, mail this explanation to the SPD with our compliments and be done with it.
Then we can get to the important questions surrounding this such as: why were so many underaged girls in a house with 20 and 30 something males?
And why isn't the SPD doing something about drugs which BOTH the ravers in the house AND Kyle Huff seemed to have so much of?
I loved it how the SPD tried to play it down saying that Kyle Huff had bags of "vegetative material" in his apartment. Well, I don't think it was lettuce.
Posted by: Kurt on April 1, 2006 11:54 AMI share your desire for a world with fewer broken families, less drug abuse, and fewer depressed people. But those problems will always be with us; fortunately they rarely lead to mass murder. If there were any other factors that contributed to Huff's evil, crazy act, I'd like to know them so we can prevent a recurrance. Wouldn't you?
Posted by: Bruce on April 1, 2006 12:00 PMGuns, guns, guns, guns.
I like guns.
I own guns.
I use guns.
Every time I go to Seattle, I carry at least one gun.
I know many law abiding, responsible people who like me, own, and use guns, and I know of no criminals who are legally allowed to own, or use guns. Some of the people I know who carry guns every day openly say they are for gun control. It wouldn't surprise me if JCM is one of these.
I don't use guns to kill, and I won't unless and
until someone tries to kill me, or they try to take my guns away. Like many others, despite my access to guns, I still havien't killed anyone because it is wrong to do so unless you have a good reason. I hope I am never forced to use deadly force to defend myself or others, but if I am it will not be a crime in the mind of any sane responsible person.
JCM needs only to have someone try to kill him or someone close to him in order to understand. If that won't do it, there is no hope for JCM.
Access to guns had next to nothing to do with the crime on Capital Hill. If I had happened upon the scene of that crime at its beginning, less people would have died partly because of my access to guns, and partly because of my willingness to use guns properly.
Like MANY MANY other crimes, there are MANY other ways that the "Capital Hill" crime could have been committed, and ALL OF THEM would have been illegal, but the instrumentalities would not have been questioned let alone blamed. The vast majority of crimes committed with guns use guns already illegally owned as it is, and the cities in the U.S. where most gun crimes are committed already have strict laws against gun ownership and penalties to match. The problem is not access to guns, but people who do evil things with whatever they can get their hands on.
Britain France and Australia have severe problems with gun related crimes and all three have strict laws against gun ownership. In China, guns are nearly impossible to obtain, so any nitwit with a stick or a sword or their fists can kill you with impunity. Try to kill me with a stick or a sword or your fists and you will get a very nasty surprise.
JCM and others like him use the most pathetic type of post hoc reasoning to prop up a deterministic view of outcomes by saying guns were accessable therefore guns were to blame. Any disingenuous fool can use this type of fallacious pseudo-reasoning to prove almost ANYTHING.
JCM and others. Grow up. People do evil things. You will never stop it. Laws are made to puish criminals but no law can prevent crime, and at the same time preserve liberty. If you want to live without guns, don't buy any. If you want to live where no guns are accessable to criminals move to China or commit suicide, just don't use a gun.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 1, 2006 12:17 PMAmused.
Maybe it would be best for everyone if you could just stay away from Seattle? Why would you come to Seattle if it fills you with such fear? You can get just about everything one needs elsewhere. Are you into punishment? Do you get a little thrill of pleasure from being in a place where you need a gun?
Joking aside, you did at least offer one nugget of truth when you asked: "Do you get a little thrill of pleasure from being in a place where you need a gun?"
That nugget of truth is that Seattle, as amply illustrated by recent events, is a place where it is prudent to carry. And no, it isn't a thrill, rather it is a sigh of determination not to be another statistic of "enlightened" Seattlunatics...
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 1, 2006 02:00 PMI carry a fire extinguisher in my car, some flares, a raincoat, and a bag full of quarters but I am not afraid of fire, car accidents, rain, or parking meters, just aware of them.
Your typical liberal attitude ignores inevitabilities and reality in a way that requires others to have to take care of you.
We do agree heartily on one thing though. It would be best for anyone who wishes to assault me if I just stayed away from Seattle, but I won't. I refuse to let criminals and morons like you stop me from doing what I like. And yes, I am into punishment of criminals who murder innocent people. I don't get any pleasure from being in a place where I need a gun, but it sounds like you do.
Look around and you'll see me. I'm there quite often.
Maybe it would be best for you if you just stay away from Seattle?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 1, 2006 03:01 PMHell, they are VERY PUBLIC about their drug use.
Go to the following web page.
http://tinyurl.com/ovx2r
This is no joke. Read down to where it says "ENTERTAINMENT". Yes, he actually posted on the Internet for all the world to see a request that people open their heart up to the survivors by donating among other things their "weed".
And then he even gives a map to where the stuff can be dropped off at.
But the saddest thing is of course, that the Seattle Police Department won't do anything about it.
Even after he made a map. On the Internet. For all the world to see.
Posted by: J.J. on April 1, 2006 03:18 PMIt occurs to me that I may have written a little too hastily. Usually your writing is cogent, intelligent, and sensible, and I may have mistaken what you said for an endorsement of the knee jerk anti-gun attitude usually spewed by liberals. If in fact you were speaking only of the potential Panel's conclusion and not your own opinion about guns, I apologize.
Also, if this is true, I heartily agree with you.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 1, 2006 03:22 PMFrom "the Stranger" article about what happened.
"The sun rose at 6:03 a.m. and though the music was still playing, the partiers had become lethargic. The revelers drifted upstairs to fall asleep on beds or couches, or they lounged in the living room, sipped flat beer on the porch, or smoked pot in the basement."
"Anthony was in the basement with three others, smoking pot, when he heard the first gunshots. Jesiah was in the kitchen on his computer. It was exactly 7:00 a.m."
And of course in a surprisingly open internet call out to ravers to support the survivors by helping them with the basics such as food, toletries, etc. on the list of things to donate it included.
"### ENTERTAINMENT ###
Weed. Beer. Wine. Hard liquor. Smokes, black American Spirits are their faves. Did I mention that they could really use some weed?
After all, if there has ever been a time to enjoy Initiative 75, this is it. "
http://tinyurl.com/ovx2r
They were all on drugs at the time. And the survivors - they still are.
By the way, I guess I am not hip. What the hell is "Initiative 75"?
I forgot to post the link to the "Stranger" article about what happened.
They seem to have reported it better, in more detail than any other of the Seattle area so called news sources.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31359
Posted by: J.J. on April 1, 2006 03:51 PMIn addition to being amused by liberals, you have apparently been confused by statistics. Annual homocide rates by gun are:
US 3.72 per 100,000 people
Britain 0.11
France 0.44
Australia 0.44
(Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html.)
Of course there are many reasons for the differences, not just gun control. The non-gun homocide rate in each of those countries is also lower than in the US, but not as much lower as the gun homocide rate -- data which could be used to argue for or against the effectiveness of gun control. But the data certainly counters your claim that these countries have "severe problems with gun-related crimes".
I'm curious as to the data supporting your statement that in China, "any nitwit with a stick or a sword or their fists can kill you with impunity". I'm surprised you didn't mention murder by chopsticks and Szechuan peppers.
Not to worry.
Sorry if I was obtuse. (mad, lack of sleep, in a hurry)
The whole thing is a snap shot of liberal thinking (or lack thereof).
You can't judge. If you can't judge you can't find responsibility. If no one is responsible, then we must help them.
Pull the Huff thread too hard and liberalism unravels.
Hence the study with a PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) to plausibly make Huff a victim.
If Huff was responsible they couldn't blame guns.
Posted by: JCM on April 1, 2006 04:03 PMThat's because murder by chopstick is considered bad form, and murder by Szechuan peppers is, well, just stupid.
Nice citation on your spin of homicide rates....too bad the numbers are obsolete by, oh, 10 to 15 years!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 1, 2006 04:08 PMYou cite, "http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html.International " who bases their so-called statistics about Britain, France and Australia solely on the "Journal of Epidemiology 1998:27:216."
This information is pure outdated apocryphal bull$hit and your use of it only proves that you must rely on lies to make your typically liberal silly-a$$ed case.
Chopsticks and Szechuan peppers eh? Humorous . . . for a moron.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 1, 2006 04:22 PMIn 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:
16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2006.
There are an estimated 200 million guns in private hands in the US.
It is also estimated that 2.5 million gun defenses occur each year. That is stopping a crime with the display or use of a gun.
One death for every 6637 guns.
One homicide for every 16,779 guns.
One crime stopped for every 80 guns.
For every gun death 83 crimes are stopped.
In 2003 there where an estimated 204 million cars in the US.
In 2003 there where 38,477 traffic fatalities.
One death for every 5302 cars.
Cars carry us 2.9 Trillion miles every year.
For every 100 million miles traveled there are 1.5 deaths.
The study doesn't mention death by Chopsticks, Szechuan peppers, or terminal liberal inanity.
Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on April 1, 2006 05:15 PMOr, it might be like the $500,000 marketing campaign to come up with the "SayWA" slogan for our state tourism.
There's no need to waste more taxpayer money here. There was a stupid rave party. Happens all the time. Which one of us didn't attend at least one party in high school or college? There were some incredibly irresponsible parents who let young girls go to the party without their knowledge. Happens all the time. Then a wacko shot up the place. It wasn't the gun, it was the nut. There's nothing else to see here folks.
But like all things liberal. There is a knee-jerk to "understand" and "study" the movtivations and frustrations of Kyle Huff, yada, yada.
Let's just drop this. They guy did us all a favor by killing himself. Justice was done on the cheap for the price of a bullet. No need to raise the costs more.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 1, 2006 06:18 PMThe founders enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in the bill of rights for the very same reason.
Albeit on opposite sides of the issue.
The fundamental reason to the right to keep arms is that ultimate power resides in and with the people.
When all means are exhausted, insert the history of events leading up the Revolutionary War, the people have the means to dispose a government and re-establish government for and by the people.
Strip away all the b*llcr*p and modern liberals are socialists, as opposed to the liberal democrats exemplified by Jackson, JFK, Truman and even Moyinhan.
Socialism is antithetical to the ideals of our representative republican. Individual vs. state / class, external causation vs. responsibility, liberty vs. servitude to the state.
The socialists know that it will only take a fraction of the population that is armed to overthrow and re-establish the republic.
A gun owner is also independent of the state for protection. If some one breaks into my home and threatens my wife and my kids, I only need the police to take a report and the coroner to clean up the mess.
A none gun owner is dependent on the state for protection. Liberals are only empowered by dependent classes.
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
http://www.annrules.com
Posted by: Janet on April 1, 2006 07:08 PM"For release: Sept. 10, 1997
Sims appoints retired Supreme Court Justice Robert Utter to head mental health task force.
King County Executive Ron Sims today announced that he has appointed former State Supreme Court Justice Robert Utter to chair a special task force looking into the mental health system and how it deals with misdemeanor offenders following the recent murder of a retired firefighter from Kent by a former state mental patient previously charged with bike theft."
The first finding of said panel says it all:
"Establish a program that provides aggressive outreach to mentally ill individuals at large in the community."
Ya gotta love panels and committees.
i'm sure they'll find a hate crime in this someehow.
and/or will talk radio be to blame?
Posted by: righton on April 2, 2006 08:27 AMas for "packing"--good thing we (still) can in WA; i don't see a wild Dodge City in 'carry' states; in fact, i think most people realize that person you're going to mess with may have a stinger; the offenders are usually the same as in any city--druggies, dangerous ex-boyfriends and gang kids; not average folk with a little hardware for good measure in the ol' pocket;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on April 2, 2006 08:51 AMExcellent and true.
I love it when liberals argue that the individual armed citizen is no match for our military in the case of rebellion, and therefore the ultimate power does not reside in and with the people. The answer to this is easy.
The individual armed citizen will not need to match our military in the case of legitimate rebellion because our military is comprised of individual armed citizens. Most of us have little idea of how delicate the real balance of actual power is. Any country where a dimwit like Ted Kennedy, or a scumbag like McDimwit, or a treasonous bastard like Patrick Leahy can screw up the plans to defend our own nation of a President in time of war by openly giving aid and comfort to the enemy, you can be certain that we as individual armed citizens are able to overthrow and re-establish the republic.
The swiftboat guys (true patriots every one) would not allow John Friggin'(lying coward) Kerry to be President without exposing him and they would be as chary of following a scoundrel like him as the officer corps of our miltary was of following Bill (sell out to terrorists) Clinton. They left the military in droves, and we impeached that lousy used car salesman for lying to a grand jury and under oath. Had he gone much further in openly offending those of us who own firearms, we would have taken him down, or lost it all doing so. Not by shooting him, but by removing him from office. Liberals assasinate Presidents with guns, not conservatives.
Liberal morons love to bare their a$$es to the enemy and then run away. Then they blame Republicans for cleaning up the mess.
Now one of them wants to censure President Bush for legally doing his job as the President of the United States in time of war. He is doing so in order to gain political power and become a President who would . . . not use the same Presidential power? This same guy wants strict gun control.
Liberals are retarded fools with nothing better to do than attack their own benefactors. I know several who pack guns around Seattle, while at the same time advocating strict gun control. Unfortunately, as in the capital Hill incident, liberals do as they please, but like you, when they come to my house, they are required to be on their best behaivor.
If that household had been a conservative one, no deaths would have occurred. If a true conservative happened on the scene at the right time, the only one who would have died was the perpetrator.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 2, 2006 10:45 AMHe's right - it was locoweed.
Posted by: platypus on April 2, 2006 12:05 PMFrom my time in the military and what I know of military training.
The very idea that the military would participate in the government action against the citizens is antithetical to the way the military thinks.
First the prohibition in posse comitatus against military operation with in the US. The military takes that very seriously, and understands the civilian control, and limits on that control.
Second Legal vs. illegal orders, all ranks are trained on obeying legal orders, what those are and how they are given. And disobeying illegal orders and what those are.
Third the oath of an officer and solider is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Fourth as you mentioned the military is also citizens.
If it ever came to the President order the military to uphold his power in the US. A vast majority of military commanders and soldiers would say that is illegal and we will not do it.
If a second revolution came about and the citizens were restoring the republic, the military at worst would sit it out. They most likely would support the restoration of a legitimate government.
With the argument that the citizens could not stand against the US military the liberals display their profound ignorance of the military, military law, culture, esprit de corps and people in the military.
Posted by: JCM on April 3, 2006 08:10 AMI spoke with an SPD HR lady two weeks ago who said two finalists were undergoing pre-screening before one would be chosen, probably in early April. The city that can't fill potholes can afford up to $90K a year for a gun control advocate. I thought they already had that in Gil Kerlikowske?
Posted by: JoeW on April 3, 2006 09:22 AMYou are right and history supports your premise. The civil war was technically an illegal war, but Lincoln understood that the most important precepts of the constitution including liberty and fundamental rights were indispensable to it, and others must give way or destroy it. Otherwise our troops fighting on our own turf was expressly unconstitutional. Slavery was legal.
I have more than one personal friend that were officers of fleet and brigadier and above rank who left the military because they quietly refused to serve the Clinton Administration. The reason we went to Iraq much later than we had to this last time was because the officer corps required a complete rebuilding before adequate deployments could be assured.
As you say, "Liberals display their profound ignorance of the military, military law, culture, esprit de corps and people in the military."
They also believe in fairy tales and logical impossibilities like the notion that gun control will prevent gun crimes like the most recent Capital Hill affair or that OUR not fighting wars will stop wars. These are the same people who whenever they run into trouble need people like me to help because they neglected to plan for themselves. Then they want to stop me from having prophylactics because being prepared for trouble, is somehow (in their so-called minds) tantamount to causing it.
This liberal Huff bastard had a gaping hole in his character that he believed excused him to do unthinkable things to innocent people out of narcissim. Good riddance. If they didn't have equal say to the rest of us, liberal Democrats would be nothing more than retarded circus monkeys and petty criminals.
If anyone really wants gun control that might actually have any chance of reducing gun crimes, they need only find a way to prohibit gun ownership by liberals.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 3, 2006 10:38 AMI knew kyle for many years and all of this nonsense about him is just the result of people trying to "explain" it. There is no explanation. He was one of the nicest guys ive ever met.
The only theory I can think of is that some raver kid who's parents put him on serious anti-depressants thought he could make a quick buck selling them in place of extascy. These drugs can cause sudden homicidal and suicidal impulses.
Posted by: correcting the BS on April 19, 2006 09:35 AM