I read in the LA Times that they haven't yet, but are considering it.
Most of my friends think they should either be:
1) deported to South Korea
2) be put in Guantanamo Bay
-obviously they're the parents and should be blamed for their child's actions. If a child breaks something at a store, the parents pay for it. If a child misbehaves, it reflects the parents. I believe in ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!
If you lived in Virginia: WOULD YOU GO TO THEIR DRY CLEANING SHOP!?!?!?
2007-04-22 18:21:37 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
i think our tax $ should be spent on better things...
2007-04-22 18:46:39 · update #1
You sound very angry. It is the anger that got Cho Seung-hui into the deranged state of mind. He could not forgive those who bullied him. He felt it was unfair that he did not deserve it. He was jealous of those who were more affluent. He ruminated over these things filling his heart and mind with anger, rage and resentment until he decided to act out his gruesome fantasies.
His parents knew he had a social problem but could not guess that he would do something so horrible. Cho did well in school but was quiet. His parents have "lost face" in the Korean community. It will be very difficult for them to carry on whether in the US or Korea. One news report mentioned that they may move to Canada. It also has been reported that the father does not OWN the dry cleaner but only is a presser and runs the business. They worked from 8am to 10pm. 6 days a week to provide for their children.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042002366_2.html
You are too angry. This must have been a trigger for you in some way. Do not let your anger rule you. Find some way to forgive all those who have hurt, used and abused you.
2007-04-22 23:09:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Deported ummm absolutely not. I would have no problem going to The Cho’s drying cleaning business.
Comparing this to say an 8 year old child breaking something in a store and their parents having to pay for it is just absurd. Cho was an adult (23 years of age) and made his own decisions. It could be said his family should have tried to get him more help, but that could be said about the school as well, the teachers and consolers who saw he was falling off the edge. The Cho’s are not responsible for what their son did.
The fact that they would even need protection is sad, and from what I have heard they are being protected. I have nothing against it, just that its sad that they would need it. I don’t recall the parents of the boys that did Columbine being put under protection. Nor the family of the man who blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma.
I have read nothing that says Cho was adopted.
2007-04-22 21:50:38 · answer #2 · answered by Spread Peace and Love 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Geez...
1) No
2) No
Yes, I would patronize their dry cleaning business since I've heard nothing negative about the quality of the service, and since I believe Cho's actions are not reflective of his parents' child-rearing practices. This was the sole act of an individual , who happened to be an adult. Let's see what life is going to throw at you before you start making broad generalizations. His parents are suffering enough - I'm sure they'd give their lives to have prevented this and live this nightmare. What parent wouldn't?? Get a grip.
2007-04-22 22:16:17 · answer #3 · answered by meredetrois 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Deportation? Guantanamo Bay? Are you friggin serious?!?!?!
Has it escaped the attention of you and your friends that the shooter was no longer a minor? Last time I checked, the law does not hold parents accountable for the crimes of their adult children.
If the FBI feels that there are credible threats to the safety of Mr. & Mrs. Cho, then yes, they should be given some sort of protection. This violent tragedy would only be compounded if they were met with violence as well.
And if I lived in VA, I would go to their shop just to thumb my nose at jerks who think that the folks are in any way responsible for this.
2007-04-22 18:59:08 · answer #4 · answered by redfernkitty 3 · 10⤊ 0⤋
Well, I mean yes, the child does usually reflect off of the parents but all of Cho's actions can't be blamed on them because they can't control him. I probably bet you that everyone has done something that their parents didn't want them to do. And I guess this was Cho's. But if the parents want the protection then they should get it. And no, I wouldn't go to their dry cleaning shop.
2007-04-22 18:26:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, they should definitely be given FBI protection. Your friends are obviously uneducated if they truly believe they should be deported or be put in Guantanamo Bay (wtf?). They have done nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. And especially haven't done anything that would be considered terrorism. Parents are never blamed for their child's actions, and shouldn't be. In your example you said if a child breaks something in a store, the parent pays for it. That is because the child is too young to pay themselves. Murder's parents should not be punished, and they aren't.
2007-04-22 18:35:25 · answer #6 · answered by Tha A-Train 2 · 7⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Yes, the family should be given protection if it proves necessary. I am sure these people did their best to raise the boy right. We all know that most mass murderers have some type of mental defect. I would much rather see some of our laws changed regarding mental health issues. You sound like one of those people who are so quick to place blame. I think the family would probably need protection from people of your ilk.
2007-04-22 18:38:29 · answer #7 · answered by worldwise1 4 · 7⤊ 1⤋
First of all it isn't their fault he turned out the way he did. It's HIS FAULT! Not his parents, not the children who teased him, and not his teachers.
They don't need FBI protection. I don't believe anyone is blaming them for what he did. The boy was sick in his head. I think everything that could have been done was done, and he just wanted to die. I haven't heard anyone blame his parents yet.
2007-04-22 18:59:08 · answer #8 · answered by Miss B 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Let's get with the program people, as was not the
shooter 23yrs old, which makes him an adult and
parents are not blamed for what their adult kid
does, and for those of you are quick to critize and
put the blame on the parents shows how one has
no compasion and that is what was one of the re-
asons that caused the shooter to do what he did.
2007-04-23 15:18:48 · answer #9 · answered by RudiA 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The shooter wasn't a child anymore. He was 23. Should we go around arresting all the parents of crimials?
It's people like you they need protection from. It's sad that people are so stupid/hypocritical that they would harm someone else that never did anything to them.
2007-04-22 19:24:25 · answer #10 · answered by theFo0t 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋