Let's take a look at the article, shall we?
Benoit disclosed that she had struggled with bipolar disorder since she was in fifth grade and that she had “crazy times.” Benoit told Suarez that she felt “she’s awoken from a very crazy time” when she realized her relationship with Bustamante was not healthy.So the victim had mental disorders most of her life.
Benoit said she became intimate with Bustamante, who was her adviser, toward the end of the fall 2010 semester. Benoit said she “screwed up” the consensual relationship with the professor when she stole his medication.They were in a completely unethical relationship and she was a thief, stealing drugs. Her family was well aware of her issues:
They acknowledged she used marijuana and said they were aware Benoit had been charged with misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia last year. She pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of disturbing the peace, according to records.She was also a drug user (always good for someone w/ mental issues, right?) and convicted criminal. Now on to the Professor.
Bustamante, who had been known to alternately refer to himself as a “psychopathic killer” and “the beast,” told his department chairman, Kenneth Locke, shortly after he was hired in 2007 that he took medication for bipolar disorder....So he was severely disturbed and off his medication. And how did he run his classes?
In an April 30 email, Bustamante, who also reportedly had multiple personality disorder, admitted to Locke that he was concerned about his mental state. He wrote, “I’m going through major withdrawals due to a lack of my main medication, and I’m struggling to even type this email.”
“He talked about shooting students, which was disturbing, and implied that he was (and we should be) drunk and high every other day,” said one student, who is not identified in the teaching evaluations.And what was the University's response?
Locke responded on May 1 that he assumed Bustamante had contacted his doctor and that he would have more medication soon.They knew he was dangerous and took precautions for themselves though:
University officials told the AP they did not tell police that Benoit said she had been threatened at gunpoint because she “did not want us to discuss the allegations in her complaint with police and we honored her wishes.”
On July 14, Suarez, of the human rights office, wrote Bustamante in advance of his July 19 meeting with her and Williams. In the email, Suarez tells Bustamante not to wear a jacket or bring any bags in which a weapon could be concealed.And what did they decide to do?
the university agreed to dismiss its investigation of Bustamante in exchange for his resignation.So they did NOTHING except try and pass the buck, even knowing he was unstable, psychotic and potentially dangerous. And the final result?
Three days later, Bustamante shot Benoit nearly a dozen times, then committed suicide in a hotel room.This line is classic:
The university acknowledged that certain items in the documents, including this student’s comment, were troublesome in hindsight.'Troublesome"? You've got to be sh!tting me.
Where is the outright distortion? The shooting didn't occur on campus. It occurred in town, outside of the victims private residence and the suicide in a hotel room. Both off campus. So allowing or disallowing firearms ON CAMPUS wouldn't have effected this at all.
But that doesn't allow for much dancing in the blood of the victims to push their agenda, now does it?