March 27, 2006
The Puzzle Of Kyle Huff

It's tragic to the Nth degree when kids are killers, but even more so when they are the victims of an armed madman who is also a little-known guest at an after-hours house party. There've been a number of shootings in Puget Sound claiming multiple victims, but the Capitol Hill killings of six early last Saturday morning were particulary horrific because the slain included two teenage girls: Melissa Lynn Moore, 14; and Suzanne Thorne, 15. Prayers to the families, friends and loved ones of all the victims.

Yes, the victims were of a group that often sported dyed hair, danced to electronica, and certainly in most instances were liberals, if they voted at all. Who cares? The issue here is not raves; every generation has had drug-and/or-booze-fueled dance parties of one sort or another. Usually, people don't end up dead.

To an extent, the analysis needs to include a look at basic rules of trust in a sadly changed urban environment, where the "easy come-easy go" ethic no longer works. I would not let anyone into my house who wasn't a trusted friend of a trusted friend. There is no point scapegoating the parents of the slain teens, who are surely more than kicking themselves for having allowed their kids to be out all night partying, in a house rented by naive twenty-somethings. A parent of one of the older victims underscores the point in the middle of this report.

The killer, Kyle Huff, 28, moved here from Whitefish, Montana. According to news reports, he was usually quiet - but also not shy about voicing his views at other times. He was a drummer; lived with his twin brother in a modest north Seattle apartment; and had worked as a pizza deliveryman. Huff had once shot at a sculpted public moose in Whitefish, and a sherrif's deputy says he was seen around town a lot sporting long hair and a trenchcoat, after graduating high school. But Columbine "Trenchcoat Mafia" values cannot yet be easily ascribed to Huff - for these included resentment toward "jocks," and his chosen target was arty types.

I don't think the gun control crowd will end up drawing too much ammo from this tragedy, though they will certainly try.

Even though Montana has a Democrat governor at present, it is still in essence a Red State, and some Seattle progressives are likely to trot out certain stereotypes about his prior place of residence to explain Huff's heinous actions. They should resist the temptation. This is not about politics, but a person's life gone horrifically wrong for reasons still unclear. The autopsy on Huff is complete, but Seattle-King County Public Health spokesman James Apa told me today the toxicology report on Huff cannot be released without permission of next of kin, under state law. (If this is in any way not accurate, I will trust readers to let me know).

Even if drugs were in Huff's system, that would only serve to highlight the already pressing question: what went wrong in this guy's brain? One of the more pertinent reactions I've seen so far came from Brad Torgeson, in a Seattle Post-Intelligencer forum (scroll down a bit, here). Torgerson wrote:

If I had to 'finger' anything in this whole sad affair, I'd finger the nihilism and postmodernist soul-rot which infests so much of our global 21st century culture. When we raise whole armies of children without serious moral instruction, without enforcing ethical boundaries, and otherwise failing to instill in them empathy for their fellow men or an understanding of their unspoken obligations in a civilized society, we get mindless killing like this latest massacre.

It'll be interesting to see what more Seattle's two dailies turn up, and whether or not they cheaply fall back on scapegoating guns. I want to know a lot more about this guy's parents and family life, and his last few years here in Seattle.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 27, 2006 08:06 PM | Email This
1. I am glad that so far neither side has tried to turn this into a 'lets blame the raves' thing. The sad fact is that in modern society with densely populated areas and powerful easily acquired firearms these sorts of thing will happen(both unavoidable in my opinion). It is not that hard to kill a good number of people with a semiautomatic weapon and it is not that hard to find a large group of people. Whether it be a disgruntled parishioner shooting up a church or an angry partier firing into a house party.

Posted by: Giffy on March 27, 2006 08:25 PM
2. Of course this is not a result of the "rave's" lifestyle. I don't know much about it, but don't we all do things when we're younger that we discard as we age? Any attempt to pin the horror on the type of party is misguided.

Saturday night I went to a "theme" party where we celebrated the 50's. Narrow black ties, boas, martinis, etc. Frank Sinatra on the stereo. If we were the victims of a mass murder would society blame the victims? I don't think so. Same analysis applies to the 20 somethings. Their lifestyle is not to blame.

Neither is the 2nd Amendment to blame. I'm sure there are liberals that will cite this horrific act as justification for gun control.

The bottom line is:

1) The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.

2) Criminals don't give up guns because of a law.

Let's see where the debate proceeds.

My condolences to the families of the victims. As a parent of children the same age of the victims, I know that the pain of their loss is beyond description.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 27, 2006 09:36 PM
3. Giffy,

You say: "The sad fact is that in modern society with densely populated areas and powerful easily acquired firearms.... It is not that hard to kill a good number of people with a semiautomatic weapon and it is not that hard to find a large group of people."

You're correct that it isn't hard to obtain firearms and find a large group of people.

It's also true that it is rare for an event like the latest horrific attack to involve anyone capable of returning fire.

Yet, these events are thankfully rare in our country -- perhaps because humans are capable of terrible things, but not many of us are so mentally unbalanced as to do such things.

Posted by: Micajah on March 27, 2006 09:37 PM
4. Don't try too hard to get into this guy's head....
It's very likely that he had a normal childhood, great family life, average grades,etc... With a twin brother - socializing probably wasn't a problem...especially if he was the more "assertive" of the two...
He was exceedingly polite - yet felt comfortable voicing his opinions. This is actually a good balance! He lacked job stability and even walked off a job half way through the day...(this may be a sign of something..) He shot up a statue of a moose several years ago...but he also hung with the artsy crowd back then an it could have just been his method of "critique".

He and his brother both decided to wear the trenchcoats..but in Montana, if you also wore a cowboy hat - you were stylin'! Has nothing to do with Columbine.....He was a large man at 6'5" 280lbs. Not likely that he was intimidated by any of the skinny kids at the party....or anywhere else.

Drugs? Maybe...but his shooting spree took a lot of planning and committment...Drug crimes are usually about an immediate need..(money for drugs, drugs, etc..) Even if he were a meth-head - driven to dillusional behavior - it would be hard to plan, purchase supplies, weapons, paint, etc while on a drug. His brother is the key to his behavior...His brother must have seen something in him over the years..

The FBI has lot's of profiles of people just like Huff. People who would commit terrible crimes....Yet - there is very little to distinguish them from anyone else...until they blow.

Frightening isn't it?

Posted by: Deborah on March 27, 2006 09:43 PM
5. I'm not blaming the kids or the parents. But as parents you have to know that if your teenaged kid is hanging out at ravers parties, it's not good. There is nothing good that can come out of that. You have to reel them back in and put forth a better vision for their life.

None of these kids deserved to die. Being a raver doesn't make you bad. They were good kids I'm sure. But being at a party house at that hour ups the chances of experiencing something bad. That's all.

Posted by: Hindu on March 27, 2006 09:50 PM
6. Gun control as I see it is using two hands to steady a gun, while aiming it. A majority of the population would agree - sorry lefty loonies !

Posted by: KS on March 27, 2006 09:56 PM
7. Gun control nuts are exactly like environmental wacko Global Warming nuts. They get all emotional and irrational about obvious physical normalities like the damage caused by a bullet or from the warming of the earth due to the Sun.

There's really nothing more dangerous about a gun than a moving vehicle. It's only the irrational that believe that guns will somehow operate themselves or that by disarming honest citizens, dishonest citizens will also disarm.

At root is a Progressive / Socialist desire to rid society of anything that might give one individual an advantage over another.

Kyle Huff was obviously a bad guy, but we still don't know all of the details. And the real tragedy is that in our cowardly society with unwillingness to allow and encourage self defense, we've emboldened people like Kyle Huff to do as they will.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 28, 2006 12:34 AM
8. I looked up the victims of the Republican (Street) massacre on Stefan's voter registration database page. Kyle Huff, the shooter, wasn't registered to vote. The four adult men who were murdered were all registered to vote in King County. Three of the four had voted in either 2004 or 2005. The oldest victim had registered in King County back in 2000, but had never voted.

Posted by: Richard Pope on March 28, 2006 01:13 AM
9. I think Brad Torgeson's letter provides substantial clues to unlock the difference between Gen X/Y and previous generations. Those of us raised in the sixties and before were taught the difference between right and wrong, and that there were consequences, now and in the hereafter, to wrong decisions and the resultant actions. Even though we may have questioned those values as young folks, most of us returned to them as adults.

The greater part of Gen X/Y were taught no such values, either by parents or public schools. Moral relativism and situational ethics have replaced Judeo-Christian-based teaching, leaving the young person to determine what is right/wrong or good/bad on their own. Failure to adopt SOME form of values will surely lead to nihilism and despondency. The fact Kyle Huff, at 28, was sharing an apartment with his brother and working at a job (delivering pizzas) usually held by school kids tells us this man was probably quite immature and unable/unwilling to grow up.

The same is true for rest of the twenty/thirtysomethings who hang with teenagers and act like them. Look around, Capitol Hill, Broadway and the U District are full of them. They adopt the rave culture because the "values" of the liberal culture have given them nothing else to believe in. I grieve not only for the families of the dead, but for the survivors who exist in an empty world.

Posted by: Saltherring on March 28, 2006 06:05 AM
10. RE: Saltherring
Your acting as though this is something new and out of the ordinary. It's not. Crazy violent megalomaniacs have been a part of humanity for as long as we have been a species. Hell for the first few hundred thousand years they were often the leaders. The only differences today are the power of the weapons, the number of people available, and a mass media. 100 years ago mass murdering was difficult because the available weaponry just wasn't up to the task. Today I can get a semi-automatic rifle with 30-40 rounds, each quite deadly. IT is also much easier to find such groups of people. We live in a 'community' of millions. When one does do such a thing the media is right there to report it. Lets say you have a community of one hundred thousand, with no little media. they have one mass murder and the only mention is an article in a news paper. In another community of 1 million they have four, but each one is heavily covered by media. Which one do you think will believe itself to have the bigger problem?

By the way on almost every measure we are better off today then the generation you speak off. We have lower crime, less teen pregnancy, better health, and a stronger more integrated community. Remember that those born In the sixties were born into a society that refused to allow sizable chunks of the population basic rights.

Posted by: Giffy on March 28, 2006 06:45 AM
11. People already seem to forget that a semiautomatic rifle, the favorite bogyweapon of the gun control advocate, was not used in this crime.

The primary weapon was a manually operated pump shotgun. Configured as it was, it likely held only five shells at a time, and each shell had to be inserted one at a time.

Now we have the "designed for killing" hyperbole that ignores the basic fact that all firearms are indeed weapons, all can be misused. Action type, and asthetics are meaningless.

We don't need guns they say.
Some say we don't need raves.
Or fast cars. motorcycles, alcohol, or any of a whole host of things.

Just keep banning stuff. They will get to something you enjoy eventually, lableing you a nut.

Posted by: Steve Ramsey on March 28, 2006 07:02 AM
12. "every generation has had drug-and/or-booze-fueled dance parties of one sort or another. Usually, people don't end up dead. "

I think we just have too much of a short term memory here. In prior generations there has been parties that have ended up in death.

This situation though doesn't indicate a trend. It was an aberation, that's all. It would be wrong to make it out to me more than it is.

That said, wasn't it wrong for 20 year old males to bring 15 and 14 year old girls along somewhere overnight like that? If those young girls had parents they were certainly bad parents and if I was the cops I would see if any of the survivors can be arrested on rape charges.

Posted by: J.J. on March 28, 2006 07:38 AM
13. Makes me thankful that I wasn't 'blessed' with parents who wanted to be the 'cool parents.' All I have to say in that regard is that if you are dropping your 14 and 15 year olds off to attend an all night dance and after party... you, my friend, are a failure as a parent and an idiot as well. What is more as far as being 'cool,' goes you are about as cool as a frozen dog turd.

Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2006 07:38 AM
14. I'm not ready to sweep the connection to rave culture under the rug as quickly as others.

It is undeniably true that attendance at this rave did not kill the young people in question. However, Mr. Huff's actions did afford the general public an insight into a society that was heretofore unknown to many suburbanites, myself included. And that insight is revealing things that require blunt questions from our elected representatives.

A quick review of the press reports suggests that the majority of the females present at this party were not of similar age to the hosts but were much younger girls, as with the poor teenaged victims.

Early press reports also contained quotes from male attendees to the effect that this party was not unusual. In other words, apparently the attendees found nothing strange about the attendance at this party of young teenage girls at the wee hours of the morning.

I think it is not only fair but necessary to determine how much of a coincidence it was that these young girls were present at this house. And why the strange demographic: older males and much younger females that is described as normal by the attendees? Were these girls specifically invited or solicited to this party and are such invitations to such young girls normal amoung this cohort under these circumstances (following raves)? Why didn't someone at this party insist that they depart or call their parents or call the police to escort them to a safe environment?

I think the Times is appropriately calling attention to the unusual circumstance of the age of the girls in attendance at this party. We need to ask whether these age mixing functions, whether rave or not, are facilitating interactions that society does not favor and desires to control.

Posted by: barchester on March 28, 2006 07:39 AM
15. As much as I try I can't blame the "raver lifestyle" for this specific incidence. People like Kyle Huff are few and far between (Thank God).

But, I can blame the "raver lifestyle" for who the victims were. It was said that these were a bunch of 20 somethings and most of them were but there were also lots of underaged girls there.

What kind of parents allow their young teenage girls to go out with a 20 something male overnight somewhere? I would investigate these parents in case they have more children and take their remaining children from them.

Posted by: J.J. on March 28, 2006 07:46 AM
16. Giffy,

I don't know whether you lived during the 50's and 60's, but your comparisons between then and now are ridiculous.

1.Lower Crime? The prisons are bulging, we can't build enough of them. Sex offenders run free after our women and children. We can't lock up all the meth cookers. Illegal aliens walk amongst us unchallenged. Citizens scoff at illegal voting and vote tampering.

2.Less teen pregnancy? We've allowed over 30 million "legal" abortions? Huge numbers of these were performed on teenagers. The only reason we've seen a recent drop-off in teen-age births is most states no longer offer welfare "bonuses" to those who breed indiscriminately.

3.Better health? Rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, sexually-transmitted disease and other killers are much higher than the 50's and 60's. Many lack health insurance while medical costs have gone through the roof. Millions addicted to prescription drugs. Obesity and lack of exercise at an all-time high.

4. Stronger more integrated community? Never in my lifetime has the U.S. been more divided. Polarity of income level, accumulated wealth, opinion, morality, political parties and lifestyles have never been as extreme as they now are.

5. Race? The people of the late 50's/early 60's rightfully recognized this outrageous disparity and enacted legislation to correct the wrongs of the past. The present generation has disgraced anti-discrimation laws by granting special rights for perverted behavior.

It is quite obvious you did not live during the 50's and 60's and gained your measure of "understanding" from the liberal kooks who write present-day text books and teach in our schools. I'll take the 50's and early 60's to today's society any day of the week!

Posted by: Saltherring on March 28, 2006 07:55 AM
17. J.J. agreed any children remaining in homes headed up by failures such as these should be removed. One question I have for Seattle's Chief of Police is how many tims has the police department charged people with Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor after visiting 'after parties' where drugs etc were found? Answer me that Mr 'Only used for hunting people.' When I sold guns in the 80's and 90's I sold quite a few pistol grip equipped shotguns primarily to 1) elderly who motorhome and in cases I was familiar with had been hijacked 2) a good portion of the judges in the Puget Sound Region 3) Owners of Yachts

Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2006 07:56 AM
18. There is no point scapegoating the parents of the slain teens, who are surely more than kicking themselves for having allowed their kids to be out all night partying, in a house rented by naive twenty-somethings.

Speaking of naive, Matt...

The world has lost it's collective frickin' mind. One probably unanticipated side effect of the Internet is that it has left society's bare @ss hanging out for anyone to notice...if they will.

I can't believe the things I'm typing. I'm currently in a flame war on another forum because I think adult teachers having sex with their thirteen year old students IS a big deal.

What the he!! does anyone expect? How many here (including you, Matt) were out partying all night at fourteen and fifteen years old? With their eighteen year old boyfriends? At Goth parties, in a drug culture?

Goth culture celebrates death. How many...who see no problem with Goth culture, see no message...think that Joe Camel causes kids to smoke?

Ironically, there is no point in "scapegoating" the parents of these fourteen and fifteen year old girls. Parents are emasculated, because children are emancipated. Short a court order, a thirteen year old is not subject to their parent's control. They can threaten to run away, and police can't bring them home. Do you think that changes the balance of power between parents and teens? I do...and I fault the Legislature for that. The result is predictable.

No serious person should wonder why this happened. They instead should be amazed it hasn't happened a lot more...yet.

I wish that 18, 19, 20, 21 year olds made better choices. When they die, it's sad. When 14 and 15 year olds die, it's tragic. But play with the snake, don't be surprised if you get bitten.

Kids aren't the problem. Adults are the problem. (and, yes, I do blame the raves, if what I'm reading about them is accurate)

/fuddy duddy.

Posted by: South County on March 28, 2006 07:59 AM
19. Right on, South County! It is the liberal culture that has replaced logic, reason and sanity with lunacy! Laws no longer protect children, they condemn them! To our legislature, courts and the liberals who packed them: This blood is on YOUR hands!

Posted by: Saltherring on March 28, 2006 08:08 AM
20. South County, I have to hand it to you this is the best synopsis of this entire tragedy that I have seen.

Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2006 08:20 AM
21. Girls as young as 13 can be very well developed physically. But still it is wrong for 20 something males to go out with them (as well as older males of course).

From what I understand Sushi brought at least one of the girls with him. What was he doing being anywhere near someone that age.

It seems like the rave community has a Lolita problem.

Posted by: J.J. on March 28, 2006 08:25 AM
22. This was an odd situation that I don't think is indicative of anything in society. Sure the ravers were a little too accepting of strangers but 99 percent of the time nothing would have happened because of that.

BUT, when as a parent you allow your 14 and 15 year old girls to run around overnight with older men, it increases the chance of something happening greatly. Sure, perhaps not having some crazy person open up fire on her, but perhaps she could be raped, or whatever.

I am always kind of concerns when driving home late at night in a suburban area to see young people just walking down the street. I am not saying they are doing any thing wrong. They are not out troublemaking or anything like that, but still why out so late (and I am talking about midnight and later)? Why are they just out late at night walking around dark streets. Again, I don't see them doing something wrong. They aren't hurting people or destroying anything, but still I see them as putting themselves in danger being out and about so late at night. I certainly wouldn't feel that safe doing that even if I was among a bunch of friends.

Posted by: J.J. on March 28, 2006 08:40 AM
23. "Cool Dads" are the worst thing a young person can have.

I am not saying that a Dad has to be a hard.a.s. but just telling your child that they can stay out overnight and I trust you and don't need to know where you are is the quickest way for a child to get harmed.

Posted by: J.J on March 28, 2006 08:43 AM
24. J.J,
Having a 'cool dad' greatly increases your chances of being 'cool' in room temperature.

Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2006 09:14 AM
25. Matt, I'm surprised you think there is no point in scapegoating the parents! Who's watching out for teenagers these days? If not their parents than who?

You're right that every generation has had its raunchy party-phase. But not at the age of 14 & 15--and not ALL NIGHTERS! That's absurd!

Seattle liberals want to focus in on the heinous acts of the killer; to some extent people are going to want to discuss the broad range of sociological factors involved, and when they do, parents will have their day on the block.

Posted by: Patrick on March 28, 2006 09:56 AM
26. JDH, unfortunately it's the only tool that parents have left. I'm not saying that all 'cool' parents would be more authoritarian given the chance; parents who want to influence their children have no other avenue.

Human nature is human nature is human nature. The nature of teens is rebellion. The balance of law was changed back in the 70s, I think. Emancipating teenagers was seen as protecting them from abusive parents. The law as currently written is designed to protect teenagers from their parents.

Fuddy-duddys at the time predicted it would mean greater conflict in the family, greater delinquency, drug use, and sexual activity and prostitution among teens. They were laughed at at the time, but they were right. No serious person could weigh the issues and predict anything else.

Social liberals/Libertarians say they have rights, everything else be d@mned. I say it means they are stuck in an adolescent mindset about authority. They seem to worship rage and rebellion.

Actions have consequences; values matter. We've seen the effect that "liberal" values have had on society, on people; acceptance of drug use, unrestrained sex, etc. These are called victimless crimes, but anyone who's seen a crack addicted baby or a teen overdosed on meth, or a sexually active fourteen year old...knows that is BS. It's sobering to reflect the effect hippie culture has had on the current generation, and their children; I predict you ain't seen nothing yet.

It's contemptible that those who created and support this mindset, those who look at the weekend's events and cry, "GUNS!!!" don't see anything else. It's like storing dynamite and gasoline in your back yard because you can, and cursing the guy with the match...They don't see the effect that their mindset has on those without the things they take for granted...good parents, middle class upbringing, good schools, a certain level of maturity.

Boomers had the benefit of growing up in a normal world. They went insane after they became adults, and dragged the rest of us along. Their children didn't have the benefit of that normal world, and they are the poorer for it. It's scary to contemplate what their children's children will face.

If I were more of a cynic I would say that was the point behind empowering provide a steady supply of 13, 14, 15 year olds for sex. If there's any common thread in the logic I've seen it's this...I will $crew whatever and wherever I want, without consequence.

/fuddy duddy

Posted by: South County on March 28, 2006 10:10 AM
27. Here is the latest from "The Stranger".

Posted by: J.J. on March 28, 2006 10:37 AM
28. I see that saltherring saw my missive in the comments section over at the P-I.

I also agree with saltherring's comments regarding the Perpetual Child culture that dominates a lot of Capitol Hill and the surrounding "counterculture" nexus of Seattle.

Here are a few thoughts of my own.

Children who are properly instilled with a valid, traditional moral structure are also given a blueprint for living a proper, responsible life. This includes growing up and growing out of the many 'phases' that typify the teen years and the early to mid twenties.

A lot of people on Capitol Hill seem to have become marooned in one or more pre-adult 'phases' and have virtually adopted the Perpetual Child model as their whole-life model. And while this might seem well and good, I think it's very sad that we have people running around in their late twenties and even into their thirties living and acting and thinking like they are still 19 years old; or younger.

They say the key to hapiness is to keep thinking young. I agree with this in spirit, for youth is the domain of optimism and open horizons and exuberance for existence; something too many adults lack. But when does "thinking young" simply become an exercise in never-ending immaturity?

It's been interesting to see the mass reaction to the coverage of the shooting, where the so-called "rave community" is concerned. They're all so busy telling the world to stop judging them and distancing themselves from the crime, nobody seems willing to stop and ponder the deeper ramifications. More to the point, how is it possible that a significant community of legal adults continually invites in the underaged and the inexperienced, exposing them (often illegally) to a host of adult themes and concepts while at the same time totally disavowing any and all responsibility in the matter?

We've got two underaged girls who are now dead because a) they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and because b) the adults in their immediate vicinity and in their homes did not assume the adult role of guardianship, which is antithetical to being "cool".

Also, why did no one try to take the shooter out? Maybe it's just my Army Reserve background, but I know dozens of men and women who, had they been at that party, would have attempted a flying tackle on the shooter, regardless of the danger, just to try and knock him down or disarm him before anyone else got hurt.

Seems to me the carnage was made worse by the fact that everyone at the house immediately resorted to self-preservation and in their rush to escape, allowed themselves to become sitting ducks. Dialing 911 is only part of the solution. In all cases like these, some brave soul needs to make up his or her mind that they are going to make a difference, even if it means getting hurt or killed. This is called selfless service and heroism; two qualities I have seen the Capitol Hill crowd mock and denigrate, in their rush to embrace the anti-war "movement" and slander our troops.

I'll stop before I get off on that particular tanget. I just think it's unfortunate that one crazy person can cause so much harm precisely because all the adults involved failed to act like adults.

Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on March 28, 2006 10:41 AM
29. Brad, well said and thought.

Posted by: South County on March 28, 2006 10:50 AM
30. Matt--
I don't believe assessing responsibility for under-age kids is "scapegoating".
Read some of the nice obits of the victims.
Sounds to me like pretty permissive parents of those little girls. Permissive, trusting, perhaps haive.....whatever.
Lots of parents turn little kids loose under the guise of "allowing them to grow up". I call permissiveness to this extent "bad parenting".
Is that "scapegoating" Matt???
I don't think so.

Same thing with those THIRTY something year-old adults at the after-rave party with these little kids. It's mind-boggling.

Those of you who pointed to the immaturity, poor judgment and need to be thought of as "cool" by kids are absolutely right! Now those who suffered through this tragedy are trying to rationalize their actions and inactions. They will be second-guessing themselves the rest of their lives at some point Matt. It is called consequences. Should we just pretend that it's ok for kids to be out all night at adult party's with music that preaches violence along with readily available drugs & alcohol (at least before or after)??????

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 28, 2006 10:53 AM
31. I knew how to handle a firearm by the time I was 12 years old. As a result, I have alot more respect for firearms. One argument that I have not read anywhere is that perhaps if the people living in that house owned a firearm and knew how to use it, they could have prevented some of those murders.

Posted by: Palouse on March 28, 2006 11:29 AM
32. You don't know these kids.

They would never use a firearm. That's not really their thing.

I have been on their "my space" pages and they were typical burner types. Into maybe not "peace" but into not being "judgemental" and let's hang out and have a party.

What they are planning to do "to heal" is go to a Yoga teacher and chant a Mantra (no kidding).

Guns would be the furthest thing from their mind. Sure you could say if they had the guns they could have been protected but if they were the type that had guns they wouldn't have been there in the first place.

You have to had spent some time in Seattle to know the type of kids we are talking about.

Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 28, 2006 11:44 AM
33. Oh, I agree. Liberal parents would not be likely to teach their kids about handling firearms, much less advocating that they own one. My point is that if they had, in instances like this, a (somewhat) better outcome may have resulted.

Posted by: Palouse on March 28, 2006 12:06 PM
34. The same horrific event that the liberals in the city limits are arguing justifies further restrictions on gun ownership is my argument for gun ownership.

Posted by: Palouse on March 28, 2006 12:11 PM
35. One thing that needs to be pointed out is that lots of these "ravers" don't live in Seattle but come to Seattle for these raves from outlining suburban areas.

So it's not all on the Capitol Hill people, athough of course the people who were renting the home lived in the Capitol Hill area. But many who attended the afterdance didn't.

Posted by: J.J. on March 28, 2006 12:45 PM
36. Forget "Seattle's Two Daily" newspapers. The only newspaper that's actually doing a proper job is The Stranger.

I disagree with almost all of their editorial stances, but for this story, they are actually doing actual journalism. The reporters are interviewing primary sources, taking the time to let them talk, actually listening to what gets said, and doing a masterful job of telling a story without any sort of -mongering.

Posted by: Mark Atwood on March 28, 2006 01:38 PM
37. Actually within the last year I have come to see the Stranger as a legitimate paper, on par or surpassing the other two in accuracy

Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2006 01:41 PM
38. Good lord are you people are out of your mind! So far from you drooling paranoid wackjobs I've read of blame being placed on:

1. The raver kids for not owning their own mini-arsenal of guns and shooting back, because we obviously aren't a safe society until every 14yr old has their own assault rifle. Better yet, let's blame teenage kids for not trying to tackle a 280lb, 6-5 guy shooting guns.

2. Parents, for obviously not locking their kids up 24-hours a day and try too hard to be "cool."

3. I know I read of one of you moonbats bring up the anti-war movement. Predictable.

4. Rave culture. You have no idea what its about, and it probably scares you, so lets blame that too.

5. Finally, every right-wing idiot's favorite scapegoat...."liberals." LIBERALS!!! LIBERALS!!! LIBERALS!!! THEY ARE TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING!!!

Not once have any of you put the blame where it belongs - on the back of Kyle Huff. No one provoked him. He wasn't defending himself.

He pulled the trigger. Not the parents, not "rave culture," not bogeyman liberals...just Kyle.

Posted by: Good lord on March 28, 2006 03:31 PM
39. Nobody even mentioned 'locking their kids up 24-hours a day.'

So, is your normal MO to set up a straw man that you can then knock down? If so then conversing on any issue with you is probably futile.

What was said is that allowing a 14-year old to spend the night partying is irresponsible and points to these parents as failures as parents, it's as simple as that. Children do not need their parents two act as as one or two additional friends, they will likely have many friends throughout life (if not there is more involved here), what they need from their parents is that they act as responsible parents.

Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2006 03:40 PM
40. too act - not - two act

Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2006 03:43 PM
41. 1. The raver kids for not owning their own mini-arsenal of guns and shooting back, because we obviously aren't a safe society until every 14yr old has their own assault rifle.

No one said that raver kids should go around carrying assault rifles or any weapons. There were people living in that house who were old enough and (perhaps) responsible enough to own firearms. If they owned one, lives could have been saved.

Posted by: Palouse on March 28, 2006 04:02 PM
42. RE: Good Lord's comments...

I don't think anyone here is trying to deflect blame from Kyle Huff for his horrible act. If the man were still alive, I am sure all of us would be egging for a swift trial and immediate execution. But since he is dead, all we're left to ponder is why it happened, and how people might have avoided dying in spite of Huff's actions.

I've already stated my theories, namely that the adults in this picture failed remarkably to act like adults, at least where the underaged victims are concerned. Those two girls (and however many other underaged kids were there, we'll never know) should have enjoyed the protection and guardianship of the adults with whom they came into contact throughout the evening: parents, friends' parents, and ultimately the 18 and over people at the party.

Why did no one stop them and and say, hey, these are just kids, shouldn't they be home asleep instead of being out on The Scene all night? When the shooting started, did any of the adults at the party even think for a moment that maybe they owed it to the children in their midst to take some selfless, defensive action?

In point of fact, an armed adult with training could have stopped Kyle Huff in his tracks before he even entered the house. At the very least, a courageous individual or three could have attempted to engage Kyle Huff and draw his fire away from innocents, or otherwise attempt to disarm him until the police could arrive. Seems pretty obvious, based on Huff's ultimate end-game, that when faced with real resistance, he took the coward's route.

If all accounts are correct, the house party turned into a panicked circus of self-preservers whose behavior only made it that much easier for the predator in their midst to go about his grizzly business.

All it would have taken to call Kyle Huff's hand would have been to return fire. Seems pretty obvious he knew that nobody would lift a finger to stop him until the cops arrived, and as is almost always the case, the cops never show up before the worst of the damage is done.

In a world full of psychos, it's up to the sane to keep and defend society, with their bodies and lives if need be.

Think it's impossible? Tell that to the three teens who rescued their friend from an armed robber not to long ago. Heroes do live among us!

Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on March 28, 2006 04:29 PM
43. Matt,

I do not believe that toxicology lab results are dependent upon permission from the next of kin of a deceased person.

I've been told the results of almost a dozen of these tests and from my interactions with police PIO's, I've never been led to believe that there was such an issue. Now, granted, things might have changed since the last time I inquired, this was about three years ago.
If there is an RCW out there I will stand corrected.

Posted by: Reporterward on March 28, 2006 04:45 PM
44. As for making a political issue of this mess, it is no surprise to me that the Seattle PI's Robert Jamieson and Nicole Brodeur of the Times are scambling to be the first to wrap themselves in the bloody shirts these poor kids in order to push their cheap agenda.
I will compliment the Seattle PI editorial board for having a sane response to this event.

"But it's premature at best to condemn an entire social genre, or all law-abiding firearms owners, for what seems to be the wanton act of a troubled individual."

Posted by: Reporterward on March 28, 2006 04:52 PM
45. the shootings happened over a 3 minute period. IF anyone had a gun in that house, and I assume you would all want it to be legally stored, then they would have had to get the gun, get the ammo, load the gun, and then find the shooter and defend themselves. Maybe some people could do it that fast, but probably not the average gun owner. Kyle was a large man, the men at the house don't look very big and probably weren't trained in fighting. As far as the 14yr olds hanging with older men, would you raher that those guys had left those girls at the rave at 4am? Yes, their parents shouldn't have let them go, but I remember being a 14 year old girl and regularly sneaking out of the house. There is not much you can do besides lierally lock your kids up, and that's not much of a solution. The issue here has nothing to do with gun control or rave music (which often has no lyrics by the way, let alone violent ones). Kyle Hoffman could have walked into a school and done even more damage, he is the only one to blame.

Posted by: amazed on March 28, 2006 04:55 PM
46. amazed, a nonloaded firearm is as good as a paperweight. An owner can either keep it loaded with a clip in a fast access safe, or keep it stored with a loaded clip separate. In either case, if you know how to use the firearm and have practiced firing it, you can access it and be ready to fire in less than 30 seconds. If one of the residents of that home was not in Huff's vicinity when he started shooting, he could easily have run to where the firearm was stored and start firing back.

Posted by: Palouse on March 28, 2006 05:12 PM
47. true and true, but there are a few too many ifs in that sentence. i'm sure in that kind of chaos getting to wherever you have your gun may not be simple. AND he could easily be between you and your gun very quickly. and even IF you had gotten to your gun, he still came in there with guns blazing, and still would have killed at least 3 people by the time you got to him.

once again, my point is kyle huffman had an agenda, and nobody should be blamed for his actions but himself.

Posted by: amazed on March 28, 2006 05:21 PM
48. P.S. I live in unincorporated rural part of King County, and the majority of my neighbors own firearms. We haven't had a burglary or any other type of break in in all the years I have lived there. It's probably because criminals know this, and realize that if they break in they have a high probability of leaving feet first.

Posted by: Palouse on March 28, 2006 05:21 PM
49. I don't blame anyone but Huff. And certainly, there are no guarantees if someone there owned a gun. But there was at least the possibility of a life being saved if someone there owned a firearm. And saving just one of those lives would have made it worth it.

Posted by: Palouse on March 28, 2006 05:24 PM
50. Notice he didn't attach a local grange hall in Whitefish of the vfw. I think he knew the resistance he would face.

Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2006 05:57 PM
51. good Lord--
My guess is you are one of our regular KLOWNS seeking a bit of a new angle....but couldn't help yourself. You have set the SP RECORD for Strawmen in a Post. Congratulations. Hell, you even had the decency to number them for us! How courteous of you:
1. The raver kids for not owning their own mini-arsenal of guns and shooting back, because we obviously aren't a safe society until every 14yr old has their own assault rifle. Better yet, let's blame teenage kids for not trying to tackle a 280lb, 6-5 guy shooting guns.
2. Parents, for obviously not locking their kids up 24-hours a day and try too hard to be "cool."
3. I know I read of one of you moonbats bring up the anti-war movement. Predictable.
4. Rave culture. You have no idea what its about, and it probably scares you, so lets blame that too.
5. Finally, every right-wing idiot's favorite scapegoat...."liberals." LIBERALS!!! LIBERALS!!! LIBERALS!!! THEY ARE TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING!!!"

Not one person said Huff wasn't primarily to blame. He was a kook who went off. We'll probably never understand why. I wonder if anyone had a VIDEO CAMERA at that Rave to see what happened....the type of music, interactions etc.

However, Huff is still primarily responsible.

It is curious that you minimize parental responsibility for 14 and 15 year-olds. Read the obits. The parents seem to have willingly given their kids plenty of rope.

Are you a parent Good Lord??? I agree 14 and 15 year-olds can be sneaky....especially when parents are ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH or DON'T CARE. This is a lesson. Parents were not created to be "cool" in the eyes of their kids and their friends. They were create to set set boundaries and accountability you KLOWN!!!

Were these parents "good parents"???? We'll never know for sure and who really cares. But it's a reminder.....

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 28, 2006 06:32 PM
52. By the way, Sushi went to military school and was in the military for a while Palouse. Check his profile on "my space".

Posted by: J.J. on March 28, 2006 07:24 PM
53. In Ireland at the Clifs of More there are no fences, just a sign. Pople fall off every year, mostly by their own negligence. Responsible parents hold on to their kids because there is a danger that the kids don't recognise as such. The world holds many dangers and responsible parents should take precautions to protect their kids from unacceptable risk situations. A fourteen year old released into a high risk situation, not smart to say the least. Things like this are going to happen, what I rail about is that kids were there that should not have been. C'mon kids not being there would not have prevented killings, but it does show a reckless disregard for the vulnerability of kids. I am confident that these kids being killed is just the tip of the iceburg of the harm that has been done to kids released into such an environment. It's not that these two were killed per' se, it just shines the light of knowlege on kids lives being thrown down a rat hole by irresponsible 'parents.'

Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2006 08:35 PM
54. Yep!

Two things could have altered the tragedy of that night...But both of these things go against the liberal lifestyle of Seattle...

1. If the parents of those under 18 would have kept them home - there would have been fewer victims. (that would have removed at least 2 victims from the equation..)

2. If at least one person at the party had a gun and knew how to use it - they may have been able to defend themself and save others...(that could have removed another victim or more...)

Responsible parenting and reponsible gun ownership are absolutely taboo in the liberal's world....

Huff pulled the trigger....but in this incident - the liberal lifestyle provided the targets..

Posted by: Deborah on March 28, 2006 10:47 PM
55. I've read through all of these comments and I just don't know where to begin...

But let's be clear about this. The number of casualties was limited by only two things:

1) there were people outside on the front porch who became Kyle's first victims, thus warning those inside that something bad was happening before he forced his way in

2) The officer that happened along and confronted Kyle on the front lawn

Had these not happened, there would undoubtedly been more victims. Maybe a gun in the house could have stopped him sooner, or maybe not. The difference would not have been dramatic if someone had -- five people were as good as dead within the first minute. And without a weapon -- forget it -- this man was worked up into a killing rage while everyone else was thinking about sleep -- self preservation is about all you can expect of anyone in this situation.

As for the age, I understand the parental arguments just fine, but would this have been that much less tragic had all the victims been 18 or older? The two teens that were killed were only a few short years away themselves -- tragic, but no less tragic than if it had been a couple others in their stead.

Re: age differences. Males and females together in the same house does not equal an orgy -- Get your minds out of the gutter.

Finally, this: "He was a kook who went off. We'll probably never understand why. I wonder if anyone had a VIDEO CAMERA at that Rave to see what happened....the type of music, interactions etc." Kyle Huff left his North Seattle home to attend this party with an arsenal in his truck. The interactions at the party had nothing to do with his intent to kill. He went "off" long before he made it to the party.

Stop flogging the victims, please.

Posted by: Tom on March 28, 2006 11:29 PM
56. Different parenting means that maybe it would have been 2 different 20 year olds shot. The kids were in what is apparently an extremely safe environment for someone of their age, except for a random outsider who could as well have shot customers at a pizza shop.

Guess what? An 'assault' (or complete) gun ban would have helped the situation a lot too, since Huff would have been easier to stop & less lethal in such a short time.

But that's a price many people aren't willing to pay: they'd rather have the occasional crazy massacre random people than have to give up their guns.

And I tend to agree with that, since I agree that it is usually better to let 10 guilty men go free than hang 1 innocent man.

But don't think you're not making this decision when you believe in wide access to guns.

Posted by: ? on March 28, 2006 11:40 PM
57. "The kids were in what is apparently an extremely safe environment for someone of their age,"

What are you smoking???

The environment that you describe as "extremely" safe - was a private house serving drugs and alcohol to minors - ALL NIGHT! How in the Hell do you equate that environment with "safe"??

I can't decide whether you just don't get out often enough to know what really goes on in that environment...or if you've been out in it too long and you're pickled? Either way - all night drug parties are not safe for anyone - especially minors.


And then....there's this one! Ack!

"Guess what? An 'assault' (or complete) gun ban would have helped the situation a lot too, since Huff would have been easier to stop & less lethal in such a short time."

OK...One more time...since isn't picking up the relevant facts...
Huff didn't use an "assault" rifle - so a ban wouldn't have helped. Crazy people and criminals don't care about gun bans or gun control....they will get a gun anyway. Gun bans only make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to the criminals who get guns anyway and commit crimes.
You assume that Huff would have gone on the same rampage without his guns - and therefore could have been stopped with physical restraint?? Two things wrong here...1. Huff's entire murderous plan involved his many weapons, spray paint, etc......(very unlikely he would have simply beat people up at the party)....2. Huff was a huge guy - if he did decide to be physically violent - it's very likely no one at the party could have restrained him...especially when they were high on drugs and drunk...(and only 15 friggin years old!)

No one is blaming the victims for this crime. I hope if anything is to be gained from this's that at least one parent steps up and tells their son or daughter "NO" when they want to go out to a rave. And that ravers learn NOT to invite people to their after hours parties that they do not know.

The world is full of crazy people....Even the liberals have to become wise after a while if they want to continue to exist.

Posted by: Deborah on March 29, 2006 12:43 AM
58. "Guess what? An 'assault' (or complete) gun ban would have helped the situation a lot too, since Huff would have been easier to stop & less lethal in such a short time."

This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Have you ever fired a regular pump action shotgun? How about a 9mm? If you have, you would know that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of firearms could very easily kill a group of people with them. They are easy to fire, easy to load and in the case of the shotgun, you don't even need to be very accurate, especially at close range.

Posted by: Palouse on March 29, 2006 07:58 AM
59. Uh kids, liberal or conservative, parents should be parents. I'm a die-hard liberal and I am absolutely appalled at the parents of the two girls. They knew where their daughters were going, allowed it even though they knew their daughters would be hanging out with adults into the night. (One girl had a "3 am curfew" - why have any if you go that late?) People will say, oh you are being judgmental and the parents are suffering enough. I have a 14-year old so yeah, I get their suffering. But responsible parents DO NOT let their children run around late, late at night, going who knows where, with who knows who. Unacceptable. And, just this morning, the PI reported that one of the residents invited the killer because he looked strange and dangerous. Well, when you have young adults making bad decisions about who they let into their house and parents who won't be parents, it allows a hulking thug like this guy to do what he wants. He is solely responsible for this crime; I get that. And, he could just as easily shot up someplace in the daytime. But crime stats tell us that more crime occurs in the late night and early morning hours so it was more likely to have played out as it did. So sad, what a waste.

Posted by: westello on March 29, 2006 08:45 AM
60. Oh yes...reverse chutzpah. You've all heard the working definition of chutzpah...killing your parents then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan.

"Don't criticize these parents, have some compassion...after all, they've just lost a child!"

Posted by: South County on March 29, 2006 05:07 PM
61. With each word I read I cry for the young lives that have left a void in the hearts and souls of many. This is not the time to criticize the parents or the ravers. Look to your "Higher Power" instead and tell a friend how much you love them. Hold your memories of these young souls and know they are in a better place, and are now safe from gunshots and violence forever. Pray, meditate, contemplate, or so what you can to find inner peace, and a release from this terrible grief and reality. A Mom

Posted by: ardee on March 29, 2006 06:16 PM
62. I put 'assault' in quotes because I meant any weapon designed to kill lots of things quickly--multi-chamber shotgun, pistol with lots of rounds, whatever.

This might only leave single chamber .22 rifles or something, but my point is that so long as you promote 'most guns are OK', you'll have to live with the occasional abuse of said guns.

Posted by: ? on March 29, 2006 08:54 PM
63. A crazy man did a senseless thing at someone's house after a costume party. I don't really think there's a political angle here. The guy could have just as easily shot up a church - that's what the nutcases do here in Texas, anyway.

But hey - nice work turning these kids' tragic deaths into a pile of smug self-aggrandizement.

Posted by: a friend of the deceased on March 29, 2006 11:45 PM
64. Wow. As always, there's no clear, objective right answer here. I made myself read through this entire list before I allowed myself to comment. As a peripheral member of the rave culture my understanding is that I'd rather have my kids there than smoking meth on Broadway, and I'd also rather have them there than safely in bed and hating my guts and planning to run away from my home to take refuge where they can. I wonder if any of the more controlling people who have posted on this list have spent time with any of the runaways that litter our streets?

By the way, the example of the sign on the cliff is great. Rather than keeping your kid on a leash, you could teach her to read (duh) and to understand the implications of her actions.

I can't say the rave scene or anyone in it is perfect, but it's a far cry from the nasty ghetto party scene where I grew up. There was no PLUR there, and there were no responsible parents.

Since I'm sure I'll be posting here again, I should cut to the chase and say that rather than being cool, I think it's much more important that your children respect you. As safe as they may be from random acts like this, do your children respect you? Really? Or do they say they do because you insist upon it? I wonder if Huff's parents were more like the ravers or more

Posted by: Brer Weasel on March 30, 2006 07:27 AM
65. "I wonder if Huff's parents were more like the ravers or more"

The newspapers describe Huffs mom as an "artsy" type...who bought an art studio/gallery in Montana....Huff and his twin were also described as "artsy" in hgh school....

"Artsy" would definitely fall more on the rave scene side than on the average suburban lifestyle...

I guess Huff's parents were more like the ravers......Go figure.

Posted by: Deborah on March 30, 2006 05:36 PM
66. Only people with a sense of responsibility and the ability to feel empathy obey the laws of the land. The only hands that gun control laws will keep guns out of, are people that obey the law. I don't believe that stricter laws would have prevented Kyle Huff from owning a gun. I have prayed for everyone involved in this tragedy, the horror of it affects me and I don't know anyone involved. All of the victims deserved a chance to live longer.Each of those people were an important part of somebody's life and I am sure they will be mourned and missed. If the other pary goers, relatives, friends, police, medical personal, and every else who's life this tragedy touches, the amount of victims from 7 minutes of gun fire is astounding. The age difference of the victims does not mean that they are in any way responsible for their own deaths. Their death's were caused by one man with a total disregard for humanity. I am still baffled by their age differences. There were thirty people in that house that didn't see anything wrong with a 14 year old and a 15 year old at an after party at 7 in the morning. Apparently no one there understood or cared that a 14 year old girl is still a child. I don't have the answers to the Kyle Huff's of this world, and I think the world might be better off if their true names were never released. It would stop people from thinking they can get everlasting fame by pulling a trigger instead of through hard work and perseverance. I would like to think that people would forget about him and his crime and start nurturing child so that they grow into adults who would never think about partying in a house with a child.

Posted by: Tracy on March 31, 2006 06:08 PM
67. What went wrong? Nothing neccessarily went wrong, Kyle Huff most likely has thought of and played this out in his mind over and over. Not those specific people or that specific address, but the notion of carrying out a massacre was surely going through his head for years. You can blame drugs, tv violence, blah blah blah. It doesn't matter, the guy gave in to his inner demons and the result was this tragedy. Reports state that he was a well liked guy who for the most part stayed out of trouble. All the while this likeable guy had these sadistic thoughts in him and he finally gave in. Rest in peace to all the victims of this tragedy..except Kyle Huff...rot in hell Kyle.

Posted by: Steve on March 31, 2006 06:26 PM
68. People, stop blaming the parents.

Ok. It seems like the underage girls were at the party because they lived in the suburbs and had no ride home. In profiles, the father of one said he had told his daughter repeatedly to "call me" anytime if she needed a ride, help, etc. Unfortunately, she chose not to.

It's real easy to blame the parents but I remember a number of really dumb things I did at that age, things my parents told me NOT to do. Teens that parents think are safely sleeping sneak out at night. Teens SMOKE without their parents knowing, lie about where they are going, etc.

In this case, the parents knew where the kids were and with who. Yes, they were "liberal" in letting their kids go to the rave, but it seems that the idea was that they were supposed to get rides home after the rave. Yes, there were alcohol and drugs present. Guess what? There are drugs around every school and kids get alcohol from their parents' liquor cabinets. If kids want to drink or do drugs they will.

You don't teach your kids to make good choices by locking them up in their rooms. Besides, if you do they'll probably die in a house fire, which happens way more often than getting shot in a massacre.

Posted by: Jenny on April 1, 2006 08:47 AM
69. I went to school with kyle huff in whitefish, mt. Him and his brother were always quiet and never got into trouble. They always dressed in black with lace up military boots and mostly stayed to themselves. I can't believe that he was actually capable of doing something like this, it is so tragic.

Posted by: Heather on April 3, 2006 10:12 PM
70. In none of the following cases of trenchcoat-wearing rampagers has any coherent motive been put forward, and you will not find one in Huff, either.

--Jacob D. Robida, 18, Massachusetts gay bar slasher/shooter midnight on 2-1-06

--12-15-05 Two teens, 15- and 17, arrested for planning attack on Quartz Hill High School, Lancaster, LA County, CA. The boys dressed in the Goth style, characterized by black clothing, black makeup and nail polish and piercings.

--Tacoma Mall Shooter 11-20-05 Dominick Sergio Maldonado, 20

--10-30-05 William Freund, 19-year-old in a black cape and a paintball mask went on a shooting rampage Saturday in his upscale Southern California neighborhood

--Scott Dyleski, 16, Lafayette Goth Killer(bay are), 10-15-05 (victim Pam Vitale, wife of noted CourtTV commentator Daniel Horowitz)

--Jeff Weise,17, Red Lake school shooting, 3-21-05


--Barry Loukaitis, 14, Frontier Jr. High School, Moses Lake, Washington, 10-2-96, 3 dead, 1 wounded

Posted by: starviego on April 4, 2006 06:16 PM
71. I know several of the people who were in that house and I was one of the first in there after the crime scene was released to the owners. I am glad that this didnt turn into an attack on their lifestyle or a beacon for the gun control crowd. I have a CCW, and if an armed responsible citizen had been in the residence at the time, maybe a few of those kids would be alive today. Granted Jeremy wouldnt have been saved, but they could have possibly stopped the shooter at the door.

Posted by: Brian on April 5, 2006 11:16 AM
72. i read that the families of the victims always search for answers/explanations as to why the killer did what they did.
Kyle's twin brother Kane knows more than anyone.
Kyle may have seemed outwardly very mellow(he
smoked marijuana often, also), but he expressed the anger he felt only after drinking a lot. Most of it he held in.The media relates the moose statue shooting and the brawl at a downtown Seattle bar. These incidences probably occurred after Kyle drank an immense quantity. Most of us know people who become violent or suicidal when they
drink a lot of alcohol. Some people undergo a jekyll & Hyde transformation. It seems almost like a split personality.
it is easy to interpret the 'Now' spray painting as
carrying out a plan. Is it possible he mistook these
young people for the same group(skinheads)
that 'beat the crap' out of him and his brother at the Seattle brawl?
Kyle's family or Kane owes the families of these
children some kind of an explanation, if they know.
kyle's family are a victim of Kyle's actions, and are living in a nightmare, too.

Posted by: Ann on April 10, 2006 09:49 PM
73. ya for sure he got drunk and thought the ravers were the skinheads who beat him up..!

Posted by: dummy on April 22, 2006 10:17 PM
74. ya for sure he got drunk and thought the ravers were the skinheads who beat him up..!

Posted by: dummy on April 22, 2006 10:18 PM
75. ya for sure he got drunk and thought the ravers were the skinheads who beat him up..!

Posted by: dummy on April 22, 2006 10:18 PM
76. ya for sure he got drunk and thought the ravers were the skinheads who beat him up..!

Posted by: dummy on April 22, 2006 10:18 PM
77. ya for sure he got drunk and thought the ravers were the skinheads who beat him up..!

Posted by: dummy on April 22, 2006 10:18 PM
78. ya for sure he got drunk and thought the ravers were the skinheads who beat him up..!

Posted by: dummy on April 22, 2006 10:19 PM
79. I really can't believe you people.

I lost 5 friends at this shooting.

Did you not read that Huff had a gasoline, a macheti sp? and many other things besides guns that could do harm?

Raves are not drug fests. Parents can't keep an eye on their kids every minute. I go to parties.
I help keep kids safe. I give them rides home. I talk to girls in the bathroom who have had their boyfriends kiss other girls. I have seen teens find a place to connect with others when they have been ostracised from those they are "supposed" to feel close to. Do you really think that every parent really cares where their kids are? No! And that is why parties can be a safer place than the streets, skate parks, or even the internet in some cases.

This could have happened at an art show, a bar, an elks club, coffee house, punk show, day care, school dance, sporting event....etc....

This wasn't about raves. This wasn't about kids being out at 7 am.

This is about a sick man that wouldn't be stopped by a law.

What he did was ILLEGAL. Do you really think that it is more tragic just cuz it was 2 girls underage? What about everyone else? What about the survivors?

This could have happened to you or someone you loved.
This could have happened in a mall.
If a kid was cutting class and was shot in the mall...would you blame the truancy officer?

Maybe we need to stop trying to put a bandaid on everything and get to the root of the problem.
Huff had a problem.
Maybe there was a point of time when someone flipped him off in a car driving down the road. Maybe he became embittered from it.

We need to take responsibility of how we act around others and how we deal with our own anger.

Someone maybe walking down the street right now, contemplating sucicide or murder....maybe they just need someone to hold a door for them instead of slamming it in their face, or smile instead of looking at them with disgust.

Maybe we need to start with ourselves.

Why do people snap? Could it be a chain of events that finally leads to an explosion? Do you want to be a link in someones chain? or do you want to help stop the progression of hatred in current society.

Even after all this I still want to reach out and help people. If I succumbed then Huff would win against me too. And I won't let that happen.

Guns didn't kill my friends. Huff killed my friends. The gun was an instrument.

Fix the humans. The guns will follow.

RIP Deacon, Sushi, Patches, Sunshine, China Doll, Jesus.
Dance in Heaven you will never be forgotten.

Posted by: Winks on April 23, 2006 01:11 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?