Alex Hribal's wrong answer
Like everyone, I was shocked when I heard about the stabbings at Franklin Regional High School. But I soon understood why the alleged stabber, Alex Hribal, did this.
I went to three high schools – Burrell, Valley and Franklin Regional. FR was the worst. New kids were shunned by other students. They ignored you like you were invisible. Being 16 years old and semi-popular in the other two high schools, this was a total shock to me. At Valley and Burrell, I started in baseball; I sat the bench at Franklin Regional. I didn't make the FR basketball team, but did at Burrell and Valley.
Politics played a role here. Murrysville is a higher income area, but my parents did not own an expensive house or drive an expensive car, and I didn't wear expensive clothes. As a result, I wasn't part of the in crowd or very popular at Franklin.
I wish someone had told Alex Hribal that high school is just a phase of life and it is OK not to be popular. He needed to hear life is a long journey and better times are ahead.
I feel Alex's mental pain, but stabbing his classmates was not the answer. The answer should've come from his teachers and guidance counselors and from his parents, minister, older siblings, other relatives, someone. Alex needed to know there are others who understand how he felt and to not keep his emotions inside until they blew up one morning at school.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.