But I think most of these, like LW herself/himself fail to take this incident seriously enough. LW was attacked in the face with a gun. If the fellow student had "missed" LW's nose and hit his/her temple instead, LW might have died. LW doesn't have to sue. LW should file a criminal complaint with the local DA through whatever process is in place, and let the DA go to work. There are medical records, the report to the dean and the perpetrator's own statements in a facebook as back up evidence for this disgusting assault. I witnessed two assaults against friends of mine in college, one relatively minor and one very serious, and my friends pursued both of them criminally.

LW, in addition to getting counseling, empower yourself and figure out how the criminal process in your jurisdiction works. Even if the law school dean can't bring herself to take it seriously, local judges will. And even if fellow student is able to skate through without a criminal conviction, LW will scare the crap out of him with his no doubt first "real" encounter with the law, and make him spend a lot of money getting out of the mess and force him to beg for mercy from a court, which, incidentally is most likely to be forthcoming if he expresses a lot of remorse along the way.

It seems pretty obvious that no one is ever entitled to touch someone who doesn't want to be touched. The proper response is, "take your hands off of me," delivered as loudly or emphatically or rudely as circumstances require. By asking the question at all, and setting up her problem as she does, however, she reveals that even when married prof is "out" of her life, he is what her life is about. So if she tells him to back off he'll no doubt get the message, but then, he also might not take her out to lunch anymore either, and by her own admission, she doesn't have a whole lot else going on in her life. So I deduce that LW is really asking about what kind of compromises she should consider to be reasonable (like letting him touch her when she doesn't want to be touched) if she wants to continue having prof in her life. I think LW should be trying to figure out how to get prof "out" of her life for good, and make her life about something or someone else. I hope she can do that.

LW is in a tough spot. However, at a minimum, I agree with others that the aide in question should have sufficient information to protect herself, particularly if LW's fathers is known to actually own a rifle or any other kind of gun. LW's family hired her, I think they owe her that much. There is usually a department of aging services in most states, with local branches in most counties. I would contact that agency to determine the possibilities of having the father transferred to an assisted living setting or even adult daycare opportunities. His threats of violence do not bode well for his ability to adapt to a community environment, however, his threats might also be a sign of impending dementia. An elderly uncle of my husband's engaged in increasingly bizarre and sometimes belligerent behavior toward his wife and everyone else (no threats of violence however) and it was clearly a case of creeping dementia. As far as I could determine, losing the subtleties of social interaction is often a first sign of decline. For someone who never had a nuanced grasp of interpersonal relations, this might translate into threats of violence in the belief that it will bring about some kind of desired behavior. Think about a small child holding his breath or threatening to bite -- well, it's not a pleasant thought, but many elderly people resort to the equivalent of that type of behavior with the onset of dementia. It's also possible that LW's father's mental faculties are being adversely affected by medications. This is so common in the elderly that, really, it is a medical scandal. Steroids, for instance, are given for some kinds of chronic conditions and have a known association with increased agitation and aggression.

I would be willing to give Mr. Dowd the credit that his "awakening" to the truth, as late as it may be, is perhaps genuine if he showed any intention of making true amends for the havoc that has been wrought at least partly with his help. Let me put it bluntly. Let's say a man feels remorse after raping a woman -- does Mr. Dowd think the appropriate remedy is for the rapist to send flowers to the lady and then go off and do missionary work? I think not. If Mr. Dowd is willing to risk friendships and future employment prospects by exposing the corrupt nature of his former employer then I will accept his conversion as being genuine. John Snow, John DiIulio and Bruce Bartlett, whatever else you think about them, have been willing to do this, so it's not as if it can't be done.

What would they have waited for before re-opening? For the perpetrator to be caught? And if he wasn't caught immediately (he could easily have hidden his two handguns), how long would the campus have stayed closed? A day? A week? Until the gunman's capture? Foreseeability is not as easy as hindsight, but in any situation, you have to proceed on the information you know. The headlines say it all: the single deadliest gun massacre on American soil ever. How are the police supposed to predict that?