- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"You should tell people he's out there, find him and stop him. That's just common sense."
He who? That's the whole point. The suspect wasn't identified. So, they're supposed to tell everybody (including the gunman) that there's an unidentified murderer roaming the campus? I'm glad you were not in charge.
"The only thing that stopped VT/local cops from thinking like logical law enforcement is that they had a prejudice that "domestic disputes" somehow created less of a need for a response. Even if two people died, and even if there were bomb threats the week before. They could have seen it, but didn't, because they didn't consider domestic violence a real crime and the perpetrator a real criminal."
Oh c'mon now, this angle is a bit much and your speaking on behalf of "logical" law enforcement is dubious. You have no evidence whatsoever that such a "prejudice" existed in this case and to say that they didn't consider the first incident a real crime and the perpetrator a real criminal is, frankly, absurd. They responded to the crime and, in concert with the university, shut down the dorm and notified the campus and started to question potential witnesses. To imply that it's logical that they should have known that something else was going to happen two hours later when they first got there is really pushing it and to state that they didn't issue a "stronger" response because of some inbred prejudice against doemstic violence victims and cases is borderline slanderous.
