Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"At that time, the first shooting had already occurred in WAJ!!!!! Why were we allowed to leave our damn dorms?!!?!"
The police can't predict what a crazy gunman is going to do. In most cases, after shooting a few people, they skidaddle across the state line. If school officials got everybody to lock themselves in their dorms in this case, they'd be criticized for overreacting.
The second most probable thing would be for the gunman to continue shooting people in dorms - maybe in the same dorm. If school officials got everybody to stay in their dorms in this case, they'd be criticized for directing the students into harm's way.
In both cases, the students would have been better off going to class.
This has been called the biggest shooting in US history. That -est suffix should tell you: this was the exception, not the rule. So don't criticize the school for not being able to predict the unpredictable. Seems like they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
"A simple announcement to the effect that there was an armed and dangerous individual, possibly still on campus, sent immediately, could have saved lives. It doesn't matter if the campus is large, or the security force is limited. Students and teachers should have had that information, they would have been extremely alert to any thing suspicious, and it could have made a difference."
No, it's very unlikely such a message would have saved lives because the armed and dangerous individual was also a student who, was carrying concealed weapons. He also called in a bomb threat to further confuse the situation after killing the two people in the dorm. Along with that, he chained the doors of the Hall shut and waited until the other students were in enclosed spaces with limited escape routes, classrooms, before he started the rest of his rampage. It's wishful thinking that any announcement earlier than the one the university made would have made a difference.
From the NY Times,
"And new information emerged that may help explain a fateful two-hour delay by university officials in warning the campus of a gunman at large. According to search warrants and statements from the police, campus investigators had been busy pursuing what appears to have been a fruitless lead in the first of two shooting episodes Monday.
After two people, Emily Jane Hilscher, a freshman, and Ryan Clark, the resident adviser whose room was nearby in the dormitory, were shot dead, the campus police began searching for Karl D. Thornhill, who was described in Internet memorials as Ms. Hilscher’s boyfriend.
According to a search warrant filed by the police, Ms. Hilscher’s roommate had told the police that Mr. Thornhill, a student at nearby Radford University, had guns at his town house. The roommate told the police that she had recently been at a shooting range with Mr. Thornhill, the affidavit said, leading the police to believe he may have been the gunman.
But as they were questioning Mr. Thornhill, reports of widespread shooting at Norris Hall came in, making it clear that they had not contained the threat on campus. Mr. Thornhill was not arrested, although he continues to be an important witness in the case, the police said."
Some much for not taking prospective domestic violence cases seriously. Based on the above, the university and cops actions seem reasonable. Let's see, well known to victim, access to guns, recently used guns, being questioned by police. When you add in that the rampage didn't continue until two hours lafter the first incident, it's becomes even harder to use 20/20 hindsight.
still confident bibinewyork and faux news?
The state police statements thus far are being VERY careful to not state explicitly that the suspected killer in the classroom shootings is the same person as the suspected killer in the dormitory killings. They have a "person of interest," still being questioned apparently even now.
" Mr. Cho had used two handguns, a 9-millimeter and a .22-caliber, to shoot dozens of rounds, leaving even those who survived with multiple bullet wounds, officials said. The guns were bought legally in March and April. Colonel Flaherty said that although one of those guns had been used in the dormitory shooting, investigators were not ready to conclude that the same gunman was responsible for both episodes. But he said there was no evidence of another gunman or an accomplice."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18cnd-virginia.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Ever since Columbine, lockdown on schools or large institutions following a shooting (especially when the gunman is loose) is standard operating procedure.
I am surprised by the number of posters defending the school.
Perhaps this is some people's way of dealing with tragedy: saying that it couldn't be helped, that there was no way to avert it.
Wrong.
This situation is so bad because there's a good chance it didn't have to happen.
Some people don't want to face that. They are seeking to minimize its impact by saying it was unpreventable.
"Ever since Columbine, lockdown on schools or large institutions following a shooting (especially when the gunman is loose) is standard operating procedure."
I have no idea how a "lockdown" could even be implemented at the college where I teach, which is about a tenth of the size of Virginia Tech. I would really appreciate evidence to support the above statement. I would also really appreciate a basic idea of how the logistics of a "lockdown" are supposed to happen on a large campus. Thank you.
I do believe that law-abiding citizens have a right to own and bear arms, if they're sane. This murderer had been reported to campus police on multiple occasions, one instructor had refused to teach him after he lowered her class enrollment from 70 to 7, creeping out the other students with his graphic, violent writing and taking inappropriate photos of other students. The instructor who was giving him private instruction had worked out a special signal with an assistant so the assistant would know when to call the police.
I noted earlier that the only time I've ever lived in any house with a gun was when my older brother brought several back from Vietnam. He was clearly suffering from PTSD, and slept with a loaded gun under his pistol. If we went past his bedroom in the night, to get to our bedroom or to go to the bathroom, he'd lurch up with the gun, pointed at us. If he'd killed one of us, it would have been accidental--he was asleep half the time, and the rest of the time was so traumatized that it really wouldn't have been his fault. It would have been a case of the gun, not him, being the killer. Those mentally ill people who are prone to violence, suicidal or directed outward, should simply not be allowed to own guns. If someone is seeing a psychiatrist or licensed counselor who has reason to believe that patient could commit a violent act, that should go on whatever records system is used for background checks for gun dealers.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
