I agree with the postings that suggest we don't jump to conclusions or snap judgements. I saw the police chief and the college president being grilled by the press. They looked somewhat in shock, depressed, and tired. One of the journalists had the gall to say "You both look rather dispassionate." and the poor guys had to explain why their facial expressions are not meeting people's expectations. This is a horrible thing that never should have happened and usually does not happen. To immediately pass judgement and start accusing those involved in the trauma of being insincere or not expressing themselves appropriately is rather insensitive. And I can look forward to all the obsessive coverage for weeks to come.

Many people have said that VTech was right in not shutting down the university after the "not unusual" first shooting. I think the University was very much at fault. They should have locked down the University until they knew the whereabouts of the gunman. What kind of Keystone Kops system accepts a murder without trying to trace the murderer? Obviously they did nothing or gave up -- the press reports said they assumed the killer ran, assumed!

In addition, with two bomb threats earlier in the week, Campus Security should have been on heightened alert. And while you can't have a security guard in front of every classroom, you damn well should have one in every building. They did in my school, and we didn't have any bomb threats.

So many of the people interviewed said "oh, this is a small town, in the middle of nowhere, nothing ever happens here." I think VT was the victim of its own complacency.

The school was a victim of its own complacency because officials never created a fully secure environment for students, believing that by virtue of the campus location everyone was safe. It's the same way the Titanic didn't have any life rafts -- because it was so confident that it couldn't sink that it didn't have an adequate plan for people to survive.

What happened instead is that the murderer took advantage of the exact things officials thought made the place safe: the sprawling campus and security crew driving around in cars rather than patrolling the denser parts of campus on foot. It's that Jane Adams thing: there were no eyes on the street, no one to notice that this guy was wearing an ammo vest or had suspicous-looking bulges. Instead, that job --keeping eyes open, noticing -- was left to the terrified and unfortunate people he attacked and in many cases, killed. If the university had declared an immediate lockdown and manhunt for the WJ killer the way they did for the convict last year, folks might have had a fighting chance.

hey bibinewyork, you still so sure of yourself that vtech was so clueless?

I've read all the articles and haven't seen anything to indicate otherwise.

"Last August, the opening day of classes was canceled and the campus closed when an escaped jail inmate allegedly killed a hospital guard off campus and fled to the Tech area."

They took quick action then, shut down the first day of classes immediately and closed the campus last August when a killer was on the loose-- why not now?

Frankly, I think it's partly symptomatic of the police and officials down there not taking "domestic disputes" seriously, even if they involve two deaths and they don't find a gunman or a weapon, indicating not only that the guy still in the area, but is also still armed. A murder is a murder, maybe until a woman is killed by her boyfriend, in which case it's just a "dispute," right? And then people are free to go to their classes after a half-hour delay, with a potential killer still armed and still on the loose. Even if it were two different shooters, the second could certainly capitalize on the lack of response generated by the first killings -- sorry, "dispute" -- in the dorm. The police and campus security were so myopically ready to see "domestic violence" --which doesn't matter to them, apparently -- that they didn't realize they were also seeing "two murders." On a campus that previously had zero murders, that doesn't require an emergency response?

What do you do with all those people? Station police or volunteers at the parking lots, telling the nonresidents to go home -- officials did that anyway, after the Norris killings. Why not before? Also, make sure the kids don't go to classes the minute you realize two people are dead, which was at 7:15 am. Make an effing announcement to the RAs rather than sending four ineffectual emails when classes have already started and kids are already on the street. In short, keep your effing wits about you when you have two dorm murders following two bomb threats, instead of resorting to the good old boy shrug about a "domestic dispute."

good point. but what about the part where they thought he had taken off in the pickup truck and were our there trying to find him. or did i here wrong?

Shutting down the campus is surely the side issue of the day. Guns kill. Another instance of ammunition for the gun control lobby or should the disaffected have the right to guns? Hey, it's the 21st Century so why insist on the right of all to bear arms? This brand of democracy is a dangerous export.

Anonymous --

The articles I read in various outlets had nothing about a pickup truck. In fact, most accounts of the press conference said that VT security officials believed local cops, who said the guy had left the campus and maybe the state. VT security were trying to question a witness to the first shooting while the second massacre was happening in Norris. Even if that were true-- instead of legal ass-covering -- why not evacuate the campus while they're roaring around trying to find the pickup, trying to find the killer who is on the loose?

Most of the stories I read had officials in the press conference admitting they mistakenly believed that the guy had taken off, and not pursuing the issue past that. That includes the articles from the AP, Wash Post, New York Times, CS Monitor, and AJC. Security was the problem here.

I don't think gun control is the issue, frankly. The kid was acting illegally by any definition, and should we be changing national laws and giving up individual rights to prevent that? Stricter gun laws somehow never stop crazy people and criminals from obtaining guns, in this or any other country. There has never been a country that successfully eliminated the black market in weapons.

Besides, saying this incident means we need more gun control is like saying we should reconsider freedom of the press because of Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass. The issue is not the law. The issue is why no one had their eyes open and enforced it adequately.

I've been commenting a lot, but someone I was once close to is affected by all this and I am completely shocked and appalled by so many aspects of it that could have been prevented.