roenoke on 11/28/2007 9:29:56 AM wrote:
smiller- you wouldn't happen to be or be a family member of one of the "3 best" VT watchers.
you sound a little bitter.
maybe if those watchers were doing their job and not drinking coffee off campus they would still have a job.
you point out an important problem. if the "3 best" watchers were ignoring their duties and socializing than the rest of the crew must really be bad off. VT needs to take a second look at the selection process.
And you say...
"No one can say that they would of been at the right place/right time to radio in Mr. Jones up on the ledge or roof..."
The watchers might have been out for coffee while this was happening.
|
DCR086 on 9/6/2007 11:23:07 PM wrote:
If you have some suggestions about how to better breach doors or quickly locate a shooter I'd be happy to hear them. But please don't tell me you simply go to the shots. If you've ever heard shots in a building with block walls, you know the sound echos and you can't always tell where it's coming from. Many times police are limited to tracking the shooter by the smell of the smoke from fired rounds and the location of the victims.
Whether the public accepts it or not, this was one of the best rapid deployments yet executed in the US. That is evident from the fact that the review only found fault with administrative decisions, not police tactics.
April 16 was tragic, but this issue is not as simple as you would have us believe.
|
DCR086 on 9/6/2007 11:07:40 PM wrote:
And you know for certain that the officers on camera were the only ones there, or is it possible there other officers who had already entered the building and were going after the shooter?
There are specific techniques used in a rapid deployment to an active shooter. You don't just bum rush the building in a disorganized fashion. That just adds to the chaos and the liklehood of engaging non-hostiles or other officers.
If you already have two full tactical teams making entry, wouldn't you try to leave a few officers on the perimeter in case the shooter tried to escape. True you have to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible, but you also want to contain it so he doesn't run into another building and continue shooting.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 9/6/2007 1:02:13 PM wrote:
DCR086,
I did see some of the footage on TV.. maybe it wasn't footage but a still image of them outside Norris Hall.
I'm sorry, I must have mistaken it for live footage of them sitting there doing nothing.
They should have put a little note on the screen indicating that it was a still image and not a live feed.
|
DCR086 on 9/6/2007 9:43:14 AM wrote:
RoanokerSince80 said -
"True. They could have simply sat there and waited for Cho to go outside to head the next building and taken him out then, too. Arguably that would also have saved lives... just sitting there and doing nothing. Which is pretty much what they did for the most part."
How do you now what they did? Were you there? Or did you just watch on TV and blindly believe everything the media said?
|
old_curmudgeon on 9/6/2007 8:44:32 AM wrote:
DCR086
thanks for shedding some light on why it took so long for Tech to send out their rather tepid warning, and why things played out the way they did. The University's response had to pass committe review. I agree there was not much the Tech police could have done since an administrative committee was in charge. The wisdom of that particular policy is another topic altogether.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 9/5/2007 1:31:08 PM wrote:
Maybe I will do better than the police, maybe not.
What can be said for sure, though, is whether or not his/my/whomever's actions are "better" than the police or not, they certainly will be done "faster."
What's the worst thing that can happen? Cho picks up my gun and the 27 rounds of ammunition that I have. Great. If he has a third arm, he'll start shooting people with it. Considering he couldn't use all of the ammunition that he had for the two guns he was already using, I'd say that my losing my gun to him didn't really cause any more of a problem.
In fact, since Cho can't carry it, maybe someone else will be able to pick it up and make a second go at stopping him.
I just don't see a downside even in worst case.
|
sickandtired on 9/5/2007 1:05:30 PM wrote:
No offense taken. But your argument does assume that you will do a better job than the police. Maybe you will. Maybe not. For your sake, if it comes down to that, I hope the best for you. As for me, I was extensively trained by the best with firearms of all types (handguns, rifles, and others) in the military. And it is because of that training that I choose not to have firearms around me. I don't consider myself a liberal peacenik. I just have been in too many situations where the presences of a weapon and the human condition make for a dangerous mix. We'll simply have to agree to disagree on that issue. On the issue of the Tech police chief, we will also have to agree to disagree as well. Anyone can be a Monday morning quarterback.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 9/5/2007 12:52:22 PM wrote:
sickandtired,
I'm sorry for being so blunt and harsh.. I probably shouldn't have said that.
But, it's just so ridiculous to think that because someone is not guaranteed to be able to defend themselves if they had a gun, then they should continue not to have them.
You can't guarantee that police can defend themselves in every situation, so what's the point of them carrying a gun?
I've been asking myself for years why police carry guns? What makes them so different than the rest of us?
They don't deal with armed criminals all that often. Typically when there is a shooting the bad guy gets away and we all know that the Roanoke Police aren't going to find them.
They can't find their way out of the Valley View parking lot without help.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 9/5/2007 12:37:23 PM wrote:
sickandtired,
I would have a chance.
You could always stop by and kick my door in and find out... but then you wouldn't be able to write back on here and admit that you were wrong, would you?
|
sickandtired on 9/5/2007 12:26:27 PM wrote:
"I'm just thankful that I am not a VT student myself. If someone were to come up my block shooting people, at least I would be able to defend myself."
Or
You would be another dead victim. Your argument assumes that because you would be armed to the teeth that you would be able to save the day. It just doesn't fly.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 9/5/2007 10:54:48 AM wrote:
Quote: "Whether you ever see it or not, the police response to Norris Hall saved lives."
True. They could have simply sat there and waited for Cho to go outside to head the next building and taken him out then, too. Arguably that would also have saved lives... just sitting there and doing nothing. Which is pretty much what they did for the most part.
I'm just thankful that I am not a VT student myself. If someone were to come up my block shooting people, at least I would be able to defend myself.
Unlike those poor defenseless students at VT.
I'm sure it'll happen again one day, maybe even at VT. And just like this time, people will still have this dumbfounded "how could this happen?" look on their faces.
|
DCR086 on 9/4/2007 11:53:45 PM wrote:
Cho had over 150 rounds left when he killed himself. He also had several more living victims in the building had he chose to continue. The simple fact is, he heard the police shoot their way in and advance on his position and took the coward's way out. Whether you ever see it or not, the police response to Norris Hall saved lives. Those officers were running to the sound of the gunshots. They were trained and responded well. That is due in no small part to Chief Flinchum's leadership.
People who know nothing save what the media has told them will critique and criticize this forever, but the bottom line is most of the critics have no idea what they are talking about and have allowed their emotional desire to blame someone, someone besides the shooter, to blind them to the facts.
|
DCR086 on 9/4/2007 11:51:47 PM wrote:
The Virginia Tech Police did everything that they should have done. They followed the leads they had. And when the Norris Hall shooting happened there response was one of the best rapid deployment responses yet recorded since the techniques were developed after Columbine.
I'm sure you will argue that they must have done something wrong since so many people died, but you will be wrong. Their response from first call to confirmoing the shooter down was less than 10 minutes. That included traveling 1/2 a mile, finding barricaded doors and breaching them, and locating one person in a very large building.
|
DCR086 on 9/4/2007 11:42:30 PM wrote:
Even if they weren't, how would the 9 working campus police officers have stopped and searched a significant percentage of the estimated 10,000 people walking on campus that morning?
True a warning could have gone out sooner if the University had not required such messages to go through a committee, but it did. The police gave the committee the info they had and the committee debated it and decided what to send out and when. They didn't give the police the authority or access to send messages or order that classes be closed.
In real life police work, not what you watch on CSI, the police have very limited resources. When a crime occurs they follow leads, they don't just randomly and haphazardly start searching everyone in sight.
|
DCR086 on 9/4/2007 11:36:05 PM wrote:
old_curmudgeon
What would you have had them, but particularly Chief Flinchum, do differently? There was nothing to indicate that anything more was about to happen. They had one lead and they were following up on it while working the first crime scene. The County Sheriff's Office had the only potential suspect stopped within one hour. In most cases that would be considered extremely efficient, effective police work, but in this case, since that lead was erroneous, all of you armchair quarterbacks imagine there was something else the police cold have done in the 2 hour interim. But what would that have been? Those random searches everyone keeps talking about would have been unconstitutional.
|
old_curmudgeon on 9/4/2007 9:13:47 AM wrote:
Would decisive action bu Steger and Flinchum have mitigated this disaster? WE WILL NEVER KNOW, because they did NOTHING until the carnage was complete. Yes, Cho was responsible. But, in my opinion, Steger's lack of a timely response aided and abetted hin in his deadly task.
|
old_curmudgeon on 9/4/2007 9:13:47 AM wrote:
Would decisive action bu Steger and Flinchum have mitigated this disaster? WE WILL NEVER KNOW, because they did NOTHING until the carnage was complete. Yes, Cho was responsible. But, in my opinion, Steger's lack of a timely response aided and abetted hin in his deadly task.
|
Skimousn on 8/31/2007 9:56:57 AM wrote:
There is no report that will bring back their children. Seung-Hui Cho is responsible. He did it; no one made him do it. He planed and executed this atrocity on his own. There are many things that many different people could have done to prevent this catastrophe. As in most tragedies, there is a “chain of events”, any one of them broken that could have changed the results of this horror story. However, blaming Charles Steger is like blaming the architect who designed the classrooms for not making the doors bulletproof. This is truly a horrific event. It has forever burned everyone who it has touched and no amount of finger pointing will change the outcome or bring comfort to those so horribly touched by an insane person.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 8/31/2007 9:15:31 AM wrote:
Quote: "So many idiots on here wow, Lets give teachers and everyone guns. If Guns were illegal like in most civilized countries it would have never happened Cho wouldn't have been able to buy a gun."
mikssshs,
You're right. Washington, DC has had a complete ban on guns for the last couple of decades. That is why Washington, DC has been very fortunate to have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country.
As of 2005, it was number 13 in the country in murders per 100,000 people.
I doubt any of them were killed with guns, though, as there was a complete ban on those.
|
Chadbourn on 8/31/2007 6:49:22 AM wrote:
It is not correct to say that the students are not listening to the panel. In fact, I could tell in my daughter's voice that something was wrong. She said it was hard to hear VT the administrationbeing so criticized. I asked her to compare it to 9/11. It is very easy to go back and rethink what could have been done to prevent the deaths of innocent people. It appears as once again a school is being held accountable for not taking control of a child's life instead of the parents being responsible. The report was also released at a time that is also very emotional for VT supporters and students. They want to remember, honor and unite.
|
mikesshs on 8/30/2007 7:37:52 PM wrote:
So many idiots on here wow, Lets give teachers and everyone guns. If Guns were illegal like in most civilized countries it would have never happened Cho wouldn't have been able to buy a gun. And the college is a a school if a shooting happened at a high school would they "assume" the gunman left and just continue no they would shut it down lock people in or get them out. But the college didn't he had enough time to make videos and mail a letter that college caused most of those kids to be killed by not closing it down as soon as they knew.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 8/30/2007 7:08:11 PM wrote:
Quote: "That seems to be "business as usual" at Tech where its always a collective problem with the university at fault."
=====
I think the most important thing to Virginia Tech is that the shootings don't affect the football season.
Thankfully they didn't.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 8/30/2007 7:05:28 PM wrote:
Quote: "If you don't trust your child's teacher with a gun, WHY ARE YOU TRUSTING THEM WITH YOUR CHILD???"
justsomeguy,
They don't. Only Utah citizens trust their children's teachers.
|
tmax201 on 8/30/2007 5:03:11 PM wrote:
Steger must go! In this post 9-11 era, anyone in a position as responsible as school president, must have the capacity to analyze an emergency situation. "Assumption" is the Mother of all foulups. His "assumption" that all was clear cost an additional 30 lives. No situation is all clear until all sites are secure. Someone has to accept the responsibility for failure to analyze wisely, and a man in his position must have solid judgement. He didn't use much judgement at all. I am sorry - maybe he's a great man - but his decisions in this case were costly.
|
Pamela on 8/30/2007 4:53:13 PM wrote:
Bad things happen. Bad things happen sometimes that could never have been stopped. You cannot lock down a campus that large in a matter of a few minutes. It isnt the Univ presidents fault, it is Chos fault. Terrible, tragic yes and I feel awful for the parents. But put the blame where it belongs, on the shooter. period.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 8/30/2007 4:49:19 PM wrote:
The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime.
According to a 20/20 interview with John Stossel, in an interview with prisoners who had committed violent crimes, he found that they were more afraid of armed citizens then gun control or even police officers.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=124324&page=7
|
RoanokerSince80 on 8/30/2007 4:40:28 PM wrote:
Quote: Perhaps these same people should approach the mayor of Roanoke and suggest that the city be "locked down" every time there is a shooting in the city.
=====
This isn't a valid comparison. Unfortunately, because of policy, all of the students at Virginia Tech were helpless to defend themselves. That should make the school responsible for their safety.
Citizens of Roanoke aren't helpless in that fashion.
A deranged killer running around Roanoke my scare you and make you feel helpless and hope for the police to protect you.
I don't feel the same way, however. I'll be fine.
In fact, send him over and let him kick my door in. I'll save my fellow taxpayers all sorts of money.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 8/30/2007 4:34:38 PM wrote:
Quote: "We were promised by the anti-gunners that "blood would run in the streets" and that "soccer moms would be shooting each other over parking spaces) if CCW reform was enacted. That hasn't happened."
=====
Are you kidding? I shot someone over a parking space just last week. Does it not count because I am a dad and not a mom??
|
RoanokerSince80 on 8/30/2007 4:32:12 PM wrote:
Quote: "The students never had a chance to protect themselves because they were under the impression that it was just a normal day at school. But it wasn't because somebody was obviously there with a gun."
=====
The presence of a gun shouldn't, in itself, make anything abnormal.
I assure you, go to Wal-Mart... right now. Someone is there with a gun. Go to Valley View Mall (yes, they have a little sign, but its not legally binding).. someone is there with a gun.
When someone deranged buys a gun, I wonder why they never decide to go on a shooting spree right then and there in the gun store or in the gun show? Hmm..
|
RoanokerSince80 on 8/30/2007 4:28:41 PM wrote:
Quotes:
"If a child is dropped off at elem, middle or high school where murders had occured that morning"
The comparison is a bit silly. VA Tech is more like the city of Salem than it is an elementary school.
=====
Well, if they WERE the City of Salem we might not have had this problem. Since it's perfectly acceptable for the citizens of the City of Salem to carry a gun and defend themselves should the need arise.
Unfortunately, that comparison won't work, either.
|
RoanokerSince80 on 8/30/2007 4:24:29 PM wrote:
It doesn't surprise me that they said there should be a ban of guns on campus.
As far as Cho was concerned, though, there was. He was a student, and students are barred from having guns on campus.
Now, I'm wondering how barring non-students from having a gun on campus would have changed anything?
I don't see how it would.
|
No_nonsense on 8/30/2007 12:08:49 PM wrote:
This report is as bad as I expected from an "internal review" by the government. The bottom line is (1)that not a single campus cop got a scratch while 32 people were being killed,(2) if someone with a concealed carry permit had been spotted the sniper cops would have killed that person without ordering him/her to drop their gun, and (3) the massacre was directly the result of the university violating the Dept. of Education Clery Act because of not notifying the campus that a shooter was loose. Why wasn't the Clery Act complaint mentioned?
This Complaint will likely result in a few bad leaders at VT needing to find a new job because they can't make a quick decision in an emergency. http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/1/ARTICLE
|
briggman on 8/30/2007 11:42:22 AM wrote:
Press Conference seems to provide only an opportunity to have all of the members to get up and tell their families that they're coming home and to slap each other on the back.
Does anyone have a picture of this panel?
|
briggman on 8/30/2007 10:41:05 AM wrote:
Chapter 10 of the report seems to suggest the General Assembly pass a law allowing more public colleges and universities to regulate firearms off campus.
That worked really well at Virginia Tech, didn't it?
Like most government investigative panels, this was a waste.
I wonder how much it cost us taxpayers.
|
Travelguy on 8/30/2007 10:37:15 AM wrote:
Its interesting no:one is placing blame at any one Tech administrator for the failure to protect those students from this killer.
That seems to be "business as usual" at Tech where its always a collective problem with the university at fault. I guess due to legal ramifications the panel had to say something to satisfy the media but in reality none of us will ever know what really happened that day.
|
dwalker on 7/25/2007 1:17:10 PM wrote:
The panel must offer suggestions and recommendations for preventing similar tragediesin the future. The answer is easy, but anethma to liberl colleges and institutesof higher learning.
Let those that are of age and qualified carry concealed firearms on campus.
Simple.
|
vtsurvivor on 7/25/2007 6:57:06 AM wrote:
To be accepted at VT, the main thing considered is your GPA and test scores, to my knowledge. Most other schools require lengthy essays and reference letters from teachers and community leaders--which are evidence of character and well-balanced life activities and good citizenship. This would be a good practice to start at VT, even though it will be time consuming. Who would have written Cho a reference letter? I doubt no one. Based on his rambling writings, I would imagine he would have great difficulty writing an acceptable essay on key issues, as well. If your high school guidance counselor can't recommend you to a college, it shows you are not suited to be a college campus member.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 7/23/2007 12:24:16 PM wrote:
You know what Researcher ( aka servinglifeto40), you are a sick B@$#ard...for even tying to explain what happened at Tech with your nonsense. GET OFF this board you sicko. You will be shut down...again..for the third time due to your bizzare posts.
|
sickandtired on 7/22/2007 5:28:10 PM wrote:
Your "Researcher" is actually a poor soul who used to post under the pseudonym "serving 40 to life" and is not all there upstairs. Most of the stuff he puts up is half-baked lunacy from websites that he has commented on or formed in the past. Soon he will be speaking of his miracle engines, and how we are all drowing in polution that has bound itself to oxygen molecules and that is the reason for the depravity of the world. Then he will want someone to build roads through the skies. He is more to be pitied than taken seriously, right Woodrow?
|
roenoke on 7/22/2007 4:40:28 PM wrote:
Researcher...Who is the author of the website you site and were is the research/studies to back up the many claims it makes.
|
Researcher on 7/21/2007 1:27:00 PM wrote:
The shooting happened because VTech failed to supply Cubicle Level Protection for students.
Cubicles have been used for forty years to prevent the mental break Cho had.
Subliminal Distraction is the name of this problem.
VisionAndPsychosis.Net is a five year research project about this phenomenon.
There have been other shooters that gave no warning.
No amount of preparation will help.
http://VisionAndPsychosis.Net - the explanation is on the Virginia Tech shooting page.
|
justsomeguy on 7/19/2007 6:33:47 PM wrote:
Oh, and BTW, for those who feel threatened by the idea of people with CCW permits carrying on campus, I have to ask this question: "Are you terrified at the thought of people carrying guns OFF campus?" Because whenever you go to a supermarket or a movie theater or almost anyplace else, you could be surrounded by people with CCW permits that are legally carrying a firearm.
If you don't trust your child's teacher with a gun, WHY ARE YOU TRUSTING THEM WITH YOUR CHILD???
|
justsomeguy on 7/19/2007 6:25:35 PM wrote:
Hoo boy, I'm SO glad to hear that police chief tell us that allowing CCW on campus would make campus more dangerous. I'm left wondering what his position on CCW reform was before Virginia went from "may issue" to "shall issue". I seem to recall the anti-gun nuts telling us all that CCW reform would lead to massive bloodshed in the streets, with Sally Soccer-Moms shooting each other over parking at the supermarket. Oddly enough, those predictions proved false.
We've all seen how well banning CCW on campus works. We have a decent-sized pile of corpses to show us the error of the "Only criminals can bring guns on campus" philosophy. It's suicidal. It exhibits what has been referred to as a "gas-chamber mentality". He should be ashamed.
|
debnuss on 7/19/2007 10:28:29 AM wrote:
Eastern Michigan University just fired it's president, public safety chief and student affairs leader (equivalent to VT's president, executive vice president for finance, and provost) for mishandling and covering up the death of ONE student and violating federal law.
Thirty-three students and staff die at VT and one would hope the VT Board of Visitors will take appropriate action. That's assuming, however the BOV knows what their job is, which is NOT to protect the VT administration or be spoon fed by it.
|
RobertWilson on 6/18/2007 1:36:59 PM wrote:
Understanding the course of the shooter's mental degeneration and the interaction of the University and health community with that course will provide clues for future interventions.
We cull and groom applicants to select who will be allowed to enter the University. They have to demonstrate an ability to engage, learn from, and contribute to the COMMUNITY. Attending VT is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. This kid wasn't fitting in on almost every level, save not flunking out. He should have been gone long before he caused so much damage.
|
justsomeguy on 6/16/2007 1:18:55 AM wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this emphasis on Cho's mental health is focusing on the wrong issue?
It's the easy way out. Hardly anybody objects when people say "let's further stigmatize the mentally ill." It's also a convenient way to avoid the reality that some people deliberately choose to commit acts of unspeakable evil. And it avoids at least some of the responsibility that lies with the VT Administration for forcing the law abiding with CCW permits to be disarmed on campus to allow the rose-colored glasses crowd to "feel safe".
Deliberately sticking your collective head in the sand may make the weak-minded "feel safe", but the reality is that it just makes you and those around you into a bigger target.
|
old_curmudgeon on 6/15/2007 1:19:36 PM wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this emphasis on Cho's mental health is focusing on the wrong issue? Chances are, the next time this happens, (and God help us there will be a next time), the perpetrator may have no history at all of mental illness. What then? I would like to see the panel consider what it will take to improve student safety and minimize the loss of life in the next incident, short of turning college campuses into quasi-penitentiaries. And I would like to see recommendations that can serve as a model for the U.S.
|
RobertWilson on 6/15/2007 10:00:18 AM wrote:
If the family members think that they can add something of value to the Panel's investigation they can present it. And they can attend the meetings and ask questions, or make statements. I hope they do. But these families are terribly injured, and you don't have a patient conduct his own diagnosis - especially when they don't have those skills.
A better contribution would be for these families to tell us about their people. I want to know every one of them, and the Panel can't do that.
"No one can do everything, but everyone can do something." Ausyin Cloyd
|
EudoraParker on 6/15/2007 9:59:54 AM wrote:
I do believe that the families should be kept apprised of the panel discussions, but the panel was set up more to prevent this in the future, not assign blame so lawyers have someone to sue. Even with all Cho's records, what's to say that short of locking him in the state hospital in Marion that he wouldn't have done this anyway. He could have received enough care to keep him at Tech ("he sounded normal to me and was making progress"), yet still gone off the deep end. All the "what ifs" won't reverse April 16. The panel needs to find the cracks in the system that let it happen and suggest ways to fill them. The public needs to then ride the politicians to make sure the findings are acted on (the no-tax gang in Richmond notwithstanding).
|
cyclingmad1 on 6/15/2007 8:26:17 AM wrote:
Why should they have to make a case? This is not a judicial venue. I think the fact that they lost a child or other family member is enough reason to let them on the panel. It's not all of the families; I say either let them be on the panel or let them sit in on all the meetings and allow them to input their ideas.
|
RobertWilson on 6/14/2007 1:14:53 PM wrote:
The families have not made a case for what value they would add to this Panel. Although their loss was the greatest, many others have an interest in doing everything possible to prevent a future incident.
The Investigation Panel is composed of people with specific skills relative to advancing the investigation, interpreting the findings, and making recommendations relative to those findings.
I will concede that the families deserve assurances that where failures of leadership, or law enforcement occurred, they will be made public. There must be accountability
|
VTalum04 on 6/14/2007 7:36:55 AM wrote:
It is tough that the families are not able to be involved in the investigation, however, I would have to support Kaine and Steger's stance. The integrity of an investigation can be compromised if an personal emotional aspect drives the decisions. This seems unfair, but really has merit. Also it seems that most parents are not aware of what their children do while they are in college. Many parents believe their kids are the best and would never do something, when they are doing it right under their nose, much less hundreds of miles away all by themselves. There is a lot to be said about an impartial reviewer/investigator. The families could be made aware of their findings, but should not participate in making them.
|
VTalum04 on 6/14/2007 7:30:28 AM wrote:
Code allows you to put locks on doors as long as you can get out from the inside for fire safety and life safety concerns. However, some local fire marshals and building officials do not like this. I do not know what the feeling is by the Blacksburg B.O. but it can be done. It can be done by keys too. Similar to many house locks, it can be locked by a key on the outside, but you can open it like normal from the inside. This is a special lock, not all locks work this way, but it is what is needed to accomplish what was mentioned.
|
vtsurvivor on 6/14/2007 7:23:26 AM wrote:
I think it is extremely unfair to the families of the victims from the April 16 tragedy that the employees of VT were gag ordered by Presidnet Steger not to discuss the April 16 tragedy as of May 17. Families deserve to be able to discover the truth.
|
justsomeguy on 6/13/2007 4:37:36 PM wrote:
You seem to know everything -- like that Cho would have cowered in fear knowing he might face someone with a concealed gun.
I don't know that Cho would have cowered in fear. We DO know that as soon as Cho heard shots fired by others, he shot himself. That seems indicative of Cho being a coward. You'll notice that he didn't shoot up a meeting of the VT shooting club...
There is research out there WRT criminals being more afraid of coming across an armed victim than the police. One study done (IIRC) in the Florida Criminal Justice system around 20 years ago that was considered definitive. I can't recall anybody challenging either it's methodology or it's results.
Do the research. Read the literature. Make up your own mind.
|
justsomeguy on 6/13/2007 4:15:14 PM wrote:
This might not stop the homicidal mania from entering the first classrom, but it would allow teachers in the other rooms to at least keep him out of theirs.
Not to be overly obvious here, but Cho locked the building down, and the police were still able to get into the building by firing a couple of shots from a shotgun. If somebody wants to gain entry and is willing to use violence (and tools) to do so, they will generally get in, unless there is somebody there with the means to stop them.
Even if the doors could have been locked down, it wouldn't have been too hard for Cho to find another way to shoot a lot of people. For obvious reasons, I will not go into specifics on this.
|
justsomeguy on 6/13/2007 4:08:42 PM wrote:
As for specific cases: Google Joel Myrick. He was a Vice-Principal during the Pearl, Mississippi school shooting, and stopped it by pointing his gun (which he retrieved from his car) at the shooter's head. Oddly enough, Myrick didn't actually have to shoot the school shooter, and Myrick's actions indisputably saved lives.
|
justsomeguy on 6/13/2007 3:58:11 PM wrote:
Interesting that you can't back up your claims that crimes have been prevented by those with concealed guns.
There's a difference between "can not" and "will not". Any sources that I post will undoubtedly be immediately attacked for their partisan bias. Do your own research, there's tons of stuff out there on the web. Then make your own mind up.
If you want a few places to start, I'd suggest you read some Lott, Cottrol, Diamond, Kleck, et cetera. Volokh and Lund can be interesting and somewhat amusing, but tend to be a bit academic.
You can try THIS if you want to, it's a good "primer" on the issue.
For the anti-gun side, google "Brady Center CCW."
|
old_curmudgeon on 6/13/2007 1:01:19 PM wrote:
Excellent question. The doors could always be opened from the inside. But who's to say that some homicidal maniac wouldn't hit a fire alarm, run outside, then wait for the students to come pouring out the doors? A difficult problem to solve.
|
StephenAnderson on 6/13/2007 11:17:08 AM wrote:
I don't disagree with you but fire codes may not allow locks on the doors. Can anyone verify?
|
old_curmudgeon on 6/13/2007 9:36:56 AM wrote:
Here's a concrete idea. Put locks on the classroom and lab doors. They should be electronic, and controlled by the teacher. This might not stop the homicidal mania from entering the first classrom, but it would allow teachers in the other rooms to at least keep him out of theirs.
|
EudoraParker on 6/13/2007 9:17:24 AM wrote:
Hey justsomebozo, please post the next MegaMillion jackpot numbers here. You seem to know everything -- like that Cho would have cowered in fear knowing he might face someone with a concealed gun. Have you been in contact with the governor's panel to explain Cho's state of mind and how and why he acted without fear because guns aren't allowed on campus? Interesting that you can't back up your claims that crimes have been prevented by those with concealed guns. I would think that proponents of guns on campus would be beating the bushes to find, document, and crow about all these busted crimes.
|
justsomeguy on 6/13/2007 8:37:50 AM wrote:
I also like the people in the fantasy world of "If I would have been there with my gun, I would have blown the sucker away, but those bad old people at VT won't let me bring my toy on campus!
It's unknown how many crimes are not successfully committed annually because the intended victim was armed and used their gun in self defense. At least one study has put that number as high as 2.5 MILLION PER YEAR. We also know that criminals fear encountering an armed victim more than they fear encountering a police officer.
Do we know for sure that, absent VT's policy, one or more of Cho's victims would have been armed? No. But we DO know that VT's policy made the possibility that Cho would encounter an armed victim practically zero.
|
justsomeguy on 6/13/2007 8:31:19 AM wrote:
It was not the University's fault tha this maniac killed 32 people on campus, or had the weaponry to do this.
Are you suggesting that somebody willing to commit an act of mass-murder would be deterred from illegally buying a gun on the black market? That is simply insane.
VT's administration GUARANTEED that Cho wouldn't meet armed opposition from his intended victims. They did this so people would "feel safe". Oddly enough, most VT students "feel safe" OFF-campus, where the people VT disarmed are routinely carrying concealed weapons legally.
VT's DELIBERATE, PREMEDITATED policy merely insured that Cho was the only one with guns in that building. We all saw how well THAT worked out, didn't we...
|
mgwolfe64 on 6/12/2007 4:09:49 PM wrote:
To those who say "University Policy saw to it that there were only two guns in the mix on 4/16": It was not the University's fault tha this maniac killed 32 people on campus, or had the weaponry to do this. The system that should have kept him from purchasing the guns in the first place is what failed. Cho was examined and found to be unstable. This should have been recorded in state records, and gun shop employees should have been alerted to this so they could have restricted him from buying the guns. We can't blame VT for this horrible massacre. The university is a victim also.
|
EudoraParker on 6/12/2007 11:42:34 AM wrote:
It is so entertaining to read messages from people who have no idea what they are talking about. "Lock down the campus because the shooter was still out there." Perhaps these same people should approach the mayor of Roanoke and suggest that the city be "locked down" every time there is a shooting in the city. It would take the same effort and have the same effect. I also like the people in the fantasy world of "If I would have been there with my gun, I would have blown the sucker away, but those bad old people at VT won't let me bring my toy on campus! whaa, whaa, whaa!" How about abusing the mental health system that failed to follow up on the very real problems that Cho had and needed to be treated/locked up for.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 6/12/2007 8:15:27 AM wrote:
Hello Researcher....you would not happen to be formerly known on these boards as 'Servinglifeto40' now would you?
SD...nothing but junk science and a fringe element in psychology. There was also never any mention of Cho being 'psychotic' in news articles.
|
Researcher on 6/11/2007 9:32:32 PM wrote:
The Virginia Tech shooting was caused by exposure from Subliminal Distraction.
SD was discovered when it caused mental breaks for office workers in the 1960's. The cubicle was created to deal with it.
Cho had the same mental break as those 60's office workers because he had created the "special circumstances" for exposure.
He tried to use a laptop in the common room with others walking around him.
When he had the psychotic episode expected from this exposure he killed 32 people.
There have been other shootings caused by SD. The Redlake school shooter left an on-line journal entry telling what he did to cause exposure. Jason Weed had the mental break and killed a mail carrier, 2001.
http://VisionAndPsychosis.Net
|
rogerodell on 5/31/2007 2:47:32 PM wrote:
Yes, justsomeguy, that is part of my point: there are certainly a lot of disturbed people just like Cho, but who will never kill anybody. Cho did. What pushed him over the edge? And this was no ordinary "push."
----------------------
Of course, old_curmudgeon, VT needs to be hiring more lawyers; there will be numerous lawsuits to defend against. I know; I've been approached by lawyers; I've spoken with parents of victims.
|
old_curmudgeon on 5/30/2007 8:59:16 AM wrote:
So, Tech has taken the first concrete step to deal with the tragedy. They want to hire another lawyer! Brilliant.
|
justsomeguy on 5/29/2007 4:03:20 AM wrote:
Should the Incident Review Panel attempt to investigate questions like these, to take them seriously and not simply to dismiss Cho as being crazy? Of course, I think it should.
Absolutely. But we must keep in mind that a lot of people with similar "symptoms" as Cho exhibited prior to 4/16, and they will never kill anybody.
|
rogerodell on 5/28/2007 1:40:42 PM wrote:
In reporting the news of April 16th, several journalists used the expression, "Cho was a man on a mission." Yes, it seemed so. But that's a rather curious choice of words -- unless it really were so. "man on a mission" -- what mission? to accomplish what? for whom? why? who was the man, really?
Should the Incident Review Panel attempt to investigate questions like these, to take them seriously and not simply to dismiss Cho as being crazy? Of course, I think it should.
Any thoughts, justsomeguy, Kringles_Helper, Walker, etc.?
|
justsomeguy on 5/27/2007 3:05:28 AM wrote:
One other thing: For the "guns are bad" crowd out there, let me ask you this: If a person is attacked, which method of responding to the attack has the lowest chance of the victim being injured? The three possibilities are 1) comply with your attacker, and do whatever he/she wants, 2) resist your attacker with force while either unarmed or armed with anything other than a gun, or 3) resist with a gun.
Any guesses?
|
justsomeguy on 5/27/2007 1:55:29 AM wrote:
Where are all of the statistics that show that had one of our cowboy gun-toters been around, they would have done something?
Are you suggesting that if one of Cho's victims had been armed, they would have just sat there with their gun and let Cho shoot them? That is completely contrary to human nature. Ask yourself what would the likely result have been in one of the students in those classrooms had been an off-duty VT cop who was taking a class.
Additionally, the anti-gunners often say that CCW permit holders would mis-identify the "bad guy" and start shooting each other. That's complete rubbish. After all, how hard is it to recognize the "bad guy" as being the person who walks into a room and starts shooting everybody?
|
justsomeguy on 5/27/2007 1:49:49 AM wrote:
If the statistics are there...show 'em.
What kind of statistics do you want?
I wouldn't presume to cite statistics, because as we all know, statistics can be manipulated to fit the bias of the compiler. What I WILL suggest is that you look at what has happened in the various states after they passed CCW reform. Ignore partisan sources, like the NRA and various anti gun groups. Generally, you'll find that person to person (ie violent) crime decreased significantly after CCW reform, while property crime increased due to substitution. We were promised by the anti-gunners that "blood would run in the streets" and that "soccer moms would be shooting each other over parking spaces) if CCW reform was enacted. That hasn't happened.
|
Kringles_Helper on 5/26/2007 8:06:26 AM wrote:
SO...
Where are all of the statistics that show that had one of our cowboy gun-toters been around, they would have done something?
Its a fantasy...like scoring the winning touchdown in High School...
If the statistics are there...show 'em.
Otherwise, how about we take the conversation to an adult level.
Tech IS more like a city.
Perhaps mistakes were made by the administration...but we have to learn and grow to prevent future occurences, right?
Was Cho on anti-depressants? Lots of evidence in cases all over the U.S. point to anti-depressants causing similar behavior...like Columbine...
We can't let the greed of the pharmaceuticals cover it up. Its odd the FDA asks for "warnings" AFTER so many incidents...why not "illegal"?
|
justsomeguy on 5/24/2007 7:08:28 PM wrote:
Dr. Steger made a bad choice in not closing the school.
Dr. Steger's bad choices far predate 4/16. Dr. Steger implemented a policy requiring the VTPD to harass law abiding citizens for legally exercising their civil liberties. WHY did Dr. Steger do this? Apparently (as indicated by comments made by a Tech spokesperson in this newspaper), he felt that the ACTUAL safety of his students was far less important than the false FEELING of safety that his policy generated for the weak of mind. As is often the case, the person that foists off the stupidity that gets people killed isn't the one who pays the price. It was the 32 dead students who paid the price.
To paraphrase the "Village Idiot": "You're doing a heckofajob, Steger!"
|
Lucas2007 on 5/24/2007 9:45:24 AM wrote:
The Point of my comparison with any other schools is that "it is a school." A place where parents assume their kids will be safe and authoritive decisions are made to protect them. Dr. Steger made a bad choice in not closing the school. Two people were found murdered, nobody knew who did it or where the shooter was...in the next building, next town, ect. The students never had a chance to protect themselves because they were under the impression that it was just a normal day at school. But it wasn't because somebody was obviously there with a gun. The campus should have been shut down until every dorm room and building was searched.
|
Walker on 5/24/2007 8:54:59 AM wrote:
"If a child is dropped off at elem, middle or high school where murders had occured that morning"
The comparison is a bit silly. VA Tech is more like the city of Salem than it is an elementary school.
I submit that if any law-abiding citizens allowed to observe their right to bear arms had been anywhere near the incident it would have been halted earlier.
Gun free zones? What a joke. Call it a "defense-less victim" zone instead.
Sounds a lot like our "temporary worker" program for the criminal immigrants in our country.
"They will come to us and pay us $5000 and then they will go back to Mexico and then they will be legal citizens"
...because THIS time they will obey our laws.
When pigs fly.
|
Hokierob01 on 5/24/2007 1:49:09 AM wrote:
One other thing, VT should adopt a zero tolerance policy for stuff like stalking, vandalism, etc. When I was at VT there was a guy who got dumped by his girl so he got drunk and completly trashed the bathroon in our dorm, This guy was clearly not mentally stable! Did he get kicked out of VT? NOPE! He got a slap on the wrist and his parents had to pay for the damages. Then there was my freshman roomie (what a LOSER!) he got busted for stealing stereos from cars parked on campus. Did they kick him out of VT? NOPE, wrist slap! Years Later some girl accused him of raping her at a frat party. ( he probably did it too) They STILL didn't kick him out! VA Tech is too good of a school to give losers like Cho a second chance! KICK THEM OUT!!
|
Hokierob01 on 5/24/2007 1:28:48 AM wrote:
As a VT alumnus I think sacking Dr. Steger because a kid who had a very serious mental illness went postal will do absolutely no good. Firing the university President is almost as stupid as the idea that Norris Hall, a perfectly sound structure, should be razed because of what happened there. Why ruin the career of good man who has dedicated his entire life to Virginia Tech because of this tragedy?
The ONLY thing that might have done some good in this case would be if the classroom doors could have been locked. Once the teachers and students realized there was a shooter in the building they could have locked the doors and hopefully the cops would have gotten there before the guy managed to shoot his way into the classroom.
|
justsomeguy on 5/23/2007 8:46:23 PM wrote:
More guns in the mix are NOT the answer for an environment of HIGHER education.
Unfortunately, University Policy saw to it that there were only two guns "in the mix" on 4/16, and they were in the hands of a mass murderer. We saw how well that worked out. The Administration did everything in it's power to see to it that Cho's victims were in fact victims, and that nobody had an effective means to stop his madness. What was Steger's contribution? He saw to it that the only way the victims of 4/16 could resist was basically to throw books at a guy who was shooting them. Nice call.
Ask yourself this: Suppose that there was an off-duty VT Police Officer taking a class in the first room Cho entered. What result?
|
Kringles_Helper on 5/22/2007 12:48:04 PM wrote:
I'm not a fan of pointing fingers until measures are in place to protect the innocent from future possibilities of what we've been encountering.
I chose Tech because I was told it was a great engineering school. The lessons learned need to be applied such that our peoples can be better prepared for these incidents. I watch the technology on TV, so I know it exists. More guns in the mix are NOT the answer for an environment of HIGHER education.
We have technology to detect threats. We have the technology for non-lethal elimination of threats.
Engineering school...right?
Where's the thought here?
Let us solve these problems so they plague us no more!
Isn't it time to be better people?
|
Lucas2007 on 5/22/2007 10:14:48 AM wrote:
VA Tech should be held accountable for what THEY did wrong! I've read angry letters to the editor defending the efforts of the police. From what I'm hearing and have discussed with others, VERY FEW people are blaming the police for wrongdoing. That early morning, the campus became a crime scene before school even opened. My God, two people were killed and the gunman still running around "somewhere". Was this not serious enough of a matter to close the school immediately? If a child is dropped off at elem, middle or high school where murders had occured that morning, a gunman's still on the loose and school officials fail to mention it, shouldn't we be concerned about the mental health of the Person in charge of the students?
|
watwood on 5/22/2007 10:05:24 AM wrote:
To: Old_Curmudgeon
Blind, unquestioning loyalty for Steger may indeed be a bad thing. However, there is something worse that blind, unquestioning loyalty. I think it is worse to dismiss Steger (and end his career) without a fair hearing of all of the facts.
The HOKIE NATION that is the subject of your reference, has been around Mr. Steger and the University in Blacksburg. Most of them are giving him their support because they know that he would have done everything possible to avoid this tragedy.
Please wait until the investigation is complete. Blind condemnation is worse than blind support.
As a member of the HOKIE NATION, I can assure you that we are all still hurting. The support of fellow HOKIES has helped me.
|
old_curmudgeon on 5/16/2007 8:28:11 AM wrote:
I expect a whitewash. You know, Steger and Flinchum did the best they could, blah blah blah... And most of Hokie Nation unfortunately seems to regard any questioning of the official response as an attack on the University itself, so they support Steger and Flinchum with unquestioning loyalty. If Steger had been the captain of a ship, and this kind of thing had happened on his watch, his career would now be over.
|
