1 Killed in Shootings at Virginia Tech

[alum]

This is bringing tears to my eyes all over again.

[polarpi]

At our Convention this past week, the president of our Virginia Tech chapter read a letter to the sisters gathered there thanking us for our support, as well as giving us a chance to "see" what this chapter went through on that day. I don't think there was a dry eye in the room as she read this letter...

[James]

You realize that the police didn't do anything to help this scene except clean up. Its not their fault per se, but its an important thing to think about.

[ZTABullwinkle]

Originally Posted by James

You realize that the police didn't do anything to help this scene except clean up. Its not their fault per se, but its an important thing to think about.

I am not sure what you are saying here.

[James]

Its a little off topic but its something me and some friends were talking about a while back . . I was going to post another thread about it.

Its a pretty much accepted that police are there to protect you. But if you really think about it, generally they can only respond after you have become a victim.

But because we are conditioned to believe in that protection, we tend to surrender thoughts of protecting ourselves.

It creates a wait to be saved mentality.

Originally Posted by ZTABullwinkle

I am not sure what you are saying here.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by James

You realize that the police didn't do anything to help this scene except clean up. Its not their fault per se, but its an important thing to think about.

In this case, they attempted to break into the building immediately upon arriving. That is the new SOP following Columbine, where SWAT teams waited outside the school for several hours under orders from their superiors so as not to jeopardize their own safety. I think the new procedure is called "active shooter" or something like that.

Situations change from event to event, but by nature and definition, police and other first responders are reactive in most cases. I don't know how to change that unless you station a cop in every room and on every corner.

In most cases, it's probably better to wait for professionals who have some training in these situations rather than trying to take matters in your own hands.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

In most cases, it's probably better to wait for professionals who have some training in these situations rather than trying to take matters in your own hands.

Do you think we can really conclude that?

I don't know what the answer is, and I think that a post Columbine change in police techniques is promising.

But we might be better off if people thought in terms of getting the heck out of places in an every man for himself way (which seemed to help some students at VT and Columbine survive) or trying to attack and disarm a person threatening the group (which has occurred with people with weapons at schools and I want to say in an airplane scenario, post 9/11) rather than locking the place down and waiting.

I think "wait for the professions" was great advice when we assumed in most cases what people wanted was money or attention in their lifetimes (bank robberies, political hijackings or hostage taking with demands). But when people are killing out of straight up craziness and evil (like VT and Columbine) or suicidal terrorism (take your pick), by the time the professionals arrive, people will almost certainly be dead.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

Do you think we can really conclude that?

Yeah, I do, although I have no personal experience or expertise to back up my opinion -- so, it's just that, an opinion. Or, as you say, a conclusion.

It's a tough decision, but trying to run out or whatever would just cause chaos, I think. A lot of people were killed or injured at both Virginia Tech and Columbine, but the vast majority weren't.

Trying to confront a gunman (gunperson?) unless there are a whole lot of people who have time to organize and plan something would almost always be fatal, I think.

My gut feeling would be to leave it to the professionals.

Not that they're always right either.

[James]

They waited for the professionals, and 32 of them died and how many more wounded?

I suppose it could have gone worse for the dead people . . maybe they could have been killed again.

But actually I am more worried about the mindset in general . . regardless of response time the crime has to take place before the police are called.

Making people rely on the laws of averages for their safety, but then camouflaging it by saying that they are being protected by the police seems disingenuous at least and at worse actually harmful.

You are ultimately responsible for your own safety and need to plan and act accordingly. In stead we teach a kind of paranoid helplessness in this country.

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

In this case, they attempted to break into the building immediately upon arriving. That is the new SOP following Columbine, where SWAT teams waited outside the school for several hours under orders from their superiors so as not to jeopardize their own safety. I think the new procedure is called "active shooter" or something like that.

Situations change from event to event, but by nature and definition, police and other first responders are reactive in most cases. I don't know how to change that unless you station a cop in every room and on every corner.

In most cases, it's probably better to wait for professionals who have some training in these situations rather than trying to take matters in your own hands.

[PeppyGPhiB]

I still find it shocking that the police weren't aggressively looking for the shooter that they knew had killed two students in a dorm on campus hours earlier that morning. Why hadn't they evacuated campus? They assumed the shooter had left campus, but I don't know why they would assume that, considering they had no idea why he had murdered those two people?

[ZTABullwinkle]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I still find it shocking that the police weren't aggressively looking for the shooter that they knew had killed two students in a dorm on campus hours earlier that morning. Why hadn't they evacuated campus? They assumed the shooter had left campus, but I don't know why they would assume that, considering they had no idea why he had murdered those two people?

From what we are being told by the news, it was thought that the police had the "suspect" in custody. Apparently, they believed that the initial shooting was domestically related and were looking at the women's boyfriend who attended another school.

The panel that is investigating the shooting for the Governor is being "pushed" (not the right word I am sure by the families of the victims as to what really happened in between the intial shooting in the dorms and shooting at Norris Hall.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by James

They waited for the professionals, and 32 of them died and how many more wounded?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting should be done -- by either people in the buildings or by first responders.

In the case of Columbine, fourteen were killed, but there were a couple thousand students and teachers in the school who were evacuated by police. I haven't seen numbers on how many were in the building at VT, but my guess is that most were rescued unharmed -- at least physically.

If they had all tried to escape through the halls, ran into the chained doors, and were trapped as a larger group, how many more might have been killed or wounded?

As it was, some were able to barricade the doors to their classrooms and may have saved their lives.

I've said before that I'm no expert, but from what I've been able to read, people who were able to hide or barricade doors (or even "play dead" in open rooms) and wait for help at both Virginia Tech and Columbine survived while most of the casualties happened in open rooms or hallways.

Some clear thinking people might be able to help themselves, but chaos and panic seldom help anything. I think that if a lot of people had tried to escape or whatever and either ran into those chained doors -- or the shooter(s) in either case -- panic would almost certainly set in. My guess is that that's why the emergency plans (especially for schools) call for lockdowns instead of evacuations until the emergency services have some kind of understanding of the situation.

Believe me, we've had a lot of those in this area post Columbine and the high school shooting in the Bailey, Colorado area last year.

The point that is well taken, though, is that the first person or several people who encounter a shooter or shooters is most likely in deep trouble.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

I'm not sure what you're suggesting should be done -- by either people in the buildings or by first responders.

In the case of Columbine, fourteen were killed, but there were a couple thousand students and teachers in the school who were evacuated by police. I haven't seen numbers on how many were in the building at VT, but my guess is that most were rescued unharmed -- at least physically.

If they had all tried to escape through the halls, ran into the chained doors, and were trapped as a larger group, how many more might have been killed or wounded?

As it was, some were able to barricade the doors to their classrooms and may have saved their lives.

I've said before that I'm no expert, but from what I've been able to read, people who were able to hide or barricade doors (or even "play dead" in open rooms) and wait for help at both Virginia Tech and Columbine survived while most of the casualties happened in open rooms or hallways.

Some clear thinking people might be able to help themselves, but chaos and panic seldom help anything. I think that if a lot of people had tried to escape or whatever and either ran into those chained doors -- or the shooter(s) in either case -- panic would almost certainly set in. My guess is that that's why the emergency plans (especially for schools) call for lockdowns instead of evacuations until the emergency services have some kind of understanding of the situation.

Believe me, we've had a lot of those in this area post Columbine and the high school shooting in the Bailey, Colorado area last year.

The point that is well taken, though, is that the first person or several people who encounter a shooter or shooters is most likely in deep trouble.

Lockdowns are very practical for handling any range of problems which is another beneficial change since Columbine. I think most people recognize that lives could have been saved at VT had the victims been able to look the doors. It would have been effective in reducing the number of deaths.

It just seems to me that there can be a middle ground between inciting chaos (which I did imply with my use of "every man for himself") and encouraging passivity which I'm afraid is what most emergency plans call for.