You said — “That’s a reasonable - but hardly the only possible - inference. Consider the scenario - you’re an RA. You hear about an argument between a boy and a girl at 7:15. You assume it’s a domestic argument, so you wander over to her door, bleary-eyed, to try to figure it out. You won’t, initially, tell the guy to get out of there before you know what’s going on.”
Read that article again carefully. The way I read it — the argument was earlier (doesn’t say when exactly, could have been the night before). And then *he returns*. The article clearly states that he returned. So, the argument happens first.
Then, the second time he’s there, the shooting happens. This is the report that another student gave — that the guy first shoots the girl, and then the RA comes out of his room and they guy shoots the RA.
That’s how I’m piecing all this together with the facts that have been reported so far.
You then said — “In other words, I think it’s equally likely that the RA never got an opportunity to tell the guy to get lost, or that he did and that’s what set him off.”
If this was all *one event* — then this would be a possibility. But, I read it as two events. The argument is the first one. Then the return and the shooting is the second event.
The “two event” piecing together of the story would be a key ingredient for understanding what happened. We’ll have to see how that is clarified.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Re-reading the article, it looks like he had the argument, where the RA was brought in, he left in a huff (was forced to leave?), and came back (went to get his gun?).
Witnesses to the shooting said that the gunman was involved in an argument with a girlfriend and had later stormed out of the dormitory building.A counsellor – believed to be Mr Clark, who was also a resident adviser – was called to calm the situation at the dormitory.
The gunman returned at 7.15am and shot Ms Hilscher and Mr Clark. US media reported that Mr Clark had been shot in the neck.