[... the gunman LEFT THE ROOM, then came back...]
1) Why didn’t uninjured anonymous try to escape when CHO LEFT THE ROOM? Is this Katrina syndrome?
2) Why didn’t uninjured anonymous try to help Waleed escape when CHO LEFT THE ROOM?
3) Why would uninjured anonymous want the world to know he didn’t have the sense to try to escape when CHO LEFT THE ROOM?
Fear paralyzes. I imagine that he is anonymous out of embarrassment.
4) Why don’t people act in predictable, rational ways when confronted by SHOCKING, TRAUMATIC VIOLENCE?
I agree with you Jo...
All these are great questions
They were thrashed out on another thread...
One of the main questions remains...Why did the students not do something during that TEN minutes...
Don’t know who all is on that ping list, so only got the first few...
In regards to what you ask — well, survival is an interesting thing, especially when you’re trapped and you thnk there is no way out. It seems that we are conditioned two ways.
One way, from the aggressors side, is to back off when the person has fallen and/or given up and/or plays dead or dosen’t move. His aggressive instincts seem to lessen at that kind of situation. On the other hand, aggression *ratchets up* when the response from the other side is still viable. So, you have agression either going down or racheting up, according to the response of the other party.
And so, on the other side of the equation, we have the opposite reaction, there is a tendancy to curl up, give up and back off, sort of “instictually knowing” that this is the way to lessen the agressor’s anger. Mind you, this is true when one sees *no way out* — and not necessarily if one thinks there’s still some other option. If they think so, then they will fight to get out. If they don’t, then this is the *last option*.
It seems to me that these two aspects of instinctual human behavior have worked very well in this situation.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Why didn’t any of the people? What’s your point?