Cho had shown recent signs of violent, aberrant behavior, according to an investigative source, including setting a fire in a dorm room and allegedly stalking some women.
A note believed to have been written by Cho was found in his dorm room that railed against “rich kids,” “debauchery” and “deceitful charlatans” on campus.
Cho was an English major whose creative writing was so disturbing that he was referred to the school’s counseling service."--IrishMike
Dang, You are one prescient flour, sugar, milk, and butter concoction.
I am going to nominate you as Head of Homeland Security's ESP Section, Special Department 20/20, Subsection Hindsight, whose Motto is: "We're never wrong. Just ask us after the event to second guess".
*snort*
I can not believe some of the stuff that is being said here and on the TV/XMFox.
Lockdown, lockdown lockdown over and over.
Secure, secure the premises, over and over.
So now that we know a little more about the time line and the name of the murderer, lets assume that a lockdown of 26,000 is practical for the sake of discussion.
What time would you issue the lockdown? Probably between 7:30 and 8:00 AM.
Where was the murderer at that time? Most certainly in his dorm room writing his note and loading up for stage two.
So we have him locked in a dorm with more people available to him than were in the engineering building. In frustration, he was going to kill someone so in this situation, he would have more targets for his rage.
OK, so issue the lockdown before he can get to his dorm. Fine. He gets to the dorm, shows his ID and the person manning the door says “Hurry, hurry, get inside before the murderer shows up”.
Now the really “astute” in the 20/20 experts will say that the person at the door is obligated to be sure that everyone entering is not armed.
How? The person at the door is unarmed and not a trained enforcement officer. But he is going to frisk and disarm an armed and crazed individual?
As for securing the entire university, for what reason does one secure an area? In the hopes that a villain will attempt to flee and the cops will catch him at the check point.
This guy did not intend to flee.
Of course, the other reason for securing an area is to keep bad guys out, but in this case that is a moot point.
So boiled down to the bare bones, what we have is many 20/20 experts all repeating the same song: The cops should have done something. Sounds good.
The problem is that in order to do something that would do some good, the cops would have had to have one of these 20/20 experts telling him what was going to happen next.