Posted on 04/26/2007 11:57:24 AM PDT by Uncledave
The Virginia Tech massacre has spawned countless questions: Everything from why would student Cho Seung-hui gun down 32 fellow human beings, to why was campus security not able to prevent him from committing the deadliest mass-shooting in U.S. history.
Three of the questions – all related – posed to me have been: Why didn’t some of the students rush Cho? Why didn’t someone tackle and disarm him? Where were the likes of those brave souls of United Flight 93 who made the decision to “Let’s Roll” on September 11, 2001?
First, to the third question: The brave souls were there at Virginia Tech, and they rose to the occasion on April 16, 2007. But like those of Flight 93, bravery wasn’t enough.
Now to the first two questions: It’s easy to Monday-morning quarterback about what any one of us would have done in similar circumstances. It amazes me the number of people who have told me, they “would have rushed Cho.” And they “would not have just sat there and let him do what he did.”
But make no mistake, no one really knows what they will do under fire, until they are in fact under fire. And like all combat actions, there are tactical variables at play that often carry more weight than any combination of courage, quickness, and reason ever will. Not that C,Q, and R don’t matter: They do, and lives are nearly always saved because of them. But they are usually not enough to save everyone in the face of a determined killer or killers.
Let’s consider a few of those tactical variables in the case of the Virginia Tech massacre.
Aside from being armed with two (easily reloadable) semi-automatic pistols with plenty of ammunition, the shooter, Cho, had countless advantages as he entered each classroom:
1) Cho possessed the elements of both surprise and shock: The latter includes terror, which can in many instances physically, mentally, and emotionally paralyze the victims.
2) Cho was in close-enough quarters – with few exits – that his victims would have found it extremely difficult to escape: In fact, he was – in many cases – positioned in front of the only door in a given classroom.
3) In almost every classroom, Cho’s field of fire would have been between 45 and 90-degree angles, affording him complete coverage of every space in the room at any one moment.
4) Cho’s victims would have had no cover (physical protection from Cho’s bullets) and virtually no concealment at any time during the attack.
5) The small, terrible space between the doorway - which Cho would have entered with guns blazing – and the groupings of desks where the victims would have been sitting, would have been the deadliest space in the room. For a student to rush Cho, the student would have had to immediately overcome the shock of the attack, unhesitatingly bolt from his or her desk, and charge exposed and unarmed directly across the deadliest space in the room to the source of the killings. This would have been a wholly unnatural act for anyone (I’ll explain this in a moment), yet we may never know if one or two victims actually did do this.
6) The charging, unarmed student would have had no way of knowing whether or not there were more unseen gunmen following behind the visible shooter, Cho.
7) Cho was a fanatic, and prepared to die in his own attack.
8) Most of the victims were young, and probably none of them had any combat training, much less experience under fire: The exception being Dr. Liviu Librescu, the 76-year-old professor and Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself for his students.
Twenty-five years ago as a Marine infantryman, I remember my squad constantly running immediate action drills: the actions taken in response to an ambush while on patrol.
We were always taught to counterattack directly in the face of the ambush, quickly closing the gap between us and the enemy, and in doing so, attempt to gain fire superiority by shooting back.
We practiced the immediate action drills over-and-over for two reasons. First, if in the event of an actual ambush we were to have sought cover or attempted to run (the natural human reaction), we would have been shot to pieces and the squad probably wiped out. Second, if we didn’t practice the immediate action drills until they became instinctive responses to an ambush, we – just like any other human beings – would instinctively run, seek cover, or hit the deck. And we were U.S. Marines, so there was never a dearth of courage or aggressiveness.
Which brings me back to the students and faculty at Virginia Tech who fell victim to Cho.
They died not because they were too afraid to act. In fact, the heroics of many of them already have been chronicled. More stories of heroism in the face of unequivocal horror will surely surface in the coming weeks and months. And most likely some of the stories of the greatest courage died with the victims before they could be told.
It’s amazing what good men and women are capable of doing in the most desperate moments of life and death. It’s even more amazing how people measure up to a task, even when they are not prepared to do so.
But the odds were against the victims at Virginia Tech. Under the circumstances, they did all they could to survive and help their fellow students and professors. But it wasn’t enough; it never will be against a determined killer like Cho.
And, as retired Navy SEAL and Medal of Honor recipient Mike Thornton told me in an interview for National Review Online’s The Tank, “Thank God, he [Cho] didn’t have guns staged all over the place. The losses would have been even higher.”
W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine infantry leader, parachutist, and shipboard counterterrorism instructor and co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Pirates.
You know, I thought how I’d deal with the situation if he burst into my class - reacting instantly, leaping over the desks and chairs and dead bodies, with just enough lateral moves to throw off his aim, winging my notebook into his face, somehow not throwing like a girl, covering this 25-foot obstacle course in a couple seconds, tackling him low, and taking him out. I’m sure I could do it. /s
Mrs VS
I have it on good authority from a handful of Freepers in other threads that these students were all cowards or sheep. For some, that appears to be the only explanation possible. Sad.
I agree. Not to mention the fact that Cho hit the front row first, probably creating a mess of chairs, desks and (I apologize) bodies that would have been impossible for anyone to get over in time to charge him effectively.
Actually I think it is worth noting the heroics were from older more mature persons. I am thinking of the two professors who blocked doors to let students live.
Agreed. Bravado is cheap (and, therefore, plentiful) when one is twelve days and hundreds of miles removed from the scene.
“Maybe because he had automatic weapons and they did not want to get shot; I am just guessing.”
He didn’t have automatic weapons. I would imagine they didn’t want to get shot though.
Most liberals don’t understand there are sometimes no good answers. They got shot anyway. The one professor at least stood up and tried to keep the guy from entering the room. He obviously save several lives and lost his own.
I think you're probably right, but even if none charged, so what? They were unarmed and totally unprepared to face a determined killer. Anyone who casts aspersions on the courage or character of any student who didn't charge this murderer can go stuff themselves.
I still remember how heavy my textbooks were. If everyone had thrown them at Cho he might have been distracted long enough for a bum rush to succeed.
Amen. You’re absolutely right. Very few of us on this board have ever had a weapon intentionally fired at them, and probably wouldn’t have done anything differently. The reality is far from the second-guessing or armchair quarterbacking.
He saved his entire class. Not one of his students perished thanks to his courage and selflessness. May God Bless him!
Not really.
He entered several classrooms.
You can’t tell me no one heard the shots from the hallway and the first classroom.
Reality sucks but it is what it is.
How can one tell from this tactical evaluation what its author "enjoys" or not about the situation?
At least this author is dealing factually with the situation. If I am required to state my own emotional reaction to this article, I think of the word "refreshing."
Emotional evaluations have become the norm in this wussified culture. Little bleating sheep, we feel your pain.
Some of my textbooks could have knocked him out if he were hit in the head. They are as heavy as bricks!
“Why didn’t some of the students rush Cho?”
Aren’t students told to abhor violence? Aren’t we all told to hold hands, give up our guns, love our multiculturalist society and sing, “kumbayah”?
AND....
...If he knew that concealed-carry was (should have been) lawful on this campus --
Had he known that someone was more than likely odds-on to confront him with deadly force - and the willingness to use it in defense -- before this became a massacre...
I s'pect he might have taken a different tack....perhaps reconsidered his course of action....
In the very least the death toll would have been much less...
(The perp would have bceome a statistic much sooner on the timeline....)
JMHO...
Well, I'm not guessing - they were all shot anyway.
The only survivors feigned death, and were shot multiple times.
Yes, they DID hear the shots. But they thought it was construction. And I think some did try to get out the windows, which was the best way to get out considering a gunmen was waiting for them at the door. My husband used to teach there and he tells me that the windows are strange. Long and narrow and would be hard to get out of.
I agree. I originally thought the same way as you.
There have been no reports of such actions anywhere. Can you provide a link where this has been definitively shown? In fact, when so ordered, those little lost SHEEP obediently lined up against a wall so they could be executed at close range. Whose fault is that (besides Cho)? Ours. Society failed those kids. We have collectively failed to teach the difference between good and bad violence. Instead we accept and promulgate the false premise that ALL violence is bad and anybody who desires to survive an emergency like this by using controlled focused violence is also bad....What we may be seeing if this trend continues is a sort of natural selection in the species at work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.