Posted on 04/27/2007 1:46:17 PM PDT by RKV
My oldest goes to college in Virginia. Fortunately, he is at the University of Virginia — not Virginia Tech — so when the news of the shooting broke, and I started getting concerned calls from friends, I had general anxiety, not the frightening and personal one I’m sure the parents of students at Blacksburg felt.
Afterward, I spoke with my sons about it — two are in college and one in fifth grade. I spent time reassuring the 10-year-old that he was more likely to be badly injured by bee stings than by something like this.
And as I watched the discussion unfold online about the tragedy and learned more about the events, a few have things have become clear to me.
Immediately after the murders, a left-right split developed as conservative commentators wondered why the students were apparently so passive in the face of the killer. Liberal pundits were aghast, arguing that this wasn’t necessarily true, it was “blaming the victim,” and claiming an unwarranted level of personal courage on the part of the conservatives.
But the facts as they have come in since then do support the notion that the students did not confront the murderer. The Associated Press carried this story yesterday: “Dr. William Massello, the assistant state medical examiner based in Roanoke, said Sunday that Cho died … after firing enough shots to wound his 32 victims more than 100 times. … Those victims apparently did not fight back against Cho’s ambush. Massello said he did not recall any injuries suggesting a struggle. Many victims had defensive wounds, indicating they tried to shield themselves from Cho’s gunfire,” he said.
And the Washington Post carried a story citing students who had been in the classrooms that were attacked. “I quickly dove under a desk,” Clay Violand, a Virginia Tech junior, told the Post. “That was the desk I chose to die under.”
Violand listened as the gunman began “methodically and calmly” shooting people. “It sounded rhythmic-like. He took his time between each shot and kept up the pace, moving from person to person.” After every shot, Violand said he thought to himself, “Okay, the next one is me.” But shot after shot, and he felt nothing. He played dead.
“The room was silent except for the haunting sound of moans, some quiet crying, and someone muttering: ‘It’s OK. It’s going to be OK. They will be here soon,’ ” he recalled. “The gunman circled again and seemed to be unloading a second round into the wounded. Violand thought he heard the gunman reload three times.”
The students didn’t fail to act correctly by not attacking their attacker. The doctrine they were operating under — the one we have trained them in all their lives — failed them.
Sept. 11, 2001, was not a failure of our security systems, but rather a failure of doctrine. “Doctrine” is defined as a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions. On Sept. 10, 2001, we had a standard doctrine about response to aircraft hijackings.
The passengers and crew should be compliant, not confront the hijackers, minimize exposure to violence and get the plane onto the ground, where negotiations or intervention would resolve the issue.
Similarly, the Columbine murders did not represent a failure by local law enforcement to act; it was a failure of the doctrine they had been trained to act within. Because most hostage situations are resolved with minimal force and patience, the doctrine was to cordon and wait for negotiations or SWAT.
Both doctrines have changed. No passenger airplane will be hijacked again anytime soon except by multiple hijackers with guns — and possibly not even then. Police departments have trained their officers to “go to the active shooter” and aggressively attack — as the police apparently did in responding to the Virginia Tech shooter.
Similarly, the discussions around the responses of the students seem to imply those of us who are suggesting the students could have done other things that may have changed the outcome are blaming the students.
No, we’re not. We’re blaming the doctrine the victims were trained to operate under, and arguing that we — all of us — should rethink it and start implementing other ones, just as airline passengers and police officers have.
We need to be teaching people a new doctrine, one that neither leads them into fantasies that they are more capable than they really are, nor into believing that they are helpless and must lay down waiting to be killed while muttering “It’s OK. It’s going to be OK. They will be here soon.”
Maybe not be soon enough.
FYI
A lot of people have this strange idea that they instantly become Chuck Norris when danger rears its ugly head. In extreme danger situations, instinct to survive takes over unless you have been trained differently. Some people did attack the gunman.
Amen and pass the ammo.
Yeah, except that it took a long time for the police to get there.
Contrast the VT shootings with the recent, similar horror in Salt Lake City, UT. There, the murderer was stopped quickly because there was a man with a concealed weapon in the mall to stop him!
The emerging doctrine, while a major improvement over the previous, passive one, is still lacking somewhat in its treatment of self defense. It still favors the idea that "It’s OK. It’s going to be OK. They will be here soon.", since it doesn't encourage ordinary citizens to arm themselves and take the defense of their own lives into their own hands.
That’s why regular range time is a must. ;>)
Funniest thing such doors are banned everywhere anyway, so I wonder why Norris Hall still had them? Could there be some architectural tradition group that wants it that way or what?
Half a dozen or more shoots happened AFTER the cops could have gotten to the second floor if those doors had not been chained shut.
Half a dozen or more families have a fat lawsuit coming against the university and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and any individuals who can be held accountable for placing chainable doors in that building.
Concealed carry by citizens is the only logical choice. They are on scene, and with some basic practice can make a vital difference. And yes, there will be a screwup or two - humans are involved so Murphy’s Law is in force. It’s still better than the alternative.
Most doors can be blocked one way or another.
Police response, Flight 93, and VT Campus are 3 completely different situations.
Police reponse : You have people who have trained togther and know how to respond as a unit. Have guns/training, ect.
Flight 93 : The passengers had time to communicate, and come up with a plan of action. And knew that if they did not act, they were going to die anyway.
VT Campus : Kids are sitting in class, thinking about whatever, and a guy come in firing off one round every 3 seconds non-stop for 9 minutues. It’s a gigantic free-for all compared to Police Reponse and Flight 93.
Is this true? I was under the impression that they waited until the shooting had pretty much stopped, like they did at Columbine. I don't want to discredit the police if I'm wrong, but this isn't the way I heard it. BTW, this is the correct police approach to this kind of situation, IMHO, since 99% of these situations are going to involve untrained madmen, not well-trained commando types who know how to effectively take cover and shoot back.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you and the author of this piece are making exactly the same point -- and it's a really good one. Just as police are now willing to be more aggressive when needed, average individuals (mostly men) also need to recognize when it's time to actively fight back against evil.
Well, no one really wants to be the first one out in front.... Even “Let’s Roll” Todd Beamer was part of a larger group. And they took some time to organize things and get a vialbe plan of action.
My thinking is unless you’ve had some very specific training (like the military, police or security), most are liable (at the first seconds) to try to shield themselves. It’s not so unheard of, really.
So, the question here is whether students are really going to get any specific training to deal with this, or if it will be considered so rare that it’s not something that should be done. I’ve already heard of some school giving some training in defense (and attack) in a situation like this — but I don’t think this is going to be the rule.
Stop it! You're making me feel guilty!
The USC students took out the man with a gun last weekend....
Can you cite instances?
Don’t forget to join IDPA, IPSC, or some other practical pistol competition as well as getting a tactical pistol course on your shooting resume.
The issue is why Virginia Tech management installed and maintained doors that were so easily blocked with something so difficult to dislodge.
It's an engineering school ~ they know better!
Glass doors can be shattered.
He was not then able to blow up the bombs in his shoes.
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.