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.
I’m gonna keep on making you feel guilty.
Practice, practice, practice - got it?
First hit counts! Front sight! Etc.
Just a brief story here. I teach marksmanship at my gun club. Last weekend we had a dozen college kids up for pistol instruction. It was a great time, btw. We ended the day with a quick exercise of double-tapping half life sized human targets. It was a real eye opener on just how hard it is to get two well placed shots into the 10 ring. Of course some of the kids were newbies, but it was instructive. Stay safe.
About two days before the VT killings, someone started a thread here at FR to promote the idea of smiling at your attacker as a means to ‘defuse’ the situation.
Needless to say, she may very well be amoung the dead.
True, but he entirely ignores the critical question of the weapons available for that defense.
Focusing on the fact that they didn't even try is an important part of the issue, but only a part. If all they had available to them for that fight was books, pens and calculators, then it's a bit more understandable that they didn't feel strong enough to do something. Don't get me wrong, they could have done something, and should have. But when the bad guy has a gun and you don't, it profoundly changes the psychology involved.
So, yes, I agree with the author. But he left out a major part of the discussion by ignoring the RKBA and specifically concealed-carry on college campuses. (campii?)
"There is no honor in dying with your sword in its sheath."
Miyamato Musashi
1584-1645
Yep, my LEO contacts inform me that a doctrine change has been made (at least in their agencies). That said, police marksmanship has never been a high priority for most units. My brother shot police olympics for LAPD, those guys do spend the range time needed to do the job. That said, bad guys can do a lot of damage in a short time. Much faster than LEOs can respond. I’m not giving out free internet massacre lessons, but let’s just say, a gun is nowhere near the easiest way to kill lots of students. Not even close, and expensive. Enough on that subject.
The students and professors had overwhelming numbers. I truly wonder if our society has contributed to the "every man for himself" attitude that seemed to have prevailed, or if Cho's attack was merely swiftly and violently executed so swiftly that people were caught that off guard. It does seem that there was at least one classroom where students barricaded the door, and that minimal use of their one advantage (i.e. strength of numbers) apparently saved more than just a few lives.
Ah, a great quote by the sword master himself.
You said — “Richard Reid’s threat was instantly addressed by the passengers.”
—
Yeah, and that one I can also see, from the context of the situation. He wasn’t directly attacking or threatening to attack someone else (other than to blow them up as soon as he completed the action). And even though that’s a frightening and threatening situation (once you recognize what is happening), it’s still not *directly* at you. It may be “at you” once you engage in the struggle, and I’m sure it was. But, you do have a bit of an advantage in a situation like that. Other people are close by, he’s somewhat confined in close quarters and can’t move very easily. He’s much more easily contained and all it took were a few passengers.
Thus, it’s very understandable in that particular situation. Cho was definitely not like that. He had “distance” and room to move and instant action against people (i.e., shooting immediately without a word), and instilling *immediate fear* — because the first thing they know is someone is dead. It’s not necessarily that the first thing they see is him entering and having a discussion, but no — by the time you really “register” in your head what is happening (and it does take a bit...) then he’s already shot maybe one, maybe two. Then, you see *directly* that the threat is *instant death*.
That’s very much different than Reid, and as I said, very understandable...
There’s always someone with an excuse for not attacking the enemy.
Heard out loud.
You said — “It does seem that there was at least one classroom where students barricaded the door, and that minimal use of their one advantage (i.e. strength of numbers) apparently saved more than just a few lives.”
—
There were two kinds of situations in that case, from what I understand from reading about it. One kind was that Cho had already entered and left. Then the remaining students blocked the entry. The deed was done, they acted after the fact. However, they did prevent him from re-entering.
The second type of situation took some *recognition* of what the noise was. In one that I read about, someone did get sort of scared and maybe did have an “inkling” of what it was, but wasn’t 100% sure, so he and another person acted, after an initial hesitation, though — and then barred the door. The shooter never made it into that classroom.
The *key* in this second one was *RECOGNITION* — as many reported that they thought it was construction or workers doing things in the building. So, “recognition” played a big part there. I have heard *many* things that have sounded alarming in all sorts of situations that I’ve been in, but have either found it to be nothing (when I saw what it was), or found that it was nothing, because I never did see anything at all.
Now — right here — I can think of a great “method” for training. Take students into different environments and let them *hear* different kinds of shooting, so they can gain an understanding and a recognition of what it sounds like in enclosed areas or other environments. Most have never heard the noise...
So..., those are the two types that I’ve read about...
You said — “There’s always someone with an excuse for not attacking the enemy.”
—
And it’s quite understandable that most people are not police/military types and won’t be engaging in that. That’s why we find that the term — “hero” — is a somewhat rare term, used for the “few” who actually do show courage and valor.
If these were in such common use — then the term “hero” would lose all meaning, because no one would be any different than the next guy. That’s simply not the case, with the general public. And *that* is why we *recognize* heroes....
> Shall issue concealed carry pal, that’s what it takes <
That would, of course, be ideal. I’m all for it.
But also, a barrage of books, backpacks and Blackberries from 32 shouting students/professors would have meant one or two deaths, instead of 32.
In other words, there are multiple ways to fight back that don’t require concealed carry, especially when minors are involved.
There is one shooting where the victims fought back and reduced the number of deaths that directly correlates with the VT shooting. In 1998 Kip Kinkel went to school and opened up on his classmates shortly after he had murdered his parents at home. In that case instead of everyone running helter skelter or hunkering down waiting to be shot he was tackled by other students and the shooting was ended. One of those students was wounded but that did not stop him from helping take down the shooter.
Mindset is what its all about. If you decide beforehand that you are not going to be a passive victim then most likely you aren’t.
Kip Kinkel was tackled once his rifle ran out of ammo. He got of 50 shots. So he got off all his ammo in the rifle before he tried switching to his Glock. He wasn’t exactly stopped while shooting. He did get 1 round off of his glock but that’s it.
Cho got off at least 170 shots from his Sig & Glock.
If Kip Kinkel had more ammo for his rifle he would have kept shooting. His limiting factor was the number of bullets he had moreso than the heroism of the students that did tackle him.
I would encourage some these classes, if you've not taken them already:
These will help develop a combat mindset, confidence with a wide variety of tools and the physical conditioning necessary to pull it off if that "oh, sh*t" senario comes your way.
that is correct, but it does not invalidate the comparison. Cho had to reload as well. The point is that kinkel was not completely out of ammo, he still had the loaded glock when he was stopped and was therefore still quite a danger to those who were reacting.
This is why I have a problem with the administration for not immediately alerting the students that a killing had just accurred in a dorm. Even if they had not shut down the campus, the students would have realized the sounds were gunshots. They may have acted differently and saved lives.
The heroes of Flight 93 only took the actions that they did because they were aware that the "rules" for dealing with a hijacking had changed.
I understood that a female teacher went briefly into the hallway, walked back into the classroom, and said "block the door". Which they successfully did.
This would make sense since in another account the hallway was described as a gruesome scene, presumably one or more dead and bleeding bodies (yet another account said a teacher tried to stop Cho in the hallway and was shot, another that a ROTC student did the same thing).
The heroic Israeli teacher makes agreat deal of sense, since the "doctrine" of public spaces in Israel is caution and self-defense. He heard the shots and knew what to do because of his Israeli "doctrine".
If the Islamists continue on the path they seem to be treading, it would make sense for American schools at all levels to take some lessons from the Israelis, and to offer threat orientation and perhaps even Krav Maga self-defense training in the colleges. The kids at VT were absolutely oblivious about the threat they were facing, and had no response training even if they had known.
“I would encourage some these classes, if you’ve not taken them already:”
Or Krav Maga:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krav_Maga
Basic principles
In Krav Maga, there are no hard-and-fast rules. It is not a sport, and there are no competitions. All the techniques focus on maximum efficiency in real-life conditions. Krav Maga generally assumes a no quarter situation; the attacks and defenses are intended to inflict the most pain possible on the opponent in the least amount of time. Groin strikes, headbutts, and other efficient and potentially brutal attacks are emphasized.
The guiding principles for those performing Krav Maga techniques are:
* neutralize the threat
* avoid injury
* go from defending to attacking as quickly as possible
* use the body’s natural reflexes
* strike at any vulnerable point
* use any tool or object nearby
The basic idea is to first deal with the immediate threat (being choked, for example), prevent the attacker from re-attacking, and then neutralize the attacker, proceeding through all steps in a straightforward manner, despite the rush of adrenaline that occurs in such an attack. The emphasis is put on taking the initiative from the attacker as soon as possible.
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.