Virginia Tech: What We Know

Posted by Rob Rabies on 04.17.2007

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, we should take time to analyze not only what happened, but why it happened. What do we know and what should we do?

This isn't a standard news story. It's not a linear narrative in the strictest sense. If you desire such things--I apologize, but this format also allows for a deeper discussion of the issues in a reasonable length without merely being an AP report.

What we know about the shooting:
A shooting at West Ambler Johnson Hall was reported at 7:15 a.m. Two people were killed and four people were wounded. Six different people were shot and despite this information, the administration decided not to cancel classes for the day. Over two hours later, 30 more people were killed and at least 15 wounded at Norris Hall, which is on the opposite side of campus from Ambler Johnson. Chip Gibbons, a blogger and VT alum, stated this:

"Given the distance between the buildings it's amazing that somebody could pull off a mass murder in the dorm and then pull of another massacre in an academic building two hours later without being stopped.
The Virginia Tech campus is built around a huge drill field, a remnant of when they had a big ROTC program. The dorms are on one side of the drill field and many of the academic buildings are on the other. In addition, there are multiple rows of buildings around the drill field. It was a big campus back when I went there and I'm sure it's much bigger now."

What we know about the response:
It was woefully inadequate. Authorities were notified of the first shooting at 7:15 a.m.. Despite their asinine comments in today's 4:30 PM EST press conference, there is no logical reason why the administration could not have promptly notified all students, disseminated this information through any and all means (including in class telephones if necessary), and promptly cancelled all remaining classes for the rest of the day. The most common excuse given was that "they were in transit" and that they "might not have their radios on", as though the fact that some might not listen would preclude you from helping out those who are. This is akin to a general not informing a forward unit of an ambush because some of the comms are out and some of the soldiers might not get them. It's completely nonsensical, and the spin doctor who decided to use this as an excuse should promptly remove his/her head from their ass.

We also know that the first email warning students, faculty and staff was not sent out until 9:26 a.m. Twenty four minutes later, another email was dispersed saying a gunman was loose on campus. Therefore, we can reasonably assert that the VT response time can be as quick as 20 minutes (if you allow for a 9:30am time for the second shooting) and no longer than 50, yet it still took them two hours and eleven minutes (basically an entire screening of The Departed) to respond to the first incident.



That's pathetic and it cost people lives.

What we know about the shooter:
He was Asian, possibly wearing a large jacket to conceal his armaments, perhaps "looking for his girlfriend", and that he killed himself.

He was a sociopath. Anyone that claims that he did this because of music, movies, or television, they are completely batshit as well. You cannot willingly kill another human being without having severe emotional disturbances yourself. Dave Grossman, a former Army Ranger, wrote an excellent book some years back—On Killing. In the novel, Grossman investigates why contemporary soldiers are willing to fire on their enemies so much more often than their predecessors were. He notes that as few as ten percent of WWI vets fired their guns with intent to kill—by Vietnam the number was up to 75%, and in more recent wars, it is far beyond 90%. Part of this has to due with increased sophistication in military efforts to overcome a human being's innate psychological impediment towards killing a fellow human. Why is this relevant to this discussion? Precisely because mentally healthy human beings have a distinct inhibition towards committing homicide—and this phenomenon occurs across all species. Therefore, only a highly disturbed individual would think to commit individual atrocities on such a broad scale. Were there trigger points? Yes—obviously something set this particular person off—but please do not be so naïve to believe that the entertainment industry, lax moral standards, or Gears of War is to blame.


What will most likely happen:
I'm sure that those of you who were in high school around the time of Columbine remember the security backlash. My school was one particular example. We used to be able to freely come and go from school with little surveillance. As a writer for the school newspaper, I could leave whenever I wanted to and just say "I'm selling ads", or "working on a story". I could have been sucking on the glass dick harder than the residents of "The Carter" in New Jack City. After April 1999, and an incident in our school in which a kid brought a fuseless pipe bomb to school, not only was our school staffed full time with an armed guard, but you had to sign out before you left, and in the event of a security situation, the school would go into complete lockdown. I can't imagine a dumber fucking situation than locking a bunch of unarmed civilians in a small space with one exit, but that's just me. Yeah, you could play hide and seek and pretend that you aren't there, but if someone busted into that room, everyone in that classroom just signed their own death warrant by agreeing to stay in the room.

What we should learn from this:
This problem also illustrates the ongoing joke of "Campus Security". Numerous sources on CNN stated that VT campus security was among the best, or was the best in the nation. However, it took the cops over 2 hours to subdue a gunperson (who ultimately subdued himself) who was firing hundreds of rounds and had killed at two places far apart from one another on campus. Perhaps they weren't prepared for an assault situation on campus. That's excusable if they lack equipment. But doesn't excuse them having an hour and forty five minutes between two shootings and being unable to locate a gunman or secure all the buildings on campus. Moreover, it doesn't excuse the fact that there are images of cops with assault rifles and shotguns all over the campus and yet no coordinated effort was made to thwart a suspect who was actively shooting his fellow students, and doing so with a 9mm handgun that could not defeat their body armor.

Additionally, one would think that after such a shooting, guards would be posted outside of all entrances and suspicious persons would be stopped and searched, particularly people who would have as much ordinance on them as the killer in question no doubt had. Think about how many times one would have to reload to kill 31 people. Furthermore, why weren't classes immediately cancelled? There is no reasonable argument that could be made for continuing classes when a shooting was known to have occurred on campus. In an age of seamless machine-assisted interpersonal communication, it is ludicrous to believe that the president of the University couldn't have been informed of this situation and made an appropriate decision in less than an hour.

As a security expert said on CNN, every second you waste in an active shooter situation, expect another hostage/victim to be killed. Hindsight is 20/20, but if the officers aren't prepared to act in such a situation, why exactly are they carrying lethal weapons in the first place. Give them a tazer or a nightstick, but if they can't properly deduce when they should use lethal force—they shouldn't be allowed to make that decision in the first place.

The Problems of the Most Likely Solution:
No one ever takes the time to reflect on situations anymore; to allow for a pregnant pause to actually think about why something happens. Things may not be readily understandable, but that doesn't mean that they are incomprehensible. The resulting crackdown that will no doubt come from this situation will be based upon increasing security via increasing an armed presence rather than increasing security through a greater understanding of what makes these situations happen and how to avoid them through nonviolent means. Putting more cops on campuses isn't the answer just like putting cops on the street won't solve the problems with crime. Instead, campuses and the trusts, states, and tuitions that fund them need to put more money into outreach programs, early warning systems, and a thorough, comprehensive counseling architecture meant to identify problem students or faculty and staff before they lash out violently. The focus should not be on quashing fear through brute force, but rather subverting violence through knowledge.

Now, by no means am I naïve enough to believe that nonviolent solutions always work. For every Ghandi there is a Neville Chamberlain. However, simply increasing campus security, doubling shifts, or installing metal detectors doesn't alleviate the problem; it only attempts to force it into the closet.

Of course, since our society is so misguided, I can sadly guarantee that instead of increasing outreach and prevention programs, they will instead step up "security", filling campuses across the country with poorly-trained rent-a-cops with absent qualifications, itchy trigger fingers, and an inability to handle dire situations.