The Blame Game
It certainly didn’t take long for people to point fingers and attempt to blame the police and university for the tragedy that occurred Monday at Virginia Tech.
The news media has aggravated the situation by the continued barrage of accusations regarding the speed of the response. I find this distasteful and completely irresponsible.
Every crime scene is different and each one is approached with a unique perspective all while keeping historical events of other incidents in mind.
What were the odds of a lone gunman killing two individuals and then 2 hours later going nearly a half mile away and killing 30 more?
How is a university supposed to shut down an open campus of 26,000 acres with a population greater than Floyds Knobs in less time than a full length motion picture?
I believe our society has watched too much CSI, 24, and other programs and believe all these things can happen in an hour.
There is no protocol, no rehearsal, and no anticipation of what possesses someone to commit mass murder or a method to stop it.
A man determined to commit such an act cannot be stopped by shutting down a campus. If he had 2 handguns, several clips and extra ammunition, it could take less than 5 minutes to murder these students and professors.
It is no different than a suicide bomber. Once the commitment is made, there is little anyone can do to stop the carnage.
If any of these reporters actually worked a real crime scene, they would understand what reality is and limit their blaming and second-guessing until the facts are out.
I, for one, feel deep sorrow and empathy for all those involved and believe this blaming mentality only contributes to the hurt and pain. Until all of the information and investigation is complete, I will hold to the belief that the police and university acted appropriately in this tragedy.
Will we learn some things from this tragedy? Absolutely
Should we look to pass blame on the university or police? Absolutely not.
If this killer would have lived, would this have been a “hate crime” or just a very disturbed individual bent on evil and destruction?
Labels: hate crime, mass murder
posted by Anonymous at 6:40 AM
33 Comments:
HB,
As is clear from the hate crime post and the end of this one, you don't understand the concept of a hate crime.
This tragedy is not a hate crime. It was a random act of violence.
A hate crime is not random. It is targeted at a person or group with a certain immutable characteristic.
As an aside, I am surprised that you would not call for accountability in the Virginia Tech situation given your unwavering calls for it at the hospital. Isn't there an inconsistency in those positions?
I would disagree. From the news reports thus far, he left a multi-page diatribe specifically related to rich kids and religion and targeted some victoms specifically based on that.
This is where the subjective part of hate crimes legislation falls apart. It is much too subjective.
I believe he was a sick individual bent on evil and destruction.
There is no inconsistency in this and the hospital. I have intricate knowledge with 15 years on the medical staff, 4 years on the Board and more than 10 years in leadership positions at the hospital.
This gives me knowledge and credibility to hold people accountable.
Reported and others related to this topic have nothing similar.
Isn't there an inconsistency in those positions?
I'm afraid so.
What is inconsistent in the statements.
The reporters had no detailed knowledge about the police investigation, university actions etc. prior to passing blame whereas, my criticism of the hospital administration comes with very detailed knowledge and first hand experience.
There is a very clear distinction in the examples and no inconsistency.
In a month or so from now, if more detailed information is available and shows there were errors made and reporters and others have clear evidence, then criticism may be warranted.
You give yourself way too much credit for how you handle your own accusations. You use gossip, improperly obtained documents and incorrect partial information to level charges against individuals at the hospital. And, unlike many media outlets, you NEVER acknowledge errors when your accusations turn out to be dead wrong...you just leave them out there for whatever negative impact they can have.
By the way, I was interested in your statement that: " Every crime scene is different and each one is approached with a unique perspective." Where did you happen to take your forensics training?
Lock down is something you do at a prison. It is impossible to lock down a large university campus.
About the only thing VT could have done is flooded the campus with all available armed campus police, sheriff deputies and state police after the first shooting until the shooter was apprehended or it was certain he/she was no longer a threat. I would hope that other univerities looking at this situation will adopt such a plan for a similar situation at their campuses. VT did not even notify the state police about the first shooting until 9:26am.
My own two cents is that while I think it would be nearly impossible to prevent a random act of violence like this from being committed by a member within one's own organization, I don't think that questioning what happened (or what didn't happen) neccessarily equates to playing the blame game. I agree that the media coverage is certainly overboard, as usual, but the fact that nearly two hours occurred in between acts begs the question of what exactly was going on during that time...
Let's face it - even if the dorms and classroom buildings were more secure on a daily basis (pass codes, entry cards, etc.), this clearly sick & troubled student would still have had access to these places as a student at the school - so its not like any earlier preventative measures really would have stopped him.
However, with 32 dead students & professors, I do think its very fair to ask questions about the way things were handled by the school after the first two shootings occured. Having grown up on a college campus myself, how on earth does a dormitory shooting go unreported for so long, and how does that not immediately trigger a campus wide alert? To suggest that "we didnt realize there was still a shooter lurking" really means "we never really pondered the question".
I understand that campus security officers are more accustomed to dealing with parking tickets, fraternity parties and an occasional campus burglarly or assault, by why on earth, with the first 2 dead kids, was the school not swarming with local and state law enforcement officials. To blindly think that the shooter most likely fled was shortsighted. If I was one of the parents of the kids in the classroom - god forbid - I cant imagine not asking why more wasnt done. What if there had been a greater police presence on campus - would the shooter have acted differently? Sadly, we will never know.
I dont know that anyone is truly "blaming" the school administration, as the only person with the culpability and mens rea for the crime was the shooter, who is thankfully deceased. However, I dont find it unfair in the least to use hindsight to examine what could have been done to have lessened the senseless results of what occurred. Maybe nothing would have changed, but as an ever changing society, its certainly a fair to ask questions...
After most catastrophic events (natural disaters, 9/11, plane crashes & whatnot) - questions always have to be asked, if only to hopefully prevent & circumvent similar problems in the future. Sure, sometimes it does come down to blame, when we realize that there were truly human failings involved that could have saved lives...
But we shouldnt, as a society, ever stop asking questions. Its the only way that we do learn from a tragedy such as this.
I am just sick for the families of all the victims. So random, so senseless.
I totally agree with lawguy that asking questions is appropriate as well as gathering more information.
But the media outlets from early in the reporting were doing more than just asking questions. They were already implying that mistakes were made.
For anonymous, I am no expert in forensics, but I did serve two years as deputy coroner in Floyd County and worked MVA's involving deaths, suicides, autoerotic aphyxiation, drownings, and home deaths. I also did 6 weeks of forensic medicnine with Dr. Nichols at U of L.
HB,
This is 8:28 again. While it appears that the shooter did leave a note that detailed some of his thoughts, that in itself does not make this a hate crime. There is no evidence thus far of any link between that note and the way in which he conducted the killings.
He was a troubled individual who perpetrated a random act of violence against random people in a random building. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he specifically targeted any individual.
If evidence is later released to the contrary, that would change matters. But suggesting this was a hate crime based on what we know right now is stretching the facts to fit your truth.
HB, I think you need to talk to a prosecutor to learn more about subjective and objective elements of the law. Subjective components are more present in every aspect of the law than you appear to realize.
However, the issue of proof is entirely separate from the question of whether we, as a society, should support the law taking a certain position. Whether to have the law is different from whether we can prove the law is violated.
One is the role of the legislature. The other is the role of attorneys and judges.
anonymous,
I am just bringing this up for discussion. I don't believe in "hate crimes" at all. A crime is a crime. Some have aggravating circumstances that should be considered.
I just think this is a round about way to justify other behaviors that will attempt to be legislated down the road.
Can you explain what you mean by: "I just think this is a round about way to justify other behaviors that will attempt to be legislated down the road." What do you mean by "justify"? Do you mean that some currently illegal behavior(s) will be legalized. Or that some currently legal behavior will become illegal? I know that a lot of the fundamentalist Christian opposition to hate crime legislation is based on a fear that homosexuality will become more acceptable in mainstream thought. Could that be what you are talking about?
He's just on a conspiracy theory soap box. Interesting how confused he seems about the First Amendment--we should make the press quiet down and mind their own business, but individuals should still have the right to freedom of speech... Rush Limbaugh put you up to this, didn't he Doc.
I space out every once in a while, so I may have missed something…but I haven't seen mainstream media blaming anyone. They've reported it, but from what I understand, that's kind of their job. The times I've seen that blame was even mentioned, it was prefaced with, "Some are now blaming..." And they've given more than equal coverage to the experts who are in agreement that a catastrophic reaction would have been uncalled for.
It's only natural that the survivors and families of the victims would immediately seek to assign blame. It’s a well-known component grieving and a natural response to virtually any traumatic experience. It's a reflex, and not an uncommon gut reaction by any means. I’d be surprised if any parent—even if only for a nanosecond—didn’t think the same thing after hearing about these shootings on the news that day…as if being able to identify how things could have been different might somehow make it better now. We cannot undo what was done, but assigning blame gives an emotional outlet that mimics that lost sense of control. We do this when we wreck our cars, go through divorce, etc, sometimes blaming ourselves and sometimes pointing at others. How much more would we do it after losing a child! I can’t imagine a feeling worse than realizing the permanence of something like that. The sad truth is that most of those parents are probably sitting at home tonight finding ways to blame themselves. I know I would be, as irrational as it may sound. Unfortunately, profound grief isn’t conducive with good, clear, level-headed thinking.
HB,
Interesting comment at 2:49. "A crime is a crime."
So does that mean you think murder and speeding should be punished equally? (Insert any other examples as you wish).
Is there really anything left to your argument?
I realize you're probably tired of debating this issue. The Constitution is of particular interest to me, and this debate is closely related.
Anon 10:27 a.m., how many campus police officers do you think it would be if everyone available--on and off duty--had descended on VT that day? Maybe 20?
Even if it had been considered that the gunman might still be on campus, waiting to strike again, what should they have done? I can only think of a couple of options.
They could have made an announcement over the loudspeakers, saying, "Attention, students. There may or may not be a crazed gunman among you. Or it might be a crazed gunwoman. We don't know. Please remain calm and proceed to...well, don't go to your dorm rooms because that's where we found the first victims...but we're sure you'll come up with something." Hmm...that one could have caused a stampede and endangered the lives of thousands. So that's no good. The decision not to incite mass hysteria was probably a good one.
Or they could have said, "Please assemble on the quad so we can search you for automatic weapons." The decision not to do this was also probably a good one, for more reasons than I care to list.
Drawing a great deal of attention to the situation could have resulted in a riot. Then we’d REALLY have a blame game on our hands.
I sat in on a community education seminar for disaster preparedness with the American Red Cross this afternoon. We covered fires, tornados, earthquakes, and chemical spills. Turns out there’s no emergency response protocol for nameless, faceless, elusive, crazed gunmen. They don’t have an emergency kit for that. Random acts of violence are just that—random. It could have been a bomb. It could have been contaminated water. It could have been so many things. There’s simply no way to guard against them all, and it would be silly to even try. If we did, we’d have no time left over to do things like eat, sleep, bathe, work... Choosing to dwell on the potential for disaster would put us in a state of perpetual fear. Who wants to live like that?
anon. 10:30 pm is correct. There is no way to prepare for these types of random violence.
That's the whole point of the discussion. Second guessing and blaming does nothing except to help the current situation.
The argument on crimes is that there should be punishments to fit the crimes. Premeditated murder, abductions, molestings, assaults, speeding tickets etc. should each carry a punishment suitable to the crime. Creating an artificial label like "hate" that cannot be proven unless the person admits it, should not change the punishment. Proving hate cannot be done.
I would disagree that flooding the compus with armed law enforcement officers isn't the best response. This guy was shooting people for over twenty minutes before the police officers presumably confronted him at which point he took his own life. I find it hard to believe that over the period of an hour or two, that well more than 20 armed law enforcement officers fanned out on the campus couldn't have prevented a large number of fatalities in this case.
It has been 8 years since Columbine -- we have learned nothing.
I wouldn't expect the Red Cross to have a campus security plan that would cover what happened at Virginia Tech. I would expect that of Virginia Tech however.
HB,
I guess the problem that I'm having with your crime argument is that mental elements can be proven, and often must be proven -- whether it be hate or any other necessary intent.
How do you prove intent if you don't apply a subjective test? Certain crimes require us to determine a person's mental state. For example, the crime of murder is defined in Indiana by statute as follows:
"A person who knowing or intentionally kills another human being."
The crime, therefore, has 2 elements: a mental state, and an act.
Contrast that with the crime of reckless homicide, defined in the statute as:
"A person who recklessly kills another human being commits reckless homicide."
Murder and reckless homicide, which are punished differently under the law, are separated only by the mental state of the actor. The act itself, and results thereof, are the same -- another person is killed.
The law tells us how to prove a person had intent, and the jury then determines if the facts of the case meet that requirement.
How is that any different from telling the jury, here's what a hate crime is under the law. Now you, the jury, tell us if the facts meet those elements.
If the jury says yes, the elements of a hate crime are met in this case, then the judge can impose a harsher sentence. If the jury says no, we don't think this was a hate crime based on the evidence presented, then the judge does not reach the question of the harsher sentence.
While the judge certainly has some discretion regarding the sentence, the jury has exclusive control of determining guilt or innocence in a criminal prosecution.
I don't understand why your problems with proof are superseding the threshhold question of whether the law should say something in the first place. They are 2 distinct questions, and intermingling them leads to confused logic.
That is why your conclusion that the law should not include the possibility of harsher sentences for hate crimes necessarily means that you do not think a hate crime is any more serious than a crime not motivated by any prejudice against a certain group of people. And that is why I said in an earlier post that, in my view, that is a very dangerous road on which to embark.
I wasn't suggesting that the Red Cross should have a plan for VT-type situations. My point was that even the agencies that specialize in disaster preparedness (natural and man-made in some cases) do not focus on this kind of thing because there's no way TO focus on it. Predicting human behavior is not an exact science (see discussion from Friday’s post) when you’re NOT dealing with the criminally insane. The best that anyone could do in this case was ask, “what does this crime scene look like?” and then, “where do we go from here?” The appearance that the first shooting was intentionally directed at two specific people and then the amount of time that elapsed before the next incident occurred suggests that it was an isolated incident. HB posed the question in his original post--what are the odds? Who was to know what would come next?
My other comment was in response to the 10:27 AM post about flooding campus with police--I must have skimmed over the inclusion of deputies and state police. I should have read more carefully before responding.
Let's say that all available law enforcement did flood campus. Say the shooter wasn't hell-bent on a “college” massacre, but had a beef with the educational system in general. Say he went from the university over to the high school, junior high or elementary school across town and did the same thing, but there was a slow response from law enforcement because all available officers were wandering around VT campus, not even knowing who or what they were looking for exactly. Who would we be blaming then?
This is not a "repeat of Columbine." The only reasons it looks like that are the words “classroom,” “students,” and “school” associated with the setting--but even with that, the setting is still very different and so much more complex. Columbine was a high school. One building. The size of the student body was a mere fraction of VT. Evacuation was appropriate, reasonable, and easily done. Once it began, there was little question that what was happening in the library was not isolated from what was happening in the classrooms. It was a hostage situation that took place continuously from beginning to end, and the shooters (note that this is plural) obtained and maintained control during that time. Law enforcement at least had some clue of whom they were dealing with and where the perpetrator(s) could be found. In many, many ways, there are a heck of a lot more similarities between Columbine and shootings that take place in office settings. It’s just a much more controlled (and controllable) environment.
VT, however, is entirely different. Do we really need to count the ways?
They are the same in the most important respect -- gunmen (gunman) who are (is) intent to kill indiscriminately until stopped. Any shooting in a school, place of employment or any other institution should be considered as this worse possible scenario until the gunman is identified, apprehended or it is otherwise determined to be of no further threat. Columbine, Virginia Tech -- this will happen again.
"The best that anyone could do in this case was ask, “what does this crime scene look like?” and then, “where do we go from here?” The appearance that the first shooting was intentionally directed at two specific people and then the amount of time that elapsed before the next incident occurred suggests that it was an isolated incident."
The initial shooting scene being misinterpreted was a key factor in not being able to stop the gunman. It was determined it was a domestic dispute (although I've never heard any rationale for that)and the female victim's boyfriend was stopped and was being questioned along a nearby highway at about the time the second shooting began.
The misinterpretation wasn't unreasonable, though. It wasn't a failure to logically process the crime scene. The rationale came from the fact that the dorm housed 900 students, yet only two of them were targeted. One would think (based on a few thousand years of human history) that someone with the intention to commit mass murder would have gone up and down halls, targeting anyone and everyone in sight, whereas a jealous lover would get in, get out, and try not to get caught on the way home. The first shooting wasn't a spree. It was focused and intentional.
The masses in this country seem to be very confused about what it means to have our cake and eat it, too. We want cheaper gas, but we enjoy wasting it in our Hummers. We want to stop global warming, but we don’t have time for that because we’re too busy consuming. We think there's too much sex and violence in the media, but find ourselves glued to CSI three nights a week. We want to spend more money, and complain about our debt. We want lower taxes, but call for more public programs. We want smaller government, but expect "the system" to be able to identify/remove potentially dangerous individuals from the general public...but only the ones who REALLY WILL eventually harm someone, because we also want civil liberties. We establish a judiciary on the idea that it would be better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent to pay for a crime he didn't commit, but we'd also rather be safe than sorry. We want the police to periodically abandon logic in their efforts to prevent or solve crimes, but we expect them to do this with 100% accuracy, and to our ever-changing satisfaction. We expect all of these things to pay for themselves and happen on some supernatural level because we don’t want to have to see or think about it, which might interfere with our daily routine. Are you kidding me?
And yes, it will happen again. Creating a police state isn't likely to stop that. And every time, someone will blame entertainment for desensitizing us. Someone will blame snobs for creating outcasts. Someone will blame the mental healthcare system (here's a big fat newsflash for ya--there's no such thing) for letting someone slip through the cracks. Someone will blame bad parenting skills, law enforcement, post-traumatic stress disorder, a drug company, George W. Bush, or the man in the moon.
I say we blame Canada. I didn’t see them trying to do anything about it...and you KNOW they weren’t busy.
grasshopper,
Mental elements cannot be proven based on what we consider scientific evidence. The examples you give are very good and all based on observable actions in a predefined manner that then gives individuals a basis to make a "truth claim"
I will agree to that and I want you to keep this thought very clear for future discussions on how we prove other things that cannot be proven scientifically.
If you believe this is a standard of proof for a "truth claim", then it shouldn't change when dealing with other topics
Anon 2:31, are you kidding? That's a great idea. I nominate you to make arrangements for that to be possible every time a violent crime is committed in any place where anyone works, visits, or lives (congregate settings, of course, because that qualifies as a place where people work or visit). Let's see...the only setting that leaves out is the private residence. You better eat your Wheaties.
Grasshopper, I can prove to you that a square has four sides. I can prove to you that yellow and blue make green. I can prove to you that I have a license to operate a motor vehicle.
There's no litmus test or measuring stick to prove what someone is thinking. We can look at the circumstances and take a good guess at it, but that's about it. The law takes our guesses and treats them as factual or not, but that doesn't mean it's been proven as such. Look at Mel Ignatow and OJ Simpson.
HB,
I certainly will apply the same standard when evaluating the proper role of any branch of government.
As far as the standard of proof for a truth claim, I'm not sure what you're referring to. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is generally beyond a reasonable doubt. It differs for civil trials.
I am a conservative and a Christian. You can likely deduce where I fall on most issues, though I will warn you -- I am more conservative than most Republicans today. With that said, I'll look forward to future discussions.
As for Anon 5:41,
You are exactly right. There is no litmus test. That is why the jury has the role of deciding who is telling the truth. They decide if the burden of proof has been met.
In the context of this discussion about hate crimes, the jury would also decide whether a hate crime has been proven. If it has, the judge will apply the appropriate sentence (as defined by the legislature). That is why this is not an example of a judge enacting an activist agenda.
Because we cannot be 100% sure that anything VT might have done would have been successful, then in a similar situation in the future, we should do nothing.
No. Because we cannot be 100% sure that anything VT might have done would have been successful, then we should be very careful with the accusations we make about the neglegence or carelessness of the people who were handling the situation, and have reasonable expectations of what COULD be done in the future.
VT assumed that the initial shooting was a domestic dispute, and then a couple of hours later decided to send out an email saying informing stuedents that a gunman may be on campus. Is it that unreasonable to suggest that maybe those 2 things should've been done in reverse order?
He wasn't still on campus. He was at the post office.
Yes, it would have been unreasonable. Next time you're around several thousand people, try and get their attention. Make an announcement that two have just been found shot to death, and that the shooter may be lurking somewhere among them. The way a group of people processes information like that is vastly different than how an individual does. Know what happens when you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre? People get hurt and you go to jail. It’s unprotected speech. Translate that to yelling "gunman" on a crowded campus. Making an announcement like that without some pretty solid info to back it up (or maybe a description of the guy) would have been wholly irresponsible. Do you have any idea how much damage thousands of panicky people could have done?
And what would the students have done in response to that, even if they were orderly about it? They would still be unarmed, still be gathered into groups, and still not know from whom they were supposed to be hiding. Explain to me how that helps? He shot people in the dorms; he shot people in the classrooms. I supposed they could have temporarily morphed themselves to a parallel universe...I think Anon 2:31 from yesterday might be looking into that for next time.
VT had more reasons to think he wasn't there than to think he was, and we shouldn't assume that the danger of mob mentality didn't cross their minds as they were deciding what to/not to do. If it didn't, it should have. But even without that to influence their decisions, I still don't think they did anything wrong. The "second wave" of violence was unforeseeable.
We can take a few small lessons from this time to guide our thinking if there is a next. But with so many random variables, there may not be many applications.
The following emails were sent by the Virginia Tech administration as the events unfolded on campus.
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:50:07 -0400
From: Unirel@vt.edu
Reply-To: Unirel@vt.edu
Subject: PLease stay put
To: Multiple recipients < LISTSERV@LISTSERV.VT.EDU>
A gunman is loose on campus. Stay in buildings until further notice. Stay away from all windows
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:16:40 -0400
From: Unirel@vt.edu
Reply-To: Unirel@vt.edu
Subject: All Classes Canceled; Stay where you are
To: Multiple recipients
Virginia Tech has canceled all classes. Those on campus are asked to remain where there are, lock their doors and stay away from windows. Persons off campus are asked not to come to campus.
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:41:44 -0400
From: Unirel@vt.edu
Reply-To: Unirel@vt.edu
Subject: Statement by President Charles W. Steger
To: Multiple recipients
Shooting at Virginia Tech / Statement by President Charles W. Steger
The university was struck today with a tragedy of monumental proportions. There were two shootings on campus. In each case, there were fatalities. The university is shocked and horrified that this would befall our campus. I want to extend my deepest, sincerest and most profound sympathies to the families of these victims which include students There are 22 confirmed deaths.
We currently are in the process of notifying families of victims. The Virginia Tech Police are being assisted by numerous other jurisdictions. Crime scenes are being investigated by the FBI, University Police, and State Police. We continue to work to identify the victims impacted by this tragedy. I cannot begin to covey my own personal sense of loss over this senselessness of such an
incomprehensible and heinous act The university will immediately set up counseling centers. So far centers have been identified in Ambler Johnson and the Cook Counseling Center to work with our campus community and families.
Here are some of the facts we know:
At about 7:15 a.m. this morning a 911 call came to the University Police Department concerning an event in West Amber Johnston Hall. There were multiple shooting victims. While in the process of investigating, about two hours later the university received reports of a shooting in Norris Hall. The police immediately responded. Victims have been transported to various hospitals in the immediate area in the region to receive emergency treatment.
We will proceed to contact the families of victims as identities are available.
All classes are cancelled and the university is closed for the remainder for the today. The university will open tomorrow at 8 a.m. but classes will be cancelled on Tuesday. The police are currently staging the release of people from campus buildings.
Families wishing to reunite with the students are suggested to meet at the Inn at Virginia Tech. We are making plans for a convocation tomorrow (Tuesday) at noon at Cassell Coliseum for the university community to come together to begin to deal with the tragedy.
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:31:29 -0400
From: Unirel@vt.edu
Reply-To: Unirel@vt.edu
Subject: Campus Update on VT Shootings
To: Multiple recipients
Virginia Tech remains closed on Monday, April 16, 2007. Vehicular entrances to campus are severely restricted to essential personnel only. Additional security remains on campus as the investigation continues.
Counseling assistance for students in available at West Ambler Johnston and McComas Hall until 9 p.m. tonight. Students are encouraged to utilize these services. Counseling for faculty and staff is available at the Bowman Room in the Merriman Center (athletic complex). Student may also be together at the Old Dominion Ballroom at Squires Student Center.
The university will also close on Tuesday, April 17. Essential personal are to report for work. Classes will be canceled.
A public gathering will be held Tuesday, April 17 at Cassell Coliseum at 2 p.m. (a time change from the originally scheduled 10 a.m. gathering).
All students are urged to contact their parents as soon as possible to let them know individuals are safe.
Students, faculty, and staff who may have any information related to the incident at West Amber Johnston Hall and Norris Hall are encouraged to go to the Blacksburg Police Department to make statements, or call 540-231-TIPP (8477), or 231-6411
Parents with concerns are asked to call the Dean of Students Office at 540-231-3787.
Individuals injured in the two shootings have been taken to area hospitals.
So the message that "a gunman is loose on campus" was sent after the second shootings when they had more than enough reason to believe that the threat may still present. This seems appropriate.
Post a Comment
<< Home