Va. Tech shooting

[Wayward Son]

Just came from a training session. Our CEO was in this one as well. It turns out that he's a Virginia Tech grad from way back when. Company is holding a small service at noon.

 

[Cacia]

I am so surprised no one in the media, with all this hair splitting and analysis has not raised one question about what all those officers were doing out there while all this transpired.

The hero stories emerging are about an old 7o-something year old who stood in a door way and another boy who baricaded a door. I can't believe out of all those young strong men nobody picked up some desks and charged him, that those cops with all that armor, ammo, and weaponry just sat outside waiting for a plan. I really can't get over that. okay, won't say it anymore.

here's a provacitive read... I guess the opinion is "out there" I need to google more

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/a_culture_of_passivity

I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

 

[Wayward Son]

catherine, it isn't new or unique to this event. if you look back at all the mass shootings over say, the last 10 years, one commonality will jump out at you:

With very few exceptions, no one fought back. In cases where they did, some good was accomplished. Some lives were saved & in some cases the shooter was stopped.

I don't think this is a complete answer, but I do think it's a large part of it: It comes down to our schools.

We have for quite some time adopted a change in rules that we did not have when I was in school. Back then (graduated HS in 1979), if you started a fight you were in trouble. But if you were attacked & defended yourself, while you may face some consequences, they were considerate of the fact that you had no choice in the matter.

Now, if you get jumped & fight back & caught, you will be punished with the exact same consequences as the person who started the fight. I've had my daughter get suspended for defending herself, yet the trouble maker, with a long history of fighting in school, given the same suspension.

It's a matter of conditioning. We have been training, conditioning, generations to not fight back. To rely on the authorities to take control & solve the problem for them. failure to do so means punishment for doing what any living being will naturally do.

So now we have things like this happen. when a random attack starts & you're trapped in a room, there should be lots of people rushing the guy & fighting, trying to stop him, trying to live. Not waiting around like a hog in a chute at the slaughter house.

 

[Cacia]

I just did not realize that it had reached this point.
It seems that we are losing our basic instincts.
I already talked to my kids...I said run, fight or go hide effectively, but don't sit with a group and wait. I told them, not to rely on the authorities to save you and to always consider other options if they begin making announcements about what you are supposed to do.

 

[Blitz]

Well stated.

I used to get into fights alot when I was in school. (I know how is that possible with my cheery disposition?) But they were fights, you smacked each other around a little and it was finished. The beef was settled and people moved on. If you got caught you dealt with consequences. With those consequences in mind next time, maybe you fought, maybe you didn't.

catherine, it isn't new or unique to this event. if you look back at all the mass shootings over say, the last 10 years, one commonality will jump out at you:

With very few exceptions, no one fought back. In cases where they did, some good was accomplished. Some lives were saved & in some cases the shooter was stopped.

I don't think this is a complete answer, but I do think it's a large part of it: It comes down to our schools.

We have for quite some time adopted a change in rules that we did not have when I was in school. Back then (graduated HS in 1979), if you started a fight you were in trouble. But if you were attacked & defended yourself, while you may face some consequences, they were considerate of the fact that you had no choice in the matter.

Now, if you get jumped & fight back & caught, you will be punished with the exact same consequences as the person who started the fight. I've had my daughter get suspended for defending herself, yet the trouble maker, with a long history of fighting in school, given the same suspension.

It's a matter of conditioning. We have been training, conditioning, generations to not fight back. To rely on the authorities to take control & solve the problem for them. failure to do so means punishment for doing what any living being will naturally do.

So now we have things like this happen. when a random attack starts & you're trapped in a room, there should be lots of people rushing the guy & fighting, trying to stop him, trying to live. Not waiting around like a hog in a chute at the slaughter house.

 

[Cacia]

This passivity is what we should be fearing, not lone ranger crazies, as the failure to act has much broader implications for society.

 

[jpsexton]

We have for quite some time adopted a change in rules that we did not have when I was in school. Back then (graduated HS in 1979), if you started a fight you were in trouble. But if you were attacked & defended yourself, while you may face some consequences, they were considerate of the fact that you had no choice in the matter.

Now, if you get jumped & fight back & caught, you will be punished with the exact same consequences as the person who started the fight. I've had my daughter get suspended for defending herself, yet the trouble maker, with a long history of fighting in school, given the same suspension.

It's a matter of conditioning. We have been training, conditioning, generations to not fight back. To rely on the authorities to take control & solve the problem for them. failure to do so means punishment for doing what any living being will naturally do.

So now we have things like this happen. when a random attack starts & you're trapped in a room, there should be lots of people rushing the guy & fighting, trying to stop him, trying to live. Not waiting around like a hog in a chute at the slaughter house.

You are spot on correct! I have raised my son to never start a fight but if put in a situation with no other options then by all means defend himself. To this day I stand by that but throughout his school years he has been punished equally many times for defending himself. One instance when he was a freshman there were many witnesses that said the other kid actually hit my son first more than once but my son was punished more severely because he came out unhurt but broke the other kids nose. The thing that I have also noticed through the years is that it's against the rules to fight but if you go to an authority to work things out they just blow it off until there is a fight so kids have free reign to pick on anyone they choose. It's no mystery to me how these things happen.

 

[Jcsgt]

Unfortunately, people tend to freeze under fire. They are so shocked that they literally cannot act or even move. I have even seen this happen to police officers. Part of the reason, IMO, is that nobody plans to get attacked by a gunman, it "won't happen to me". You need to plan to do something, anything. If you freeze you are a sitting duck and make a much better target. This is what the gunman expects you to do.

Have a plan and practice it, whether you think you want to rush the perp or to run and hide. I have a good friend who was in the middle of the Thurston HS shooting. He rushed Kinkel and tackled him to the ground, getting shot in the process. But he lived and so did many others thanks to his quick thinking, though he was only a student.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

catherine, it isn't new or unique to this event. if you look back at all the mass shootings over say, the last 10 years, one commonality will jump out at you:

With very few exceptions, no one fought back. In cases where they did, some good was accomplished. Some lives were saved & in some cases the shooter was stopped.

I don't think this is a complete answer, but I do think it's a large part of it: It comes down to our schools.

We have for quite some time adopted a change in rules that we did not have when I was in school. Back then (graduated HS in 1979), if you started a fight you were in trouble. But if you were attacked & defended yourself, while you may face some consequences, they were considerate of the fact that you had no choice in the matter.

Now, if you get jumped & fight back & caught, you will be punished with the exact same consequences as the person who started the fight. I've had my daughter get suspended for defending herself, yet the trouble maker, with a long history of fighting in school, given the same suspension.

It's a matter of conditioning. We have been training, conditioning, generations to not fight back. To rely on the authorities to take control & solve the problem for them. failure to do so means punishment for doing what any living being will naturally do.

So now we have things like this happen. when a random attack starts & you're trapped in a room, there should be lots of people rushing the guy & fighting, trying to stop him, trying to live. Not waiting around like a hog in a chute at the slaughter house.

Another commonality is that the shooter did not "just snap". The shooter was frequently a troublemaker to a greater or lesser degree but noone did anything, because the shooter, or shooters, has "rights".

 

[H2Andy]

Another commonality is that the shooter did not "just snap". The shooter was frequently a troublemaker to a greater or lesser degree but noone did anything, because the shooter, or shooters, has "rights".

the solution, of course, is to lock every troublemaker up before they snap