Monday̢۪s horrific shooting massacre at Virginia Tech left many college officials all over the nation wondering how they would respond to such a tragedy.
In the midst of mourning, Fresno State officials discussed how campus police have prepared for a possible shooting and how to recognize the signs of a troubled student.
Dr. Tamyra Pierce, a Fresno State mass communication and journalism professor, has studied the influence the media have of increasing the chances of copycat school shootings. Pierce said the more TV coverage the media provide of a school shooting, and the more details released on the shooters — such as characteristics of the shooter and knowing if the person was bullied — the more likely that certain individuals will identify and may attempt to repeat a similar tragedy.
“There’s the possibility the viewer can relate to it,� Pierce said. “All that information lends to an increased chance of copycatting.�
Through her research, Pierce found that since a 1997 school shooting, an increased amount of violent words and images have been repeated in TV coverage of more recent school shootings.
She said the repetition of TV coverage of these tragedies, including the one at Virginia Tech, can trigger an already perhaps aggressive and depressed individual to commit similar acts of violence.
“If you hear aggressive words,� Pierce said, “it cues aggressive thoughts in certain people.�
Pierce said unlike high schools, identifying the warning signs of a troubled student in college requires the work of all of the student̢۪s teachers and peers.
“It’s a little more difficult on a college campus,� Pierce said. “I think it takes all teachers’ awareness. We need to be aware of our fellow students and what’s going on in their lives.�
Pierce said all that campus instructors can do is refer suspected troubled students to counselors. “We as teachers can’t counsel a student, because we don’t have that background, but we have the facilities on campus,� Pierce said. “You hope they will seek what they obviously need.�
In her research, Pierce studied high school shootings, but not any that occurred on college campuses. “I just think a college campus is a place to learn,� Pierce said, “and it doesn’t happen here.�
President John Welty issued a statement to the campus community Monday after the Virginia Tech massacre. “The campus community at Fresno State is deeply shocked at the tragedy of the shooting incident at Virginia Tech University.
“While no plan can completely prevent the efforts of a determined evil person, our university does actively work to prevent and deal with violent incidents. When the tranquility of a campus is shattered by crime… we need to remember how important universities are to our society and that we must protect the free exchange of ideas and the search for knowledge.�
Fresno State Police Chief David Huerta said local law enforcement, including officers at Fresno State, would handle a similar situation in a similar manner to the response at Virginia Tech.
According to Huerta, law enforcement agencies have been preparing for incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech since Columbine.
In what is called an “active shooter response,� officers would attempt to engage the suspect so the individual was dealing with officers rather than injuring other people.
To keep students up to date in an emergency situation, the campus police department would contact faculty and staff through infomail and use e-mail and other methods to contact students.
Since the police pursuit on Barstow and Cedar avenues in August 2006, Huerta said the police department has been investigating a new technology that would allow it to send messages directly to students through their cell phones.
According to Huerta, the complication comes in “how could we get our students to voluntarily register their cell phones with the system.�
Huerta said no real procedure for lockdowns of a campus of a college or university are in place, and that “architectural challenges� arise at college and university campuses.
“You could have air horn at one end of this campus and never hear it halfway across,� he said.
Huerta said he believes Fresno State has a competent system that is good at the basics and one students can count on, and that people learn from every incident that occurs.
“However, no one knows when it’s going to happen and for sure it’s going to happen again. Unfortunately, history repeats itself.�
Kirstie Hettinga contributed to this report.
Ty McMahon • May 25, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Yeah, if we all become Mormans we’ll be just fine. Mr. Mock, your experience at a racist, sexist, and repressed campus like BYU hardly qualifies you as a security expert. You make some valid points, but come on, you were in Provo, Utah. That isn’t exactly the epicenter of crime. If you take a homogenous population (one that is whiter than white) and feed them stories about how Jesus kicked it old school with the Aztecs, then they will indeed find a life far removed from crime. And yes, Mitt Romney’s religion SHOULD disqualify him from seeking the presidency.
Ty McMahon • May 25, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Yeah, if we all become Mormans we’ll be just fine. Mr. Mock, your experience at a racist, sexist, and repressed campus like BYU hardly qualifies you as a security expert. You make some valid points, but come on, you were in Provo, Utah. That isn’t exactly the epicenter of crime. If you take a homogenous population (one that is whiter than white) and feed them stories about how Jesus kicked it old school with the Aztecs, then they will indeed find a life far removed from crime. And yes, Mitt Romney’s religion SHOULD disqualify him from seeking the presidency.
Michael Mock • May 25, 2007 at 10:08 am
I have read with interest the comments made concerning VT and how it was or was not handled. I have been in law enforcement for 32 years with my last three at Brigham Young University thus having an understanding of municipal law enforcement and some knowledge of university/college law enforcement. The article hits the nail on the head. Media should focus on the victims and the incident and not on the shooter. It is obvious Cho was familiar with Columbine and he revered Harris and Klebold as martyrs.
In 32 years of service I have never heard of an incident where an individual who killed in a particular location comes back to the area some two plus hours later and starts killing again. The initial belief was a homicide/suicide. TV portrays a crime scene investigation as a 20 minute event. I assure you it is not . . . it takes hours and hours as it is tedious. One does not have the luxury of Hollywood, retake if the actors make a mistake.
Marie makes a good point, how do you notify 26,000 students plus faculty and staff? Open campuses pose a challenge that would take placing a person every few yards to keep people off. Tragic events like Columbine and VT as well as numerous others require all to review how we conduct business and to look for solutions that will minimize the number lost. Every officer left VT second guessing and most likely blaming themselves because precious lives were lost. I understand the Chief’s response, given what they knew then, the response would most likely be the same. Their decisions were based on history. Once they knew they were dealing with a homicide and the killer gone then history said the killer would not come back. Next to family and friends, law enforcement and medical personnel take it personal and live with the horric memory daily. We do not like to lose anyone to violence. It becomes personal.
It is good to talk and exchange thoughts and beliefs as it helps in creating a better world. Americans are fed a daily diet of violence through various media. Until we turn off the violence, and move back to morals and values, we will see more VTs.
Michael Mock • May 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I have read with interest the comments made concerning VT and how it was or was not handled. I have been in law enforcement for 32 years with my last three at Brigham Young University thus having an understanding of municipal law enforcement and some knowledge of university/college law enforcement. The article hits the nail on the head. Media should focus on the victims and the incident and not on the shooter. It is obvious Cho was familiar with Columbine and he revered Harris and Klebold as martyrs.
In 32 years of service I have never heard of an incident where an individual who killed in a particular location comes back to the area some two plus hours later and starts killing again. The initial belief was a homicide/suicide. TV portrays a crime scene investigation as a 20 minute event. I assure you it is not . . . it takes hours and hours as it is tedious. One does not have the luxury of Hollywood, retake if the actors make a mistake.
Marie makes a good point, how do you notify 26,000 students plus faculty and staff? Open campuses pose a challenge that would take placing a person every few yards to keep people off. Tragic events like Columbine and VT as well as numerous others require all to review how we conduct business and to look for solutions that will minimize the number lost. Every officer left VT second guessing and most likely blaming themselves because precious lives were lost. I understand the Chief’s response, given what they knew then, the response would most likely be the same. Their decisions were based on history. Once they knew they were dealing with a homicide and the killer gone then history said the killer would not come back. Next to family and friends, law enforcement and medical personnel take it personal and live with the horric memory daily. We do not like to lose anyone to violence. It becomes personal.
It is good to talk and exchange thoughts and beliefs as it helps in creating a better world. Americans are fed a daily diet of violence through various media. Until we turn off the violence, and move back to morals and values, we will see more VTs.
Greg M. • Apr 19, 2007 at 9:35 am
I agree that it is with the benefit of hindsight that much of the criticism has been leveled at Tech officials, although I would disagree that because there was no precedent whatever actions were taken must have been the best. Certainly nobody would have predicted that events would unfold as they did. What motivated me to write on this issue was the statement by our campus police chief that we would respond in the same manner to the same type of incident. It seems to me that we should evaluate the response less in terms of placing blame and more along the lines of developing the way we should approach future (god forbid) events. You raise many of the central points. How do you notify students? Clearly, for the reasons you mentioned, reliance on campus e-mail or news alone is insufficient, yet we are told that will be the extent of our notification process going forward? There is cell phone alert technology available, yet we emphasize that it is difficult to get students to sign up for it. Setting aside for the moment that even if only 25% of students were to sign up (the % I believe I read about the USF program) that still goes along way toward getting the word out. Public address systems for the campus or in buidlings maybe old fashioned and bring back memories of grade school, but should we consider that? You make no mention of steering away students who arrive at campus. We have trafiic officers here in the mornings. They could steer students away from the campus instead of into it. But that does cause its own set of problems with congestion. How do we plan for that? In other words, we need to think outside the box, examine our fundamental assumptions. If there was an active shooting on campus or bomb threat, would we simply allow students to pour into campus because we don’t know how to notify them? You raise great questions about determining the level of threat and response and we should take another look at how we should handle that going forward. A key question you ask is how do you know/ not know whether a danger existed (presumably after the initial double homicide and to the rest of campus)? Perhaps a better question is, in a situation in which thousands of additional people are pouring into campus, on which side do you err? I don’t know anyone who has advocated that the campus be closed until a suspect is captured. Just maybe though, we shouldn’t assume that the killer did the rationale thing (after an irrational act) and get as far away as possible. Another question to ask is at what point do we warn people and allow them to make an informed decision? Finally, must any proposal be a 100% effective in order to be considered? As you pointed out, informing 9:05 students might have been helpful for those who heard about it. Could that have saved even 1 person and doesn’t that make it worthy of consideration?Reasonable people can disagree on the answers but these are all important questions that those of us in campus communities should not only ask but address. To simply state our response would be the same or that the response was the best possible, is not doing that.
Greg M. • Apr 19, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I agree that it is with the benefit of hindsight that much of the criticism has been leveled at Tech officials, although I would disagree that because there was no precedent whatever actions were taken must have been the best. Certainly nobody would have predicted that events would unfold as they did. What motivated me to write on this issue was the statement by our campus police chief that we would respond in the same manner to the same type of incident. It seems to me that we should evaluate the response less in terms of placing blame and more along the lines of developing the way we should approach future (god forbid) events. You raise many of the central points. How do you notify students? Clearly, for the reasons you mentioned, reliance on campus e-mail or news alone is insufficient, yet we are told that will be the extent of our notification process going forward? There is cell phone alert technology available, yet we emphasize that it is difficult to get students to sign up for it. Setting aside for the moment that even if only 25% of students were to sign up (the % I believe I read about the USF program) that still goes along way toward getting the word out. Public address systems for the campus or in buidlings maybe old fashioned and bring back memories of grade school, but should we consider that? You make no mention of steering away students who arrive at campus. We have trafiic officers here in the mornings. They could steer students away from the campus instead of into it. But that does cause its own set of problems with congestion. How do we plan for that? In other words, we need to think outside the box, examine our fundamental assumptions. If there was an active shooting on campus or bomb threat, would we simply allow students to pour into campus because we don’t know how to notify them? You raise great questions about determining the level of threat and response and we should take another look at how we should handle that going forward. A key question you ask is how do you know/ not know whether a danger existed (presumably after the initial double homicide and to the rest of campus)? Perhaps a better question is, in a situation in which thousands of additional people are pouring into campus, on which side do you err? I don’t know anyone who has advocated that the campus be closed until a suspect is captured. Just maybe though, we shouldn’t assume that the killer did the rationale thing (after an irrational act) and get as far away as possible. Another question to ask is at what point do we warn people and allow them to make an informed decision? Finally, must any proposal be a 100% effective in order to be considered? As you pointed out, informing 9:05 students might have been helpful for those who heard about it. Could that have saved even 1 person and doesn’t that make it worthy of consideration?Reasonable people can disagree on the answers but these are all important questions that those of us in campus communities should not only ask but address. To simply state our response would be the same or that the response was the best possible, is not doing that.
Marie Hill • Apr 18, 2007 at 11:26 pm
1) The campus was in lockdown because of the time of day–residence halls are on card-access-only until after 9 every morning. AJ was in lockdown and informed before then; but the neighboring residence halls were on card-access only at the time.
2) It is fair to assume that the school has commuters; only freshman are required to live on-campus (unless their families live within a reasonable distance).
A response time for an 8am class would’ve been not very easily achievable as it was too close to the time of the incident. An email for the 9:05 classes might’ve proved to be something worthwhile, though, at least for students to use caution; an email which didn’t arrive until after that class had started (around 9:30).
But even with this, an email wasn’t going to stop people from coming to campus; an email is only good if it’s checked on a computer. Someone walking to campus already, getting out of bed and getting across the drillfield, or already on the bus would’ve not been in luck.
As this whole incident unfolded, hindsight’s been 20-20 with it all: How exactly DO you get a hold of 26000 students plus all of the faculty/staff in such a short amount of time–to tell them that there is a guy that shot a girl and an ra in a residence hall and to use caution? Or do you go all the way and say that all classes are cancelled because an unknown guy shot two people and then fleed?
Yes, he was dangerous, but how do you know/not know whether a danger existed in the first place–Once a killer is captured? There could be copycats/accomplices not yet known.
What are the correct procedures in this anyway? A response is not exactly organized for such a case and, although it is not fair to assume that the actions taken were the best overall, there is no precedent–whatever actions were taken must have been the best, given the circumstances.
Marie Hill • Apr 19, 2007 at 6:26 am
1) The campus was in lockdown because of the time of day–residence halls are on card-access-only until after 9 every morning. AJ was in lockdown and informed before then; but the neighboring residence halls were on card-access only at the time.
2) It is fair to assume that the school has commuters; only freshman are required to live on-campus (unless their families live within a reasonable distance).
A response time for an 8am class would’ve been not very easily achievable as it was too close to the time of the incident. An email for the 9:05 classes might’ve proved to be something worthwhile, though, at least for students to use caution; an email which didn’t arrive until after that class had started (around 9:30).
But even with this, an email wasn’t going to stop people from coming to campus; an email is only good if it’s checked on a computer. Someone walking to campus already, getting out of bed and getting across the drillfield, or already on the bus would’ve not been in luck.
As this whole incident unfolded, hindsight’s been 20-20 with it all: How exactly DO you get a hold of 26000 students plus all of the faculty/staff in such a short amount of time–to tell them that there is a guy that shot a girl and an ra in a residence hall and to use caution? Or do you go all the way and say that all classes are cancelled because an unknown guy shot two people and then fleed?
Yes, he was dangerous, but how do you know/not know whether a danger existed in the first place–Once a killer is captured? There could be copycats/accomplices not yet known.
What are the correct procedures in this anyway? A response is not exactly organized for such a case and, although it is not fair to assume that the actions taken were the best overall, there is no precedent–whatever actions were taken must have been the best, given the circumstances.
JD • Apr 18, 2007 at 4:01 pm
lost in the debate over the va. tech security issues, is the fact that this story actually ran! that somebody took the intiative to report it!
kudos to the assigning editor or the reporter or teacher or whoever came up with the idea on this story. it was exactly what i was looking for when i came here today.
the intro answered copycat questions i wondered about. the entire premise was great.
the collegian has been bashed on these comments recently for providing only soft swinging news and choosing laziness over hard work.
i imagine, for a student journalist, that this story was a tough one to conceptualize and turn around in a day and a half.
props…
JD • Apr 18, 2007 at 11:01 pm
lost in the debate over the va. tech security issues, is the fact that this story actually ran! that somebody took the intiative to report it!
kudos to the assigning editor or the reporter or teacher or whoever came up with the idea on this story. it was exactly what i was looking for when i came here today.
the intro answered copycat questions i wondered about. the entire premise was great.
the collegian has been bashed on these comments recently for providing only soft swinging news and choosing laziness over hard work.
i imagine, for a student journalist, that this story was a tough one to conceptualize and turn around in a day and a half.
props…
Greg M. • Apr 18, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Thanks Marie for all the info. I do have a few questions. You said the campus was closed – with the residential side in lockdown, then said the residential side is in lockdown that time of morning anyway. Had authorities shut down the residential side or was that based simply on the time of day? Also, is it fair to assume that Tech is not a school on which 100% of the students live on campus? Numerous interviews were held with students who came onto campus from outside so clearly the campus was not locked down for them. You said your boyfriend notified you that he was in lockdown. Was this before or after the second set of killings? Were people that arrived for 8:00 classes notified that anything was going on?
My questions and previous post are not about blaming the Tech officials. I’m sure they did everything they believed was necessary. However, the paradigm has shifted and it is time to take a look at the assumptions that were made during the decision process and determine if that is the best way to proceed in the future. You wrote of several of these. “The guy had left the area…” He had left the immediate crime scene, everyone assumed he was gone but that was not established with any degree of certainty. Pursuing investigative leads does not imply immediate security. “… investigation was a closed situation because it seemed like a domestic violence between a guy and his girlfriend…” This domestic violence was a double homicide and clearly indicated that anyone caught in the killers path was in danger. But most significantly you write, “They alerted us when they thought the situation was under control.” Isn’t that the essence of the problem? A warning after the fact is an oxymoron and reflects a mindset about what students need to know and when, that I think we should reevaluate in light of this tragedy. Thanks again for all the info and best wishes.
Greg M. • Apr 18, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Thanks Marie for all the info. I do have a few questions. You said the campus was closed – with the residential side in lockdown, then said the residential side is in lockdown that time of morning anyway. Had authorities shut down the residential side or was that based simply on the time of day? Also, is it fair to assume that Tech is not a school on which 100% of the students live on campus? Numerous interviews were held with students who came onto campus from outside so clearly the campus was not locked down for them. You said your boyfriend notified you that he was in lockdown. Was this before or after the second set of killings? Were people that arrived for 8:00 classes notified that anything was going on?
My questions and previous post are not about blaming the Tech officials. I’m sure they did everything they believed was necessary. However, the paradigm has shifted and it is time to take a look at the assumptions that were made during the decision process and determine if that is the best way to proceed in the future. You wrote of several of these. “The guy had left the area…” He had left the immediate crime scene, everyone assumed he was gone but that was not established with any degree of certainty. Pursuing investigative leads does not imply immediate security. “… investigation was a closed situation because it seemed like a domestic violence between a guy and his girlfriend…” This domestic violence was a double homicide and clearly indicated that anyone caught in the killers path was in danger. But most significantly you write, “They alerted us when they thought the situation was under control.” Isn’t that the essence of the problem? A warning after the fact is an oxymoron and reflects a mindset about what students need to know and when, that I think we should reevaluate in light of this tragedy. Thanks again for all the info and best wishes.
Mike Greyson • Apr 18, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Well, Marie, it looks like your university is considerably nicer than our campus. Have you ever seen a trailer park next to a prison complex? I hadn’t until I stepped foot on the Fresno State campus. Imagine that little juxtaposition when you think you’re going to be attending what is legally called a university. I was dismayed.
Mike Greyson • Apr 18, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Well, Marie, it looks like your university is considerably nicer than our campus. Have you ever seen a trailer park next to a prison complex? I hadn’t until I stepped foot on the Fresno State campus. Imagine that little juxtaposition when you think you’re going to be attending what is legally called a university. I was dismayed.
Marie Hill • Apr 18, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Although I admittedly was skeptical of the initial response time that was taken to notify us students of the gunman, it is completely understandable: The guy had left the area and they had reasonable cause to believe he’d left the state and they couldn’t get a hold of him.
The policemen were here within a 5 minute response time (From AJ their station is right down behind the stadium–a drive, barring a stoplight, that is right around the block from AJ), they investigated and closed-up AJ, and all was good.
What a person not from Tech doesn’t know about this is that Norris is about the last place on earth to expect this to happen; it isn’t a highly populated building almost ever (it’s an L-shaped building with an archway on one end and a stairwell on the top of the L–and connected to a building called Holden that mirrors its exterior shape somewhat on the other side of the archway), and although it’s an “engineering building,” at Tech, it’s not as if the buildings are solely used for their departments. By saying “it’s an engineering building” here, it means that its held by the department for offices in that department–its classes are used by any major that needs a room–in this case, English, German, French, CS, and an Engineering class. The top of the leg of the L (the side that follows parallel to Tech’s famous building always seen in pictures–Burruss Hall) is where the classes are. The bottom of the L (the longest part of the building as, when seen in plan, it seems to be almost a C shape because it’s connected by an archway to Holden) is where all of the offices/labs are. Upon walking there, they’re almost never inhabited–and the only side of the building with any people in it is the side parallel to Burruss.
The other thing about the building that the bulk of the murders were taking place in is that it’s far from the residence hall. Our campus is set up with a huge park-like space in the center–to separate the residential side from the academic side; it’s called the drillfield (because that’s where our Corps of Cadets practices in the early morning hours).
It’s not as if the campus wasn’t closed off–it was! We have a residential side that, after having decided the investigation was a closed situation because it seemed like a domestic violence between a guy and his girlfriend–and the RA that was next door investigating the situation–the residential side was in lockdown. At that time in the morning anyway, every residential building is in lockdown–you can’t get in without a student id card from that residence; it’s locked unless you wait for someone to let you in.
I am an architecture major at Virginia Tech–having had only one class in Norris last semester, I didn’t have any reason to be in there at the time and was catty-cornered from the incident in my building underground. My boyfriend did, however, notify me not to come get him because he was in lock-down next door to me in Randolph–an engineering building right across the sidewalk from Norris.
I agree that it seems sketchy from an outsider’s perspective of the whole response time issue, but from someone that goes to the school, know that it was a much larger situation than they show on CNN; they alerted us by email when they thought that the situation was under control (the AJ part of it).
I agree, Greg M., that no matter what, the “lone lunatic” was set on killing; but a response such as ours was more than expected–and, having been through high school directly following the Columbine incident, most students have practiced lock-down drills.
The students looked out for each other–and, just as in my boyfriend’s class that was to be in Norris at 10:10 (just after the incident)–our teachers have kept tabs on us as well, emailing about roll call and informing us individually.
Chains on stairwell doors was not exactly something that could’ve been planned for–the bomb threats that were warned (there was one for Torgersen–up the Drillfield a bit) and one for Whittemore/Durham–behind Randolph, the building across the sidewalk from Norris–pretty far back there) were not for Norris after all and there was no reason to believe any connection existed as the bomb threats were on corny days like the day after April Fools Day (April 1 was on Sunday) and Friday the 13th.
Marie Hill • Apr 18, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Although I admittedly was skeptical of the initial response time that was taken to notify us students of the gunman, it is completely understandable: The guy had left the area and they had reasonable cause to believe he’d left the state and they couldn’t get a hold of him.
The policemen were here within a 5 minute response time (From AJ their station is right down behind the stadium–a drive, barring a stoplight, that is right around the block from AJ), they investigated and closed-up AJ, and all was good.
What a person not from Tech doesn’t know about this is that Norris is about the last place on earth to expect this to happen; it isn’t a highly populated building almost ever (it’s an L-shaped building with an archway on one end and a stairwell on the top of the L–and connected to a building called Holden that mirrors its exterior shape somewhat on the other side of the archway), and although it’s an “engineering building,” at Tech, it’s not as if the buildings are solely used for their departments. By saying “it’s an engineering building” here, it means that its held by the department for offices in that department–its classes are used by any major that needs a room–in this case, English, German, French, CS, and an Engineering class. The top of the leg of the L (the side that follows parallel to Tech’s famous building always seen in pictures–Burruss Hall) is where the classes are. The bottom of the L (the longest part of the building as, when seen in plan, it seems to be almost a C shape because it’s connected by an archway to Holden) is where all of the offices/labs are. Upon walking there, they’re almost never inhabited–and the only side of the building with any people in it is the side parallel to Burruss.
The other thing about the building that the bulk of the murders were taking place in is that it’s far from the residence hall. Our campus is set up with a huge park-like space in the center–to separate the residential side from the academic side; it’s called the drillfield (because that’s where our Corps of Cadets practices in the early morning hours).
It’s not as if the campus wasn’t closed off–it was! We have a residential side that, after having decided the investigation was a closed situation because it seemed like a domestic violence between a guy and his girlfriend–and the RA that was next door investigating the situation–the residential side was in lockdown. At that time in the morning anyway, every residential building is in lockdown–you can’t get in without a student id card from that residence; it’s locked unless you wait for someone to let you in.
I am an architecture major at Virginia Tech–having had only one class in Norris last semester, I didn’t have any reason to be in there at the time and was catty-cornered from the incident in my building underground. My boyfriend did, however, notify me not to come get him because he was in lock-down next door to me in Randolph–an engineering building right across the sidewalk from Norris.
I agree that it seems sketchy from an outsider’s perspective of the whole response time issue, but from someone that goes to the school, know that it was a much larger situation than they show on CNN; they alerted us by email when they thought that the situation was under control (the AJ part of it).
I agree, Greg M., that no matter what, the “lone lunatic” was set on killing; but a response such as ours was more than expected–and, having been through high school directly following the Columbine incident, most students have practiced lock-down drills.
The students looked out for each other–and, just as in my boyfriend’s class that was to be in Norris at 10:10 (just after the incident)–our teachers have kept tabs on us as well, emailing about roll call and informing us individually.
Chains on stairwell doors was not exactly something that could’ve been planned for–the bomb threats that were warned (there was one for Torgersen–up the Drillfield a bit) and one for Whittemore/Durham–behind Randolph, the building across the sidewalk from Norris–pretty far back there) were not for Norris after all and there was no reason to believe any connection existed as the bomb threats were on corny days like the day after April Fools Day (April 1 was on Sunday) and Friday the 13th.
Mike Greyson • Apr 18, 2007 at 9:33 am
I don’t see a propensity of shootings to take place at schools versus other arenas of public life. A shopping mall, a grocery store, a public park, and sporting venues are all equally likely areas for such atrocities. The school examples are indeed highlighted and magnified because of the contextual aspects and the antisocial characteristics of the gunmen.
Also, what’s up with the Welty statement? Doesn’t his administration have its fair share of fish to fry and concerns to resolve? Yeah, the shooting happened at a state university and we just happen to be a state university. Other links between our campuses? Not so prevalent. This man needs to focus on his shortcomings as president. We’re a freaking commuter campus that puts an emphasis on using security resources to direct traffic at minor league hockey games at the Save Mart Center.
This campus doesn’t take security seriously. Case in point: try walking from the dorms to fraternity row after dark. This school can’t even uphold its claimed “safe lighting path” near Bulldog Stadium. I don’t know if finances are an issue, but that matter of safety should come before all else. In the years to come, a young student will likely be violently attacked or raped, and we’ll all ask what could have been done. It’ll be forgotten just like all other issues have been swept under the rug. Instead, we’ll invest university dollars on some idiodic marquee on the corner of Cedar and Barstow. Keep it simple, Fresno State. Common sense protection for students.
Mike Greyson • Apr 18, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I don’t see a propensity of shootings to take place at schools versus other arenas of public life. A shopping mall, a grocery store, a public park, and sporting venues are all equally likely areas for such atrocities. The school examples are indeed highlighted and magnified because of the contextual aspects and the antisocial characteristics of the gunmen.
Also, what’s up with the Welty statement? Doesn’t his administration have its fair share of fish to fry and concerns to resolve? Yeah, the shooting happened at a state university and we just happen to be a state university. Other links between our campuses? Not so prevalent. This man needs to focus on his shortcomings as president. We’re a freaking commuter campus that puts an emphasis on using security resources to direct traffic at minor league hockey games at the Save Mart Center.
This campus doesn’t take security seriously. Case in point: try walking from the dorms to fraternity row after dark. This school can’t even uphold its claimed “safe lighting path” near Bulldog Stadium. I don’t know if finances are an issue, but that matter of safety should come before all else. In the years to come, a young student will likely be violently attacked or raped, and we’ll all ask what could have been done. It’ll be forgotten just like all other issues have been swept under the rug. Instead, we’ll invest university dollars on some idiodic marquee on the corner of Cedar and Barstow. Keep it simple, Fresno State. Common sense protection for students.
Greg M. • Apr 18, 2007 at 9:00 am
I have to confess that I’m troubled but not surprised by the response of our Police Chief to the events at Virginia Tech. I take little comfort in reading that our own officers “would handle a similar situation in a similar manner.” The simple fact was that a murder took place on campus, the gunman was on the loose and the university and its police force determined that students and staff did not need to be informed for over 2 hours and then only in the form of an e-mail that made it sound like they just needed to be a little more careful. E-mail and campus infomail have proven modestly successful at keeping students informed of campus events and woefully inadequate in an emergency situation. Cell phone alert technology is a step in the right direction but remains insufficient. How many additional students came onto the Virginia Tech campus between 7:15 and 9:45? Could that number have been reduced had the university taken steps to steer students away from the area? While it is true that it is virtually impossible to “lock down” an entire campus, it is also true that while there was an active murder investigation on campus, with an unknown assailant on the loose, that classes could have been cancelled and buildings evacuated and locked long before the bulk of the murders took place nearly 3 hours later. The reasons given by Chief Huerta are excuses for the staus quo. We may not have lock down proceedures but do have evacuation plans for every building on campus. While an air horn on one side of campus may not be heard on the other side, horns or PA systems throughout campus could be heard. While many students might not sign up for a cell phone alert system, many would, and could help inform others. It is possible that these types of measures may not have been able to prevent the second set of shootings in Virginia. The actions of a lone lunatic set on killing others indiscriminantly and without regard to his own welfare are virtually impossible to predict. But it should also be evident that the actions taken were inadequate and needlessly put additional people in danger. There are far worse things than cancelling classes for a day. Just ask the families in Virginia.
Greg M. • Apr 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I have to confess that I’m troubled but not surprised by the response of our Police Chief to the events at Virginia Tech. I take little comfort in reading that our own officers “would handle a similar situation in a similar manner.” The simple fact was that a murder took place on campus, the gunman was on the loose and the university and its police force determined that students and staff did not need to be informed for over 2 hours and then only in the form of an e-mail that made it sound like they just needed to be a little more careful. E-mail and campus infomail have proven modestly successful at keeping students informed of campus events and woefully inadequate in an emergency situation. Cell phone alert technology is a step in the right direction but remains insufficient. How many additional students came onto the Virginia Tech campus between 7:15 and 9:45? Could that number have been reduced had the university taken steps to steer students away from the area? While it is true that it is virtually impossible to “lock down” an entire campus, it is also true that while there was an active murder investigation on campus, with an unknown assailant on the loose, that classes could have been cancelled and buildings evacuated and locked long before the bulk of the murders took place nearly 3 hours later. The reasons given by Chief Huerta are excuses for the staus quo. We may not have lock down proceedures but do have evacuation plans for every building on campus. While an air horn on one side of campus may not be heard on the other side, horns or PA systems throughout campus could be heard. While many students might not sign up for a cell phone alert system, many would, and could help inform others. It is possible that these types of measures may not have been able to prevent the second set of shootings in Virginia. The actions of a lone lunatic set on killing others indiscriminantly and without regard to his own welfare are virtually impossible to predict. But it should also be evident that the actions taken were inadequate and needlessly put additional people in danger. There are far worse things than cancelling classes for a day. Just ask the families in Virginia.