Posted on 04/19/2007 3:00:24 PM PDT by ventanax5
There weren’t enough available at any one moment to rush him with his two guns and his methodology.
Did you note where the roomates said he was working out in the gym. He was in pretty good shape.
Also the one teacher came down from the 3rd floor, it said he had military training and he was dead. This kid was persistant.
I was thinking that someone could have, after holding the door, then slip away from the door like in the movies. Then when he opened the door they could slam the door on him as he came through.
But who is thinking like that. The guy walks in the room, just walks up to people and starts shooting them. Nobody expects that, they expect him to ask a question, you think you could answer correctly, or reason, or talk him out of it, but there was nothing like that. No chance to be valiant, just time to dive under the desk.
I kind of liked the headline. It says someone was either resigned or prepared to die, but had some sort of, not finality, not peace, but a resolve about it.
It reminded me of a story a friend told me about scuba diving. He was on his first real dive, with two friends and two flashlights. They were going into a cave, and at some point he turned wrong and was separated.
Sitting in the cave, under water, in the pitch black, with 20 minutes of air, he realised he was going to die. He said knowing it was actually “peaceful”. Of course, he knew where he was going.
Fortunately, his friends found him. And fortunately, this person didn’t die under that table.
I can’t imagine having to live with the horror these kids will live with, having watched that, having that nagging doubt about what they might have done differently. I hope they realise they did what they had the power to do, and nobody has the right to tell them they needed to do differently.
Throwing a book was probably a death warrant. People survived when he left the room. Anything you did that would keep him in the room for another go-round just meant that you’d get a bullet and probably the other guy next to you that was shot but was surviving.
Without a real weapon, your only hope against a well-armed highly fit man is that he’s a lousy shot. And this kid seemed to be a good shot, and very fit.
Maybe you could hit him when he came through the door if you knew he was coming, but if you knew he was coming to the door, the higher probability of survival for your group was to seal the door. All the people alive in the one room after he left stayed alive by sealing the door. Most of the other class survived because one man sealed the door until he couldn’t hold it anymore. Another entire class survived because they were able to put a large enough desk at the door to stop him from getting in at all.
The ex-military from the 3rd floor died trying to confront the student, according to the story. The AJ RA died in that dorm room trying to confront the student.
I’m not going to fault 20 surviving 20-year-olds for not attacking the guy, when the university banned them from having the one thing that would have made that mission something less than a suicide mission, meaning a gun of their own.
The people on flight 93 knew they were dead if they didn’t act, and they did a brave thing and died.
Here people lived by doing the “cowardly” (to some people) thing. Surviving was a noble endeavor on this day. As bad as we feel as a nation, we feel better knowing that some people were able to thwart this sick man’s game, to live to tell the tale. 32 dead is horrible, but 50 dead would be worse. They win by not dying.
Interesting post.
thanks..
Idle and sad speculation on your part. Inaction was the death warrant of many that morning -- that we know.
We have the stories of the living. None of them threw books. Some played dead, or just hid under desks. attacking the shooter could not have had a better outcome than that for those who survived.
That we know.
We don’t know exactly what every one of the dead people did. One of them held a door shut, one of them confronted the shooter instead of staying safe on the 3rd floor.
That we know.
None of them had a gun, because people who never have to worry about being in a situation where they need a gun decided everybody would be safer if nobody was allowed to have a gun.
That we know.
And we know that, for those who had enough time to think, many of them reacted admirably and saved themselves and others, by barring the doors.
That we know.
Everything about throwing books, using non-existant fire exinguishers, rushing a guy with two semi-automatic weapons — that’s the speculation.
No time given when the police entered the building.
Crap, this has been bugging me for a while now so I’ll let it go and wait for the flames.
The Prof that had his students flee and was killed in the process (The Holocaust survivor) chose for his students to flee and not fight.
What I would like to know (won’t happen) did he think they were too wimpy to fight and flee was their only option?
He is being hailed as a hero for saving his class but the guy went on to kill many more.
I know he was a hero, but could he have mounted some sort of defense against this killer?
We talk about how the next plane hijackers are going to have a fight on their hands. I am not so sure.
I doubt it “Walt.” I am drawing Social Security.
Somebody really needed to get this dude drunk about 300 times. Then maybe get him a hooker.
My post was specifically in response to the section in which Violand describes Cho methodically moving through the classroom shooting people, and reloading 3 times. (Hence my choice of a French book.)
It seems from the accounts that most of the classrooms were not configured so that running was really feasible. I did list diving for cover first.
But, it struck me that the circumstance in another era would have prompted thoughts of desparate heroism in the soon-to-be victims, while with a few exceptions, in ours did not.
Throwing something and drawing attention to yourself might have been a death warrant, but being prepared to throw something, or in some other way go down fighting if he looked at your hiding place and raised a gun seems either heroic prudence or heroic desparation.
He was commenting on my first post to this thread, which was, as I pointed out in my last post, motivated specifically by Violand’s description of Cho moving ‘methodically’ through the room shooting people, and reloading three times.
Of course you dive for cover first. The question is what then? and why there seem to have been few thoughts of desparate heroism once the students were on the floor and thought their own deaths inevitable as he moved through the classroom shooting people who had already hit the floor?
That about sums it up.
Option C works best for me.
I don’t think we know for certain that some people did NOT jump at him. We have only the reports of the living, people who dove under desks and hid. They didn’t see what the other students did.
Maybe among the dead are students who decided that throwing a book was a good idea, or jumping the guy when he got close, or just running at him.
The early reports of him “lining up the students and then shooting them” appears false by this story — in none of the classes is there any indication he did anything more than step through the door and start shooting people.
I’ve been in some of those classrooms. If there was a fire you’d be lucky to get out in a minute with all the desks in the way. In some the desks are bolted down in rows that mean you either have to jump over them or walk to the end of the row to move up or down.
Reloading with his guns was an easy task. There is little indication he took his eyes off the students when he reloaded, or that both guns were empty when he reloaded. In at least one case it seems he walked out the door to reload. He seems to have been well-organized.
We’d all feel better if the story ended with a group of students pummeling him. But I don’t think there is a character flaw revealed in what actually happened.
If there is any fault other than for the gunman, it is for those who never sit in those classrooms who decided that there should be no guns for protection.
We know -- read the article -- that many who were shot, lay there and were shot again and again and again. Once shot they "played dead", then Cho made sure they were dead.
We know -- ever try it? I have -- that shooting pistols in both hands is highly inaccurate.
We know the value of aiming -- which takes a second, more or less -- to getting even one shot on a stationary target.
We know that any thing that broke the shooter's tempo, that distracted him, caused one and more shots to go astray.
Time for some to run -- to crawl away even.
That's why you advice is terrible. And it was advice.
When -- G-d forbid -- you or anyone is in such a situation, MOVE! RUN AWAY! THROW THINGS!
"He stood in front and kept firing, barely moving. ... it took about a minute and a half."
Cho left the room, the student then did fight back -- they, Perkins, and two others, pushed the table against the door. They held it when Cho tried to return. He tried, he shot through the door. With their legs they held it closed, desperately. Cho left, they lived.
ACTION saved their lives.
ACT and live!
Nothing special about South Korea. Look on the bright side: Americans are liked and appreciated in China and Russia.
Americans MONEY is liked and appreciated in China and Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.