Author Topic: Survivor talks about Virginia Tech massacre (Read 865 times)

AquaShrimp · « **on:** April 18, 2007, 08:59:00 AM »

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c45_1176890967

One the very few people to survive in one of the rooms, this guy talks about what happened. He says the gunman was able to reload his 22 weapon within a matter of 2 seconds after he ran out of rounds executing the people.

I think this guy probably served in the military, as he refers to the parts of the weapon as "magazines" and "rounds", not clips and bullets. Perhaps his training helped him survive, as he took cover as soon as it began.

Yeager · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2007, 10:29:37 AM »

I have already heard of two people that survived the rampage who owned firearms but were not carrying them because they were obeying campus rules prohibiting the carrying of firearms on campus. And so the story goes eh.....

Too bad there was no security perons in the building who were armed during the shooting. Might have saved many lives.

cav58d · « **Reply #2 on:** April 18, 2007, 12:04:10 PM »

Yea but Yeager, any college student will tell you, especially at a place like VT, prior to this, no one would have ever imagined this would happen, sort of like 9/11 in regards to having armed security in buildings. Hell, places like Yale which are downtown watermelon hole New Haven don't even have armed security guards in the buildings....And to be honest. I don't think i'd want to go to a University where I have to walk past some dude with a gun every time I go to ENG 217 or PSC 430

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 18, 2007, 12:11:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
Yea but Yeager, any college student will tell you, especially at a place like VT, prior to this, no one would have ever imagined this would happen, sort of like 9/11 in regards to having armed security in buildings. Hell, places like Yale which are downtown watermelon hole New Haven don't even have armed security guards in the buildings....And to be honest. I don't think i'd want to go to a University where I have to walk past some dude with a gun every time I go to ENG 217 or PSC 430

You're forgetting about what happened at Penn State.

Roughly 10 years ago a whacked out coward sat in the bushes on the HUB lawn on a nice day and started shooting at people. She shot 2, killing one. Penn State STUDENTS rushed her and stopped her before she could do any more damage.

cav58d · « **Reply #4 on:** April 18, 2007, 12:16:18 PM »

Didn't even know that happened at Penn State, however, i'm not suprised about the students rushing the gunmen. I think at the college level, that is more inherently likely to happen. However, I still don't think its grounds to have armed security in every building on campus. And as a current college student, i'm holding my grounds on that one. There is no way in hell I want to go to a school where I walk past these guys every single day. Whats next? Metal detectors? X-ray machines for Soc 100? I have confidence that this was an extremely isolated issue, and 99.9% of college students will never personally experience an attack on their school like this during their academic career...It's a tough situation though, and I can understand where all sides are coming from.

BBBB · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2007, 12:30:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
You're forgetting about what happened at Penn State.

Roughly 10 years ago a whacked out coward sat in the bushes on the HUB lawn on a nice day and started shooting at people. She shot 2, killing one. Penn State STUDENTS rushed her and stopped her before she could do any more damage.

<--- Penn State grad..I remember that. But it did not grab headlines so the story was forgotten.
In fact I went to Penn State with one of the VT vics. I knew him, not that well, but I knew him. Jeremy Herbstritt. He was a good guy.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/04/04-18-07tdc/04-18-07dnews-04.asp

-Sp0t

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2007, 12:42:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BBBB
<--- Penn State grad..I remember that. But it did not grab headlines so the story was forgotten.
In fact I went to Penn State with one of the VT vics. I knew him, not that well, but I knew him. Jeremy Herbstritt. He was a good guy.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/04/04-18-07tdc/04-18-07dnews-04.asp

-Sp0t

I guess a killing rampage is only noteworthy if it breaks 10 kills.

Sting138 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2007, 01:32:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
I have already heard of two people that survived the rampage who owned firearms but were not carrying them because they were obeying campus rules prohibiting the carrying of firearms on campus. And so the story goes eh.....

Too bad there was no security perons in the building who were armed during the shooting. Might have saved many lives.

This is the exact reason I carry with a concealed permit and I feel it is every Americans duty to protect their "life" and property with deadly force if neccessary! Too many democrats and tree hugger anti gun morons screaming about gun controll and keeping guns out of Law Abiding citizens hands are exactly what led to 30+ people being killed in this tragedy. I do feel that if 1 or 2 students or teachers with concealed weapons and permits allowing them to do so could have neutralized or at least deterred this psycho from killing as many people as he did.

Just my 2 cents!

x0847Marine · « **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2007, 03:11:51 PM »

The police have no obligation to protect you, if you rely on them in an emergency you're as good as dead. Very very rarely are uniformed officers close enough to be effective. Even as they respond, they know much less than than the actual victims and will take valuable time to make sure they know who's who while being tactical... because we don't want the cops summarily shooting people they "think" are armed suspects.

The end result here is 30+ dead folks, but don't worry LONG after the fact there will be 100s of cops dressed like commandos standing around for hours.

In a situation like this a potential victim, who's armed, with "eyes on" the shooter is in a better position to take life saving action than the police are.

BTW have you seen some of the 'over the shoulder video' on the news of a few of those officers who were obviously too FAT waddling down the sidewalk out of breath while carrying AR-15s?, that's embarrassing.

Raise you hand if you want your life in the hands of some fatass who is physically incapable of running to save you..

BBBB · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2007, 03:23:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by x0847Marine
The police have no obligation to protect you.

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot..over? Does the term "To serve and PROTECT" ring any bells? The primary job of a police officer is to protect the public..even from themselves..hence speeding tickets. Man some of you guys have really lost touch with reality.

-Sp0t

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #10 on:** April 18, 2007, 03:31:25 PM »

This who incident is not about carrying weapons. CCW permit is a *reactive* measure. The incident is about letting a troubled boy slip through the cracks. The U.S. is in the forefront of psychological therapy and psychiatric medicine, and the best anyone could do for this kid was to prescribe him a simple anti-depressant? Thats garbage. We as Americans are supposed to look out for each other. Everyone saw the signs, his roommates, his professors, the girls he was stalking.

One psychiatrist said that this kid was a paranoid psychotic, and he could tell from looking at his writings that his mental health had been degrading for over a year and a half. Just the mere fact that this kid wouldn't ever speak, along with never having a meaningful relationship with anyone, is extremely unhealthy. Someone should have admitted him just for that problem alone (avoidant personality). Unfortunately the stresses of school, and seeing everyone else succeed where he had failed lead to his mental health degradation and he became suicidal and homicidal.

Maverick · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2007, 03:44:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BBBB
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot..over? Does the term "To serve and PROTECT" ring any bells? The primary job of a police officer is to protect the public..even from themselves..hence speeding tickets. Man some of you guys have really lost touch with reality.

-Sp0t

What he said happens to be true. A citizen does not have a reasonable expectation of individual security through the Police. It has already gone through the courts. The Officer serves the "public" in general, not an individual specifically. Besides under the system the Police cannot act until a "bad act" has been committed. Even in traffic a violation must occur before the car is stopped and a ticket issued.

RedTop · « **Reply #12 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:35:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
This who incident is not about carrying weapons. CCW permit is a *reactive* measure. The incident is about letting a troubled boy slip through the cracks. The U.S. is in the forefront of psychological therapy and psychiatric medicine, and the best anyone could do for this kid was to prescribe him a simple anti-depressant? Thats garbage. We as Americans are supposed to look out for each other. Everyone saw the signs, his roommates, his professors, the girls he was stalking.

One psychiatrist said that this kid was a paranoid psychotic, and he could tell from looking at his writings that his mental health had been degrading for over a year and a half. Just the mere fact that this kid wouldn't ever speak, along with never having a meaningful relationship with anyone, is extremely unhealthy. Someone should have admitted him just for that problem alone (avoidant personality). Unfortunately the stresses of school, and seeing everyone else succeed where he had failed lead to his mental health degradation and he became suicidal and homicidal.

Interesting take you have there.

Question tho.....

How are you supposed to admit him for help? Ask him to come with the butterfly net guys? Ask Nicley? Drive him to the place and just MAKE him go?

He wasn't hurting anyone other than making em feel creepy or scared somewhat. The crime of starting that fire was looked into. What some percieve as stalking of the women could have been percieved by others as persistance possibly.

I'm just wondering where this line is that would have to be crossed to admit him to help? Basically making him do it.

Any Idea?

x0847Marine · « **Reply #13 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:55:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BBBB
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot..over? Does the term "To serve and PROTECT" ring any bells? The primary job of a police officer is to protect the public..even from themselves..hence speeding tickets. Man some of you guys have really lost touch with reality.

-Sp0t

Look it up, there is case law on the subject. I spent 6 years pushing a holstein sled, you cant sue or otherwise hold the police responsible for failing to protect you.

Every Dept has a catchy slogan on their cars, it's not legally binding.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #14 on:** April 18, 2007, 05:00:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RedTop
Interesting take you have there.

Question tho.....

How are you supposed to admit him for help? Ask him to come with the butterfly net guys? Ask Nicley? Drive him to the place and just MAKE him go?

He wasn't hurting anyone other than making em feel creepy or scared somewhat. The crime of starting that fire was looked into. What some percieve as stalking of the women could have been percieved by others as persistance possibly.

I'm just wondering where this line is that would have to be crossed to admit him to help? Basically making him do it.

Any Idea?

Actually, it just came out that the Virginia Court ruled him mentally ill and "an imminent danger to himself or others" in 2005. A psychiatrist recommended that he be hospitalised for treatment. Yet he wasnt.