Why Didn’t They Fight?
by Richardson ~ April 22nd, 2007. Filed under: America.After reading several quotes from V-Tech students about what happened last week in Norris Hall, the question I asked myself repeatedly is; why didn’t they fight? I’m not judging, and I think this is a legitimate question.
Perhaps because Cho’s style was somewhat different than, for example, the Columbine shooters, it didn’t occur to them. In this case, Cho went from classroom to classroom, and some of these students realized what was happening, and that their classroom was next
But putting myself in those shoes, I think I would have at least tried. Hiding behind a door and waiting for him to enter. Indeed, Professor Librescu knew what was happening and sacrificed himself for his students. If they had waited form him and thrown books, chairs, whatever they could find, and rushed him, things could have been much different. Again, I’m not judging or blaming, and perhaps that would be impractical. I don’t know what the classrooms look like, so I can’t say for sure.
After 9/11 it became much less likely that passengers would allow a plane to be hijacked, so perhaps the same is true of classroom shooting like the one in Virginia Tech’s Norris Hall.
Two side notes.
- A member of our church has a son at V-Tech. He was at class when the first two murders took place in his dorm, and was supposed to be at class in Norris Hall later, but someone (erroneously) told him that class was canceled, so he went back to the dorm to sleep. In that way he avoided both kill zones.
- A 2002 shooting at he Appalachian School of Law, also in Virginia, saw three people get killed, but the shooter was stopped by two students who retrieved firearms from vehicles.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I was thinking about that early today.
Just one persons opinion: Americans are not taught, that in these enlightened times, they will ever need to stand their ground, or in other ways need to defend themselves. That is the job of the Federal and State Governments.
It was the same on 9/11 in the planes, except for flight 93. Flight 93 had warnings by phone and knew death was minutes away. They fought and went down on their terms, since escape was impossable.
Prior to 9/11, passangers were instructed to do nothing. That has changed. But on the groung we are still expected to do nothing. The Feds, cops, firefighters, WHATEVER, will save you.
John Wayne is dead and all that the actor expressed in his characters seems to have left the building as well.
The Federal Government couldn’t be happier. The Sheepdogs are gone and the sheep are ripe for the slaughter.
We will spend endless days talking of how to protect the sheep. We may decide to take the right to “———-” away and put them in pins.
We will be able to keep an eye on them. When the Wolf finds them in their pens, maby the federals will be able to stop him/her/it. Wouldn’t want to bet my life on it.
I know, lets write some laws, prohibit something = guns, video games, or maby put people in jail if they seem too quite, or have served in the military, or had sad childhoods. Pick one!
Why didn’t they fight back? They didn’t believe they needed to untill it was too late. If THREE were willing to attack at the same time rather than run, who knows, but we are not taught, that what happened is possible, even tho it keeps repeating.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:29 am
Because we have taught our children that “violence is bad,” with the implication that meek submission to slaughter, i.e. “victimhood” is far nobler.
I was taught that violence in defense of good against the depredations of evil was noble.
This does not mean I go look for trouble: my mantra is always, “avoid, evade, escape, fight — in that order.” In other words, I always tried to avoid trouble; you won’t see me at a dive bar, looking for a fight. And when I see trouble coming my way, I will try to evade it. When that fails, I will attempt to escape. If cornered, I will fight my way through, if necessary, neutralizing the threat in the process (I suppose this is similar to the force continuum doctrine LEOs use).
When one carries a gun daily, one develops maturity and responsibility and learns to avoid trouble.
The only place I would go straight to the fight phase is on my own property. I have no duty to retreat in my own castle.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 am
I really don’t think it’s surprising at all. Some kids could have tried to throw books or chairs at him, but doing so would have only made them the obvious next target of his bullets. I’m guessing that quite a few students thought that hiding in a corner or lying on the floor would spare them without having to confront death head-on.
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I have a concealed carry permit, and these events have awakened me to the enormous responsibility that entails carrying a weapon. If people are threatened with death, you now bear the burden of putting yourself in harm’s way to protect those people. I’m not talking about vigilante-ism, only doing the right thing when confronted with a difficult choice.
Carrying a firearm, and being properly trained on how to use it are two very different things. It is easy to get a concealed weapons permit, but it takes dedication to learn how to effectively use the weapon. Hopefully, more Americans will be willing to take up this responsibility. In my mind, that is a more effective way to ensure our safety than to push gun control measures.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
James Na wrote:
“my mantra is always, “avoid, evade, escape, fight — in that order.”
Agree strongly.
“When one carries a gun daily, one develops maturity and responsibility and learns to avoid trouble.”
Disagree strongly. One absolutely does not need a gun to develop maturity and responsibility. Law enforcement officers, military personnel, and law-abiding citizens like you aren’t the only ones carrying guns; gangbangers, mobsters, and career criminals are usually armed, but I would not consider any of them mature or responsible.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
While I’m sure James will answer, I’d say that he did not say/mean that carrying a gun is required to develop maturity and responsibility. Also, and he didn’t state it in this thread, I believe the context of that statement was carrying a weapons as a concealed carry permit holder.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Yes and yes to what Richardson wrote.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:12 am
I was thinking the same thing. It somewhat baffles me that nobody thought of trying to bumrush Cho as he was entering the room.
Dan and James are both right. In this era of political correctness, being a victim is much more noble then actually fighting back. The victims at VT didnt recognize pure evil until it was too late. Every American should look at those pictures of Cho, because you will know what the face of evil looks like when you are confronted with it.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Well stated Richardson & James. I don’t want to judge, but I do not understand the lack of self-defense.
I’ve had the exact same thoughts, why didn’t they do something besides accept their fate? I know it is easy to arm-chair quaterback after the fact & I have no idea what the layout of Norris hall or it’s classrooms are…..so maybe there was nothing that they could do, but nobody attempted to confront him?
I read a quote that was attributed to President Eisenhower awhile back, & it’s source is questionable but the idea behind it is solid. “The best thing to do in any given situation is the right thing. The next best thing to do is the wrong thing….and the absolute worst thing to do is NOTHING.” I have a fair amount of experience with firearms & this idiot was going through ammo pretty fast……he was vulnerable during his reloads, that would’ve been a good time to do SOMETHING. I can’t imagine that after escape wasn’t a possiblity that I would’ve accepted being shot. I might have screwed up & done the wrong thing, but I can’t stomach the thought of being a still target for a madman bent on killing. Worst case scenario I meet my maker but I was probably dead anyway….best case the killing stops. Hopefully I’m never in a situation that requires me to make that decision, but I’m hoping that more people start to realize that accepting your fate isn’t noble, dying inspite of it might be but just allowing yourself to be shot is never a good thing.
The ironic portion of this is that conceal to carry is prohibited on college campuses…..so even if you had the training &/or means to defend yourself & others you’d be breaking the law in doing so. As I heard one person say recently, “The school is supposed to be a safe-haven that is free of violence & where students don’t have to worry about their safety.” Oddly enough evil people don’t share the same idealistic views as this person, they see it as a mass of people that have no means of adequately protecting themselves……just what predators like, sheep with no shepherds or dogs in their midst to provide any resistance. Like Dan says, the wolves thrive in this environment & only the good guys are going to worry about breaking the law……the bad guy took himself & therefore isn’t subject to it. So who is benefitting from this prohibition of conceal to carry anyway?
April 26th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Although it is hard to say for anyone what he or she would do in a life-threatening situation, I can’t help but think we are a bit brainwashed by pop culture in this regard. I think it’s easy to underestimate the effect of fear for one’s life. Believe me, I’d love to think I’d be the one heroically attempting to disarm the gunman and possibly sacrifice my life in the process, but honestly I find it much more likely that I’ll be scared shitless, paralyzed by fear and unable to think clearly. The instinct of life preservation isn’t rational, primarily it steers us away from danger, away from the gunman in this case. Overcoming this is going against one’s nature and just (I imagine) something very hard to do.
Like I said, it’s difficult to say what one would really do in such a situation, but I think we are a bit misled by the movies. Heroes aren’t that common.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Nony, I don’t doubt there’s not a lot of truth in your post. Mass panic & fear would be instinctual & hard to fight against…in the midst of sheer chaos & feeling the terror of all those around you it would be overwhelming (which is why the actions of the 9/11 first responders & Flight 93 are so heroic).
What I specifically, & I think Richardson & James (forgive me if I speak out of turn on this gents), were confused about what the lack of any resistance. Not someone heriocally saving the day a ‘la Bruce Willis in “Die Hard” fashion. Again I have no desire to judge anyone who was there that morning or their actions…..I’m just perplexed why no one offered up any resistance to stop this madman. Professor Librescu offered up the best he could but he was 76 years old….everyone else was passively accepting their fate……hoping Cho would overlook them.
The question I guess I’m digging at is whether this behavior is ingrained into this generation or is this symptomatic for humans as a whole? We have become a nation of softies within the last 40 years to be sure, but even so would things have been different had an event like this occurred 60 years ago? 100 years? 200 years ago? I don’t know. Certainly our gun laws would’nt have have been so restrictive then, so maybe not?
In response to the commonality of hereos in our society. Deep down though I believe, (& maybe this is where my confusion originates) that I walk next to heroes everyday. They just haven’t had the opportunity to display what they’re made of….and hopefully they’re never in a position where they have to. Not movie star heroes, but regular folk heroes are common…many live next door to us even now…..many more are serving in Iraq & Afghanistan. More yet lie dormant inside of each of us waiting to be awakened…….
April 26th, 2007 at 11:17 am
I believe and hope, that after fear set in, anger at the thought of someone trying to take my life, would consume me and push me to some defence. I have not, nor do I wish to find myself, in a situation such as this. So I don’t know.
Anger is more usefull than dispair. I can only hope I would not allow a 76 year old man to fight without giving aid in my own defence. If this sounds like I’m pointing fingers, I am sorry, and do not mean to offend.
For all I know, I would have been the first one out the window. But I hope not.
I know the death toll would have been lower, if he had been “confronted” with one armed individual, or three unarmed college students.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Amen Dan. My sentiments exactly. Well stated.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
The situations are not analogous, but I offer the following thought about meekness vs. anger.
I happen to be a big fan of the fight game (MMA/NHB).
In the realm of mental conditioning, as opposed to technical skill or conditioning, I have observed three kinds of fighters.
There are fighters who are great when they are winning and beating their opponents. They look smooth, slick and invincible… until they get cracked in the head once and, worse, get cut and start seeing their own blood. Then the fight just drains out of them, they get blurry-eyed, and you can tell they just want to get out of the ring/cage/Octagon. They often go fetal and wait until the ref stops the fight.
Then there is the opposite type. These fighters seem almost lackadaisical in the early part of the fight. Once they get rocked, however, they wake up, get angry, and go after their opponents. They get that red in their eyes and go berserk. Sometimes in their wild anger, however, they make mistakes and get caught.
The third type is the scariest — these are the fighters with those calm, dead, cold, almost shark-like eyes. Win, lose, they don’t care. They just fight and fight. A lot of Russian MMA/NHB fighters are like this — the prime example being the current Pride Fighting Championship heavyweight champion Fedor Emelianenko (see the video of his fights here). These guys are dangerous, because they calmly recover and reverse when in danger and methodically tear apart their opponents when the latter are hurt (you can see that about Fedor in the video).
Now, what’s this got to do with V-Tech?
I have noticed that most people fall into the first category. They are very good when they are on the winning side, but as soon as you hurt them a little, they go fetal. They just want to “check out” of reality until it’s all over. This sounds very cold, I know, but they are sheep-like in panic when attacked viciously.
Fewer people fit the second category. They are the ones who get “righteous anger” when attacked and fight like cornered lions. They are the kind of people we needed at V-Tech. They are the kind of people who run to their cars, retrieve their guns and confront the mass murderers.
As for the third type, the dead-eyed predators, they are fewer still (and thank goodness for that). They are either champion fighters or lone hunters or… cold serial killers.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:25 am
Not a bad analogy James….not perfect, as I think there are degrees of types of people in the world. I’d say most people are somewhere between 1 & 2, and not 1 OR 2…..but I still like the idea you posit.
I’m a big fan of MMA as well & Fedor is everything you say… & in the words of Mirko “Cro Cop” Filipovic, “Everyone has a plan until they get hit. (he said this just before he was knocked out in the 1st round of his last fight). So he lends credence to your #2 tpye of person in your analogy.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:17 am
Interesting categorization of types of fighters. But I believe you overlook one thing though : not all people are fighters. I don’t know if this is a cultural difference (I’m from across the pond), or whether I’m an exceptionally coward person, but I still believe the majority of people aren’t fighters (at all) and prefer to avoid conflict at all times.
How is it possible that in a hostage situation one person with a gun is able to contain groups of people? Surely if all of them would attack the gunman he would be under control in no time?
Firstly, someone would have to go in first and will most likely get shot, or worse killed. Who is that person? And more importantly, in such a chaotic situation, how do you organize a group to attack at once?
Like I said before, the difference of our attitudes might be caused by a bit of a cultural divide between us (I’m from Europe). I believe, and I think it’s a more common attitude here, that the less guns people have, the safer everyone is. Granted, if everyone would carry a gun, shootings might come down, but it is a kind of ’safety’ that I personally wouldn’t wish for.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:51 pm
That was a beautifully timed head kick Gabriel Gonzaga delivered — a little taste of Cro Cop’s own medicine.
The ankle that was twisted 180 degrees as Cro Cop went night-night was quite a sight.
I have always maintained that you only need a double-barrel shotgun for riot control — one shot for that first idiot who makes a move, and must be shot for demonstration purposes, and the reserve shot for the dare to the rest of the crowd to follow the first idiot (having said that, my personal anti-riot gun is a Romanian knockoff of AKM with 10 30-round magazines — I say, why take the chance?).
In any case, I disgree with the analogy to a hostage situation. Most people assume a certain rationality with hostage-takers — that there will eventually be a negotiation and a peaceful resolution to the situation. They think that there is no need to take unnecessary risks to confront a hostage-taker when it is not clear the latter intends to kill at all.
With a mad gunman shooting up a school or a diner, everyone should understand instinctively that there is no negotiation or peaceful resolution. If a crazy gunman is going from room to room, you either escape (if you can) and help others to do the same or, if cornered, you set up an ambush with improvised weapons (chairs, broomsticks, pocket knives, etc.).
Afterall, what is there to lose? If he does come into the room, and you do nothing, you are dead anyway.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:58 am
Kenneth Eng, complete whack job, has this to say about the incident:
“[The shooting is the] funniest thing I ever read in my life… I am laughing at the death of your people. I can imagine all those families crying. Hilarious. Simply hilarious.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp2ZvAqsIBE
You can buy his book on Amazon.com.
Why?