I mentioned in reference to the VA Tech shootings that the students were lined up against the wall and executed.
Well, Jason was kind enough to point out to me that nothing like that happened.
Instead - they simply got under their desks, trying to hide... and were killed.
But they weren't lined up against a wall and shot. That makes it better, I guess...
It seems to be an accepted arguing point that if something didn't happen exactly the way you describe it in your entry, that means your entire point is invalid. (Oh, how simple binary thinking is!) The students hid, but they weren't lined up against the wall, so the point I was trying to make about the passivity of their response is somehow negated.
According to the link Jason provided, there was one man who confronted the shooter. Again, that's supposed to be sufficient to blow my point away, that the students didn't fight back.
They didn't fight back.
Think about that. You hear a shooter coming for you - killing people along the way. Killing your friends, your classmates. And you do what you've been taught - wait for the police to handle it.
From Teaching a new doctrine in light of the Virginia Tech massacre
But the facts as they have come in since then do support the notion that the students did not confront the murderer. The Associated Press carried this story yesterday: “Dr. William Massello, the assistant state medical examiner based in Roanoke, said Sunday that Cho died … after firing enough shots to wound his 32 victims more than 100 times. … Those victims apparently did not fight back against Cho’s ambush. Massello said he did not recall any injuries suggesting a struggle. Many victims had defensive wounds, indicating they tried to shield themselves from Cho’s gunfire,” he said.Pre 9/11, the accepted method of dealing with a hijacking was to do everything the hijackers said. That's no longer an option. I've heard of 'crime prevention' courses which, when dealing with rape (or any crime, for that matter) emphasize that you do what the criminal wants - because you don't want to get the criminal mad at you....
“The gunman circled again and seemed to be unloading a second round into the wounded. Violand thought he heard the gunman reload three times.”
We've carefully conditioned a passive response to crime. Carjackings? Give the criminal your keys. Theft? Give the criminal what he wants. Rape? Lie there, and think of something pleasant. Murder? Run and hide, wait for the cops... but under no circumstances fight back!
At what point is the price of passive resistance to crime insupportable? How many students would be alive today if they'd been taught to fight back?
J.
Comments (2)
Your original point was about the psychology of the victims, and to that end, I think there is a huge difference between lining up and waiting to be shot, and hiding. One is fatalism, and one is flight.
It may not be a serious distinction, to you, and that's okay. I thought a big point you were making in your original post was about fatalism, and so if I'm wrong about that, I retract my own points. Your point seems instead to be about cowardice, and I can't argue with that, except to say that one of the great things about the American way of life is that we don't actually need civilians to be in a constant state of readiness to fight off an attacker. It's something that most of us value very highly, and we don't let a couple crazy freaks change it for everyone.
Posted by Jason | May 1, 2007 12:58 PM
Posted on May 1, 2007 12:58
Fatalism's as good a description as anything else, I guess.
The acceptance of one's fate - giving up and hoping for divine intervention or someone ELSE to do something. Being passive in the face of danger, not attempting to save yourself or others.
Cowardice? Fatalism? I don't know. But hiding is NOT flight. Flight means actually leaving the scene, not curling up in a small ball and pretending you're not there.
"that one of the great things about the American way of life is that we don't actually need civilians to be in a constant state of readiness to fight off an attacker. "
That's changed, Jason. Oh, certainly not a constant state - it's not like there's wild bears roaming around, after all - but you still need to be aware of the dangers, and be ready to react in an appropriate manner. And even if you're someplace you think is safe, like a 'gun-free school zone', strictly enforced by a zero-tolerance policy, it's still possible to find yourself under attack.
"It's something that most of us value very highly, and we don't let a couple crazy freaks change it for everyone."
Um, yeah.
Air travel used to be fun. Now it's a damn chore, something to be avoided if possible. But I have no doubt that some enjoy the hassles, caused by some crazy freaks that changed it for everyone.
The world is rarely as simple as we might wish it to be, and even less rarely as we are taught to perceive it. Best thing to do is approach it with an open mind, and try to understand that what we may want to believe may very well be harmful to our health.
J.
Posted by JLawson | May 2, 2007 12:27 AM
Posted on May 2, 2007 00:27