home

Breaking: Virginia Tech Shootings

Bump and Update (TL): 33 dead (including the shooter). I just got to the airport to fly back to Denver and this is all over the tv monitors. It's now officially the largest mass shooting in U.S. history. The gunman is dead.

Second update (TChris): 28 additional victims were taken to the hospital. It isn't clear whether the shooter was responsible for bomb threats earlier this week.

The first two victims were killed at about 7:15 a.m. local time at West Ambler Johnston dormitory, Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said. Police said they didn't close the campus because they believed it was an isolated incident and the shooter had left the grounds.

"We secured the building, we secured the crime scene," Flinchum said. "You can second guess all day. We acted on the best information we had."

More here.

original post:

Tragic news at Virginia Tech:

At least 20 people were killed this morning at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University after a shooting spree at two buildings on the campus. ... The university's Web site later posted a notice that 22 had been confirmed dead.

< Judging Free Speech | Checkpoints or Guns? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't mean to (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:23:48 PM EST
    sound insensitive, but it sounds like an average morning in post-invasion Baghdad. How the f**k am I supposed to feel?

    In Baghdad.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    this happens every day.

    Parent
    More like (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    twice a day.

    Parent
    Iraq (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:29:20 PM EST
    I don't see how anyone with a heart can not compare this to what is going on in Iraq on a twice daily basis. Because the VA tragedy is so great it should be a wake up call to those who are callous to the killing in Iraq.

    Is it that people here are inured to the war, bored insensitive by four years of daily blood shed? Or is it that the value of American life is greater than those in Iraq?

    No it does not take away from the tragedy in VA to make analogies to Iraq, for me anyway. It makes what sometimes seems so far away up close and real.

    Parent

    It happened in my department in 1991. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by JSN on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    Three of my colleagues an administrator who I had worked with and two former students were killed (one by suicide) and a young undergraduate woman was made a quadriplegic. So I have some idea of what will happen to the survivors and the community.

    In our case we had lots of support I hope the same is true for VPI.

    How sad..... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    They have a beautiful campus down in Blacksburg...I had the pleasure a few years back at a Miami vs Tech game.  I met a lot of cool, friendly people.  What a shame, what a waste.  

    I don't know if it's terrorism or run of the mill mass murder...but does the motivation of the bastard killer(s) really matter?  Not to the victims...

    All I know for sure is human beings are the most depraved, savage animals on earth when we want to be.

    No kidding (none / 0) (#37)
    by peacrevol on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:41:45 PM EST
    I don't know if it's terrorism or run of the mill mass murder...but does the motivation of the bastard killer(s) really matter?  Not to the victims...

    well said sir.

    (lawyers...) :/

    Parent

    Decency? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:49:05 PM EST
     Can't you folks at least let the blood dry before engaging in petty political arguments?

    They're not petty. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Al on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:53:30 PM EST
    They have to do with the definition of terrorism, which is of vital importance.

    Parent
    ironic -- but i am put in mind of scooter libby. . (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by the rainnn on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:04:11 PM EST
    terrorism definitions
    are important, al, but
    these are people -- not
    arguments.

    people.

    scooter libby treated
    valerie plame as an argument,
    not a person.  he said so.

    let's not do the same.

    i wish the victims,
    their families, and all
    people of good will, every-
    where. . .  p e a c e.


    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by TexDem on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:41:43 PM EST
    You said it better than I.

    Parent
    i guess i should stay out of this. . . (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by the rainnn on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    but having departed from the
    advice given by my father, long
    ago, about lawyers. . . i went
    and became one. . . gentlemen,
    one and all, this is why so many
    americans hold lawyers in low-
    esteem. . . in my estimation.

    there are 32 people dead, as many
    as 20 more injured.

    i do understand points about gun-vio-
    lence, and i do understand the impor-
    tance of comparing it to bagdahd, and
    i do agree that the experience would be
    terrifying in the extreme. . . i also
    agree that we do not yet know whether
    the shooter's intent was to make a
    political, as opposed to simply randomly,
    insane terorrizing, killing moment unfold.

    i also agree that mr. bush talks alot
    about making things safer and does little
    to actually acheive that end.

    okay -- may we, the collective "we",
    now -- please stop parsing statutory language?

    there are at least 31 families whose losses
    are not larger, nor smaller, for all your
    efforts, here, gentlemen.  to my eye, the
    entire discussion looks to lack a little
    "real-peoples' concerns" perspective.

    but that is just my perspective, here. . .

    how about both of you simply offer your
    concern for the families, and the victims,
    and hold on to the lawyers' quibbles for a
    few moments/days/weeks. . .

    they will keep.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:00:44 PM EST
    That's where I started in this thread.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    the rainnn, I agree with almost everything in your comment. I responded only because I was offended at Bill's attempt to make phoney political points by pretending that this event is terrorism before we have any evidence that such is the case. Things sort of snowballed from there.

    I will now step back for a few hours. I hope we'll know more about the killer later.

    Parent

    Bill A and edger are now lawyers (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:30:45 PM EST
    och = Bill A and edger are NOT lawyers (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:31:14 PM EST
    ranin (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:43:55 PM EST
    i do understand the impor-
    tance of comparing it to bagdahd,

    Why? Please enlighten me?

    Are you trying for transference of the killings in VA Tech today to Baghdad?

    Parent

    like a rainbow trout in the rockies. . . (none / 0) (#70)
    by the rainnn on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:56:33 PM EST
    . . .this fish will not
    bite that fly -- not tonight,
    jim -- cast your fly-line
    elsewhere. . .  

    nope, no bunion-bug #3 fancy. . .

    and, in one silvery flash
    beneath the icy surface of
    the headwaters of the arkansas,
    this rainbow vanished. . .


    Parent

    ranin (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:19:37 PM EST
    Your non-answer, Bill A's,  edger's, and Che's  comments are all the answer I need.

    One of the reasons I left the Democratic party years ago was that I saw the Left take it over, and suddenly every thing was subordinate to politics and the goal, then it was losing the Vietnam war.

    I could understand the differences of the war, but the actions were beyond belief. I still remember Kerry and his, we now know, fictious coments.

    Now we have this and it is supposed to remind of us of Baghdad.

    Baghdad is a war. You can argue about it forever, but the facts are that no matter why it started, it is being furthered by Iraqi and other terrorists who think they can get control by killing innocent people. They further believe that the Demo party will get control and force us out, leaving them to kill millions, as happened in Vietnam.

    The murders here have nothing to do with anything like that, and the attempted use of the dead for politcal means in this tragedy is despicable.

    Parent

    Despicable. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:06:30 AM EST
    the attempted use of the dead for politcal means in this tragedy is despicable.
    Then why are you doing exactly that?

    Parent
    yes. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:13:48 PM EST
    Let me get this straight.... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:12:43 PM EST
    if and when the killer's motives come to light, if they shot all those innocent people because they "felt like it", its not terrorism, just murder.  If they shot all those innocent people because "god hates gays" or "chickens are suffering in the cafeteria" its terrorism?

    The whole argument is retarded to me...lets forget this "war on terror" business and kill two birds with one stone and declare "war on murder".  How bout that?

    War on Murder (none / 0) (#51)
    by Peaches on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:33:37 PM EST
    They gotta war for oil, a war for gold
    A war for money and a war for souls
    A war on terror, a war on drugs
    A war on kindness and a war on hugs
    A war on birds and a war on bees
    They gotta a war on hippies tryin' save the trees
    A war with jets and a war with missiles
    A war with high seated, government official
    Wall street war, on high finance
    A war on people who just love to dance
    A war on music, a war on speech
    A war on teachers and the things they teach
    A war for the last 500 years
    War's just messin' up the atmosphere
    A war on Muslims, a war on Jews
    A war on Christians and Hindus
    A whole lotta people just sayin' kill them all
    They gotta a war on Mumia Abu Jamal
    The war on pot, is a war that's failed
    A war that's fillin' up the nations jails
    World war one, two, three and four
    Chemical weapons, biological war
    Bush war 1, Bush war 2
    They gotta a war for me, they gotta a war for you!

    (chorus)
    We can't stop it when the beat just drops!
    And we don't stop
    We can't stop it when the rebel rock!
    And we don't stop
    We can't stop until we hit those heights!
    And we don't stop
    We can't stop because we love this life!

    Dance to the new day
    Sing to the new day, Rhyme to the new day
    Transform hell into heaven God lives through,
    Grab hold of today
    Yesterday is over, tomorrow may be too late
    Everything is one but the one is off balance
    Music made for the dollar like soul and talent
    Really ain't it all about a feeling you was havin'
    as a child runnin' wild
    Before the mind programmin' set in
    Threatenin' your establishment
    Get in this energy, lay back and sit
    The next men wreckin', to the master's lips
    Head spin breathren, get to askin' if
    Where, when, Mr. President, "What do you know?"
    It's evident settin' in slow, "How does it go?"
    An unprecedented event is about to unfold
    The devil can't stop, won't stop blockin' the globe
    Fall in a cell here
    Freedom come knockin' at the door
    They try lockin' it though, but we about to explode
    We got the firefly, tiger eye apocalypse flow
    So deep in the bottom of your bottomless soul
    send mind darts flyin' out, without a pistol
    Redesign lost minds got outta the cold
    Bring order to a world that is outta control
    "Truth" you say, I say, "How do I know?"

    (chorus)

    I wanna rock with punks because I love punk rock
    I wanna rock with heads because I love hip hop
    I wanna rock my beats all around the block
    If I was in Bagdad then I would rock Iraq
    I wanna rock with punks because I love punk rock
    I wanna rock with heads because I love hip hop
    I wanna rock my beats all around the block
    There is just one love so the planet we rock

    New world days and new world nights
    New world wrongs and new world rights
    Putting new world funds in the new world banks
    With the new world guns on the new world tanks
    New world devils and new world gods
    New world jails see the new worlds hard
    New world names sing the new world songs
    New world planes are the new world bombs
    New world's flying, the new world's dying
    The new world's crying and the new world's trying
    New world sons and new world daughters
    They are already selling us the new world water
    New world beats for the new world to bang
    New world streets for the new world to hang
    New world president, new world drugs
    New world resident, new world thugs
    New world players for new world sports
    New world trials for the new world courts
    New world lawyers and new world laws
    New world prisons and new world bars
    New world fight the new world's fists
    The new world lighting up the new world spliffs
    New world smoke in the new world lungs
    New world's choking, the new world's done

    Michael Franti

    We Don't Stop


    Parent

    An act of domestic terrorism. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    I know this won't do any good after the manner in which I was vilified by so many here, but had you looked at the facts instead of attacking me you may have seen why I said it was terrorism:

    He had freshly bought weapons and ammo, plenty of it.
    He bought chains and padlocks to secure doors, a sign certain he intended to kill as many as possible.
    He left an 8-page note, not something you do on short notice, so again, planning shows intent.
    He did kill as many people as he could before committing suicide.

    Now it is revealed that he made a rather traditional "death tape" that he had already mailed at the time of the shooting, the same type of death tape made by suicide bombers.

    So, if any of y'all can tell me the difference between a planned suicide shooting and a planned suicide bombing, both intended to strike terror in the hearts and minds of so many, I might allow as to maybe have misspoken. But I did not misspeak, the filters of my life-experiences kicked in immediately and I know an act of terrorism when I see one.

    Some of you here got it, some of you don't want to see the holy oxen of bush/cheney gored. These are the people who have so distorted the use of the words terror, terrorism, and terrorists that textbook and time proven analysis of the facts that define terrorism have become twisted and meaningless.

    This was an act of domestic terrorism falling four square into the parameters marking domestic terrorism as defined by the statute supplied by Gabrial above.

    (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that--
         (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
          (B) appear to be intended--
            (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
             (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
             (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
          (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

    Four square under the law. An act of domestic terrorism. So, vilified or not, I was entirely correct in my assessment, but I ain't gonna hold my breath waiting for any of y'all to admit you were wrong.

    To review: The perp planned well in advance and executed a suicide shooting, a violation of law that obviously not merely "appear[ed] to intend" but was actually intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, actually affected the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (how many agencies became involved? State, federal, local, more?), and it occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

    Got milk?

    Bill (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    Bill,

    Half of the outrage that your post created was because at that point in time we knew none of the facts that you now use to claim it qualifies as domestic terrorism.

    The blood hadn't even dried and you'd already decided that it was "Bush/Cheney's" fault. It was shameful politics at the worst possible moment. That's part of why I was outraged.

    The other part of my outrage comes because I don't believe that a rampage by a lone crazy person becomes terrorism simply because he possesses a political opinion. For it to be terrorism, the terrorist must have a political objective separate from his desire to simply kill bunches of people.

    Finally, it is sloppy thinking to describe this fellow as "Christofascist" simply because he referenced Christ. It is similarly fallacious to claim that he somehow represents the Christian religions. That's just one more attempt to use this atrocity score cheap political points.

    Parent

    That is utter BS and you know it. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Edger on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    Bill did not make any claim that it "Bush/Cheney's" fault. Shame on you.

    Parent
    S'okay, Edger, not one of these remarks... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    ...comments about the analysis showing that the facts fall squarely within the legal U.S. definition of domestic terror-nowhere in the law does it say that a domestic terrorist has to be state-sponsored, religious or for money or otherwise-but it is a common failing for people to see and read only that which freely fits within their preconceived notions.

    And Gabe, if you missed the report that Cho had chained the doors shut and padlocked them, a sure sign of pre-planning with the intent of trapping victims within the building or room for slaughter, well, what can I say? I alerted on that immediately and noted my reasoning above in #91. Or do you think it is common for students to just happen to have several chains and padlocks on hand? And to buy weapons and ammunition in advance, just in case? Just because I didn't have to wait until today's reports to realize this was a planned suicide shooting doesn't mean I was wrong, just that you and I have vastly different life experiences, and it would not be fair to blame you for your youth and lack of experience with the violent nature of people who would commit such crimes. I have dealt with them in one form or another for almost all of my adult life. So your insults are wasted on me. Spend 30+ years tracking down, arresting people like this, and doing it alone, no back-up or help and then come talk to me.

    And, BTW, NO ONE picked up the gauntlet to tell me the difference between a planned suicide shooting and a planned suicide bombing. I strongly suspect it is because there is none, the intent is the same, only the method differs.

    But I expected that NO ONE would genuinely read what was written and follow the analysis that clearly marks this as an act of domestic terrorism as defined by the government, not me. I didn't write the statutes, just as none of the people here did, but I'm to blame for pointing out the proper application of the statute's provisions? By government definition this was an act of domestic terrorism.

    I find that I am neither wrong nor disappointed, with a couple of notable exceptions. The rest of you are free to think what you want of me, I could not care less, but Peaches, I would respectfully point out that it is bush/cheney that have diminished and changed and cheapened the import of the word terrorism, not me. But, as you will. Believe what you want, I'll not criticize you or vilify you as others, including you, have done here to me.

    But don't blame me for applying the government's own words to this situation, plain words that define this as domestic terrorism. And isn't reading and applying the plain meaning of ordinary words as commonly understood the first rule of statutory interpretation? Gabe? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

    Parent

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Edger on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:18:03 AM EST
    Bill, (none / 0) (#101)
    by Peaches on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    I think it was the timing of your post more than anything. I disagree that anyone would use the definition you (Gabe) provide as evidence for this being domestic terrorism. I understand your point, but coming so soon after the news of this tragedy, almost anyone would have concluded that you were using it to score political points.

    You may not have intended that, but that is how it came accross. If I vilified you, I assume you are refering to my response to Patrick that said your's and Edger's commentary drips with anger. That was an observation on your post and Edger's defense of it.

    A tragedy had just struck of historical proportions leaving all Americans in a temporary state of shock before we went on with our lives. It did not matter what political persuasion we were. Your post shattered the feeling of mutual sympathy and empathy we all felt for the victims, because it suddenly was a political issue-and, it was far to early to make this point, if it there ever was a time to make it it at all. I could only assume that you are so angry at this administration, that you could not take the time to feel sadness and anger at this senseless targedy for its own insensibility, but instead reacted to it by lashing out at your political opponents. Your anger at the Bush administration is justifiable. Using this tragedy to justify your anger is not, though.

    Parent

    Bill, (none / 0) (#92)
    by Peaches on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:14:44 PM EST
    You've obviously given this some thought. I think I understand where you are coming from.

    I would not make the comparison however, because I think it cheapens the word terrorism. I don't think an individuals decision to scare the citizens is remotely similar to a group or government that promotes and funds terrotistic acts.

    To me, I think the definition of terrorism given above hallow without the political element.

    This was one mentally ill individual who's motives are still unknown. To suggest he wanted to affect the conduct of Government is not supported by the evidence.

    However, I think evidence does suggest that the US foriegn and military policy does and can be fitted under the definition of terrorism above. Your attempt at calling this terrorism cheapens the word and the accusation that the US sometimes acts like a terroristic state.

    Parent

    I dunno, Bill seems more ... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:40:55 PM EST
    ... on target than I would have thought initially:
    ``I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and defenseless people,'' Cho Seung Hui, 23, said during a rambling video message that he mailed to NBC News after killing his first two victims.

    ``Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon a cross and left to bleed to death for your amusement?'' Cho said during the profanity-laced tirade which encompassed religion and his hatred of rich ``snobs'' and ``brats.''

    it sure sounds like christofascist terrorism.

    Parent
    Show me some evidence (none / 0) (#94)
    by Peaches on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:44:07 PM EST
    That a church or organization was funding him and I will agree with you that it is accurate to call it terrorism.

    Otherwise, he just an individual who is maentally ill and raving.

    But, your free to call it what you want. I just think it waters the word down.

    Parent

    Bill (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:11:58 PM EST
    Some of you here got it, some of you don't want to see the holy oxen of bush/cheney gored.
    I must admit I regret what I wrote in response to your original comment.

    In actual fact, you don't disgust me but the part of your comment
    that I quoted did and still does.

    Stop your BS equivocating. Regardless of whatever definition of terrorism you choose
    to use, regardless of the info that has turned up after-the-fact, the
    actions of this sick kid are so clearly not what our
    "maladministration" ever meant when it ever said anything about terrorism.

    That you continue to promote and support your dishonest and vile allegation continues to disgust me.

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edger on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:25:11 PM EST
    the actions of this sick kid are so clearly not what our "maladministration" ever meant when it ever said anything about terrorism
    is exactly Bill's point. The Bush "maladministration" has done everything it could do to encourage people to think there is a fundamental difference.

    It's worked very well too, in some cases.

    The vast majority of people, however, see through it.

    Parent
    What the hell? (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by peacrevol on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    What's going on in the world today that people are walking onto school campuses and just shooting people? How can we start to prevent this stuff without turning ourselves into a police state? Maybe if everybody that wanted to carried a gun, there could've been somebody there to shoot back at the gunmen before they shot many of the innocent students.

    Two shootings (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:10:21 PM EST
     At about 7:15 this morning, a 911 call came to the university police department concerning an event in West Ambler Johnston Hall. There were multiple shooting victims. While in the process of investigating, about two hours later, the university received reports of a shooting in Norris Hall. The police immediately responded.


    Aww, jeeze... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:24:48 PM EST
    They're just kids, early twenties... they were going to live forever... they'd made it to university, and the world was theirs...

    Death Toll now at 31 (none / 0) (#3)
    by TexDem on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:38:34 PM EST
    Largely censored (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jen M on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:53:05 PM EST
    string of expletives

    Parent
    A tragic event of domestic terrorism... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    ...again occurring on bush/cheney's watch. It simply proves that the lies bush and cheney told you about how the GOP alone can stop terrorism always were, and remain, complete lies.

    My sympathies and heartfelt condolences to the families of the dead and wishes for a speedy recovery for those injured. This horrific terrorist attack shows again that domestic terrorists are equally as dangerous as those bush claims we are fighting in Iraq, and that all the domestic spying, phone and computer taps, and other efforts to compile dossiers on all Americans is destined to fail to identify terrorists in the future as happened here.

    I'll wager right now that no one in the MSM will dare label this a domestic terrorist act, for that would not fit the maladministrations narrative that there have not been any terror attacks in/on America since 9-11, due to their power, ability to protect us, and their use of domestic spying. (And trolls need not point out that no one can stop every attack, the claim made by bush/cheney and the GOP is that they have protected America so well that there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil. Well, now you see one yourself.)

    How (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    do you know this guy was a terrorist?

    Parent
    Um... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by manys on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    How could he not be?

    Parent
    Jump the gun, much? (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    It's a little bit early to be jumping to conclusions. We have little information as to the motives, political or otherwise, behind these shootings.

    Parent
    Do you not think (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    these students, the ones who died, and the ones who avoided the gunman, were terrorized?

    Parent
    I guess you (none / 0) (#11)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:15:54 PM EST
    could then classify all perpetrators of all shootings as terrorists if you go by your statement.

    Parent
    That's not what I asked. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:18:50 PM EST
    How do you define "terror"? Does not having someone kill your friends and classmates randomly qualify?

    Parent
    I suppose (none / 0) (#15)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:25:10 PM EST
    they were terrorized.  Does that make him a terrorist?  Does that make all perpetrators of all shootings terrorists?

    Parent
    Terrorist and terroristic threat (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by TexDem on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:15:05 PM EST

    § 2706. Terroristic threats.

    (a) Offense defined. A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:

       1. commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;
       2. cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation; or
       3. otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

    Once the first shot is fired anything else is at the very least a terroristic threat.

    Parent

    Well let's see, Wile. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:20:24 PM EST
    You agree that they were terrorised.

    But you don't know what you want to call the guy who did the terrorizing?

    Think about it for awhile. You'll figure it out.

    Parent
    Suspect (none / 0) (#39)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    Don't be intentionally dumb. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:24:03 PM EST
    Don't be obtuse.

    I'm sure they were terrorised, if we go by the standard definition of terrorise, which is "to scare or fill with terror."

    But that's not what Bill said. He called it "terrorism" and labelled it a "terrorist act." The word "terrorism" means the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion, usually political. At this stage, we have no idea whether the shootings were motivated as a form of coercion, hence we're wondering at Bill's jumping to that conclusion.

    Parent

    Bullsh*t Gabriel (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    Don't intentionally lie. Especially when the same page contradicts you. Go back and read Bill's comment - he specifically said "domestic terrorists". You try to go after Bill the way you are and I will spend all day here destroying your credibility. Which you know well I am capable of doing - simply by quoting you.

    You really make me sick sometimes, you know that, Gabriel?

    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#18)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    I'm not in the mood for ::nice:: (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    Alright (none / 0) (#26)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:15:30 PM EST
    everyone Edger is not in the mood.  Take it easy.

    Parent
    Dixie Chics fan? (none / 0) (#28)
    by TexDem on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    Good for you. Me too.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:25:07 PM EST
    I just made a comment to Bill.

    Come on down, edger.

    Parent

    Bizarre definition (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Al on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    What do you understand by "coercion"? I understand it to mean terrorizing to obtain compliance, which is what the dictionary says, too. In that case, 9-11 was not a terrorist act by your definition.


    Parent
    Huh? (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by rdandrea on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:58:34 PM EST
    You disgust me (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:53:34 PM EST
    ...again occurring on bush/cheney's watch. It simply proves that the lies bush and cheney told you about how the GOP alone can stop terrorism always were, and remain, complete lies.


    Parent
    Bill Arnett (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    That's despicable to take a tradegy that is totally unrelated to Bush or Cheney and bring them into.

    Really, really bad.

    Parent

    Extremely unlikely (none / 0) (#69)
    by Andreas on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:14:33 PM EST
    It is extremely unlikely that this is unrelated to the regime which currently exists in US.

    Parent
    Wow is right, Wile. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    I'm sorry that I make you sick, edger. Let us go though this:

    Bill wrote a comment entitled: "A tragic event of domestic terrorism." He then went on to call it a "domestic terrorist attack."

    Wile and I asked if he had any actual reason to call it "terrorism" because that word means a system of violence in order to coerce, usually for political ends. The reason we asked (or at least, why I asked--excuse me for speaking for you Wile) is because we hadn't seen any evidence that this was part of a systematic attack or that it was undertaken for political purposes. As far as we knew at that point, it may have been a lone crazy person.

    And then edger got cute. Says edger: "but surely these students were terrorised."

    And, of course, Wile and I agreed: "Duh, they've been terrorised, they've been shot at!" But "terrorise" and "terrorism" are two different things.

    To be honest with you, it makes me a little sick  that grown men either do not know the difference between the words "terrorise" and "terrorism" or do know the difference, but mere hours after this violence seek to use it to score phoney political points on their agenda.

    Shame on you.

    I agree with you in this case (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:05:04 PM EST
    I'm not holding my breath, but hopefully you recognize and are equally critical of all the other instances in which the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" have been similarly mangled.

    For example, a key formulation for terrorism is the targeting of civilians.  And yet this doesn't stop our government from labeling those who target our soldiers as terrorists.  As a result what we get is, anyone who fights against American forces anywhere in the world is a terrorist.    

    Parent

    Agree. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    And I agree right back at you, Glanton. If we cannot accurately describe our adversaries, how are we to adequately respond to them?

    Parent
    You'd better read you own comments (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    before you post them, Gabriel. You used two distinctly different definitions of terrorism in the same comment. One you called a standard definition, and one you made up to use to smear Bill when the first one wouldn't work for that purpose.

    You refute yourself.
    I'm sure they were terrorised, if we go by the standard definition of terrorise, which is "to scare or fill with terror."

    The word "terrorism" means the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion, usually political.
    Yes, he called it "terrorism", and repeatedly made clear that he considers the danger from domestic terrorism as equal to anything you might call non-domestic terrorism. He was making a point, which you decided to intentionally miss, in your feeble attempt to discredit him.

    Parent
    ::Sigh:: (none / 0) (#30)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:24:46 PM EST
    Are we really doing this? I'm having the most surreal experience, here. It appears I'm having to point out once again that "terrorise" and "terrorism" are two different words with two different meanings.

    Bill used the word "terrorism," a word I took exception to based on the lack of evidence.

    Edger used the word "terrorise," which I agreed is accurate applied to the shooting at Virginia Tech.

    I did not use two different definitions of "terrorism." So just cool it, please.

    Domestic terrorism may be as important as "non-domestic" terrorism, but at this point, I think it is legitimate to ask whether this was even terrorism at all.

    Parent

    I don't see how this could be anything (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:29:13 PM EST
    but domestic terrorism.  The shooter wasn't defending himself, he wasn't even shooting specific people, he wanted the people of the college to understand how vulnerable they all are.  He wanted to instill a horrifying fear that will become irrational for many of the survivors. I see his actions clearly pointing to this.

    Parent
    What difference does it make? (none / 0) (#36)
    by peacrevol on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:39:29 PM EST
    Why do we care if it was terrorism or not? It's mass murder and it's bullsh*t no matter what you call it. Whether it's "terrorism" or just somebody doing some "terrorizing" or whatever else doesnt matter. The only things that matter are a) was it part of a larger plot conspired by a larger group and b) how we prevent it from ever happening again. Let's not get all caught up in an unnecessary web of bullsh*t labels.

    Parent
    Elevation (none / 0) (#41)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:49:19 PM EST
    Militarytracy, I don't think we should elevate mere crime--no matter how heinous--to terrorism.

    Terrorism is violence undertaken with the intent to coerce, usually for a political motive. A shooting spree may be terrorism, but it also may not. More evidence is required.

    Parent

    OK, how about the reverse? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:08:06 PM EST
    I don't think we should elevate mere crime--no matter how heinous--to terrorism.
    Do you think we should elevate no crime to terrorism?

    I guess it's terrerists doing it if they're brown, just a crime if they're white.

    BTW,

    Terrorism is violence undertaken with the intent to coerce, usually for a political motive.
    it's always comforting to know that you agree that bush is a terrorist.

    Parent
    Semantic bullsh*t (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:37:28 PM EST
    I know it's not in your interest to have it labelled terrorism.

    That was Bill's point.

    You're hilarious. I quoted you and both of the definitions you used. And you try to deny a quote from your own comment?

    Heh. Well, I guess when all else fails there's always denial.

    Meanwhile there are at least 30 people at Virginia Tech who died in terror and many more others terrorized, and you're worried about whether it's legitimate to call it terrorism? Come off it, Gabriel.

    Parent
    In response to TexDem (none / 0) (#34)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:35:59 PM EST
    I don't know what the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statues have to do with this (and we'll set aside the patent difference between "terroristic" and "terrorism"), but here's what the Virginia Code has on Terrorism:

    "Act of terrorism" means an act of violence as defined in clause (i) of subdivision A of § 19.2-297.1 committed with the intent to (i) intimidate the civilian population at large; or (ii) influence the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through intimidation.

    Furthermore, the United States Code (if we were interested in a more national treatment of the term) breaks the crime of terrorism into two types: international and domestic:

    § 2331.  Definitions

    As used in this chapter [18 USCS §§ 2331 et seq.] --
       (1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that--
          (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
          (B) appear to be intended--
             (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
             (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
             (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and
          (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
       (2) the term "national of the United States" has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 USCS § 1101(a)(22)];
       (3) the term "person" means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
       (4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of--
          (A) declared war;
          (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
          (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
       (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that--
          (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
          (B) appear to be intended--
             (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
             (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
             (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
          (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

    Indeed Edger, folks can be terrorised without being victims of terrorism.

    Hah hah. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:42:41 PM EST
    folks can be terrorised without being victims of terrorism
    Indeed?

    Sure, Gabriel. Whatever yoo say. Next thing we know you'll be telling me that folks can be tortured without being victims of torture. (That's an analogy to your thinking, btw) In fact,it suggests a tagline for your law firm if you ever start one: "Yoo ain't seen nothing yet".

    Parent
    Sadness. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    I want to reiterate my sadness that a grown man, presumably educated, is incapable of telling the difference between the words "terrorise" and "terrorism."

    If you are perhaps capable of telling the difference between the two then I am sickened that you would deliberately pretend not to in order to score cheap political points. That goes for Bill, too.

    Parent

    I going to let you off the hook for awhile. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:59:00 PM EST
    This was your competency hearing. You flunked. Besides, I have a doctor appt. I have to go to now.

    Parent
    In Texas you can be charged with making a (none / 0) (#52)
    by TexDem on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:39:21 PM EST
    terroristic threat by saying, "I'm going to kill you." And I know this because I was on a jury panel that this was the very charge. The accused did or said nothing else.
    The point is the words terror, terrorist, terrorism, terroristic are all related to try and parse the difference when obviously the victims, living or dead were all terrorized. If by someones actions they terrorize you they are by their actions a terrorist. Maybe this doesn't fit your political definition but it fits most peoples reality should they be put in the situation that occurred today.

    Parent
    maybe it was a lone wacko who went beserk (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:48:05 PM EST
    like a disgruntled employee who shots up a post office.

    I think it's too soon to equate it to terrorism.  Sounds more like a nut to me.  But we'll see.

    What's the difference between.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:02:05 PM EST
    a terrorist and a nutjob?

    Was David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) a terrorist?  No we say, he was a nut because his dog told him to kill.  But then why isn't some muslim or christian terrorist considered a nutjob when god tells them to kill?  Or some old book?  I see no difference.  Anybody who kills slews of people they never met is a nutjob.  I'm beginning to think no seperate "terrorist" designation is necessary.  We have a violent nutjob problem in this world, not a terrorism problem.  

    What am I missing?

    Parent

    I read a news report (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:01:38 PM EST
    a few minutes ago that said the gunman was looking for his girlfriend.

    The gunman appeared to be Asian and was looking for his girlfriend," Takahishi said.


    Parent
    Edgar and Bill's comments (none / 0) (#57)
    by Patrick on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:03:17 PM EST
    and those like them are the reason I don't post here any longer, but I just couldn't keep quiet reading their posts.   The two of you are liberals?   Thanks for making my choice even more clear.  Pathetic.  

    As for the families of those killed and injured....They will be in my thoughts and prayers.  

    They're not liberals in my book (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:06:40 PM EST
    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:46:41 AM EST
    And I was thinking it was the complete and utter failure of our rightwing domestic and foreign policies that was keeping you from posting.
    When all along it was those terrorist sympathizers Bill and Edger...

    Parent
    There you go thinking again... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Patrick on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:05:51 AM EST
    Righteous indignation (none / 0) (#83)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    affects individuals with both liberal and conservative leanings. I agree with Edger and Bill on a variety, if not the majority of topics, but I don't share their certainty, nor the apparent anger  fueled by their sense of righteousness that drips through their posts and commentary.

    I probably agree with them more than I agree with you, Patrick, but, I have always thought your commentary was fair and rational and I appreciated the perspective you brought as a law enforcement officer. I wish you would continue posting, because your views are always informative.

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jen M on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:56:49 PM EST
    I probably agree with them more than I agree with you, Patrick, but, I have always thought your commentary was fair and rational and I appreciated the perspective you brought as a law enforcement officer. I wish you would continue posting, because your views are always informative.

    What she said

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    I also agree with Peaches, to the extent that it was good to read your contributions.

    But, Jen, Peaches is a guy.

    Parent

    OOPS (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jen M on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:35:20 PM EST
    Sorry, Peaches

    Parent
    No need to apologize, (none / 0) (#90)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 04:33:02 PM EST
    My name is Peaches, because I am sweet (well, I have my moments, but I try to be). I think most women are sweet, also. So, I understand you're confusion. ;)

    ps, if you ever get a chance to listen to Nina Simones Four Women, you'll understand why Peaches sometimes aren't so sweet - not to make excuses for my occasional infractions, but....

    Parent

    Media Coverage (none / 0) (#60)
    by noonan on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:25:58 PM EST
    Did anyone else catch Wolf at the beginning of the Situation Room? He actually (gleefully?) encouraged viewers to watch the cell phone footage and "count along" with him as the screen ran a shot count!

    Talk about trivializing the terror and suffering.

    Also, to put this in perspective, Larry Johnson has a comparison between today's shooting and what happened in Iraq today.

    Really, really gross (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:34:18 PM EST
    Now I know why I don't pay any attention to Larry Johnson.

    Parent
    NPR suggests (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:10:59 PM EST
    there might have been a second gunman:
    But that event was followed by another, far more deadly shooting some hours later, in which more than two dozen people were killed by gunfire.

    While questions about the details -- and motive -- of the attacks remain, police would not rule out the possibility that a second gunman was involved -- and that the incidents could possibly be unrelated.



    I think that (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:45:17 PM EST
    calling this terrorism is psychologically and politically threatening to many people precisely because it is an act of insanity by a violent nutjob.

    The words "terrorism" and "terrorist" are very emotionally charged words that have been used to justify a dismal failure of thinking and foreign policy, and an invasion and occupation that has turned to an utter catastrophe resulting in horrendous death.

    These words are the heart of the entire war on terror meme.

    To equate acts committed by people labelled as the enemy in a so-called existential "clash of civilizations" to a domestic crime committed by one or two insane nutjobs which no military action could possibly prevent lowers the propaganda and psychological value of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" and utterly invalidates the entire mindset behind the "war on terror" meme.

    It drastically and inescapably calls into question the reaction to 9/11 and the entirety of the justifications for the Iraq invasion, and leads to a level of self-examination and questioning and awareness of responsibility that is too terrible to contemplate.

    Such equating will naturally be fought by people who bought into the war on terror meme because of the extreme level of psychological discomfort.

    It hits way too close to the bone. It forces a look in a mirror from which there is no escape.

    The emotional investment in these words is far too high. The self jusification crumbles if the definitions are questioned.

    Calling this terrorism raises the questions that, at all costs, must be avoided.

    I can't help myself (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:54:56 PM EST
    edger..

    yadda yadda yadda

    Parent

    yada yada yada = (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:42:09 AM EST
    Your hide was just nailed to the wall and you had no means to retrieve it.

    Parent
    Ernesto (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:16:43 AM EST
    Glad to see that you have come out for a while.

    Always miss your learned remarks. While you are here, tell us again how we are the cause of the ME problems, starting with us aiding the rebels in Afghanistan fight the Soviets. I always enjoy that one. It is a "two'fer." Condemns the US for helping and excuses the terrorists for turning on someone who helped.

    "yadda yadda yadda," in case you don't understand, is an expression meaning that I hear you, but the content of your speech is meaningless, without value.

    edger loves to talk about the war in terms that are supposed to cloak him in a great cloak of morals while condemning, of course, all who disagree with him. He has expressed this numerous times and is quite proud of it.

    He now uses the deaths at VT as a political event to further his attacks. It demonstrates perfectly how he, and others, is willing to use any thing to further their cause.

    Parent

    be more precise (none / 0) (#82)
    by Sailor on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    starting with us aiding the rebels in Afghanistan fight the Soviets.
    Uhh, that would be the Taliban and OBL you are referring to. You remember, the ones who are retaking afghanistan ... using the weapons we gave them against us?

    Parent
    sailor (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    nope. gonna end it here. ernesto knows why i made the comment.

    Parent
    Ernesto (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:10:06 AM EST
    At least he admits he can't help himself. There will always be that core that the propaganda has worked that well on, I suppose.

    Parent
    Virginia Tech might as well close up shop (none / 0) (#71)
    by MacLane on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:20:03 PM EST
    Think of the liability: the administration fails to close the school after the first shooting, and thirty people are executed two hours later.

    The story that officials believed the gunman "may have left the campus or even the state" won't wash.

    I imagine the survivors and the relatives of the victims will go after the assets of the university, once the insurance policy is exhausted. It is likely that Virginia Tech will go bankrupt.

    (This is supposed to be a law blog, so I was hoping  that the legal aspects of the shooting would be addressed.)

    I realize this is an emotional tragedy (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:28:08 PM EST
    but please don't attack each other in the comments.  If I have to clean the thread, I will.