The Aftermath Of The Blacksburg VT Massacre
A lot of energy has gone into covering the events at Virginia Tech over the past week. Unfortunately, much of what has been done by the media has been exploitive in nature. Even Harry Smith, who is somewhat related to me by my friendship to his niece and her husband, resorted to interviewing those who survived the massacre and lost friends and family to the maniacal rantings and violence created by Cho Seung Hui.
But in typical fashion, a lot of finger pointing, blaming and second guessing has been offered by some of the worst media exploiters. There was an immediate relationship between Cho's violence and gun control. While in the minds of some more gun control might have prevented such an incident, the reality is that had Cho not procured his weaponry through legal channels, as he did, he could have--and most likely would have given his mental status--obtained these weapons via the underground market on the street.
While it is true that Cho was identified as a risk to himself and others in 2005, our laws, and the principles underlying those laws, do not allow the permanent ostracization of most people who receive psychiatric treatment. Obviously, within the parameters of our imperfect system, Cho was deemed fit for release back into our society. The very concept of second guessing the psychiatrists and court personnel that made that decision in the context of events occurring in 2005 based on these recent events demonstrates a vast varieties of problems with the way we deal with mental health issues.
Then, too, we have seen condemnation of the "system" for not painting a label on Cho's forehead indicating he had been treated, adjudicated and released into society with mental illness issues. But the fact remains that the vast majority of those identified as a danger to themselves or others are identified as such for a short period of time and, with proper treatment, are fully capable of living in our society without overt dangers of violence.
But where the "system" failed was not in 2005 or when Cho purchased his weapons. The "system" failed when roommates, classmates and faculty members became aware of the bizarre, violent and disturbed ideations expressed by Cho through his behavior and writing, and the subsequent referral for counseling that failed to dig deep enough into the behaviors and expression of violent thoughts to identify the dangers he posed to himself and others.
In the business of security and facilities management, as well as systems engineering, there is a concept called a "SPOF": a single point of failure. The failure to identify the immediate risk posed by Cho was a SPOF.
Another SPOF was immediately after the first shootings. It was here that the campus and local police went into investigation mode rather than protective mode. If the campus police had acted to lock down the campus--with the assistance of local, county and state police--immediately after these first two murders, it is likely that the other 30 murders could have been prevented and avoided. If the lock down was then followed up by a campus sweep and an orderly evacuation of the campus within the two-hour interval between the first shooting and the subsequent murderous spree, it is likely that Cho would have been identified and caught before so many lives were lost.
Further, the method chosen by the administrators of Virginia Tech to communicate the threat created by the first two murders (sending notices across the campus by e-mail) was yet another SPOF. E-mail is a useful tool for ordinary communications, but it is a "store and forward" communications modality that allows recipients to read the information sent at their leisure. The communication of a campus-wide threat cannot be effectively done via e-mail. The situation at hand on the VT campus required communication of the threat to occur via a lock down order, a sweep of the campus by duly authorized police and emergency personnel, and through subsequent evacuation in a safe and orderly fashion.
Another apparent SPOF was the obvious lack of training, preparation, drilling and implementation of campus safety and security measures. The entire incident was mishandled by the campus police and the local police that arrived on scene to the initial shootings. The police immediately went into an investigation mode when a security mode was required. In this investigation mode, the hunt for possible suspects was immediately put into effect. There were assumptions made about the identity of the shooter, as well as an assumption that the campus was clear of any additional threat. As we now see, these assumptions were mistakes.
The campus should have been treated much the same as a US Navy vessel that experiences some incident that threatens the safety or security of the ship and/or crew. When an incident occurs on a Navy ship, the ship is systematically locked down and appropriate teams of damage control, firefighters and medical personnel respond to the initial scene, along with a team of Master-At-Arms personnel who have the responsibility of preserving the security status of the ship, the surrounding compartments and the actual scene of the incident until the entire situation and the entire ship is deemed all safe and all secure. The investigation process does not occur until the immediate threat is resolved.
While the investigation modality works with most street incidents that police encounter, a school campus--at any level of education--always presents a "target rich environment" for additional violence. The evidence of that is present in the 28 school/campus shooting episodes that have occurred since 1993, including Columbine, Red Lion (PA), Red Lakes (MN) and the Amish School House (PA) shootings.
That is correct, we have had 28 such incidents since 1993. Despite this history of campus shooting--almost all of which have occurred in suburban or rural settings rather the urban settings where gangs, drugs and crime are often expected--we have not really focused our attention on how to appropriately respond to such incidents.
But now we are focused on what happened, who it happened to, and who survived the events and how they feel. All of which are legitimate concerns for police, campus authorities, families and students on campus. But these issues should not be the concerns of the media to the extent of exploitation that has occurred. Our media reporters and commentators are now second guessing matters that are not genuinely pertinent to the actual events or the causes of these events. The second guessing is not the same as legitimate analysis of the events for the purposes of preventing future incidents. Nor is the second guessing helpful to those that are dealing with the aftermath and aftermath issues. It seems that every network, newspaper, commentator or other media outlet is creating opportunities to interview people that should be allowed their privacy and a processing of their own suffering and grief. Instead, we see interviews of students that knew the victims, as well as interviews of students who knew students that knew the victims.
During the press conference at 5:00PM on the day of the shooting, the reporters present asked some of the most ignorant and intrusive questions possible. Knowing, from common sense and from the statements made by the Chief of VT Campus Police, that the authorities did not have all the details and were still investigating the incident and identifying the victims, the press harangued the Chief with questions that were senseless and exploitive. The manner in which the press has responded to these events is shameful and directed solely upon creating aftermath sensationalism for the distinct purpose of calling attention to their coverage and selling ad space based upon that attention and attraction.
So the media is a business. We understand that premise. But there ought to be some standards of decency and common courtesy exercised by members of the Fourth Estate. But we have a poor history of decency coming from the media and press.
Almost none of the media coverage has focused on the need for campus safety and security, or even preventing future incidents at the VT and other campuses. We have seen the events depicted in numerous ways. Some of it has actually been very good, but most of it has been exclusively exploitive. But we haven't seen enough attention to the real issues or adequate analysis of school/campus safety and security. I figure since we have had so many shootings at schools of all types and levels, we should have been paying attention to these details rather than exploiting the tragedies.
But in typical fashion, a lot of finger pointing, blaming and second guessing has been offered by some of the worst media exploiters. There was an immediate relationship between Cho's violence and gun control. While in the minds of some more gun control might have prevented such an incident, the reality is that had Cho not procured his weaponry through legal channels, as he did, he could have--and most likely would have given his mental status--obtained these weapons via the underground market on the street.
While it is true that Cho was identified as a risk to himself and others in 2005, our laws, and the principles underlying those laws, do not allow the permanent ostracization of most people who receive psychiatric treatment. Obviously, within the parameters of our imperfect system, Cho was deemed fit for release back into our society. The very concept of second guessing the psychiatrists and court personnel that made that decision in the context of events occurring in 2005 based on these recent events demonstrates a vast varieties of problems with the way we deal with mental health issues.
Then, too, we have seen condemnation of the "system" for not painting a label on Cho's forehead indicating he had been treated, adjudicated and released into society with mental illness issues. But the fact remains that the vast majority of those identified as a danger to themselves or others are identified as such for a short period of time and, with proper treatment, are fully capable of living in our society without overt dangers of violence.
But where the "system" failed was not in 2005 or when Cho purchased his weapons. The "system" failed when roommates, classmates and faculty members became aware of the bizarre, violent and disturbed ideations expressed by Cho through his behavior and writing, and the subsequent referral for counseling that failed to dig deep enough into the behaviors and expression of violent thoughts to identify the dangers he posed to himself and others.
In the business of security and facilities management, as well as systems engineering, there is a concept called a "SPOF": a single point of failure. The failure to identify the immediate risk posed by Cho was a SPOF.
Another SPOF was immediately after the first shootings. It was here that the campus and local police went into investigation mode rather than protective mode. If the campus police had acted to lock down the campus--with the assistance of local, county and state police--immediately after these first two murders, it is likely that the other 30 murders could have been prevented and avoided. If the lock down was then followed up by a campus sweep and an orderly evacuation of the campus within the two-hour interval between the first shooting and the subsequent murderous spree, it is likely that Cho would have been identified and caught before so many lives were lost.
Further, the method chosen by the administrators of Virginia Tech to communicate the threat created by the first two murders (sending notices across the campus by e-mail) was yet another SPOF. E-mail is a useful tool for ordinary communications, but it is a "store and forward" communications modality that allows recipients to read the information sent at their leisure. The communication of a campus-wide threat cannot be effectively done via e-mail. The situation at hand on the VT campus required communication of the threat to occur via a lock down order, a sweep of the campus by duly authorized police and emergency personnel, and through subsequent evacuation in a safe and orderly fashion.
Another apparent SPOF was the obvious lack of training, preparation, drilling and implementation of campus safety and security measures. The entire incident was mishandled by the campus police and the local police that arrived on scene to the initial shootings. The police immediately went into an investigation mode when a security mode was required. In this investigation mode, the hunt for possible suspects was immediately put into effect. There were assumptions made about the identity of the shooter, as well as an assumption that the campus was clear of any additional threat. As we now see, these assumptions were mistakes.
The campus should have been treated much the same as a US Navy vessel that experiences some incident that threatens the safety or security of the ship and/or crew. When an incident occurs on a Navy ship, the ship is systematically locked down and appropriate teams of damage control, firefighters and medical personnel respond to the initial scene, along with a team of Master-At-Arms personnel who have the responsibility of preserving the security status of the ship, the surrounding compartments and the actual scene of the incident until the entire situation and the entire ship is deemed all safe and all secure. The investigation process does not occur until the immediate threat is resolved.
While the investigation modality works with most street incidents that police encounter, a school campus--at any level of education--always presents a "target rich environment" for additional violence. The evidence of that is present in the 28 school/campus shooting episodes that have occurred since 1993, including Columbine, Red Lion (PA), Red Lakes (MN) and the Amish School House (PA) shootings.
That is correct, we have had 28 such incidents since 1993. Despite this history of campus shooting--almost all of which have occurred in suburban or rural settings rather the urban settings where gangs, drugs and crime are often expected--we have not really focused our attention on how to appropriately respond to such incidents.
But now we are focused on what happened, who it happened to, and who survived the events and how they feel. All of which are legitimate concerns for police, campus authorities, families and students on campus. But these issues should not be the concerns of the media to the extent of exploitation that has occurred. Our media reporters and commentators are now second guessing matters that are not genuinely pertinent to the actual events or the causes of these events. The second guessing is not the same as legitimate analysis of the events for the purposes of preventing future incidents. Nor is the second guessing helpful to those that are dealing with the aftermath and aftermath issues. It seems that every network, newspaper, commentator or other media outlet is creating opportunities to interview people that should be allowed their privacy and a processing of their own suffering and grief. Instead, we see interviews of students that knew the victims, as well as interviews of students who knew students that knew the victims.
During the press conference at 5:00PM on the day of the shooting, the reporters present asked some of the most ignorant and intrusive questions possible. Knowing, from common sense and from the statements made by the Chief of VT Campus Police, that the authorities did not have all the details and were still investigating the incident and identifying the victims, the press harangued the Chief with questions that were senseless and exploitive. The manner in which the press has responded to these events is shameful and directed solely upon creating aftermath sensationalism for the distinct purpose of calling attention to their coverage and selling ad space based upon that attention and attraction.
So the media is a business. We understand that premise. But there ought to be some standards of decency and common courtesy exercised by members of the Fourth Estate. But we have a poor history of decency coming from the media and press.
Almost none of the media coverage has focused on the need for campus safety and security, or even preventing future incidents at the VT and other campuses. We have seen the events depicted in numerous ways. Some of it has actually been very good, but most of it has been exclusively exploitive. But we haven't seen enough attention to the real issues or adequate analysis of school/campus safety and security. I figure since we have had so many shootings at schools of all types and levels, we should have been paying attention to these details rather than exploiting the tragedies.
Labels: campus safety, mental health, Virginia Tech Shootings
posted by Jim Downey at 2:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home