Teachers and students had identified the shooter well beforehand as a disturbing and potentially dangerous individual, but…
A professor warned authorities about Virginia Tech mass murderer Cho Seung-Hui after the student turned in violent creative writing pieces and exhibited troubling behavior, but she was told intervention would require overcoming too many legal hurdles. –WorldNetDaily article
And this:
Roy, now the alumni distinguished professor of English and co-director of the creative writing program, said university officials were responsive and sympathetic to her warnings but indicated that because Cho had made no direct threats, there was little they could do.
“I don’t want to be accusatory or blaming other people,†Roy said. “I do just want to say, though, it’s such a shame if people don’t listen very carefully and if the law constricts them so that they can’t do what is best for the student.â€
Emphasis mine in both excerpts.
It makes me sick that the threat of litigation is so pervasive that it stops people from doing the right thing. Yes, I know, it’s an old story, but now it’s killed people. I’m no litigator, but that doesn’t matter. I’m ashamed to be a lawyer right now.
I don’t care for this angle. Especially we bloggers who might OCCASIONALLY say something unkind about the gummint, especially the liberal gummints.
Next thing you know, we will have the thought police (or more thought police than we already have).
No, this is one we DO NOT want to touch.
That’s true, there are perils down this road, but I believe most teachers are alredy obligated to notify SOMEBODY in authority when they suspect a student is going to harm someone. The question becomes what actions the authorities take after receiving that nofitication. In this case, after the professor voiced her fears about the shooter, if the university’s administration had said they’d look into it further, that would be one thing — but apparently instead they washed their hands of the matter because of perceived legal restrictions. That is NOT the way to deal with a reported threat! They could at least have sent someone over to talk to the guy, and not a poetry teacher, either.
I mean, seriously, had a campus cop been tasked with checking this guy out, I’m guessing a few minutes into the first interview he would have marked him for their watch list. I know those exist — UC Berkeley had one when I was there.
That’s not to say that further such action by the administration would have prevented this tragedy, but the point is I’m pretty sure they’re well within their rights and duties to do it — and if they’re too scared to do it because of fear of litigation, or won’t do it because of some legal advice that they can’t act until there’s an overt threat, well, that’s just sad because I don’t think it’s a correct reading of the law.
UPDATE: see my post today for details on the steps the university did take. Looks as though they did not “wash their hands” as I’d thought earlier. They managed to get him committed to a mental institution, which SHOULD have made it impossible for him to buy a gun through an FFL via NICS. Why the NICS system did not work in this case is my next question.