VA Tech families make a statement

Status
Not open for further replies.

ZeSpectre

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
5,502
Location
Deep in the valley
Washington Post

Families' Statement
Tuesday, June 12, 2007; Page B02

Here is the statement written on behalf of 13 families of victims of the April 16 Virginia Tech massacre, in which 32 people were killed by student Seung Hui Cho. The panel investigating the shootings received the statement yesterday at a meeting in Fairfax County.

"We, as family members of the Virginia Tech victims, are both angry and disappointed. We are angry about being ostracized from a government-chartered panel investigating a government-sponsored university (Virginia Tech), and about how the university has used the names and images of our loved ones to raise millions of dollars without any consultation. We have many unanswered questions. We don't speak for everyone, but in addressing these issues we are speaking to issues and outcomes that affect families across this nation. We seek accountability to make our campuses safe for all our children and their teachers, and to remember that all the victims of this act were good people doing great things -- that is our focus.

"We are of one mind that we must, and will, be represented by membership in the work of this panel. This is, in our minds, non-negotiable and the minimum this panel owes to us, the memories of our loved ones, and the future safety of our campuses across the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world.

"We want this panel to uncover the unbiased truth about the events and decisions of April 16th which took the lives of our loved ones, the events prior, and the reactions following, as the Governor's charge at the first meeting tasked. By collecting all the facts, the panel will be able to expose the flaws in Virginia Tech's academic student conduct, procedural, and mental health actions. Through such exposure, the university will be able to identify necessary changes to handling students with severe emotional and behavioral problems. The panel needs access to all of Cho's records, including immigration and mental health records, and we strongly support use of Crime Commission subpoena power to get them. The health privacy laws must be addressed in terms of the balance between patient privacy and the safety of those patients and the public around them; we do not accept that patient privacy is (or should be) the sole overriding criterion in making records available to those charged with public safety and security of our college campuses.

"Although not a focus of this meeting, we cannot let pass the point that sensible gun control measures are in no way incompatible with anyone's Constitutional rights and are at least as likely as some other recent suggestions to help prevent future tragedies of this nature. We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.

"We are very concerned about the accountability of the Hokie Spirit Fund. We expect that a university which takes the names and images of 32 victims for vast fundraising purposes will, at the very least, consult with the families on how this money is raised and how it is being disbursed. This is not only a moral but a legal duty.

"Finally, we believe this goes well beyond the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that a federal commission needs to be empaneled to address the larger issues that affect all families and students across the nation."

:barf:
 
Me too, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the right call to exclude these people from the panel. They are far too emotionally involved to come to any sort of a rational decision or conclusion. This whole statement can be summed up as...

They are upset.
They want the answers that they want and they'll trample anything in their way in order to get them.
They need a concrete set of scapegoats that can be "punished" so that they feel like they have some control over this situation.

I completely understand the reaction(s) but they are based on grief, not logic.
 
everyone knows the guns made him do it

where have you guys been /sarcasm

regardless of any of the above, i do feel for them. i don't know what i would feel if my child was shot by a lunatic, but i can guarantee i wouldn't blame anyone except the person who did it, and the people who didn't allow my child to carry for his and others' defense.
 
"We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.

Translation: "We aren't advocating any solution, but we are sure going to campaign against the most effective one."

As for "sensible gun control measures," someone's been reading the Brady handbook
 
TR- That is the most concise comment I have seen in a while. I would say send that to Oleg and see if there is a poster in it.
 
If you fight like a man, you never have to die like a dog.
This requires you have arms.
Here ends the lesson.
Post Script to lesson:
Does anyone suppose that if the heroic professor who held the door against the madman so his students could flee for their lives had been armed he would have given Cho some hot lead? I do, he was a man and did not die like a dog!
 
We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.

....because banning guns from campus completely was an effective deterrent for the criminal element/whack jobs.

Oh, wait a minute. That didn't work, and may have even contributed to the problem.:banghead:
 
We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.
I feel for you, but when Cho started shooting, who was called for help? Men with guns.
 
Too bad that nobody on the panel will have the guts to tell them:

"Do you want to know why your loved ones are dead? They are dead because they were convenient targets in a victim rich environment and were barred by regulation from possessing the means to protect themselves."
 
In the VT aftermath there have been numerous articles about the problems with the US gun culture, and I agree that we do have 1 HUGE problem with the gun culture in our country........ Not enough of the right people have them.

Some churches, our schools, our jobs, and especially our Government is doing all that it can to take the ability to defend ourselves AWAY! It is time that is does stop, I propose that we start a STOP THE MADNESS crusade.

Stop the madness carry concealed!
 
We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.
I feel for you, but when Cho started shooting, who was called for help? Men with guns.

Wow, I think Henry Bowman hit it right on the head. In fact this scenario proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that having more guns on campus DID improve the situation. Cho was certainly forced to stop his rampage when OTHER armed individuals showed up.
 
Too bad that nobody on the panel will have the guts to tell them:

"Do you want to know why your loved ones are dead? They are dead because they were convenient targets in a victim rich environment and were barred by regulation from possessing the means to protect themselves."
__________________
Disarming the potential VICTIMS to prevent violence makes as much sense as using chum as shark repellent.
 
According to the Washington Post article, the family of 13 want more gun control.

Relatives of Cho's victims, in often emotional remarks that caused others to leave the room in tears, called for tougher gun laws and questioned the panel's work, saying in a statement that they feel "ostracized." Some even said they want the power to edit the panel's final report.
 
I think a working background check system would be both Constitutional and reasonable, but beyond that mehhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
ZeSpectre nailed it. These people are fueled, perhaps understandably so, by raw emotion. And that does not make for sound policy- or law-making.

Kaine may have stacked this panel with apologists for the continued victim-disarmament zones, and nothing but mischief is likely to come of it. But he did one thing right in keeping the families the heck away from it.
 
IMHO, this letter is pretty meaningless. It sounds like these families are at the anger stage of the grieving process and have decided to lash out at pretty much everyone remotely associated with the deaths of their loved ones -- the review panel, the Governor, the government, the university, people who have contributed money, etc.

I think this letter makes it very clear why the families were excluded from the panel. The review panel is supposed to make their findings and recommendations based on facts and not on emotions.

I've known families who have lost children, and the intense anger, depression, frustration, and feeling of total helplessness that seems to last forever is overwhelming. They deserve sympathy, not criticism, even if we disagree with their opinions.
 
Panel seems like a total farce. They've also had some crazy guy in there a couple of times saying it's all the fault of video games, even though none of Cho's roommates ever saw him playing any. How many inanimate objects do they plan to shift the blame onto?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top