The TriData Corporation
specializes in report writing—they knew exactly what they were doing. TriData
may have been following instructions, or did not want to be too specific and
alienate the state of Virginia, a state that might hire them again.
Then there are the excuses. While you are on
pages 81-82 of the report checking Roy’s quote, look at the section on page 82
entitled “Decision Not To Cancel Classes or Lock
Down:”
“… Most police chiefs consulted
in this review believe that a lockdown was not feasible.”
This statement is clearly intended to make excuses for a bad decision
not to act. My questions are how many police chiefs were asked, and how many
said the school should be locked down. This assertion that police chiefs
consulted “believed a lockdown was not possible” clearly indicates the police
chiefs were cherry picked to ensure responses favorable to the school’s
inaction. In my talks with campus security representatives from colleges and
universities, 100% said the school should have been locked down. The sentence
also runs counter to the school’s own past practices—do I have to cite the Morva incident again? In that case, the school didn’t
believe the killer was on the campus, yet it locked down.
On the next page (83) the excuses
continue: “In the Morva incident, when the school was
closed, it took over an hour and half for traffic to clear despite trying to
stage the evacuation.” An hour and a half is a small price to pay to save 30 lives.
The paragraphs on
law enforcement records are especially disturbing.
On pages 63 and 64 your will find, “Law
enforcement agencies must disclose certain information to anyone who requests
it. They must disclose basic information about felony crimes: the date,
location, general description of the crime, and name of the investigating
officer. Law enforcement agencies also have to release the name and address of
anyone arrested and charged with any type of crime. All records about
non-criminal incidents are available upon request. When they disclose
non-criminal incident records, law enforcement agencies must withhold
personally-identifying information such as names, addresses, and social
security numbers.
“
… Most of the detailed information about criminal activity is contained
in law enforcement investigative files. Under Virginia’s Freedom of Information
Act, law enforcement agencies are allowed to keep these records
confidential. The law also gives agencies the discretion to release the
records. However, law enforcement agencies across the state typically have a
policy against disclosing such records.”
Many actions may be legal, such as withholding vital information in the
nation’s worst school shooting, but to do so is morally and ethically
repugnant. The panel should have made that point. Furthermore, the
police, in order to remove any suspicion that they did not do their job in
connection with Cho’s purchase of weapons, should
have willingly released all documents.
Chapter
VI of the Addendum, “Gun Purchases And Campus Policies” is important and
unfortunately, it is also a disappointment. Perhaps nowhere else in the report
is it as evident as it is on these pages that the panel members did not want to
address critically sensitive issues.
Please take a look at page 71—“In investigating
the role firearms played in the events of April 16, 2007, the panel encountered
strong feelings and heated debate from the public. The panel’s investigation
focused on two areas: Cho’s purchase of firearms and
ammunition, and campus policies toward firearms. The panel recognized the deep
divisions in American society regarding the ready availability of rapid fire
weapons and high capacity magazines, but this issue was beyond the scope of
this review.” This borders on stating the obvious; how does it help? This
paragraph should be dropped.
For example, on page 71 you will find,
“Cho was not legally authorized to purchase his
firearms, but was easily able to do so. Gun purchasers in Virginia must qualify
to buy a firearm under both federal and state law. Federal law disqualified Cho from purchasing or possessing a firearm. The federal
Gun Control Act, originally passed in 1968, prohibits gun purchases by anyone
who has ‘been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a
mental institution.’ Federal regulations interpreting the act define
‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ as ‘(a) determination by a court, board,
commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of … mental
illness…is a danger to himself or to others.’ Cho
was found to be a danger to himself by a special justice of the Montgomery
County General District Court on December 14, 2005. Therefore, under federal law, Cho could not purchase a firearm.
“The legal status of Cho’s gun purchase under Virginia law is less clear. Like
federal law, Virginia law also prohibits persons who have been adjudicated
incompetent or committed to mental institutions from purchasing firearms.
However, Virginia law defines the terms differently. It defines incompetency by referring to the section of Virginia Code
for declaring a person incapable of caring for himself or herself. It does not
specify that a person who had been found to be a danger to self or others is
‘incompetent.’ Because
he had not been declared unable to care for himself, it does not appear that Cho was disqualified under this provision of Virginia law.”
The report should have done a better job of reconciling Cho’s
legal status to buy a gun. First the report says “under federal law, Cho could not have purchased firearms.” Then it implies
that there are exceptions under Virginia law. When you read the following,
perhaps the reason for this lack of clarity becomes clearer.
On page 72 the issue of whether Cho should
have been able to buy a gun is blurred. “This uncertainty in Virginia law
carries over into the system for conducting a firearms background check. In
general, nationally, before purchasing a gun from a dealer a person must go
through a background check. A government agency (which government agency?) runs
the name of the potential buyer through the databases of people who are
disqualified from purchasing guns. If the potential purchaser is in the
databases, the transaction is stopped. If not, the dealer is instructed to
proceed with the sale. The agency performing the check varies by state. Some
states rely on the federal government to conduct the checks. In other states,
such as Virginia, the state conducts the check of both federal and state
databases. In Virginia the task is
given to the state police.” Did the
police not do their job? The report never even attempts to address that point.
Again, on page 72—“In Virginia, the Central Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE), a division of
the state police is tasked with gathering criminal records and other court
information that is used for the background checks. Information on
mental health commitments orders ‘for involuntary admission to a facility’ is
supposed to be sent to the CCRE by the court clerk (Was this done?) who must send all copies of the orders along with
a copy of form SP 237 that provides basic information about the person who is the
subject of the court order. (Was this
done?) As currently drafted, the law only requires a clerk to certify a
form and does not specify who should complete the form. Because of the lack of
clarity in some jurisdictions (Which
jurisdictions—the one where Cho bought his
firearms?) it was reported to the panel that clerks in some
jurisdictions do not send the information unless they receive a completed form.
Recommendations to improve this aspect of the law were given in Chapter
IV.”
The lack of clarity continues on page 73,
“The state police did not permit the panel to view copies of the forms in their
investigation but indicated that Cho answered “no” to
this question (Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective, which
includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs?) or
have you ever been committed to a mental institution? It is impossible to know
whether Cho understood the proper response was “yes”
and whether his answers were mistakes or deliberate falsifications. In any
event, the fact remains that Cho, a person
disqualified from purchasing firearms, was readily able to obtain them.”
Then on page 74 the reader is told, “Federal
law prohibited Cho from purchasing ammunition.”
So, was the law broken? If so, why was no one held accountable?
The Key Findings on gun ownership
and gun rights are weak and clearly represent the timidity of the panel when
confronting a politically sensitive issue: gun ownership and guns rights.
Indeed, the Key Findings are so weak as to be meaningless. (To be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment