Virginia Tech shooting
The Virginia Tech shooting was a spree shooting that occurred on Monday, April 16, 2007, comprising two attacks on the campus of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. Seung-Hui Cho, an undergraduate student at the university, killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semi-automatic pistols. Six others were injured jumping out of windows to escape Cho.
Virginia Tech shooting
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.
37°13′23″N 80°25′16″W / 37.2231°N 80.4211°W (Ambler Johnston Hall)[1]
37°13′46″N 80°25′23″W / 37.2294°N 80.4231°W (Norris Hall)[2]
Students, staff and faculty at Virginia Tech
- Glock 19 pistol
- Walther P22 pistol[4]
33 (including the perpetrator)[5]: 127
- Liviu Librescu
- Kevin Granata
- G. V. Loganathan
- Derek O'Dell
- Katelyn Carney
- Henry Lee
- Zach Petkewicz
- Matthew La Porte[8]
Ambler Johnston shooting: Possible romantic dispute, witness elimination Norris Hall shooting: Inconclusive (possibly misanthropy or retaliation for bullying)
The first shooting occurred at West Ambler Johnston Hall, a dormitory, where two people were killed; the main attack was a school shooting at Norris Hall, a classroom building, where Cho chained the main entrance doors shut and fired into four classrooms and in a stairwell, killing thirty more people. As police stormed Norris Hall, Cho fatally shot himself in the head. It was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history and remained so for nine years until the Orlando nightclub shooting. It remained the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history and the deadliest mass shooting in Virginia history.
The attacks received international media coverage and provoked widespread criticism of U.S. gun culture.[9] It sparked debate about gun violence, gun laws, gaps in the U.S. system for treating mental health issues, Cho's state of mind, the responsibility of college administrations,[10] privacy laws, journalism ethics, and other issues. News organizations that aired portions of Cho's multimedia manifesto were criticized by victims' families, Virginia law enforcement officials, and the American Psychiatric Association.[11][12]
Cho had previously been diagnosed with selective mutism and severe depression. During much of his middle school and high school years, he received therapy and special education support. After graduating from high school, Cho enrolled at Virginia Tech. Because of federal privacy laws, the university was unaware of Cho's previous diagnoses or the accommodations he had been granted at school. In 2005, Cho was accused of stalking two female students.[13] After an investigation, a Virginia special justice declared Cho mentally ill and ordered him to attend treatment. Because he was not institutionalized, he was allowed to purchase guns.[14] The shooting prompted the state of Virginia to close legal loopholes that had allowed individuals adjudicated as mentally unsound to purchase handguns without detection by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It also led to the passage of the first major federal gun control measure in the U.S. since 1994. The law strengthening the NICS was signed by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2008.[15]
Administrators at Virginia Tech were criticized by the Virginia Tech Review Panel, a state-appointed panel tasked with investigating the incident, for failing to take action that might have decreased the number of casualties.[16] The panel's report also reviewed gun laws and pointed out gaps in mental health care as well as privacy laws that left Cho's deteriorating condition untreated when he was a student at Virginia Tech.[17]: 78 [18]: 2 37°13′37″N 80°25′19″W / 37.227°N 80.422°W
Legal aftermath[edit]
On June 17, 2008, Judge Theodore J. Markow approved an $11 million settlement in a suit against the state of Virginia by twenty-four of the thirty-two victims' families. Of the other eight victims, two families chose not to file claims, while two remain unresolved. The settlement also covered eighteen people who were injured; their lifelong health care needs were included in the settlement.[119][234]
On March 29, 2011, the Department of Education levied a fine of $55,000 against Virginia Tech for waiting too long to notify students of the initial shootings, in violation of the Clery Act. The fine was the highest amount that the Department of Education could levy.[235] In announcing the fine, the director of a department panel which reviewed the case was quoted as saying, "While Virginia Tech's violations warrant a fine far in excess of what is currently permissible under the statute, the department's fine authority is limited". As of March 30, 2011, the university had announced its intention to appeal the decision.[236] On March 30, 2012, a federal judge overturned the fine, finding that the university did not violate the Clery Act. Ernest Canellos, administrative law judge for the Department of Education, found that Virginia Tech's initial conclusion was reasonable that the initial shootings were a domestic incident and didn't represent an ongoing threat, even though that was later proven wrong.[237] Canellos wrote, "This was not an unreasonable amount of time in which to issue a warning. If the later shootings at Norris Hall had not occurred, it is doubtful that the timing of the e-mail would have been perceived as too late."[238]
On September 1, 2012, Education Secretary Arne Duncan reinstated half the fine–$27,500–reversing the decision by Canellos. In the statement released when the fine was reinstated, Duncan wrote, "Although the police department hypothesized that the crime was 'domestic in nature', the record is clear that the respondent had not located the suspect, had not found the weapon, and was confronted with the distinct possibility that the gunman was armed and still at large." Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker issued a statement, saying, "Once again, the higher education community has been put on notice that timeliness is situational and will be determined by department officials after the fact."[239][240] Duncan agreed to an additional $5,000 fine on January 3, 2014; the Federal Office of Student Aid had sought an additional $27,500. An administrative law judge reduced the amount and Duncan agreed to the reduction. At the time, Virginia Tech announced that it was considering appeals on both fines.[241] Ultimately, Virginia Tech paid a total of $32,500 in February 2014, saying it was closing "this chapter on the tragedy of April 16, 2007," without admitting wrongdoing. The announcement that the fines had been paid was made on April 16, 2014, the seventh anniversary of the shooting. A statement by Larry Hincker said, "While we believe that the department's actions against Virginia Tech are inconsistent with their earlier guidance and policy, further litigation was not prudent in light of the various costs—emotional impact on the community, time lost, as well as financial."[242]
On March 14, 2012, a jury found that Virginia Tech was guilty of negligence for delaying a campus warning.[243] The parents of two slain students, Erin Nicole Peterson and Julia Kathleen Pryde, had filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit that argued that lives could have been spared if university officials had moved more quickly to alert the campus after the initial shooting. On October 31, 2013, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed the verdict, citing the trial judge's instruction to the jury that there was a "special relationship" between Virginia Tech and the two students, since they were "business invitees" of the university. In rejecting the decision, the Virginia Supreme Court said that "even if there was a special relationship between the Commonwealth (meaning the state of Virginia, and its affiliated agencies, such as Virginia Tech) and students of Virginia Tech ... there was no duty for the Commonwealth to warn students about the potential for criminal acts by third parties." The state has claimed that ultimate responsibility rested with Cho for not seeking assistance prior to the shooting. The two families had not joined in a previous settlement with the other families.[244]