It's been all over the news that shooting down at VTech, and it's one of those things you'd definitely take a hundred days of Hollywood star baby-drama publication over, any day.

Some of the people talking and analyzing/giving real info about the whole tragedy--the ones not merely jumping on it to talk about it or who're blowing hot air around are interesting... but it's likely some of the videos of student retellings that actually put you closest to the reality, them talking and describing what they simply saw before their eyes. It drags it out of the screen and, imperfectly, gives you a miniscule glimpse of their morning.

Of the dead two professors went down, and one in a real, true, irrevocably honest act of heroism in laying his life down for his pupils. But this is curious:

"Some students have complained that they were put at risk by the university, saying they had received no warning until an e-mail more than two hours after the first incident.

"Student Billy Bason, 18, said: 'I think the university has blood on their hands because of their lack of action after the first incident.' But the university president has defended his staff, saying they 'had no reason to suspect any other incident was going to occur'.
--bbc

And it's like, how could you not suspect? The first report came at 7:15--two hours before it happened, forty-five minutes before classes began.

I understand why they thought students in buildings would be safer than roaming outside with a shooter potentially abroad, but faced with the alternative? In this kind of climate, the first thing leaping to a lot of people's minds would be the fact that a school environment would be the prime scene for violence if anyone had the mind for it.

It seems like that'd be the first scenario you'd worry about knowing the past seven years or more of school-deaths, so why did they discount it?