60 Minutes II - 2001-04-17

EDIT: They're in the right order now.

From Tuesday, April 17, 2001, here is a lengthy Columbine news report that was broadcast on CBS's 60 Minutes II.

1/3


2/3


3/3

thank you, i didn´t know this. you are awesome!

em81 wrote:

thank you,

You're welcome.

Quote :

i didn´t know this. you are awesome!

If you say so.

OMG! I was just wondering yesterday if someone would have some of these Columbine related shows that seem to be impossible to find on internet like Columbine: Understanding Why, Robyn Anderson and Nate Dykeman GMA interviews (I've only read transcripts), Judy and Brooks Brown on Oprah, and the CBS Minutes II.

Thank you so much! (:

I'm still at the first part. But, wow. The parents make so many good points. Sometimes you get lost in the situation itself that these facts are looked over.

Thanks so much for this, though! You've uploaded so many things a lot of us would've never even known about otherwise.

I found it very interesting that in the first video you see Daniel R alive sitting on the same steps that he'd later be killed on, in the exact same clothes he wore when he died...

Very excellent find. Thank you for the work bro

2 questions
- at 2:00 of teh first vid, that's Danny or Rachel?
- at 3:53 first vid, Dave was a baseball coach?

Overall I'm impressed with the vid. Sure, it has an agenda and a story to tell from the start: "Bad cops loaf around and wait while people die". However I've not noticed any facts wrong or manipulation. That's their interpretation of the event, but imho its not an unfair one.

I also know the SWAT guy is not making things up, what he states were the actual procedures that were used at the time. These were designed with a "multiple, well armed people attack a place to hold someone hostage, make demands etc" - basiclaly a Beslan style situation.

However, these are poor tactics if you have a spree killer who will not make demands, just kill people. Since I heard they introduced an "active shooter" protocol, and at least in Oregon this year it seems to have worked.

Sabratha wrote:

- at 2:00 of teh first vid, that's Danny or Rachel?

Danny, you can see that he's at the bottom of the concrete stairs.

Sabratha wrote:

2 questions
- at 2:00 of teh first vid, that's Danny or Rachel?
- at 3:53 first vid, Dave was a baseball coach?

Overall I'm impressed with the vid. Sure, it has an agenda and a story to tell from the start: "Bad cops loaf around and wait while people die". However I've not noticed any facts wrong or manipulation. That's their interpretation of the event, but imho its not an unfair one.

I also know the SWAT guy is not making things up, what he states were the actual procedures that were used at the time. These were designed with a "multiple, well armed people attack a place to hold someone hostage, make demands etc" - basiclaly a Beslan style situation.

However, these are poor tactics if you have a spree killer who will not make demands, just kill people. Since I heard they introduced an "active shooter" protocol, and at least in Oregon this year it seems to have worked.

Active shooters are a complicated thing. Police intervention in Oregon caused the gunman to give up after shooting up a single room. That might not always be the case though. Police intervention might cause the shooter to be one more violent. Once you being opposed by police there's no reason not to go crazy. Still I think we've come along way since 1999. Now if we could just find a way to stop it from happening period.

Nirvana92 wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

2 questions
- at 2:00 of teh first vid, that's Danny or Rachel?
- at 3:53 first vid, Dave was a baseball coach?

Overall I'm impressed with the vid. Sure, it has an agenda and a story to tell from the start: "Bad cops loaf around and wait while people die". However I've not noticed any facts wrong or manipulation. That's their interpretation of the event, but imho its not an unfair one.

I also know the SWAT guy is not making things up, what he states were the actual procedures that were used at the time. These were designed with a "multiple, well armed people attack a place to hold someone hostage, make demands etc" - basiclaly a Beslan style situation.

However, these are poor tactics if you have a spree killer who will not make demands, just kill people. Since I heard they introduced an "active shooter" protocol, and at least in Oregon this year it seems to have worked.

Active shooters are a complicated thing. Police intervention in Oregon caused the gunman to give up after shooting up a single room. That might not always be the case though. Police intervention might cause the shooter to be one more violent. Once you being opposed by police there's no reason not to go crazy. Still I think we've come along way since 1999. Now if we could just find a way to stop it from happening period.

Given how we know the most murderous rampages went, I think the recent: "Move in as fas as possible, move to the sound of gunshots" protocol is certainly the lesser evil. Doesn't give the shooter the freedom to roam the building picking off individual people hiding in weird places.

The greatest asset the spree killer has is the element of surprise (out of the blue, can happen anywhere by people who had no previous criminal history) and the ability to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time before anyone moves in. The police are wise to try to neutralize that capacity as much as possible.

Sabratha wrote:

Nirvana92 wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

2 questions
- at 2:00 of teh first vid, that's Danny or Rachel?
- at 3:53 first vid, Dave was a baseball coach?

Overall I'm impressed with the vid. Sure, it has an agenda and a story to tell from the start: "Bad cops loaf around and wait while people die". However I've not noticed any facts wrong or manipulation. That's their interpretation of the event, but imho its not an unfair one.

I also know the SWAT guy is not making things up, what he states were the actual procedures that were used at the time. These were designed with a "multiple, well armed people attack a place to hold someone hostage, make demands etc" - basiclaly a Beslan style situation.

However, these are poor tactics if you have a spree killer who will not make demands, just kill people. Since I heard they introduced an "active shooter" protocol, and at least in Oregon this year it seems to have worked.

Active shooters are a complicated thing. Police intervention in Oregon caused the gunman to give up after shooting up a single room. That might not always be the case though. Police intervention might cause the shooter to be one more violent. Once you being opposed by police there's no reason not to go crazy. Still I think we've come along way since 1999. Now if we could just find a way to stop it from happening period.

Given how we know the most murderous rampages went, I think the recent: "Move in as fas as possible, move to the sound of gunshots" protocol is certainly the lesser evil. Doesn't give the shooter the freedom to roam the building picking off individual people hiding in weird places.

The greatest asset the spree killer has is the element of surprise (out of the blue, can happen anywhere by people who had no previous criminal history) and the ability to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time before anyone moves in. The police are wise to try to neutralize that capacity as much as possible.

All good points. I know that Israel arms it's schools teachers, but that's only close to the West Bank where they fear more frequent attacks. I don't think that would be a good thing for American schools, since most of the shootings are spree killer type of scenarios. No to mention there are a lot of accidental firearms discharges and injuries that could become possible with that. I think better access to non lethal suppression measures might be a better option for the sake of stopping or lessening an attack that is already underway.

An even better stance would be focused mental health assessment, and better enforcement of existing firearms regulations. To quote Brooks, there are no easy answers. We're a violent country.

This is a good documentary about Columbine