Thousands of students checked their phones Wednesday morning after receiving an alert about police activity on campus. The next notice was more dire.
“Shooting at Engineering 4. Go to secure location and deny entry (lockdown) now!” the BruinAlert said.
Tommaso Bulfone, a fourth-year human biology and society student, who was in class when the alert was sent, said students began closing the blinds and barricading the doors.
But in other locations, the response was characterized by a lack of urgency.
READ MORE: Full coverage of Wednesday’s murder-suicide, campus reactions.
Salwa Zahid, a third-year molecular, cellular and developmental biology student, said students continued to study in Powell Library as the situation unfolded.
“I heard people in other buildings were bolting their doors shut,” Zahid said. “(Here) no one was really screaming or moving around a lot.”
Tracy Nguyen, a second-year psychobiology student, said she saw people calmly crossing the De Neve crosswalk toward campus even after she received a second alert ordering students to proceed to a lockdown.
Nguyen added she thinks it took an hour and a half after the first BruinAlert for staff to fully lock down the Hill.
In some morning classes, professors also allowed students to come in and out of classes despite the lockdown announcement.
Armin Takallou, a second-year human biology and society student, said students spoke up to say they did not feel comfortable with their professor continuing the lecture.
“The professor said he was going to keep lecturing until someone told him to stop,” said Takallou. “It didn’t sound like the professor was very concerned.”
Takallou added he thinks it would have been helpful if professors followed a planned protocol during the lockdown.
Students on lockdown shared hearsay about multiple shooters throughout campus, scores of casualties and high-powered weapons across social media networks and by word of mouth.
Hannah Ross, a first-year undeclared student, woke up to her roommate watching news coverage of the shooting on her laptop.
Ross said she heard numerous rumors about shooters on the Hill, including gunmen near Sproul Hall. Officials later confirmed there was only one shooter in the Engineering IV building.
“It was way more scary than it needed to be,” she said.
Ross remained in a friend’s room during the lockdown watching live video of the campus response.
When officials sent out an official alert declaring the campus as safe, students streamed out of their shelters, phones glued to their ears as they assured friends and family of their safety.
Noel Battle, a fourth-year sociology student, spent two hours under lockdown in Community Programs Office in the Student Activities Center before she heard the order declaring the campus safe.
“Some people rushed out as fast as they could, but some were still quietly sitting on the ground when I left,” Battle said. “They were hesitant and taking their time to leave.”
Jacqueline Bravo, a fourth-year economics and Spanish student, said the campus response to the shooting left her confused and shaken.
“There were so many rumors flying around, but you’re locked down and don’t actually know what’s happening,” Bravo said. “You think that something like this could never happen here, but you’re actually living it.”
Contributing reports by Allison Ong, Janae Yip, Evolet Chiu, and Laurel Scott, Bruin staff.
My lovely management professor asked for 2 students to “stand guard” outside the door because she was starting to get nervous with the sounds of helicopters as she continued with lecture and letting students in and out of class
A protocol should be communicated to students and faculty. Everyone should be advised that false rumors are expected, especially when the only official explanation for hours is ‘Shooting. Lock your doors.’ And our doors need locks.
UCLA wasn’t as prepared as it should have been.
The Gun Free Zone didn’t work… again.
Can someone who supports Gun Free Zones explain this idea to me?
I honestly don’t get it. I’m not being snarky, I just don’t comprehend them.
Isn’t a Gun Free Zone created to prevent murders? But if wouldn’t the person who is committing the murder by definition be a criminal and not care about it technically being illegal carrying the gun on campus (since murder is also illegal). I don’t think school deaths happen by law-abiding citizens…so wouldn’t it be a low-yield law to outlaw guns in said areas?
Someone please explain the logic….
There is no logic on the Left. Just the implementation of flawed ideas so the failures mount up and lead to systemic collapse and Revolution.
That’s not a helpful reply. Also discounting such a huge part of the population like that is unlikely to be based on a valid premise. I can think of logic that doesn’t make sense from both the left and right. But turning it into a left/right conversation is totally distracting to the topic at hand. It’s an example of how internet conversations just turn into arguing and of how things don’t get done.
So go ahead… explain the logic of Gun Free zones.
@Caterina, How is that a reply to what I said? I called you out generalizing about a huge group of people, then mentioned how some stances on both conservative/liberal platforms don’t make sense, and called you out on distracting from the topic at hand (getting information about Gun Free zones). Then you imply that based on that, the Gun Free zones “should” make sense?
I never once said that all their stances make sense (I said the opposite actually, that some don’t, on both sides). This is why people arguing on the internet are made fun off…you post one thing and they go into this whole other tangent. The whole page turns worthless.
…and we’re still waiting for you to explain the logic. When pressed, the left is always faced with the fact that progressive policies never meet the realities of the real world. They are merely intellectual fantasies that are lived out in one’s head.
@Rubio, why would I explain the logic? *MY* original post was explaining how I don’t understand the logic of Gun Free Zones with a request for someone to explain them. They seem illogical to me. So, I really shouldn’t be asked to explain.
All I did above was to call someone out on a generalization about a large part of the population, because those broad generaliation comments usually aren’t accurate (and kind of worthless to current discussion). I said that both left and right have certain stances that just don’t make sense…never once did I even get into supporting one side over the other. But it’s interesting to see who’s ready to pull out an argument about it whenever they can. That’s who people trying to bait me into some off topic, so they can write about their dislike for a certain group.
Do your homework. The data regarding gun free zones is all there. Furthermore, your writing and spelling is dreadful for a student at such a prestigious university.
@Rubio, I wasn’t asking for data on Gun Free Zones. I was asking for a proponent of them to explain their logic, since I don’t think there is any. This might make others from the university re-evaluate their stance on the issue.
But instead, there are only posts jumping to slam entire political groups, which is off-topic, irrelevant, and not going to help spread information or convince people of anything or make anyone think deeper.
Forget logic, the statistics are in. Gun free zones invite these types of situations. Period. It’s nonsense.
And I agree…which is why I asked for a proponent to explain the theory of Gun Free Zones. All I got back was people jumping at the chance to bash others….like they’ve been waiting for the chance to do it in the thread or something. Then the entire conversation gets lost, and actual intelligent people who might have good ideas, scroll right past it.
This thread COULD have been me asking the question about Gun Free Zones, no one replying, then people reading also questioning Gun Free Zones and maybe moving to oppose them…but no, now it’s just a stupid internet conversation that people skip right over…cluttering the page.
There is no logic.
You are correct in your assessment.
So, the idea behind it is the fewer guns/weapons, the fewer people get hurt. Generally, this pans out in the statistics. In schools and hospitals in particular, making them gun free zones deters gang and drug activity since the punishments become much more severe if they have a gun in a gun free zone. Also, many deaths and injuries from guns result in them having gone off accidentally. Even in cases of domestic violence, women who get guns for protection because they are scared become more likely to die, not less.
And for the argument that having guns around makes people safer – what happened at the navy yard shooting? if someone comes in with a gun, ready to take people out, even someone else with a gun would need time to get it out. And there is always the possibility that innocent bystanders get hurt as well.
Hope that makes sense – cobbled together pretty quickly, but if you want more info or have other questions, I am happy to try to get some more info/explanation for you.
Oh, forgot to add – no, it doesn’t actually seem to be a low yield law when you look at schools that created gun free zones and decreases violence on campus. Also, as far as schools go, students feel safer generally with them being gun free zones, and that is important because students need to feel unafraid at school in order to effectively learn.
The Gun Free Zone didn’t work… again.
The Gun Free Zone didn’t work… again.
Very inappropriate of UCLA to leave students hanging with no information. The students actually in lockdown, hiding under desks, thinking someone was out in the hallways trying to kill them and coming for them at any second should be better taken care of with information. Explain WHY they’re in a lockdown! As a precaution? Because another shooting happened? Because bullets are flying? Give some info.
Due to the lack of information, UCLA, some students are extremely traumatized. Some will have PTSD. Some will be unable to complete school. Some will have issues that follow them for awhile. Knowing that you’re hiding as a precaution versus because of an active shooter is a HUGE psychological difference….plus the whole girls having to pee in a corner in front of their classmates issue.
PD should have set get away. Go home. Not stay around and lock yourselves in.
They didn’t know yet and had to be sure that there wasn’t another shooter present. There was a shooting in the building, and given all the information that has come out, he easily could have gone on to shoot more people. He certainly had plenty of ammo on him. The cops and police did the best they could and only provided facts as they knew them to the media. Things get reported that aren’t true and rumors fly when people are scared and in a stressful situation, such as this. Yes, it is unfortunate that some will have long lasting repercussions from this day, but the school did a LOT right and the first responders were there fast and made their way through the building efficiently. We need to applaud and thank the efforts right now. It is not their fault this happened – it was a horrible tragedy.
Now, there’s obvious information about their decision making that we don’t know about and I’m assuming they had legitimate reasons for a lot of it, BUT cops responded to the shooting really quickly. They knew almost immediately that there was not an active shooting in progress (evidence: no further shots fired, no reports of shootings in the other buildings, the weapon and ammo were presumably found with the dead suspect, no reports of person with a gun elsewhere).
Maybe right when they got there, there was some doubt, but after an hour of nothing happening there must definitely be information forwarded to the students that they’re ordering to keep hiding. Many students thought their schoolmates were actively being hunted down and killed and that they were next. Hours of that fear while in hiding is terrifying. It wasn’t necessary. How do you not provide any information for that long?
I’m only criticizing the handling of the emergency as it relates to communicating with students. If officers thought they needed to stay bunkered down even buildings away just to be safe, then so be it. But you can’t let students and parents think that it’s because there’s someone actively going around campus killing students….
I thought about this thread when I read this article.
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-ln-ucla-shooting-account-klug-sarkar-20160603-snap-story.html
While we didn’t know all this, the cops immediately on-scene did (referring to the initial event of gunfire heard, another professors immediately held door close, another shot heard. Nothing from then on. It was over before police even arrived. Some level of not making everyone thing here was an active shooter coming for them would have been nice. Again, I wasn’t there is the moment to make these decisions, so who knows what other things were at play.
I see your point, truly, but with the number of mass shootings going on, I think they really did the right thing here. They learned info fairly quickly – but they found the note about checking for his cat, they hadn’t yet gotten things checked out there. And it turns out they did find the additional kill list with another professor’s name on it and another person dead. So there was a lot unfolding, and there were also student reports of seeing a shooter on other parts of campus. They had to check all of those reports with the information they had too — for example, someone I know ran into a plain clothes cop, but in the early confusion thought it was the shooter and reported what he witnessed to the police. That takes time to follow up on and check, and it is safer to keep people locked down.
PTSD, traumatized because of lack of information? Oh goodness what a fragile generation you’ve all become. I’m embarrassed for you.
@disqus_pz7KO9jnq3:disqus, replying to my message requires reading comprehension on your part (and I suppose some knowledge about the circumstances). The trauma comes from *being made to think they were hiding/bunkering for their lives because an active shooter was going room to room assassinating them*. Hours for them to think about which of their friends might have been shot and if their room was next in the school shooter’s path.
Yes, for 18 year old students that can provide plenty of adrenaline stimulus that stays in the their heads and causes problems down the line. Even being robbed at gunpoint is over and done with. This is sustained adrenaline/fear over a longer period of time caused by thinking they were in immediate danger of being gunned down.
Oh yes, the ever so predictable, progresive ad-hominen reply. Ouuff.
It’s reality. Take it or leave it.
There’s always a choice. Your choice is to be the weak minded victim. I’m sure others will make the choice to move on.
Thanks for the article Madeleine and Kevin. Watching my friends at UCLA deal with the aftermath of this senseless act of violence, I am prompted to post info on where to get help. UCLA’s Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) is available for any member of the UCLA community who wishes to speak to a trained counselor about their feelings about the incident. Phone counseling is available for students 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at 310-825-0768, or students may visit CAPS in person, on the second floor of John Wooden Center West.
Staff and faculty may seek services at the Staff and Faculty Counseling Center, at 10920 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 380, or by calling 310-794-0245.