Comments on: UAM employee arrested

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:05:03 +0000

I think everyone is missing the forrest because of the trees. What do we know? Or better yet, what did we know at the time? We knew that Mr. Fong was belligerent. We knew he had been taken to the hospital. We knew that he had made comments at the hospital that made it necessary for the police to become involved. Now let us ask ourselves some questions. How long can the police hold you without charging you? The police can hold you for 72 hours in lieu of questioning. Were they able to interview him or question him immediately? If he was belligerent, or incoherrent it is doubtful.Did you have a right to know that something had happened at UAM. Yes you did.It seems that many of you feel that information flows like water when you turn on your faucet. I compare it more to the old hand pump on a well. You walk up to it, put the bucket under the spout and start pumping. Hopefully, if your lucky, something falls into the bucket that you can use. I feel the story explained exactly what we and everyone else knew at the time. It also stopped many rumors that were running in all directions. Truthfully, until he is charged it is not a matter of public record. The fact is you can report on public knowledge, and public record. It is easy to comment on the way things are done when you cannot be held responsible for what you say. I will not, and Monticello Live will not, do anything but the right thing. The original, as it stood, did what it was supposed to do. Informed you that something had happened, what it was, who was involved, and what actions had been taken. All stories are open ended. This story is still open ended. Until he is convicted or whatever the disposition of the case, this story is open ended.

By: Shelley

Shelley — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:16:13 +0000

but the point is, we didn’t know he was making threats when the initial story was posted. it was only one paragraph, that had no detail.

I totally agree at this point that it should not be taken lightly.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:36:06 +0000

I understand your points, but we still think the first story was appropriate in its nature and content.Maybe a more main stream word than “belligerent,” such as “threatening” or “hostile” should have been used, but it was used by sources.

According to dictionary.com, belligerent is defined as:

1. warlike; given to waging war.
2. of warlike character; aggressively hostile; bellicose: a belligerent tone.
3. waging war; engaged in war: a peace treaty between belligerent powers.
4. pertaining to war or to those engaged in war: belligerent rights.

We think that was an accurate description of what was taking place at the time of the first story.

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:12:42 +0000

Right. No one can assume anything these days. The point that everyone was making is that the story was open ended. There was nothing that explained what he did, said, or anything that lead to the arrest. That is the only point that anyone was trying to make.

Now, that the Sheriff’s dept. has decided to release what took place, I think everyone is fine. What was initially put out was that a man was arrested for becoming disoriented and mouthing, and that was it. If each person that became disoriented or mouthed was arrested, Monticello wouldn’t have the room in its jails to hold them all.

What UAM did was great, Jack and the staff acted as they should have, and in light of what happened at VT this week, it is good to know we have a campus staff that takes the necessary precautions.

By: TK

TK — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:00:41 +0000

He is at work, becomes disoriented, is taken to medical experts, becomes belligerent, goes the the hospital and then goes off making comments and threats towards UAM…..what more does anyone need to know? I think NOTHING! Hats off to UAM for handling this in a fast, efficient and cautious effort! By acting fast, taking things into a controlled atmosphere and asking questions later……….no one was potentially injured, harmed, etc. If your going to “go off” on someone and make terroristic threats of harm, then be ready to have your a*& thrown in jail! If Fong was just “angry” for this being blown out of propertion, then he shouldve just kept his mouth shut. Its time people start having to be responsible for their actions, even if it is just running their mouth! I hope and pray that the students of UAM can feel safe on their campus. If you don’t act “out of control” or “crazy” then no one has to assume that you are. It is as simple as that!

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:18:04 +0000

The fact remains that when this guy was taken into custody, there were no named charges. At the time my comments were made, the information was limited, and there was no known evidence that this man did anything wrong other than run off at the mouth. The entire thing was sketchy, and therefore was worthy of my comments at the time. So, you should take that into consideration. Apparently, the sheriff’s office has decided to release more evidence, in depth, therefore making a foundation for their case.

By: Linda

Linda — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:11:09 +0000

This whole thing with Virginia Tech is a horrible situation that is beyond my comprehension as to how the people are dealing with it all. My prayers are with them all. I commend and appreciate ALL that was done out on the UAM campus with the man that made threats. Nothing like that can be taken lightly as we so tragically found out! It has to be a very difficult job trying to handle all the different situations that come up with students, faculty and all the people that frequent the campus on a daily basis. Clay Brown, Jack Lassiter and all the people out there that had a hand in this took care of it very professionally and quickly before anything terrible happened or could have happened. I have a child who attends out there daily and I for one am very glad it was handled the way it was. Keep up the good work UAM!

By: Shelley

Shelley — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:56:26 +0000

Thanks, Jeff, for clarifying that, I would not want people to think I take this type of crime lightly.
I only said it was vague when it WAS vague. Now that the whole story is out there, it makes complete sense that he was locked up.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:31:43 +0000

I would also encourage comments on the follow-up story. However, what the initial commenters failed to realize is that because websites of this nature are able to post “breaking news,” sometimes a news story is limited to just the information that something has happened. As is evidenced by national media many times, there are simply no details to be had at certain points in a story.

We updated the story as soon as we were able to get more details from the sheriff’s office. Thank you all for your patience.

By: Shelley

Shelley — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:23:01 +0000

This story has been recently updated. When Michael and I left comments, there were NO details whatsoever. To have our comments beneath this NOW detailed story is VERY misleading.