If authorities could predict the onset of a mass murder spree, that would be an invaluable contribution to public safety. The National Rifle Association made a stab at doing that in its recently issued report, “The National School Shield.” Unfortunately, the NRA tiptoed around the subject of weapons, and larded the report with gobbledygook. Here, in its entirety, is how the report dealt with what it calls “pre-incident indicators.”
“Active threat multiple casualty events, often referred to in law enforcement as “Active Shooter”, are rapidly evolving and dynamic criminal acts that vary distinctly from one to the next. Simply defined, an “Active Shooter/Active Threat” is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill. Since the shooting at the University of Texas in Austin (1966), an estimated 117 school shootings have occurred across the US leading up to the tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012. The psychological and sociological impacts of such tragic events are felt universally throughout the country. These events must serve as an impetus for change and adaptation of our school safety procedures and protocols in order to minimize the likelihood of history repeating itself and our communities must remain vigilant against this seemingly unpredictable threat.
“There have been numerous attempts by law enforcement, universities, focus groups and organizations, all of which have fallen short, in establishing a clear or reliable profile of such offenders. With that said, it is becoming increasingly prevalent to identify offenders retrospectively, that displayed common traits such as a long history of mental illness with an obsession with or proclivity towards violent behavior, prior to his/her final decision to progress from planning to initiation of the violent act.
“Based on these studies, the law enforcement community has identified a wide range of exhibitive behaviors and characteristics commonly attributed to offenders as they transition from the planning phase to the execution phase of the violent act itself. Collectively we refer to these early warning signals as Pre-Incident Indicators (PII). The identification of PII is reliant on strong and perseverant situational awareness on the part of the school staff, resource officers, volunteers and the general public alike. The challenge of how to raise public awareness of this topic can be daunting. It is critical for law enforcement to have a means to receive information and to evaluate reports as possible PII prior to the initiation of the violent act.
“It is difficult for law enforcement to measure the success of early identification and interdiction of possible active threat events. This is largely due to the challenge of developing tangible evidence or accumulating behavioral indicators to support that the suspect would have actually carried out a multiple casualty event absent the intervention of law enforcement. It is simply difficult to quantify “what might have happened”, making conclusions largely subjective. Elements commonly shared in perceived interventions, include the presence of a mitigation program designed to raise public awareness and the willingness of citizens to report. Successful communities were able to implement clearly established Community Awareness Programs (CAP). The goals behind the CAP were to raise public awareness and establish simple public reporting procedures in conjunction with local law enforcement in order to take measures to use the information in the intervention process.
“The communities where our schools reside should be empowered with the understanding that PII are more likely to be identified by friends, associates and family members of the offender. The key to success in establishing such programs is the emphasis placed on training the public to observe and report. More specifically, ‘process what is observed’ and ‘to whom do they report the observation’. In the tragic events of Virginia Tech (2007) the offender was seen days before the event at a local gun range shooting at targets lying on the ground. In afterthought, the individual that observed the actions of the offender felt it was ‘odd’ but did not feel compelled to report to law enforcement.
“Unfortunately, there is not a steadfast and concise set of guidelines to follow regarding what behaviors are reliably indicative of imminent aberrant or violent behavior and observations must be viewed in context of each individual situation. This fact, however, should not deter citizens from remaining vigilant in the effort to disseminate information to law enforcement when they observe something that gives cause for concern just because it is technically absent any actual illegal activity.”
Note that while there are isolated references to shooting or shooters, no attention is paid to the role of weapons or how they were obtained. The FBI is less bashful about citing firearms as a major source of the school violence problem. In a 1998 report, “The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective,” the FBI reported on behavior it saw as the handmaiden to violence:
“The student appears to be increasingly occupied in activities that could be related to carrying out a threat –for example, spending unusual amounts of time practicing with firearms or on various violent websites. The time spent in these activities has noticeably begun to exclude normal everyday pursuits such as homework, attending classes, going to work, and spending time with friends…. The family keeps guns or other weapons or explosive materials in the home, accessible to the student. More important, weapons are treated carelessly, without normal safety precautions; for example, guns are not locked away and are left loaded. Parents or a significant role model may handle weapons casually or recklessly and in doing so may convey to children that a weapon can be a useful and normal means of intimidating someone else or settling a dispute.”
The National Rifle Association is so protective and defensive about firearms it seems to have difficulty using straightforward language about guns the way the FBI did in its report.
That’s too bad. The concept of “pre-incident indicators,” despite the bureaucratic ring to it, is a potentially useful way to save lives. After all, if a student has a morbid fascination with firearms and is using all of his money to stockpile guns and ammunition, those are warning signs that family, friends and school authorities should not ignore.
It’s probably too much to expect an organization with “rifle” in the description of its reason for being to sound alarms about firearms ownership. But if the NRA is going to be issuing reports about school safety, it needs to be candid. That means being upfront about the seminal role guns play in the school violence problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment