“Mass Attacks in Public Spaces, 2018,†published by the U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center this month attempts to enhance efforts to prevent mass attacks. The FBI published a similar report in June of 2018: “A Study of the Pre-attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in the United States.†Despite vast amounts of information and observations the reports make about past shooters’ age, race, education, employment, criminal convictions, time spent planning and preparing, and firearms acquisition, can these insights be used to reliably prevent the next horrific shooting?
The Secret Service study chronicles and quantifies where and when these attacks occurred, the assailants’ ages, mental health symptoms and possible motives, beliefs and targeting present during and leading up to these incidents. The U.S. Secret Service suggest that certain stressors were significant contributors to these 28 attacks in 2018 and 31 attacks in 2017:
1. Family/romantic relationships: death of a loved one, divorce, a broken engagement, or physical or emotional abuse.
2. Work or school: being denied a promotion, losing a job or being forced to withdraw from school.
3. Contact with law enforcement that did not result in arrests or charges
4. Personal Issues: such as homelessness or losing a competition.
5. Financial Instabilities within the previous five years.
But, does this body of knowledge actually offer us a reliable means to prevent the next horrific shooting? If we take a sampling of the whole United States and ask ourselves how many individuals who have lost a loved one, how many subsequently have gone out on a mass murdering spree? Less than 1%?
This same question could be asked of each of these “stressors,†and the answer is the same, probably less than 1%. Even if someone exhibited all five of these “stressors,†would we put all such individuals in an asylum? Even if we could, despite violating the civil rights of millions of persons, we might still miss our target.
In both of these studies, the FBI and the Secret Service continue to use “probabilities†as a means of identifying the next shooter. The use of mental health assessments and profiling (probabilities) tell us that within a certain group of individuals there is a higher probability of a shooter, but it does not tell us who the next shooter is.
The Secret Service study dedicates a full page to addressing the issue of mental health, as mental health assessments are seen by many as a reliable way of preventing future violence.
†Two-thirds of the attackers experienced mental health symptoms prior to their attacks. The most common symptoms observed were related to depression and psychotic symptoms, such as paranoia, hallucinations, or delusions. Suicidal thoughts were also observed. Nearly half of the attackers had been diagnosed with, or treated for, a mental illness prior to their attacks.â€
What was done by these mental health professionals, if anything, to prevent these violent incidents from occurring? If these individuals were under the care of a mental health professional, why were these incidents not prevented? Were these murderous individuals described by their mental health professionals as “at risk of hurting themselves or others?â€
The Secret Service study does not divulge these insights, but mental health predictions are notoriously subjective, complicated and inaccurate. Seung-Hui Cho, of Virginia Tech infamy, was mental health assessed on three different occasions. On each and every occasion he was declared “not at risk of hurting himself and others,†just before murdering 32 people and then taking his own life. The infamous Parkland Shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was mental health assessed by the Florida Department of Family and Children and deemed “not to be at risk of hurting himself or others†before taking 17 innocent lives.
The “Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy,†June 13, 2007, states, “Most people who are violent do not have a mental illness, and most people who have mental illness are not violent.†In fact, they found that people with mental illness tended to be the victims of this behavior, not the perpetrators of it. The Secret Service study confirms this point as it states, “Mental illness, alone, is not a risk factor for violence, and most violence is committed by individuals who are not mentally ill.â€
The Secret Service study dedicates a full page to addressing the issue of mental health, as mental health assessments are seen by many as a reliable way of preventing future violence.
†Two-thirds of the attackers experienced mental health symptoms prior to their attacks. The most common symptoms observed were related to depression and psychotic symptoms, such as paranoia, hallucinations, or delusions. Suicidal thoughts were also observed. Nearly half of the attackers had been diagnosed with, or treated for, a mental illness prior to their attacks.â€
What was done by these mental health professionals, if anything, to prevent these violent incidents from occurring? If these individuals were under the care of a mental health professional, why were these incidents not prevented? Were these murderous individuals described by their mental health professionals as “at risk of hurting themselves or others?â€
The Secret Service study does not divulge these insights, but mental health predictions are notoriously subjective, complicated and inaccurate. Seung-Hui Cho, of Virginia Tech infamy, was mental health assessed on three different occasions. On each and every occasion he was declared “not at risk of hurting himself and others,†just before murdering 32 people and then taking his own life. The infamous Parkland Shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was mental health assessed by the Florida Department of Family and Children and deemed “not to be at risk of hurting himself or others†before taking 17 innocent lives.
The “Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy,†June 13, 2007, states, “Most people who are violent do not have a mental illness, and most people who have mental illness are not violent.†In fact, they found that people with mental illness tended to be the victims of this behavior, not the perpetrators of it. The Secret Service study confirms this point as it states, “Mental illness, alone, is not a risk factor for violence, and most violence is committed by individuals who are not mentally ill.â€
The Secret Service study also suggests a curious recommendation: law enforcement should play an important role in violence prevention. Yet law enforcement professionals (LEOs) are trained to respond, not prevent violence. Sure, if the opportunity arises, LEOs will make a potential assailant aware of the consequences of their actions, but will this prevent a determined assailant? LEOs will be quick to tell you that, in the absence of “probable cause,†nothing permanent can be done to protect you.
Today, we know that from the moment of commitment (when an assailant decides to pull his weapons and start shooting) to when the first round is discharged is just two seconds. No Law Enforcement, no matter how well trained or equipped can be on scene in just two seconds, so victims are on their own.
In the end, the Secret Service study wants us to do something. An excerpt from the report states: “Since 2010, the Department of Homeland Security has effectively promoted the ‘If You See Something, Say Something®’ national campaign, originally developed by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which encourages the reporting of suspicious activity.†But, too often people are not prepared to put their reputation or their jobs on the line for subjective and/or intuitive references that can come back to haunt them. So, they say nothing until after the fact, and then it is too late.
The most thorough study ever conducted on the topic of violence in schools was a collaboration between the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Dept. of Education and the National Institute of Justice. Published in Oct. 2000, it was called the “Safe School Initiative Study.†It found that the only reliable way to find a future shooter was to identify someone “on the path to violence.â€
Backing this assessment, in December of 2013, Andre Simmons, the Chief of the FBI’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Center/Behavioral Analysis Unit stated that the FBI’s ability to prevent violence is predicated on “identifying a person who is on a pathway to violence.†Unfortunately, both agencies seem to consider violence prevention as identifying a person(s) who is planning or preparing for an attack, which may only offer moments before an attack and is far too late in the sequence of escalation.
At the Center for Aggression Management, we use the scientifically validated Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) to identify people in the early stages of the pathway to violence. It’s what we call the sequential successive precursors to violence. Because CAPS begins at the very outset of aggressive behavior, it enables users to identify someone on the path to bullying, abuse, harassment, conflict, discrimination and violence.
Because we assess only aggressive behavior and judge it on its merits, the CAPS approach doesn’t violate HIPAA, FERPA or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. CAPS avoids subjective references and descriptions of behavior that most other systems rely on. Instead, it uses objective and measurable observables making its outcomes scientifically reliable.
On the Aggression Continuum, it is not enough that someone is identified at the 3rd Stage of our Meter of Emerging Aggression (MEA), the central analysis tool within CAPS. This by itself only offers one data point. If this individual transitions from the 3rd Stage of the MEA to the 4th Stage, it creates an observable trend. The individual may even transition to the 5th Stage of the MEA. We can now reliably confirm that we have someone on the path to violence.
Does this mean that this person will be violent tomorrow? Does it mean it’s too late for them to change? Of course not. But it does mean that this person is currently “on the path†and is now known to us. They must be engaged and diffused, lest he or she becomes your next shooter. This puts in place an incredible catalyst that too often is missing: the urgency to act.
I commend the Secret Service for the effort their report represents. The same goes for the FBI. However, both reports still leave us guessing, perhaps with a few more clues, but still guessing as to the identity of the next shooter. The Center for Aggression Management invites them and all who are entrusted with public safety to move from probability to predictability. Let’s use scientifically reliable methods to identify those on the path to violence. Let’s stop them. Let’s do it now, before it’s too late, again.