It seems like every week the news is reporting another active shooter incident; these incidents have truly become an epidemic. In the past few years we’ve seen schools, universities; movie theaters, military bases, and businesses face threats, scares and shootings. There are two ways to approach these active shooting situations: 1) Prevention and 2) Damage Control.
As a law enforcement officer, I spent a lot of time focused on damage control. However, as a Risk Advisor I would say that although we absolutely have to be able to respond if an active shooting were to occur, we would be much better served if we were able to recognize and prevent the shooting before it happens.
With that in mind, we often find that there is “leakage.” A leak, in this instance, means that the person(s) planning violence will communicate it in some fashion prior to the event. Leakage is a type of warning behavior that typically infers a preoccupation with the target, and may signal the research, planning, and implementation of an attack. Research data suggests that leakage occurs in a majority of cases. The means of communication vary and include letters, diaries, journals, blogs, videos on the internet, email, voice mail, and other social media forms of transmission. The leak does not always serve as a direct threat to their target, but is often simply a comment.Our ability to monitor, identify, and respond to leaks can go a long way toward preventing violent events.
The motivation for leakage can be either intentional or unintentional, depending on the perpetrator’s relationship with the person who hears, reads, or sees the leakage. It seems most likely that leakage is not singly motivated, but rather occurs for a number of reasons. These motivations could range from the need for excitement, a sense of accumulating power, a desire to frighten or intimidate, seeking of attention, or fear and anxiety concerning the impending act. In some cases, it may reflect an inability to contain the emotions associated with the anticipated violence.
The identification and assessment of leakage by someone with no prior training or education regarding third party threats is the weakest link. If such a person lacks the knowledge or will to tell someone with the experience in evaluating it or ‘connecting the dots,’ it remains useless. The early identification and correct interpretation of leakage are essential to the ultimate value of warning and preventing targeted violence.
Organizations will be well served to educate their employees in the identification of these leaks. Though there is no established profile for an active shooter, research highlights common personality traits and behaviors that can help serve as warning signs. This at least provides a starting point for staff to better recognize a red flag.
Even if employees are equipped with the training to identify a leak or red flag, they may not know how to pass this information on or they may not be compelled to do so. Many schools and organizations have tight communities. This “crowd-sourcing” approach provides good coverage of emerging issues among the population. But studies have shown that in school shootings, leaks are often communicated to a minor and that information never makes its way to an adult.
Additionally, how to respond to each nugget of information presents a dilemma. Is a person venting after a bad day or is it a credible leak of impending violence? These public statements are opportunities for prevention. Being able to recognize a red flag AND communicate it to proper authorities can be the stimulus for intervention.
