Threat assessment and the active shooter

Threat Assessment
and the
Active Shooter
ATAP No. CA Chapter Meeting
February 12, 2013

presented by

Michael H. Corcoran, Ph.D.
©2002 The Workthreat Group, LLC

What we will accomplish
q Understand the threat assessment process
q Determine how to assess the actual risk
q Understand the key behaviors to identify
q Identify the key factors of an assessment
q Discern how to apply this to a shooter
q Putting it all together to avoid false positives

Assessment & Resolution Process
 Obtain all the facts of the incident
DO YOU CALL 911?
 Determine what files/records you can review
 Determine appropriate interviews
 Review & analyze all the facts
 Determine if further action is needed
 Determine if outside assistance necessary
 Review and reevaluate all new information
 Implement a plan
 Make sure monitoring is decided upon
 Review the outcome and the action’s taken

Assess Immediacy Potential of Violence
 Is the threat plausible/realistic and any plan?
 Is the victim available to the subject (or are there
good substitutes)?
 80% of attackers do not warn their victims of an
attack, thus words are not so revealing
 Are alcohol or drugs involved?
 Have acts of violence occurred at this location
before or any violent history from subject?
 Relationships

For Violence Prevention in ANY Setting
Remember:
q Violence is not spontaneous
q Therefore, interrupting at any level of potential
violence may mitigate and/or eliminate an act
q A spontaneous inappropriate statement is often
not as revealing as a plan…and the ability to
carry out that plan.

SO WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

Move Away from the MH Model –
No Time With An Active Shooter
1. Develop a strictly fact-based
approach
2. Do not rely on psychological or
demographical profiles – they’re not
specific enough
3. Do not rely on verbal or written
threats
4. Instead, look at pathways of ideas
and behaviors


Move Away from the MH Model -
Perform CPR:
1. Conduct – What are the specific “attack-related”
behaviors of the potential attacker

2. Plan – What is the specific thinking of the
potential attacker

3. Relationship – Between the potential attacker,
the stressors of that environment, and the
potential victim. The stronger the link, the higher
the risk.

Conduct of the Potential Attacker

 Those who commit targeted
violence generally show behaviors
linked to the attack
 Attack related behaviors generally
move along a continuum
a) Idea of an attack
b) Communicate the idea or show unusual
interest
c) Visiting the scene of the attack


Plan of the Potential Attacker
 We know acts of targeted violence are neither
impulsive or spontaneous
 Planning evolves around a series of factors
a) Identify the target(s)
b) Determine best time
c) Determine the best means and the approach

 Planning provides a sense of purpose or an
attainable goal to end their pain and take control


Relationship of the Potential Attacker
 The interaction between the attacker, the victim
and the environment (past stressful events and
the current situation).
 Attackers past history of dealing with the specific
environment.
a) Look at the type of event (specific stressor)
b) The attackers response to those events
c) The likelihood the event will occur again


Relationship of the Potential Attacker
 Now look at the current environment that also
includes the potential victim
a) Likelihood past stressor will occur for the attacker
b) How others will respond to this behavior
i. Do they support, accept or ignore the threat
ii. Do they express disapproval

 Finally, assess the potential target
a) How familiar is the target to the attacker
b) How accessible is the target – will others do


Investigative & Operational Mode
 A threat assessment is not the traditional “do we
have a crime and what evidence do I need”
 You must determine if the subject poses a threat
a) Someone who threatens doesn’t always pose a threat
b) Waiting for the “threat” means wasting time from looking
for the relevant factors of the potential risk of violence
c) You must perform CPR
 The key – start by looking for the “attack-related”
behaviors – the Conduct

 Assess the potential risk
by:
 Gathering information on the
attacker
 Learn about behaviors,
interest and state of mind
i. Material created or
possessed by attacker
ii. Persons who know or have
known attacker
iii. Review any available records

 Assess the potential risk by:
 Interviewing the subject – it
really depends on
i. Need for additional
information
ii. The stage of the investigation
& strategy for resolve
iii. Caution - Interview may
intensify attackers interest in
victim



 Assess the potential risk by:
 Gather information on target(s)
1) Are they identifiable or has the attacker
even identified them
2) Is victim well known to attacker
3) Is the victim vulnerable and does he/she
understand issue


 Now assign the degree of
potential risk based on
i. Is it more or less likely the
attacker will use violence
against the victim
ii. How close is the attacker to
committing the violent act
iii. What changes could increase or
decrease the act


Why Are These Threat Assessment
Principles Applicable to Shooters?

Let’s hear from the “experts” –
at least those who have spent years
assessing and interviewing
mass murderers.


Dr. Michael Welner, a New York University
School of Medicine forensic psychiatrist and
chairman of The Forensic Panel says:
Orchestrating a murder spree is something that is
fantasized about, planned out and rehearsed for
weeks, months or possibly years before the shooting
occurs. Planning is an important component for the
gunman; it gives him an advantage of having a dress
rehearsal for the crime.



"The shooting becomes a statement of whom
they want to be," Welner adds. "These are
crimes in which the perpetrators aim for
immortality and spectacle and see the shooting
as their crowning achievement. After that,
nothing else matters, including living."


Dr. Scott Thornsley, associate professor of
criminal justice at Mansfield University in
Mansfield, Pennsylvania says:
It is typical for a shooter to choose the location of attack
ahead of time, and he will typically select a place where
people feel safe, such as at a restaurant or a school. He
controls the day, time, location and the weapon he's
going to use.


Typically, shooters are individuals with a long
history of frustration and failure, unable to cope
with life's disappointments, according to
Thornsley. He says that quite often the shooter
blames others for their unhappiness. The lack of
emotional support with friends or family also
adds to the shooter's frustration. The shooting
occurs when a life problem has emerged and
they are overwhelmed.


Sociologist Joseph Gasper with Johns
Hopkins University says:
Issues surrounding challenged masculinity are also
connected to how lethal violence is viewed in America.
Relationship problems and a history of rejection are
also contributing factors to the shooter's motives. They
have no social outlets, and bullying certainly contributes
to that.


Dr. Lawrence Miller, clinical and forensic psychologist
says:
The violence-prone individual is typically an externalizer – he’s looking
for someone to blame and his reaction often involves a noxious brew
of persecutory ideation, projection of fault, and violent revenge
fantasies. This is partly due to his general sense of narcissistic
entitlement and tendency toward impulsive self-gratification,
paradoxically fueled by his self-perceived incompetence to take any
real constructive action. As these thoughts and emotions continue to
percolate, the individual increasingly isolates himself from the input of
others and accretes a mindset of self-justified martyrdom, often
leading to hopeless suicidality with a retaliatory tinge.

Dr. Michael Stone, professor of clinical psychiatry at
the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons in
New York City, who has closely examined the minds
of 208 mass murderers says:
Usually you’re dealing with an angry, dissatisfied person who
has poor social skills or few friends, and then there is a trigger
that sets them off. 96.5 percent of mass murderers are male,
and a majority aren’t clinically psychotic. Rather, they suffer
from paranoia and often have acute behavioral or personality
disorders.



And what about the
School Shooter?


From the USSS Study
 Offenders tend to be male
 75% of attackers were white
 Most attackers are from intact families
 40% were A or B students – only 5%
were failing
 40% were part of “mainstream” social
groups
 40% were in extracurricular activities
 Suspensions, disciplinary problems
and expulsions were uncommon.

From the USSS Study
 2/3rds had never had a psychiatric evaluation -
those who did, only half met the criteria for a
psychiatric disorder
 Most attackers had no overt shifts in academic
or social functioning prior to their acts
 A majority of attackers had a history of being
bullied, threatened or harassed – or at least
that was their perception.


From the USSS Study
• 50% had an interest in violent
media – games, movies, etc.
• 50% had a weapon fascination
• 33% had a history of violence
• 25% had a history of arrest
• 12% had a history of cruelty to
animals


From the USSS Study
 More than 60% had a history of weapon use
or experience
 More than 50% had experience with
firearms
 More than 66% got weapons from their
home
 A majority of attackers had a history of
suicidal behavior

From the USSS Study
 Despite impulsivity being a common adolescent
trait, most school shootings are well planned
 Other people were aware of the attackers intent –
80% of cases (hence the best predictor)
 Referring an adolescent for psychiatric
assessment usually just results in a pissed off
adolescent who is going to minimize symptoms
 Hence, the need to apply CPR!


Everyone Wants One Assessment Tool
q Since so many are expected to know how to
assess the threat, this would be beneficial
q But as we have discussed, it involves a
multitude of issues and considerations
q Best alleviation of stress – multidisciplinary
q Best results treating cancer – multidisciplinary
q So wouldn’t that make sense here too?


The “CPR Approach”
q Utilize a set of investigative and operational
activities to identify, assess and manage
q Move away from psychopathology alone and
focus on how the subject:
– Is processing – his conduct
– Has behaved in the past
– Keep process away from “profiling”
q Clinical instruments helpful in evaluating the
contribution of psychopathology

There Is No Linear Assessment

q Handouts of “Red Flags” are
probable at best
q Hence, “computer programs”
questionable
q Quality of data obtained is
critical, especially
information from others and
the “subject”


There Is No Linear Assessment

q Violent behavior in one area does not mean
the person will be violent in another
q Know who can assist ahead of time
q Develop a plan, to include monitoring
q Must always consider victim, subject and the
environment


CASE
Evan has been a machinist with a local custom airline parts
company for over 25 years. All machinist receive a bonus if
they are able to get their tasks done prior to the deadline.
Today, Evan’s machine broke down so he called the
maintenance office and they said they would be down shortly.
After a no-show of an hour, Evan called again and again they
said they would be right down. After another no-show hour,
Even stuck his head into the supervisors office, told Jeff the
problem, said he was going home as he was feeling ill and,
“I’m going to get my AK-47 – maybe that’ll get a response.”

Evan then left and Jeff was so stunned he waited 30 minutes
before doing anything. You now get the call from the owner.

CASE
Jimmie is in a local middle school. Two of his friends are
currently in the principals office and they told the principal that
Jimmie was planning on taking over the wood shop class
today and shooting Mr. Johnson. The principal, Mr. Woods,
asked the boys how they know this is true? Both told Mr.
Woods that Jimmie solicited them to be part of the “take-over”.
They had agreed but when Jimmie showed up with a back-
pack full of weapons, they decided this was not a good idea
and decided to report it.

Mr. Woods was unsure of the best thing to do at this point, so
he calls you.


CASE
Bill is recently divorced. His 1966 Mustang that he painstakingly
restored and kept running over the 13 years of his marriage was
about all he managed to salvage from the marriage. But recent
engine problems convinced Bill he needed a new engine. Bill
knew that his best friend Pete worked at a garage so he felt
confident it would be in good hands.

It’s been a month now and the owner keeps saying he is still
waiting for the engine. Bill told John, the owner of the garage
this Monday, “If this is not done by Wednesday I’m coming down
with my .357 – and I don’t mean the engine!”

John calls you and wants to know what to do.


SUMMATION PERIOD
Questions?


Threat assessment and the active shooter

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Threat assessment and the active shooter

Similar to Threat assessment and the active shooter (20)

Threat assessment and the active shooter