Preventing School Attacks

Speaking as a member of the Active Shooter Prevention Project’s Community of Experts, the recent Apalachee High School Shooting tragedy is the most recent example of missed opportunities to prevent or at least mitigate harm to our students and teachers. Many are focused on praising the efficacy of the panic button used as the attack began, touting it as some prevention measure because it “saved” more people from getting killed. The fact is that four people (two 14-year-old kids and two teachers) were killed and nine others injured despite this “miraculous” panic button. This is not prevention; it is a response to an already-begun attack.

We must understand that forecasting and preventing active killer attacks IS possible and begins with a proactive and preventive mindset. Research shows that approximately 91% of school attackers are current or former students, and nearly all of them engage in some form of “leakage,” which is knowingly or unknowingly providing clues to their intent to commit violence against people or the school itself. These statistics hold true regarding Apalachee; the offender was a current student, and there is information that indicates he “leaked” his intent online, on the telephone, and maybe directly to others. So, suppose a school is focused on perimeter security, metal detectors, and other security methods that keep out an intruder. In that case, they are prepared for only 9% of the problem when the real threat is from within. Again, this is an example of an uninformed response mindset.

Another factor to consider as part of the prevention mindset is that school attackers don’t just “snap”; no one wakes up one morning and decides to shoot up a school. In nearly all cases, they plan, prepare, and evolve over time. Almost all of them who desire to kill follow a sequenced planned lethal violence track: fatal grievance/crisis, violent ideation/intent, researching/planning, and preparing/optimizing before they breach and attack. What is essential to understand is that the offender is not an “evil monster” who commits “senseless” violence; instead, they are people we know and love who are in a crisis, which is neither evil nor senseless. It is simply an understandable state of mind where, from their perspective, they can’t cope with the situation anymore, and their efforts to get help from others have failed. Their crisis has risen to the point where violence becomes the answer. Then, they research, plan, prepare, and carry out the attack.

When assessing a potential threat, don’t get distracted. There are forums and comments out there that state that the Apalachee shooter may be an “Incel” or “transgender” and suggest that somehow these labels are the reasons for the attack. Don’t buy it. Prevention requires focusing on evaluating the behaviors that relate to the planned lethal violence track. These behaviors are the basis of correlation and causation. Focusing on demographic “shooter profiles” based on sex, gender identity, race, and ethnicity is not relevant other than in describing past cases; they have no assessment or predictive value and should not be used. In addition, prioritizing behaviors or conditions that do not consistently occur during these attacks is a recipe for false positives. Mental illness and guns are often presented as the cause, which they are not. First, not all attackers have mental illness, and most mentally ill people are not violent. Second, not all attackers use guns. About 40% of school attackers use edged weapons. Both mental illness and guns should be considered in any threat assessment; however, they should be treated as second-priority threat enhancers to the primary planned lethal violence track behaviors. For example, mental illness can affect the perception of the grievance, and guns certainly increase lethality.

The prevention mindset is rooted in behavioral threat assessment and appropriate interventions. Connecting the “dots” is not enough. You must use a process that identifies the right “dots” to connect. Not all dots are the same. The goal is to understand when a child is in crisis and to make efforts to resolve it by becoming their social support. Just like an FBI negotiator would do. If you can resolve the underlying grievance and resulting crisis, you eliminate the motivation to kill, thus preventing violence. It’s not that hard after all, but it takes effort to implement an effective process and structure.

Gregory M. Vecchi, Ph.D.
Vecchi Group International, LLC
September 6, 2024