Is the FBI looking in the wrong place for active shooter precursors? – Part 3

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on LinkedIn and has been reprinted here with the permission of the author.

In this article, the last in a three-part series, we will address why current programs/systems fall short of our expectations, and why the Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) offers scientifically reliable violence prediction and thus prevention. If you have not read my previous articles (Part 1 and Part 2) on this subject, please stop and read these articles in sequence as Part 3 will make a great deal more sense.  

It is my contention that all of our governmental agencies (FBI, CIA, DHS’s SPOT, DARPA, etc.) and current threat assessment programs are wrong headed. I realize that this statement puts me at odds with some of the brightest minds of my fellow Americans. This is not hubris, but an alternative approach that I have been developing over the past 25 years and I now wish to share this alternative approach with you.

Aggressive Behavior: Probabilities versus Predictabilities

One of the key short comings, if not the main flaw, in logic within the threat assessment industry is understanding the difference between probabilities versus predictabilities.

Probability is defined as, “The chance that something will happen. How likely it is that some event will occur.” Said simply within the context of our conversation, however; probability is defined as, “Within a certain group of individuals, there is a higher probability of a shooter.” However, “probability” does not tell us who the next shooter is. This is the flaw with the use of probabilities.

Where are we applying probabilities? The answer: within mental health assessments and threat assessments. This flaw is especially pronounced when the probable outcome is less than one percent.

Predictability is defined as consistent repetition of a state, course of action, behavior, or the like, making it possible to know in advance what to expect as described by the FBI and Secret Service as “Identifying someone on the path to violence.” We refer to this form of analysis as “identifying the sequential successive precursors to violence.” We have said in previous articles, and it must be reiterated here, there is no absolute (100%) predictability, however, there is scientifically reliable predictability, as we will soon illustrate.

Let’s Review: Probabilities

With probabilities, we must ask ourselves, what real insight does the use of probabilities bring? Does using probabilities bring us meaningful insight and/or information? There is flaw, when we reverse the logic and consider a national sampling: these “stressors,” “markers,” etc., do not hold enough value for us so that we could seriously consider them. As an example, The Parkland Shooter, Nikolas Cruz:

• Recently lost his mother, which was considered a stressor and thus a potential reason for his rampage shooting, taking 17 innocent lives. However, if we ask, how many students across the nation who lost their mothers follow that experience by murdering people, the result would be less than one percent. Are we going to put all of these individuals in asylums in order to protect us from the “less than one percent?” Not likely!
• Was expelled from school, which was considered a “stressor” that may have caused this subsequent rampage shooting; however, if we ask how many students across the nation who were expelled from school followed that experience by murdering people, once again, the result would be less than one percent.
• May have had a mental disorder. Certainly, his legal defense team will try to make a case for insanity, but that doesn’t change the fact that mental health “assessments” are notoriously inaccurate and therefore are not good predictors of future shooters. The mental health of Seung-Hui Cho, of Virginia Tech infamy, was assessed on three different occasions and 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.  So, we ask ourselves, how many people across our nation who have some form of “mental illness” have subsequently murdered others? The answer would be less than one percent. Incidentally, the “Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy,” states that: “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. 
• Was mental health assessed by the Florida Department of Family and Children and he was deemed not to be at risk of hurting himself or others. Once again, mental health assessments are notoriously inaccurate, and they fall into the category of “probabilities.”

The Solution: Using Predictabilities

According to the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI, the only reliable means of identifying a future shooter is to “identify someone on the path to violence.” Once again, remember there is no absolute (100%) predication, but there is scientifically reliably predication and thus violence prevention.

The most thorough study ever conducted on the topic of violence in schools was a collaboration between the U.S. Secret Service, The Department of Education and the National Institute of Justice. It was called the “Safe School Initiative Study” and it found that the only reliable way to identify a future shooter was to identify someone “on the path to violence.” 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.”

CAPS uses predictabilities as a way to identify someone on the path to violence. Further, CAPS uses predictability to identify someone on the path to bullying, abuse, harassment, conflict and discrimination. Finally, CAPS uses predictability to identify someone who is transitioning from “worthy of trust” to "treachery."     

But just because we’ve identified someone “on the path to violence,” does this mean that this person will be violent tomorrow? Of course not. What it does mean, however, is that this person is “on the path” and must be engaged and diffused, lest he or she becomes your next shooter. This puts in place an incredible influencer that too often is missing: “the sense of urgency to act.”

Creating the Sense of Urgency to Act

Realize that there were 45 calls made about Nikolas Cruz and his aggressive behavior to the Broward County School District, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and the FBI and no one felt the sense of urgency to do enough to have prevented this tragedy. In fact, there were forces at play that deliberately undermined the sense of urgency to act.

This is why with CAPS we have taken this sense of urgency a step further by placing the additional emphasis on threat levels of “Low Threat Risk,” “Moderate Threat Risk” and “High Threat Risk.” As an example: A manager may identify someone exhibiting Low Threat Risk of aggressive behavior at Stage 3 on the Meter of Emerging Aggression. However, if an aggressor moves into the Moderate Threat Risk Level, Stage 4, and the manager choose not to act, they will most certainly see themselves risking personnel safety and exposing themselves to significant professional liability should aggressive outcomes occur. It is our contention that most will take the necessary critical action needed to diffuse this person, preventing any further escalation, thereby preventing any subsequent violence.

CAPS represents evidence-based best practices and once studied and implemented, offers a significant advantage by reducing bullying, abuse, harassment, conflict, discrimination and ultimately violence and thus increasing productivity and demonstrating they have done everything possible to make their facilities “as safe as possible.”   

About the Author:

Dr. John D. Byrnes is the Founder and CEO of the Center for Aggression Management, a published author and Navy Veteran (SSN Nautilus 571). He formed the Center for Aggression Management, Inc. in 1993. He authored the NaBITA Threat Assessment Tool, which is now used in over 177 college campuses.

Over the past 25 years he has consulted and conducted training for many Secondary School Districts, Institutions of Higher Education and Educational Associations, including: National School Board Association (NSBA); Texas Association of School Boards (TASB); Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA); New Jersey School Boards Association, Insurance Group; Mississippi Safe School Center; Central Dauphin School District, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Lenape Regional High School, New Jersey; Keansburg Board of Education, New Jersey; Lawrence Township Board of Education, New Jersey; and Trenton Board of Education, New Jersey, just to name a few.