TARGETED SCHOOL VIOLENCE
Key Aspects of School Shootings
TARGETED SCHOOL VIOLENCE
I.
Overview
II.
Case Studies
III. Best Practices
TARGETED SCHOOL VIOLENCE
 Situational
Awareness
 Violence/Threat/Risk
Assessment
Typologies (Mohandie, 2000)
 Type
I
No connection to school
 Type
II
Service recipient/customer
 Type
III
Employment-related
relationship
Menninger Triad (1938)
 Wish
to die
 Wish
to kill
 Wish
to be killed
 Empty
Vessel (K. Cameron 2006)
 Isonection
(T. Beliz 2008)
Panel Review Report 2007
Virginia Tech Shooting
 Mental
health problems surfaced and
managed during middle and high school.
 Jr.
year VT clear incidents of mental
instability observed by various university
staff and departments.
 No
one knew all the information and no
one connected all the dots.
Key Findings – Virginia Tech
 Office
of Judicial Affairs, Cook Counseling
Center, campus police, Dean of Students
and others did not communicate with one
another or Cho’s parents.
 FALSE
belief that communications are
prohibited by federal laws governing the
privacy of health and education records.
Key Findings – Virginia Tech
 Cook
Counseling Center and university’s
Care Team failed to provide needed
support and services to Cho between late
2005 and early 2006.
 The system failed for lack of resources,
incorrect interpretation of privacy laws,
and passivity.
Key Findings – Virginia Tech
 Records
of Cho’s minimal treatment at
VT’s Cook Counseling Center are missing.
Key Findings – Virginia Tech
 State
MH laws are flawed and services for
mh users are inadequate.
 Limited resources (CRS, Outpt)
 Involuntary commitment process
 Barriers to open communication among
key professionals
 Confusion about federal/state privacy laws
Case Study
 John:
16.5 year old high school student
 School Admin: Received phone calls from
parents of students worried about John.
 Parents: John telling other students he is
going to bring gun to school and kill
everyone in his physics and history
classes.
 Psych: Interviews John who is quiet and
verbally non-responsive.
Case Study
 Students:
Different this time around. More
determined.
 School: Contacts local law enforcement.
 Law Enforcement: Dispatches patrol car.
Impression:
 Officers: No threat. Too many “what if’s.”
Student stated “I really didn’t mean it.” No
criteria under Terrorist Threats for arrest.
No action taken.
Case Study
 School:
VP, Psych & PO still concerned.
Contacted DMH ACCESS Center
 PMRT: Interviewed John, VP, et al,
students, and concerned parents.
 PMRT: Contacted and interviewed John’s
legal custodian (elderly paternal aunt).
 Aunt: John living with her for several
years. Three weeks prior observes
behavioral changes.
Case Study

John: Writes that he worships and has seen
Jesus. Believes family has been taken by the
devil--to save them he must sacrifice himself or
family goes to hell and burns forever.
 Students: John has hx of making threats.
 Students: 10 days before they disclose, John
talks about a particular weapon, names specific
students, relatives, and teachers. A neighbor’s
father has the gun John references.
 Students: John talks about Virginia Tech shooter
and expresses admiration. States he can outdo
the Korean.
Case Study
 Aunt:
Disinterested/disconnected. Staring
into space. Self-absorbed. Verbally
aggressive, cursing, throwing objects and
punching walls without provocation.
 Aunt: Bio father dc’ed 2 years ago,
reasons unknown to relative. Biological
mother allowed supervised visits only due
to “past issues.” Favorite uncle died within
past 7 months.
Case Study
 Aunt:
No medical/psych/substance abuse
hx. No contact with juvenile justice system.
 PMRT: WIC 5585 as DTO.
 Aunt: Relieved. “He needs a lot of help.
I’m worried something bad will happen.”
 John: Quiet. No response.
Case Study
 Outcome:
Hospitalized x 2.5 weeks. DC’ed
home. Outpt plan includes medication,
individual and group tx. Treatment team
advised of concern. Transferred to another
school with recommendations for afterschool program. Referral to Big Brother
program.
Dynamics

Intrapersonal
 Low self-esteem
 Over-controlled hostility
 Self-centeredness

Interpersonal
 Coercive-dominating behavior
 Submissive-passive behavior
Dynamics

Developmental
 Adolescence
 Young Adulthood
 Identity/Vocational issues

Familial
 SES
 Quality of life
Access to Weapons

Most shooters had access to and had used
weapons prior to an attack.
 Firearms are 18.9 times more likely to be
obtained from the shooter’s home, friends or
relatives (not from gangs or those with a criminal
history).
 69% of firearms used end in homicides, 27 % of
firearms used end in suicides and 4% end in
homicide/suicide.
Centers for Disease Control; Morbidity, Mortality Weekly Report
U.S. Dept. of Education and United States Secret Service 2002
Office of Juvenile Justice Department
Threats

Most threats do not lead to violence.
 Low risk: plan, victim and motivation are
ambiguous, vague, unrealistic.
 Medium risk: more direct, has a possible
place and time, but weapon of choice is
vague.
 High risk: direct, specific, straightforward,
plausible and explicit.
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime: FBI Academy
Notable Quotes







“Something big’s going to happen.”
“I am not insane. I am angry. I killed because
people like me are mistreated every day. I did this
to show society, push us and we will push back…”
“I was angry, and I killed them because they
mistreated me every day.”
“I guess everyone is going to remember me now.”
“I guess I’m going to be all over the news now.”
Everyone that hates me, everyone that I don’t like,
is going to die.”
“I guess what it is about is that it is a reckoning. A
settling of accounts…”
Notable Quotes
“My belief is that if I say something, it goes. I am
the law. If you don’t like it, you die. If I don’t like you
or I don’t like what you want me to do, you
die…dead people can’t do many things, like argue.”
 “He (shooter) said on the bus that he was mad and
he was going to do something stupid.”
 “The only thing I really learned at school was that
I’m a loser…I hate people…I’m gone.”
 “I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the
weak and defenseless people...Do you know what
it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon a
cross and left to bleed to death for your
amusement?”

Threat Assessment
 Communications
 Behaviors
 Dynamics
Data Sources
 Backpack
 Dorm
room/Bedroom
 Car/Locker
 Computer
Threat Assessment
 Team
approach
 School
information
 Collateral
interviews
 Parent/guardian
interview
Fein, Vossekuil, Pollack, Borum, Modzeleski & Reddy
Threat Assessment
 Motives
and goals
 Capacity to carry out attack
 Perception that violence is acceptable
 Story consistent with attacker’s actions
 Concern expressed by others
 Research or approach behaviors
Fein, Vossekuil, Pollack, Borum, Modzeleski & Reddy
Key Questions









Motivation for behavior
Communication about ideas and intent
Unusual interest in targeted violence
Evidence of attack related behaviors and planning
Level of cognitive sophistication or organization to
formulate and execute an attack plan
Recent losses
Consistency between communications and behaviors
Concern by others about potential for harm
Other factors in shooter’s life and/or environment
U.S. Dept. of Education and United States Secret Service 2002
Intervention Strategies
 No
action
 Monitor
 Arrest or detention
 Psychiatric hospitalization
 Residential program
 Outpatient mental health treatment
 Ongoing follow-up
Intervention Goals
 Stop
forward motion
 Surface
threat and dynamics
 Mitigate/eliminate
 Establish
threat
comprehensive safety net
Seung Hui Cho
 Infancy
 Childhood
 Middle
(Selective Mutism)
School (Suicidal/homicidal ideation
+ response to meds)
 Adolescence
(IEP – counseling)
Seung Hui Cho
 Stabs
carpet with knife in presence of
suitemates
 Poetry professor notes violence in writings
 Taking pix from camera held under desk
 Removed from class
 1:1 by Dept. Chair
 Refuses counseling
Seung Hui Cho






Inappropriate internet/phone/direct contacts
VTPD interviews
Phone triages/no shows to Cook Couns. Ctr.
IMs w strange aliases
Disguised to female resident
“I may as well kill myself”
Seung Hui Cho

VTPD transports to Psych hospital as DTO
 DC’ed “No threat.” Gathers no collateral info.
 Cook CC (x3 triaged for third time in 15 days)
 No appt. No follow-up.

Confrontation with prof. Not reported.
Seung Hui Cho
Spring 2006

Writes about student who kills classmates & self
 Prof alerts Dean of Liberal Arts/Human Sciences
 No mention of VTPD or MH contacts
Review Panel Recommendations
 Risk
analysis
 Threat
 Annual
Assessment Team
training for students, faculty and
staff on response and notification
strategies
Review Panel Recommendations
 Universities
must comply with Clery Act,
which requires timely public warnings of
imminent danger
 Campus
emergency communications must
have multiple means of sharing
information
Legal Issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
Obligation to protect the student
Obligation to provide a safe school environment
Right to privacy
Need to inform and protect
Right to education/work
Exchange of Information
Countywide School Threat Assessment and Response Team
I.
Training and Program Consultation
II.
Early Screening and Identification
III.
Assessment
IV.
Intervention
V.
Case Management & Monitoring