Just as we posted an article claiming gun violence was on a decline, another school shooting rattled news media and saddened viewers' hearts around the nation. On October 24, 2014, Jaylen Fryberg sent text messages to friends (including two cousins who were also students) inviting them to join him for lunch in the Marysville–Pilchunck High School cafeteria in Washington State. Sitting together, Fryberg opened fire on his friends with a .40-caliber Beretta handgun that belonged to a family member before turning the gun on himself.
Americans watched the story unfold on television that afternoon, questioning why and how another student could be driven to such a violent extreme, and praying that the kids taken to the hospital would pull through. Less than a month later, people are still searching for answers as to why Fryberg, a young man who seemed to have such a bright future, both socially and scholarly, could be driven to such a murderous act.
When stories such as this one break headlines, collectively, as a society we search for answers. We want to know how to prevent future acts of violence and so we search for any and all typical “warning signs” of someone likely to lash out violently. Schools pull in Administrative Teams and review their policies, news sources research shooter’s family, friends, and community, and individually we try to put the puzzle together of factors leading up to the incident.
Here’s what you don’t want to hear—there is no shooter stereotype. Historically, violent and tragic events are unique without many shared characteristics we can train ourselves to be sensitive to.
A 2002 report conducted by the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center analyzing 37 school attacks occurring between 1974 and 2000 concluded “There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence.”
The common stigmas surrounding a violent student are
- Extremely introverted and socially challenged—a loner;
- having a mental illness (61% had a documented history of feeling extremely depressed or desperate);
- coming from a broken or abusive family; and/or
- academically struggling.
However, these common beliefs are largely untrue. Evil comes in all shapes, sizes, colors, and from all places. It doesn’t discriminate who it infects. In fact, most students who have acted violently had a strong circle of friends, didn’t suffer from a mental illness (beyond depression), came from a two-parent household, and maintained good grades.
The best defense we have against acts of evil is being aware of the warning signs—which so often are so subtle that even experienced counselors can miss them.
According to the report compiled by the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center, what most of school shooters do have in common is that 93% of them actually planned their attacks instead of just waking up one morning and snapping, and 80% communicated their plans with at least one other person. Knowing this, there is hope for your Crisis Planning Committee and Risk Management assessments. Although it’s impossible to protect your students, faculty, and staff by identifying violent students based on an easy list of common characteristics or Hollywood’s big-screen portrayal, you can protect them by establishing a process for communicating potential violent acts. Remember, all threats are not created equal, but all threats should be accessed in a timely manner.
Step One—Review your approach to violent threats. As mentioned in a FBI report, many schools have adopted a one-size-fits-all approach to violence. There are positives and negatives to approaching situations with a general umbrella policy. On the positive side, you reduce your risk for discrimination claims since all are reprimanded the same. On the negative side, you could be unfairly punishing or stigmatizing students who are not a risk, damaging their transcripts and reputations. What’s important is that your policy is current, reflects your school’s culture, and encompasses all potential violent acts—not just shooter scenarios.
Step Two—Communicate everyone’s responsibility in managing violence. Most students don’t want to involve adults in emotional matters—especially social, peer-to-peer concerns. Knowing that 80% of school shooters confided in someone before carrying out their plan, one can assume that the events might have been prevented if students knew their role in making their school a safe haven, and felt safe reporting threats. However, that is easier said than making a reality. You can start by assuring students, parents, faculty, and staff should all have access to your communication plan that clearly outlines their role in reducing risks.
There is a buzz swarming the media right now surrounding this topic. With that in mind, it’s also important to remind your current families that your students are 100 times more likely to face gun violence outside of school than on campus.
Additional sources of insight
Education Week In Wash. School Tragedy, Shooter Defies ‘Typical’ Stereotype
Psychology Today Profile of a Rampage Killer
Vox Think School Shooters Are Usually Bullied and Unpopular? You’re Wrong.
Additional ISM articles of interest
ISM Monthly Update for Risk Managers Vol. 5 No. 1 Managing Risk Beyond Gun Threats
ISM Monthly Update for Trustees Vol. 12 No. 1 ‘Getting Schooled’ on Security Issues: A Multi-Tiered Approach
ISM Monthly Update for Risk Managers Vol. 3 No. 7 Planning Against Violent Acts
ISM Monthly Update for Division Heads Vol. 10 No. 6 Zero Tolerance and Young Children: What’s the Common-Sense Answer?
ISM Monthly Update Private School News Vol. 10 No. 7 School Shooting Lawsuit Raises Risk Management Concerns
