Threat Assessment Part Two

My apologies for the late posting. Technical difficulties logging into the site.

Continued from yesterday...


by Susan Sciara

Violence is a process.

Most media portrayals of extreme violence would lead you to believe that people suddenly snap and become violent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Violence is a process that starts in an individual’s head. First comes the idea that killing would solve current problems, then the fantasizing begins, and eventually a plan takes shape. The thinking stage leads to active steps toward making it happen: buying the equipment, practicing with it and following and learning as much about the target’s routine as possible.

For example, consider the following sequence of events:

Joe believed his supervisor was picking on him. He felt that no matter what he did, it was never good enough. He began to believe his supervisor was out to get him. Others advised him to let it go or to transfer to another area of the company. But Joe wasn’t going to let “that SOB drive me off”. It wouldn’t be right; it wouldn’t be fair. And how would it look to the others? Joe was not going to let that supervisor win. Joe began to think of all the real and imagined slights that he had experienced from the supervisor over the years and began to ruminate about it. He had difficulty sleeping at night and began drinking heavily to be able to sleep. He often ended up hung over the next morning or overslept and was late for work. The final straw happened when the supervisor handed Joe a notice that he had been suspended for two weeks and told him if he kept it up he would be fired. Joe thought, “I ought to kill him for that”. He later told a buddy at work that he’d like to kill the supervisor. The buddy replied, “Wouldn’t we all?”

Thoughts of killing the supervisor became more frequent and Joe was convinced that he would be doing a good deed for the others in the work unit if he killed the supervisor. He started to think about how he would do it and when the best time would be. Sometimes at night, especially when he had been drinking, he could see the whole scene unfold in his mind and his co-workers were cheering him and telling him that someone should have killed the supervisor a long time ago.

Joe’s work began to exhibit more and more mistakes and he became belligerent when it was pointed out to him. His temper outbursts increased and his co-workers avoided him. Joe became more isolated and argued frequently with those around him.

Joe purchased some automatic weapons at a gun show and started target practicing in the woods near his rural home. He casually mentioned to a few of his co-workers that he’d like to give the supervisor what he had coming. Another time, he told a co-worker that the supervisor wouldn’t have that smirk on his face if he got a look at his AK-47. The co-workers shrugged it off and thought Joe was just blowing off steam.

Joe obtained the supervisor’s schedule for the week and decided that Tuesday, when everyone would be there, would be the perfect day. The night before, Joe practiced in front of the mirror, wearing his camouflage jacket. That morning, he shaved his head and appeared as though he was preparing for war as he loaded his pockets with rounds of ammunition, guns and knives. He got in his car and drove to work.

You can predict the end to this story and can clearly see that Joe did not suddenly snap. There were numerous clues along the way that indicated Joe was contemplating violence and moving closer and closer to it.

Action should not be predicated upon the presence of a threat.

Many security personnel and law enforcement officials do not take action until an individual makes a threat. Law enforcement professionals have traditionally been trained to respond to an event, not prevent one. Relying on the presence of a threat to take action is going to miss the majority of incidents. More recent research has indicated that the majority of those who commit significant episodes of workplace violence do not directly threaten their victim. For example, a study of 30 mass murders in the United States and Canada over a 50-year period revealed that only 20% of the perpetrators ever threatened their victims prior to the act (Hemple, Meloy, and Richards, 1999).

Another study of 246 incidents of workplace violence over a 30-year period found that only 27% of the violent offenders had previously threatened violence in the workplace (Southerland, Collins and Scarborough, 1997). Instead, they are more likely to reveal their intentions in ways other than making direct threats. They make cryptic statements, discuss plans with co-workers, talk about other acts of violence, and show other Pre-Incident Indicators.

6. Each situation is different.

Despite some “experts” who recommend automatic firing for all employees who pose or make a threat or advise targets of stalking to seek a temporary restraining order (or order of protection), there is no cookie cutter approach that works with all cases. One size does not fit all. Even situations involving similar circumstances will require far different types of interventions. The best way to know the type of intervention that will work is to thoroughly assess the case and continue to assess it for changes.

As Gavin de Becker stated in a presentation to the CIA, “There is no one answer. Anybody with only one speed should get off the racetrack, because they’re causing accidents.”


Thanks to Susan Sciara for her post. Please feel free to ask questions or comment.