Understanding the Adversary, part 1

News of multiple school shootings this past week and several potential attacks disrupted reinforces the crucial need of better understanding these acts of targeted violence and the characteristics of those who commit them.???As the 2021 U.S. Secret Service analysis of plots against schools findings show that there is no profile of a student attacker, nor is there a profile for the type of school that has been targeted there is a clear process of ideation, planning and preparation by those are engaged with acts of predatory violence.??Those individuals that are on a pathway to targeted violence regular exhibit personality characteristics and behaviors that can often serve as a crucial warning.?As I have discussed in the past, creating a formal and effective behavioral threat assessment when these behaviors are detected can create a crucial window for possible intervention or protective action.??We will begin a series of discussions that focus on the latest findings in the comprehensive U.S. Secret Service report on information researches gathered based on 67 prior school attacks.?I will highlight ?the key characteristics and statistics relating to our decisions such as motives, times of attacks, locations, gender and several other important factors and then begin to discuss the psychological aspect of the data points.

To begin, we look at Plotter Demographics: of the 67 attacks studied, 100 plotters were involved.?In nearly two-thirds, only one plotter was involved in planning the attack.??In about one-quarter of the cases, two plotters were involved and in the remaining six cases, between three and six plotters were involved.

Gender & Age: while the majority of the plotters were male, 95%, five were female, 5%.?Ages ranged from 11 to 19, with an average age of 16,?four of the plotters ages were unknown.?The youngest was an 11 year old male whose mother called the school and advised that kitchen knives were missing and she suspected her son took them to school.?When the son was pulled from his class he had the knives, a handgun, and more than 460 rounds of ammunition in his backpack.

The oldest was a 19 year old male that was arrested for making threats to “shoot up” his schools graduation ceremony.?The plot came to light after a student reported to school authorities that they overheard the threat.?The prior month, the male had been arrested and expelled from his previous school for threatening to open fire at the schools graduation.

Affiliation to the school or District: 95% of plotters were current students.?The remaining 5% were recently former students who had attended the targeted school, or a school in the same district within one academic year of the plot.?The former students included those who had been expelled, enrolled in other schools, graduated or stopped attending classes.

Grade Levels of Plotters:

1 in 6th grade

7 in 7th grade

5 in 8th grade

11 in 9th grade

13 in 10th grade

7 in 11th grade

19 in 12th grade

5 former students

32 unknown

Reasons for Date Selection:

Anniversaries of mass attacks

School Breaks

School events

Personal reason

Specific Targets/ Target Selection:

Classmates/peers??????????? 27??????????40%

Admin and staff???????????????????????????????19??????????28%

SRO’s??????????????????????????????????? 9?????????????13%

Family???????????????????????????????? ??6?????????????9%

Other Law Enforcement????????? ?????4?????????????6%

Unnamed????????????????????????? ??2?????????????3%

Location of attacks:

Cafeteria???????????????????????????10

Hallways????????????????????????????8

School Grounds?????????????????8

Egress Points??????????????????? ?8

Gym???????????????????????????????????4

Classrooms????????????????????????3

Library????????????????????????????????3

Offices????????????????????????????????2

Other??????????????????????????????????4

Disciplinary History:

Over one-third of the plotters, 37%, received some form of school discipline prior to the discovery of their plots. Behaviors that caused the disciplinary actions included the following: (37% had history, 21% none, 42% unknown)

Threatening/Violent behavior: threatening school teachers, punching locker, fighting or assaulting a classmate, brandishing a knife on a classmate.?One plotter was disciplined after he dangled a student outside a school window.

Banned Substances: possessing, selling, distributing marijuana and possessing anabolic steroids.

Classroom Misconduct: defiance, disruption, talking too loudly.

Other actions: Profanity, truancy, burglary, dress code infractions.

Prior Law Enforcement Contact:

Nearly one-third, 30% of the plotters had contact with law enforcement prior to the discovery of their plot. Eight, 19% faced prior criminal; charges for nonviolent offenses, threats, altercations with family members, drug charges, discharging firearms, curfew violations, harassing behaviors and theft.?Due to the majority being juveniles, there is a likelihood there were a greater number of criminal charges that were not revealed in open sources.??8% had prior interactions with LEO that did not result in arrest or charges.

School Characteristics:

All but one of the targeted schools were public, 84% were high schools, four were connected to, or in the same building as, a middle or elementary school.?One of these high schools was an alternative school and the other was a vocational school.?Of the remaining 11, one was grades K-12 and the rest were middle schools.

K-12 ???????????????????1%

Middle School? ?15%

High School????????84%

Community types:

The plots were?over 33 states, 37% in suburban communities, 25% were in rural communities and 21% cities. 16% of the targeted schools were in towns.

Teacher to student ratios:

1:10 to 1:14????????14??????????21%

1:15 to 1:16????????13??????????19%

1:17 to 1:19????????21??????????31%

1:20 to 1:24????????11??????????16%

1:25 to 1:29????????8?????????????12%

In our next discussion, we will begin to look at the planning behaviors, pre-threat indicators, communications of intent or leakage, and psychological symptoms and stressor’s.?We will then move into counter measures, strategies, methodologies and tactics on preventative and mitigative measures.

One fact that remains is no school, town or state is immune to this endless cycle of evil and senseless violence.?Every new statistic that pops up was one that didn’t exist until it occurred.?Ensuring those that are in charge of our children’s safety are ever vigilant and on constant guard has to be our primary focus to prevent complacency and a mindset void of “it can’t happen here mentality.??As I have said to many people when it comes to these matters, you will either prepare before or after, we as protectors have to shout to the roof tops, PREPARE BEFORE!

Stay safe and may God Place a hedge of protection over each and every one of our children and schools and may he root out evil where ever it may be and destroy it.

*Source data: U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Plots Against School report