Are you responsible for preventing the next school shooting? #NeverAgain

I realize that you are waiting to determine how much funding is coming from the US Congress and the US Dept. of Education to help make your schools “as safe as possible.”

You are encouraged to “Harden” your schools, but this is very expensive and does not prevent the next shooter’s access to students. You are encouraged to place one or more SROs in every school, but even this will not prevent the next shooter. You are encouraged to make Mental Health Assessments available to students and staff, but Mental Health Assessments are notoriously inaccurate.

We, at the Center for Aggression Management, have a scientifically-validated evidence-based solution that includes “reliable” prevention of future school shootings.  Plus, our system does not contravene, nor conflict, with HIPAA, FERPA or privacy regulations. I would like the opportunity to present our Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) to you. I will begin explaining why below.

Having more SROs on campus will not prevent the next school shooting:

My community, Florida’s Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS), are putting 2 SRO’s in every high school and 1 SRO in every other SCPS school. But, will it make a difference?

 Here is the problem:

1. From the moment an assailant decides to pull his weapon, to when the first round is discharged is just 2 seconds! No SRO can be on scene in just 2 seconds. The SRO will arrive on scene stepping over those slain during those first horrific seconds. This is unacceptable! As the Safe School Initiative Study determined, the only “reliable” way to prevent future school shooters is to identify someone on the path to a violent attack. CAPS was developed on this premise and was scientifically validated at Eastern Kentucky University seven years ago.
2. Desmond Barnes, the 14-year-old shooter at Great Mills High School, was a CAPS 9th Stage Cognitive Aggressor. He came to the scene with the intention to die. Having murdered 16-year-old Jaelynn Willey, when the SRO arrived, young Desmond Barnes place his gun to his head and pulled the trigger. These CAPS 9th Stage Cognitive Aggressors do not fear, and do not care that there may be armed officers on scene.

Mental health assessments have been notoriously inaccurate in predicting future school shooters. CAPS does not use mental health assessments, it therefore, does not conflict nor contravene HIPAA Regulations.

1. Nicholas Cruz was mental health assessed as “not at risk of hurting himself or others.”
2. Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech Shooter) was mental health assessed 3 times and, in each occasion, he was deemed to be “not at risk of hurting himself or others.”
3. The sharing of Mental Health Assessments’ findings conflict with HIPAA Regulations. CAPS does not.
4. The Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy, June 13, 2007, state “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, not the perpetrators of this violence.
5. Finally, Pima Community College’s Jared Lee Loughner, was charged with 19 counts of murder and attempted murder and shot Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords, near Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011. Loughner clearly had a Thought Disorder and was probably Schizophrenic, one of the scariest of mental illnesses. However, we know that of all Schizophrenics only 0.002% (2/10 of one percent) have murdered another person. How do we get from the 0.002% of Schizophrenics who would murder people, to “this is your next shooter”? You can’t!

The Problem and The Solution: Probabilities Versus Predictabilities

The problem, and the solution, is revealed only when one understands the difference between “Probabilities” and “Predictabilities.” “Probability” states that “within a certain group of individuals, there is a higher probability of a shooter. It does not tell us who the next shooter is! As an example, Mental Health Assessments offer probability, not predictability.

With Probabilities, when we reverse this logic, it doesn’t hold any value for us. As an example, Nikolas Cruz:

1. Recently lost his mother. How many people who lose their mother to flu illness follow that experience by murdering people? Less than one percent?
2. Was expelled from school. How many people who are expelled from school follow that experience by murdering people? Less than one percent?
3. 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 not good predictors of future shooters.

The Solution: Using Predictabilities

The US Secret Service and the FBI agree that “Predictability” can reliably identify a future shooter by identifying someone on the path to a violent attack. This process is not “absolute” 100%, but it is “scientifically reliable.”

The most thorough study ever conducted on the topic of violence in schools was a collaboration between the US Secret Service, your Dept of Education and the National Institute of Justice. It was call 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.”

We have spent the past 24 years considering the problems inherent in preventing future school shootings, and I would like to bring our “preventive” solution to you. How can we arrange a presentation?

John D. Byrnes, D.Hum., Founder and CEO , Center for Aggression Management

Email: [email protected] Phone: 407-718-5637