“If you see something, say something!” Is it working?

This is the foundational principal used by the Department of Homeland Security, local Law Enforcement, security professionals and the media around the Nation. But is this call to action reliable? On occasion it is, but too often we don’t learn what people know until after the fact! How do we make “If you see something, say something,” more reliable? The only reliable way to create “certainty” and thus cause witnesses to “see something and say something” is to turn subjective, intuitive, and “uncertain” indicators of aggressive behavior into objective, measurable, and “certain” observables.

To illustrate the question of reliability, we only need to draw from a classic case, the 1964 Catherine “Kitty” Genovese murder inquiry. In the early hours of March 13, 28-year-old Kitty Genovese was gruesomely stabbed to death in the Queens area of New York while 38 neighbors witnessed and said nothing. Everyone from police commissioners, reporters and the public “at large” were shocked and baffled that so many people witnessed that horrific event yet not one person called the police until after the crime was committed! Shock and outrage spread quickly across the nation, in what today might be considered “going viral.” 38 witnesses saw and/or heard something and these 38 witnesses decided not to “say something!” But why? In our age of terrorism and mass murders, we cannot afford to be shocked and baffled because an individual or multiple individuals fail to “see something and say something!”

There were many theories put forth following the horrific 1964 murder: the depersonalization of urban life (urban people just didn’t care). Everyone thought someone else would call! Those that heard the screams thought it might just be a married couple fighting; they “normalized” Kitty’s screams. Some witnesses were concerned for their own safety (retribution). Some experts referred to this phenomenon as “pluralistic ignorance,” where an emergency may be seen as a non-emergency. In the simplest of terms, I say “Humans tend to do what they believe is in their best interest, and too often, they don’t see getting involved as in their best interest.”

This lack of “saying something” is due to a lack of “certainty.” What actually happened? Was that gunshots I heard or simply a car backfiring? Who has the responsibility to call? Is someone else calling, so I don’t have to. Who should I call? Will local Law Enforcement believe me if I did call? Will I be seen as prejudice? Will there be a backlash against me? I will not put my reputation or my job on the line based solely on intuition or subjective references! Without definable indicators of aggressive behavior and corresponding definable responses, too often witnesses do nothing! The lack of “certainty” can easily undermine the taking of action by any witness or, in the case of Kitty Genovese, any witness(es).

The Center for Aggression Management has spent the past 23 years researching, testing and validating, scientific methods that objectively identify the precursors to aggressive behavior and the CAPS System is the result of that effort. As well as definable responses predicated on progressive, objective, and therefore “certain” levels of aggressive behavior. Using methods affirmed by the US Secret Service and the FBI, the Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) applies scientifically-validated, culturally-neutral objective, measurable, and “certain” observables of emerging aggression, as well as corresponding responses. To learn how and why CAPS works visit: https://www.aggressionmanagement.com/critical-aggression-prevention-system-comprehensive-video.html

For more information, please reach out to John D. Byrnes, D.Hum at 407-718-5637 or [email protected].

Spread the word! If you like what you are reading, please share this article in your LinkedIn groups and other social media outlets.