School Officials, Law Enforcement Officers and Mental Health Professionals have Averted Many Planned Acts of Aggression at our Nation’s Schools

August 1, 2012 by

The arrest of a California college professor who apparently had been formulating detailed plans to carry out a deadly attack at University High School in Irvine, California is possibly one example of this type of intervention.  Police arrested Rainer Reinscheid after he was observed by police setting a fire on school property.  The police had stepped up patrols after a series of fires on school property and at an administrator’s residence.

Reinscheid was apparently distraught after his 14-year-old son who was a student at the school committed suicide in March.  When police checked messages on Reinscheid’s cell phone, they found detailed emails outlining how the man intended to use firearms to murder specific administrators at the school, kill and sexually assault students and burn down the school.

There have been many instances where students and non-students who had planned attacks on American schools have been caught before they could carry out their attacks.  The Bibb County Public School System in Macon, Georgia has averted six planned school shootings, one planned school bombing and a planned double suicide using three techniques that  have since become widespread in the United States, Canada and other countries – visual weapons screening, home searches and multidisciplinary threat assessment.

While the media tends to focus on incidents that take place, they often do not learn of heavily report instances where tragedy is averted through proactive measures.  This should not surprise us as the American media delivers what the public prompts it to do.  As business enterprises, media outlets respond to the measurement of ratings and deliver news in ways that are calculated to draw readers and viewers.  As a consequence, important information about how we can better protect schools is often not given as much exposure as upsetting and tragic information.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With:

SHARK! – Do our School Safety Efforts match our Real Risks?

July 31, 2012 by

Shark attacks in the U.S. and Australia have been in the headlines a bit lately.  And while no one wants to be bitten by a shark, the data on shark attacks in the U.S. indicates that shark attacks are exceedingly rare but often terrifying events. 

But in contrast to other animals which cause the deaths of far more Americans, shark attacks due tend to garner much greater media coverage.  For example, on Wikipedia indicates that while most people are more afraid of bears than deer, only two or three people a year are killed in the U.S. annually while more than 30 are typically killed by dogs and more about 150 are killed in collisions with deer.  According to U.S. News and World Report, the figures are even more out of kilter with our perceptions of fear with only ten fatalities from shark attacks in America in the past ten years, 28 fatal bear attacks but 1,017 people killed in collisions with deer from 2005 through 2009, a much shorter time frame.

We see the same effect in school safety where people are focused on the incidents that garner the most upsetting news coverage over things that result in more student deaths each year such as allergic reactions to peanut butter, heart stoppage and other causes.  

For example, searches of the internet will reveal dozens of video segments on how to attack an active shooter.  These videos often focus exclusively on active shooter scenarios, sometimes feature unproven concepts and often contain content that could result in death if they are misapplied to other far more common weapons situations such as a person who is brandishing a firearm but has not opened fire yet.    

While these efforts are well intended, some experts have questioned their effectiveness and are concerned that they are creating a deadly form of tunnel vision in campus emergency preparedness.   I share some of these concerns and will be detailing them in a soon to be released white paper on teaching active resistance for active shooter situations co-authored with Steve Satterly.   School safety efforts should be balanced and cover the things that cause death and serious injury most often as well as those that result in the most voluminous and graphic media coverage.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Liability Language – Campus Officials Should Choose thier Words with Care

July 30, 2012 by

Campus officials naturally want to reassure students and parents when safety incidents take place.  While this may be a normal impulse, it can pose problems for the reputation of the organization and in some instances during litigation. 

For example, it is very common to see school superintendents, headmasters of independent schools, university presidents and others make statements indicating that safety is the number one priority when it can be relatively easy for an attorney to shed doubt on the accuracy of these types of statements. 

In one recent example, after a Kent State student who communicated a threat via Twitter was arrested, University President Lester A. Lefton publically stated “Our students, employees, and all those who come to campus should know that their safety is our top priority. Any threat to our campus community is taken seriously and immediately investigated.”  If the university were litigated in the wake of some other safety incident, an attorney could ask the president under oath what percentage of the universities’ budget is dedicated to student safety.  This type of public statement could open up entire lines of questioning and in some cases can be taken as a contract which could provide an organization to meet a higher standard of safety than is otherwise required by law.  This situation could be much worse if, for example, there was an incident after a mistake was made and an allegation was made that a threat was not promptly or properly investigated.  

Perhaps a more prudent approach is for campus officials to look at the basic meaning they want to convey and then thoughtfully develop language that sends the same basic message in a more accurate and demonstrable manner.  School safety messages should ideally have a high degree of provability when scrutinized.

For example, in this example the following language would be much easier to prove “Our students, employees and all those who come to campus should know that their safety matters to Kent State, threats to our campus community are taken seriously”.  In my seminars and when consulting with campus officials, I suggest they imagine being on the stand under oath and being asked to provide evidence to back up these types of statements.  Sticking to assertions that could be reasonably supported will provide solid ground should members of the press or an expert witness and attorneys later have cause to carefully scrutinize these types of statements.  

The solution to these concerns is usually relatively easy once campus officials understand how these types of statements may be evaluated.  By looking at our words through this lens, more accurate, credible and defensible statements can still convey positive messages that provide proper context for discussions relating to campus safety.    

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »