The shooting yesterday at Lone Star College is the fourth school shooting in the past five weeks, since the massacre at Sand Hook Elementary and three were in higher education.  Could these shooting have been prevented?

Beyond the horrific Sand Hook Tragedy, this year begins with one shooting at Stevens Institute of Business and Arts in St. Louis and another by a 16 year old high school student Taft High School in California.  Sadly, the vast majority of professionals are focusing on guns and mental illness, neither of which would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting, nor will they provide a reliable means of preventing the next shooting.  Why?

Following the horrific Virginia Tech shooting the “Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy, June 13, 2007 clearly stated, “Most people who are violent do not have a mental illness, and most people who have mental illness are not violent.”  In fact Seung-Hui Cho , the Virginia Tech Shooter was evaluated on three separate occasions and on each occasion he was deemed to be, “Depressed and anxious but not at risk of hurting himself or others”!  Further, Jared Lee Loughner, who pleaded guilty to 19 charges, of murder and attempted murder, in connection with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, clearly had a Thought Disorder and may be Schizophrenic, but less than 1% of those with Schizophrenia have ever murdered others.  How do you get from 1% probability to predicting the next shooter?

Mental Illness is like “Profiling;” illustrated by the seminal study conducted with the U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Dept. of Education, called the Safe School Initiative, which concluded, “There is no accurate or useful profile of the school shooter, nor for assessing the risk that a particular student may pose for school-based targeted violence.”   Those in this study discovered what we already knew; “Profiling” tells us 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!

Another “go to” practice to predict the next shooter is Threat Assessment but does this method provide a reliable predictive model.  By its definition, Threat Assessment is an assessment of a threat that already exists! It is the objective of members of a Threat Assessment team to identify “lesser threats” and thereby prevent “greater threats,” but they are still reacting, not preventing, the initial threat.  There is not guarantee that this “lesser threat” will not be a threat to life or limb!

This is compounded by the fact that from the Moment of Commitment (when an aggressor pulls their weapon and begins firing) to the Moment of Completion (when the last round is discharged) is typically a mere 2 seconds (President Reagan shooting took only 1.7 seconds). If you are “reacting/responding” to a shooter, you will do so over those slain during those horrific first 2 seconds! This is not effective, responsible and, I would submit, not defensible.

However, the Safe School Initiative study continues with a SOLUTION, “An inquiry should focus instead on the student’s behaviors and communication to determine if the student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack.” “The ultimate question to answer …. is whether a student is on a path to a violent attack, and if so, to determine how fast they are moving and where intervention may be possible”   The most reliable means of identifying the next shooter is through observing and defusing “emerging aggression.” A better understanding of mental illness and threat assessment are important but if we are to identify the next shooter we must focus on “emerging aggression,” usable objective observables, culturally neutral body language, behavior and communication indicators.

Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) is built upon the observations and management of “emerging aggression,” along with the Meter of Emerging Aggression (software service) that enables its users to identify the precursors to violence and prevent them. For a quick review of how and why CAPS works, please review our 3-minute CAPS Informational Movie:   www.AggressionManagement.com/movie/

Early in our 18 years to pursue a “prevention” solution to workplace violence, we came to realize that there at two types of aggression, Primal and Cognitive.  Primal Aggression is built upon the primal instincts of fight or flight, fueled by adrenaline (that connection between “aggression,” the production of adrenaline, the increase in the heart rate and the resulting body language and behavior that we can objectively identify and measure); Primal Aggression is indicative of an individual “losing control,” who in the extreme will spiral out of control into panic and or rage. 

But what about conscious, deliberate aggression?  For this we developed Cognitive Aggression, fueled by “intent.”  Quite simply, the question is “what is your intent with this person or persons?”  Is it in your interest and theirs therefore a “win/win” as it should be, or is it in your interest and to their detriment; in other words, you intend to victimize this person or persons, you are becoming a victimizer; subsequently a predator (someone who intends to harm for a purpose, like a robbery or murder).  Ultimately the highest form of Cognitive Aggression (the 9^th Phase) is the “terrorist;” someone who intends to evoke terror in the hearts and minds of their victims.

When combined, these two continua present a formidable picture of “emerging aggression.” Permitting its user the opportunity to foresee “emerging aggression” and prevent it.  Each phase of aggression (0-9) offers the precursors to its next phase and therefore provide the opportunity to prevent it.   The highest phase is the 9^th Phase, which represents the individuals whose goal it is to “give up their life for their cause,” (the perpetrator of murder/suicide) and their behavior reflects this.  The 8^th Phase is the murderer or combatant, who is prepared to give up his life for a cause but intends to survive, in the case of the combatant, to kill more of you tomorrow. The 7^th Phase is the Complicit Tactician (accomplice), who is completely complicit with the 8^th and 9^th Phase Cognitive Aggressors (they want people to die) but they are not going to die for nor commit these murders, they will inspire others to do so; and their behavior reflects this intention.  Below you will see our graphic that illustrates Phases 0 through 9 of both Primal and Cognitive Aggression and how each continuum integrates with the other. Whether your concern is within the Crisis Phase where there is a strong possibility of imminent lethality; or in the 4^th Phase where your concern is “Bullying and Conflict” the Primal and Cognitive Aggression Continua offers the opportunity to foresee and prevent subsequent levels/phases of aggression.

The advantages of using the “Aggression Continuum” are that it provides objective observables that all departments can use, tearing down departmental silos; it can be used outside of HIPPA, FERPA and other privacy regulations;  and the indicators and training are intuitive and therefore are easy to learn and apply, it does not require special sophistication or advanced degrees. 

Whether you are a member of an Executive Security, Threat Assessment or Behavioral Intervention Team, Human Research Professional, Mental Health Counselors or simply someone who is troubled by aggression of those around them, the Primal and Cognitive Aggression Continua can be an invaluable objective tool in preventing aggressive behavior in others.

It has been a week since the horrific shootings in Newtown, CT.  We have heard many in the mental health community demand more funding to address the many mentally ill; as if this might help us better predict the next shooter.  But sadly, it has been our experience from previous shootings that those with mental Illness have not garnered any reliable predictive quality, as to who might be the next shooter.

Following the Virginia Tech shooting the “Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy, June 13, 2007 clearly stated, “Most people who are violent do not have a mental illness, and most people who have mental illness are not violent.”  In fact Seung-Hui Cho , the VT Shooter was evaluated on three separate occasions and on each occasion he was deemed to be, “Depressed and anxious but not at risk of hurting himself or others”!  Further, Jared Lee Loughner, who pleaded guilty to 19 charges, of murder and attempted murder, in connection with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, clearly had a Thought Disorder and may be Schizophrenic, but less than 1% of those with Schizophrenia have ever murdered others.  How do you get from 1% to he is the next shooter?

Mental Illness is like “Profiling;” illustrated by the seminal study conducted with the U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Dept. of Education, called the Safe School Initiative, which concluded, “There is no accurate or useful profile of the school shooter, nor for assessing the risk that a particular student may pose for school-based targeted violence.”   Those in this study discovered what we already knew; “Profiling” tells us 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!

This study continues with a solution, “An inquiry should focus instead on the student’s behaviors and communication to determine if the student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack.” “The ultimate question to answer …. is whether a student is on a path to an violent attack, and if so, to determine how fast they are moving and where intervention may be possible”   The most reliable means of identifying the next shooter is through observing and defusing “emerging aggression.” A better understanding of mental illness is important but if we are to identify the next shooter we must focus on “emerging aggression,” usable objective observables, culturally neutral body language, behavior and communication indicators.

If we are to truly “prevent” the next school shooting, we must focus on “emerging aggression” and use a forensic recording and tracking software system, we call this the Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS). To learn more watch our 3-minute CAPS Movie: www.AggressionManagement.com/movie/

We at the Center for Aggression Management are, like the rest of humanity, extremely saddened by the break of silence by “Evil” in the idyllic community of Newtown, Connecticut.  We said that there will be more of these horrific murder/suicides; but never would we have expected this to happen so soon and to so many truly innocent victims.  Every parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, uncle and friend is trying to, in a caring way, understand and share the pain that so many parents who have lost the most innocent of innocents on December 14, 2012.  So many of us are glued to the reports, we see the Media voice continually talk about how this man must be “crazy” and he may have had a disorder but “Evil” is seldom “crazy.”  We hear references to Asperger Syndrome, Autism and even Schizophrenia but it is our understanding that the number of Schizophrenics who have shot and killed others is less than 1%.  How do we get from 1 percent or even 5 percent to “this is the next shooter?” 

These circumstances of mental illness fall within the category of “profiling,” or the use of probabilities, which are not necessarily reliable predictors of who will be our next shooter.  The use of profiling is not a reliable means to identify and “prevent.”   Profiling tells us 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 affirmed by the seminal study conducted by the U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Dept. of Education called the Safe School Initiative Study, which declared, “There is no accurate or useful profile of the school shooter … or for assessing the risk that a particular student may pose for school based targeted violence.”    But this study continues, “An inquiry should focus instead on the student’s behaviors and communication to determine if the student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack.”  “The ultimate question to answer …. is whether a student is on a path to a violent attack, and if so, to determine how fast they are moving and where intervention may be possible”   We at the Center for Aggression Management have concluded that if we are to “prevent” the next shooting we must focus on “emerging aggression.”  Looking for the “red-faced and ready to explode” Primal Aggressor as most security and law enforcement do, will not identify this kind of killer.  If we are to identify the next perpetrator of murder/suicide, we must focus on the calculating, detached and determined “Cognitive Aggressor.” We, at the Center for Aggression Management, have found that when an individual rises to the level where they are prepared to give up their life for a cause, their body responds to this intention by losing animation; we see what the military calls the “thousand yard stare;” but it is more than this. Their whole body language and behavior loses animation; the Israelis refer to what we, at the Center, call the 9^th Stage Cognitive Aggressor as the “walking dead.”  If we are to identify the next shooter before their horrific Moment of Commitment (When they pull their weapon and begin shooting), we must identify “emerging aggression;” in other words, identify the precursors to violence, engage and prevent it.  It is imperative to understand that the shooter comes to the scene with this look.  Armed with the Meter of Emerging Aggression and the Judicious Interview, we can prevent these horrific events.   Today we will mourn the loss of these most innocent of innocents, tomorrow we must set out to establish a more effective means of preventing this kind of atrocity from ever happening again!

I sit here tonight pondering the sad fate of two innocents and one villain who died yesterday at the Clackamas Town Center mall in Portland.  It is troubling to me that virtually every media account makes reference to how this young man must have been “crazy,” even though we know there is no reliable predictive corollary between mental illness and who the next shooter may be.  

This young 23 year old man with all of his rationale, stole this weapon, brought it to the mall, dressed out in camouflage and mask and started killing people and subsequently himself; this man is a clear 9^th Phase Cognitive Aggressor.   Since there are 8 sequential aggressive phases prior to the 9^th Phase, it seems to me that someone with proper training could have (should have) identified this individual as a potential risk and engaged him with the Judicious Interview. 

I have repeatedly heard from the media that, “There is no way to get out in front of this kind of horrific act and prevent it,” but we know better.  Could we have caught this?  We will learn over the next several days as more news comes out from those around him in the days and moments leading up to the shooting.  There will be more of these horrific murder/suicides; we really need to get out in front of them.

In today’s Boston Business Journal, an article was written suggesting, “Companies focus on preventing workplace violence in wake of shootings in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Manhattan,” but how can this be achieved?  Is this more hopeful but disappointing rhetoric?  I don’t know about you but I am fed up with claims of “prevention,” when the only offering is “reaction!”

This article touts that, “About 300 people attended the ‘Active Shooter Preparation and Response’ workshop.”  But where is the “prevention” in "Active Shooter Preparation and Response;" it doesn’t exist!  Studies have shown that from the Moment of Commitment (when the shooter begins firing) to the Moment of Completion (when the last round is discharged) is less than five seconds!  If your organization intends to react to an Active Shooter, they will do so over those slain during those horrific first 5 seconds. This is not effective, responsible nor defensible. Most importantly, this is not “prevention!” 

In the article, Randy Spivey, chief executive of the Center for Personal Protection and Safety, suggests that “Employers should do a better job, listening to workers' concerns about potentially odd and alarming behavior by fellow co-workers. Also, any type of expressed threat muttered by an employee has to be taken seriously.”  This statement points out one of the most taunting challenges in the workplace, distinguishing between aberrant behavior, misconduct and truly aggressive/threatening behavior.   Because most organizations are not making this distinction, they tend to overreact to simple aberrant behavior and misconduct, but worse yet, they tend to underreact to truly aggressive/threatening behavior.  This makes for some very dangerous circumstances opening an opportunity to that horrific Moment of Commitment.

We hear about the use of Threat Assessment?  But Threat Assessment, by its definition, is an assessment of an existing threat; you are reacting to a threat, not preventing it!  It is their hope that they can identify lesser threats and thereby prevent greater threats but there is no way to assure that the “lesser threat” will not be a threat to life or limb. There is no reliable “prevention” in Threat Assessment. 

That begs the question, “How can we truly prevent workplace violence?”  We must first isolate “aggressive behavior” specifically and judge it on its merits; when we do, we will be able to foresee, engage and prevent any level of emerging aggressive behavior, including violence!  According to the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education’s report on Targeted Violence in Schools, the only reliable means of violence prevention is that “An inquiry should focus on a student’s behaviors and communications to determine if the student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack.  The ultimate question to answer . . . is whether a student is on a path to a violent attack, and if so, to determine how fast they are moving and where intervention may be possible.”  

At the Center for Aggression Management, we have spent 18 years developing a reliable means to achieve “prevention” of workplace violence.  Assessing objective, culturally neutral, reflective body language, behavioral and communication indicators of emerging aggression is the only effective means to foresee (“on a path to a violent attack”) and prevent a violent attack.  This is what the Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) achieves through its Meter of Emerging Aggression.  Learn more in this 3-minute CAPS Impact Movie: www.AggressionManagement.com/movie/

Over the past 4 years, this blog has endeavored to inform you about aggression, its effects with an emphasis on how to prevent it. Over the past six months we have been shared our new system referred to as Critical Aggression Prevention System or CAPS. We thought you might wish to better understand of how we came to develop this unique and vital system.

The Center for Aggression Management’s founder and CEO, John D. Byrnes, D.Hum-hc established the Center in 1993 in response to a request from law enforcement leaders for a more effective, lower impact method for confronting aggressors and de-escalating aggression. Research and training in those areas brought our founder, to the realization that workplace, campus and school violence could be prevented by applying the methods developed by the Center.

Predicated upon the realization that the only possible predictor of violence was to identify someone “on the path to a violent attack.” The Center for Aggression Management provides training and systems for use in avoiding and preventing emerging aggression and violence in today's complex workplace, campus, and school environments.

A wide range of companies and educational institutions responded very positively over the years to the many Aggression Management training programs provided by the Center. From dialogue surrounding those programs and the request of clients, the Center developed a comprehensive system for recognizing and managing aggressive behavior in an empirical way; this unique system is referred to as the Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS). Because it was not practical to train all people with all skills and fulfill the critical need to record and track aggressive behavior, the Center developed a three component system.

1. Aggression First Observer Training (provided in a one-day workshop to identify and call in objective observables.)
2. Aggression Manager Training (the brains of the system, trained to measure and manage emerging aggressors)
3. Meter of Emerging Aggression Software Service (record and track all aggressive behavior on campus or in the workplace.)

There are five reasons why our Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) methodology is so unique and effective in preventing violence in the workplace or on campus.

These five elements come together to make CAPS truly differentiates us from all other methodologies:

1. We distinguish between Primal (adrenaline-driven) Aggression and Cognitive (intent-driven) Aggression. Once this distinction is made, aggressive behavior can be observed and measured in real-time using scientific cause and effect principles through the reflection of aggression in a person’s body language, behavior and communication indicators.
2. Our Aggression Continuum, according to studies, demonstrates the only true means to prevent violent behavior is to get-out-in-front of it. These studies demonstrate that the only reliable predictive means of preventing violence is to “identify someone on the path to a violent attack.” Our Aggression Continuum is the only methodology that uses scientific cause and effect principles to achieve this objective.
3. Realizing that it is not practical to train all people with all skills, our methodology involves scalable training of two types: Aggression First Observers (AFOs), individuals trained to identify “objective observables” of aggressive behavior. AFOs will call these objective observables into a small core group of Aggression Managers (AMs), the brains of the methodology, who are trained to measure emerging aggression, applying the appropriate corresponding skill sets to maximize their aggression diffusing/preventing results.
4. We have developed the Meter of Emerging Aggression (a software service) used by Aggression Managers (AMs) to input behavior. This software illustrates in real-time the level of an individual’s aggression so that Aggression Managers can better determine what resources are needed to maximize their result.
5. Finally, the Meter of Emerging Aggression is then used to record and track aggressive behavior so as to validate that these users are doing everything possible to make their client, facility or community “as safe as possible,” better referred to as true “Best Practices.”

Other programs attempt to replicate CAPS but none achieve its empirical results. We have developed a 3-minute CAPS Impact Movie offering a summarized understanding of how and why CAPS works. At the end of the movie you have three options: (1) share this CAPS Impact Movie with other colleagues you deem appropriate, (2) go to our website where there is a wealth of information or (3) register for a free one-hour CAPS Webinar to gain more information. The CAPS Impact Movie can be viewed at www.AggressionManagement.com/movie/

As security professionals we all know that the number one responsibility in providing security details is the ability to prevent a threat before it endangers you and your client. No matter how adept you are in close combat skills or the use of firearms when that horrific Moment of Commitment comes (the aggressor pulls a weapon and begins shooting), your skills are not enough; this has been proven to be the fact in studies and in practice. How a gunshot or a physical combat will end depends on different factors such as the environment, the number of enemies, the number of rounds each party has, what kind of, if any support you have and most importantly your psychological response during an attack. Believe it or not we have seen security professionals ‘’freeze’’ during a gun battle. Were they trained in firearms? Yes!  Were they trained in close combat? Yes!  So, what went wrong? The most important question is, can we risk engaging ourselves in a situation that will most likely end violently for us and our clients? How many ‘’clients’’ or security operatives have come through a gun battle completely safe after having engaged in one? I am still searching to find that one case……

It is safer to prevent a threat instead of reacting to it! The best security details are not those based in force or use of firearms, but those based on foreseeing the upcoming threat and preventing it. We should also not forget that in some countries our colleagues are not permitted to carry or use firearms, so they must use their brains and intel.

Can we get training to foresee and prevent a threat? Yes we can!

I had the opportunity to attend one of ESI’s classes this weekend and meet Mr. John D. Byrnes. Mr. Byrnes is the founder of the Center for Aggression Management. The Center provides training and systems for use in avoiding and preventing violence in areas such as workplace, campus and school environment to provide more effective, lower impact methods for confronting aggressors and de-escalating aggression.

Most importantly this training can be taught to a wide area of professionals and organizations. I would personally and highly recommend this training to EVERYONE who would like to feel safer regardless his or her professional background.

No matter what our profession, age, sex, culture or country we live in, we all have to deal at some point in our lives with aggressive individuals; either as criminals, colleagues or family members. As a woman I can see multiple uses of Mr. Byrnes’ Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS).

As a security professional I can assure you that this training will change the way you have been looking at things and suspects. At some point we all have been trained in how to identify suspects and how to deal with them. Most schools still teach profiling, mostly when it comes to terrorists and suicide bombers.

Personally I was never a believer in using profiling. Why? Simply because there has not been an accurate “terrorist profile!” All profile assessments that have studied terrorists have been done so after they were captured. In psychology it is well known that you cannot obtain real research facts from an subject who (study object-terrorist) is not a willing participant ….

What about those situations when you are dealing with the occasional threat of aggression? Imagine being with your client in a pub where people get drunk and became aggressive, or at a football stadium? Being able to understand and ‘’read’’ aggression escalation is essential so as to maintain a safe environment for your client, you and others who could otherwise be injured.  Identifying emerging aggression, engaging and preventing a possible attack offers a much better solution than pulling your firearm and pointing it at prospective aggressor. 

Remember, we are security professionals, we are not Law Enforcement or Federal Agents, depending upon our country of operations, our duties and actions can be so limited by the law and have no more authority than any other professional such as bus driver.

In cases that you cannot restrain, handcuff or point a firearm against an aggressive suspect you must have other tools to defend yourself and your client. Critical Aggression Prevention System will not only teach you how to identify and respond in those situations, but will also teach you how to identify aggressive levels in yourself and how to control them. We are humans too and when an aggressor, whose adrenaline is already surging, it is a natural response for our adrenaline to rise as it prepares us for attack!  We can get aggressive as well when we are offended, threaten or our interests are limited. So by learning how to control our aggression brings us to a much higher professional level. The one who control his or her temper and calmness is the professional one. The one that can maintain their calm will make better decisions, and when it comes to our professional area, the one who will make the safest decisions.

Soon we will be hosting an interview with Mr. Byrnes, until then you can find out more about his work and the Center for Aggression Management at http://www.aggressionmanagement.com/index.html or learn more about their training at http://www.aggressionmanagement.com/USF_OTIECMainPage.html

Director of Placement and Services at Executive Security International

1. Executive Security International
2. Albanian Centre of Studies Against Terrorism and Organised Crime
3. Alaskan-Aegean Energy Resources Utilization, LLC