A Perspective on the UCSB Mass Murderer

To say that not being able to predict with certainty exactly which individuals will engage in mass killings means we cannot prevent, or at least minimize, such incidents doesn't make sense. Without polio vaccine, we cannot predict with certainty which individuals will get sick from various microbes. But we can prevent much of it with vaccinations, treating water, adequate nutrition, etc.

We can't predict with certainty which baby will become a violent criminal, but we can do things that make it more or less likely. We can train parents in effective parenting, we can remove lead from the environment, we can provide opportunities that allow people to make a living honestly, etc.

And there are large differences in the amount of violence in different cultures. When we celebrate violence, self-centeredness, hateful attitudes towards others, we are increasing the amount of violence in our society.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2014.1508

June 10, 2014
Mary Ellen O'Toole, PhD
Senior FBI Profiler/Criminal Investigative Analyst (ret.), Behavioral Analysis Unit.

-----

Dr. Friedman raised the issue of not being able to predict these crimes, which is often confused with our ability to prevent them. This is a critical and significant difference. The issue of not being able to prevent targeted violence is not correct, in my opinion. It sends the wrong message to the public, but it also goes against what I believe is part of our mission in Violence and Gender—to develop a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the “underlying pathologies” that result in this behavior, and, through neuroscience and behavioral science collaboration, to be able to develop actionable hypotheses about prediction. Thus, we will be able to identify which males in that critical age group are, in fact, at greatest risk for engaging in this type of violence.

-----

For many years I have been a member of The Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP), an organization that was founded to advance the study of threat assessment for professionals working in the field. Over the years, ATAP has developed standards for evaluating threats made or posed by individuals, which involve the identification and evaluation of preincident and warning behaviors. Once these behaviors are evaluated and a determination made that an individual is at high risk for acting out, then an appropriate level of “intervention” is designed and recommended in order to prevent the violence. The science of threat assessment, which has been evolving for years, is the basis for the development of Behavioral Intervention or Threat Assessment Teams that have been created throughout the country over the last 10 or more years.

-----

Since the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) incident, I have heard a great deal of misinformation about mass murder behavior, including a comment by Janet Napolitano, the UC president and former head of homeland security, who spoke about the shooting at UCSB. She was quoted as saying that “it's almost the kind of event that's impossible to prevent and impossible to predict.” I am extremely concerned that this type of message put out to the public by someone in President Napolitano's position could set us back in a multitude of ways, including affecting our research efforts; continuing and using threat assessment teams; future training of professionals in the field; and negatively impacting our ability to continue to educate the public about this type of violence. But most importantly, this kind of thinking could hamper our ability to spot the next shooter.

-----

The second issue I have, based on Dr. Freidman's op–ed, relates to motivation. The UCSB killer, like many if not most of these shooters, was motivated in part by the desire for fame and infamy, which can be a very powerful motivator. I have seen this motivation dating as far back as the Charles Whitman shooting at the University of Texas in Austin on August 1, 1966, and continuing through to this most recent event in Santa Barbara. I agree with Dr. Jeremy Richman, neuropsychopharmacologist and father of Avielle, a victim of the Sandy Hook murders: Those of us working, researching, reporting on, or publishing in the field should have an understanding of the need for a “blackout” of the shooter's name when possible. Casually or unnecessarily using the names of shooters can fuel or encourage the next person, already contemplating a similar crime, and reinforce the idea that he too can achieve infamy by committing a mass murder. I understand that there will be times when the shooter's name has to be used publically in order to avoid confusion or to present the fact pattern when discussing the case. However, I think unnecessarily referring to a shooter by name in a public forum reflects a lack of understanding of the powerful motivation for these crimes. It also sensationalizes these offenders and causes others to see them as a type of folk hero rather than people who engage in barbaric, inhumane behavior against innocent and defenseless people. I for one will continue to be much more vigilant about this, because I have made mistakes in the past and used a shooter's name when in hindsight, it was not necessary.

-----

I also ask the New York Times and all other media to cease citing these killers by name and serving their desire for fame through these hideous behaviors. The responsibility for preventing these tragedies lies with all of us as professionals and citizens. Don't subscribe to the “snapping” theory. Remember, these are well-thought-out, purposeful, premeditated crimes, and each mass murderer leaves behind his own “trail of bread crumbs” for us to follow—if we know what to look for.