by Joy Dike, PhD

There has been an increasing level of attentiveness to active shooters in our nation over the past couple of years. The Google trend is quite telling - attention starts to rise in July and August of 2012 after the movie theatre shooting in Aurora, CO in July and the shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in August. The curve really starts to rise in December 2012 after the Sandy Hook shootings, and it peaks in December of 2015 after the San Bernardino shootings.

The Google trend for the phrase "active shooter training" is even more telling about people's fear. The general shape is the same, but the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in December 2012 resulted in a large peak of interest in active shooter training. Ditto with the San Bernardino shooting in December of 2015 - a massive spike in interest in active shooter training. 

Its clear that people respond to events like Sandy Hook and San Bernardino by looking for information on how to defend themselves if they were to be confronted by such a situation. We've talked about this on the blog before, but its worth talking about again - having a plan in place to deal with an active shooter is becoming increasingly necessary for businesses and schools in today's world. As an individual, there's also some steps you can take.

Active shooter training classes geared towards civilians (as opposed to training for law enforcement on how to respond to an active shooter event) are popping up all over the country. Police departments, schools, and businesses are conducting training sessions in towns, cities, and schools all over the country. In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), offers an independent study course on how to prepare for and respond to active shooter events. Similarly, the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center (ALERRT), which trains law enforcement and first responders on dealing with active shooters, has developed a course for civilians entitled Civilian Response to Active Shooter Events (CRASE). 

The point is that there is training available to individuals wanting to learn more about active shooters and how to prepare for and respond to an active shooter event. Don't think that you need to be a police officer or on a SWAT team to qualify for training. Many of these sessions are specifically geared toward civilians looking to gain a better understand of active shooters.

See for yourself if there is civilian training available where you live. A quick internet search will probably uncover a number of options, and if you live in a place where there aren't in-person training options, take the self-directed FEMA/DHS course.

by Invictus Consulting

Today marks the 17th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School. 12 students and 1 teacher were murdered in the school that day. Another 24 were injured, and the two teenage perpetrators took their own lives.

Although there had been school shootings before Columbine, they had never been broadcast so widely and been a part of the public conscious as they are now. 
Law enforcement acknowledge that the Columbine event radically and forevermore changed the way they trained for and responded to active shooter events. In addition to shifting the public conscious on such events and changing the way law enforcement deals with active shooters, the Columbine shooting opened up a national dialogue about bullying and violence in schools.

Take a moment today to remember the children and teachers whose lives were forever changed by this event. 

by Joy Dike, PhD

I recently read one of the most apt metaphors for why we should prepare for the possibility of terrorist threats in our nation's school. Written in the Foreword to Innocent Targets: When Terrorism Comes to School,  Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (Ret.) compares preparing for a fire with preparing for a terrorist attack at a school. It's worth repeating a few paragraphs verbatim:

"Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed by violence than fire, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured by violence as compared to fire. And yet, in any school you can look around and see fire sprinklers, smoke alarms, fire exits, and fire extinguishers. If we can spend all that money and time preparing for fire (and we should, since every life is precious), shouldn't we spend time and money preparing for the thing that is far more likely to kill or injure a child? 

The most negligent, unprofessional, obscene words anyone can ever say are, 'It will never happen here.' Imagine the firefighter saying, 'There will never be a fire in this building, and we don't need those fire extinguishers.'

When someone says, 'Do you really think there will be a terrorist act or a school shooting here?' I just point to the fire exit and say, 'Do you really think there will be a fire here? Statistically speaking, it is very unlikely that there would ever be a fire here. But we would be morally, criminally negligent if we did not prepare for the possibility. And the same is far, far more true of school violence.'" (pp.xviii-xix)


I really like this analogy because it speaks so clearly to the do-nothing strategy so many schools employ about a terrorist attack - school administrators often have the mindset that a terrorist attack or school shooting could never possibly happen on their campus. It's a problem for other people in other countries. Or at least other cities. "I don't have to worry about this problem in my community" is a mindset we find in far too many schools.

We need to break ourselves of this mindset. The methods to mitigate the threat of a terror attack are the same methods to mitigate the threat of an active shooter, and it starts with admitting that the school needs to have a risk assessment done and put a plan in place for various types of emergencies, not just fire emergencies. 

by Joy Dike, PhD

The interview process is never used a source of blame or condemnation - it is a data collection tool used to uncover gaps in security. With that said, sometimes interviewees are nervous to answer questions truthfully, fearing that they will be reprimanded or seen as ratting out the administration. This is precisely one of the times at which being a woman in the world of security consulting is a virtue. So many security consulting firms are paramilitary in nature - the majority of their assessors are ex-military and ex-law enforcement men, which can be intimidating. Imagine being nervous about an interview in the first place and then sitting face-to-face with an intimidating man who looks like he just stepped out of a RoboCop movie who asks you who has access to the building. "ummmm.... I think people have to sign in and the doors have keycard access...." (Never mind admitting to this man that sometimes teachers leave doors propped open! Best leave that little confession out of the interview...)

As a woman in the security industry, I see the value in sometimes having a less intimidating person conduct interviews at schools. We want people to be completely open and honest (otherwise we aren't really uncovering gaps in security), and the reality is that women faculty and staff are apt to be more open and honest with a woman interviewer.  

Being a woman in the security industry is a topic we will continue to explore on this blog, so come back regularly to take a look at this subject with us.

by Joy Dike, PhD

We talk a lot about active shooters, mass shootings, and workplace violence here on the Invictus Consulting blog. Here we go again...

Recently a man walked into a leasing office at an apartment complex In Tallahassee and opened fire. What we know so far is that this man was acting out in retaliation for his wife having been fired from her job at the apartment complex earlier that day. He shot an employee of the apartment complex 6 times (not fatally) and then went back outside and casually waited for the police to come, looking, "like a man who had accomplished his goal."

Let's look at this case in the context of active shooter, mass shootings, and workplace violence. Is this man an active shooter? Is this an an instance of a mass shooting? Is this a case of workplace violence?

Remember that the agreed-upon definition (by the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency) of an active shooter is "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearm(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection." 

Is he an active shooter? Was he:

• attempting to kill people
• by shooting them
• in a populated area
• with no particular rhyme or reason for who he aims at 

The four major parts of the definition of an active shooter may fit in this case, IF we learn that the mindset of the perpetrator was to kill people indiscriminately. This information hasn't come to light yet. The first question is whether he intended to actually kill people. The other question is whether he was shooting randomly or if had chosen targets. This information also hasn't come to light, but the fact that he went to the leasing office (rather than the nearby apartment complex gym, pool, or computer room) may indicate that his targets were employees of the apartment complex rather than random individuals (or renters) at the apartment complex. Without knowing his mindset, we can't fully commit to calling this an active shooter case.

Was it a mass shooting? While there is little consensus on what defines a mass shooting (see this blog post and this white paper on active shooter statistics for a more detailed explanation of this topic), all definitions assume at least 3 people are shot. This instance, then, would not be classified as a mass shooting. 

Is this a case of workplace violence? There are four types of workplace violence offenders:

• Type I - The offender has no relationship with either the victims or the establishment. (This is random violence, often attempted robbery.)
• Type II - The offender currently receives services (e.g., retail, health) from the facility where they commit violence. (This often manifests as violence towards nurses or healthcare workers by their patients.)
• Type III - The offender is a current or former employee acting out against current or former place of employment. (If the woman who had been fired from the apartment complex had done the shooting [rather than her husband], the Tallahassee case would be Type III workplace violence.)
• Type IV - The offender has a relationship with an employee and domestic issues spill over into the workplace. (This often manifests as domestic disputes or domestic violence carrying over into the workplace of one or the other of the domestic partners.)

In the Tallahassee case, we can certainly classify the violence as Type IV workplace violence. This man had a relationship with an employee (his wife), and he committed violence at her workplace. Even though the wife was not present for the violence and her husband was not acting violently toward her, he still committed violence at a place of work where he had a relationship with an employee. 

Now that we've determined that this is not a mass shooting, is potentially not an active shooter situation, but is definitely a case of workplace violence, do you feel relieved? Safer? More scared? Glad that one less active shooter case has NOT happened in the United States? 

The reality is that workplace violence - whether it is a case of domestic violence, harassment, emotional abuse, threats, or an actual armed gunman - poses a greater threat to the daily safety of workers than do active shooters. Workplace violence occurs every day in places all over the country, and someone does not need to be wielding a gun to be classified as engaging in workplace violence; most instances of workplace violence do not involve guns at all. We've said it before, and we will say it again until workplaces are truly safe, but you need to have a workplace violence policy (i.e., a zero-tolerance policy), you need to make sure employees know about and follow the policy, and you need to make sure that your employees feel safe at work.