AGGRESSION MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Can a college or university identify someone who intends to do harm on their campus? The horrific shootings at Virginia Tech and subsequently, Northern Illinois University demonstrate the need to understand the critical difference between two dramatically different kinds of aggression.  Typically, security and law enforcement officers are trained to look for the “Primal Aggressor” (red-faced and ready to explode) when in fact, these shooters were classic “Cognitive Aggressors” (cold, completely detached and determined).  If weapons were not visible, the VT and NIU shooters probably would have walked right by most security or law enforcement officers without being noticed.  Nothing about them would be likely to raise “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause.”  The Primal Aggressor is the person who loses control, possibly from an escalation of anger.  The Cognitive Aggressor is a far more dangerous and elusive predator.  He is a perpetrator of murder/suicide (or terrorist-like) who presents as a calm, deliberate and focused aggressor with no remorse or compunction about multiple killings.  While the Primal Aggressor is fueled by adrenaline, the Cognitive Aggressor is driven by intent.

Who are the predators we keep hearing about and what do they have in common?  Very revealing are the first five indicators identified by the Safe School Initiative Final Report by the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education:

1. Incidents of targeted violence at school rarely were sudden, impulsive acts.
2. Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s idea and/or plan to attack.
3. Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.
4. There is no accurate or useful “profile” of students who engaged in targeted school violence.
5. Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.

Whether you are a student affairs administrator, risk manager, director of security, human resources director, counselor, or university president, all those responsible for college and university governance are being driven to become more aggression-vigilant.  One of the greatest fears we have is uncertainty.  Can we identify someone who intends to do harm to our students or faculty?  In the vast majority of cases, the answer is yes.  A person who goes through the cognitive process of preparing to give up his life for a cause (murder/suicide) takes on specific body language, behavior, and communication indicators that can be identified. 

The Aggression Management System provides practical tools for measurement of emerging human aggression. Whether on campus, in medical school or a public venue like a stadium, wherever an incident may occur, the goal is to identify the aggressor and provide the means to understand, evaluate, defuse and/or mitigate the emergence of his aggression.  The system also measures university security personnel’s adrenaline, allowing them to manage any potential for aggression, and respond more effectively and professionally.  The system is designed to provide a clear clinical method of documentation, which can ultimately achieve legal defensibility for actions taken to protect the community. 

www.aggressionmanagement.com

Return to THREAT ASSESSMENT AND AGGRESSION MANAGEMENT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

BACK TO TOP