Last year, officials in Jackson County, Georgia, interrogated a teenage boy and his father about a potential internet-based threat to conduct a middle school shooting. At that time, the boy, Colt Gray, who was then 13 years old, denied all accusations. Fast forward to nearly 16 months later, Gray, now 14, took the lives of four individuals and injured nine others at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, marking it as the deadliest school shooting in Georgia’s history.
Such tragic events bring with them an inevitable and heart-wrenching query, repeatedly asked after such shooting incidents. Experts often point out that individuals, especially those who end up committing mass shootings, usually display alarming signs before resorting to violence. Additionally, officials are frequently on the receiving end of tips or reports signifying disturbing behavior, sometimes even long before the violent act takes place.
However, the current scope of traditional police training can be restrictive. Unless an actual crime has been committed or the subject meets specific criteria for involuntary mental health evaluation, officers don’t have many options. Frequently, the case gets closed without concrete resolution. Despite that, USA’s high number of shootings led to a nationwide plea to revamp traditional ways of policing, especially in handling potential threats of extensive violence.
The envisaged reform focuses on retraining officers to partner in multidisciplinary teams. Their goal is to detect unsettling behaviors at an early stage and consistently track their development to avert a dangerous outcome. Pinellas County, Florida’s Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, who chaired a state committee investigating school violence for six years after the Parkland school massacre, emphasized the need for responders to reconsider their approach.
According to Sherrif Gualtieri, the standard police mentality reacts to the immediate information available, evaluating if it’s actionable or not. He suggests a shift in this mindset, whereby responders evaluate if an individual’s behavior deviates noticeably from a baseline or typical pattern, possibly lining them up for violent undertakings.
Prior to the 2018 Parkland shooting, the FBI didn’t fully follow up on two tip-offs, one of which was from a family member expressing concerns about the shooter’s potential violent actions in a school. Following these fatal oversights, the Justice Department sanctioned a settlement of approximately $130 million to the victims’ families.
Before this horrifying incident, local law enforcement had received calls related to the future assailant’s home owing to repeated threats and exhibited unsettling behavior. Two school guidance counselors accompanied by a sheriff’s deputy recommended his enrollment into mental health care, though the recommendation wasn’t actioned.
Experts use the term ‘leakage’ to define the obvious change in behavior along with the sharing of violent plans. The term aims to encapsulate the indication that the subject has unresolved grievances, limited coping mechanisms, and could resort to violent action. The objective is to formally or informally train individuals to identify and apprehend these signs, according to experts.
The ideal intervention would incorporate a collaboration between officers, mental health professionals, social workers, and other community resources to ensure protective measures are in place against self-harm or harm to others. Even though this wasn’t practiced previously, Sheriff Gualtieri acknowledges it as a significant investment of time and resources.
Gualtieri points out that it’s hard to measure violence averted by these early intervention strategies but notes, ‘When you’re in it, you see it.’ Presently, nine states, including Florida post the Parkland shooting, necessitate in-school threat assessment teams to identify students susceptible to committing violence, as per Everytown for Gun Safety, a prominent gun control organization. These teams often include law enforcement officials.
For J. Reid Meloy, forensic psychologist and consultant, a crucial part of an effective threat assessment involves shifting away from an approach that only considers a single point in time. Instead, he argues that an individual should be evaluated over a period of time, checking for an escalation in harmful behaviors or tendencies. The assessment should be dynamic and should change when signs of a propensity towards violence emerge.
Detecting the procurement of a weapon, a shift in control over the said weapons, or an increase in weapon training should all be considered meaningful indicators and should lead to an adjustment in the ongoing assessment. Marc Zimmerman, co-director of the Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention and the National Center for School Safety, both based at the University of Michigan, noted that creating and training effective threat assessment teams requires substantial time and expertise.
Zimmerman emphasized the importance of creating a supportive and responsive environment within schools as a key to preventing violence. He concludes that this approach is much more effective, not to mention economical, than hardening schools with physical security measures such as gates, locks, and metal detectors.
Reflecting on the reality of violent incidents, Zimmerman conveys, ‘I don’t think there’s ever been an incident where someone wakes up and thinks, ‘Oh, this is a good day to pick up a gun and shoot a bunch of people.’ Usually, there’s a build-up of grievances. The challenge is to identify those things early on.’
Zimmerman suggests a shift in police perception about potential shooters is necessary. Law enforcement has to shift its focus to prevention over response. He argues, ‘if its role is just enforcing laws and responding to an event, that’s way too late.’ The emphasis here shifts from reaction to action, placing significant importance on preventive measures rather than post-event enforcement.
Deadliest Georgia School Shooting Ignites Discussion on Police Reform appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
