The Israeli Approach to School Security - continued from page 5


One of the keys in the Israeli approach is proper mindset (see Behavioral Profiling Is Useful When Appropriately Applied). Although responding to and dealing with the threats to public safety and security are the responsibilities of the police, determining who and what potentially constitutes a threat is taken very seriously by every Israeli citizen. They have learned to live in a culture where threats come in the form of unprovoked and unpredicted rocket attacks at any hour, or someone detonating a suicide vest in a crowded restaurant. The suicide bomber can come in the form of a man, woman or even the unthinkable, a child.


Incorporate These 8 Steps into Your Plan


Gun Violence at U.S. Schools Continues to Grow Sharply


A fatal shooting in Oregon was the 31st firearms attack at a U.S. school since the start of the year, marking a sharp acceleration in the rash of violence that has occurred on campuses across the nation.


In the 18 months since the shooting in Newtown, CT, 41 deaths have occurred in 62 documented incidents at U.S. schools. In the 18 months before that attack, there were 17 deaths in 17 incidents. "School shootings are part of a much bigger problem," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "There are 86 people who die from bullets on an average day."


Read more


The Futility of Cease and Desist Letters in Electronic Threat Cases By Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, BCC


Our work in threat assessment demands creativity, patience, intuition, and the ability to not only think outside the box, but to help (or urge) others to do so as well.


One area where we run into difficulties is during the discussion, often with company attorneys, about the need to deal with a threatener, who has contacted the organization by e-mail, letter, or phone call, a ―cease and desist‖ letter. This person is often a former employee who quit in anger, or who was terminated in a less-than positive way, an unpaid vendor, or an embattled customer or taxpayer. They often choose to target the firm with a barrage of e-mails or calls, designed to disrupt operations and make the recipients fear for their lives. In these cases, senior management wants answers and turns to the company HR, security, or counsel to take actions.


From experience, we know that e-mail threats are much less of a security concern then unannounced visits by former employees.


Threatening from a distance is a different mindset than screaming in the company lobby at a frightened receptionist. This is at the heart of the matter; some people use threatening e-mails, texts, written letters (less likely these days), or menacing voice messages left on their targets‘ business or personal accounts or phone numbers.


Their use of electronic distance is intentional. Their thinking goes, ―I can reach out to threaten you anytime and from anywhere, just by pressing a few buttons. And there is nothing you can do to stop me.‖


Would you rather work on a threat case where the perpetrator sent an ominous e-mail as IHateYourGuts@yahoo.com or the same e-mail with MyFirstName.MyLastName@yahoo.com? For the first threatener, he or she is using an anonymous e-mail address to do just that, remain anonymous. This person fears the consequences, wants to continue to play cat and mouse, and may think that shuffling through a series of fake e-mail addresses makes it harder for us to track or identify him or her.


For the second threatener, who uses his or her name and self-identifies, there is no intent to hide. This person is saying, ―Yeah, it‘s me. So now what are you going to do about it?‖ to a current or former supervisor, co-worker, HR manager, security director, or the company in general. The behavior of self-identified threateners is more of a concern because they are not being covert, but overt, in their threats of harm


Many electronic threateners perceive what they‘re doing as not necessarily illegal (which it is in most states), and they enjoy being provocative, all-powerful, and disruptive. We are certainly more concerned when ex- employees, domestic violence partners of current employees, angry vendors or customers, or mentally ill strangers enter our work facilities with no warning. The electronic threatener gives us advance notice and a great evidentiary paper trail of dates, times, and words. The phone threatener gives us evidence of tone, malice, and threatening statements, which we can take to the police for a possible arrest or a judge should we decide to get a civil protection order.


This is where the paradoxical part of our work comes into play. As the US Secret Service has told us, some people make threats and some people pose threats. We often have more concerns from people who pose


Continued on page 19


6


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25