Two recent news items should be of concern to anyone who has a desire to keep our daily lives a little less dreadful and our modern existence just a little more civilized. They call for consideration by anyone who is in a position to protect others from harm – school personnel, law enforcement, health professionals, even parents or, more accurately, especially parents. The pair of events that demand attention are the mass shooting by Robert Card in Maine and a hearing in the Supreme Court regarding the allowance of firearm possession by people served with restraining orders. Both are relevant to curtailing violence that is preventable.
Card was a sergeant first class in the Army Reserve and during the last year had exhibited danger signs extensive enough for the military to restrict his access to combat weapons, declare him nondeployable, and oversee short-term hospitalization. Allegedly he was subject to auditory hallucinations and threatened to attack his regiment. Following his release from the hospital, the army attempted to follow-up with outpatient services, but was unsuccessful in contacting him.[1]
Military officials, did however, notify local police. They requested a wellness check at Card’s place of residence, and also informed authorities that his access to weaponry was no longer permitted by the armed services. A deputy visited his house on both September 15 and the following day, but Card was not home. A month later, on October 25, at a bowling alley and restaurant, Card shot to death 18 people and injured 13 more.[2]
Threats Often Precede Mass Murder
Most criminologists along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation refer to them as a type of “leakage.”[3] They are identified as “foreshadowing” in my forthcoming book, How Rampage Killers Interpret Their World: Developmental Portraits.[4] The label is less important than acknowledging the necessity for concerted communication among public agencies when threatening words or actions are exhibited by individuals who may be unbalanced.
On two separate occasions in two disparate circumstances former Marine Charles Whitman expressed his desire to position himself on the clock tower at Austin University and fire upon hapless human targets in the surrounding area. He finally did so after murdering his mother and his wife. He killed two tourists along with a receptionist as ascended to his post, then took the lives of eleven more including an unborn baby. Thirty-one were wounded. One victim was blinded for life and another was physically disabled with a twisted torso. A final fatality occurred thirty years later when a man requiring life-long dialysis as a result of the shooting finally refused treatment and died within one week. Whitman’s ambush took place on August 1 in 1966.[5]
More recently Ethan Crumbley opened fire at his high school in Oxford Township, Michigan. He had previously announced his intentions, albeit obliquely, in social media posts, but then more directly illustrated his compulsion to enact mayhem in a series of cartoonish drawings. They were intercepted by one of his instructors who alerted school administrators who in turn contacted his mother and father. School officials, despite reasonable suspicion (the legal test for a search on school grounds), did not inspect Crumbley’s backpack and his parents refused to take him home. That same day he shot six of his peers, four of whom died, and wounded a teacher.[6]
When warning pronouncements and/or dangerous behavior are ignored and/or underestimated the end result is usually disastrous and often fatal. Examples abound in the book previously named, as well as its companion, Why Rampage Killers Emerge.[7]
The Best Predictor of the Future is Often the Past
All of which bring us to the Supreme Court case currently under advisement. The question before the highest judicial panel in our country is whether a person can have Second Amendment rights revoked after defiance of an order of protection.[8] The person in the eye of the controversy is Zackey Rahimi, now serving time for violating a federal law prohibiting gun possession while subject to a protective mandate, an offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Rahimi engaged in not one, not two, not even three, but six shootings in Texas in defiance of a restraining order (RO). The first violation occurred when he fired upon a witness who observed him physically assaulting the very victim who sought the original RO. The very next day he shot at a driver following a traffic mishap. On another occasion, because he had been insulted online, he let loose with an AR-15 at the house of a man who bought drugs from him.[9]
At Rahimi’s sentencing hearing the prosecutor observed, “[T]hat video … where he causes this accident, gets out and just starts shooting, is one of the most bone-chilling videos for me to watch and see. If that doesn’t send chills down anybody’s spine seeing that, I don’t know of much else that can.”[10] The high court, then, is deliberating the most prudent course of action when facing an even greater level of potential danger than that formerly ignored in Texas, Maine, and Michigan.[11]
Again, a previous tragedy provides some insight. Two days after Valentine’s Day, more than 35 years ago, armed with six guns as well as a 12-inch knife and outfitted in a tactical vest filled with cartridges, Richard Farley, stormed Electromagnetic Systems Labs (ESL), a technology company in Silicon Valley. His mission was to prove his manhood to a woman he had been stalking for close to four years and who had attained a temporary RO against him. A hearing was scheduled for the next day to determine if the edict should become permanent. Farley had repeatedly warned that he harbored murderous intentions and would enact them if his advances were thwarted. In one of 150-200 letters addressed to the woman he was relentlessly suiting he had written forebodingly, “I do own guns and I am good with them,” advising her not “to push him.” As a result of Farley’s assault seven died and four were injured, including the object of his erotomania who spent 19 days in the hospital.[12]
Seven Simple Lessons
The takeaways from an inadequate response to threats of extreme violence are straightforward and can be readily summarized.
1) The warning signs need to be taken at face value.
2) Weaponry needs to be relinquished or, if necessary, confiscated.
3) Private effects must be searched. If that action requires a warrant, then get one.
4) The individual signaling danger must be arrested, or institutionalized for observation, or, at the very least, carefully supervised and kept occupied for an extended period.
5) Periodic welfare checks are insufficient. There needs to be surveillance.
6) Mental health services need to be rapidly deployed and kept in place until the provocateur is no longer infatuated with the possibility of carnage.
7) Private companies, schools, and public agencies will often find it necessary to expend resources for enhanced security.
If the actions listed above are taken deliberately and judiciously with consultation from a legal professional the chances of violating an individual’s rights are fairly remote. On the other hand, if those persons in positions of authority fail to act or do so in a haphazard manner, historical evidence and the personal experiences of those morning loss suggest that it is hardly hyperbole that death or severe injuries may result.
This article was originally published on June 2, 2022 on LinkedIn.
Notes
[1] Steve Beynon, “Army Watchdog Should Investigate Handling of Soldier Who Killed 18 in Mass Shooting, Maine Senators Say,” Military.com, posted November 6, 2023, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/11/06/army-watchdog-should-investigate-handling-of-soldier-who-killed-18-mass-shooting-maine-senators-say.html; Steve Beynon, “Months Before Maine Mass Shooting, Gunman Was Prohibited from Handling Military Weapons by Army Reserve,” Military.com, posted October 31, 2023, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/10/31/army-reserve-barred-maine-gunman-access-military-weapons-months-shooting-rampage-killed-18.html; Nouran Salahieh, Shimon Prokupecz and Haley Britzky, “The Army Said the Maine Gunman ‘Should Not Have a Weapon’ Months before the Shooting Rampage that Left 18 Dead,” Cable News Network, posted and updated November 1, 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/us/maine-mass-shootings-warning-signs-tuesday/index.html.
[2] Beynon, “Months Before Maine Mass Shooting”; Salahieh, Prokupecz and Britzky, “The Army Said the Maine Gunman.”
[3] J. Reid Meloy and Mary Ellen OToole, “The Concept of Leakage in Threat Assessment,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29, no. 4 (June 2011): 513-527, posted June 28 201, abstract, http://drreidmeloy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2011_theconceptofleakage.pdf.
[4] Chapters Four and Five (Academica Press, in press).
[5] Funk, How Rampage Killers Interpret Their World, Introduction, Appendix B, primary and contemporary sources are referenced therein.
[6] S. Lee Funk, Why Rampage Killers Emerge: Conditions and Characteristics (Academica Press, in press), Chapter Three, primary and contemporary sources are referenced therein.
[7] Funk, How Rampage Killers Interpret Their World; Funk, Why Rampage Killers Emerge.
[8] For more detail, see Sanya Mansoor, “Supreme Court to Decide Whether Some Domestic Abusers Can Have Guns,” Time, posted November 6, 2023, updated November 7, 2023, https://time.com/6332044/supreme-court-rahimi-guns-domest-violence-case/.
[9] Abbie VanSickle, “Texas Man at Center of Supreme Court Case Says He No Longer Wants Guns,” New York Times, posted November 6, 2023, updaed November 7, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/06/us/politics /supreme-court-rahimi.html.
[10] In VanSickle, “Texas Man at Center of Supreme Court Case.”
[11] In a revelatory exchange masquerading as gravatas the Chief Justice, pondering the restriction of weapons to responsible citizens, questioned the sanctity of human life in relation to absolutism for a right to bear arms. “Is someone who drives 30 miles an hour in a 25-mile-an-hour zone, does that person qualify as law abiding or not? … It seems to me that the problem with ‘responsibility’ is that it’s extremely broad. What seems irresponsible to some people might seem like, ‘Well, that’s not a big deal’ to others.’” John Fritze, “Supreme Court Poised to Support Law Banning Domestic Abusers from Owning Guns,” USA Today, posted November 7, 2023, updated November 10, 2023, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/07/supreme-court-guns-domestic-abuse-rahimi/71440629007/.
[12] Funk, How Rampage Killers Interpret Their World, Chapter Five, primary and contemporary sources are referenced therein; KatiraWrites (pseud.), “The Stalking Case that Led to Mass Murder,” Medium, posted March 16, 2021, https://katira.medium.com/the-stalking-case-that-led-to-mass-murder-d15385ac8c49.
