Rampage Killer Psychology

Terrorism vs. Indiscriminate Mass Assaults: What’s the Difference? And Does It matter?

Many terrorist activities include mass murder but the majority of mass murders are not terrorist acts. Simple as this fact may seem, it eludes many laypersons and some law enforcement personnel as well, including the current Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (see the September 2025 essay on terrorism versus rampage framing ). The difference is important, though, in order to determine appropriate interventions before the fact and determining retribution after the fact. For applied firearm context in active attacks, see the quick reference on firearms in mass shootings .

Five Ways the Recent NYC Skyscraper Shooting Conforms with the Performative Intent of a Rampage

• Time and place were deliberately chosen to maximize visibility . The assault was conducted in a public setting in the middle of rush hour. [1] There was no attempt to hide the crime. On the contrary, it was contrived purely for attention. Rampageous assailants carefully select the locale, not spontaneously, as some suppose, or for symbolic value, as many assume, but to garner as much attention as possible. When James Holmes, the assailant in Auroa Colorado, who killed twelve and injured at least seventy at a midnight movie showing of The Dark Knight Rises , [2] was on trial, the district attorney reminded the Jury, [3] “He was just looking for a blockbuster, right? … Had this been Jurassic World , he’d have been there. Had it been Avengers: Endgame , he’d have been there.” [4]

  Read More

Two Slaughters, Two Offenders, Two Methods, Two Lessons

Nobody attends an outdoor celebration expecting extreme violence, which, of course, from the perspective of the perpetrator is exactly the reason for selecting such a venue. The recent calamity at the Filipino street festival in Vancouver with ll dead by intentional auto acceleration into a crowd has little in common, superficially, at least, with the indiscriminate flurry of bullets unleashed at the Route 91 Country Music event in 2017 when 60 were slain and over 850 injured. [1] Even so, their similarities along with their differences accentuate two common features of rampageous episodes, which, in turn, contradict popular misconceptions.

Infamy as Motive: Attention Seeking through Homicide

The case of Luigi Mangione demonstrates the affinity between a sudden mass assault (or autogenic massacre) and a singular murder that could be added to the category Deitz has identified as “sensational” (a particularly peculiar killing that garners publicity).[i] The additional type would be selective homicides performed for the purpose of acting out, that is, intentionally demonstrating bellicosity.[ii] These murders would include many assassinations and the deliberate victimization of preeminent figures. Those acts share features with rampages involving multiple victims. Both are based on perseveration of internalized wounds or slights; both are irrational from the standpoint of material or social gain; both are exhibitionist in nature.

Surgically Removing the Media Skim and Political Spin to Get Inside The Head of a Potential Assassin

There is an essential point that investigators and journalists are not adequately considering in seeking the motivation for the recent sudden assault by Thomas Matthew Crooks at a rally for former President Donald Trump: namely, it was not an assassination attempt – well, not wholly. It was a rampage killing attached to a famous person.

Carnage and Culpability: Affixing Blame Versus Assessing a Threat

If it is true that the sins of the parents are visited on successive generations, is the reverse also the case? Our society cherishes the notion of individual accountability and so it is rare that we hold persons liable for acts committed by relatives or acquaintances. Justice William O. Douglas asserted in a 1945 Supreme Court decision: “The doctrine of personal guilt is one of the most fundamental principles of our jurisprudence. It partakes of the very essence of the concept of freedom and due process of law.”[1]