Dr. Spiegel`s interest and involvement in dealing with mass shooting started on February 23, 2012 when he received a strange letter from the unknown. This letter was written in a delusional manner and at the end of it there was a scream for help which said: “Your work may save my life, UPMC will not. Would you help?” (Spiegel, 2013) Although, because of his occupation Dr. Spiegel receives lots of strange letters and emails but this one caught his attention greatly. Without hesitation he wrote to UPMC about the author and content of letter. Something told Dr. Spiegel that it was not a prank or simple talks of a paranoid person but a real threat. Unfortunately, Dr. Spiegel was right and twelve days later after his letter to UPMC he found out that there was a shooting at UPMC's Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. An author of letter, John Shick, opened a fire at UPMC's Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in which “one young victim was dead, five others were injured and pundits were anguishing over another lethal tragedy.” (Spiegel, 2013) As can be seen this threat could have been prevented if people involved in it paid a little more attention to Shick`s behavior. Moreover, after investigating and analyzing this case criminologists stated that “Shick's crime was anything but random or unpredictable. Shick triggered countless alarms, over years, that something was gravely wrong.” (Spiegel, 2013) Unfortunately, Shick's attempts to draw people`s attention to his problem went unnoticed or simply ignored. With this in mind, Dr. Spiegel in his article tries to explain why people failed to detect a threat and if they did why they did not report about it?
Taking into consideration Shick`s behavior and obvious calls for help his persona received negative feedback from people. Why people seeing that something is wrong with him did not report it or simply helped him? Thus, Dr. Spiegel claims that people have threat detectors which help to evaluate another human being if one sees it for the first time. He says that “Our inborn threat detectors are outstanding at discerning trouble. We have incredibly sensitive gut feelings.” (Spiegel, 2013) For instance, when one sees a positive feedback and attitude from a stranger it signals that this stranger is safe and can be trusted to some extent and vice versa when one feels hostility and detachment from a stranger it indicates that this stranger may be dangerous and cause harm. Trying to protect oneself person minimizes or cuts contacts with a hostile and aggressive stranger, neighbor, teacher, doctor, etc. Moreover, observing behavior, non-verbal signals and listening to words of a stranger, neighbor, etc. one creates a certain image of him/her and how to communicate and behave with him/her. According to Dr. Spiegel this threat detecting or gut feeling help people a lot as well as it may lead astray in judging someone. Moreover some criminologists say that it is extremely hard to distinguish next Shick from antisocial, shy and awkward young man. (Spiegel, 2013) False accusations and improper interpretation of someone`s behavior may have terrible consequences that may even destroy one`s life. Experts claim that one single person cannot accurately evaluate another one especially when dealing with identifying a mass shooter. Even having lots of information about how to detect mass shooter in the crowd one cannot objectively judge an antisocial and quiet neighbor, for example. Although, experts are right about false accusations but they forget about “collective accuracy of a coordinated network of people and information sources” that affect proses of detecting killer greatly. (Spiegel, 2013) For instance, coordinated network of ordinary people and experts helped in catching Tsarnaev brothers. Without help of people experts would have spent more time on tracing them.
Moreover, in case with Shick trusting one`s gut and evaluating his actions and messages would have worked. There were too many evidence that he is a menace but without proper network of people and awareness how to detect a mass shooter people failed to prevent an obvious tragedy. Also, taking into consideration inborn people`s ability to detect threats Dr. Spiegel created his own theory of finding potential mass killers. This method is called “crowd-sleuthing”. (Spiegel, 2013) Also, he suggests "before-the-fact" crowd-sleuthing method. (Spiegel, 2013) This method suggests a connected network of people that communicate between one another. Also, cross-connections are extremely important. With proper and dynamic work of network they are very helpful in detecting next Shick. Dr. Spiegel states that “Without these connections, the network comprises a set of highly informed individuals who are collectively ignorant.” (Spiegel, 2013) People must be aware of potential threat. This awareness can be increased if one shares one`s observations of Shick, for example. Moreover, in Shick's case there were “only three cross-connections within the network ([Dr. Spiegel] to the UPMC Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, from that division to UPMC risk management and from the UPMC Primary Care Clinic to the county Department of Human Services).” (Spiegel, 2013) With this in mind one sees that absence of dynamic communication and cooperation between these institutions led to disaster. There were a lot of signals that Shick is dangerous but people that surrounded him in university or clinic, for example, failed to report it. With this in mind Shick`s network did not work properly which led to collective ignorance.
However, there were number of signs that he was a mass shooter. Dr. Spiegel presents a profile of mass shooter. Usually it is an aggressive, socially isolated, hostile, young male who shows interest in guns. Also, he is prone to have a psychopathic personality. Taking into consideration this profile it is easier to detect killer in the crowd. By observing a neighbor or group mate, etc. one can see if this profile can be applied to him. It may help to detect potential shooter before he takes actions. However, it may lead to false accusations. In order to prevent them one should use “sequential testing.” (Spiegel, 2013) This test suggests that an accused person or a suspect should pass a series of testing. The point is that potential shooter should be detected or suspected by different people, the more the better. It is not enough that one person has some suspicions because they can be not objective. For example, if suspect loves guns and is detected to be hostile and socially isolated by more than eight different people it indicates that there is something wrong with him. Moreover, these observations should be carefully shared with other people that communicate with him. This network should work organized and careful in order to avoid false alarms and accusations. One should trust one`s gut first and then if it says that, for example, this student is dangerous one should observe him instead of accusing him of being a potential mass shooter. Dr. Spiegel claims that “searching as a team parlays the advantage of sequential testing. The idea of sequential testing is to install checkpoints along a diagnostic pathway [] This strongly protects against false positive overcalls. (Spiegel, 2013) People should work as team in order to detect next threat. Our inborn threat detector and profile of a mass shooter may help greatly.
Moreover, Dr. Spiegel suggests a very useful approach to transmit information about potential shooter. This approach will help to communicate in network and make it work properly. Again, he highlights importance of crowd-sleuthing and communication within the network. If doctors, teachers or Shick`s neighbors reported about strange behavior to the police it would have been different. At least experts could have clarified some information about profile of a mass shooter and evaluate Shick`s behavior. Moreover, Dr. Spiegel gave a wonderful idea to “place a violent-behavior flag in [one`s] electronic health record (as occurs with veterans using the national system of VA hospitals).” (Spiegel, 2013) It is a very useful method to track potential killer and work with him properly. All in all, people should share information and personal observations.
References
Spiegel, B. (2013). The Next Page: 'Crowd-sleuthing' the next John Shick. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 7 April 2016, from http://www.post-gazette.com/Op-Ed/2013/06/09/The-Next-Page-Crowd-sleuthing-the-next-John-Shick/stories/201306090124
