Mass Shootings, Copycat Killers, and the Media

Omar Mateen’s mass shooting slaughter at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, where he left 49 innocents dead and 53 more wounded, has led to the predictable debates over gun control, the availability and efficacy of mental health resources, our national response to the threat of international terrorism at home and abroad, and the readiness and reaction of law enforcement when such active shooter incidents occur.  These are vital discussions to be had, for no matter your position on any one of the topics one thing, by now, should be clear: what happened in Orlando, like what happened in San Bernardino, and Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech, and Aurora, CO, and on and on and on… will happen again.  Nothing that arises out of this particular incident, or the conversations it spurs, or any legislation it drives, will lead to the “Never Again!” moment that finally sticks; right now, there are a number of people in the U.S. alone – men mostly, but surely a woman or two at any given time – just waiting to strike and lay claim to their piece of infamy.

As fatalistic as that sounds, it really isn’t.  Examination of, and debate around, the issues of mass shootings is a crucial first step to reducing the number and lethality of such events, even if outright elimination of the phenomena is presently unrealistic.  We can argue whether Mateen’s crimes were a terroristic act driven by allegiance to ISIS ideals of Islamic jihad, a homophobic hate crime, or a symbolic gesture of horrifically externalized self-hatred over his own conflicted sexuality (or a terrible combo of all three, as I believe) but what we learn through reasoned argument is our best hope to understand and, hopefully, intervene to head off the next attack. 

Two additional concerns… for law enforcement and society

Sometimes lost amid the obvious debate topics already mentioned above are two that are less prevalent, though more immediate and readily addressed. 

The first is the issue of copycat crimes inspired by the actions of high-profile killers who, whether in death or capture, achieve a degree of attention, notoriety, and even respect few will ever know.  While most of us recoil in horror at wanton destruction of human life, reviling those who would take it, others look on with reverence, envious of the limelight the shooter basks in.  As improbable and sick as it sounds, certain impressionable and deluded individuals will never grasp the revulsion most of us feel.  Others see the rest of us as weak, ineffectual sheep, blind to their version of truth, our sympathy for the victims emblematic of our acceptance of a sickness that must be excised from society.  They may see shooters as martyrs, selfless in their actions and worthy of imitation (or to be topped).  This creates obvious problems for law enforcement.

A recent Chicago Tribune article (“Are media complicit in mass shootings?” by reporter Alan Zarambo) looked at how media coverage of mass slayings might be influencing others to emulate the killers.  Zarambo cites research by Arizona State University researcher Sherry Towers showing that shootings often occur in “clusters.”  Towers’ study found:

“that shootings that occurred in schools or ones in which at least four people died — the sorts of incidents that receive widespread media coverage — occurred in clusters. That suggested to researchers the kind of copycat effect that has been well documented for suicides.

After the shootings, the risk of more shootings rose significantly and remained elevated for an average of 13 days, according to the analysis published last year in the journal PLOS One. However, the research found no increased risk after shootings in which at least three people were hit but not necessarily killed, incidents that are so common they usually receive only local news coverage.

That these clusters exist in today’s world, barring the possibility of mere (if then strangely predictable) coincidence, certainly has to do with the reach of modern media, including social media and its effect on the sense of individual self-importance and how it accelerates the pace and reach of breaking news. 

For law enforcement, this means that the weeks following a mass shooting are a critical time for increased vigilance.  Patrol officers should give greater attention to the otherwise routine calls for service that might indicate a copycat situation, school resource officers should heighten their awareness of the angry and disaffected, and how they may emulate a high-profile antihero, and intel officers should probably look more closely at the characters in their areas of responsibility who fit certain profiles – politically, psychologically, and temperamentally – of concern for acting out.  This is a time that begs increased information sharing and foresight in planning, especially as the disaffected are emboldened or even challenged to make their own violent contributions. 

The second major concern is the question of how media reports on these incidents.  While I don’t believe media to be complicit in the attacks, that coverage of one high-profile mass shooting tends to spawn more in the days and weeks following is becoming more and more evident (In fact, I would be interested in seeing if there is a correlation over coverage of day-to-day violence, as in Chicago and some other large urban areas seeing a significant uptick in shootings, that normalizes it to the degree inhibitions are lowered among others who then see violence as a viable option for settling disputes). 

There are those who argue the killers/shooters should not even be named, that media should withhold certain information about the offender to instead put greater emphasis on the victims.  This has, to a very limited degree, been tried with a couple recent shootings wherein law enforcement agencies have provided very little information directly, in the hopes of not offering shooters the attention they seek.  The down side is this:  I want to know about the shooter.  I want information about his background, history, motives, and actions.  Information is important to understanding – and good public policy making – even if that information may also be consumed and misused by those who look to the wrong role models. 

Of course, there will certainly be those who disagree, and we welcome respectful disagreement.  Or perhaps there is wise middle ground that can strike a balance and reduce the risk of copycat killers.  But these incidents are not going away.  We should find that middle ground sooner rather than later.