When is a “School Shooting” Not a “School Shooting?”

“In order to understand the murderer, you must first try and discern his or her motivation.”

Note:  The purpose of this blog entry is NOT to minimize the horror and trauma of school shootings nor is it to comment one way or another on the ongoing political and social debates regarding gun control.  It is solely to provide the reader with investigative insight into mass murders and/or other violent crimes that may occur on school campuses.

Early this morning (March 2, 2018) there was another breaking news report of a “School Shooting” on the campus of Central Michigan University.  Two people were killed and the suspected gunman was identified.  A law enforcement spokesperson indicated that no students were injured and that the shootings seemed to have stemmed from some sort of domestic dispute.  It is my contention, therefore, that, even though this shooting took place on a college campus, it was not a “school shooting.”

School Shooting – A Definition

There are several definitions available for the term “school shooting” but they generally refer to an attack, often with a firearm, by one student (or former student) on the students and/or faculty where the attacking student went to school.  This definition would clearly apply to the recent shooting at  Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, when Nikolas Cruz shot and killed 17 students and faculty members while wounding 14 others.  Cruz had been a student at Stoneman Douglas but had been expelled.  Clearly his motivation was to attack his former school.

Motivation and Mass Murder

In a previous blog I have described the various forms that mass murder can take.  These typologies can be most readily identified by the offender’s underlying motivation and behavior in carrying out the attacks.

For example, a “Disgruntled Employee Mass Murderer” attacks workers or former co-workers, supervisors, and even customers at his/her place of employment.  For example, on January 30, 2006, Jennifer Sanmarco, 44, gained access to a U.S. Post Office mail facility in Goleta, CA and shot and killed six people before killing herself.  While she clearly had a history of mental health issues, she had been forcibly removed from the mail facility and fired from her job two years previously.  Her motivation, in part, was to attack the people and the facility who, in her mind, had been the cause of her problems.

The “Family Annihilator Mass Murderer” specifically targets members of his/her own family.  This is the most common form of mass murder in the United States and is often brought on by a number of social and/or financial issues with the shooter.

An “Ideological Mass Murderer” seeks to further his/her personal ideological beliefs through violence.  These murderers can include the 9/11 hijackers or Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber.  Though McVeigh’s ideological beliefs were quite different than those of the 9/11 hijackers they both felt that they were striking a a blow against the “unjust system” and all those within that system in order to set other people free.

The above examples to not, by any means, cover all the different typologies of mass murderers.  And, while each of the different mass murderers can kill many, many people they are distinguished not by their body counts, but by their individual motivations.

Point #1:  The first main point I want to make in this blog entry is the one stated at the top of the page: “In order to understand the murderer, you must first try and discern his or her motivation.”  In the words of the noted FBI Profiler, John Douglas, “Behavior reflects motivation.”  In other words, by examining the offender’s behavior, we can learn a great deal about his/her motivation.  What, exactly, did the offender do during the commission of the crime?  In what order did he do these things?  Was the attack organized or disorganized.  For example, this morning’s attack at Central Michigan University seems to be a spontaneous one whereas Mr. Cho’s attack at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, was as well-planned as a military operation.

Point #2: “It’s not the location, it’s the motivation.” This is the key to understanding the thesis of this blog: Sometimes a school shooting is not a school shooting.

On February 12, 2010, Dr. Amy Bishop walked into a faculty meeting at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.  Other faculty members were surprised to see her as Dr. Bishop had recently been notified that she would not be receiving tenure and that this was her last semester teaching at UA Huntsville.  What the faculty members didn’t know was that Dr. Bishop had recently been at the shooting range practicing with the 9mm pistol that she now carried in her purse.  About halfway through the meeting Dr. Bishop took out that pistol, stood up, and then calmly shot and killed three faculty members while wounding three others.  Did this shooting take place on a college campus? Yes.  Was it a “school shooting?” No.  This was clearly the act of a “Disgruntled Employee.”

In 1999, Buford Furrow walked in to the North Valley Jewish Center in Los Angeles and began shooting at the children who were attending summer events.  Five people, including three children, were wounded but, thankfully, not killed.  Furrow, it turned out, was a known white supremacist and his attack was motivated by his ideological beliefs.  Again, a shooting that took place at a school that was not a school shooting.

This brings us to this morning’s shooting at Central Michigan University.  Did it take place on a school campus? Yes.  Was it a “school shooting?”  Based on initial reports (and these can change, as we all know) this was a case of a domestic violence murder that just happened to take place on a school campus.

You may be asking, “Why doesn’t the media make these distinctions?”  The answer, quite honestly is that they have neither the time nor, in many cases, the knowledge, to be able to make these distinctions.  Another reason is that most people aren’t interested in them. A shooting on a school is, therefore, a school shooting.

But you, as a student of criminology in general and murder to be more specific, are now able to make those distinctions.  Just remember, it’s the motivation, and not the location.

As always,  I look forward to your responses.