Online Extremist Communities and Mass Killings at Schools and Other Educational Institutions. Continued, part 5.

 

Note: English is not my native language, so I use an automated translation system to communicate. I apologize in advance if the meaning of some phrases is conveyed incorrectly. 

 Previous posts: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4.

Attacks on schools under external administration and the control of extremist group leaders, despite the significant public outcry and media coverage, do not yet constitute the predominant category of such crimes. However, the number of such incidents has risen sharply over the past three years, and this trend is expected to continue. This is because, at present, no real measures are being taken to curb this threat. Police special operations widely publicized in the press - involving mass arrests and the wholesale blocking of online resources - have virtually no impact on the actual situation and serve more as a way to reassure the general public.

The system for countering this threat must be built on the tactics actually being used by criminals at the present time, rather than on outdated or contrived models that are simply more convenient for reporting purposes. This involves gathering, verifying, organizing, and analyzing information about how crimes are committed and how adolescents are drawn into these processes. Based on these findings, methods for preventing and suppressing criminal activity are adjusted. All of this must be done on an ongoing basis. Only then will a strategy for preventing, deterring, and countering threats be viable and effective. The cost of a formalistic approach and falling behind is people’s lives and health.

However, even if all the measures for prevention, detection, and suppression of online extremist communities («Death groups») described in previous articles are implemented, this does not guarantee 100% protection of schools and other educational institutions from criminal and terrorist threats. Let’s take a realistic look at the situation: nothing is perfect or absolute; mistakes and oversights will happen in any case - we simply have to accept that. However, acceptance does not mean resignation; if we cannot identify and stop a criminal’s actions during the planning stage, then we must stop them during the execution stage.

An effective security system is always based on the military principle of multi-line defense. If the enemy breaks through the first line, they are stopped at the second; if they break through the second, they are held back by the third. The measures described in the previous articles of this series constitute the first line; if a criminal manages to pass through it unnoticed or bypass it, the second and third lines must stop them.

These lines of defense are also essential for preventing and suppressing attacks on schools and other educational institutions by individuals acting without external direction or control, on their own initiative and for personal motives. Such criminals currently constitute the overwhelming majority; therefore, having an effective system to protect educational facilities and places where large numbers of children gather from direct threats is an objective necessity.

Modern security systems (if they can even be called that) in schools and other educational institutions have proven to be completely ineffective; to put it more bluntly, “useless” is a more fitting description. I suspect this is because the models on which they are based were developed some 50 years ago, in the last century, and were designed with a completely different level of threat in mind. Much has changed since then; criminals themselves have changed, as have their methods, motives, and the tools they use to carry out their crimes. The system is outdated and can no longer fulfill the tasks assigned to it; the potential for its modernization has also been exhausted, so it must be replaced—completely.

Many of those who today support the use of outdated models and tools for organizing security in educational institutions clearly underestimate their opponents and their capabilities. To provide a clear understanding of the nature of modern security threats to schools and other educational institutions, I will cite three examples:

1. The Columbine High School shooting, U.S., April 1999. Many people have heard of this tragedy; they know that there were two killers, that they were students at the school, that 13 people were killed and another 24 were injured - most of the victims were children. However, not everyone is aware that the perpetrators’ original plan was significantly more ambitious. It included blowing up the school building, shooting the survivors from a secondary position, and planting explosives at likely arrival and gathering points for emergency responders, media representatives, and relatives of the victims. All of this was planned with full consideration of security protocols and the likely evacuation routes for students and staff. From a tactical standpoint, the plan was practically flawless; had the perpetrators managed to carry out even half of it, it would have been a terrorist attack on par with «9/11» and the Beslan school siege. The attackers were undone by technical errors in the execution of their plan; the detonators on most of the bombs failed to go off, which saved the lives and health of thousands of people.

2. Attack on School No. 88, Izhevsk, Russia, September 2022. A gunman armed with two handguns entered the school, killing a security guard. The killer moves freely through the school building, shooting at anyone in his path, before committing suicide. The first police patrol arrived on the scene just 5 minutes later. There were 41 victims: 18 people were killed and 23 sustained injuries of varying severity.

3. Attack on School, Nashville, USA, March 2023. A perpetrator armed with a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun entered the school building. As in the previous case, the killer moved unimpeded through the school building, shooting at anyone who crossed his path, before being killed in a shootout with the police who had arrived on the scene. There were 7 victims: 6 students and school staff members were killed, and 1 police officer was wounded.

According to a police statement, the investigation revealed that the school was not the shooter’s original target. The shooter had initially planned to attack another location, but it turned out to be too well-protected, so he chose a less secure target—the school.

Example No. 1 shows that two teenage students were capable of planning and carrying out a multi-stage, large-scale terrorist attack, and only a series of circumstances prevented them from carrying it out in its entirety.

Example No. 2 clearly illustrates the cost of time in terms of human lives. For those who consider the mere presence of a police emergency button and a 5-minute response time to be the only reliable security measures: during that time, the perpetrator managed to kill 18 people and injure 23 - a total of 41 victims. Eight people per minute - that is the cost of time.

Example No. 3 explains why criminals specifically choose schools as the site for mass killings; for them, schools are an easy target, ideal for carrying out their criminal plans.

The security system for educational institutions against direct, imminent threats must be built on principles that make a repeat of all three of the examples cited impossible. This would ensure that a perpetrator has no opportunity to smuggle weapons and explosive devices into the school and carefully, unhurriedly plant bombs throughout the premises and beyond. They must not be able to move about unimpeded for even five minutes after gaining entry, killing everyone who crosses their path. When looking at an educational institution, they must not associate it with an accessible and defenseless potential target. Is it possible to create such a system? I believe it is.

I began working on this system in 2018, completed the first working version in June of this year, and presented it to my colleagues for review and discussion. I am currently refining it based on the feedback and suggestions I received. It is built on a completely different approach to ensuring the security of educational facilities, both in terms of organization and functionality. It provides for changes in the legal framework, administrative functions, professional competencies, the implementation of new approaches and methods, and the active use of modern technologies. It eliminates most existing vulnerabilities, characteristics, and factors that directly or indirectly contribute to the commission of crimes. It establishes a multi-level, comprehensive, and effective system of protection against most existing and future threats - whether criminal, terrorist, or of other nature (including natural and man-made). Although I developed the system using one country as an example, it is universal and, with minor refinements and adaptations, can be applied to any country. The full project can be viewed here.

An effective system for preventing and countering direct threats is a crucial element in protecting schools and other educational institutions, including in the context of countering online extremist communities. If the previously discussed measures for early detection and prevention of crimes fail, the security system within the educational institution itself serves as the last line of defense and the final chance to prevent a criminal from carrying out their plan. People’s lives and health depend directly on how robust and effective this line of defense is.

This is the final element of the strategy I propose to counter the spread and activity of extremist and terrorist ideologies and communities on the Internet, as well as their impact on the youth community and the resulting mass killings and other particularly serious crimes committed by teenagers. In the next and final article in this series, I will attempt to bring all these elements together into a single framework and examine its potential in a hypothetical experiment. In addition, I will provide an overall summary of current developments regarding this situation.

In conclusion to Part 5, I would like to reiterate that the threat posed by «Death groups» and other destructive online communities has long since become an international one. Advances in information technology and new forms and methods of communication have erased the boundaries between countries and continents. Unfortunately, criminals and extremists are actively exploiting this, and their communities have rapidly become transnational. Under such circumstances, an autonomous security system - where everyone is on their own - has become ineffective. We can only counter these threats by working together, consolidating our efforts on an international level, and taking a proactive, preemptive, and anticipatory approach. If we do so, we have every chance of winning this battle for a safe future for our children.

 Author: Roman Grishin

author's page on the portal

 

 #schoolsafety #schoolsecurity #educationalsecurity #educationalsafety #violenceprevention #schoolshooting #research #criminology #deathgroups #extremism #terrorism #threat #K-12 #764 #reddolphin #bluewhale