Schools struggle with 'threats' vs. 'stupidity'

Educators serious about looking for danger signs

Betsy Lehndorff, Rocky Mountain News

Published April 30, 2007 at midnight

Text size  

• 0 Comments
• Email
• Print

To his lawyer, the blond, curly-haired 17-year-old who set off a pop bottle filled with household chemicals outside Ponderosa High School is guilty of one thing:

Teenage stupidity.

The boy, attorney Robert Wareham says, wanted to draw attention to a group of classmates who were smoking pot.

But his action, on the eighth anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, and four days after the Virginia Tech shootings, hit a collective nerve.

The school was evacuated as officers removed the explosive device. Terrified parents, meanwhile, were left to worry about the safety of their children.

And prosecutors were left to decide what charges to file.

Welcome to the no-win world of assessing threats.

"No one wants to overreact and overpunish a juvenile," says Adams County District Attorney Don Quick, who helped draft a 2005 law that prohibits "interference with staff, faculty or students of educational institutions."

"(But) you don't roll the dice with kids and school safety."

A balancing act

In the frightening atmosphere of school shootings, stabbings and threats, educators find themselves with a delicate job.

When they learn a student has written a violence-laced essay, threatened to make a bomb or brought a gun to school, the first priority is to prevent bloodshed.

Soon after, they team up with investigators, mental health professionals and others to assess just how serious the threat was.

At the same time, some teenagers - innocent until proven guilty - find themselves caught in a sticky web, ill-equipped to defend themselves against some of society's worst fears.

Wareham acknowledges that his client made an bad choice.

"He wanted to get them caught," he said, referring to the pot-smoking teens. "It would have been better to set off an air horn."

Assessing every threat

Appreciating the potential seriousness of the situation is key, say those who are responsible for deciding if an act - or a comment or a blog entry - represents "a credible threat."

Under Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-109, that term is defined as "a threat or physical action that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of bodily injury with a deadly weapon or death."

The charge - interference with staff, faculty or students of educational institutions - is a Class 1 misdemeanor, typically punishable by six months to 18 months in jail and from $500 to $5,000 in fines.

Not every case goes to trial. Of 77 cases prosecuted since 2005 in counties outside of Denver, 12 were dismissed altogether, according to the State Court Administrator's Office.

The outcome of the others varied, including acquittals and convictions on the original or reduced charges.

But every case is reviewed.

"If you look at the recommendations that came out of Columbine, a primary focus was to effectively intervene earlier with kids who show potential for violence," Quick said.

To determine the level of risk that juvenile suspects pose, many authorities now do a multilevel threat assessment.

It is about striking a balance, said forensic psychologist John Nicoletti.

"The difference between stereotyping and analysis is that stereotyping could lead to a witch hunt," he said.

"People may think that only loners and introverts commit these types of crimes, based on what they see on TV and read in newspapers," Nicoletti said. "But crimes are committed by the whole spectrum of people."

The first task is to look at the individual's behavior. Nicoletti examines five issues: time, opportunity, ability, desire and stimulus.

Professionals also look at a combination of other factors.

Have the suspects made threats before? Are they obsessed with violence? Have they been accused of stalking and harassment?

"Violence doesn't stand alone," Nicoletti said. "You will see multiple behaviors, such as threat-making and avenger thinking."

Clearly some threats are harmless, Nicoletti said, but others come with consequences.

"Freedom of speech isn't total," he said. "There are limits to what we can do."

Assessing threats

Here's the model used by forensic psychologist John Nicoletti (see story next page):

• TIME AND OPPORTUNITY Can the person get to the target and does that person have the time to do it?

• ABILITY Does the person have the skill to carry out a threat? If a suspect threatens to blow up a school, does that person know how to make an explosive device? Has the suspect researched Web sites for information?

• DESIRE In order for somebody to commit violence, inside that person's brain there has to be this thought of "go do it."

• STIMULUS Is there something that could act as a trigger for the violence, such as the anniversary of the Columbine murders or a desire to copy the Virginia Tech shootings?

lehndorffb@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2792

Featured

• DPS improvements

  

  This interactive shows you how schools will benefit under the bond proposal.

• 2008 Voter’s Guide

  

  Use our Ballot Builder tool to compare your viewpoints to the candidates.

• Broncos Game Action

  

  Slide shows of the Broncos-Jags quarter-by-quarter photos from Invesco.

• Rocky Truth Patrol

  

  Rocky Truth Patrol investigates a claim about Colorado Sen. Shawn Mitchell

• A Dozen on Denver

  

  Manuel Ramos' story is featured this week on 'A Dozen on Denver.' Check it out!

• Presidential Elections

  

  See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.

• Rocky Multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.

• County election profiles

  

  A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.

• A dream fulfilled

  

  A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production