Kill one or kill them all? Differences between single and multiple victim school attacks
| Published date | 01 May 2015 |
| Author | Rebecca Bondü,Herbert Scheithauer |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370814525904 |
| Date | 01 May 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Criminology
2015, Vol. 12(3) 277 –299
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370814525904
euc.sagepub.com
Kill one or kill them all?
Differences between single and
multiple victim school attacks
Rebecca Bondü
University of Potsdam, Germany
Herbert Scheithauer
Free University of Berlin, Germany
Abstract
Research indicates individual pathways towards school attacks and inconsistent offender profiles.
Thus, several authors have classified offenders according to mental disorders, motives, or
number/kinds of victims. We assumed differences between single and multiple victim offenders
(intending to kill one or more than one victim). In qualitative and quantitative analyses of data
from qualitative content analyses of case files on seven school attacks in Germany, we found
differences between the offender groups in seriousness, patterns, characteristics, and classes
of leaking (announcements of offences), offence-related behaviour, and offence characteristics.
There were only minor differences in risk factors. Our research thus adds to the understanding
of school attacks and leaking. Differences between offender groups require consideration in the
planning of effective preventive approaches.
Keywords
Leaking, risk factor, school attacks, victim, warning sign
A range of offences has been subsumed under the label ‘school shooting’ or ‘school
attacks’: offences against a single person or against large numbers of apparently arbitrar-
ily chosen victims, homicides in school in general, or suicides at school. But even if
based on a narrow definition, research on school shootings has failed to identify
consistent risk factors for the offences or a homogeneous offender profile. To account for
Corresponding author:
Rebecca Bondü, Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany.
Email: rebecca.bondue@uni-potsdam.de
525904EUC0010.1177/1477370814525904European Journal of CriminologyBondü and Scheithauer
research-article2014
Article
278 European Journal of Criminology 12(3)
divergent findings, some researchers have proposed typologies of school offenders or
outlined different pathways towards an offence. Mostly, however, empirical evidence for
these models is sparse.
In our research concerning school attacks in Germany, two groups of offenders
seemed to emerge: those who intended to kill only one preselected victim and those who
aimed to kill more than one person or even as many people as possible. In the present
study, we endeavoured to provide empirical evidence for this distinction and searched for
differences in risk factors, leaking, offence-related behaviours, and offence characteris-
tics. Thereby, we wanted to extend and deepen the knowledge and understanding of
school attacks and leaking. ‘Leaking’ describes announcements of potential offences
prior to their execution and can therefore be considered an important warning sign for
school attacks. But, despite its potential use for preventive purposes, empirical research
on the topic is sparse and leaking is not yet well understood. We were also interested in
how our findings might advance efforts to prevent school attacks. Finally, we strove to
extend research knowledge of school attacks by combining qualitative and quantitative
methods and by using methods such as latent class analysis, which have not been used in
this area of research before.
Definition of school attacks
School shootings or school attacks are generally defined as offences by present or former
students who purposefully chose their school as the offence site and intended to kill one
or more than one person related to that school. There are, however, large discrepancies in
the details of this definition (Bondü et al., 2013). For some authors, only offences that
claim a minimum number of dead victims (Meloy et al., 2001), that have student victims
(Leary et al., 2003), that were committed by the use of firearms (Verlinden et al., 2000),
or that were based on motives related to the school context (Bondü, 2012) qualify as
school shootings. Other authors include offences against a single person, with wounded
victims, with a mere intention to kill, with weapons other than firearms (Meloy et al.,
2001), with offenders other than previous or current students, or even offences outside
the school context (Bannenberg, 2010).
The term ‘school shooting’ has been criticized for referring only to shooting inci-
dents. Some authors, therefore, have introduced alternative terms such as ‘rampage’
(Newman et al., 2004), ‘severe targeted violence in school’ (Fein et al., 2002), or
‘school attacks’ (Vossekuil et al., 2002). Given the large number of offences that cor-
respond to the definition of a school shooting but are committed by weapons other than
firearms, we use the term ‘school attacks’. Considering the different terms and defini-
tions of relevant incidents, research on school attacks often integrates diverse types of
offences.
Lack of consistent risk factors and offender profiles
Even if based on narrow definitions of relevant cases, research on school attacks has
failed to identify consistent risk factors or a homogeneous offender profile. But in media
reports or in some scientific publications, offenders are still often portrayed as isolated
To continue reading
Request your trial