The movie, Minority Report, released in 2002 was a fast-paced science fiction film starring Tom Cruise as John Anderton, Chief of PreCrime. This film focused on police using psychic technology to identify, arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crime. “PreCogs”, (i.e., psychic technology) were three twins that could see into the future through imagery. Based on their imagery they could see murders committed in the future and if all three twins agree on the crime committed, the name of the murderer would be shared with the special PreCrime unit for their arrest. Although well intended, the Minority Report was perceived to be infallible until John Anderton himself was identified by PreCrime as a future murderer of a man he had not yet encountered. As he avoids capture, while simultaneously attempting to prove his innocence, the movie challenges the audience. Do individuals have free will or is one’s future predetermined? Can an individual be profiled a murder? While this movie was science fiction, it has relevance to violence that is occurring today within our nation’s schools.

Take the questions, can an active shooter in our schools be predicted? Can the active shooter in a school setting be identified before an event occurs? Can the experts in school safety, Secret Service, and community point to predictors of a school shooter? Like in the Minority Report, there may be clues. There are indicators. We don’t have “PreCogs” (psychic technology) but we do have predictive tools from the Secret Service such as Threat Assessment, which assesses the propensity of future violent acts on school campuses. However, for a threat assessment to be initiated, first, a student must do something that would cause the school to raise concerns. This may be too late. We also have Everly & Bienvenu (2018) seven school shooter profile characteristics: male (active or recent student); anger and revenge; awkward and avoidant, isolation; copycat killing; dysfunctional family of origin; easy access to weapons (either from home or family member); and uses media to express frustration and anger (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/when-disaster-strikes-inside-disaster-psychology/201803/profiling-school-shooters). These two indicators point to one crucial determinant: violence from within. In Minority Report, the “PreCogs” were able to obtain information about the future of an individual through remote viewing or sensing and to project or see a distant or unseen target and know what will happen.  Everly & Bienvenu (2018) shooter profile characteristics are able to project characteristics of potential individuals who have the ability to murder or traumatize others because of inborn, psychological features.

There is an underlying message in Minority Report and the School Shooter Profile; and this message is, the seed of destruction and harm is within the psychic of the perpetrator (i.e., the individual). The perpetrator can be any student attending any school across America. So, this should be our nation’s focus. Thus, capitalizing upon violence from within as a focal point, I draw your attention to the inner connection a child has with their school as a potential intervention method to rid our schools of mass murders. A former supervisor once said to me, “a child wants to know three things from a school employee: Can I trust you? Are you committed? Will you keep me safe?” I believe all of these relate to the emotional and psychosocial connection all students seek within our schools. Yes, the brain is a social organ that seeks connections to learn and school leaders must capitalize on that fact. Learning is a social process involving the brain that takes place in collaboration with others and schools have the capacity to fundamentally change the way the brain functions (Cozolino, 2014; Hippel, 2014). However in addition to teaching and preparing students, and engaging students for their futures, students also want relationships of trust, support, communication and commitment to their personal growth and development from their teachers. While teachers are knowledge-based and academically trained, students are sociably astute and collective sponges of all that surrounds them (i.e., bullying, gossip, threats, ‘weird students’, ‘packing students’;, homeless students, alcoholics, etc.). Students are the pathways to the school’s happenings.

In the current climate of our schools, we may need to revisit how we engage students in school, from the classroom, security guard, to PE coach and school administrators. Are we connecting with students? Are we available to listen to students? Do students see teachers and administrators as trustworthy, supporters and ‘go-to’ individuals when they see or hear something that needs to be shared for the protection of others? The school is a village, however, the attitude of the villagers can plant seeds of despair or healing and recovery. These villagers, teachers and students, can identify those with internal violence before an event rather than after the event.

Moore (2009) wrote of the importance of creating school cultures of trust and respect. He addressed the effects of emotional intelligence and the possible direct impact for both administrators and students. Of critical importance is the fact that emotions can be intense, disruptive, de-motivating, motivating, exhilarating, positive, and negative, and they can challenge the leadership, rationalization and abilities of any individual. Hence, if in-born psychological features surface within an individual and show through their outward emotions, red flags should become obvious. Palmer (2003) stated that emotions are not simply what individuals feel but are a source of information (p.6). With emotional information, administrators and teachers can build trust and cooperation, show empathy and openness to students, show social awareness, grow collaboration, and show proficiency in talking about issues and solving problems with students, and most importantly divert crises before they occur. Effective administrators and teachers possess the ability to understand and “manage moods and emotions in self and in others” (George, 2000, p.1027). If these mechanisms are in effect for both teachers and students, the violence from within is more likely to be identified before the event (school shooting) rather than after the event.