Just two seconds
Page 56
Recommendations
As noted above, we recommend that your protective detail be provided in advance with a change of clothes appropriate to each event (e.g., dark suit jacket, extra shirt and tie, one tuxedo coat, extra tuxedo shirt, bow tie).
We recommend that you be prepared with a humorous verbal response to use in your comments from the podium or to the media.
We recommend that your staff be made aware of the information in this report, and quickly advise your protectors of any suspicion about someone in the public environment.
Appendix 3
The Decision to Use Violence
JACA
The conscious or unconscious decision to use violence, or to do most anything, involves many mental and emotional processes, but they usually boil down to how a person perceives four fairly simple issues: justification, alternatives, consequences, and ability. My office abbreviates these elements as JACA, and an evaluation of them helps predict violence.
Perceived Justification (J)
Is there evidence the person feels justified in using violence? Perceived justification can be as simple as being sufficiently provoked ("Hey, you stepped on my foot!") or as convoluted as looking for an excuse to argue, as with the spouse that starts a disagreement in order to justify an angry response. The process of developing and manufacturing justification can be observed. A person who is seeking to feel justification for some action might move from "What you've done angers me" to "What you've done is wrong." Popular justifications include the moral high ground of righteous indignation and the more simple equation known by its biblical name: an eye for an eye.
Anger is a very seductive emotion because it is profoundly energizing and exhilarating. Sometimes people feel their anger is justified by past unfairnesses, and with the slightest excuse, they bring forth resentments unrelated to the present situation. You could say such a person has prejustified hostility, more commonly known as having a chip on his shoulder.
The degree of provocation is, of course, in the eye of the provoked. John Monahan notes that "how a person appraises an event may have a great influence on whether he or she ultimately responds to it in a violent manner." What he calls "perceived intentionality" (e.g., "You didn't just bump into me, you meant to hit me") is perhaps the clearest example of a person looking for justification.
Perceived Alternatives (A)
Is there evidence the person perceives that he has available alternatives to violence that will move him toward the outcome he wants? Since violence, like any behavior, has a purpose, it's valuable to know the goal of the actor. For example, if a person wants his job back, violence is not the most effective strategy, since it precludes the very outcome he seeks. Conversely, if he wants revenge, violence is a viable strategy, though usually not the only one. Alternatives to violence might be ridicule, smear campaigns, lawsuits, or inflicting some other nonphysical harm on the targeted person or organization. Knowing the desired outcome is the key. If a person's desired outcome is to inflict physical injury, then there are few alternatives to violence. If the desired outcome is to punish someone, there might be many. It is when he perceives no alternatives that violence is most likely. David wouldn't have fought Goliath if he perceived alternatives. Justification alone wouldn't have been enough to compensate for his low ability to prevail over his adversary. More than anything, he fought because he had no choice. A person (or an animal) who feels there are no alternatives will fight even when violence isn't justified, even when the consequences are perceived as unfavorable, and even when the ability to prevail is low.
Perceived Consequences (C)
How does the person appear to view the consequences associated with using violence? Before resorting to force, people weigh the likely consequences, even if unconsciously or very quickly. Consequences might be intolerable, such as for a person whose identity and self-image would be too damaged if he used violence. Context can change that, as with the person who is normally passive but becomes violent in a crowd or mob. Violence can be made tolerable by the support or encouragement of others. It is when consequences are perceived as favorable, such as for an assassin who wants attention and has little to lose, that violence is likely.
Perceived Ability (A)
Is there evidence the person believes he can successfully deliver the blows or bullet or bomb? People who have successfully used violence in the past have a higher appraisal of their ability to prevail using violence again. People with weapons or other advantages perceive (often correctly) a high ability to use violence.
Appendix 4
Public Posture on Security, a memo to the Protectee from Gavin de Becker
While every public figure maintains a unique approach to safety and privacy, and while the personality of each influences that approach, you are in a fairly small fraternity whose members do face special challenges and who are wise to meet at least a minimum standard of precaution.
Whether or not the general public is ever aware of one's security and privacy precautions, it is important to communicate the fact that attention is paid to safety and privacy. The way the topic is promoted or presented in the media is itself a precaution. Some public figures believe information about personal safety and family safety should not ever be reported on, but in your situation, the topic will occasionally be on the agenda for journalists regardless of whether you place it there: "... walks around without guards; shuns security precautions; lives like a regular person; resists security advice; says 'If someone wants to harm you, there's nothing that can be done to stop them'; drives himself to and from work; on a typical day, walks through the park near his home."
How a wealthy and interesting person lives, what he does, where he goes, how he approaches famousness will all be explored and speculated upon by journalists. The question is, How can it be presented so that it serves safety and deters unwanted pursuers -- instead of inviting them?
I used to believe that the subject of security should never appear in the press; research and new information makes clear to me (and many others who have studied the topic) that the target selection process is significantly influenced by the pursuer's perception of a potential victim's approachability.
Assassin Robert Bardo murdered the young actress Rebecca Schaeffer. Advising for the prosecution in his case, I learned that Bardo had stalked several famous people, including a client of mine whom he decided was too inaccessible. He gave up on her and switched his attention to Rebecca Schaeffer. For assassins, it is the act and not the target, the destination and not the journey, that matters.
Because targets are interchangeable, I asked Bardo how the security precautions taken by some public figures affected his choice. He said, "If I read in an article that they have security and they have bodyguards, it makes you look at that celebrity different and makes a person like me stand back."
Like nearly all modern-day assassins, Bardo had studied those who came before him. He even wrote to assassin Mark Chapman (killer of John Lennon), who was in prison. Bardo had also studied everything he could find on the Arthur Jackson case (attacker of Theresa Saldana) in which I also testified for the prosecution. Jackson had hired a private detective to locate his victim, so Bardo did too. Jackson used a knife, so on one of his earlier trips to kill Schaeffer, Bardo brought one along. Jackson traveled thousands of miles in pursuit of his target, sometimes in a crisscross fashion -- as do nearly all assassins -- and Bardo did too.
In a videotaped interview done by the defense months before Bardo knew I was working on the case, he revealed the extent of his research into public-figure attack. Describing the lack of security he had encountered around Rebecca Schaeffer, he said: "It's not like she had Gavin de Becker or anything." His reference to me reflected his perception that public figures that took the topic seriously, whose public persona had a boundary, were less attractive as targets. Among criminals, the nature of deterrence is different with public figure attackers. Put plainly, they do not fear they are going to jail -- they
fear they are going to fail. Accordingly, the public figures that offer the greatest likelihood of successful surveillance, successful pursuit, and successful encounters are most likely to be selected.
Contrary to public perception, anger and hate play much less a role in the selection process than perceived approachability.
Some media figures encourage and nurture images of approachability, perhaps because they feel they have to in order to maintain a following (girl-next-door type actresses or singers, down-to-earth politicians, product endorsers). You are not compelled to present an approachable image in order to maintain your business.
In any case, the idea that publicity which identifies boundaries is somehow hurtful to the perception that someone is a "nice guy" is erroneous. Many very popular media figures have also promoted (or at least accepted) public reports that include boundaries: "Redford guards his privacy;" "access to Oprah's fortress-like studio is by invitation only;" "a guard stands quietly outside Michael J. Fox's dressing room;" "a guard answered the gate at Michael Eisner's home;" "given her popularity, Tina Turner reluctantly acknowledges that security is a fact of life." Popularity itself is a widely accepted explanation for someone's security concerns.
Those considering pursuit of a famous person choose from a wide range of possible targets, and the pursuer's perception of each is affected by what he learns through the media. I asked Robert Bardo what advice he would offer to famous people about safety:
Bardo: Take it seriously if you are in the limelight in any way. Do not take pictures near your house or car. Don't disclose where you live. Don't tell reporters where your vacation home is. When a celebrity talks to a reporter, it's like they are talking to their best friend. If I can look in a magazine and see a photo of their car, I can get a lot of information. If I ever get close to where they live, the car will confirm it because it'll be the car I saw in the photo.
I read in Seventeen Magazine that Rebecca drove a Volkswagen convertible. And they told the color too, plum color. If I couldn't find a person I was looking for, I could read about them and find their parents or brother or sister. When I read about a celebrity in a magazine, I feel like I know them. The way they talk about their family life, about their problems, what it took for them to become famous. It's not like they're strangers. You always know when they're having a relationship with another person, or whatever happens in their life. To me, my victim was not a stranger because I read so much in the magazine articles. I felt like she was accessible. You read about them, and you think that you own that person.
de Becker: Did you ever consider that what you read in articles might not be true?
Bardo: I thought it was the gospel.
Presentations of media figures that show them in their homes send a clear signal of a public life without boundaries. If one decides it's important to be photographed or filmed at home, it is wise if balanced by some reference to precautions (e.g., "The serenity of the thirty-acre property is closely guarded by sophisticated security program"). Presentations without such balance foster a false intimacy, which is part of the process that leads to unwanted pursuit. Bizarre though it may seem, the greatest intimacy most assassins attain is with those they attack.
Through stalking, they come to know their victims more closely than they know others in their lives, and through shooting them, they become partners of sorts. Bremer's diary shows increasing intimacy with his first victim of choice, President Nixon. As he stalked the president from state to state, the diary references move from "the President" to "he" to "Nixon" to "Nixy," and ultimately to "Nixy-boy."
In addition to public images of accessibility, some famous people go even farther by developing direct dialogue and giving personal-seeming attention to members of the general public. Bardo's coarse act of murder was, with the saddest irony, inflicted on the only girl who ever gave him any positive attention. Rebecca Schaeffer had sent a kind reply to one of his letters.
Bardo: It was a personal postcard where she wrote, "Robert, dash, your letter was the nicest, most real letter I ever received." She underlined "real." She wrote, "Please take care," and drew a heart sign and then "Rebecca." That's what propelled me to want to get some more answers from her.
de Becker: So what advice would you offer other famous people?
Bardo: Be careful about what you write. If you do answer fan mail, don't let it be so over-glowing. That's not the way to be with a fan, because it makes it seem like they're the only one, and that's how I felt. I felt I was the only one.
This case and thousands of others teach us that it is best when the style and nature of responses to unsolicited correspondence keeps clear boundaries.
We have many suggestions for the types of letters to be sent back to members of the general public. Small distinctions can have large consequences. Who should responses be from? Should they be direct or delicate? Should everything receive a reply? Answering these and other questions leads to development of a program for screening and handling of communications from the general public. Those communications that meet certain criteria should always be professionally assessed before a response is sent. That doesn't mean just those communications that include a death threat.
This raises one of the common myths associated with unwanted communications from the general public: that threats are the most serious type of communication. In interpersonal situations (neighbor, friend, spouse) a threat tends to increase the likelihood of violence by eroding the quality of communication and increasing frustration, but the very same threat conveyed to a public figure does not portend violence at all.
Still, it is a tenacious myth that those who threaten public figures are the ones most likely to harm them. In fact, those who make direct threats to public figures are far less likely to harm them than those who communicate in other inappropriate ways (love-sickness, exaggerated adoration, themes of rejection, the belief that a relationship is "meant to be," plans to travel or meet, the belief that the media figure owes them something, etc.). Direct threats are not a reliable pre-incident indicator for assassination in America, as demonstrated by the fact that not one successful public-figure attacker in the history of the media age directly threatened his victim first.
The myth that those who will harm a famous person will directly threaten their victims first has led many to wrongly conclude that inappropriate communications that don't contain threats are not significant. The opposite is actually true. Public figures who ignore inappropriate letters simply because they don't contain threats will be missing the very communications most relevant to safety.
The whole topic of how to handle unsolicited or inappropriate communications (letters, e-mail, phone calls, etc.) is an area of critical importance to any safety program. It provides the single greatest resource -- and the least expensive way -- to identify people who might pose a hazard to you or your family's well being.
Gavin de Becker
Appendix 5
Guidelines for Staff Handling of Inappropriate Communications
If you are aware of any inappropriate communications (phone calls, letters, visits, etc.), it is important to report these incidents to the appropriate person in a timely matter.
Telephone Calls
Ask for a return number. Advise, "Just in case we get disconnected," but don't give callers the impression that someone will call them back.
Be polite, but "dumb." Inappropriate callers should be handled in a pleasant, professional manner, but they should be given no information. Advise that you can take a message which will be passed on to "the appropriate person." Repeat that you are in a position to take a message, but beyond this, you can offer no other assistance. Just repeat that response; do not negotiate.
Make the contact as brief as possible. Tell callers that you are busy, that the other phone is ringing, etc. Urge them to write if they have something to communicate, and provide them with an appropriate mailing address. (Letters are valuable to our assessment, but again, say only that the letter w
ill be given to the appropriate person.)
Never promise anything. Specifically do not promise that the message will be delivered directly to the person they ask for.
Don't use misdirection -- don't lie. Do not tell them anything that is easily revealed to be a lie.
Carefully document all details of the call (time, date, background sounds, accent, collect vs. direct, content, etc.).
Report the call to the designated person in a timely manner.
Letters, Packages and Emails
Do not throw anything away. All materials, including envelopes, should be accepted, and forwarded to the appropriate person with as little handling as possible. Do not reject or return to sender any documents or packages.
Document the method of delivery (mail, Federal Express, messenger service), and the date and time it was received. Include this information on a note to be forwarded with the materials.
Use caution when handling organic material. Do not dispose of it until advised to do so.
In the case of emails, do not permanently delete any emails until advised to do so. Forward them to the appropriate person as an attachment.
Visits to Offices
Always remain calm and polite.
Ask inappropriate visitors if they have an appointment. Advise that it is inappropriate for them to visit without an appointment.
If they request an appointment, advise them to put their concerns in writing, including their name, address, telephone number, and reason for the request, and provide them with an appropriate mailing address.
If they wish to write on the spot, allow them to do so, and advise that it will be passed on "to the appropriate person."