.png)
Shoreline Plaza Discussion
Good evening, everybody. I just wanted to take a minute to introduce myself. My name is Nieko Brantley, and I’m a recently certified A.L.I.V.E. Instructor out of Sacramento, California.
I also own and operate Global Protection & Investigations, so a lot of my experience has been in security operations, threat recognition, emergency response, and helping companies figure out what to do about very real safety concerns.
I’m looking forward to learning from the instructors here and contributing in any way I can. I figured I’d jump right in with an ongoing situation and a question it raised for me.
I’ve been following the September 2 incident at Shoreline Plaza in Minneapolis. Since the investigation is still developing, I think it’s important to separate what has been confirmed from allegations in court filings and witness accounts.
FOX 9, citing court documents from an eviction filing involving the suspected shooter, reported allegations of prior threatening behavior involving firearms, including allegedly displaying a firearm to security and building management. The reporting also cited allegations that he told residents he had gotten a new gun and “would kill someone.” The suspect had denied those allegations.
The Minnesota Star Tribune also reported a resident’s account involving threats allegedly made by the suspected shooter toward his ex-girlfriend and two property managers only days before the shooting. For now, I’m putting that one in the “witness account” category as well while more information comes out.
I'm sure by the time this post is released, there will be new information.
What I found interesting about this situation from an A.L.I.V.E. perspective is how closely it seems to connect with one of the core concepts Michael teaches:
Violence is a process, not an event.
We teach people to look for warning signs. We advocate for “See Something, Say Something.” We introduce the Security Mindset: situational awareness and Proactive Reactionism before a violent event and the Survival Mindset, which comes into play once violence is actually occurring. (Left of Bang shout out to my T3 Instructor Donovan)
But this situation raised a different question for me:
What happens after “See Something” has been seen and “Say Something” has been said?
When concerns about someone have already been raised, reported, and maybe even documented, but that person hasn’t crossed the line into an imminent attack, what happens next?
And maybe the bigger question for us as instructors is:
Where does the role of an A.L.I.V.E. Instructor begin and end when it comes to formal behavioral threat assessment and threat management?
Should our focus stay strictly on teaching people how to recognize warning signs, report concerns, prepare themselves, and survive if violence does happen? Or should we also be encouraging business leaders and other decision-makers to have some kind of defined escalation process for what happens after “See Something, Say Something”?
Put another way, reporting may be the end of the employee’s role, but it shouldn’t be the end of the organization’s response.
This is my first post here, and I’m sure I’m looking at some of this through the lens of my security and property-management background, so I’m genuinely interested in hearing how some of the more experienced instructors approach it.
Where do you see the line between A.L.I.V.E. instruction and behavioral threat assessment or threat management?
Sources
Minnesota Star Tribune — Read Full Article
Nieko, welcome to the A.L.I.V.E. instructor community. You raise an important question: “See Something, Say Something” cannot be the end of an organization’s responsibility.
Here in California, SB 553 addresses part of that gap. Covered employers must maintain a written Workplace Violence Prevention Plan that includes procedures for accepting and responding to reports, identifying and correcting workplace-violence hazards, communicating with employees, responding to emergencies, investigating incidents, and reviewing the plan’s effectiveness.
SB 553 does not necessarily require every organization to establish a formal behavioral threat-assessment team. However, it does require more than simply receiving a report and filing it away. An effective plan should identify who receives the information, how concerns are evaluated, who has decision-making authority, what actions may be taken, and when law enforcement or qualified threat-assessment professionals should become involved.
In my opinion, the A.L.I.V.E. instructor’s primary role is education: helping people recognize warning signs, report concerns, prepare for emergencies, and survive an attack. Unless an instructor has additional specialized qualifications and organizational authority, conducting a formal behavioral threat assessment is outside that role.
That does not prevent us from encouraging organizational leaders to create a defined escalation and threat-management process. In fact, I believe that is an important part of the conversation. Reporting may conclude the employee’s immediate responsibility, but it should initiate—not conclude—the organization’s response.