Is That a Threat? Separating Danger from Drama

One of the questions I get frequently, having spent a career analyzing and prosecuting threats, is how do you know when to take a disturbing statement seriously? Veiled threats such as “I’ll get you” or “You will regret this” could mean different things depending on the manner of delivery, the communicator’s relationship to the target, and the unique circumstances surrounding the threat.

There is also an issue of analyzing potential overreaction. While all suspected threats should be reported, threat assessors need to separate danger from drama to effectively allocate resources. Accordingly, law enforcement professionals[i] and researchers have spent years examining and investigating factors related to concerning or threatening communications, seeking to categorize them according to seriousness, deciphering an intent to carry out the threatened behavior, if it can be articulated, and most importantly, how to prevent it.

Source: Image by Sam Williams from Pixabay

First Impressions Matter

There are a wide variety of risk assessment instruments and measures used within the field of threat assessment.[ii] Some focus on the practical, power of initial perception. For example, in a piece discussing the CTAP, a “Threat Assessment Tool for the Initial Evaluation of Concerning or Threatening Communications,” David V. James et al. (2022) provide an overview of the importance of first impressions.[iii] They begin by recognizing that the best practice in threat assessment requires the use of standardized, evidence-based tools, noting that many tools are already in existence for assessing risk within mental health, criminal justice, and community settings, and for engaging in threat assessment within specific areas, such as school or workplace violence, stalking, and terrorism.

But what about the ability of members of the public to assess threat potential upon first impression? What type of communications requires a referral to law enforcement or security departments for further investigation, and which—if any, can be disregarded or considered to be a low priority? James et al. note that some factors to consider in this analysis include not only potential acts of violence, but the persistence or escalation of communication, which can lead to reputational damage, disruption of job function, financial loss, and psychological harm.

Without a professional threat assessment team to effectively triage concerning communications, ordinary citizens without immediate access to standard, evidence-based tools have to decide how to handle concerning communications they receive. Here are a few factors to consider.

Message, Manner, and Motivation

Analyzing threats requires an examination of both content and context, including everything from the communication itself, how it was delivered, by whom, and why.

Consider the Message and the Messenger. When analyzing communications, words matter. But so does the intention of the speaker. When one party carries a known grudge against another, vague or ambiguous statements may strike an ominous tone, even when deliberately phrased to provide plausible deniability. “I’m coming for you” may be defended by the speaker as referring to legal, reputational, or financial ruin, as opposed to a threat of bodily harm—which is often the actual intent of the threatener, and the perception of the victim.

When Mannerisms Match the Message. There is a reason we don’t just give jurors transcripts to read; they have to watch witnesses in-person to gauge credibility. Similarly, when judging the seriousness and credibility of threatening language, people consider emotion, demeanor, and tone of voice. “You’ll be sorry” has a very different meaning when accompanied by direct eye contact, a loud voice, an angry expression, and clenched fists than it does when spoken in a soft voice accompanied by a look of sadness and relaxed body language.

Motivation Matters. People often make threats to get what they want—without any intention of carrying them out. Researchers have distinguished between “Hunters” and “Howlers,”[iv] recognizing in a broader sense that some threateners are all bark but no bite—while the most dangerous people are the ones you don’t see coming.

Expanding contemporary wisdom to include “If you hear something say something” will encourage recipients of disturbing communications to seek the involvement of the authorities sooner rather than later, in order to achieve the ultimate goal of threat assessment, which is not prediction, but prevention.