what IS a 'killer profile?'

This event serves to remind me that our campuses continue to get less and less safe every day. What is more "baffling" is that the student who went into the Illinois University and open fired in a lecture hall did not "fit the killer profile." There is no way to attribute this individual's behaviour to being previously bullied or a social recluse. He was personable, and he was a student in the school.

The previous shootings (Virginia Tech and Dawson College in Montreal) were "less threatening" because the shooters were described as socially inept, rejects essentially bordering on psychotic. This individual however, was part of the wood work. He didn't act unusual in the days leading up to the shooting, he wasn't known for his social problems, but was in fact seen to have great potential.

I did not read the article released on the day of the shooting, however I just read the article from the Saturday edition of the Saturday Star, and what really grabbed my attention was the headline of "Gunman didn't fit killer profile." This article goes on to describe the promising life that Steven Kazmierczak was predicted to have, and this only served to cause me more distress than any of the other reports of recent campus shootings have given me. After reading this article I put down the paper with the grave reminder that anyone can be a killer and, as this distinct case demonstrates, he or she might not necessarily fit the "profile" of a serial killer. (Thanks, I didn't think that 'normal' people were capable of killing- only the obvious psychos)

This article, and others which discuss our recent campus shootings are problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, it reenforces a stereotype of what serial campus shooters are like. From Columbine until today, all of the shooters have been "abnormal" socially, have been loners who were visibly disturbed. Which in turn also reenforces a false notion of security for students who feel that their campuses are "safe" from shooters because there is no "known" social recluse in their midst.

I finished reading this article feeling less safe than I did when I first began reading it because *shock* this individual did not meet the "killer profile," reminding me that every day each person I encounter on campus could be a shooter waiting for their moment to attack. They just might be really good at hiding the fact that they're planning a massacre. This article left me wondering if perhaps the characteristics of the other murderers were ways for us to displace our guilt about what had happened- this man gives us no excuse or scapegoat.

However, what I find it important to remind myself of is that this threat has always been there, it is the representation of this particular incident which gives it the appearance of a new threat; because the killer did not stand out against the societal norms we have constructed. We know that any day someone could open fire on the school, but we always assume that we'll be able to detect it, that we'll be able to spot the individual from a mile away due to their social tendencies. We almost assume that there will be warning bells when a killer is in our midst, but this article is a cruel reminder that while their may be warning signs that someone is a potential murderer, this will not always be the case. The Virgina Tech and Dawson College shooters happened to exhibit warning signs, however the Illinois shooter was able to blend in with his surroundings and come out under the radar.

I am still trying to figure out how the Star wants me to interpret this article.

Is it an "How could we see it coming? he was 'normal'! Campus killers are psycho, and obviously so" or is it a "We have to recognize that there isn't really one 'killer profile.' It can be anyone."

In all reality, we are reminded by this incident that yes, Kazmierczak was obviously not of sound mind if he was able to open fire in a lecture hall and then shoot himself, even though he seemed to have the appearance of it. Not all killers are going to send off warning bells, and it is a sad fact of life. I'm sure that he did fit the "killer profile," people were simply blinded by his academic excellence and his "normalcy" to see past it. But perhaps we couldn't seen through it, perhaps he was able to hide his crazy extremely well. The lesson remains to be learned that a killer could be anyone, they could be the guy or girl you sit next to in class who is brilliant and smart and who you lend a pen occasionally and discuss feminist theory with. The truth is we never know, and every time there is another campus shooting each university student finds themselves hard pressed to embrace the "community" we are each a part of and begins to wonder if perhaps one day their own life could be torn apart by the person they least expect in the environment they should always feel safe in.

As members of our individual university communities we have an automatic trust for our fellow students, and its sad that once again we are reminded that this is dangerous. However, at the same time, we also reminded of just how helpless we are to stop it! Short of metal detectors, how could his ever be regulated? A university is not as contained and controlled as a high school (even though they are not as safe anymore, and even though we like to think that we are all rational/ethics/moral adults since we've been admitted into the university). I really don't sit here with answers at all, but questions, and fear.

Most importantly I comment on how we are so "surprised" because this individual didn't meet the "killer profile" but we have to remember that just because one doesn't exhibit the "killer profile" obviously doesn't mean that it's not there. It's sad and scary, but it could be anyone and I am a little irritated that this is apparently big news. Perhaps now that there has been an infiltration by a "normal" student of the University in Question there will be more discourse, and as a result, action, in regards to campus safety and the social culture that pervades these attacks.