sandbox @ Kinesic Media LLC

RECOGNIZE THE WARNING SIGNS. PREVENT THE THREAT.

Category: Threat Awareness & Public Safety

  • Before the Sirens: What the Annunciation Investigation Reinforces About Prevention

    BTAP PERSPECTIVE

    What newly released investigative records remind us about behavioral awareness, context, and the work that must happen before an emergency begins.

    One year after the deadly attack at Annunciation Catholic Church and School in Minneapolis, newly released investigative records provide considerably more detail about what happened before, during, and immediately after the shooting.

    What they do not provide is equally important.

    They do not produce a simple explanation for why it happened.

    The records describe an extraordinarily rapid law-enforcement response. They also document writings and other material reflecting an interest in previous mass attackers, hateful statements, emotional distress, and actions taken before the attack. Yet investigators still have not identified a clear, singular motive that neatly explains why the violence occurred.

    That distinction matters. After an act of targeted violence, people understandably want an answer to the question “Why?” But prevention cannot begin by waiting until the answer to that question becomes obvious. It has to begin earlier.

    The Question Before “Why?”

    The recently released records illustrate something that professionals working in behavioral threat assessment have understood for years: human behavior rarely arrives with a label attached to it.

    A person does not normally announce, in unmistakable terms, that he or she has crossed from personal difficulty, grievance, anger, fixation, or emotional distress into preparation for violence.

    Instead, the available information may be fragmented.

    • One person notices a change in behavior.
    • Another notices unusual communication.
    • Someone else sees increasing isolation, fixation, anger, or difficulty coping.
    • A coworker, family member, teacher, supervisor, friend, security professional, or acquaintance may see only one small part of a much larger picture.

    And sometimes those observations mean nothing dangerous at all.

    That point is essential.

    Behavioral threat awareness is not about treating sadness, isolation, unusual beliefs, anger, mental-health concerns, or any other single behavior as proof that someone is dangerous.

    The FBI makes the same distinction in its public violence-prevention guidance: no single behavior means that a person is on a path toward violence. Concern grows when behaviors, changes, circumstances, and patterns begin to accumulate in context. That is where behavioral awareness becomes important.

    Behavior Is Not Prediction

    At Kinesic Media, Behavioral Threat Assessment Prevention — “BTAP” — was never designed to turn employees, educators, administrators, security personnel, supervisors, or other participants into psychologists or investigators.

    It was designed to make them better observers.

    There is an enormous difference.

    Prediction asks someone to decide what another person will do.

    Observation asks someone to recognize what is actually happening.

    Has behavior changed?
    Has communication changed?
    Has a person’s response to circumstances changed?
    Is something noticeably different from the pattern that existed before?
    Does an individual behavior become more significant when considered alongside other circumstances?

    Those are much more useful questions than attempting to determine, from a single observation, whether someone is “dangerous.”

    The purpose is not diagnosis. The purpose is awareness.

    Prevention and Response Are Different Parts of Safety

    The Annunciation records also document a remarkably fast emergency response. According to the released material, the first officers arrived approximately three and a half minutes after the initial report and immediately began confronting an extraordinarily difficult scene and helping the wounded.

    That response undoubtedly mattered.

    But even the fastest emergency response begins after an emergency already exists.

    This is why organizations cannot afford to think about safety only in terms of what happens once shots are fired, an assault begins, a confrontation erupts, or an emergency notification is activated.

    • Emergency planning is essential.
    • Security procedures are essential.
    • Law enforcement response is essential.
    • So are trained employees who understand that prevention may begin much earlier.

    Those approaches are not competitors. They are different layers of the same safety strategy.

    “BTAP” focuses on the layer that exists before emergency response becomes necessary.

    The Importance of Context

    Some of the information contained in the Annunciation records is particularly useful because it demonstrates the difficulty of evaluating behavior retrospectively.

    Investigators reviewed writings, electronic evidence, interviews, personal history, behavior before the attack, and other material. People who knew the attacker described depression, isolation, and earlier suicidal thoughts, but several also said they had not believed the individual was capable of violence against others.

    That should caution us against an easy conclusion that someone simply “should have known.”

    Hindsight allows investigators to assemble information that the people involved may never have possessed collectively before an event.

    That is why one of the most important organizational questions is not simply:

    “Did somebody notice something?”

    It is also:

    “If different people notice different things, does the organization have a way to bring those observations together?”

    A behavioral change that appears insignificant in isolation may take on different meaning when considered with additional information.

    Conversely, information that initially appears alarming may prove much less significant when the full context becomes known. The answer is not suspicion. The answer is better information.

    Creating Organizations That Notice Earlier

    This is one of the fundamental ideas behind “BTAP”.

    Organizations spend considerable time teaching people what to do during emergencies.

    Far fewer deliberately teach their personnel how to recognize and communicate meaningful behavioral concerns before an emergency.

    “BTAP” is intended to help close that gap.

    Participants learn to pay greater attention to observable behavior and meaningful changes from established patterns. The training addresses Inside Threats, Outside Threats, and Confrontational Avoidance while reinforcing a broader principle:

    People who are paying attention are better positioned to recognize when something may deserve additional attention.

    That does not mean every observation requires police involvement.

    It does not mean every unusual person represents a threat.

    It does not mean an employee should conduct an investigation.

    It means organizations benefit when their people have enough behavioral awareness to recognize that something has changed — and enough organizational structure to communicate a legitimate concern to the appropriate person.

    The FBI’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Center operates from a related prevention principle at a much more specialized level: behavior, patterns, circumstances, and movement toward violence can be evaluated before an attack occurs. The FBI also emphasizes that people around an individual are often in a unique position to observe concerning behavior and that earlier recognition creates more opportunities for intervention. That principle should matter to every organization.

    What This Investigation Does — and Does Not — Tell Us

    The newly released Annunciation records do not prove that this attack could have been prevented.

    They do not prove that one particular behavior should have produced a particular response.

    And they should not be treated as a checklist for identifying the next attacker.

    That would be an irresponsible use of the information.

    What the records do reinforce is something broader.

    Targeted violence can involve a progression of thoughts, behaviors, preparation, changes, circumstances, and actions that may exist before the moment when violence finally becomes visible to everyone.

    The challenge is that those pieces may be scattered among different people and may not appear significant until they are considered together. That is precisely why behavioral awareness matters.

    The Work Before the Sirens

    Kinesic Media developed “BTAP” around a straightforward proposition:

    Organizations may not be able to predict every act of violence, but they can become better at recognizing meaningful behavioral change, communicating concerns, and paying attention before a situation escalates.

    There is no training program capable of guaranteeing that violence will never occur.

    “BTAP” does not make that promise.

    What it offers is something more practical: a way to strengthen the human component of prevention.

    • Better observers.
    • Greater awareness.
    • More attention to behavior in context.
    • A common understanding that meaningful change deserves attention.
    • Recognition that prevention begins long before anyone calls 911.

    The Annunciation investigation reminds us how much work takes place after violence occurs — thousands of pages of records, interviews, photographs, evidence, reconstruction, and analysis devoted to understanding what happened.

    That work is necessary.

    But at Kinesic Media, our focus is on the question organizations have an opportunity to ask before the investigation ever has to begin:

    What can we become better at noticing today?

    That is where Behavioral Threat Assessment Prevention begins.

    Sources & Further Reading

    Kinesic Media LLC
    Exclusive Developer and Sole Provider of Behavioral Threat Assessment Prevention — “BTAP”

  • From Awareness to Action: Huntsville and the FBI Move to Strengthen Targeted-Violence Prevention

    From Awareness to Action: Huntsville and the FBI Move to Strengthen Targeted-Violence Prevention

    A proposed Tennessee Valley partnership offers a timely example of how multidisciplinary threat assessment and coordinated information-sharing can move communities toward prevention rather than reaction.

    The Huntsville Police Department, the FBI Birmingham Field Office and local partners are moving toward a more formal, coordinated approach to identifying, assessing and managing potential threats before they escalate into acts of targeted violence.

    On August 26, 2026, the City of Huntsville announced that the City Council would consider a memorandum of understanding involving the City of Huntsville, Huntsville Police Department, Huntsville City Board of Education and the FBI Birmingham Field Office. The agreement would establish the Tennessee Valley Threat Assessment and Threat Management Team.

    As of this article’s publication, the proposal is under consideration and should not be described as a finalized program. Even at the proposal stage, however, its structure is important because it reflects a broader prevention principle: bringing information, expertise and intervention resources together before a violent act occurs.

    A Multidisciplinary Approach

    According to the City of Huntsville, the proposed team would bring law enforcement and community partners together to assess concerning behavior, coordinate threat-management efforts and connect participating agencies with appropriate resources. The framework could be applied to concerns arising in schools, workplaces, businesses and other community settings.

    That distinction matters. Threat assessment and threat management are not simply alternate names for a criminal investigation. The City’s announcement specifically states that the team would not take over or lead criminal investigations. The agency responsible for a particular case would retain ownership, while the team could provide coordinated assessment and management support.

    The FBI Birmingham Field Office could also provide threat-assessment and threat-management consultation and operational support through the FBI’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Center when requested and approved on a case-by-case basis.

    Why Coordination Matters

    Concerning behavior rarely presents itself to only one person, one department or one organization. A coworker may notice a change in behavior. A supervisor may know about a workplace conflict. A school may receive a concerning communication. Law enforcement may possess information that is not known to the institution involved. Other community resources may also have information or intervention options that matter.

    The challenge is not merely collecting information. It is determining whether separate pieces of information become more meaningful when viewed together and then deciding what response is appropriate to the circumstances.

    Effective prevention depends on recognizing concerning changes, sharing relevant information and creating a coordinated process for deciding what those changes may mean and what should happen next.

    The FBI’s Threat-Assessment Model

    The FBI describes its Behavioral Threat Assessment Center as a national-level, multiagency and multidisciplinary resource focused on preventing terrorism and targeted violence through behavior-based operational support, training and research. The Bureau’s broader Threat Assessment and Threat Management Initiative is designed to foster information-sharing and collaboration among law enforcement and community partners.

    That framework reinforces an important point: prevention is not based on a single behavior, profile or checklist. Threat assessment requires context, multiple sources of information and continuing evaluation as circumstances change.

    A “BTAP” Perspective

    The proposed Tennessee Valley team is not a Kinesic Media program, and neither the City of Huntsville nor the FBI is represented as endorsing “BTAP”. The value of this development from a “BTAP” perspective is the principle it illustrates.

    Formal threat-assessment teams depend on information reaching them. That information often begins with ordinary observation: someone notices that behavior has changed, that a pattern has shifted, or that circumstances now deserve additional attention.

    “BTAP” Training is built around strengthening that first layer of awareness. It does not ask employees to diagnose people or conduct threat investigations. It helps participants become better observers, recognize meaningful behavioral changes and understand when something may need to be brought to the attention of those responsible for assessment and intervention.

    A sophisticated threat-management process can only evaluate what becomes known. Building awareness throughout an organization can help create the pathway by which concerning information is recognized, communicated and placed in the hands of professionals equipped to evaluate it.

    Prevention Is a Process

    There is no single program, team or training course that can guarantee an act of targeted violence will be prevented. Responsible prevention requires multiple layers: awareness, reporting, information-sharing, assessment, management, intervention and, when necessary, law-enforcement action.

    What Huntsville’s proposed Tennessee Valley Threat Assessment and Threat Management Team demonstrates is the growing recognition that communities do not have to wait for violence before taking concerning behavior seriously. The earlier relevant information can be recognized, shared and evaluated, the more options may remain available for a measured and appropriate response.

    Sources and Further Reading

    Editorial note: This article discusses publicly announced prevention efforts for educational and informational purposes. Kinesic Media LLC is not affiliated with the Tennessee Valley Threat Assessment and Threat Management Team, and no endorsement of Kinesic Media LLC or “BTAP” by the City of Huntsville, Huntsville Police Department, Huntsville City Board of Education or Federal Bureau of Investigation is stated or implied.

  • Building a Reporting Culture: Five Practical Steps Before a Concern Becomes a Crisis

    Prevention & Preparedness

    Building a Reporting Culture: Five Practical Steps Before a Concern Becomes a Crisis

    “See something, say something” only works when people know what to report, where to report it, and what the organization will do with the information.

    An organization can tell employees, students, members, or visitors to “say something” when they notice a concern. But unless people know what to report, where to report it, and what happens next, the slogan may not produce useful information.

    The FBI’s 2025 active-shooter report included examples of potentially averted attacks that came to attention through observations and tips. DHS and U.S. Secret Service guidance likewise emphasize reporting systems, multidisciplinary assessment, and structured follow-up as important parts of targeted-violence prevention.

    Five Steps Organizations Can Take

    1. Give people one obvious way to report concerns

    A reporting system should be easy to find and simple to explain. Depending on the organization, that may be a dedicated phone number, email address, web form, anonymous reporting system, supervisor channel, school resource officer, security office, or other clearly identified point of contact. Avoid making people guess which department owns the problem.

    2. Teach people to report behavior—not labels

    A useful report describes what was observed: the words used, actions taken, changes noticed, dates, locations, circumstances, and other specific facts. Labels such as “crazy,” “dangerous,” or “suspicious” provide less useful information and can introduce bias.

    3. Make clear that uncertainty is acceptable

    People often remain silent because they are afraid of overreacting or getting someone in trouble. Reporting should be framed as sharing information for evaluation—not declaring that someone is guilty or dangerous. The person making a report does not have to complete the threat assessment.

    4. Put a multidisciplinary process behind the reporting channel

    A reporting mechanism is only the front door. Organizations need a process for reviewing concerns, gathering relevant facts, determining urgency, documenting decisions, and involving the appropriate professionals. DHS describes behavioral threat assessment and management as a systematic process of identifying, inquiring, assessing, and managing potential threats.

    5. Close the cultural gap

    People are more likely to report concerns when leadership demonstrates that reports are taken seriously, handled responsibly, and not automatically treated as disciplinary or criminal matters. In many cases, the appropriate response may involve support, conflict resolution, supervision, mental or behavioral health resources, policy enforcement, security measures, law enforcement, or a combination of interventions.

    What Should Be Reported?

    Organizations should tailor guidance to their environment, but examples can include direct or indirect threats, unusual fixation on violence, marked behavioral changes, escalating grievances, concerning communications, planning or preparation activity, attempts to obtain prohibited access, repeated boundary violations, or combinations of behaviors that create concern.

    Do Not Turn Examples Into a Checklist

    The presence of one concerning behavior does not establish intent to commit violence. Reporting allows trained or designated personnel to evaluate behavior in context. It should not become a shortcut for profiling people who are different, unpopular, distressed, or simply unusual.

    Know the Difference Between a Concern and an Emergency

    A prevention reporting system does not replace emergency procedures. If violence is occurring, a weapon is present, or there is an immediate threat to life, people should follow the organization’s emergency plan and contact emergency services as appropriate. Threat assessment is designed to create opportunities earlier in the process; emergency response addresses imminent danger.

    A Simple Test for Your Organization

    Ask five people in different roles the same question: “If you became concerned about someone’s behavior tomorrow, exactly how would you report it?”

    If you receive five different answers—or no answer at all—you have identified a prevention gap that can be fixed.

    How BTAP Supports the Human Side of Prevention

    Policies and reporting channels work only when people recognize that information may matter. BTAP is designed to strengthen awareness of observable behavior, meaningful changes, Inside and Outside Threats, and confrontational situations so participants are better prepared to notice when something deserves additional attention.

    Sources & Further Reading

    Kinesic Media provides these links for educational reference. External publications remain the work of their respective agencies and organizations.

  • Brown University: What the FBI Findings Teach About Planning, Grievance, and the Limits of Observation

    Incident Analysis

    Brown University: What the FBI Findings Teach About Planning, Grievance, and the Limits of Observation

    The federal investigation offers a useful prevention lesson precisely because it does not support an easy explanation—or the assumption that every planned attack produces obvious warning signs.

    Editor’s note: This article discusses a fatal mass-shooting investigation for the purpose of examining prevention-related findings. Kinesic Media avoids graphic detail and unnecessary focus on the attacker.

    On December 13, 2025, a gunman attacked Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, killing two students and wounding nine others. Two days later, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Dr. Nuno Loureiro was murdered in Brookline, Massachusetts. In April 2026, the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts released findings connecting the crimes and describing what investigators learned about the attacker’s planning and grievances.

    What the FBI Found

    After a multi-agency investigation that included more than 490 leads, more than 260 interviews, and extensive examination of physical and digital evidence, the FBI concluded that the attacker acted alone and that the crimes had no nexus to terrorism.

    Investigators determined that planning for the Brown University attack began years before the shooting. The FBI assessed that the attacker’s victims were symbolic: Brown University and Dr. Loureiro represented personal failures and perceived injustices that had accumulated over time.

    The FBI also described long-term grievances, interpersonal conflict, social isolation, suicidality, and a growing belief that the attacker had been treated unjustly. Federal investigators cautioned, however, that mental-health stressors alone could not explain the attacks.

    A Critical Finding

    The FBI specifically noted that the attacker’s transient lifestyle, long-term planning, and social isolation created little to no opportunity for bystanders to observe and contextualize the significance of his behaviors. That finding is important because it demonstrates both the value and the limits of behavioral threat awareness.

    What This Case Teaches

    1. Planning can develop over a long period

    The attack was not described as a sudden act arising from a single bad day. Investigators found incremental planning and preparation over several years. Long timelines can create opportunities for prevention—but only when behavior, communications, preparation, or other relevant information becomes observable to someone who recognizes its significance.

    2. Grievance can become part of a developing pathway

    Grievance is common and, by itself, is not a predictor of violence. Most people who feel wronged never commit violent acts. In this investigation, however, the FBI assessed that accumulated grievances were part of a larger pattern that included perceived injustice, personal failure, planning, isolation, and commitment to violence.

    3. Observation requires access to behavior

    This case is a reminder that prevention frameworks have limits. If an individual is isolated and significant planning occurs where family members, coworkers, peers, educators, or others cannot observe it, there may be little information available to report. Behavioral awareness is not omniscience.

    4. Avoid simple explanations

    It would be misleading to reduce this attack to one cause—mental health, grievance, academic failure, firearm access, or any other single factor. The FBI’s findings describe an interaction of multiple circumstances over time. Responsible threat assessment works the same way: it considers the totality of available information rather than relying on one label.

    What This Case Does Not Prove

    The Brown University attack does not prove that every isolated person, every individual with a grievance, or every person experiencing mental-health difficulty is dangerous. Nor does it prove that the attack could necessarily have been prevented if someone had simply “paid attention.” The FBI explicitly described the lack of bystander opportunities to observe and contextualize the attacker’s planning.

    That distinction matters. Prevention improves when organizations learn from documented behavior without turning lessons into profiles or hindsight assumptions.

    The BTAP Connection

    For BTAP, the lesson is not that participants should try to identify the next attacker. The lesson is that observable behavior should be taken seriously when it changes, escalates, combines with other concerning information, or appears within a meaningful context—and that organizations need a process for getting that information to the right people.

    Sometimes warning information exists and intervention is possible. Sometimes the information is fragmented. Sometimes, as the FBI found in this case, opportunities for observation may be extremely limited. A credible prevention approach has to acknowledge all three possibilities.

    Sources & Further Reading

    Kinesic Media provides these links for educational reference. External publications remain the work of their respective agencies and organizations.

  • Threat Awareness Is Not Profiling: Why Behavior, Change, and Context Matter

    BTAP Perspective

    Threat Awareness Is Not Profiling: Why Behavior, Change, and Context Matter

    Responsible behavioral threat awareness is not about finding a ‘type’ of person. It is about recognizing meaningful information and understanding it in context.

    Behavioral threat awareness is sometimes misunderstood as an attempt to identify what a dangerous person “looks like.” That is not the purpose—and it is not how responsible threat assessment works.

    Research and guidance from the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center and the Department of Homeland Security repeatedly emphasize that there is no useful profile of the person who will commit targeted violence. Characteristics such as appearance, age, occupation, personality type, political belief, or a single unusual behavior do not provide a reliable shortcut to predicting violence.

    Behavior Over Profile

    The useful question is not, “Does this person fit a type?” It is, “What behavior is occurring, what has changed, what is the context, and does the information warrant additional attention?”

    Why Change Matters

    People establish patterns. They have ordinary routines, communication styles, relationships, coping mechanisms, work habits, interests, and ways of reacting to stress. A change from that established pattern can sometimes provide more useful information than the behavior viewed in isolation.

    A statement, purchase, argument, absence, online post, fixation, grievance, or change in demeanor may mean very little by itself. The same information can become more significant when combined with other facts, when it represents a marked change, or when it appears within a developing pattern of planning, preparation, escalation, or communicated intent.

    Threat Assessment Is Not Diagnosis

    Behavioral threat assessment is also not a substitute for clinical diagnosis, and mental illness should not be treated as synonymous with violence. DHS describes behavioral threat assessment and management as a systematic process for identifying, inquiring into, assessing, and managing potential threats, often through multidisciplinary teams.

    That process can involve education, law enforcement, mental and behavioral health, social services, human resources, security, faith communities, and other professionals depending on the setting. The purpose is to assemble relevant information, assess concern in context, and determine appropriate intervention or management strategies.

    Awareness Creates an Opportunity—Not a Conclusion

    The presence of concerning behavior does not prove that violence will occur. In fact, many behaviors associated with past attackers are also displayed by people who never become violent. That is why isolated observations should not become labels.

    At the same time, dismissing every concern because no single behavior is conclusive creates the opposite problem. The value of awareness is that it creates an opportunity to ask better questions, gather facts, connect information that may otherwise remain separated, and determine whether intervention is needed.

    The Practical Standard

    A useful behavioral-awareness mindset can be summarized in four words: behavior, change, context, and communication.

    Behavior: What is actually being observed or communicated?
    Change: Is this different from the person’s established pattern?
    Context: What circumstances make the information more or less significant?
    Communication: Has the concern reached the people who are responsible for assessing and managing it?

    Where BTAP Fits

    BTAP is designed to strengthen that first layer: observation and awareness. It does not ask participants to diagnose people, predict violence, or make clinical judgments. It asks them to become more attentive to behavior, changes, context, Inside and Outside Threats, and situations in which unnecessary confrontation may increase risk.

    Prevention rarely begins with certainty. More often, it begins when someone notices that something deserves a closer look.

    Sources & Further Reading

    Kinesic Media provides these links for educational reference. External publications remain the work of their respective agencies and organizations.

  • FBI’s 2025 Active Shooter Report: What Organizations Should Notice

    Research & Reports

    The FBI’s 2025 Active Shooter Report: What Organizations Should Notice

    The latest FBI report contains more than incident totals. Its findings on planning, preparation, reporting, and potentially averted attacks deserve careful attention.

    On July 30, 2026, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released its 2025 Active Shooter Incidents in the United States report. The annual publication is intended to help law enforcement, emergency responders, private organizations, and the public better understand active-shooter incidents and improve prevention, mitigation, and response.

    The report should not be read as a count of every shooting or every act of gun violence in the United States. The FBI uses a specific definition of an active shooter: one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.

    What the FBI Reported

    For 2025, the FBI designated 34 incidents as active-shooter incidents. That was a 42% increase from the 24 incidents designated in 2024, although the 2025 total remained below the five-year average of 43 incidents per year. Incidents occurred in 21 states and Washington, D.C., across commerce, open-space, government, education, and house-of-worship settings.

    The Number That Deserves Attention

    The FBI reported that nearly 68% of the 2025 incidents involved planning and preparation by the shooter, up from 58% in 2024. Planning does not automatically mean that warning behavior will be visible to others, but it reinforces why prevention work must look beyond the moment an attack begins.

    A New Focus on Attacks That Did Not Happen

    One of the most important additions to the 2025 report is a section describing potentially averted active-shooter incidents. The FBI says these cases involved law-enforcement observations, tips to the FBI or local agencies, or information provided to school resource officers and campus police.

    That matters because prevention is difficult to measure. Successful intervention often produces no dramatic event, no casualty count, and no headline. A concern is reported, information is evaluated, intervention occurs, and the feared attack never takes place.

    What Organizations Should Take From It

    1. Reporting systems matter

    People need to know where to take a concern and what information is useful. A reporting process that is confusing, inaccessible, or perceived as pointless can cause valuable observations to remain isolated.

    2. Context matters more than a checklist

    No single behavior should be treated as proof that someone will become violent. Behavioral information becomes more meaningful when it is considered with changes over time, circumstances, communications, stressors, grievances, planning activity, and other relevant facts.

    3. Prevention and response are different capabilities

    Emergency planning, access control, alarms, and active-shooter response remain important. They address what organizations do when danger is immediate. Behavioral awareness and threat assessment address an earlier question: what can be recognized, reported, assessed, or managed before an emergency reaches that point?

    The Kinesic Media Perspective

    The FBI’s 2025 findings reinforce a central idea behind BTAP: the objective is not to predict the future from one behavior. It is to become more capable of noticing meaningful information, changes, and circumstances that may deserve additional attention—and to make sure those observations reach the people who can evaluate them responsibly.

    The most valuable lesson in a report like this is not simply the number of attacks that occurred. It is that prevention can begin with ordinary people recognizing that something has changed, taking the concern seriously, and getting the information to the right place.

    Sources & Further Reading

    Kinesic Media provides these links for educational reference. External publications remain the work of their respective agencies and organizations.