Despite murky details, we feel confident only about following:

• Thornton was shown surveillance video (of a good quality according to Thornton) of stealing inventory at a scheduled morning disciplinary meeting the morning of the massacre

Skeptics wonder about the tape, but there was more than one witness to the showing. This is not to say that employers do not manufacture “evidence” of wrongdoing. They simply lie about events, making a rational defense impossible. However, they rarely go to the extent of producing a doctored videotape. This is a small business not in the tech business. Thornton was not a repeat offender, so they likely did not make such an expensive investment.

He was accused of stealing inventory and selling it.

• the beer delivery truck driver (Thornton) was given the option to resign or be fired (not really alternatives) with his union president, Bryan Cirigliano at his side

A humiliating moment to be sure for anyone. At least his Weingarten rights were preserved. Not much the union could have done if theft was confirmed.

• Thornton was being escorted away from the meeting room when he began shooting

This is the infamous HR “exit parade,” the “perp walk,” the banishment. We’re not sure if HR or security did the escorting. It is another form of employer humiliation.

• both employer and the union said that Thornton had not filed any previous complaints or grievances
Harassed workers rarely complain. The history of complainants being retaliated against ripples through the company grapevine and becomes legend. Fear alone suppresses the complaints. The ones who abuse the employer complaint/union grievance processes do so multiple times. They use the policies and contracts to harass the employer. They drive the union reps crazy to the point they start to refuse to file grievances that tend to embarrass the union. If Thornton had not filed formally before, he was not a chronic filer. Could he actually have been harassed and not filed? Certainly, for the reasons stated.

Therefore, the employer and union hiding behind the absence of formal complaints or grievances by Thornton is not proof that he was not harassed. In hindsight (which all of this speculation is), he would have been taken more seriously had he filed.

• Hannah’s mother, Joanne Hannah, claimed that Thornton told her daughter he had complained both to a company supervisor and a union rep

• Thornton’s girlfriend, Kristi Hannah, claimed that Thornton said he had complained to his union rep

If a union rep or steward does not like the member, he or she can block that member’s route to redress. By hearing a verbal complaint and failing to file a grievance, the rep keeps the disrespected member in her or his place. It’s not right, but it happens frequently. Union members often report to us that their union disregarded them as much as HR did. Did Thornton lie about telling his rep? We’ll never know until a union member comes forward with the truth. Unfortunately, he may have told the president he shot and killed that morning carrying the truth to the grave.

• Thornton’s girlfriend, Kristi Hannah, claimed that Thornton said he had complained to her about racism

She said he showed her cell phone photos of crude drawings on the workplace bathroom wall of a noose around his neck with the inscription “Kill the n-word” and reported overhearing a co-worker say he wanted “that n-word out of there.” Ross Hollander, the company owner, said “I can state to you unequivocally no racism claim was ever alleged.” Of course, this would be the post-event stance if the work environment was racist. The craziness in our current political world seems to embrace a return to racist times. There was a noose incident in mid-state Illinois this year that enraged the state NAACP because its perpetrators experienced no consequences. Believe it. It happens, and in the north.

• Thornton called the State Police 911 dispatcher to admit he did the shooting and that it was over (except for his suicide)

During the call, Thornton described the two handguns used to kill eight others as “two of my favorites.” He legally owned six registered firearms. Why in the post-massacre analysis does the media never question the incendiary mix of readily accessible lethal weapons and an emotionally volatile state. He also told the dispatcher, “We’re just talking, you’re gonna play something on the news, you know I’m gonna be popular…” This is a common theme to shooters. Their world was out of their control, the massacre is their way of restoring control. Thornton said “They treat me bad over here and all the other black employees bad over here too…So I took it into my own hands and handled the problem.”

• bullied individuals do not react automatically with anger as some believe

Anger would have been a sign that he was relatively bullyproof. He would not have been afraid to confront. Targets shirk from confrontation. That’s why it is silly to ask them to confront, or even learn to confront.

This not to be confused with Thornton potentially feeling powerless to counter whatever racism was directed his way. There were many against his few. We don’t know how the other black employees acted toward him. Were they also victims? Why or why not?

Thornton’s anger could have been a simple frustration-aggression response with little to no emotional component. Bullying involves emotional injury.

The initial reaction of targets of workplace bullying is often to turn inward. Personal shame (the result of attempts to humiliate you) dictates actions. Feelings are kept inside and rarely shared, even with partners. Only after a long period of time does anger bubble to the surface. The anger most likely comes from the symptoms of hypervigilance associated with PTSD. Hence the anger and rage displayed by traumatized military veterans that puts spouses in danger of violence. PTSD is often delayed and the effects last long after the traumatizing events. But notice how the source (the emotional injury) is different than a more spontaneous, hair-trigger response when someone without PTSD explodes. In the latter case, it may have more to do with an inability to control violent impulses.

• bullied targets are gentle souls, too “nice” for their own good, non-confrontive

Not sure about the research here, but wondering how many bullied targets are gun aficionados. Thornton loved his guns to the point that the handguns he took into the facility that fateful day were two of his “favorites.” Therefore, he didn’t own guns to have them gather dust in a case. On the day of the shooting, he had a shotgun in his car. Hand-eye coordination fans fire virtual guns in video games. Gun nuts use them not just to keep a sharp eye. They love the power gun use conveys to owners. Targets are victims of the abuse of power, rarely its practitioners. Who knows, maybe targets love guns for their power because they are powerless at work. All untested hypotheses.

• Thornton had a plan to restore order to his world, was not insane

This was about seeking justice to him. He didn’t spray the workplace with bullets. He targeted some for death and avoided other individuals. He chased one co-worker outside the building and had to shoot his way back in to keep up the slaughter. He also spoke on his cell for 10 minutes with his mother. She was unable to talk him out of suicide.

• the causal link between a toxic work environment and massacre as solution is an indirect connection at best

As facts filter in, there may have been a set of conditions at Hartford Distributors that could drive a sane person to consider killing others as a solution (not if that person has no access to an arsenal of weapons). For example, our academic colleague Ken Westhues posts a report about the Virginia Tech massacre. That student was tormented by one of the professors.

There does always seem to be a “story behind the story.” Our society (read superficial media coverage) prefers to discount all shooters as nuts. They all have chosen extreme solutions, but they were not all previously insane. Nor were most insane when shooting. The explanations are complicated because they involve at least four parts:
- an alienated individual (either who started that way or was driven to the state)
- a toxic work environment created and sustained by the employer
- the failure to find allies at work (from diffident co-workers, obstinate union reps who refuse to engage, indifferent employer/HR reps),  and
-the availability of weapons.

Kneejerk post hoc analysis is inadequate. The documentary Murder By Proxy: How America Went Postal explores these factors to understand the why “going postal” happens so much. Thoughtful commentary by criminologist Alan Fox (Northeastern University) and psychiatrist Michael Welner provides the right level of analysis. I also address the role of work environment in the film. The film is 80+ minutes long. TV news segments about the shooting are usually no longer than 3 minutes!

So, let’s be careful to not equate workers targeted by bullying with shooters in workplace massacres. Not everyone with PTSD injures or kills his spouse. Not everyone with bipolar disorder is a danger to society. Bullied targets are more likely to retreat from society than to mount a guns-blazing deadly assault on peers.

“Delivers a potent mix of shocking truth, honest analysis and dark humor”
COMING TO THEATERS IN 2010

Feature documentary Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal offers a provocative examination of the possible role of hostile work environments in mass murder incidents, starting with the earliest USPS mass murder-suicide in 1986.

At a time when tensions are rising again in the Postal Service and in other workplaces across America, Murder By Proxy is a simply a must-see film.

Spread the word, forward the link to this announcement to your friends