Lurking in the Shadows: Stranger Danger and Target Selection

  • James F. KennyEmail author


Once motivated to commit a criminal act, the aggressor will look for favorable individual and situational factors in which to carry out the attack. The selection procedure is highly predictable and purposeful involving the right person who happens to be in the right place at the right time. Even when the criminal’s motivation appears to be highly illogical, their planning and execution may be highly rational. Once understood, potential targets can choose to take steps to protect themselves and avoid certain situations. Potential targets need to recognize that criminals prefer those who offer maximum gain, control, and access. They favor locations that minimize the risk of detection and situations that reduce contact with possible guardians.


  1. American Immigration Council. (2012). Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides protections for immigrant women and victims of crime. Secured on July 11, 2018 from
  2. Arway, A. (2002). Causal factors of violence in the workplace: A human resource professional’s perspective. In M. Gill, B. Fisher, & V. Bowie (Eds.), Violence at work: Patterns and prevention. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  3. Blair, J. & Schweil, K. (2014). A study of active shooter incidents, 2000–2013. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  4. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015). National Crime Victim Surveys, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, R., & Cornish, D. (1985). Modeling offender’s decisions: A framework for research and policy. In M. Toney & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice (Vol. 6, pp. 147–185). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, R., & Hormel, R. (1997). A revised classification of situational crime prevention techniques. In S. Lab (Ed.), Crime prevention at a crossroads (pp. 17–27). Cincinnatti, OH: Anderson.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egger, K., & Egger, S. (2003). Victims of serial killers: The “less dead”. In J. Sgarzi & J. McDevitt (Eds.), Victimology: A study of crime victims and their roles. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, B., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grayson, B., & Stein, M. (2006). Attracting assault: Victim’s nonverbal clues. Journal of Communications, 31(1), 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hakin, S., & Shachmurove, Y. (1996). Spacial and temporal patterns of commercial burglaries: The evidence examined. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 55, 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrell, E. (2017). Crime against persons with disabilities, 2009–2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  13. Harrell, E. (2011). Workplace violence, 1993–2009. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  14. Hockstetler, A., & Copes, H. (2008). Where I’m from: Criminal predators and their environments. In M. Delisi & P. Conis (Eds.), Violent offenders: Theory, research, public policy and practice (pp. 15–32). Boston: Jones & Bartlett Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Hughes, C. (2003). Stop the violence, break the silence training guide: Building bridges between domestic violence and sexual assault organizations, people with disabilities, families and caregivers. Austin, TX: Disability Services ASAP/Safe Place.Google Scholar
  16. Karmen, A. (2010). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  17. National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  18. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. (1996). Violence in the workplace: Risk factors and prevention strategies. Washington, DC: NIOSH.Google Scholar
  19. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2016). Guidelines for preventing workplace violence for healthcare and social service workers. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor.Google Scholar
  20. O’Toole, M., & Bowman, A. (2012). Dangerous instincts: Use an FBI profiler’s tactics to avoid unsafe situations. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
  21. Rand, M. (2009). Criminal victimization (p. 2008). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  22. Rengert, G., & Wasilchick, J. (1985). Suburban burglary: A time and a place for everything. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Robers, S., Zhang, A., Morgan, R., & Figley, C. (2015). Indicators of school crime and safety, 2014. Retrieved March 13, 2018 from
  24. Rossomo, D. (2000). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schaffer, S. (1968). The victim and his criminal: A study in functional responsibility. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  26. Schwartz, M., & Pitts, V. (1995). Exploring a feminist routine activities approach to explaining sexual assault. Justice Quarterly, 12, 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scott, M., & Dedel, K. (2006). Street prostitution. Washington, DC: Office of Community Orientated Policing Services.Google Scholar
  28. Security Center. (2018). How do burglars decide which homes to target? Retrieved February 26, 2019, from
  29. Sherman, M., Gartin, P., & Buerger, M. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, M. (1996). Crime prevention through environmental design. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, R., & Harrell, A. (1996). Physical environment and crime. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  32. Tilley, N., Smith, J., Finer, S., Erol, R., Charles, C., & Dobby, J. (2005). Problem solving street crime: Practical lessons from the street crime initiative. London: Home Office Research.Google Scholar
  33. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2018). US Department of Homeland Security soft targets and crowded places security plan overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.Google Scholar
  34. U.S. Secret Service. (2018). Enhancing school safety using a threat assessment model: An operational guide for preventing targeted school violence. Washington, DC: National Threat Assessment Center.Google Scholar
  35. Von Hentig, H. (1948). The criminal and his victim: Studies in the sociology of crime. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wayne State University. (2004). Michigan study on women with physical disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  37. Wright, R., & Decker, S. (1994). Armed robbers in action: Stickups and street culture. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityTeaneckUSA

Personalised recommendations