When "searching for" is an ambiguous term.

It's interesting to see the use of the term "searching for" in a warning message. Depending upon your experience with "searching," you could associate this action with looking for someone or something that is lost, someone or something that has been taken, or someone or something that is intentionally alluding discovery. But how is a person to know what "searching for" means when there is little additional information included to help identify the searching context?

In today's Warn Room entry, we find a message issued by a Sheriff's Office that offers no context to message receivers. One might think that because this was issued by the Sheriff's Office, there is some sort of a law enforcement related reason for sending the alert. But it doesn't clearly state this reason, leaving the message receiver to guess WHY law enforcement officers are searching for this person.

Notably, law enforcement agents are frequently responsible for issuing alerts for Missing and Endangered Persons as well. Without context, one could guess that the Sheriff's Office is searching for this person because

1) they have wandered away,

2) they have been taken by somenone,

3) they have intentionally left the area,

4) they are hiding.

Which one is it?

Let's look a bit deeper to see if we can decode this mystery message. We note that there is no additional information abut the person being a danger to themselves or at risk. We also see that there is no information abut the person being a danger to others; there is no information about what people who encounter him should do other than to place a phone call.

So, we have a person who was last seen at an unindentified time, with a basic description of their age, clothing, height, and weight, in a particular location. The only instructions are to call if you see someone matching this description.

This message neglects to include some really key information. If this was a missing person, who had physical or mental vulnerabilities, additional context would help us to understand why they were in danger. If this was a person who was taken, additional information about who they were last seen with would help us a great deal. If this person is actively avoiding being found, it would be helpful to know WHY.

And this is where the story really unfolds. The true context for this event is that the 17 year old male had assaulted two people in their home and was carrying a weapon (a knife). One victim had been stabbed and the 17 year old male had run from the scene. The alert says nothing about this, especially about the danger the person still poses to others in the community (carrying a weapon), and what people can do to avoid being injured (remain indoors).

The Warning Response Model clearly identifies that warnings need to include the following information:

1) source,

2) hazard and hazard impact,

3) location,

4) guidance, and

5) time.

In the case of a law enforcement alert, such as an active threat/assailant who is carrying a weapon, the hazard impact must focus on what they have done or could do to those who encounter the person/threat.

This raises some questions for readers of The Warn Room to ponder: why do we frequently find that key details about an active threat are left out of warning messages? Is there a concern that the public will "panic" if they know the details of the threat? Is this a protective approach to limit information being released to the public before a case is established? Media reports certainly do not leave out these details and people can easily find this information by searching online. Choosing not to include it in a warning message appears to be a common tactic, but without a clear positive outcome.

Be sure to download the Warning Lexicon for more tips on how to write effective alerts and warnings.