European Lone Actor Terrorists Versus “Common” Homicide Offenders: An Empirical Analysis

• Published date: 01 February 2018
• Author: Edwin Bakker,Jelle van Buuren,Marieke Liem,Jeanine de Roy van Zuijdewijn,Hanneke Schönberger
• DOI: 10.1177/1088767917736797
• Date: 01 February 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767917736797

Homicide Studies

2018, Vol. 22(1) 45 –69

© 2017 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1088767917736797

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Article

European Lone Actor

Terrorists Versus “Common”

Homicide Offenders: An

Empirical Analysis

Marieke Liem1, Jelle van Buuren1,

Jeanine de Roy van Zuijdewijn1,

Hanneke Schönberger1, and Edwin Bakker1

Abstract

The term “Lone Actor” has been applied to a variety of violent individuals who are

thought to act out of ideological motivations using terrorist tactics. So far, much of

the research is U.S.-based. There is an empirical vacuum of Lone Actor violence in

Europe and a conceptual gap in how these acts may be understood as a variation

of homicidal behavior. We examine and compare characteristics of European Lone

Actors to European “common” homicide offenders. Lone Actor terrorists constitute

a heterogeneous group that is similar to homicide offenders but differs in terms of

substance use, weapon use, and target. These findings may be understood in the

context of instrumental versus expressive aims.

Keywords

Lone Actors, homicide, Europe, terrorism, ideology

Introduction

Lone Actors have been referred to as lone wolves, individual terror cells, solo terror-

ists, lone operator terrorists, and freelancers (Borum, Fein, & Vossekuil, 2012). While

the term “Lone Actor” implies a single actor, definitions of Lone Actors have spanned

from independently operating individuals (Spaaij, 2011), solo-actor terrorists (who

1Leiden University, The Hague, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Marieke Liem, Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs, Institute of Security and Global Affairs, Leiden

University, P.O. Box 13228, The Hague 2501 EE, The Netherlands.

Email: m.c.a.liem@fgga.leidenuniv.nl

736797HSXXXX10.1177/1088767917736797Homicide StudiesLiem et al.

research-article2017

46 Homicide Studies 22(1)

conducted an act themselves but were directed and controlled by a larger organiza-

tion), lone dyads (a group of two individuals; Corner, Gill, & Mason, 2016; Pantucci,

2011), to small cells (Bakker & de Roy van Zuijdewijn, 2015). The term “Lone Actor”

is thus a contested construct. It has been argued that it is a term created by the media

and by radical political actors themselves, rather than a social science concept or a

legal term (Spaaij & Hamm, 2015). Furthermore, even though within terrorism stud-

ies, Lone Actors are considered as a subset of a wider group of terrorists, prior studies

show that a distinction between terrorist ideology, criminal intent, or personal motiva-

tion is sometimes difficult to draw (Spaaij, 2011). Some individuals are incorrectly

classified as Lone Actor terrorists when in fact their attacks were “violent acts by

stand-alone individuals that were carried out for reasons of personal motivation or

simply with criminal intent” (Spaaij, 2011, p. 11). In addition, there is no consensus on

the types of behavior exhibited by Lone Actors: Definitions range from “violent and

nonviolent behaviors” (Corner & Gill, 2015), such as “behaviors that facilitated or

encouraged violent actions carried out by others” (Gill, Horgan, & Deckert, 2014), to

“the threat or use of violence” (Bakker & de Roy van Zuijdewijn, 2015) and, in some

studies, also include cyber-attacks (Gordon, Sharan, & Florescu, 2015).

Studies on Lone Actors include individuals who “either self-radicalized, or radical-

ized via a larger organization” (Corner & Gill, 2015), and individuals who are inspired

by a terrorist ideology or organization to conduct attacks (Integrated Threat Assessment

Centre, 2007, cf. Borum et al., 2012). In terrorism publications, the political approach

to this phenomenon is underscored in Lone Actor definitions such as “autonomous

leadership units” and Lone Actor events as carried out through “leaderless resistance”

(Joosse, 2015).

The interchangeable use of the terms “Lone Actors” and “Lone Actor terrorists”

further emphasizes the notion that these individuals are thought to act out of terrorist

political motivations using terrorist tactics. Some authors therefore argue that Lone

Actor attacks should only include politically or religiously motivated acts, aimed to

influence public opinion or decision making (Bakker & de Graaf, 2010), and should

thus exclude attacks by stand-alone individuals motivated by other reasons, such as

school or workplace shooters. In other studies, the net is cast wider, including school

shooters and other Lone Actors whose crimes were aimed at a broader societal goal,

with the hopes of influencing a wider audience, as well as “classical” terrorists such as

jihadists and right-wing extremists (de Roy van Zuijdewijn & Bakker, 2016).

A complicating factor is that assigning motivations to individual acts of terror is

inherently subjective and open to considerable interpretation (Quillen, 2002). In their

study on lone attackers of a prominent public official or public figure in the United

States, Fein and Vossekuil (1999) found a diversity of motivations, ranging from

searching for notoriety, attention, revenge, and personal fixation to suicide as a goal.

Findings showed some attackers to have clothed their motives with political rhetoric,

through which they became “murderers in search of a cause” who construct a narrative

to legitimize their acts (see also Hoffmann, Meloy, Guldimann, & Ermer, 2011).

Similarly, Joosse (2007) warned for taking value statements about political motivation

at face value, as Lone Actors can have an interest in upgrading their violence by