Crisis Management: Hostage Scenario
The primary issue determining whether or not a crisis situation is a hostage scenario is whether human lives are at stake (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.12). Bradley has taken a total of 11 hostages: his wife Susan, her professor whom Bradley believes is her lover, and nine other students. Bradley has not made an explicit threat to their lives, but he has weapons with him, is not allowing the hostages to leave, and is clearly in a highly emotional state. While it is a hostage scenario, it is not what one considers a true hostage scenario. In those scenarios, the hostage has no value to the hostage taker (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.13). Susan is Bradley's wife; therefore, she has value to him. Moreover, the professor has some value to Bradley; as Susan's suspected lover, he is not interchangeable with other hostages. Therefore, this scenario qualifies as a family violence hostage scenario. The fact that Bradley has taken nine additional hostages complicates the scenario; one would presume that the nine fellow students are pure hostages because they have no relationship to Bradley. Therefore, as a negotiator, I might approach the release of the other students differently than I would the release of his wife and the professor. I might also assess the risk to the other students as being lower than the risk to the professor.
When dealing with a hostage crisis, it is important to determine what stage of crisis is occurring. According to McMains and Mullins, Crises happen in stages (2010, p.25). Bradley is holding the people hostage, behaving in an erratic and volatile manner, and is not willing to speak with the negotiator. As a result, he is considered to be in the crisis stage of the crisis. During a crisis stage of a crisis, negotiators need to focus on establishing a relationship with the hostage-taker, which means that they should employ an accepting, caring, honest and patient attitude with Bradley in order to establish credibility (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.26). They also need to create as safe of an environment for the hostages and the hostage takers as is possible, since many hostage scenarios end in the determination of whether a scenario is non-negotiable is not based on whether or not the hostage taker will negotiate. According to the FBI, there eight characteristics of a negotiable situation: 1) the hostage taker's need to live; 2) threat of force by responding officers responding; 3) hostage taker's demands; 4) sufficient time to negotiate; 5) a reliable channel of communication; 6) the ability to negotiate with a decision-maker; 7) the ability to contain the incident; and 8) a negotiator who can either hurt or help the hostage-taker (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.151). Applying those criteria, it appears that the scenario may be a negotiable one, though many of the variables are unknown. Whether or not Bradley has a need to live is a big question that determines much of the outcome, and his depression may change that factor. The officers have responded with force, Bradley will eventually make demands, there does not seem to be a time schedule preventing negotiations, the police are going to be able to establish a line of communication, Bradley is a decision-maker, the police have contained the incident, and the negotiator may have the ability to either hurt or help Bradley. Therefore, it seems like the correct judgment is to treat the scenario as a negotiable one.
Bradley's demands give some insight into his state of mind. He makes both instrumental and expressive demands. Instrumental demands are targeted…
Hostage Negotiation Keeping people as hostages has happened all through history. In the recent years, political events in Algeria, Kenya and Vietnam show examples of such terrible acts. Criminals, mentally challenged, prisoners are usually the people involved in hostage taking. Hostage crises have prevailed due to escalations of family member-on-member, family member-on-employee, intoxicated colleague, household dispute situations, disturbed client-on-employee and disturbed employee-on-client violence at workplace. Those involved in hostage taking activities
Hostage Negotiations Following the deadly aftermath/fallout from the Attica prison riot in New York State in 1971 -- and from the bloody terrorist attack during the 1972 Olympic Games in Germany -- there have been attempts to change the way in which authorities go about crisis negotiation. This paper discusses the responses that authorities have had to these crisis situations and outlines the steps that have been taken to improve the
Deception techniques & lying There are situations in which lying or other deception techniques are used and are allowed as negotiation technique to save possible loss of life or to avert other such critical situations. Certain experts do not encourage the use of such techniques. Some say that lying or deception can only be used as last resort. The idea of using deception techniques if used regularly and randomly may damage
Hostage Negotiation The 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments have had serious impacts on modern hostage negotiations and will be examined in this paper. Elements that are to be considered include promise making, incriminating statements, as well as the planting of listening devices. Graham vs. Connor, State vs. Sands, and Taylor vs. Watters, among others, are some of the court cases that will be used in this discussion. Again, the impact of
Crises Negotiations The field of hostage negotiating did not develop on the front lines of police work, but, instead, in the broader political context, dealing specifically with the taking of hostages. In modern times, these events have been large-scale terrorist events, such as when terrorist took athletes hostage at the 1972 Munich Olympics. This helped hone the field of hostage negotiations, because of a belief that appropriate intervention and negotiation could
Crisis Negotiations There are numerous stages in a crisis scenarios. Crises can be seen as happening in stages that have different characteristics and require different skills to manage" (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.25). These stages are: pre-crisis, crisis/defusing, adaptation/negotiation, and resolution/surrender (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.25). Pre-crisis does not refer to a specific event, but to an organization prior to a crisis. It is characterized by practice, planning, and prevention by