Bradley and Susan Domestic Violence Crisis Scenario

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 death of the hostage taker in addition to the possible deaths of hostages.

Bradley's unwillingness to talk to the negotiator makes it difficult to assess his state-of-mind, but the situation does provide some clues. For example, he has a duffle bag full of weapons, which suggests that he did some planning prior to taking the hostages and that he planned, not only to take Susan and the professor hostage, but also to take the other students as hostages as well. Bradley is also refusing to speak with the hostage negotiator. At first blush, one might want to describe the scenario as non-negotiable, since Bradley is refusing to negotiate. However, 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 towards physical needs, like food, or fulfilling a purpose, like transportation. Expressive demands are those aimed at meeting the hostage-taker's emotional needs. Bradley's primary instrumental demand is for food. He makes an expressive demand that he not have to do jail time. Bradley's demand for whiskey is primarily an expressive demand, as one presumes he does not actually need whiskey. However, given that Bradley is known to have a drinking problem, it is possible that he is beginning to experience the negative physical side effects of detoxification, which might make his demand for whiskey closer to an instrumental demand.

Once Bradley begins talking to me, he transitions from the crisis stage of the event to the accommodation/negotiation stage of the event. This is true even when he is angry, ranting, and hanging up the phone; the fact that he is talking to a negotiator and willing to discuss the event moves it into the negotiation stage. When he makes his demands, he is expressing what he needs to get out of this scenario. He openly discusses releasing 5 of the hostages. The fact that he is negotiating is wonderful, but it is important that I not simply pretend to agree to his demands because I want to establish confidence in our relationship. For example, I cannot promise him that he will not go to jail for what he has done; not only is that an unrealistic expectation, if I do promise him that, he will have good reason to doubt my sincerity as a negotiator. His other demands may be possible to meet, but there are pros and cons of doing so. For example, providing him with food may seem like a kind gesture that would establish a good relationship, but it also provides him with the nourishment to prolong the hostage scenario. If that food can be exchanged for the release of a substantial number of hostages, then it is a trade-off that I, as a negotiator, can endorse.

However, Bradley's request for alcohol must be viewed distinctly from his request for food. I cannot meet his request for alcohol, even if I find out that Bradley's addiction is sufficiently established to the point that he is experiencing severe physical withdrawal. There is simply too strong of a relationship between alcohol and violence to provide an armed hostage taker with alcohol. There is a risk in denying this request. Bradley does not seem like a man who takes personal responsibility for his actions, making it risky for me to tell him that I cannot provide him with alcohol because he might hurt someone once he has been drinking. However, it is possible to deny the alcohol without blaming Bradley's behavior for the denial, by taking personal responsibility for the fear and discomfort that would result from meeting that request, which would not force Bradley into a defensive position.