Crisis Management This Is a Hostage Situation,

Crisis Management

This is a hostage situation, because Bradley is holding Susan, her professor, and nine other students in a room. Bradley has weapons and is in a distraught emotional state, refusing to let any of the hostages leave. "In most hostage incidents, the explicit threat is to the hostage's life. It is not the loss of property, status, or belonging to a community that is at stake. Life itself is at stake" (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.12). Therefore, this qualifies as a hostage situation. However, it is a specialized type of hostage scenario in that one of the hostages, Susan, is Bradley's wife. In a true hostage scenario, the "hostage has no value to the hostage taker as a person" (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.13). In a family-violence hostage scenario, the hostage has value to the hostage taker as a person. The other nine students and the professor do not have value as individuals to the hostage taker. As a result, the scenario is a hybrid of a true hostage scenario and a family violence hostage scenario.

"Crises can be seen as happening in stages that have different characteristics and require different skills to manage" (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.25). Bradley is in the crisis stage of crisis. He is actively holding the people hostage. He is volatile and unwilling to speak with the negotiator. He is not planning the activity, though the presence of his duffle bag full of weapons suggests that there was some planning prior to the incident. That means that a negotiator should approach him with an attitude of acceptance, caring, and patience, with the goal of establishing a relationship, establishing credibility, and trying to create an atmosphere of safety for the hostage taker as well as the hostages (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.26).

At this time, it may be tempting to describe the scenario at non-negotiable because Bradley is refusing to get on the phone and speak with the hostage negotiator. However, whether a situation is negotiable is not defined by whether or not the hostage taker is negotiating. Instead, the FBI has identified eight characteristics of a negotiable situation: 1) a need to live on the part of the taker; 2) a threat of force by the officers responding; 3) demands by the taker; ) time to negotiate; 5) a reliable channel of communication between the taker and the negotiator; 6) the negotiator must be able to deal with the decision-making hostage taker; 7) the location and the communications of the incident must be contained; and 8) the negotiator must be seen by the taker as a person who can hurt the taker, but who wants to help the taker (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.151). Honestly, there is insufficient information to determine if the situation is negotiable or non-negotiable. At this stage in the incident, I do not know if the taker wants to live, will allow a reliable channel of communication, or views me as a threat. However, because the hostage taker is already making some demands (the desire to just have time to talk to his wife) and there is a way to communicate with the hostages, I would approach the scenario as if it were negotiable.

Part 2

Once Bradley begins discussing his demands with, they fall into two categories: instrumental and expressive demands. Instrumental demands are those that serve a purpose for the hostage taker. Expressive demands are those that meet the hostage maker's emotional needs (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.17). His instrumental demand is for food; food is a substantive issue that deals with Bradley's needs in the moment. His expressive demands are for whiskey, which is not a need, and for the promise that he does not have to do any jail time. He realizes that he is significant trouble and is looking for reassurance and a potential escape from the situation.

Bradley is in the accommodation/negotiation stage of the event (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.25). He has begun talking to me as a negotiator. He is talking about things that he feels he needs to move forward, and is even discussing the idea that he will release some of the hostages (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.26). However, not all of his demands are reasonable. Promising him that he will not face any jail time is not likely to establish an honest relationship, because he is aware of what he has done and the fact that he is going to face some punishment for it. Bringing food to him is a possibility, though I need to be aware that providing him with food takes away some of the incentive for him to come to a rapid resolution. However, providing him food in exchange for the release of multiple hostages would be an acceptable choice.

Bradley's request for alcohol is not one that can be met. The relationship between alcohol and violence is well-established. Furthermore, alcohol is a depressant that reduces inhibitions. The scenario is already sufficiently volatile; adding alcohol to the scenario would only increase the risk. However, refusing Bradley's request for alcohol by suggesting that it would increase his risk of harming people could increase the danger to the hostages. However, I could use I statements to explain my concerns about bringing him alcohol, without shaming or blaming him for asking for the alcohol. An example in the book discusses a man who has been drinking who asks to see his wife. The hypothetical negotiator responds by saying, "When there is alcohol involved, I get worried, because it makes people do funny things, sometimes hurting people without meaning to,"( (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.174). That refusal is non-threatening, non-accusatory, and does not put Bradley in a position of having to defend himself (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.174).

Part 3

After lengthy negotiations that have not resulted in the release of the hostages, the tactical team determines that it is going to assault the classroom. I think that this is a horribly premature decision. Bradley has not injured any of the hostages and there is no indication that he is escalating his behavior to injure the hostages. Instead, what is known is that tactical assaults are dangerous; they result in a 78% injury or death rate (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.14). In contrast, containment and negotiation are tremendously effective, especially if the negotiator is a mental health professional or has access to a mental health professional (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.14). As long as Bradley is willing to continue negotiations and is not harming the hostages, a mental health professional should be brought into negotiations before a tactical assault.