This paper analyzes a hostage scenario involving Bradley, who has taken eleven people captive — including his wife, her suspected professor-lover, and nine students — while armed and emotionally volatile. Drawing on McMains and Mullins's framework for crisis negotiations, the paper classifies the event as a family violence hostage scenario, assesses what stage of crisis Bradley is experiencing, and evaluates the situation's negotiability using FBI criteria. It further examines Bradley's instrumental and expressive demands, the risks of providing alcohol to an armed hostage-taker, and the transition from crisis stage to the accommodation/negotiation stage. The paper concludes by critiquing the decision to deploy a tactical assault and identifying steps a negotiator could have taken to support the tactical team.
The paper models applied criterion-based analysis. Rather than describing the scenario narratively, it systematically maps specific facts onto established frameworks — the FBI's eight characteristics of a negotiable situation, the three crisis stages, and the distinction between instrumental and expressive demands. This technique transforms a complex, ambiguous scenario into a structured professional assessment, which is the core skill in applied criminal justice and law enforcement writing.
The paper opens by classifying the scenario type, then layers in increasing analytical depth: crisis stage → negotiability → demand analysis → negotiation management → tactical critique. Each section builds on the previous one, mirroring how a real negotiator would triage a situation. The conclusion pivots from evaluation to prospective action, showing what the negotiator could have done differently — a strong professional-reflective close.
The primary issue determining whether a crisis situation qualifies as a hostage scenario is whether human lives are at stake (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 12). Bradley has taken a total of eleven 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 this is a hostage scenario, it is not what one considers a true hostage scenario. In true hostage scenarios, the hostage has no particular 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, making him non-interchangeable with the other hostages. This scenario therefore qualifies as a family violence hostage scenario. The fact that Bradley has taken nine additional students complicates matters; one would presume those students are pure hostages, since they have no relationship to Bradley. As a result, I might approach the release of the other students differently than I would the release of his wife and the professor, and I might also assess the risk to the nine students as 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 crisis negotiation theory, crises happen in stages (McMains & Mullins, 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 event.
During the crisis stage, negotiators need to focus on establishing a relationship with the hostage-taker. This means employing an accepting, caring, honest, and patient attitude toward Bradley in order to establish credibility (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 26). Negotiators also need to create as safe an environment as possible for both the hostages and the hostage-taker, 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, his duffle bag full of weapons 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 well.
Bradley is also refusing to speak with the hostage negotiator. At first, 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 solely on whether the hostage-taker will negotiate. According to the FBI, there are eight characteristics of a negotiable situation: (1) the hostage-taker's need to live; (2) the threat of force by responding officers; (3) the 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, the scenario appears to be a negotiable one, though many of the variables remain unknown. Whether Bradley has a need to live is a critical question, and his depression may affect that factor. The officers have responded with force, Bradley will eventually make demands, there does not appear to be a fixed time constraint preventing negotiations, the police will be able to establish a line of communication, Bradley is himself a decision-maker, the police have contained the incident, and the negotiator may have the ability to either hurt or help Bradley. On balance, it seems correct to treat this scenario as a negotiable one.
You’re 46% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.