This paper analyzes a complex hostage scenario in which an armed and emotionally distressed individual, Bradley, holds his wife and ten others captive in a classroom. Drawing on McMains and Mullins's crisis negotiation framework, the paper examines how the situation qualifies as a hybrid of a true hostage scenario and a family-violence hostage scenario. It evaluates the situation's negotiability using FBI criteria, categorizes Bradley's demands as instrumental or expressive, and discusses appropriate negotiator responses to each. The paper concludes by critically assessing the decision to pursue a tactical assault, arguing that continued negotiation remains the safer and more effective course of action.
The paper models applied case analysis: it takes an abstract theoretical framework and systematically applies each element to the facts of a specific scenario, showing the reader exactly how theory translates into professional decision-making. The use of direct quotations from the course text, followed immediately by case-specific application, is a strong example of the evidence-then-analysis pattern expected in professional and graduate-level writing.
The paper follows a three-part structure that mirrors the chronological unfolding of a real incident. Part 1 classifies the scenario and assesses initial negotiability. Part 2 shifts to the active negotiation phase, categorizing and responding to the hostage taker's demands. Part 3 addresses the tactical-assault decision and the negotiator's supporting role. Each section builds on the last, providing a coherent arc from initial assessment through resolution strategy.
This scenario constitutes a hostage situation: Bradley is holding Susan (his wife), her professor, and nine other students in a room at gunpoint. He has additional weapons in a duffle bag and is in a distraught emotional state, refusing to let any of the hostages leave. As McMains and Mullins (2010) explain, "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" (p. 12). This scenario clearly meets that definition.
However, it is a specialized type of hostage scenario because 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, by contrast, the hostage does have personal value to the taker. The other nine students and the professor do not have individual value to Bradley in this way. As a result, the scenario is best understood as 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 currently in the crisis stage. He is actively holding people hostage, is volatile, and is unwilling to speak with the negotiator. While he does not appear to be planning further action in the moment, the presence of a duffle bag full of weapons indicates some degree of prior planning. During this stage, a negotiator should approach him with acceptance, caring, and patience, with the goals of establishing a relationship, building credibility, and creating an atmosphere of safety for both the hostage taker and the hostages (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 26).
At this point, it may be tempting to label the situation non-negotiable because Bradley is refusing to get on the phone with the negotiator. However, negotiability is not defined by whether the hostage taker is actively 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 responding officers; (3) demands by the taker; (4) time to negotiate; (5) a reliable channel of communication between the taker and the negotiator; (6) the negotiator must be able to deal directly with the decision-making hostage taker; (7) the location and communications of the incident must be contained; and (8) the taker must perceive the negotiator as someone who has the power to harm him but who wants to help him (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 151).
There is currently insufficient information to determine definitively whether the situation is negotiable or non-negotiable. At this stage, it is unknown whether Bradley wants to live, whether he will allow a reliable communication channel, or whether he views the negotiator as a credible threat. However, because he is already making some demands — specifically, the desire to speak with his wife — and because there is an existing means of communicating with the hostages, the situation should be approached as negotiable.
Once Bradley begins discussing his demands, they fall into two categories: instrumental and expressive. Instrumental demands serve a concrete purpose for the hostage taker, while expressive demands meet his emotional needs (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 17). Bradley's instrumental demand is for food — a substantive issue that addresses his immediate physical needs. His expressive demands are for whiskey, which is not a necessity, and for a guarantee that he will face no jail time. These expressive demands reveal that he is aware he is in serious trouble and is seeking reassurance as well as an emotional escape from the situation.
At this point in the scenario, Bradley has entered the accommodation and negotiation stage of the event (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 25). He has begun talking with the negotiator, is discussing what he feels he needs to move forward, and has even raised the possibility of releasing some of the hostages (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 26).
Not all of Bradley's demands can or should be met. Promising him that he will face no jail time is unlikely to establish an honest relationship. Bradley is aware of what he has done and understands that there will be consequences. Making that promise would undermine the negotiator's credibility. Providing food, however, is a viable option, with the important caveat that doing so may reduce his incentive to reach a quick resolution. Offering food in direct exchange for the release of multiple hostages would therefore be an operationally sound trade.
You’re 59% 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.