On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators, Second Edition

On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators Second Edition Frederick J.Lanceley On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators Sec...

Author: Frederick J. Lanceley

46 downloads 1358 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators

Second Edition

Frederick J.Lanceley

On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators Second Edition

CRC PRESS Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lanceley, Frederick J. On-scene guide for crisis negotiators/Frederick J.Lanceley.—2nd ed. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 0-8493-1441-0 (alk paper) 1. Hostage negotiations. 2. Negotiation. 3. Suicide—Prevention. 4. Crisis intervention (Mental health services) I. Title. HV6595.L36 2003 302.3—dc21 2003043978 This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use. Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC for such copying. Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation, without intent to infringe. Visit the CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com © 2003 by CRC Press LLC No claim to original U.S. Government works ISBN 0-203-50890-4 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-58621-2 (Adobe eReader Format) International Standard Book Number 0-8493-1441-0 (Print Edition) Library of Congress Card Number 2003043978

Preface

As with the first edition of On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators, nothing in this edition should be construed as legal advice. The field of law is constantly changing, and even what I thought I once knew may be out of date. Your best source of legal advice continues to be your legal adviser, whether it is your county attorney or district attorney. I very often receive legal questions in my seminars, as well as questions on how to liven up regular negotiator training, and I always suggest guest speakers, especially your legal adviser. There are still many legal questions lingering in the minds of many negotiators. This book should not be considered a substitute for a good seminar on crisis negotiation, as well as continuing training. Just as the legal field is evolving, so is the field of crisis negotiation. I sometimes find myself in the odd position of debating with an officer or deputy one of my old ideas that he has learned vs. a new idea that has emerged. Negotiators must train and train regularly. Masculine pronouns will be used to refer to subjects throughout this book for ease of reading, and to reflect the negotiation experience. Most subjects with whom we negotiate are male. When asked to estimate the percentage of female subjects, most estimate fewer than 10%, with many negotiators estimating 5%. I have added two new chapters to this book. One new chapter concerns first responder actions and dialogue. Many negotiators have urged me to add this chapter for a variety of reasons, but one of the primary reasons is that far too many times the first responding officer or deputy has taken an unnecessary, even fatal risk. Also, many negotiators are

v

responsible for training first responders in their jurisdictions, and they wanted a chapter on which they could base their presentations. Every year I receive several telephone calls from plaintiff’s attorneys looking to sue law enforcement agencies. It appears to me that particularly hot topics these days are suicide-by-cop incidents and the perceived mishandling of suicidal individuals and the mentally ill. I believe that many of the topics covered in this book should be taught to all officers, not just negotiators. The chapter on first responder actions and dialogue reflects, in part, that belief. In traveling across the U.S. and doing seminars, I ask negotiators what percentage of the time they are negotiating with persons under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. The lowest estimate that I have ever received was 40%, but the most common estimate by far is 90% or 95%. Some officers have estimated 100%; some negotiators have told me that they have never negotiated with a sober individual. So negotiators are not only encountering suicidal, schizophrenic, or borderline persons, for example, but also encountering these individuals while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Obviously, the subject’s consumption of drugs and alcohol add an additional and potentially dangerous component to the negotiation process. The unique aspect to the chapter on drugs is the section that provides communication guidelines for each drug group.

Acknowledgments

A negotiator asked me recently about getting tired of crisis negotiation. After all, I have been involved in hostage negotiation, later crisis negotiation, since August of 1978, when I was transferred to the FBI Academy. That transfer was 25 years ago. Sometimes in a seminar I will relate a negotiation story from 1978, then look around the room, only to be reminded that some of these officers and deputies were not yet born in 1978. It has been a long time. I understand that it is difficult to promote a program where, if the negotiator does his job well, nothing happens. Nothing happening is not exciting and may not even make the news. Good negotiations are boring. There are no explosions; no gunshots; no exciting, dynamic entries; and nothing to broadcast on television. On top of nothing happening, sometimes we make it look too easy. We did not do anything. We just sat and listened. Anyone can do that! Right? A law enforcement sniper remarked to me that negotiators have it easy in that negotiators only have to learn one thing. Tactical people must learn all kinds of skills. He was right. We negotiators must learn only one thing, and that one thing is people. What makes people do the things that they do, and how can we control people’s behavior merely by interacting with them over a telephone? Those are the negotiator’s tasks. I do not get tired of negotiation because I am always learning new things and developing new ideas after listening to negotiators’ accounts from across the country and abroad. My seminars change, perhaps imperceptibly from the attendees’ perception from seminar to seminar. I know the

vii

seminar is different, and I know what I am saying is different. This second edition of On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators is evidence that I am constantly learning new things about negotiation, and that my ideas change and evolve. What keeps me interested in crisis negotiation are the negotiators themselves—the many fine men and women across the country who are so involved and who care so much. Often their caring and involvement comes with little support or understanding from law enforcement management or anyone else. I know. I have been there and I thank you. I must also thank Roger A.Bell, recently retired from the University of Louisville, and Don Juhl. Both of these fine gentlemen are drug rehabilitation experts who have made life better for many, many people. I thank them for helping me put together the chapter on Drugs, Alcohol, and the Negotiation Process.

The Author

Frederick J.Lanceley retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after 26 years of government service, including 4 years as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. Lanceley’s first FBI assignment was the New Orleans office, where he worked fugitives for 2 years. He was then transferred to the Los Angeles office, where he was assigned to an organized crime squad. His third and final transfer was to the FBI Academy, and during this 15-year assignment he was the FBI’s senior negotiator and principal director of their internationally acclaimed crisis negotiation course. At the FBI Academy, Lanceley’s responsibilities fell into three general categories: operations, instruction, and research. He has been involved in several hundred hostage, barricade, suicide, aircraft hijacking, and kidnapping cases. Lanceley has trained officers from every major law enforcement agency in the U.S. and over 50 foreign countries, and conducted several hundred seminars and presentations around the world. He also conducted, along with the University of Louisville, an important research project involving the study of aircraft hijacking. Lanceley holds a Master of Business Administration degree from Texas Tech University and a Master of Science in the Administration of Justice degree from California Lutheran College. He also has attended a wide variety of training sessions on topics related to crisis negotiation. The author is a member of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, and was awarded an honorary life membership in the California Association of Hostage Negotiators for his contributions to the field of hostage

ix

negotiation. Because of his insights and innovative instructional methods, he has been described as one of the world’s foremost authorities on the topic of crisis negotiations. Lanceley has been qualified as an expert witness in federal and state courts on the topics of hostage/kidnap negotiation and the victim experience and behavior. He has appeared on several nationally televised programs both in the U.S. and abroad. He was an adjunct faculty member at the University of Virginia and Daytona Beach Community College. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has certified him as an instructor. He is the author of many articles on crisis negotiation, and the first edition of On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators. Lanceley is currently the director of Crisis Negotiation Associates, Inc. in Daytona Beach, FL. In that capacity, he presents crisis negotiation seminars worldwide.

Contents

1

2 3

4

The Problem in Perspective

1

Crisis Negotiators Now Respond to a Variety of Situations

1

Kidnapping

3

Definitions

3

Kidnapping—Unknown Location

5

Kidnapping—Known Location

5

Summary

6

Profiling Sieges

8

Details on Siege Types and Characteristics

8

Crisis States and Crisis Intervention

13

Crisis

13

The Crisis State

13

Crisis Intervention

17

The Purposes of Crisis Intervention

17

Active listening

18

Active Listening Assumptions

19

Active Listening Concepts

19

Active Listening Skills

22

Emotion Labeling

23

Paraphrasing

24

Reflecting/Mirroring

25

Silence

25

xi

5

Minimal Encouragers

25

“I”Messages

26

Open-Ended Questions

26

Suicide Intervention

28

Hostage Negotiators and Suicide Intervention

28

The Suicide Rate

31

Means of Suicide

31

Firearms

32

Drug Overdose, Poisoning Liquids, and Gases

34

Jumping and Hanging

34

Suicide Clues

38

Determining Suicidal Intent

39

Potential High Risk Indicators

42

Strange Stories and the Role of Fate

48

Suicide as a Problem-Solving Option

50

Taking Others “with” Them

51

Communicating Suicidal Intent

51

The Elderly and Suicide

54

Determine Motivation

54

Ambivalence

55

Anger

55

Vindictive Goodbyes

55

Self-Loathing and Painful Deaths

57

Suicide-by-Cop

58

Action Criteria

61

Barricades

62

Possible Barricade Outcomes if a Tactical Entry is Made

62

xii

6

Why Tactical Action is Taken

63

Other Reasons Tactical Action Has Been Taken

64

Indicators of Progress in Suicide Situations

65

When to Call a “Timeout” in Suicide Situations

66

Exposed Face-to-Face in Suicide Situations

66

Crisis Intervention Techniques

66

Negotiator Qualities

69

Hostage Negotiation

71

Priorities

71

Courses of Action

71

Containment

72

Perimeters

72

What is Negotiable and What is Not?

73

Suggested Negotiator Introduction

77

Common Means of Communication

81

The Role of Time

82

How to Stall for Time

83

Lying

84

Concerns That Arise with the Passage of Time

84

Deadlines

87

Demands

88

Subject’s Needs

90

Communication Recommendations

94

Double-Check All Intelligence

95

Nonresponse Situations

96

Hostage Injuries

97

The Stockholm Syndrome

98

xiii

7

8

Negotiator’s Relationship to the Hostages and Victims

100

Medical Problems in High-Stress Situations

101

Common Subject Weaknesses

102

Telephone Negotiation Techniques

103

Tape-Recording the Negotiation

103

Exposed Face-to-Face Considerations

104

Manipulation of Anxiety

106

Potential Problem Words and Phrases

106

Indicators of Negotiation Progress

107

Potential Problem Areas with the Media

108

Use of Third-Party Intermediaries

110

The “Boss” as Negotiator

115

Crisis Negotiation Team

116

Supplies/Equipment for Ready Kit

120

The Tactical Role of the Negotiator

121

Situation Boards

122

Negotiating the Nonnegotiable Situation

122

The Surrender

123

Before Deviating from Guidelines

125

The Effects of Negotiating on Negotiators

125

Abnormal Psychology for Crisis Negotiators

130

Introduction

130

Antisocial Personality Disorder

131

Borderline Personality Disorder

134

Schizophrenia

140

Major Depressive Episode

150

Dialogue and Actions

157

xiv

9

Rationale behind First Responder Dialogue and Actions

157

First and Foremost

158

First Actions

159

Witnesses and Other Innocent Persons

159

Initial Contact with the Subject

159

The Officer’s First Few Statements

160

During the Initial Contact

160

Listening

161

Continually Reassure Him

162

Issues to Avoid

162

Trust

164

Logs

164

Dealing with Demands

164

Dealing with Deadlines

165

Minimizing the Damage

166

Discussing Issues

166

If There are Victims or Hostages

166

It Looks Like a Suicide

167

Finally

168

Drugs, Alcohol, and the Negotiation Process

169

Purposes or Reasons for Taking Drugs

170

The Pattern of Abuse Depends on:

170

Common Drug-Use Patterns

170

The Pattern of Use Includes:

170

The Classification of Drugs

170

The Criteria for Drug Groups

170

Drug Groups Narcotics

171

xv

Drug Schedules

171

Sources of Information Regarding a Subject’s Drug/ 173 Alcohol Use Information of Importance to the Negotiator

173

The Negotiator Should also Determine:

173

General Negotiation Guidelines

173

Usage Categories

174

Communication Guidelines: Narcotics

177

Communication Guidelines: Depressants

178

Communication Guidelines: Stimulants

179

Communication Guidelines: Hallucinogens

179

Communication Guidelines: Cannabis

180

Communication Guidelines: Alcohol

181

Glossary

182

Appendices

184

Appendix A Suicide Intervention Flow Chart

185

Appendix B Interview Guide for Investigators

190

Appendix C Overview of Active listening Techniques

196

Appendix D The Continuing Need for Training

198

Appendix E The Dangers of Manipulating Anxiety Levels

200

Appendix F The Negotiation Effort

204

Appendix G The Troubled State of Crisis Management

207

Appendix H A Negotiator’s View of the Incident at Ruby Ridge

211

Index

257

Chapter 1 The Problem in Perspective

Crisis Negotiators Now Respond to a Variety of Situations In the early 1970s—particularly in response to the threat of terrorism, which was very similar to the threat climate of the early 21st century—the New York City Police Department (NYCPD) and, a short time later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation developed a hostage negotiation program. Captain Francis A.Bolz, Jr. and Harvey Schlossberg, Ph.D., both now retired from NYCPD, and FBI instructors began teaching hostage negotiation courses to law enforcement agencies across the country. The concept caught on and very rapidly spread throughout the U.S. and many other developed nations. In the late 1970s, it was becoming increasingly clear that while many agencies now had hostage negotiation teams, few law enforcement agencies were actually encountering true hostage situations. Hostage negotiation is comprised of two elements: crisis intervention and bargaining techniques. Written as an equation,

Most police departments were doing little if any bargaining. Ifthere was any bargaining, it was over relatively minor issues,such as cigarettes, telephone calls, moving law enforcementvehicles back, etc. If bargaining is taken out of the equation,hostage negotiators become crisis interveners. If a negotiationteam is not bargaining during a “typical”

2 ■ ON-SCENE GUIDE FOR CRISIS NEGOTIATORS, SECOND EDITION

incident, their “typical”incident is almost certainly not a hostage situation. A very experienced negotiator remarked at a negotiators’ conference, “We don’t do any of that bargaining stuff.” A negotiation team that is not doing any of that “bargaining stuff” is saying two things. First, they are not doing hostage situations. While working a hostage situation, it is very difficult to get away from the “bargaining stuff” and do any talking at all. Second, if “bargaining” is taken out of the hostage negotiation equation, this negotiator is saying that his team is doing, primarily, crisis intervention. To the credit of law enforcement in the United States in the 1970s, they started using the new hostage negotiation techniques, virtually their only non-tactical option aside from merely waiting. Often, the new hostage negotiation techniques were not a perfect match to incidents faced by law enforcement negotiators, because negotiators were working barricade, suicide, and domestic incidents, not hostage situations. Law enforcement negotiators encountered many suicidal individuals. To make matters worse, the suicidal persons they met often were at the most serious end of the spectrum concerning intent—i.e., they are the most serious about actually going through with the suicide. Police interact with persons sitting in their cars with guns in their mouths and jumpers at the top of tall bridges, for example. The incidents that police work often involve are more than a suicidal gesture to gain attention to their personal pain. The individuals that law enforcement encounters have been through that stage and did not get what they needed. Now they are much closer to going through with the suicide. Hostage negotiators worked many domestic situations and spontaneous hostage situations in convenience stores, for example, that occasionally involved what later became known as suicide-by-cop. Negotiators also worked a number of situations in high schools where a teenage gunman walked into a classroom, captured some of his classmates, and typically demanded pizzas, sodas, and cigarettes. Far less frequently, negotiators worked true hostage situations, such as embassy takeovers by terrorists making

THE PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE ■ 3

demands on governments. Negotiators working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in particular have also worked traditional kidnappings for ransom. Kidnapping The federal kidnapping statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201, reads, “Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away or holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person…shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.” This statute is similar to many state statutes. Kidnapping statutes are very broad in that if a person is being held against his will, that crime is generally prosecutable as a kidnapping, regardless of the subject’s intent. The term “kidnapping” then will be used here in a very broad sense, and not just in the sense of a kidnapping for ransom. Kidnappings are divided into two types. The first kind of kidnapping is one where the authorities do not know where the subject is located. (See Figure 1.1.) A second sort of kidnapping is one where the authorities know the location of the subject and have him contained. (See Figure 1.2.) Definitions In this work, a hostage is a person held and threatened by a subject to force the fulfillment of substantive demands on a third party. In the media and even within law enforcement, the word “hostage” is used very loosely. In this loose definition, the word is used incorrectly and merely means that someone is being held against their will and is surrounded by the police. A hostage negotiation instructor advised his class that the intent of a hostage taker is not to kill people. The hostage taker’s intent is to attain the fulfillment of his demands. While his statement is true, the problem with his statement is that many incidents look like hostage takings but are not, and the subject’s intent is to kill someone. A domestic siege is a very good example. From the outside it looks like a


Figure 1.1 Type 1 kidnapping.

Figure 1.2 Type 2 kidnapping.

hostage situation. The media reports it as a hostage situation, and even negotiators may refer to it as a hostage situation, but it is not. That abusive husband or boyfriend is not there to trade for anything. He is sitting inside the siege location with perhaps many motives in mind, but trade is not one of them. One of his many motives for perpetrating this act may be to terrorize his wife or girlfriend, then kill her. A substantive demand is a demand that the subject feels he cannot achieve by any other means. So a hostage is a particular kind of kidnap victim for whom a substantive demand is made for their release. The hostage’s value, then, is dependent upon what the authorities, a corporation, or family are willing and able to pay in trade. A demand by the subject to make a telephone call to his mother, and demands for cigarettes, beer, or pizzas, are not substantive demands. An individual does not have to take hostages to obtain pizza, beer, cigarettes, or to talk to his


mother. If there is no substantive demand, by definition, there is no hostage situation. Kidnapping—Unknown Location In this situation, the subject captures an innocent individual and takes him to an unknown location. If the subject makes a substantive demand upon a family, government, or corporation, it is a hostage situation. Generally, the substantive demand is for money, politics, social change, or other significant demand. No one is kidnapped off the street with the kidnapper demanding pizzas, sodas, and cigarettes. Negotiators would consider that situation ludicrous, yet negotiators working contained kidnapping situations often receive demands for pizzas, sodas, and cigarettes, and negotiators think nothing of it. If there is no substantive demand, what might the subject’s intent be? This kidnapping might be for the purposes of homicide, homicide/suicide, sexual assault, custodial or domestic disputes, religious or cult considerations, drug trade involvement, to intimidate, or for other reasons. The innocent person here, though kidnapped, is not a hostage. The infamous Jimmy Hoffa case is an example of a kidnapping with no follow-up demand, as are those of many women and children who are kidnapped off the street and assaulted. They are kidnap victims but not hostages. Kidnapping—Known Location In this instance, the subject is holding someone against his will but the authorities know where the subject and victim are and have them contained. (See Figure 1.2.) If the subject is making substantive demands, these demands often are very similar to those of kidnappings at unknown locations. However, in addition to demands for money, or political or social change, there is now an escape demand. There is an escape demand because the subject wants to get his demands met and leave. If there is no escape demand, the incident is almost certainly not a hostage situation, and the


possibilities of suicide and other dangerous outcomes should be considered. If the subject and his victim are located but the subject makes no substantive demands, what might his intent be now? There are many possibilities: He might want to commit an assault, a sexual assault, a homicide, a homicide-suicide, a suicide-by-cop, or to terrorize his victim. In Figure 1.3, Figures 1.1 and 1.2 are combined. On the left side of Figure 1.3 are hostage situations in locations that are both known and unknown to the authorities. In hostage situations, negotiators bargain with the subject because he wants something from the authorities, a family, or corporation. In hostage situations, the family, victim, or corporation is not powerless, though it is often difficult for negotiators to convince them of that fact. The victimized corporation or family have something the subject wants, and because they have something the subject wants, it gives them not only power but more control. In the upper-right corner of Figure III, the authorities have no contact or control over the situation other than their attempts to locate the subject and victim. Obviously, this is a perilous situation in which the subject can perpetrate his crime with impunity, at least in the immediate future. In the lower-right corner of Figure III, the authorities cannot bargain because the subject wants nothing of substance from them. If the subject wants nothing, the authorities are left only with crisis intervention techniques and have less control. In these incidents, the subject is often emotionally out of control, and drugs and/or alcohol are typically exacerbating the situation. Summary True hostage situations are negotiated using crisis intervention and bargaining techniques. Non-hostage situations are negotiated using primarily crisis intervention techniques alone. Hostage situations provide some opportunity to the authorities, family, or corporation for control because they have something the subject wants— i.e., money or access to power to get things done. Non-


Figure 1.3 Types 1 and 2 kidnappings combined.

hostage situations provide little or no opportunity to the authorities for control. The subject wants nothing from the authorities and he has what he wants: the victim.

Chapter 2 Profiling Sieges

Sieges as described in this section are those incidents in which a subject has barricaded himself in a location and there are innocent persons in the location with him. The degree of “innocence” varies widely. For example, the “innocent” persons in some “domestic” incidents may actually be encouraging the subject in his actions and daring him to “abuse” the authorities as he abused her. A deliberate siege is one in which the subject purposely sets out to initiate a siege situation. He wants the authorities to respond because he wants something from them. A spontaneous siege is one where the subject’s actions inadvertently draws the attention of law enforcement. Often the authorities are responding to a call from an uninvolved third party. An anticipated siege is one where the subject expects that the government will come after him someday. Details on Siege Types and Characteristics As with any “profile,” this profile is a generalization. Keep in mind that each person and situation has unique qualities. Substantive Demands: A substantive demand is a demand the subject feels he cannot fulfill by any other means. Substantive demands are the raison d'être of hostage takers and deliberate sieges—i.e., the fulfillment of demands is the very reason for the siege. Spontaneous situations can involve substantive demands but usually don’t. In a spontaneous siege, the authorities most commonly receive demands for more

PROFILING SIEGES ■ 9

TABLE 2.1 Siege Types and Characteristics

alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, pizza, or the right to talk to friends, acquaintances, or attorneys, etc. Anticipated sieges usually do not involve substantive demands. Innocents: Deliberate sieges do not involve family members. No one puts a gun to his wife’s head and demands the overthrow of the government, the release of comrades from prison, a trip to Cuba, or other substantive demand. Generally, there is no previous relationship between the subject and his victim. True hostage takers grab strangers, not family members or others with whom they have ongoing relationships. On the other hand, in a spontaneous siege, a drunken


husband might put a gun to his wife’s head and, when the authorities arrive, demand more beer. A spontaneous siege most commonly involves persons known to the subject, including family members. However, on relatively infrequent occasions, a spontaneous siege will involve hostages. On these occasions, the subject often is interrupted during the course of a crime, and the hostage will be acting as a shield or as a commodity of value—to be traded for a means of escape, for example. In an anticipated siege, the innocent persons are family members, friends, or followers, who may be supporting the subject or even urging him on. Approach: In deliberate sieges, law enforcement negotiators use a hostage negotiation approach because this approach involves crisis intervention and bargaining. In a spontaneous siege, negotiators use crisis intervention with a subject who is emotionally out of control, or when there is little of substance to bargain over. In an anticipated siege, the negotiator listens for topics of interest to the subject that the negotiator might use to resolve the incident. Wanting “nothing” from the authorities can actually make a situation more difficult. In an anticipated siege, there often is not much to talk about, as the subject wants nothing from the authorities except for them to go away, and that is unlikely to happen. Duration: Spontaneous sieges are relatively short in duration, generally only a few hours. The short duration of these sieges is due to the fact that the subject is often in a crisis state. Deliberate and anticipated sieges often are much longer in duration, sometimes lasting several days. The long durations of these sieges are due to several factors, including the subject’s preparation, his expectations, and the relatively small emotional factor. Occurrence: Spontaneous sieges are relatively commonplace, whereas deliberate sieges are rare and anticipated sieges rarer still. Motivation: Historically, left wing groups have taken hostages in deliberate sieges and right wing groups or

PROFILING SIEGES ■ 11

persons have been involved in anticipated sieges. The motivation for spontaneous sieges has been emotional and personal. State of Mind: In a deliberate or anticipated siege, the subject, while typically frightened, is relatively rational. Emotions, on the other hand, are initiating and driving the spontaneous siege. Stance: In a deliberate siege, the subject takes an offensive posture; in an anticipated siege he takes a defensive posture. In a spontaneous siege, the subject’s stance depends upon how he responds to the situation. A few subjects respond aggressively and start making substantive demands, but more subjects respond emotionally, with little else of substance. Location: The location for a deliberate siege is often a public and/or symbolic place. It might be, for example, the embassy or national airline of a hated nation. A spontaneous siege can happen almost anywhere, but police respond most commonly at the subject’s residence, vehicle, or place of employment. An anticipated siege occurs at the subject’s compound or residence because the government knows it can find him there. Number of subjects: It is relatively uncommon for police departments or sheriff s offices to encounter more than one subject in a spontaneous siege. Multiple subjects in deliberate and anticipated sieges more often confront the FBI. In deliberate and anticipated sieges, there is often a strong leader but indictable followers. Purposeful Timing: Deliberate sieges are sometimes initiated on special dates or anniversaries. Spontaneous sieges are just that, spontaneous. In an anticipated siege, the timing of the incident is at the government’s judgment. Preparation: In a deliberate siege, the subject makes what preparations he can before undertaking the siege. This preparation may be difficult in that he often has to travel to his target destination and carry his provisions with him. There have been hostage-taking incidents where the subjects brought their lunches with them


because they knew that the incident was going to take a while. Subjects in anticipated sieges are the most prepared because they did anticipate this event. They are relatively comfortable at home and they are ready in terms of food, water, weapons, ammunition, and mindset. Weapons: Here, quality weapons are weapons that are at least semi-automatic, not “Saturday night specials.” In deliberate sieges, the subjects have to carry their weapons, often concealed, into a hostile environment, and they generally bring the best quality weapons that they can lay their hands on. The circumstances of a deliberate siege limit what weapons the hostage takers can use during the siege. Subjects in spontaneous sieges use whatever weapons are readily available, so the weaponry varies widely. Subjects often have quality, complex, and often multiple weapons in anticipated sieges. They have had time to work on their preparations, so resources and creativity are their only limitations. Ammunition: Subjects in deliberate sieges take into the siege location whatever ammunition they feel will be sufficient. Subjects in anticipated sieges often have an abundance of ammunition. As the weaponry varies in spontaneous sieges, so does the amount of ammunition, though it is generally minimal. Drugs/Alcohol: Drugs and/or alcohol are commonly seen in spontaneous sieges but are only rarely seen in the other types of sieges, unless the subject is taking a drug to stay awake. In a spontaneous siege, it is often the subject’s inebriated state and his resultant behavior that induces a third party to telephone the authorities.

Chapter 3 Crisis States and Crisis Intervention

Crisis A crisis is any situation in which a person’s ability to cope is exceeded. The Crisis State Often, the event that triggers a crisis state appears, to the negotiator, to be a minor occurrence. To the subject, however, that minor occurrence is often the final problem that he can no longer bear. The event becomes the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. Some examples are listed below to illustrate the point: ■ A man shot and killed his neighbor because he believed his neighbor was stealing steaks off his barbecue grill. He then committed suicide. ■ A man arrived home to find his wife on the telephone telling her girlfriend about their family financial problems. The husband overheard the conversation and said, “I wish you wouldn’t tell everyone about our financial problems.” He then went into their bedroom and killed himself. ■ A young man in his mid-twenties was suffering from severe back pain. He had recently experienced several operations and required two more. He was heavily medicated for the constant, extreme pain. One afternoon, his mother arrived home to find him drinking. She admonished him for drinking so early in the day. He then


■

■

■ ■

put the drink down, went into his bedroom and killed himself. An elderly male was inflicted with terminal cancer, going blind, and unable to control his bowels. His wife wanted to place him in a nursing home. One afternoon he accidentally broke a vase their daughter had given them. When his wife berated him for breaking the vase, he put two guns to his head and threatened suicide. The negotiator persuaded him to surrender. A truck driver arrived home late one evening. Though his wife had already gone to bed, he asked if she would fix him something to eat. His wife said, “You did not do me the courtesy of telling me you were going to be late, so I’m not fixing you anything. Your dinner is in the refrigerator. Fix it yourself.” He got undressed, turned off the light, climbed into bed and lay down next to her. He then reached into the nightstand, pulled out a .357 magnum and fatally shot himself through the head. At a New Year’s Eve party, a man did not feel his wife was paying him enough attention so he went into the bedroom and attempted to kill himself with a .45 pistol. A patrol officer encountered a man who had hit a mailbox while backing out of his driveway. The officer asked the man for his license, registration and proof of insurance. The man told the officer that he had to go back into the house to get the requested documents, so the officer allowed him to return to the house. After the man went into the house, his wife arrived on scene. The officer told her that he was waiting for her husband to return. She then went into the house only to find that her husband had shot himself to death in the basement. The officer had heard nothing. (This is but one of many stories reported over the years of persons committing suicide over traffic violations.)

Persons in a crisis state are being controlled by their emotions, not reason. Contrary to what is constantly heard in the media, people do not just “snap.” There has been a buildup of psychological pain and stress that they could not relieve through their usual coping mechanisms.

CRISIS STATES AND CRISIS INTERVENTION ■ 15

In a way, stress buildup is a kind of mechanical process in that human beings are containers that “fill up” with stress. A person must be able to “pour off” stress occasionally or they will overflow with the input of additional stress and go into crisis. When coping mechanisms no longer reduce stress, people go into crisis. This “filling up” with stress is the reason third-party intermediaries (TPI) should not be used in a spontaneous siege, as the subject already is experiencing all the stress that he can handle or, perhaps, not handle. Adding any additional stress, as may be experienced from a family, may cause him to go into a crisis state. In deliberate and anticipated sieges, subjects usually are not close to a crisis state, and if a TPI causes his emotional or stress level to rise he is not going to lose emotional control. In other words, the negotiator has some room to work with in terms of the subject’s emotional level. Generally, there has been a precipitating event in the subject’s recent past. The subject perceives the situation to be an overwhelming threat and turns inward, away from the usual support systems. He feels isolated. The negotiator’s task is to help the subject return to his normal functioning level. Crisis Characteristics ■ In an effort to relieve the stress, the subject will engage in all kinds of behavior. Some of the behavior may be impulsive, inappropriate, dangerous, and out of character for him. Attempts to relieve stress may include heavy drinking or drug use, reckless driving, barroom brawls, promiscuous sex, eating binges, and a wide variety of other potentially self-destructive behaviors. A mental health professional told of a patient who, when stressed, took his car out onto the plains, reached a speed of 120 mph and rolled it. He has performed this “stressrelieving” act on three different occasions. According to him, “You can’t believe how good it feels to walk away from a wreck like that!”


■ Someone in a crisis state will experience increasingly constricted and narrow thinking and emotions. All they can think about and emotionally experience is the psychological pain that they are experiencing and how to escape that pain. A psychologist once described suicide as the ultimate act of self-absorption. The suicidal person is thinking of no one but himself or herself. The suicidal individual will kill the negotiator in an attempt to provoke the tactical team into killing him, or drive into oncoming traffic with no thought to the persons in the other vehicles. ■ Subjects may have lowered attention spans, not be able to discern between small problems and large ones, and see no way out of their situation. ■ Their intense emotional response to their circumstances will cause a disorganized approach to problem solving. ■ Once the person has his emotions back under control, it may be beneficial for the negotiator to ask questions such as: What do you think about…? What would happen if …? What would you like to happen? The negotiator should beware, however, of getting into problem solving before the subject is ready to problem-solve. ■ Often there will be changes in the subject’s social network. He may travel around the country saying good-bye to relatives, attempt to repair old, broken relationships, or simply withdraw from his relationships. ■ Physical problems are also associated with crisis states. It is not unusual, for example, for people to visit a doctor in the days or weeks before a suicide. Unfortunately, mental problems are still viewed as shameful by some people, whereas physical problems are not. Perhaps these suicidal individuals are looking for a physical explanation to a mental problem. ■ Change will happen to persons in a crisis state. In working with a person in a crisis state, the negotiator will not have to wait long for a change. The incident will get better or worse in a relatively short period of time—that is, a matter of a few hours.

CRISIS STATES AND CRISIS INTERVENTION ■ 17

Crisis Intervention Crisis intervention is an assortment of techniques intended to return an individual in crisis to his normal functioning level and to get him past possibly dangerous impulses. Most of the incidents worked by law enforcement negotiators fit this description. Negotiators are present to enforce the law and to preserve life and property. It is not a negotiator’s responsibility to provide therapy, change personalities, or solve all the subject’s problems. The Purposes of Crisis Intervention In the basic hostage negotiation courses of the 1970s and 1980s, negotiators were taught that their task was to allow the subject to ventilate, calm the subject, stall for time, establish rapport, and gather information of use to the negotiation and tactical teams, as well as management. Unfortunately, little guidance was provided as to how negotiators were to achieve those goals. Crisis intervention— particularly active listening—is how negotiators achieve the goals laid out 30 years ago that are still important today.

Chapter 4 Active Listening

Active listening is seeing a circumstance from another’s perspective and letting the other person know that the negotiator understands his perspective. Psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, teachers, human resource personnel, and many other professionals requiring “people” skills use active listening. Unfortunately, active listening is just starting to take hold in law enforcement, especially among crisis negotiators. Active listening may turn out to be particularly effective when employed by negotiators because so many of the persons encountered by negotiators have never had anyone truly listen to what they were saying. Their mothers did not listen. Their fathers were gone. Their teachers did not listen and neither did the police. When a crisis negotiator sits down to listen to the subject, it may be the first time in the young man’s entire life that anyone carefully listened to what he was saying and cared about what he was feeling. When skillfully applied, active listening can be a powerful tool for crisis negotiators. One of the many benefits of active listening is that the negotiator will not have to work as hard, though he will have to listen closely. Negotiators are often heard to speak of “talking the subject out,” when they should be thinking in terms of “listening the subject out.” “Talking a subject out” puts a large burden and a lot of pressure on the negotiator because: ■ The negotiator must somehow sell the idea, or persuade or “con” the subject into the idea, that surrender is a good

ACTIVE LISTENING ■ 19

option, even though the subject may be going to prison for a very long time. ■ “Talking a subject out” assumes that the negotiator is wiser or smarter than the subject, and that the negotiator knows what is best for the subject. ■ The subject may have been suffering and thinking through his situation for days, weeks, months, or even years, but some negotiators are burdened with the idea that they can find some solution to a subject’s problems after knowing him for just a few minutes or hours. ■ Advising someone on how to solve his life’s problems after knowing him for only a few minutes is insulting. Active Listening Assumptions Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall (1755– 1835) said, “To listen well is as powerful a means of communication and influence as to talk well.” Contrary to what some people might suppose, the primary skill of a good negotiator is practiced listening, not smooth talking. An assumption about active listening is that people who clearly understand their feelings are better able to resolve their emotional problems. A second assumption is that when the negotiator demonstrates that he understands the subject’s feelings, the negotiator is seen as being empathetic and understanding, and that builds rapport. Active Listening Concepts The negotiator’s objective is to build trust and rapport by demonstrating empathy, understanding, and objectivity. Sympathy implies pity and over-involvement. The failure to differentiate between sympathy and empathy may also be the source of some antagonism between negotiators and tactical personnel, as tactical personnel believe negotiators are sympathizing with the subject. A negotiator can certainly empathize with the subject without sympathizing with him. If the negotiator does become over-involved and show pity, the subject may feel justified in how he is feeling


and lose any confidence in the negotiator’s ability to help him. A common statement by persons in crisis is, “How do you know how I feel? Have you ever…?” It is possible to understand another’s feelings without going through the same experience, because feelings are universal while experiences are not. Degrees of feelings are also universal. We have all experienced the same shades of depression, sadness or the blues, for example. None of our lives is a mirror of another’s life, but we have all experienced the same feelings and degrees of feeling. However, do not make any assumptions about a person’s feelings based upon his circumstances. Many of us know persons who were near-suicidal over a divorce, and many of us also know persons who were jubilant over a divorce. A negotiator does not make any assumptions about how someone else feels because the subject’s situation is similar to an event in the negotiator’s past. After a 10-hour domestic situation, a subject went out on the front porch and killed himself in front of his friends, neighbors, police, and onlookers. A negotiator reported that the entire negotiation team was required to be debriefed by the departmental chaplain. The negotiator’s position was that she had tried her best but that the subject had chosen another ending to the incident. She said his emotional reaction to his situation and his behavior were his responsibility. Despite the above negotiator’s healthy assessment of her situation, it is always a good idea to have a mandatory debriefing session. A debriefing session is especially important when a death occurs. While some negotiators will have no problem with what happened in an incident, other negotiators may have a significant problem, and it is very difficult to predict who will have a problem and who will not. A negotiator can help, but always remember that the subject’s actions are his own responsibility. Never take responsibility for the subject’s actions. If the negotiator does the best he can do and can walk away from the incident


with a clear conscience, he has met his responsibilities. Let it go. Sergeant Joe Friday on the old Dragnet television program was, in effect, asking for only half of the story when he said, “Just the facts, ma’am. Just the facts.” Sergeant Friday was asking for only half of the story because people communicate on two levels: the simple facts and their emotional reaction to the facts. It is important for the negotiator to focus on the emotional message behind the facts. The emotional reaction and subsequent behavior make the situation a crisis, not the facts of a situation. How a subject feels about a situation will strongly influence what the subject does. So controlling the subject’s emotions will help control the subject’s behavior. Values are what people think is important, and as such influence behavior. Values influence a person’s behavior and expectations in any given situation. A probation officer at the home of a probationer was asked by the probationer’s mother to talk to her youngest son. The probation officer agreed to talk to the 16-year-old boy but asked the purpose of the talk. The mother said, “He’s 16 years old and the only one of my eight kids who has never been arrested by this age! Something is wrong.” The subject’s values and expectations will often be different from the negotiator’s values and expectations. A young man who was a long-term drug user was holding his ex-girlfriend at gunpoint. During an interview of the subject’s mother she was asked if her son was currently using drugs. She said, “Oh, no, no. He hasn’t used drugs in, oh, two, maybe three weeks!” There may be a need to clarify the subject’s values during an incident. What does he value? What does he think is important? Is there a value conflict going on? The negotiator should assume a non-judgmental attitude and be as accepting as possible. No one is asking the negotiator to become friends with or, at the other extreme, hate the subject. In some respects, negotiation is like anything else in law enforcement, such as stopping a speeder. An officer can dislike everyone he stops, but if so he is not going to last very long. Likewise, negotiators do not


inject their feelings, values, and opinions into the situation, and it is not a matter of liking or disliking the subject. The negotiator works with the subject’s feelings, values, lifestyles, and opinions to resolve the incident. Active Listening Skills An important aspect of active listening techniques is that they demonstrate to the subject that the negotiator is listening and “tuned in” to what he is being told in terms of facts and emotions. As the old saying goes, “Talk is cheap.” It is far more effective for the negotiator to demonstrate understanding through active listening than to say, “I understand.” People believe in demonstrations far more than they believe in words. The disparity between what was being said and what was being demonstrated was very evident to negotiators during the incident in Waco, Texas, with David Koresh. Negotiators were attempting to reassure the Branch Davidians that the incident could end peacefully, but Koresh and his followers could look outside and witness a tank crushing his vehicles or outbuildings. Does he believe the voice on the telephone or the tank? The same disparity between words and actions was also obvious at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and the negotiation with Randall Weaver. Within about an hour and a half of Vicki Weaver being killed and Randall Weaver and Kevin Harris being shot by an FBI sniper, the negotiation team was in front of the Weaver residence in an armored personnel carrier, attempting to assure the Weaver family that the incident could end peacefully. How reassuring could the negotiation team’s remarks be when all the family had observed was the killing of Vicki Weaver and Samuel Weaver and the shooting of Randall Weaver and Kevin Harris? Nothing will ensure a long incident better than an inconsistency in what a negotiator is saying and what a subject is observing.


Emotion Labeling A negotiator listens to not only the facts but to the subject’s emotional reaction to the facts; i.e., the emotion behind the words and facts. Commonly, negotiators want to get into problem solving too early. Usually, this early approach to problem solving is doomed to failure because the subject is not ready to reason and the negotiator has not listened enough to get all of the information he needs to assist in problem solving. Emotion labeling, then, is the first active listening skill to be used in an incident. The intent of emotion labeling is to respond to the emotions heard in the subject’s voice rather than the content. To emotion-label, the negotiator uses the following words: ■ You sound (emotion heard by the negotiator). Example: You sound angry. ■ You seem (emotion heard by the negotiator). Example: You seem hurt. ■ I hear (emotion heard by the negotiator). Example: I hear frustration. Emotion labeling demonstrates that the negotiator is listening and tuned in to what the subject is emotionally experiencing. He demonstrates listening by labeling the emotion he hears. A negotiator does not tell a person how the person is feeling, but how he seems or sounds like he is feeling to the negotiator. For example, the negotiator does not say, “You’re upset.” The negotiator might say instead, “You sound upset.” A negotiator should not hesitate, and should label every emotion heard throughout the incident whenever emotions are expressed. Whenever an emotion starts to creep back into the subject’s voice, the negotiator should label that emotion. The negotiator should not be concerned about labeling emotions incorrectly. If an emotion is incorrectly labeled the subject will correct the negotiator and they often appear grateful for the attempt.


The presence, absence, and presentation of emotions tell the negotiator a lot about the subject’s emotional state or even mental health. Negotiators should be aware of missing emotions and listen for conflicts in the feelings expressed. They should also note when the emotions expressed are inappropriate to the situation described. Be careful, though, as the subject is also listening to the emotions in the negotiator’s voice. The negotiator’s tone of voice is telling the subject how the negotiator feels about the situation, the negotiator’s sincerity, or, perhaps, trustworthiness. Emotion labeling is not an appropriate technique when the negotiator is being verbally attacked. For example, if a subject is yelling and screaming at the negotiator, he should not say, “You seem angry.” If the negotiator is being verbally attacked, an “I” message is more appropriate. This is described later in this chapter. Paraphrasing Paraphrasing also demonstrates that the negotiator is listening, and is a summary in the negotiator’s words as to what he was just told. Paraphrasing creates empathy and establishes rapport because it is made evident that the negotiator has heard and understood. Paraphrasing usually begins with the words, “Are you telling me (what the negotiator heard)?” or “Are you saying (what the negotiator heard)?” Paraphrasing has many uses, some of which follow: ■ It creates empathy and rapport because it is a demonstration that the negotiator has been listening. ■ Paraphrasing clarifies content and highlights issues. ■ It tends to make the subject a listener. ■ Paraphrasing promotes give and take between the subject and negotiator. ■ This technique does not put the subject on the defensive, because the words being spoken by the negotiator are his words.


■ Hearing his demands spoken aloud for the first time may give the subject a new perspective on them. Reflecting/Mirroring Reflecting or mirroring is repeating the last word or phrase the subject said and putting a question mark after it. This technique provides very exact responses because the negotiator is using the subject’s words. Reflecting or mirroring asks for more intelligence without guiding the direction of the subject’s thoughts, and gets information when the negotiator does not have enough to ask a good question. It is also very useful for those instances where the negotiator is lost for words. Silence The negotiator can use silence very effectively for a number of purposes. Most people are not comfortable with silence and will fill it with talk. Virtually anytime the subject is talking, it is to the negotiator’s advantage. In addition to encouraging the subject to talk, the negotiator can use silence to emphasize a point. The negotiator can use silence just before he says something important, or just after he has said something important. Minimal Encouragers Minimal encouragers is a fancy term for a simple technique. Minimal encouragers are the sounds made, especially on the telephone, to let one person know the other is there and listening. Generally, they are short questions such as, “Oh?,” “When?,” and “Really?” They are questions, comments, or sounds that do not interfere with the flow of conversation but do let the subject know that the negotiator is there and listening. Minimal encouragers are useful because they help build rapport and encourage the subject to continue talking.


“I” Messages “I”messages enable negotiators to let the subject know how he is making us feel, why we feel that way, and what the subject can do to remedy the situation. It conveys the above information in a non-threatening way and does not put the subject on the defensive. An “I” message is worded this way: I feel (the emotion the negotiator is feeling) when you (the subject’s behavior) because (the negotiator’s reason). During an aircraft hijacking, the subject was using a lot of profanity in his remarks to a female negotiator, and in using abusive language seemed to be stirring himself up. The negotiator said to the hijacker, “I feel uneasy when you talk like that because I’m not used to men talking like that around me.” After the negotiator used the “I” message, the hijacker immediately eliminated all obscenities and vulgarities. When he stopped using the abusive language, he calmed down. An “I” message is used when communication is difficult because of the intense emotions being directed at the negotiator, and communication has become difficult or impossible. It is also used when the subject is trying to manipulate the negotiator and the negotiator wants him to stop the attempts. Negotiators also use this technique to refocus the subject and when he is being verbally attacked. Open-Ended Questions Asking open-ended questions encourages the person to say more without the negotiator directing the conversation. They are questions that cannot be answered with a single word such as “yes” or “no.” Open-ended questions get information for the negotiator without asking many questions, and these questions usually begin with the following words: how, what, when, and where. Notice that “why” questions are generally not asked directly. Questions that begin with “why” tend to steer the conversation towards blame and shut down communication. Subjects often cannot answer a “why” question and the question makes them feel embarrassed, put on the spot, defensive, and even angry. Anyone with


children also knows that “why” questions can always be answered with “because.” The primary use of open-ended questions is to help a subject start talking; anytime he is talking, negotiators are learning something about him. A closed-ended question asks for specific information from the caller and can be answered in a word or phrase. Negotiators should avoid asking closed-ended questions except for emergency situations when they need to know specific information, such as assessing the seriousness of a suicide-in-progress. Closed-ended questions give a feeling of interrogation that makes rapport building difficult. They also cause the negotiator to work too hard thinking up new questions.

Chapter 5 Suicide Intervention

Hostage Negotiators and Suicide Intervention If there is a significant social problem in the U.S., it often becomes a law enforcement problem. Suicide is a significant social problem in the U.S. It is a leading cause of death, particularly among the young and the elderly. In fact, the suicide rate in the U.S. is higher than the homicide rate. Law enforcement officers almost always become involved in suicide situations either just before or after the suicide is threatened or committed. One way or the other, law enforcement will be on the scene. The negotiation team leader in a major city was asked how many hostage situations his team usually encountered each year. He said that his team normally negotiated two or three hostage incidents, but that number reflected a rather broad definition of the word “hostage.” He was then asked how many suicides his team worked each year and he said that they responded to about eight incidents annually. Finally, he was asked how many barricades they negotiated each year, and he said they did in excess of 50 incidents per year. When asked how many of the barricade incidents involved some talk of suicide, he said, “Almost all of them.” When asked why those barricade incidents were not labeled suicide incidents, he said that his guys would rather say that they responded to “a man-with-a-gun call” than a suicide. True, the subject was a man with a gun, but he sat behind closed doors all night, crying about his girlfriend’s dumping him and threatening suicide. Sometimes it is

SUICIDE INTERVENTION ■ 29

difficult to put a label on callouts because the subject’s motivation is mixed, changes as the incident progresses, or “the guys” would rather call it something else. One thing is certain; the issue of suicide is one that arises in many, many negotiator callouts. It was not as obvious in the early 1970s and 1980s as it is now that hostage negotiators would be working many suicide situations. Some people assumed hostage negotiation and suicide intervention were the same thing. They are not. A trained hostage negotiator is not prepared to properly engage in suicide intervention. While hostage negotiation and crisis intervention are not the same thing, there is a lot of overlap in terms of what has to be done, such as the necessity to contain the incident, gather intelligence, set up perimeters, establish contact with the subject, etc. These points of similarity are covered in the chapter on hostage negotiation. It is important for hostage negotiators to be trained in suicide intervention for many reasons. A common evolution that many negotiators have observed over the years is that hostage situations or domestic incidents often become barricade situations, then become suicide events. The line between a hostage, domestic, barricade, or suicide situation can be very indistinct, but negotiators must work them all and adapt their approach to evolving events. Suicide intervention can be very difficult and perhaps even more difficult than hostage negotiation. Some estimate that as much as 5% of the suicidal population is intent on ending their lives, and they will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop. Negotiators work with the most seriously suicidal. Few people come in contact with the police when they are mildly depressed. Law enforcement does not encounter a suicidal individual when he is quietly sitting at home, brooding over his affairs. Law enforcement encounters him when he is causing a disturbance, sitting on the ledge of a tall building, threatening to jump from the top of a bridge, or sitting in a parking lot with a gun in his mouth. Police psychologists across the country have reported that one of their biggest problems when working with negotiators


is the severe impact on the negotiator when “losing” a suicide situation. Negotiators, over the course of hours in an incident, get to know people extremely well. Too often, the persons with whom negotiators are working are having marital or other family problems, abusing alcohol or drugs, having troubles in their jobs, and are suicidal. Law enforcement officers also have high alcoholism, divorce, and suicide rates, as well as a stressful job, and then they are asked as negotiators to “fix” someone else’s problems. To then have that person commit suicide, perhaps before the negotiator’s eyes, can be very traumatic for the negotiator. A negotiator reported that, while working a potentially violent domestic incident, his negotiation team leader, a sergeant, suddenly left the room. Before anyone knew what was happening or could stop him, the sergeant walked right through the outer and inner perimeters and into the residence. Fortunately, the incident ended well. As it turned out, the family involved in the domestic dispute was having problems identical to those the sergeant and his family were having. Recognizing that law enforcement negotiators lead stressful lives, one negotiation team leader routinely asks his primary negotiator before the negotiation begins, “Are you up for this?” He said he did not want a negotiator on the telephone who had just had an argument with his spouse, was hungover, was depressed, or was having problems on the job. Not a bad idea. When studied by profession, the suicide rate of the law enforcement profession often appears in the top three. A side benefit to suicide intervention training is that negotiators may see some suicide clues among their colleagues and be in a position to help. A negotiator reported that it appeared to be common knowledge that an officer with his department was suicidal. In fact, officers had actually asked the individual not to kill any innocent people when he did decide to kill himself. The officer finally did commit a very public suicide by climbing to the roof of a van, putting a gun to his head and killing himself before a crowd of onlookers, including some of his


fellow officers. It seems too obvious to say, but if a fellow officer needs help, make sure that he gets it. Even in true hostage situations, the hostage taker is saying that he wants his demands met, and if the demands are not met he will kill the hostages. Implied in his threat is the assertion that he does not care what happens to himself. He understands that if hostages are executed, law enforcement will take tactical action and this action will almost certainly result in his death. He is directly or indirectly telling the authorities that he is willing to die if his demands are not met, a suicidal statement. The Suicide Rate The suicide rate fluctuates. In recent years the suicide rate has been falling or holding steady. There are many factors that appear to affect the suicide rate: ■ Suicides increase and decrease with the rise and fall of divorce and unemployment rates. ■ Suicides increase when public figures or popular entertainers commit suicide. ■ Suicides increase when the nation is at peace and decrease when the nation is at war. ■ Suicide rates are high in low-population-density areas and low in high-population-density areas. ■ The suicide rate has also been linked to religion. Countries that are populated by persons following religions with strong prohibitions against suicide tend to have low suicide rates. Means of Suicide People have attempted or committed suicide by every means imaginable. This section will include only those means encountered by negotiators. For example, a substantial number of suicidal persons step in front of oncoming trains, but negotiators generally do not encounter persons attempting suicide in this manner. The manner of a suicide appears to be connected to those means that are readily available. There also appears to be


some connection to impulsivity. For example, law enforcement officers typically use their service weapons when committing suicide. While suicide may be considered for a long time, the suicidal act is often thought to be an impulsive one. A suicidal police officer, for example, may fantasize about suicide for months, but when the impulse strikes to proceed with the suicide, the means are readily available. Additionally, law enforcement officers respect the capability of their weapon, but are not afraid of it. So, when he decides to commit suicide, the officer uses his weapon. In contrast to law enforcement officers, medical doctors use firearms a relatively small percentage of the time. Doctors use drugs to commit suicide, and perhaps for the same reasons law enforcement uses guns: The drug is readily available, they know how to use the drug, and they are not afraid of it. The same is true for other professions as well. Those who make their living on or near the sea tend to use drowning more than others. Persons who meet, gather, and socialize on rooftops often use those same rooftops as springboards to their deaths. Means, however, are not linked only to professions. One negotiator reported that in his relatively small city there are 12 railroad crossings. He said that it is difficult to go anywhere in the city without crossing the railroad tracks, and within his jurisdiction about eight people a year step in front of an oncoming train. Firearms The first thing to remember about threatened suicides involving firearms is not to go face-to-face with the suicidal individual. A second recommendation is not to let anyone on the inner perimeter without body armor. The most common means of suicide in the U.S. is firearms. Firearms are used in about 60% of the completed suicides, about 17,000 deaths per year, and the use of a gun is the fastest-growing means of suicide. The increasing use of firearms, particularly among women and young people, is an especially disturbing trend in suicide. The concern is that as women switch from their traditional use of


a less lethal means, drugs, to a more lethal means, guns, their suicide rate will rise dramatically. Weapons, especially high-powered weapons, have produced macabre, gruesome crime scenes. When placed under the chin, high-powered weapons—while doing a considerable amount of damage to bone and skin tissue— will often lift the brain in its entirety out of the skull and send it flying across the room. An officer reported finding a victim’s brain across the room in a sink. The investigator’s first thought was that the suicide victim was the target of a satanic cult. Another officer told of finding the victim’s brain in another room; it was later conclusively demonstrated that the brain had been blown out of the skull, bounced, and rolled into the second room. A third officer described an incident in which an individual shot himself with a highpowered weapon and the brain lifted out of the skull only to land on a coffee table directly in front of the victim. Still another officer reported that the victim’s intact brain landed in the victim’s lap after the shooting. In addition to macabre and gruesome, some suicide scenes are bizarre. An especially strange circumstance is one where the brain of the suicide victim cannot be found. These cases have turned up in both Australia and the U.S. Typically, law enforcement arrives at the crime scene a few days after the subject has killed himself with a highpowered weapon. In the course of the suicide, the victim characteristically has caused severe damage to the head region, but upon investigating the scene, law enforcement cannot find the brain. Experienced officers have said that they then begin looking for a dog or cat who has not been fed for several days, who began feeding themselves on brain matter. Then there are other immediately unexplainable circumstances. A man was found dead in his bed with a gun in his mouth but there was no blood or bullet hole. A coroner deter mined that the elderly man died of a heart attack while in the process of his suicide attempt. An elderly woman was found with three bullet holes in her chest but only one bullet in her. The explanation came when law enforcement officers sat the old woman up. She had shot


herself on the right side of her large, pendulous, right breast. The round exited the left side of her right breast and entered her chest, killing her. So she had received an entrance wound, exit wound, and entrance wound. Drug Overdose, Poisoning Liquids, and Gases Negotiators do not often encounter persons attempting to overdose, poison, or gas themselves, but these means should not be overlooked in the negotiation effort. Subjects have fatally overdosed or gassed themselves while talking to negotiators who had no idea what was taking place. The bodies of suicide victims, particularly overdose victims, are often found by law enforcement in the bathroom. There appear to be several reasons why suicidal individuals choose or happen to die in the bathroom. One of the final sensations an overdose victim experiences as his central nervous and muscle systems shut down is the need to go to the bathroom. The victim makes his way into the bathroom only to die there, and that is where law enforcement finds him. It is also suspected that many overdose victims start to feel sick. They, too, make their way into the bathroom, to vomit, and, again, that is where law enforcement finds them. A third reason for finding suicide victims in the bathroom is not the effects of drugs, but because the victim wants to avoid making a mess, or wants the mess to be cleaned up easily. Bathrooms are often tiled, and the tile can be cleaned easily. An officer reported the most grisly suicide she had ever witnessed. A mother brutally and fatally cut both her young daughter and herself in the bathtub, allowing the blood to drain out of the tub and leaving the crime scene neat and clean. Jumping and Hanging The primary concern when working with jumpers should always be the safety of the negotiator. One concern, especially because the negotiator and jumper will be face-to-


face, is the likelihood that the jumper may have a firearm. There are no known incidents where a negotiator was threatened with a weapon by a jumper, and apparently armed jumpers are a rare circumstance, but do not overlook the possibility. One deputy reported that he negotiated with an armed jumper on a bridge. The individual had a revolver in his waistband. When asked about the weapon, the subject said that it was unloaded and that he had not wanted to leave it in his home for fear of what his wife might do with the gun when she learned of his death. He willingly gave the weapon to the negotiator. As an aside to this incident, the deputy’s dispatcher erroneously sent patrol cars to the wrong end of the bridge. The jumper heard the dispatcher’s directions and asked the deputy if there was another jumper on the bridge. The deputy replied, “Yeah. There is a young man down at the other end of the bridge threatening to jump and I’m going to have to work that one, too. So, I need you to come down now.” The jumper responded, “Okay. Okay. I’m coming down,” and the incident was over. In another incident, a woman had climbed up a bridge and was armed, in a sense, with a knife. The knife, however, was stuck in her chest up to the hilt. As the negotiator was talking to her, the jumper slipped and fell to the roadway, landing on her face. Seeing her injury, her chest not moving, as well as the knife in her chest, the negotiator assumed that she was dead. The paramedics, who were on scene, reached down her throat and cleared her airway by pulling out her smashed and broken teeth. She immediately started breathing. Another negotiator reported working with an armed jumper. When asked about the gun, the jumper told the negotiator that he intended to shoot himself on the way down. Another concern with regard to negotiator safety is the subject’s grabbing the negotiator as he falls, and falling with the negotiator. Wind and traffic noise are common problems for the negotiator while working with jumpers. After a while,


the jumper may say, “I can’t hear you. Can you come a little closer?” While this turn of events may be a good indicator of negotiation progress, in that the jumper now wants to hear what the negotiator has to say, getting closer can make the situation more dangerous for the negotiator—not only because the negotiator could be grabbed and pulled with the subject, but also because the negotiator is more exposed to any weapons the subject may have. Obviously, too, when working with jumpers, the negotiator and jumper are often well off the ground, and there is always the possibility of falling. One negotiation team that often works with jumpers off a local bridge tests their negotiators at heights. Before a negotiator is allowed on their team, he must do a roleplaying exercise at the top of the bridge. If the negotiator candidate cannot work at the top of the bridge because he has a fear of heights, the team simply cannot use him. There are now commercially available harnesses that negotiators may purchase for use while working at heights. A word of caution, however: Follow package directions carefully. Do not forget to tie off the opposite end attached to the harness. One negotiator reported doing his impression of Tarzan by swinging from girder to girder at the top of a bridge, only to find out later that the harness was not tied off at the other end. Also, always have someone taking up any slack in the line and paying out line as needed. Falling and then coming to a sudden stop at the end of a 10-or 12foot drop could cause serious injury to the negotiator. Do not get too close, and be careful! Another practical problem is communication between the negotiator and command. Negotiators must keep command informed as to developments, and command has personnel out doing interviews and developing information of importance to the negotiator. Teams around the country have creatively resolved this problem a number of different ways. Some teams using a primary and secondary negotiator will have the secondary negotiator act as a runner, taking information back to command and bringing information forward to the primary negotiator. Other teams


use a variety of radio set-ups. At least one team has a transmitter built into the primary negotiator’s beeper so command will hear the negotiations as they proceed. The primary negotiator also has a radio earpiece so he can receive information and instruction from command. The primary point here is to work out communications problems before a situation arises. Some negotiators, in attempting to take the “romance” out of the suicide and replace it with reality, have suggested to the jumper that jumping was a particularly nasty way to die, that some people just splatter when they hit the ground. A few jumpers have worn wet suits in an apparent attempt to prevent splattering. A young patrol officer with no previous negotiation experience or training encountered a woman who had climbed to the top of a bridge and was threatening to jump. The officer said, “Lady, you are a grown woman and the decisions that you make are your own responsibility. My responsibility here is public safety, and you’ve left your car on a curve. I’m afraid that some young family is going to come around the curve and wipe themselves out by hitting your car. Now, you have your keys with you. What I’d like you to do is climb down and move your car before you jump.” To the officer’s surprise, she did climb down to move her car. As the officer quickly subdued her, she screamed, “You lying son-of-a-bitch!” A jumper ten feet off the ground on the ledge outside of a high-rise hotel was threatening to jump to his death. The negotiator did not take him very seriously, reasoning that if he really meant it he would have rented a room higher in the hotel or gone up to the roof, but here he was only ten feet off the ground. After some talk, the subject went off the ledge headfirst into the sidewalk below, killing himself. The negotiator was devastated. Never make assumptions as to whether a person really means it or not. If he is just making a gesture or trying to gain attention, a suicide threat is a dangerous way to do it, even from only ten feet up. Operationally, it may not make a lot of difference, but negotiators often ask if people commonly jump off one side


of the bridge. The prevailing opinion among negotiators is that they do. Typically, they seem to jump off the side of the bridge that faces the city. Proffered explanations include the city side of the bridge being the best view. Another explanation is that they are killing themselves in front of the entire city so the entire city will know how much they are hurting, or how much the city has hurt them. This reasoning may also explain why barricaded subjects sometimes come out the front door only to kill themselves on the front porch in full view of neighbors, friends, relatives, police, and media. They want someone to know how much they are hurting, how much others have hurt them, or they do not want to die alone. Some negotiators have speculated that jumpers choose the side of the bridge with the heaviest traffic, and those lanes are the side of the road coming out of the city. Other negotiators have reported that the jumpers in their jurisdiction, for no readily apparent reason, always jump on the downriver side of the bridge. In one jurisdiction, an old, tall bridge was the favored suicide location. No one had ever survived a jump from the bridge, but then a new, lower bridge was built. Oddly, jumpers have stopped going off the old bridge and are now jumping off the new bridge, even though a few of them have survived the attempt with a broken backs and legs and a variety other severe injuries. Suicide Clues Suicidal persons very commonly provide clues as to their intent. Sometimes the “clues” are actually statements of intent as opposed to being mere clues. There are several clues that impact on the subject’s relationships: Withdrawal—Some individuals withdraw from relationships. For example, the subject may have called home two or three times a week to relatives, but now he has just stopped. Mend old, broken relationships—In this case the suicidal victim may call an old girlfriend, for example, and say something like, “I’m sorry about what I did to you when we


broke up five years ago. I was being real bastard and I’m sorry. I don’t know why I did some of the things I did. I just wanted you to know that I am sorry. Good-bye.” Break up good relationships—Other suicidal individuals may break up good relationships for no reason apparent to other individuals involved. Saying “good-bye”— Suicidal individuals will say “goodbye” both overtly and covertly. A police officer on suspension traveled the country, openly stating his suicidal intent and saying good-bye to family and friends. As frequently happens, family and friends would not listen or take him seriously. He returned home to commit suicide. Other suicidal individuals will make covert goodbyes. Another individual, a retired, high-ranking police officer, traveled the country, visiting his brothers and sisters and buying them expensive gifts. A sister later said, “I don’t understand why he did it. I’ve never seen him happier.” Other clues to suicidal intent may include the following: Expressions of hopelessness and helplessness—These are very serious suicide clues, and are sometimes seen as the dividing line between depression and the intent to actually commit suicide. Until a depressed person starts feeling there is no hope of his situation ever getting better and there is no one who can possibly help him, he will not be suicidal. “Verbal wills”—Verbal wills are behavioral clues that include giving away treasured items. For example, a young man may suddenly give his younger brother his entire CD collection or other prized possessions. Determining Suicidal Intent Determining if someone is suicidal may not be difficult. Depressed persons will often be straightforward and honest with the negotiator. What it may take is courage on the part of the negotiator to ask about suicidal intent. People, including negotiators, do not ask about suicidal intent for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons may be the fear of what the individual may say in response. No relative, for example, wants to hear that a loved one intends to take his


life. Another reason people are afraid to ask about suicide directly is that they do not want to put the idea of suicide in someone’s mind, to give them the idea or prompt the suicidal act by asking about it. Asking directly about suicidal intent is not going to put the idea in someone’s mind. A negotiator cannot implant the idea of suicide in the mind of a healthy individual. No one will ever say, “Good idea, officer,” and proceed to kill himself. Nor will asking about suicidal intent precipitate a suicide. The negotiator will suspect that the individual is suicidal, and the subject knows he is suicidal. Asking directly puts the issue up front for discussion. One cannot solve a problem until a problem is confronted. Asking about suicidal intent may also help establish rapport between the negotiator and subject, because he has told others about his suicidal intentions and the others refused to talk about it, belittled him for mentioning suicide, or did not take him seriously. By taking the subject seriously, being willing to listen, and not putting him down for his suicidal thoughts, the negotiator will go a long way toward establishing a rapport with the subject. HOW TO DETERMINE IF A PERSON IS SUICIDAL: ASK! “ARE YOU GOING TO COMMIT SUICIDE?”

If the negotiator picks up on any hints of suicide whatsoever, he should ask, “Are going to commit suicide?” The above question goes directly to suicidal intent, whereas some crisis and suicide intervention centers will ask, “Are you having suicidal thoughts,” which does not go directly to suicidal intent. People can be thinking about suicide without having any intention of committing suicide in the immediate future. Negotiators should not attempt to skirt the question, but confront the problem directly. The question should be asked precisely as indicated above. Depressed, suicidal people will take the negotiator very, very literally. Negotiators should be very precise in the way they word their statements to suicidal persons. They should especially be careful about any statement that may sound like verification or


permission. A suicidal person may view law enforcement as his last source of help or hope. If the negotiator sounds like he approves of the suicidal action, giving permission to proceed, or indicating that suicide is the right thing to do, the suicidal persons might just do it. The combination of imprecise wording with what sounds like permission has led to lethal outcomes. A patrol officer and a parish priest were attempting to stop a dejected young man from committing suicide with a rifle. The young man had just broken up with his girlfriend. During his conversation with the priest and patrol officer, the young man expressed a lot of ambivalence about living and dying. The officer and priest were attempting to reduce the lethality by suggesting that the young man put the rifle down. The priest urged the young man, “Go ahead and do it my son.” The young man responded with, “Yes, Father,” and proceeded to kill himself with the rifle. The priest cried out to the officer, “I didn’t mean that! I meant, put the gun down!” In another similar incident where wording became a problem, the negotiator, again meaning put the gun down, said, “I think we need to end this now.” To which the subject replied, “You’re exactly right, ma’am.” He then proceeded to shoot himself through the stomach. This subject survived his wound. While working a barricade situation with a suicidal man, a negotiator asked, “Are you going to hurt yourself?” The suicidal young man said he was not going to hurt himself, but when the tactical team made entry, they found that the subject had committed suicide with gas. In his suicide note he wrote that the gas did not hurt at all and that he was just feeling sleepy. He had not lied to the negotiator. He was not hurting himself. He was committing suicide. A crisis intervener asked a despondent caller if she was thinking about committing suicide, and the caller indicated that she was not. As the intervention proceeded, the crisis intervener heard the woman’s voice starting to slur and asked the caller if she had taken any pills. The caller said


she had taken a large quantity of drugs. The crisis intervener then said to the caller, “I thought you told me that you were not thinking about suicide.” The caller replied, “I’m not thinking about it. I’m doing it.” The negotiator should not ask, “You’re not going to do something silly, are you?” or “You’re not going to harm yourself, are you?” The suicidal person is not thinking about harming himself or doing something silly. He is thinking about, or in the act of, killing himself. While the negotiator should be precise in his wording, not all less-than-optimally worded sentences end in disaster. Another negotiator was working with an armed suicidal individual in a car. The negotiator, after giving an elegantly worded “pitch” for the subject’s surrender, said, “I think that’s our best shot!” The negotiator gasped at his slip, but the subject just laughed and said, “I guess you shouldn’t have said that, huh?” Potential High Risk Indicators Determining specific high-risk circumstances or indicators is difficult, because there are so many of them. Not only are there a lot of high-risk indicators, but some are better predictors of suicide than others. A problem for suicide interveners and crisis negotiators is how much weight should be given to those better indicators. Feelings of hopelessness and helplessness are very good indicators of suicidal potential, but how much better predictors are they than other factors? Ultimately, negotiators should take all suicide threats seriously. Hopelessness/helplessness—The feelings of hopelessness and helplessness may be viewed as the emotions that separate the depressed from the suicidal. Individuals experiencing these emotions feel like there is no one who can help them and no hope of their pain ever abating. Some suicidal individuals view officers as their very last opportunity to find help and their last chance at any hope. Negotiators should use every opportunity to assure


the suicidal individual that they have access to help and that there is hope for the suicidal individual’s future. History of impulsivity—Any indications of impulsivity in the subject’s past are not good signs. To determine if a subject is impulsive, a negotiator should check wants and warrants and the subject’s arrest record, and interview those who know him the best. If his arrest record includes speeding citations, numerous parking tickets, or arrests for assault, he should be considered impulsive. Additionally, persons who know the subject well will report that the subject does not like people “getting in his face,” that he lashes out quickly, both verbally and physically. These incidents sometimes result in arrests for assault. People may think or fantasize about suicide for long periods of time, but the act itself is considered an impulsive one. To preclude an impulsive suicidal act, the negotiator should verbally “stay with” the subject as much as practical —that is, keep the individual on the telephone and stay with him on that bridge or rooftop. Do not leave him alone. If the negotiator or subject must get off the telephone for some pressing reason, the negotiator should attempt to obtain a promise that the subject will not do anything while out of contact. The same is true when face-to-face with a jumper. Do not leave him alone at any time. Staying with the suicidal subject is very much in contrast to sometimes leaving a hostage taker alone for hours on end to think about his predicament. Family history of suicide—While there is no suicide gene, the predisposition to commit suicide does occur in families. Perhaps, if another family member has committed suicide, the taboo is off. Or the subject has heard how the family talks in reverential terms about “grandpa,” who killed himself, and he wants the family to remember him that way. This explanation may also be the reason for “copycat” high school suicides. The suicidal teenager sees the whole school turning out for his classmate’s funeral after a suicide. At the funeral, the principal is talking with a tear in his eye about what a great kid the suicide victim was. The teachers are crying. The cheerleaders who never would have gone to a movie with him are crying. The second teenager then begins


thinking, “That’s what I want,” forgetting that he is not going to be there to see it. The Hemingway family may be an unfortunate, extreme example of multiple suicides occurring within a family. Margaux Hemingway, at the age of 41, killed herself with an overdose of barbiturates on July 1, 1996. That date was the anniversary of her grandfather, Ernest Hemingway’s, suicide. Ernest Hemingway had killed himself with a shotgun in 1961. Ernest Hemingway’s brother, sister, and father had also killed themselves. For medical purposes, Benzodiazepine tranquilizers, including such drugs as Librium, Valium, and Xanax, have, to a significant extent, displaced barbiturates, because it does not take much of an overdose to kill oneself with a barbiturate. On the other hand, it would take a significant overdose to kill oneself with a benzodiazepine tranquilizer. In fact, the individual would probably get sick and vomit the tranquilizers before the drugs killed him. An officer reported that a man commemorated the anniversary of his brother’s suicide by committing suicide himself. Both brothers hanged themselves by jumping off the back of the same pickup truck with a rope thrown over the same limb of the same tree. Additionally, there is a genetic component to depression, and depression is very often an element that goes into suicide. So if an ancestor resolved his depression via suicide, the thinking goes, “If grandpa handled his depression this way, so can I.” Test-firing a weapon—A subject who “test-fires” a weapon before shooting himself is an event familiar to experienced negotiators. The shooting may not actually be a “test fire” of the weapon, but for whatever reason the subject may fire a shot or shots into a mirror, wall, ceiling, furniture, or a photograph that may be a picture of the subject. Shooting into a mirror or picture may be an indicator of the self-loathing that is evident with many suicidal persons. “Test-firing” the weapon may also be a part of building up the courage to proceed with the suicide. “Hesitation marks” are multiple, more shallow cuts left by suicidal individuals before cutting themselves deeply and


finally. One must question whether hesitation marks are, in fact, indicators of hesitation. These suicidal individuals are more likely attempting to see how the cuts feel, punishing themselves, or some other combination of motives. “Hesitation marks” are dif ferent from what inmates call “chicken scratches.” Hesitation marks are seen in completed suicides and chicken scratches are incomplete suicides or gestures. There seems to be a firearms equivalent of hesitation marks. Some suicidal individuals go as far as to “test” shoot themselves in a non-vital area in an apparent attempt to determine how it feels or punish themselves. Negotiators and other law enforcement officers have been present when suicidal persons inflicted multiple non-lethal wounds upon themselves. To the amazement of onlooking officers, one individual in a very tenacious suicide attempt shot himself multiple times with a 9 mm pistol. Officers were ducking for cover and asking where the rounds went, but none of the rounds left the car in which the subject was barricaded. As incredible as it may seem, a few individuals have shot themselves multiple times with a crossbow. Isolation in terms of geography or time—Finding the suicidal individual in an isolated location indicates that he did not want to be interrupted in his attempt. He might go to a nearby forest, cornfield, beach, or a hotel room in a neighboring city. Taking an overdose at home many hours before anyone is due home might also be considered an example of isolating oneself, not in place but in time. The presence of drugs and/or alcohol—The use of drugs and/or alcohol clouds judgment and rational decisionmaking and increases impulsivity. Therefore, the use of drugs and/or alcohol should be considered a high-risk circumstance. A detailed suicidal threat, fantasy, or plan—People often make vague suicide threats. While not dismissing any suicide threat, the negotiator should be particularly concerned about a threat, fantasy, or plan with a lot of detail. This detail may indicate that the person has thought about suicide for a long time and now has a relatively fixed


plan. In fact, if the negotiator can disrupt the suicidal person’s plan, he may be able to stop the attempt. A jilted boyfriend may threaten to take his life over the breakup and say, “I’m going to kill myself if you don’t come back.” He is not as likely to do it as a jilted boyfriend who says, “I’m going to kill myself next Thursday, which is the five-year anniversary of the day we had our first date. It’s going to happen in the parking lot as you get off work at 5: 00, so everyone will see what you’ve done to me. I’ve already been down to the pawnshop to buy a gun. It’s a stainless steel .357 magnum.” Extreme insomnia—Depressed persons often have no problem getting to sleep but do have a problem staying asleep. These individuals wake up between the hours of 2: 00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. and cannot get back to sleep. This phenomenon is called “terminal insomnia,” meaning toward the end of the night, or “early morning awakening.” There appears to be some connection between the severity of insomnia and the degree of suicidal intent. Severe insomnia seems to indicate a higher potential for suicide. Mild insomnia seems to indicate less potential for suicide. An experienced team’s “gut” feeling—If the negotiator is fortunate enough to be working on an experienced negotiation team and everyone has a bad “gut” feeling about what is going on, the team should not dismiss this feeling. There appears to be increasing interest in researching gutfeeling decision-making in a variety of fields, such as law enforcement, military, and even finance. The question being researched is how these individuals make good decisions based upon a minimal amount of information. Study results indicate that the more experienced the individual, the better the decision-making with minimal information. Increasingly dangerous suicidal gestures—Having a history of suicide attempts is a bad sign. However, if the past attempts have come increasingly close to achieving suicide, this escalation is an even worse indicator. Depressed persons sometimes “work up” to a lethal attempt. A psychological history—Persons with a psychological history, particularly hospitalization, are at high risk. Be wary when family and friends arrive on scene and tell the


negotiation team that your subject was bad a week or two ago but everyone thought he was getting better. They may be right. The subject is not as depressed as he was a week or two ago. During the sometimes insidious slip into a depressive episode, the primary symptom may be a lessening of interest in activities that normally interest the individual. For example, the individual had a habit of going fishing four times a week, going on a long motorcycle ride each weekend, or working with his dog, but he has just stopped the activity and does not even notice that he has stopped. He slowly became more depressed. While in the depths of the depressive episode, he did not have the energy to act on his suicidal impulses, but now that he is better, he has the energy to plan and take the steps towards the completion of his suicidal plan. Reassurance from the subject—If the subject begins reassuring the negotiator, and the negotiator cannot tie this “improvement” in the situation to anything that the negotiator has said or done, it is not a good sign. Suicidal persons often have a difficult time making the decision to proceed with the suicide. When the decision is made, the negotiator will hear a change in the subject’s tone and/or content. The subject might say something like, “Officer, everything is going to be okay. Just give me a few more minutes.” A negotiator should immediately follow up on a statement like the one above. The negotiator should obtain a clarification as to what is happening, as suicidal persons have committed suicide immediately after making such “reassurances” to the negotiator. In another incident, an individual who had been both a corrections officer and a police officer was barricaded and threatening to commit suicide. This individual was distraught over a pending divorce. The subject told the negotiators that he was coming out and a short time later the negotiator heard a rifle shot. The negotiators were so convinced that the subject was actually coming out that some of them still believe that the subject accidentally killed himself.


One very experienced, well-trained negotiator told of a suicidal subject that gradually seemed to be getting better over the hours. The subject was conversing with the negotiator and the two of them began to laugh and joke over time. The negotiator, judging from the man’s new demeanor, was feeling good about how the incident was progressing and was giving his sergeant a “thumbs up” regarding negotiation progress. Then, suddenly, with no apparent warning, the man fatally shot himself. Again, remember: An incident is not over until the subject is in handcuffs and is being taken away. Do not let up or let your guard down until the incident is, in fact, over. When working with persons not totally familiar with firearms, negotiators should be careful about the instructions provided. It might be best, for example, to tell subjects to put the gun down as opposed to de-cocking it. In a role-playing exercise involving a suicidal individual, the role player accidentally “shot” herself with an unloaded gun that the negotiator had asked her to de-cock. Strange Stories and the Role of Fate Law enforcement officers commonly report stories that reflect incredible determination on the part of suicidal persons and the astonishing role of fate. A negotiator told the story of a suicidal individual who attempted to kill himself with a shotgun but succeeded only in blowing his jaw off. The subject then went into his garage and attempted carbon monoxide poisoning, but his jaw was hurting so much that he could not bear the pain while he waited to die. He then drove his car out to the local rock quarry, set his car ablaze and drove it off a 45-foot cliff. The car, engulfed in flame, landed in the pit, rolled, and flipped onto its roof. The man got out of the car and walked three blocks into town looking for help. He had a difficult time finding help, however, because it was Halloween and people were alternately frightened and impressed with his terrible “costume.” He has received extensive plastic and reconstructive surgery, and to this day he is still alive and well.


In another Halloween story, an officer drove by a residence with what he described as “great” Halloween decorations on the front lawn. During the course of the day, 11 officers drove by the residence to admire the Halloween decorations. The final officer pulled up in front of the house at the same time as the resident’s niece. She jumped out of her car and was screaming something about her uncle. As it turns out, among the decorations was a “dummy” hanging from a tree limb in the front yard. The “dummy” was not a dummy at all but the resident. The officer relating the story said that the corpse did not look real at all; it was a pasty color and the neck was stretched out. Another suicidal individual attempted to shoot himself in the temple but only succeeded in blowing his eye out. He was confined to a hospital for a period of time. Upon his return home, he attempted carbon monoxide poisoning in his garage but, upon passing out, he fell forward, depressing the garage door opener. The garage door opened and saved him. He again spent some time in the hospital. On the third occasion, he threw a rope over a rafter in his garage but when he attempted to hang himself, he pulled the garage down on himself. This time he received quality assistance during his hospital stay and acquired a new desire to live. Shortly after his release from the hospital, he was walking across his front lawn to get his mail when a drunk driver drove up on his front lawn and killed him. A patrol officer, who happened to be a negotiator, was attempting to talk a suicidal man down off a bridge. The man said that he was afraid the officer would shoot him if he came down, and asked that the officer put his weapon on the roadbed. With some reluctance and trepidation, the officer took his weapon out of his holster, put it on the roadbed and placed his foot on it. When the subject was three feet above the officer’s head, he jumped, knocking the officer to the ground. The subject then picked up the officer’s gun and, at point-blank range, pulled the trigger. The gun misfired and the tactical team killed the subject. The patrol officer said that his weapon had never misfired before and has not misfired since.


Deputies were sent on a “disturbance” call without details as to the disturbance. As they were milling around, attempting to determine what was happening, they heard a clicking sound. When they asked a nearby man to turn around, they discovered that he had a revolver under his chin. The deputies quickly disarmed the man to find he had pulled the trigger six times. Six rounds had “dimples” in the primer. The next day, the same weapon and ammunition was taken out to the departmental firearms range for a test firing. This time, all six rounds were fired from the same gun without a failure. On the other hand, when it is time to die, there appears to be no escaping death. A motorcycle rider was hit by an 18wheeler and sent flying well off the road into a wooded area. He was obviously dead, but when officers rolled him over, they discovered he had also received eight bites from a copperhead snake. Another man shot himself with a 9 mm pistol and passed out in his barn. When he woke up, he staggered toward his house but fell and rolled down a hill, breaking his leg. He tried to get up but again fell, rolled down the hill into a river, and drowned. Suicide as a Problem-Solving Option When working a suicide, negotiators view the suicide threat as the problem. The suicidal person, on the other hand, views suicide as the only solution to his problem. Negotiators and the suicidal persons with whom they work view the suicide from entirely different perspectives. To the suicidal individual, suicide becomes a means of coping with a problem, and the act of suicide is intended to deal with and solve that problem. Suicidal persons often feel as if they have lost control of events in their lives, and the act of suicide becomes a means of regaining control. Suicide can also become a kind of revenge. The suicidal person may be thinking, “I can’t wait to see the look on my husband’s face when he comes home and finds me dead” or, “I’ll swerve my car into this oncoming 18-wheeler. That will show her. She’ll be sorry when she


sees what she has done to me.” All the while forgetting that they are not going to be there to see the shocked look on a spouse’s face or hear the sorrow in an ex-girlfriend’s voice. Taking Others “with” Them The decision to commit suicide is unfortunate enough, but some suicidal persons decide that others are going to die with them for a variety of reasons. So prior to committing suicide, the individual may kill a spouse, child or pet in an attempt to: ■ Punish a spouse ■ Prevent anyone else from having a girlfriend, boyfriend, child, or pet ■ Save a child from life because life is so painful ■ Save a spouse, child, or pet from a worse fate, such as a terminal, painful illness ■ Spare them from someone else’s lesser degree of care ■ Spare them the indignity and humiliation of the subject’s shortcomings or perceived failures ■ Save them from a delusional enemy ■ Spare them the pain of a chronic, debilitating illness, as in suicide pacts ■ Avoid dying alone Communicating Suicidal Intent Communicating suicidal intent is relatively common. Many people threaten suicide, but a relatively small number actually go through with it. However, of those who have committed suicide, as many as 90% of them have told others of their intentions. As a result, negotiators must take all suicide threats seriously. Some persons have a fear of dying alone. This fear of dying alone and the need to communicate to someone how much pain they are experiencing may account for a relatively common phenomenon seen by experienced negotiators. Often a barricaded subject will come out of his house onto the front porch to kill himself in front of his friends, relatives, neighbors, and police. The fear of dying


alone and wanting others to know how much they are hurting may also explain why so many persons jump off a bridge facing the city, publicly displaying their suicide. Other suicidal individuals may call 911 just before committing suicide. If officers arrive on-scene before the suicide, they should not take the telephone call to 911 as an indicator that the individual is not serious about the suicide. These individuals just want someone to find their bodies and ensure that their bodies are not left to decay unattended and unknown to anyone. A police chief s secretary knocked on a stranger’s door and asked that the citizen call the police because she intended to commit suicide. She told the citizen that she was afraid that if she telephoned the police they would talk her out of it. The police were notified, but before they could arrive on the scene, the secretary had gone back to her car and committed suicide. Some suicidal persons are looking for someone to say that suicide is the right and appropriate thing to do. In effect, they are looking for someone not only to say that it is right but to give them permission to proceed. A law enforcement officer is in a position to do both. Suicidal persons may view officers as their last chance of obtaining any help or hope, and if the officer agrees with the person’s suicidal action, he is very likely to proceed. The negotiator should take special care to avoid any language that even sounds as if he is giving permission to commit suicide or agrees with the subject’s suicidal intent, especially since depressed and suicidal individuals often will take a negotiator’s words literally, Basic Concepts for Crisis Negotiators Negotiators should try to stop all suicidal persons. Negotiators should try to stop all suicidal persons, because negotiators are never fully informed as to the facts of a particular person’s circumstances. There may even be facts the subject is not familiar with, or he has a distorted view of the facts.


Negotiators should make no judgments as to whether a suicide is justified. Making judgments as to whether a suicide is warranted is not part of the negotiator’s job, any more than judging and prosecuting are part of the negotiator’s job. A suicidal person may put the negotiator in crisis. A significant percentage of the general population, and in law enforcement in particular, has viewed suicide at least as a fleeting option at some point in their lives. Negotiators must be wary of being emotionally drawn into an incident and endangering their own lives or the lives of others. All suicidal persons are volatile and emotionally unstable in the extreme, and the situation can violently change in a moment. Negotiators must also assume that suicidal persons are dangerous and will hurt someone if given the opportunity—There have been at least 25 law enforcement officers who have been killed while acting as negotiators. Suicidal persons killed all of these individuals, so law enforcement officers should assume that anyone exposed to his line of fire would be killed or wounded. Never presuppose that suicidal persons are dangers to themselves alone. Negotiators must take all suicide threats seriously. A negotiator cannot afford to assume that a particular person is merely making a suicidal gesture to seek attention or pity, for example. Putting a gun to one’s temple or a shotgun in one’s mouth, or climbing to the top of a bridge, is a very dangerous way to look for attention. Undoubtedly, persons making gestures of this nature have unintentionally died in the process. Also, one shouldn’t assume that a particular social, sexual, religious, ethnic, or economic group is immune from suicide. Various societal groups have varying rates, but no group is immune. The negotiator assumes that every suicidal person has some ambivalence. Negotiators must assume that the suicidal person is experiencing at least some doubts about going through with the suicide. If he was 100 percent committed to the idea of suicide, he would have done it before law enforcement or negotiators arrived on-scene.


The Elderly and Suicide The elderly, particularly the white population, in the U.S. have an especially high suicide rate. When one looks at the reasons why people commit suicide, it becomes more evident why their suicide rates are high. Sudden losses—Losses can lead to depressive episodes, and the elderly do experience sudden, severe losses, such as the death of their own aging children, brothers, sisters, and spouses. Social isolation—Often elderly grandparents move to the warm south, leaving their children and grandchildren “up north.” Their offspring, now with children of their own, telephone and visit less and less often, and the elderly become increasingly isolated. Profound loneliness—The elderly begin experiencing the losses cited above, and these losses contribute to feelings of social isolation and acute loneliness. Chronic illness and pain—Often the elderly are suffering from chronic illness and pain, leading to an unfortunate number of suicides and suicide pacts among elderly couples. Family burden—Many once-proudly independent elderly persons feel that they have become a burden to family and friends. Suicide is one way of relieving family and friends of that burden. Loss of affluent lifestyle—Over the years, inflation, reduction in income, losses in investments, and the constant drain on life savings cause the elderly to reduce their standard of living to a point that they find intolerable. Unfulfilled expectations—After a lifetime of working, saving, planning, and dreaming, some find that their current unbearable circumstances are so far from their vision of the future that they take their own lives, and perhaps the lives of loved ones as well. Determine Motivation Negotiators should attempt to determine the motivation for the suicide threat. Why does the suicidal individual want to die? What does the person want to achieve? The negotiator


should ask, “Do you really want to die, or do you want to hurt or get even with whomever?” Often the suicidal person’s motivation or goal is to stop the flow of consciousness, not really death. Commonly, however, he is suffering from an unendurable level of psychological pain or stress that is pushing him toward suicide. Ambivalence Ambivalence is a common internal attitude. The suicidal individual has an inner conflict between the desire to live and the pain of living. Negotiators might say, for example, “You say you want to die, but I hear in your voice a part of you that really wants to live.” Assuming that ambivalence is present, the negotiator may want to say the aforementioned sentence even when they do not hear the ambivalence. Anger Though not all depression is an outgrowth of unexpressed anger, negotiators should assume for their personal safety and the safety of others that the subject is angry. In fact, the negotiator may not be able to resolve some incidents involving unexpressed anger until the subject gets angry at least once. It would be wise, therefore, to emotion-label anger when it arises, and allow the subject to ventilate his anger. The above does not mean to suggest that the negotiator should deliberately make the subject angry. The negotiator’s objective is to allow the subject to vent the anger that is already present regarding someone or some circumstance. The negotiator should not attempt to make the subject angry. Vindictive Goodbyes A trained but inexperienced negotiator appeared to be making progress with a barricaded, suicidal subject. The subject called out to the negotiator and told him that he was going over to the window. Upon reaching the window, the


subject again called out and asked if the negotiator could see him. The negotiator replied that he could. The subject said, “Can you see me real good?” The negotiator said, “Yeah. I can see you fine.” The subject responded, “Good,” and proceeded to shoot himself through the head. The negotiator collapsed and to this day will not talk about the incident unless he really must, and on those occasions tears come to his eyes. A deputy sheriff, who was a trained negotiator, was sent to a disturbance call without much detail as to the nature of the “disturbance.” Upon her arrival, she encountered, faceto-face, a suicidal young male with a .357 magnum to his head. For about 1½ hours she talked and listened to the young man. The subject finally agreed to put the gun down, but in the process of putting it down, he looked up at her, smiled, and quickly, fatally shot himself through the head. In another incident, after a protracted negotiation, the subject told the negotiator, “I’ve read all kinds of stuff about negotiations, books and articles and stories. And you know what? You suck at it!” He then proceeded to kill himself. Vindictive “good-byes” are not aimed solely at negotiators but may be directed at the suicide victim’s family as well. A very successful, retired, high-ranking, widely loved police officer left a particularly cruel suicide note. In his note, he said that he wanted his body to be cremated and his ashes spread on the bay. At one point in his lengthy career he was the sergeant in charge of the marine patrol, and it was a job that he loved. He went on to say in his note that if his ashes could not be spread on the bay that he wanted his ashes poured in the driveway so that his wife could drive over him as she had been doing for the past 40 years. His note had lasting, damaging effects on the family. The intensity of the psychological pain experienced by suicidal individuals can lead to constricted thinking and emotions, to the point that they are not thinking about anyone else but themselves and the pain that they are suffering. One psychologist referred to suicide as the “ultimate act of self-absorption.” The suicidal person may endanger or even kill innocent others, including police officers, in an effort to free himself from the pain.


Yet sometimes the final acts or words of suicidal people seem to go beyond mere “self-absorption.” A negotiator was called by dispatch and asked to interview a woman who had called 911 and expressed suicidal thoughts. While en route to the call, the negotiator encountered a traffic accident with fatalities on an interstate highway. The negotiator said that he felt that he had to stop to render aid. A drunken driver was driving north in the southbound lanes, ran head-on into another vehicle, and killed two people. While giving the woman a breathalyzer test, the negotiator learned that she was the woman that he was en route to interview. The woman is now doing a term in the state prison for homicide. Negotiators should never forget that suicidal people could be very dangerous, as some of them will do whatever it takes to bring about their own deaths. Their actions may include doing injury or death to the negotiator or other law enforcement officers. Far too many officers have been killed while apparently thinking that suicidal individuals were a danger only to themselves. Self-Loathing and Painful Deaths Not long ago, a police officer reported that a man in his backyard had cut off his left leg with a chainsaw. This suicidal individual then attempted to cut off his right leg, but the chainsaw stalled after being clogged up from the first amputation. The man then dragged himself to his house and used an axe to complete the amputation of his leg. He then chopped several fingers off his hand with the axe before completing the suicide with a handgun. In another incident, officers reported finding the body of an obese man who had isolated himself in a national forest. The man had been missing for quite some time. When his body was found, it was conclusively determined that he had stabbed himself 18 times in all the hated, obese parts of his body. Those of us who are not suicidal but considering how we might commit suicide do not think about slow, painful deaths. We think of a quick and presumably painless end. Persons who are suicidal sometimes experience feelings of


intense self-loathing, and they want the end to be painful. They want it to hurt because they want to punish themselves, and they choose painful, sometimes bizarre means to die. Self-loathing or hatred may also explain why law enforcement officers so often find bullet holes in mirrors or photographs of the subject. The subject hates himself and may even think of himself as being a source of shame, humiliation, or embarrassment to the family. Suicide-by-Cop An officer made what he thought was going to be a routine traffic stop. The driver, who was an enormous man, exited the car, charged at the officer, and raged, “Kill me. Kill me. You’re going to have to kill me or I’ll kill you.” The officer, not knowing what to do with this massive, unarmed man, started backing up. He soon found himself in an embarrassing footrace around and around the patrol car, with the citizen in hot pursuit and bent on doing violence to the officer. While scurrying around his patrol car, the officer excitedly radioed for backup. The incident did not end until the man came to a stop, winded, on the opposite side of the patrol car and after the arrival of a backup unit. This incident took place in the early 1980s, before suicide-by-cop became the widely known phenomenon it is today. Suicide-by-cop refers to a suicide where the person wants to die but prefers to have the police kill him rather than kill himself. There are perhaps more of these impulsive incidents than most law enforcement officials imagine. In some respects, they are like the disguised suicides of people running off the road on a clear night, or the “accidental” discharge of a weapon. These suicides may be disguised or overt. There are several possible indicators of suicide-by-cop. Some of the indicators are obvious and some are less so. Listed below are some of the indicators seen by law enforcement:


A demand to be killed—There is nothing subtle about this indicator, where the subject demands or challenges the officer or agency to kill him. Deadline—He may set a deadline for his own death. The deadline may be “right now” or 30 minutes from now. Precipitating event or events—Often, some traumatic, precipitating event has happened in the recent past— defined as within the last few days. Clues as to suicidal intent—Any time the negotiator hears talk of suicide, he should assume that the subject means what he says. Talk of suicide includes such things as a “verbal will.” In a verbal will, the subject asks the negotiator to make sure that some of his possessions get to the intended recipient. For example, a 16-year-old boy may ask that his 14-year-old sister get his CD collection. An elaborate suicide plan—Detail in a suicide threat, plan, or fantasy is always reason for concern. In an impulsive suicide-by-cop, the negotiator is not likely to be on scene because the deed has been done. Lower socio-economic backgrounds—While working this kind of incident, the negotiator will not often be involved with middle and upper class subjects. Middle and upper class people kill themselves. They do not ask the police to do it for them. Lower class people think that taking one’s own life is “wimpy,” but dying in a shootout with the police is a different story. Dying in a shootout with the police is a manly way to die. Impulsivity—The individual who commits suicide-by-cop is likely to be an impulsive person. As such, a check with the departmental records division will reveal arrests for assault, multiple speeding citations, disturbing the peace, outstanding parking tickets, and other indicators of impulsivity. Hopelessness and helplessness—Anytime a negotiator hears expressions of hopelessness and helplessness, he should be thinking about the possibility of suicide. “Going out big”—If the subject indicates that he wants to “go out” big, killing a cop is “going out” big. Never allow a situation to develop to the point where the subject has an


opportunity to kill an officer in an effort to provoke other officers into killing him. In one highly publicized, dramatic incident involving the phenomenon of suicide-by-cop, the subject’s son, girlfriend, and brother all knew the subject had intentions of “going out big” and “taking a cop” with him. The authorities also had informant information regarding the subject’s intentions. The subject managed to get his wish. He died in a shootout with police after a hostage taking and chase. The “double whammy”—When a man loses his job, he has the support of his family to fall back on. When a man loses his family through death, desertion, or divorce, he has the support of the men with whom he works. When a man loses both his job and family over a short period of time, he has lost his two primary sources of support and does not have much left. Some experienced negotiators refer to this situation as the “double whammy,” and often find they are talking to individuals who see no point in living as a result of this experience. Refusal to talk—An individual contemplating suicide-bycop may refuse to talk to the negotiator. He may be refusing to talk to the negotiator because his mind is made up and there is nothing left to talk about. Arranging an incident—The suicidal individual may arrange a dangerous situation for the police and/or innocent persons. He may orchestrate circumstances so that the police will have little option but to kill him. Escalation—This suicidal individual may also escalate the situation until the police must take tactical action against the subject to stop him. The escalation may be in the form of homicidal threats, shots being fired, and movement toward the police with his weapon pointed at them, or other dangerous actions. This escalation in the incident will be in clear-cut, well-defined steps. Prior suicidal behavior—Persons committing suicide-bycop often have demonstrated prior suicidal behavior. When working with a suicidal individual, always use extreme caution, as he may attempt to kill a hostage, citizen, or officer in order to prod law enforcement into killing him.


If the negotiator is in doubt about the subject’s suicidal intent, again, ask, “Are you going to commit suicide?” On this occasion, the subject will say, “No. I’m not going to kill myself. You guys are going to kill me.” Action Criteria Whether to take action can be one of the thorniest problems for management. Though, theoretically, it is not their decision to make, the decision to take action or not also can be a major point of contention on negotiation and tactical teams, and between teams as well. The question is, “Do we maintain the status quo, or do we take some action, be it tactical or otherwise?” Management should be looking at three action criteria: Risk effectiveness of the action—The authorities want to look at the risk involved in taking the action. The objective of the action should be to lessen overall risk. Necessity for the action—The action is necessary to carry out law enforcement’s duties and responsibilities. The decision to take action should not be based upon whether the action is possible, but upon whether it is necessary. In the words of one FBI negotiator, “Too many people equate restraint with weakness.” Management must also ask, “If the action was not required earlier, why is the action necessary now? What has happened in the incident to make the situation more dangerous, especially for the innocent parties?” Acceptability of the action

Morally—Management must ask if the public will believe that the action was the right thing to do. Ethically—Negotiators and tactical and crisis management personnel must also ask if the action being contemplated is ethical and in accordance with what they have been trained to do in this circumstance. The basic question is then, “Will other negotiators, tactical personnel, or crisis managers believe the action is appropriate?” Legally—Crisis management team members often must take action in the absence of a qualified legal opinion and


the reasons for taking the action may be scrutinized for years in the court system. If team members are doing what they believe to be the right thing and are taking action that is accordance with previous training that is all that they can do. Barricades Typically, barricaded subjects have a limited number of basic options if the authorities merely wait, with or without negotia tions. Assuming that the authorities have good containment, the subject’s options are as follows: ■ ■ ■ ■

Attempt or commit suicide Attempt or commit homicide Some combination of the above Surrender

The subject has no other options if the authorities have the patience and resources to wait him out. Patience is a personality trait that crisis managers must acquire, and resources to meet long-term incidents must be built into the crisis management plan and policy before an incident occurs. Possible Barricade Outcomes if a Tactical Entry is Made There is an old saying in football that goes, “There are only three things that can happen with a pass, and two of them are bad.” However, the one good thing that can happen can sometimes turn a game around, is exciting, and produces heroes, and the fans love it. However, in football, if that long pass fails, people do not die, and the coach is not sued or prosecuted. Despite all of the bad things that can happen, we in law enforcement often go for that long pass, that risky option that quickly resolves an incident, fulfills our need for excitement, produces heroes, and that the public loves as long as it turns out well. Using the forward pass-type analysis and as a reminder of what could happen, let us look at all the possible outcomes


where there are victims inside a stronghold of some kind and an armed barricaded subject, and the tactical team makes an entry. ■ The subject could: ■ Commit or attempt suicide ■ Surrender ■ Kill or wound: ■ An officer ■ A victim ■ Some combination of the above ■ Law enforcement could: ■ Kill or wound: ■ ■ ■ ■

The subject A victim A fellow officer Some combination of the above

■ Effect the arrest without further incident Why Tactical Action is Taken There are some very reasonable grounds for taking tactical action, some of which are listed below: ■ Over the hours or days, the threat to innocent persons within the crime scene seems to be increasing. ■ There is increasing concern over the medical condition of some person within the crime scene. ■ There is concern about the subject’s behavior as he goes into withdrawal. ■ The subject appears to have fallen asleep or passed out, and an opportune moment for a safe entry has presented itself. ■ Our ability to contain the subject is questionable. ■ The risk of taking the action is less than the risk of maintaining the status quo.


Other Reasons Tactical Action Has Been Taken Tactical action has been taken for a number of other reasons, such as: ■ The weather or insects are bad, causing our personnel to be uncomfortable. ■ The siege is causing inconvenience to the city by disrupting the traffic flow or the routines of neighboring residences. ■ Our agency cannot afford the overtime. ■ Our agency does not have enough specialized personnel to go to a second shift. ■ Our agency does not have enough manpower to work all night and man the streets tomorrow. ■ Our personnel are bored, impatient, and/or frustrated. ■ There is public and media pressure for resolution. ■ Our agency is embarrassed by a lack of resolution. None of the above is a legitimate reason to risk the lives and limbs of officers, the public, or the subject. And how many of the above reasons are explainable to a judge? One officer said that his department negotiates with a barricaded subject for 10 hours, but after 10 hours without resolution, they make entry. When asked the significance of 10 hours, he said, “Well, we don’t feel our specialized personnel can work an incident for more than 10 hours. They begin to get too tired, and we don’t have enough specialized personnel to go to another shift.” When asked why they do not call for additional aid, he said, “The only readily available help is the state police, and we don’t like them, so we make entry before our people get too tired.” If any officer is killed, blinded, or crippled, what is this agency going to tell the officer’s spouse or children, or the judge? Are they going to say, “We were getting tired and we don’t like the state police, so your spouse made entry and was killed?” Is that what they are going to tell the judge and jury when they are sued?


How many of the above reasons and problems can be rectified before an incident arises? Agencies must work out such issues as manpower and overtime pay long before they decide to put together a crisis management team. It may be a matter of putting together mutual aid pacts or making the decision that their agency just cannot afford to get into the crisis management business and leave major incidents to another agency. Here is a prediction: Sometime in the near future, a law enforcement agency will be working a barricade with a suicidal person, there will be innocent persons inside with him, and a tactical team will make an entry. Innocent people will die and the agency will be sued. The law enforcement agency will lose the lawsuit because some judge will rule that the entry was an unlawful seizure. Henceforth in that jurisdiction, the law enforcement agency will be required to get a court order similar to a search warrant before making a tactical entry. No one wants the courts to become involved in crisis management. Indicators of Progress in Suicide Situations Unfortunately, there may be no reliable indicators of negotiation progress in a suicide case. Even worse, what appears to be progress may be the opposite. However, while there may be no reliable indicators, there are a few signs that would not be considered bad ones: Willingness to talk—If the subject is talking at all to the negotiator, it is a solid sign of ambivalence, and negotiators can work with ambivalence. Talk about the future—If the subject is talking about the future, he can envision a future, and is not totally committed to dying. One reason to live—If the negotiator and subject can find a least one reason for the subject to live, progress is being made. Concessions—If the subject has made any concessions— especially concessions that reduce lethality, such as putting the gun down—progress is being made.


When to Call a “Timeout” in Suicide Situations Unlike hostage and barricade situations, where subjects may sometimes be left alone to think over their situation for relatively long periods of time, negotiators should not take a “timeout” while working suicides. The negotiator should stay “with” the subject at all times, if at all practical. If either the subject or negotiator must get off the telephone, the negotiator should attempt to elicit a promise from the subject that he will not do anything to himself in the negotiator’s absence. If the negotiator, the subject’s final hope, and subject are face-to-face, as with a jumper, literally turning one’s back on him may be perceived as the final loss of hope and help. Exposed Face-to-Face in Suicide Situations Negotiators are strongly urged not to go face to face with someone holding a firearm or a bomb. If the negotiator or officer finds himself in that situation, he should move back to a safe position. The officer should seek adequate cover and negotiate from that new position. Use extreme caution when face-to-face with someone holding an edged weapon. Remember your officer survival training. If face-to-face with a jumper, give him a lot of space. A natural tendency when falling is to grab for something to hold on to. A negotiator should be wary of a jumper pulling the negotiator off a bridge or tall building with him. Crisis Intervention Techniques Explore the subject’s feelings continuously. Negotiators should explore the person’s feelings continuously using active listening techniques, particularly emotion-labeling. Allow the subject to vent his emotions. Allow the subject to ventilate feelings, and focus on getting the person to express his feelings. Let the person get angry. The expression of anger may be viewed as a positive development in many suicide


situations. Anger is often present. Its expression and ventilation may be the first indication of a resolution. Focus on the cause of suicidal feelings. The negotiator should ask, “What has happened recently to cause you to feel this way?” Often, some incident has occurred within the last day or two to bring about the suicidal action. Talk openly, even vividly, about the finality of death. Many suicidal persons have an unrealistic, rather “romantic” view of suicide. Talk about the reality of suicide. It is not only acceptable to talk about the reality of suicide; negotiators are encouraged to do so. Remind a potential suicide, for example, that she will not be there to see the look on her husband’s face, and point out how messy a suicide really is. The reality of suicide is not romantic by anyone’s standards. A negotiator, when confronted by a man intending to kill himself with a firearm, suggested that a gunshot to the head was extremely messy and particularly unpleasant. The suicidal man then said that he would hang himself in the garage. The negotiator told the man he had seen someone who had hanged himself and that death, too, was ugly. The negotiator said that the man’s neck had stretched to what seemed an impossible length and that in hanging himself he had soiled his clothes. The suicidal man then said he would go into the garage, turn on the car, and kill himself with carbon monoxide. The negotiator responded, “Well, you could do that, too. I saw a man who did that, and what surprised me was the odd color of his skin, and how fast the body had started decomposing. It was really horrific.” The suicidal man then said, “Aw, the hell with it! The hell with it!” He was later arrested and received help. A deputy sheriff told a man who was threatening to kill himself that a gunshot to the head was a particularly nasty way to die. He also asked, “Who do you think is going to clean up the mess you make? It will not be the sheriff s office. Your wife is going to be washing your remains of the floor, ceiling, and walls. Do you want to put your wife through that?”


A word of caution here: Before making a remark like the above, be sure of the husband/wife relationship, because he may come back with, “Yeah, let the bitch see what she’s done to me.” Focus on the specific situation that caused person to feel suicidal. The incident may seem “small” to the negotiator, but it is not “small” to the suicidal person. So do not dismiss any event, because to the negotiator it seems relatively inconsequential. The negotiator should have the person describe suicide as fantasized. If the negotiator can disrupt the suicide plan or fantasy, he has a better chance of successfully resolving the incident. If the suicide plan is disrupted, it is unlikely that the suicidal person will abruptly change plans and proceed with the suicide. Explore what is still meaningful to the suicidal person. Some negotiators call this meaningful theme the “hook.” After the “hook” is determined, negotiators should keep returning to it throughout the incident. Negotiators have reported that common hooks for many men are their children and pets. Using the reverse “hook” In one southern state, officers did what might be considered the opposite of the hook. It was 3:00 a.m., and they were negotiating with an armed young man on LSD who was standing in the middle of a pond. It was cold and the young man was becoming hypothermic. Upon learning that the subject had a strong aversion to alligators, out of his sight, a log was tossed into the water. With officers yelling, “Gator,” the young man hastily exited the pond and was arrested. Though it worked in this incident, be extremely careful about using any tricks. Negotiators should stall for time as best they can. Negotiators want to get past the subject’s impulse to commit suicide. Help the suicidal individual put his actions in perspective. Discussing what the subject actually hopes to achieve by committing suicide will help the subject put his actions in perspective. For example, the negotiator might ask, “Do you really want to die, or do you want to get even with your husband?”


The suicidal person may not see all of his options; stress that suicide is only one of many alternatives. Help the subject find additional alternatives, and perhaps even list the alternatives in terms of acceptability. It is certainly possible that the subject may see all of his alternatives as unacceptable. If so, help him to determine the least objectionable, and work on that option. Intertwined among his options, the person fears something worse than death, such as being left alone, the pain continuing, the situation worsening, etc. The option to die may seem desirable because he views death as tranquil, peaceful, and comfortable. The negotiator ought to express his personal concern. Be prepared for the subject to accuse the negotiator of being paid to express concern. The negotiator should tell the suicidal individual that he is negotiating not because they are paid to do so. Negotiators are volunteers who care about people and want to help because they know help is available. Negotiator Qualities The negotiator should be nonjudgmental. Be prepared for the fact that the suicidal individual’s lifestyle is not going to match the negotiator’s lifestyle. Crisis and suicide intervention are not therapy. Law enforcement negotiators have the limited goal of getting the person past the impulse to commit suicide. Negotiators should not attempt to be psychologically analytical, as being analytical is not within their expertise. Avoid lecturing. Persons in crisis need help and support, not a lecture. Do not discount feelings. Do not make statements that discount the person’s feelings, such as, “It’s not that bad.” To the suicidal person, it is that bad, and if the negotiator says it is not, the negotiator is saying that he does not understand. Avoid moralizing. Negotiators should avoid moralizing. The subject’s view of life and the negotiator’s view of life are not likely to be the same.


Avoid giving advice. The negotiator may lose his rapport if advice is provided. The negotiator’s task is to help the person find his own solution.

Chapter 6 Hostage Negotiation

Presented in this chapter are what have now become “traditional” hostage negotiation techniques, theories, and procedures. Priorities The top priority in hostage negotiation is the preservation of human life, all lives. Everything else is secondary. A human life cannot be replaced. Courses of Action The authorities can initiate any number of actions in siege situations. The course advocated here is contain, isolate, and negotiate. The negotiator wants the subject contained in the smallest possible area and isolated from the outside world. The subject is isolated in that he has no dialogue with anyone outside the siege location unless the crisis management team agrees to that contact. The tactical options are varied, and include chemical agents, sniper shots, and an assortment of entry alternatives. The difficulty with all tactical options is that once initiated, with a few rare exceptions, they must be carried through to completion. If the tactical option fails to end an incident, it is difficult to initiate or resume negotiations.


Containment Containment is essential to the resolution of an incident. Containment presupposes that the incident is not moving, preventing the spread of the threat. If the incident is moving, the subject has breached the inner perimeter and is not contained. There is no such thing as moving containment. Containment not only prevents escape and the spread of the threat, it also prevents the entry of unauthorized persons into the operational area. Unauthorized persons include the subject’s supporters, media representatives, and the public. Perimeters Solid perimeters are essential to containment. The subject is contained within an inner perimeter. The doctrine of most law enforcement agencies is that the tactical team leader is the ultimate authority on the inner perimeter. No one is allowed inside, on, or through the inner perimeter unless the tactical team leader approves. This authority extends over the negotiator. If the tactical team leader does not approve the negotiator’s presence on the inner perimeter, the negotiator is not on the inner perimeter. Negotiators who are on the inner perimeter should maintain a position of cover and maintain at least the same level of safety as tactical officers. Anytime the negotiator is on the inner perimeter, he should be wearing body armor. Negotiators without body armor should not be allowed on the inner perimeter. Only authorized persons are permitted through the outer perimeter. Specifically who is “authorized” may be a matter of judgment, departmental policy, and the circumstances of the incident. For example, some agencies routinely establish a media briefing point at a location between the inner and outer perimeter. Keeping the officers who are manning the outer perimeter involved is a potential problem. Too often, they feel left out of the “action” and under-involved. The crisis management team must ensure that the outer perimeter does not break down. The problem of unauthorized persons—such as

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION ■ 73

friends and relatives of victims and subject, sightseers, and others—breaching the outer perimeter for their own reasons is but one problem. One agency reported that officers stopped an individual talking on a cellular telephone as he was crossing the outer perimeter. It was the subject talking to the negotiator. He had somehow breached the inner perimeter and came close to making his escape through the outer perimeter. Another agency negotiated the release of a hostage. When the negotiator told the subject it was time to release the hostage, he said, “She’s already gone.” The released hostage had gone right through the inner and outer perimeters undetected and went home. She had had a tough day! Obviously, roads that cut through the inner and outer perimeter should be closed, and all traffic stopped. Early in an incident, the address for a staging area or command post location must be broadcast. Ensure that responding officers —including negotiators, tactical personnel, and commanders —do not pull up in front of the subject’s residence and into the line of fire. What is Negotiable and What is Not? Generally, food, drink, cigarettes, and other comfort items have been considered negotiable. Alcohol is considered nonnegotiable by many negotiation teams. Media coverage, too, has been considered negotiable, especially for persons with a cause of any kind. Often, schizophrenics and others with grandiose ideas or delusions want to get their message out to the world. Or persons who have felt wronged by the government or an employer may want to tell the world about their grievance. Negotiators should attempt to remain flexible and even creative concerning what is negotiable. Negotiators should view anything that the subject feels is a problem, obstacle, or annoyance as an opportunity for them to do some creative trading. In the course of bank robbery gone wrong, a veteran bank robber took several hostages. Among his hostages was an elderly man with a bad heart, who thought


he was having a heart attack and was loudly expressing his concern to the hostage taker. Another hostage began her period during the prolonged siege. She had no sanitary aids with her, so she was crying, humiliated, and upset. The negotiator offered the veteran bank robber a deal, saying, “If you send the old man out, I’ll send a box of sanitary aids in.” The bank robber replied, “You have a deal pal,” the trade was made, and the elderly man was freed. Historically, drugging food or drinks has been considered too dangerous for hostages and/or the subject. A drug that will knock out the subject rapidly, yet will result in no negative side effects on anyone, regardless of medical condition or age, may not exist. Recently, there were two incidents where the subject was given drugged food, became groggy, and was overcome by law enforcement. Both of these incidents took place in hospitals, and that location appears to have been a factor in the decision making. Another concern among law enforcement personnel has been that the hostage taker might give the drugged food or drink to hostages or victims, then wait to see what happens. If the hostages begin to slump to the floor, out cold, the hostage taker is going to suspect something is amiss, and the negotiator will lose credibility. The biggest concern about providing drugs and alcohol to the subject appears to be the fear of potential lawsuits. The concern is that the subject might commit some act of violence after the authorities have provided alcohol or drugs, and the authorities would be exposed to legal liability. Meanwhile, some agencies have very quietly, on rare occasions, provided alcohol, and thus far experienced no problems in doing so. Providing alcohol, though, is still a risky proposition. The universal concern that the subject will take violent action against someone after law enforcement has given him alcohol. If contemplating giving alcohol to a subject who is demanding it, determine how alcohol generally affects him. If he is a pleasant drunk, the risk would appear to be less; if he is nasty while under the influence, the risk would appear to be greater.


Transportation is generally considered negotiable only if the threat to hostages appears to be increasing, and leaving the siege location is to the tactical advantage of the authorities. The movement of the situation means the dismantling of the inner and, sometimes, the outer perimeter, and the rapid re-establishment of these perimeters at a second location. Historically, the primary problems associated with moving situations have been centered on command, communication, and/or control. Command problems have been encountered as the moving hostage situation traveled through different jurisdictions. The policy of each jurisdiction, the training level of crisis management personnel, the experience of each crisis management team, the attitude of personnel, the politics of elected officials, and other problems associated with public safety and traffic are all constantly changing as the situation moves from location to location. Communications are always a problem in crisis situations, but even more so as a crisis situation moves from location to location and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Even with a common channel among agencies, problems, questions, uncertainties, misunderstandings, and doubts arise. Chaos is virtually unavoidable. Finally, a certain loss of control is unavoidable in moving incidents. A basic “rule of thumb” in crisis management is to avoid any action that loosens law enforcement control of an incident. Movement of an incident certainly loosens control. Traditionally, giving a hostage taker weapons and/or ammunition has been considered non-negotiable. The concern is that if the subject does kill someone, law enforcement does not want to be in the position of having provided the weapon or ammunition that did the killing. Even the provision of a malfunctioning weapon has been avoided. The concern is that the hostage taker may test-fire the weapon and determine its condition, and the negotiator will lose credibility. The exchange of hostages has also been considered nonnegotiable. Trading a law enforcement officer for a hostage


has been considered to be especially dangerous. The fear is that the murder of an officer is more notable in some circles than the killing of a citizen, so the subject may be more willing to kill an officer. The subject will rightly consider an officer or deputy to be more of a threat than a citizen, and that also heightens the danger to officers who are exchanged. Stress is typically high during a hostage incident, but if the hostage is now an officer, the stress and tension among law enforcement are raised even more. If the subject specifically requests an individual, negotiators must ask themselves why the subject wants that particular person. The negotiator certainly does not want to be responsible for sending someone into a siege location to his death. Hostage takers have also been known to use the trade as a ploy to obtain additional hostages. There was a situation in the Midwest where a subject was initially holding one hostage. With the subject’s continuing promises to come out if one more family member, friend, and attorney were sent in, he eventually surrendered with his eight hostages. In terms of saving lives, the Stockholm Syndrome is generally considered to be a positive development. If hostages come out in return for someone going in, the valuable potential of this gain will be lost, especially if the replacement is an officer. Finally, negotiators do not want to provide an audience for a spiteful suicide. On two occasions on opposite sides of the world, subjects were found holding large knives to their abdomens. Both subjects demanded that estranged loved ones be brought to the scene. When the loved ones did not appear by the subjects’ deadlines, they cut themselves. Police immediately produced a wife on one occasion and an ex-girlfriend on the other. When the subjects saw their respective ladies, each said, “Look what you’ve done to me,” and sliced open their abdomens. In another incident, a police officer who had threatened suicide in the past went to his ex-girlfriend’s apartment. He kicked down the door and, in front of her and her new boyfriend, cried, “Look what you’ve done to me, bitch,” and proceeded to shoot himself through the head. As negotiators,


we should be asking ourselves if we are setting up a suicide situation. As a general rule, anyone who comes out of a siege location stays out. No one should be allowed to back into a crisis situation once he is out, and no one should be allowed to go into an incident. Not uncommonly, released hostages and victims may want to go back into the crisis incident. The general feeling among these people is that they can do more good inside than outside. On one occasion a rather elderly mental health professional had to be removed from the scene because, once out of the hostage situation, he insisted upon going back in with his fellow hostages. In another incident, a minister, once out of captivity, went back in twice before being sent away from the incident. A similar situation is one where an agreement has been reached with the subject to release a hostage and the hostage refuses to come out. The hostage typically does not want to leave his fellow hostages, feels some responsibility to stay with the hostages, or feels like he can do more good inside with the hostages than outside with the authorities. Suggested Negotiator Introduction Negotiators should establish contact with the subject as soon as possible, with consideration given to safety, control, departmental policy, and procedure. Some law enforcement agencies have policies of not opening a dialogue with the subject until the tactical team is in place. If responding officers are adequately trained, the incident is contained, and innocent persons are out of harm’s way, this procedure would seem to err on the side of caution. First-response training for patrol officers and road deputies should be an important issue for all law enforcement agencies. Historically, the early hours of an incident have been considered the most dangerous and, for negotiators, the most difficult. It is essential to get the negotiation process off to the best possible start. A good way to begin is by using the following introduction: “My name is __________(no rank or title). I am a negotiator with the Police Department. I would like to help.”


In general, it is suggested that the negotiator’s full name be provided initially but only his first name thereafter, in an effort to establish a less formal, rapport-building atmosphere. The negotiator provides no rank or title to avoid the idea that the negotiator has more power than he actually has. The negotiator, being an officer or deputy, has access to the power, and it is this access to power—not full power—that the negotiator projects. Even use of the word “negotiator” has been the topic of some discussion. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, some officers thought that someone with the title “negotiator” might be thought of as manipulative, so the word was dropped from any introduction. Time, as it so often is, has been on the side of negotiators. As criminals grew to know about negotiation, some negotiators used the word “negotiator” when working with what appeared to be career criminals. Now, even the general public knows what negotiators do, so the word “negotiator” is back into the negotiator’s introduction. A negotiator arrived at the scene a couple of hours into an incident. In his absence, a tactical team member was assuming the negotiator’s role. When the officer introduced himself and identified himself as a negotiator, the subject asked, “You’re a negotiator?” The negotiator said that he was. The subject then declared, “Good! I give up.” The incredulous negotiator replied, “Fine, but why?” The subject said, “Well, the other guy I was talking to is on the SWAT team. SWAT teams kill people. Negotiators talk to people. I give up.” Sometimes, subjects are very grateful to negotiators for having saved their lives. Some negotiators receive notes, Christmas cards, and even gifts through the mail for months, even years, after the incident. One subject telephoned a negotiator at home in the earlymorning hours and asked if the negotiator remembered him. The negotiator assured the subject that he did, in fact, remember. The subject then said, “Good, because I’ve taken a hostage again. I’m down here in a phone booth with the


hostage and I wish you would come down and talk me out of this.” When the subject tells the negotiator his name, the negotiator should listen very carefully, make a note of the subject’s name, and use the name exactly as furnished. If the subject says his name is William, for example, the negotiator should call him that, and not Bill or Billy. If the negotiator wants to use a more familiar form of a name, he should ask the subject how he wants to be addressed. Getting the name exactly correct may seem like a small point, but from the perspective of experienced negotiators, it is not. Subjects get very upset if negotiators forget their names, get their names wrong, or use “chummy” forms of their names. Forgetting the subject’s name or getting it wrong indicates to the subject that the negotiator does not care enough about him to even remember his name or remember it correctly. Referring to the subject by a less formal, “chummy” form of a name may imply a lack of respect. If the subject does not provide a name, the negotiator should work with the subject and tell him, “I have to call you something. Give me a name, any name, to call you.” Even under these circumstances, subjects have become extremely upset when a negotiator got the assigned name wrong! A demonstration of caring is vitally important to the establishment of rapport. If the negotiator does not even bother to get the subject’s name right, it will be difficult to convince him that the negotiator cares about him in any other way. Early on, do not forget to ask the subject to come out. Sometimes subjects do not come out because a negotiator, officer, or deputy did not think to ask. A state investigator/ negotiator arrived on the scene of a barricade a few hours into the incident. Being the only trained negotiator on scene, he made contact with the subject, introduced himself and said, “I want you to put your weapon down and come out the front door with your hands where we can see them.” The subject responded, “Okay. I’m coming out.”


The negotiator, not expecting the subject to immediately surrender, and thinking that perhaps he had misunderstood, again said, “Now, I want you to put the weapon down and come out the front door with your hands where we can see them.” The subject repeated, “Okay. I’m coming out.” The negotiator, unable to resist, said, “Okay. Good, but why?” The subject said, “The deputies told me if I came out of the house with my rifle there was going to be trouble, so I just stayed inside. I’m coming out.” Often, it is an officer or deputy not trained in crisis negotiation who is first on scene. Commonly, he has made contact with the subject and has opened a dialogue. If that officer is doing well in terms of rapport building and calming the subject, leave him in place and have a trained negotiator coach him through the remainder of the ordeal. Leaving the officer in place if he is reasonably comfortable with the job and doing well is a good idea for several reasons. Morale is a big reason. The officer or deputy often feels that this incident is his call, and the “big boys” are now coming in to take it away from him. As a practical matter, it is a good idea to keep him on-scene, because he was the first on scene. Invariably, as soon as he drives off, investigators realize that some important question was not asked. Now, the officer or deputy is on the other side of the county, offduty, or cannot be located. If the officer is doing a good job, sometimes the subject does not want to change negotiators. On one occasion, a tactical officer made first contact with the subject and, though uncomfortable in the role of negotiator, opened a dialogue with him. The tactical officer told the subject that a particular negotiator would be arriving soon, and that the negotiator was a good guy who could get things done. When the negotiator did arrive and attempted to take over the negotiation, the subject said, “I don’t want to talk to you. I want to talk to the other guy.” Some subjects will invest a lot in the first officer to make contact. They seem to be reassured by the presence of the police, and especially by the first officer to make contact.


Common Means of Communication Often law enforcement officers will begin communicating with the subject via bullhorn. A bullhorn gets his attention, and he can be given instructions while still refusing to answer the telephone. The problem with a bullhorn is its lack of privacy and intimacy. Negotiators talk to people about very private, intimate, personal problems and feelings as they attempt to build a rapport with the subject. Few subjects will be amenable to discussing their personal problems by shouting them to the negotiator. When communicating with the subject by direct voice, or over a bullhorn or speakers, negotiators should remember to do so from cover—that is, from behind something that will stop a bullet. Subjects have been known to shoot at the sound of the negotiator’s voice. If placing speakers around an objective, do not call out over the speakers until the person placing the speakers is well out of the way. Face-to-face exposure should be avoided if at all possible, and will be discussed later in this chapter. Direct voice from a position of cover (not concealment) is better, but the telephone generally is considered the best form of communication for a variety of reasons. Telephones allow negotiators to confer more readily with their backup regarding developing information and negotiation tactics. Telephones also are obviously safer for the negotiator. Both sides of a negotiation find it easier to end the discussion by hanging up the telephone. Face-toface make it easier to personalize but is more difficult to conclude abruptly. Commercially built crisis telephones are especially good because of their wide variety of features, including tape recording capability, multiple headsets, and other options. It is imperative that negotiators maintain familiarity with any specialized equipment and the law. In the middle of the night, with shots being fired, is not the time to be trying to figure out how a piece of communications equipment works, or what kind of legal authority may be required to use the crisis telephone and its features. Modern telephone systems have changed negotiation techniques and concerns over the last 20 years. At one time,


there often was no more than one telephone in a house. If the subject repeatedly picked up the telephone on the first ring, and the only telephone was in the kitchen, the negotiators could tell the tactical team with some degree of confidence that the subject was staying in the kitchen. No more. The advent of cordless and wireless telephones and specialized telephone features has changed the scene considerably. A negotiator tells the story of working a situation for several hours before the subject said he would come out. Nothing happened. The negotiator called the subject again. The subject provided an address on the other side of the city, 20 minutes away. The subject’s telephone was on “call forwarding.” When law enforcement arrived at the second location, the subject was sitting on the front porch, waiting for them. The ideal negotiation site is one with little background noise to be heard by the subject and act as a distraction to the negotiator. It should have enough telephones for negotiators to maintain contact with the subject, command, investigators, tactical personnel, and others. Obviously, it should be out of the subject’s line of fire. The Role of Time The importance of the passage of time, especially in spontaneous sieges, is difficult to overstate. Persons who are in a crisis state will change in a relatively short period of time —that is, a few hours. With the passage of time and the ventilation of emotion, the subject will begin to calm down and become more rational. Over time, basic human needs increase. With time, the subject will become hungry, thirsty, tired, hot, or cold, or need a toilet, cigarette, drink, or drug. It is when he begins to realize that he must go through the negotiator to get his needs met that the power gradually shifts in the negotiator’s favor. Time allows for the formation of the Stockholm Syndrome. It is presumed that the Stockholm Syndrome saves lives once the subject and his hostages get to know each other. Do


not expect to see the syndrome if the subject and victim were previously known to each other. In other words, do not expect to see it in domestic or personal disputes. Hostages may find opportunities to escape as time passes. However, negotiators should not count on hostages or victims escaping, even if given what appears to be a clear opportunity to do so. Negotiators should keep in mind that hostages probably have been threatened, and feel like they are betting their lives that their escape attempt will be successful. They may also feel that if their escape is successful, the subject will harm the remaining hostages. Good decision making does not just happen. Good decision making requires accurate information, and the gathering of intelligence takes time. Satisfactory decisions are based upon good information, training, experience, and attitude. Sometimes bad decisions are made in the face of good information. No negotiator should assume that good information will somehow automatically result in good decisions. Negotiator-subject rapport takes time to develop, as the negotiator demonstrates that he can be trusted. No one wants to make a deal with someone he does not trust. It is essential that the negotiator establish a rapport with the subject, and the development of that trust happens over time. If a third-party intermediary is used, he must be a person the subject trusts. How to Stall for Time To obtain the beneficial effects of the passage of time, it is often necessary for the negotiator to stall. The negotiator’s primary stalling tactic should be the employment of activelistening skills, not lying. Active listening skills, as mentioned earlier, help the negotiator calm the subject, establish rapport, gather information, and gain time. The benefits of active listening far exceed the pitfalls of lying and the possibility of being caught.


Lying No one is suggesting that the negotiator should never lie if it suits a particular purpose and there is no readily apparent way around the lie. Stalling itself is a lie. Lying, especially in situations requiring shift changes, is extremely hazardous in terms of negotiator credibility. Lying does not look good in front of juries or the public, and the subject will tell cellmates that negotiators lied to him. If negotiators have to work with that same individual again or anyone he has talked to, they are going to have a difficult time. A loss of credibility can be a particular problem for law enforcement officers who work in small towns or rural jurisdictions where they encounter the same individuals time after time. In larger cities, encountering the same individual may be less likely. The bottom line for negotiators is that they should avoid lying, but if they must, they should not get caught, because if they do, their credibility and trust may be irretrievably lost. Concerns That Arise with the Passage of Time There is a downside to the passage of time, and beyond some point the advantages of stalling will diminish. Exhaustion on the part of the subject, negotiators, tactical personnel, and commanders is a major problem. All crisis team members must be relieved on a timely basis. Though 12 hours is probably too long to be actively negotiating, most teams establish 12-hour shifts. Typically, however, the first shift in long sieges will be extraordinarily long. Apparently, personnel believe the incident will end soon, want to be on-scene for the resolution, and feel that if they leave, they will miss the action. It often becomes difficult to get personnel to leave for rest or even to run errands. No one wants to go home and have his son ask, “Hey, Dad, when that bad guy was shot today, what did you do?” and have to answer, “Well, son, I was down at McDonald’s, buying burgers for the team, and I missed the whole thing!”


Exhaustion can lead to thinking that is fuzzy at best and, at the extreme, irrational. For example, what sounds like a good idea at 3:00 a.m. after 18 hours of high stress may not sound quite so good the next day or later in court. Profound exhaustion can even lead to transient psychotic breaks. Many officers have reported working a midnight shift and standing on the brakes of their patrol cars, erroneously believing something had darted out in front of them. This reaction is the result of exhaustion. Negotiators want to wear the subject down, but only to a certain point. Any further exhaustion is not the optimal state of mind, especially for a hostage taker or a drunken, abusive husband with a gun to his wife’s head. Boredom is another problem that sometimes leads to carelessness and even unprofessional behavior. Law enforcement officers do not join the profession because they enjoy a quiet lifestyle. Many become officers and deputies because, among other reasons, they enjoy the action and excitement. For most people, it is difficult to wait hour after hour or day after day, but for action-oriented people, this waiting is even more difficult. The creeping-up effect occurs in three different varieties. Negotiators who initially were safely behind a position of cover are no longer in a position of cover but standing in the line of fire—in a doorway, for example. This occurrence is so frequent, some experienced teams will have the secondary negotiator hold on to the primary’s belt so he does not step out into the subject’s line of fire. If appropriate, it might be a good idea to draw a chalk line on the floor or lay red crime scene-type ribbon on the floor to remind negotiation team members of the subject’s the line of fire. A problem on the inner perimeter is that people with no business there start gathering. Officers want to be close to the action, so, for example, runners bringing equipment and information up to the inner perimeter tend to stay if permitted to do so. On the outer perimeter, officers again start moving in closer and, coupled with the boredom of manning the outer perimeter, become careless and allow unauthorized persons to breach the outer perimeter.


Injuries, illness, and other medical problems are always a concern as an incident advances through the hours, the concern being whether the medical situation is deteriorating. The pressure for resolution is sometimes called the action imperative. Pressure for resolution can come from commanders who are concerned about a variety of issues, including the cost of overtime, inconvenience to the city, manpower, the appearance of not being tough enough, frustration, etc. Negotiators and tactical personnel can also be pushed to “do something, anything.” Never, ever take an action just to be doing “something, anything.” Several hours into a domestic situation, a chief of police said, “I’m going home now and I don’t want to wake up to this.” So the next morning, just before the chief woke up, a tactical entry was made, the victim rescued, and the subject arrested without further incident. The outcome left the chief pleased and convinced that he had made the correct decision. Too often in law enforcement we reward and are pleased with only the outcome. At the conclusion of an incident, law enforcement should be asking, “Did we do well or were we lucky?” In the U.S., the vast majority of law enforcement agencies are under ten officers or deputies, so manpower and money in these smaller agencies is always a problem. There are not enough people to properly man an incident if left to their own resources. In several states, it is not uncommon for a law enforcement agency to have two people: the chief and his wife, who is the dispatcher. Yet in major cities, using 50 to 60 people to work a barricade would not be unusual. Even in larger cities, where manpower may be plentiful, there may be a problem finding sufficient specialized personnel, such as sniper/observers, negotiators, and tactical personnel, for more than one shift. Contingency plans should be in place for multiple shifts, consisting of manpower with the necessary specialized skills. In many states around the country, law enforcement agencies have put together countywide tactical and negotiation teams. Each agency signatory to the agreement provides money and manpower. In the event of a major incident, each agency provides a limited number of people.


In this way, no single incident is going to decimate a budget, and manpower concerns are minimized. As one chief lamented, “If I use eight people to work a barricade situation tonight, who will I put on the street tomorrow?” The effects of drugs, alcohol, and withdrawal over time are a common concern. Some law enforcement agencies have estimated that as few as 40% of their negotiated incidents involve drugs and/or alcohol. Far more agencies, though, have estimated much higher percentages. Some negotiators have claimed that everyone that they negotiate with is under the influence of something. The complex question is, as this incident proceeds, will the potential for violence increase or decrease? Is the subject going to be more dangerous under the influence or in withdrawal? A medical opinion during an incident might not be a bad idea. (See Chapter 9.) Prolonged incidents very commonly cause inconvenience to a city and neighborhoods. People may need to be evacuated from their homes, or traffic flow may be disrupted. In one case, a fugitive was observed driving away from a residence. Federal agents gave chase. The subject stopped his vehicle on an onramp to an interstate highway, on a Friday afternoon in a major city, and caused the city to fill with irate commuters. He threatened to kill his dog and himself before finally surrendering at 9:30 p.m. Throughout the ordeal, the federal agents and state police were receiving telephone calls from the mayor’s office demanding that something, anything be done. Media and public attention can be a major problem over time. Crowds of media personnel and the public can get in the way of law enforcement and other emergency vehicles. Deadlines The guidelines concerning deadlines that negotiators have been using since the 1970s have changed very little. Upon receipt of a deadline, log it and inform command. It is still recommended that negotiators contact the subject before the deadline and engage the subject in conversation as the deadline expires. Even if the subject is aware that the deadline is passing, the negotiator, by talking to him, gives


him a graceful way out of his threatened violence. The negotiator should avoid referring to the subject’s deadline when talking to him. Both parties know the deadline is expiring, and its expiration goes unsaid. The negotiator should not set a deadline by promising anything at a specific time. For example, a negotiator should not promise the delivery of coffee within 10 minutes. When the coffee is not delivered at the specified time, a subject gets very angry. He is certain the negotiator lied and is deliberately giving him the runaround. Use the excuse of turmoil and confusion, if necessary, for not meeting deadlines. In general, negotiators should attempt to take the credit for anything good that happens and blame others for any problems and misunderstandings. Demands In general, the idea of the negotiator’s never saying “no” to a demand is still a good one, while keeping in mind that not saying “no” is not the same as saying “yes.” The negotiator ought to remain open-minded and flexible in dealing with demands, even those demands he knows will not be met. Sometimes, though, the subject knows that his demands will not be met. In these circumstances, the harsh, unvarnished truth will gain the negotiator credibility. This can become a difficult judgment call for the negotiation team When negotiating the release of hostages, negotiators should have the other side make the first offer in terms of how many hostages are released. A negotiator would not want to ask for one hostage, for example, when the subject would have given him two. It is difficult for the negotiator to determine the worth of the hostages to the subject, so let him make the first offer. Remember that command must authorize all agreements. An idea that some negotiators seem to have gotten away from is to get something in return for everything the negotiator gives the subject. Some negotiators seem to feel that giving the subject small things, such as a cigarette, will help in the rapport-building process. Other negotiators believe that merely giving the subject something achieves


nothing and may even be detrimental to the negotiating process, that most of the people with whom negotiators work with will view the yielding to requests and demands as a sign of weakness and not feel at all indebted or appreciative to the negotiator. The act of giving in to the subject also perpetuates the idea that he is in control. It is recommended here that the negotiator establish a quid pro quo and get something in return for everything given to the subject, even if it is only a promise of change in behavior. The negotiator also should make the subject work for everything he receives from the authorities. Nothing is easy for him. Negotiators should portray themselves as wellmeaning but somewhat bumbling, strong but approachable and empathic. Giving in to the subject works against that image. It follows that the negotiator should not raise the subject’s aspirations or expectations by giving the subject too much too soon. Do not ask for demands either. Asking for demands may initiate feelings of power or perpetuate those feelings. The negotiator wants to gradually move the subject away from the idea that his demands will be met. Do not ask for trouble. The presentation of demands can be a major development in the evolution of a crisis. As with all major developments, log the demands and inform command. It is important to log demands. The negotiator may be required to testify later regarding the date, time, and nature of the demands. Negotiators tend to think that they will never forget how a particular incident unfolded, but due to stress they do forget. At the same time, and for some of the same reasons, negotiators should log everything they give the subject, and remind him what they have given him, if necessary. Never dismiss a demand as being inconsequential. If the demand is important to the subject, it is important to the negotiator. In fact, if a demand seems inconsequential or even inappropriate to the negotiator, it may be a topic to follow up on. The negotiator may be missing something important.


Do not bring up demands that the subject has not mentioned for a while unless it is to your advantage. In fact, it may not be a good idea to initiate any dialogue on demands. Let him bring up the topic each time. Be prepared for, but be very careful about, suggesting alternatives during a siege. If the subject is displaying any signs of paranoia, the suggestion of alternatives may evoke a paranoid reaction. Or, if the negotiator’s well-intended suggestion does not work out, he should be ready to take the brunt of the subject’s frustration. Typically, subjects imbue negotiators with more power than they actually have. Anything that goes wrong with the negotiator’s suggestion will come back on the negotiator, and the subject may even believe that the negotiator set him up for failure. Subject’s Needs As an incident progresses, the negotiator becomes the only person through whom the subject’s needs are met. Part of a negotiator’s task is to identify the subject’s needs and use them to obtain resolution of the incident. Sometimes negotiators will hear mental health professionals talking about instrumental and expressive needs. Instrumental needs are the spoken needs and are often tangible, including such items as food, water, a getaway car, money, cigarettes, beer, and comfort items. Expressive needs are unspoken and include acceptance, belonging, affection, power, and self-worth. It is important to listen for expressive needs that are not being met. Some situations are based entirely upon expressive needs. Occasionally, negotiators may wonder among themselves what it will take to end an incident when the negotiation is otherwise going well but the subject just will not surrender. At this point, the negotiation team should be thinking about expressive needs and what the subject wants out of the incident that he has not mentioned. One subject took hostages on three occasions. The first two incidents took place at the same location, where the subject had no previous connection whatsoever. The likeliest explanation for his choice of this location was the fact that


the site was across the street from a television station. His demands were similar in all three incidents: He wanted to talk to a list of old friends, family members, and others. These individuals were permitted to speak to him and all said basically the same thing: “Why are you doing this? You know we love you. Please don’t do this. Don’t hurt those people. Don’t hurt yourself.” After getting his fill of attention in the first two incidents, he surrendered. During the third incident, at a different location, the whole scenario began once more. He demanded to speak to friends and relatives, they were again permitted to speak, and they again professed their love for him and implored him not to hurt himself or anyone else. After hours of the same, a negotiator got on the telephone and said, “Okay, that’s it. From now on you speak to no one but me, no one.” The subject cried, “You’re going to kill me, aren’t you? Aren’t you?” The negotiator, after a pause that was apparently a bit too long for the subject, attempted to reassure him by saying, “Nooo. We’re not going to kill you.” Now, in the subject’s mind, the incident was getting serious. The subject surrendered a short time later. No one repeats an act unless they are getting something they want out of it. In these incidents, the subject was getting what he wanted: attention. The only time people paid any attention to him was when he took hostages, so he did it three times. After the third hostage taking, he finally received a lengthy prison term. The subject’s shift from instrumental needs to expressive needs may indicate that the subject is developing some trust in the negotiator and that rapport is being established. It is relatively easy to talk about one’s instrumental needs— for example, “I’m thirsty. Send me a beer in here!” It is much more difficult for a subject to talk about his expressive needs of love, belonging, self-worth, power, and self-esteem. Few subjects will begin a negotiation with, “I just want to (display power, belong, be loved, get some attention).” It would appear that a negotiator is making progress in establishing rapport if the subject is talking about


expressive needs, because expressive needs tend to be much more personal. People talk about expressive needs only with someone they trust. Another way to address expressive needs is to find a topic where the subject feels some expertise. A negotiator was working with a hostage taker whose usual occupation was truck salesman, and the negotiator said, “While we are working on your demands, there is something I would like to ask.” The subject said, “What’s that?” “I am in the market to buy a pickup truck and I’m not sure what kind to buy.” The negotiator said. “What do you suggest?” The subject said, “Well, what are you going to use it for?” The subject and negotiator then talked for more than an hour about the pros and cons of the various brands. Finally, the negotiator said, “Maybe we should get back to business here.” To which the subject replied, “Hey, I’m just going to throw it in. I know you guys are not going to give me what I want. If you want to know anything else about trucks, you’ll know where to find me.” Another negotiator arrested a carpenter and was interviewing the man at his desk. The officer had taken a large hunting knife from the subject and placed it in his desk drawer, but neglected to close the drawer. The subject reached into the drawer, retrieved the knife, then held it to his abdomen while stating his suicidal intent. The officer saw the end of his career staring him in the face. Here was his prisoner, still in handcuffs, threatening suicide at his desk. After some dialogue, the officer said, “I understand you’re a carpenter. I’m trying to build a garden shed behind my house, but I can’t even drive a nail straight. I could go to school for years and never be able to do what you do. Where’d you learn to do that?” The subject then went on to tell the negotiator how he had learned his carpentry skills. After some time had passed, the subject put the knife down, surrendered, and said,


“When I get out, I’d be glad to help you with that garden shed.” A deputy sheriff reported that a woman who was separated from her husband asked if the deputy would accompany her to her home to retrieve some clothes and other personal items. She was concerned about her husband’s possible behavior. While at the residence, her husband came home with a couple of his brothers. The husband was irate and insulted that she felt that she needed protection from a deputy sheriff, and began to yell at the woman. The deputy was concerned because the man and his burly brothers outnumbered him. The deputy then noticed a dirt-track car out behind the house. The deputy said that he started rattling off a list of questions and statements in quick succession: “Do you race that car? Did you build it? Do they cost much to build? Is it hard to build? I’d like to do that. That looks like fun.” While the deputy and husband were talking about dirt-track cars, the wife was quickly and quietly loading her belongings into the county car. When the deputy saw that she was finished, he promptly got into his car and drove off. Asking the subject’s advice about a topic where he feels competent is very similar to the “hook” described in the chapter on suicide. This topic is an area where he feels good about himself and feels some expertise. The negotiator is an authority figure asking the subject’s advice, and that also builds up his self-esteem. The topic is away from the subject’s concerns that are driving the incident or causing stress and tension. It is a very effective technique that allows the subject to calm down, passes time, and builds the subject’s self-esteem all at the same time. Actually, talking to the subject in a conversational manner often leads to unexpected resolutions. An experienced negotiator was working with a barricaded subject. The negotiation seemed to be going well, but the subject, who was not in a position to hurt anyone, refused to come out. The negotiator, becoming increasingly frustrated, said, “I’m going home for some red beans, rice, and ham, and I’ll be back in an hour or so.”


The subject named a small town back in the hills and asked if the negotiator was familiar with it. The negotiator said that he was, and offered that he was from a neighboring town back in the hills. The subject then said, “Reckon if I come out I can get some red beans, rice, and ham?” The negotiator said, “I think we can do that.” The subject said, “Good, I’m coming out.” Sometimes, it is very difficult to predict what technique might be effective for a negotiator. By merely talking to the subject, negotiators sometimes hit on topics that lead to a resolution. Communication Recommendations Some standard communication recommendations include the following: ■ With mentally disturbed persons, in particular, be supportive when the subject is rational. ■ If you are not sure what the subject meant, ask. ■ Downplay what the subject has done so far. ■ Avoid using profanity. ■ Be yourself. ■ Choose your words, tone, and manner very carefully. ■ Adapt your conversation to the subject’s educational and vocabulary level. ■ Speak more slowly and calmly than the subject. Some would suggest that the negotiator simply speak slowly and calmly. That approach is not suggested here. The negotiator should not speak in a monotone. He must put some inflection and caring in his voice but, obviously, not sound out of control. ■ Avoid saying “no,” but lower expectations by creating doubt that the demands will be fulfilled. ■ When talking to the subject, avoid being distracted. ■ Minimize and be aware of your background noises. ■ Strive for honesty to ensure credibility.


Double-Check All Intelligence Double-checking all information will save money, embarrassment, and lives. A patrol officer reported standing at the front door of a residence with his weapon drawn and pointed at a subject who was in a rage and brandishing a large hunting knife. A woman on the front lawn was screaming and calling out, “My baby! My baby!” Several times the subject approached a bundle on a couch that the officer took to be the baby. Each time, the officer came close to firing to protect the baby. At the conclusion of the incident, the “baby” proved to be a 17-year-old young woman who was hiding in a back closet; the bundle thought to be the baby was a rolled-up blanket. The officer, who was clearly shaken by the incident, said, “I nearly killed the guy for approaching a rolled-up blanket!” On another occasion, a negotiator made contact with an estranged husband who had kidnapped his children. The tactical team responded to an address provided by the subject’s wife. The negotiator opened a dialogue and the subject appeared to be amenable to the negotiator’s suggestions. He told the negotiator, “Hang on. I want to get on the downstairs phone. I’m afraid that I will wake up the kids talking on this one.” The negotiator turned to a tactical representative and said, “He’s going downstairs.” The tactical team member said, “The house we have surrounded has no downstairs!” The negotiator re-interviewed the mother, who was being held in a nearby room. She said, “Well, it is either 123 Elm Street or 223 Elm Street or something like that!” The subject was finally located at 223 Elm Street. Another negotiator reported that he had been on the telephone for many hours when the subject finally said, “Okay. I’m coming out.” A few minutes passed and nothing happened. The subject then got back on the telephone. The negotiator said, “I thought you told me that you were coming out.” The subject responded, “I tried to, but a cop on the front porch pushed me back into the house and said there was a barricade situation next door, stay inside!”


Still another negotiator said he, too, had been negotiating for several hours. The subject agreed to give up, but nothing happened until they saw the subject three houses down the block, calling out, “Hey, over here!” Nonresponse Situations Inadequately checked intelligence is but one reason for nonresponse situations. More than one law enforcement agency has negotiated for hours with an empty house. Perhaps the subject was never there. Or maybe he escaped. He may not be responding for any number of reasons. Never assume, though, that he is gone or dead. Consider the following: ■ The subject cannot hear the negotiator for whatever the reason, such as his location in the house or the mere distance from negotiator to subject. Or the subject may be deaf. Negotiators have worked with deaf, mute persons on several occasions. ■ The negotiator cannot hear the subject. There have been occasions where the subject was responding but the negotiator could not hear him and the negotiator thought he was in a non-response situation. ■ The subject cannot understand the negotiator. Language differences have been and will continue to be a problem. ■ The subject is sleeping, passed out, unconscious, or dead. The subject may have passed out from the use of drugs and/or alcohol. Or perhaps he is unconscious or dead from illness, injuries, or wounds. ■ Some subjects apparently hope to avoid detection, arrest, and incarceration by not responding to the negotiator. The hope is that if they do not respond to the negotiator, the police will go away and they will not have to go to jail. ■ Subjects fear making themselves mentally and physically vulnerable. Some subjects clearly feel that if they respond to the negotiator, the negotiator will hear the fear in their voice, and that will make them more vulnerable. Others fear the tactical team will shoot at the sound of their voice.


■ Some subjects believe they have done nothing wrong. Primarily, in domestic situations, the abusive husband or boyfriend will not respond because to his way of thinking he has done nothing wrong; the police have no business being there, so he just does not answer. ■ Some suicidal persons will not respond. Some suicidal persons may lack the energy to respond. Some may be setting a trap. A negotiator recalled an incident where the subject was talking suicide for several hours when a shot rang out. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to recontact the subject and the belief that the subject had killed himself, the tactical team made entry. The subject had fortified himself, and as the first tactical member crossed the threshold, he was hit in the chest with a shotgun blast that blew him off the front porch. Fortunately, the officer was wearing body armor and survived. Never assume the subject has committed suicide because a shot was fired. If an entry is made, assume that he is alive and waiting for the entry team. A negotiator should continue to elicit a response from the subject via reassuring and non-threatening statements over a bullhorn or speakers. He may attempt to work up to a dialogue by suggesting methods of response to the subject, saying, for example, “If you can hear me, flick the lights on and off,” or, “If you can hear me, shake the curtain.” Hostage Injuries The two most critical times for the safety of the hostage generally are believed to be at the initial hostage taking confrontation and during a police entry to rescue the hostages. In an aircraft hijacking research project conducted by the FBI and the University of Louisville School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, incidents were categorized as complete hijackings or incomplete hijackings. Complete hijackings were those where the hijacker arrived at his demanded destination. Incomplete hijackings were those


where he never arrived at his demanded destination. Interestingly enough, in the hijackings originating on U.S. soil, there was not a single death or injury during the complete hijackings, with the now notable, horrific exception of the World Trade Center terrorist incident. The Stockholm Syndrome The Stockholm Syndrome takes its name from an August 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden. Two subjects, for a total of 131 hours, held four bank employees. During this incident, the hostages and subjects developed a strong bond that sparked the interest of the authorities and mental heath professionals alike. The Stockholm Syndrome consists of one or more of the following: ■ The hostages will begin to have positive feelings toward their captor. Hostages will begin to say things like, “He’s not such a bad guy. He doesn’t want to hurt us.” ■ The hostages will begin to have negative feelings toward the authorities. The hostages might add, “But he is going to hurt us because you are being unreasonable and are pushing him into it.” ■ The subject will begin to develop positive feelings toward his hostages. It is the third factor that the authorities attempt to promote to save lives in hostage situations. Some observers erroneously refer to the relationship developed between the subject and negotiator as the Stockholm Syndrome. It is believed that this relationship is based upon a totally different psychological dynamic from that relationship developed between hostage taker and hostages. This relationship should not be referred to as the Stockholm Syndrome. Negotiators should not expect to see the Stockholm Syndrome if the victim and the subject have had a previous relationship. One would not expect to see its development in domestic situations, for example.


There are a number of factors that affect the development of the Stockholm Syndrome. Obviously, at least some time must pass. Some observers believe it can occur in as little as ten minutes. In the study of aircraft hijackings referred to above, it was determined that the Stockholm Syndrome must be initiated by the subject. If the once-frightening subject does something positive for his victims, they are more likely to respond with sympathetic feelings toward him. The nature of the contact between the subject and hostages appears to be among the decisive factors. A description of those contacts is listed below: Positive contact—If the subject initiates positive contact between himself and the hostages, the Stockholm Syndrome is most probable. Positive contact means that he does something that makes the hostages feel good. For example, he might tell the hostages not to worry about anything. They may hear him threaten the police with their deaths or injuries, but he really means them no harm. He might also tell the hostages that he has to talk to the police like that and threaten to do harm, or the police will come in and kill all of them. Negative contact—If the subject abuses the hostages, there will be no Stockholm Syndrome. Positive contact followed by negative contact—The Stockholm Syndrome initiated by early positive contact can be overcome by the subject’s later abusive behavior. Negative contact followed by positive contact— Sometimes, the subject will initially abuse the hostages and later apologize for his behavior. He justifies his behavior to the hostages by telling them he was afraid of them or the police. This scenario may result in the development of the Stockholm Syndrome. Sex crimes investigators tell a variation on this. Typically, a man will rape a woman, then, over the course of the next few hours, he will cry and apologize for what he has done. He might tell the rape victim, for example, that he grew up without a mother and without love, and maybe it is love that he is looking for, but he promises never to do anything like this again. He says he is truly sorry for what he has done


and asks forgiveness. As a result, some rape victims do not report the crime. They may also report incomplete or inaccurate information. The police are told lies all the time. They know the rape victim is lying, so they start leaning on her, and then everyone is upset about the rape and the insensitive police. Some rape victims are just like some hostages in that they experience conflicting emotions at the same time. They are thinking that the subject was not really such a bad guy. They do not like what he did, but he was not all bad. That night, however, they will have a nightmare about the subject coming back and trying to kill them. No contact between subject and hostages—If there is no contact between the subject and hostages, no relationship will develop. In most aircraft hijackings, for example, the subject is often up front with the crew and has little or no contact with the passengers. Negotiator’s Relationship to the Hostages and Victims Negotiators should not indicate that they are more concerned about the victims than the subject. The negotiator indicates that he wants to help resolve the subject’s problem, and particularly in spontaneous sieges, where the subject is in emotional turmoil, much of that emotion—especially anger—is being directed at his victim. Negotiators are rightly concerned about the victim, but it is the subject’s emotional reaction to his circumstances and his subsequent behavior that make the situation into a crisis for the authorities. Spending a lot of time talking about or with the victims does not resolve the subject’s problem, and satisfactorily resolving his problem is what concludes the incident. Be aware, though, that the victims and hostages will not like the fact that the negotiator is talking about the subject’s problems, bargaining for their lives, and is not paying much attention to them. Getting to know the hostages and victims well may put the negotiator under additional stress. Negotiating for the lives of strangers is difficult enough. Negotiating for the lives


of people who are now known to the negotiator is even more difficult. Keep the Stockholm Syndrome in mind when talking to the hostages. Negotiators should be very careful about confiding in the hostages, because they may not be totally aligned with the negotiator’s view of the incident. The hostages’ ambivalent feelings mean that the authorities should be wary of any intelligence provided by the hostages. Medical Problems in High-Stress Situations Early in an incident, it is a good idea to ask, “Is there anyone in there with any medical problems I ought to know about?” By asking the question in just this way, the negotiator is asking about anyone, the subject as well as hostages or victims. Inquiring about any medical problems leaves the question wide open, from injuries and illness to headaches and chest pains. The “I ought to know about” part of the sentence indicates the negotiator’s personal concern for everyone. TABLE 6.1 Potential Medical Problems in High Stress Incidents

When the incident settles down some, double-check. Ask the subject if he is all right, and have him ask each victim or hostage about any immediate or continuing medical problems they may have. The concern here is that the subject or any of the victims may need medication as time passes for any one of many conditions. By asking the victims about their medical condition, the subject will get to


know the victims as people, thereby promoting the Stockholm Syndrome. High stress can lead to a wide variety of large and small medical conditions. In addition to the medical ailments encountered when gathering a group of people at random, as in a hostage situation, the addition of high stress adds another factor. Common Subject Weaknesses Even in deliberate sieges where there is at least a modicum of planning, hostage takers do not anticipate sick or injured hostages, or the possibility that people may require medication. Negotiators should try to get the sick, injured, wounded, and persons needing medication out first, not only for the obvious medical reasons but because they are the easiest to get released. The subject does not want them in there, because they are unsettling everyone. Getting the sick and injured out also establishes a good precedent for the negotiator and subject’s working together, and sets the stage for additional hostage releases. Another common weakness is that subjects tend to let their guard down when they believe they have finally won. A bank robber holding a hostage demanded a getaway car on deadline. His mental health professional, who was on scene, believed he would kill his hostage whether he was given the car or not. After many hours, the negotiator finally said, “Okay. You win. The car is out front. Make sure it is where you want it.” For the first time all day, the subject went to the front of the bank, looked out the glass door, and was shot through the heart by a sniper across the street. The subject thought he had won, and he let his guard down. Negotiators have been known to let their guards down too. When they think they have finally won, they start to get careless. This turn of events is particularly dangerous if the subject insists on surrendering to the negotiator and no one else. Surrendering to the tactical team is the preferred mode of surrender, but if the subject is surrendering to the negotiator, the surrender should be carefully choreographed


with the tactical team, including sniper/observers. A situation is never over for a negotiator until the subject is in handcuffs and someone is taking him away. Telephone Negotiation Techniques Telephone negotiations are the safest for negotiators and, with some planning and preparation, can be the most effective form of negotiation. The first order of business is to find a location where the negotiator can concentrate and avoid distraction. Before calling, the negotiator should write down a list of ideas he wants to mention. The negotiator should rehearse with his secondary negotiator what he will say and how he will say it. Part of the preparation process is to anticipate the subject’s tactics and have all relevant intelligence at hand. Lastly, it helps to be the caller, because the negotiator is prepared and does not forget to use active listening techniques. Tape-Recording the Negotiation First, be aware of state laws that govern the taping of telephone conversations. During a negotiation team training session, invite a legal adviser in to discuss issues such as negotiator liability issues, taping the negotiation, listening devices, search and seizure, and all of the other legal questions that go along with a negotiation effort. Tape-recording the conversation with the subject can be a great aid to the negotiation process. During the midst of “battle,” important bits of information and themes can be overlooked. Reviewing the last dialogue with the subject can help uncover these items. The taped negotiations provide very dramatic evidence. The tape recordings are evidence of the subject’s mental state during the crime. During mental health examinations and court hearings some time later, when he has had an opportunity to calm down and think things over, has had advice of counsel, and has something to gain by playing a role, the subject may seem like a totally different person than the one the negotiator encountered.


The tapes are also dramatic evidence of the subject’s actions and threats against the hostages and victims. During one incident in which a woman and baby died, the negotiation was tape-recorded. When the tapes were played in court, the jurors, subject, and judge could all hear the baby crying for its mother in the background. Virtually everyone in court was wiping a tear from his cheek. The subject was sentenced to 40 years without parole. A negotiation does not require Miranda warnings because the subject is not in custody or being interrogated. If during the negotiation the subject admits to crimes previous to the siege, those admissions on tape are good evidence of those crimes. A word of caution to negotiators: Do not turn your negotiation into an interrogation. The court decisions with respect to the Miranda warnings have been close thus far, in the favor of law enforcement. Some negotiators are still concerned that they will be sued, and the tape-recorded negotiation used as evidence against them. Living with the threat of lawsuits is part of being in law enforcement. People can sue over anything an officer does. Historically, taped negotiations have done far more good than harm in the defense of negotiators and their agencies. As long as the negotiator adheres to the guidelines in his training, it will be difficult to successfully sue the negotiator. To be successfully sued, the negotiator must do something way out of line with his training. The tapes will provide dramatic evidence that the negotiator did everything he could have done. The taped negotiations are good for research; that is, the negotiator’s personal research on issues and more formal academic research that may advance our knowledge of negotiation. For training purposes, it is useful to review with team members the last negotiated incident. For classroom use, unless the tapes are unusually good in quality or sensational, they can be difficult to use. Exposed Face-to-Face Considerations The negotiator should strive to avoid face-to-face contact with the subject, especially if the subject has a firearm.


Sometimes, however, officers and deputies find themselves in face-to-face situations as a result of circumstances. If the subject does have a firearm, the prudent action would be to back off and re-open negotiations from a position of cover. If the subject is armed with something other than a firearm, it may still be judicious to find a safer location, for the reasons discussed earlier under “Telephone Negotiation Techniques.” This is in no way meant to advocate face-to-face negotiations, but if the negotiator or officer is considering face-to-face negotiations as with a suicidal jumper, the negotiator should think about following: ■ The negotiator should always consider the advantages versus the risks of being face to face. ■ The negotiator should obtain a promise of negotiator safety from the subject. ■ No negotiator should ever knowingly walk into a situation where a firearm may be pointed at him. ■ The negotiator should not turn his back on the subject. For the negotiator to turn his back depersonalizes the negotiator and makes him easier to harm. ■ Negotiators should always leave an escape route and ensure that they can readily move to a safer position. ■ No one can watch two people at the same time, so the negotiator should never negotiate with more than one subject at a time. ■ The negotiator should be aware of body space. Paranoid and frightened persons will have a large body space. If the subject starts to back up, a negotiator should stop his advance and take a step back. ■ The negotiator should maintain adequate cover. He should make sure his position is cover and not merely concealment. A rock wall may be cover. An azalea bush is concealment. If the negotiator does not have adequate cover, he should find adequate cover or make the current position into cover. A position can be made into cover by putting bulletproof materials between the negotiator and subject. Kevlar blankets or body armor may be hung from a wall or the negotiator can get behind a ballistic shield.


■ The negotiator should assess his anxiety. If the negotiator is not comfortable in terms of his anxiety, it is going to be difficult to convince the subject there is nothing to worry about. An experienced negotiator or officer should never ignore his “gut” feeling about an incident. ■ Negotiators on the inner perimeter must be in body armor. ■ The negotiator always should carry a weapon. The idea that negotiators should be unarmed is an old, dangerous concept. ■ Any time the negotiator is on the inner perimeter, all movements must be coordinated with the tactical component. ■ The negotiator should respect the possibility that the subject’s bomb threat may be real. Manipulation of Anxiety Deliberately manipulating the subject’s anxiety level is an outmoded technique that many departments have abandoned as too dangerous. Subjects are generally very fearful. Any law enforcement actions, which may even be perceived as aggressive, should be carried out very carefully or avoided, as they could evoke a violent response from the subject. (See Appendix E on “The Dangers of Manipulating Anxiety Levels.”) Potential Problem Words and Phrases Be alert for any words or phrases that draw an emotional response. If the reason for the emotional response is not clear, the basis for this reaction should be determined through active listening and investigation. No list of potential problem words or phrases will ever be complete, because people and their circumstances are unique. Negotiators should put their energy into listening rather than trying to remember a list of words to be avoided.


Indicators of Negotiation Progress People communicate on two levels, the content and the emotional reaction to the content. In measuring negotiation progress, negotiators continue to look at the same two levels. With negotiation progress, the content of the subject’s communications will shift from threatening, violent language to non-threatening, non-violent language. There will also be a readiness, even eagerness, to disclose personal information. The content of his remarks will shift from emotional to rational content. The negotiator will observe a willingness to discuss topics unrelated to the incident as the subject emotionally settles down and engages the negotiator in what sounds more like a conversation than negotiation. In addition to content and emotion, the form of subject’s communications will change with progress. The subject’s voice will be at a lower level; that is, he will not be screaming. His speech will be at a much slower rate. Early in the negotiation, a subject often will be yelling and talking rapidly. Now, with progress, he is conversing in conversational tones at a normal rate of speech. Negotiators will notice that conversations will be of increased length. The subject may not want the negotiator to get off the telephone or “leave me alone.” In one hostage-taking incident that lasted 71 hours, the subject said virtually nothing for 31 hours. Before the incident was over, the subject wanted to stay on the telephone with the negotiator and not be left alone. This increased willingness or desire to speak with the authorities also may be indicated by the number of times the subject initiates the conversation by telephoning the negotiator. One negotiator counted the number of obscenities and vulgarities spoken by the subject in 15-minute increments. Over time, as the subject calmed down and rapport was established, the subject used fewer and fewer expletives. Some negotiators view other developments as indicators of progress. Any reduction in violent behavior, such as not firing his weapon, may be viewed as negotiation progress. The release of hostages, and deadlines passing without incident, are also hopeful indicators. Certainly, the establishment of a rapport between the negotiator and the


hostage taker is a good sign, as is the increased willingness to follow negotiator suggestions. Potential Problem Areas with the Media The media can cause crisis management personnel problems of all kinds. In fact, it might not be a bad idea to liven up the next negotiator training session by inviting a local reporter to discuss issues of mutual interest, or invite him to an exercise. Even if the relationship between the local media and law enforcement is good one, during a major incident with national interest, the national media will be flying in, and they have no particular interest in local relationships. They get in, get the story, and get out. During an incident, reporters should be briefed as to what has transpired. No reporter is going to go back to his boss and say, “Yeah, boss, there is a hostage situation downtown, but the cops wouldn’t talk to me, so I have no story.” If law enforcement representatives do not talk to them, the media will air interviews with witnesses, families of subject and victims, politicians, government officials, and released hostages. Reporters, broadcast and print, will go back to the office with a story, and they may as well have law enforcement’s version of the incident. During a prison hostage situation, the media went on the air with, “It looks like this incident is about to come to a tactical and, perhaps, violent resolution. Additional tactical personnel are arriving on scene, and we’ll be here at the prison to cover ongoing developments.” Meanwhile, the inmates, who were watching television, were going berserk! Negotiators immediately contacted them and said, “You know our shift change schedule. Look at the time. You know we haven’t lied to you. It’s only a shift change.” The inmates replied with, “Okay. Okay, but straighten out the media, will ya?” Good negotiations are slow-moving, lacking in action, and, in short, boring. The broadcast of false information and


inflammatory speculation about impending tactical action is much more exciting, even if it is not true. Live coverage of entry teams moving into position and sniper/observer teams has caused problems for negotiators and endangered, if not killed, hostages and tactical team personnel. Topics such as live coverage of tactical team members are issues that must be agreed upon with media representatives before media coverage heightens the crisis. Always be aware that others may be listening to what we in law enforcement are saying among ourselves. During a hostage situation in which radios were being used to talk to the subject, an officer approached the negotiator and said, “The media is listening to everything you guys are saying.” The negotiator said, “Well, I figured they were because of the radios.” The officer responded with, “No, I mean with shotgun micro-phones from over there.” “Over there” was approximately a block away. Standing around for hours, with not much happening, negotiators and officers will say things they do not really mean or, if they do mean it, they do not want to hear themselves saying on the local “Eleven O’Clock News.” The media often have much better equipment in terms of cameras and sound than does law enforcement. In another example of the wrong person overhearing insensitive law enforcement remarks, a woman called 911 to report that her younger son had barricaded himself in the basement. She said that her husband had hanged himself in the basement, as had her older son some time later. She feared that her younger son would follow in the example of her husband and older son. When the police arrived onscene, it was too late. Her younger son had indeed hanged himself. As officers were going down into the basement, one of them said, “Somebody ought to tell that old broad not to let her sons hang out in the basement.” The woman was right behind the officer and heard his remark. One lawsuit later, officers on that department have learned to be very careful with their remarks. If anyone is around, whether it be the media or general public, be careful about what is said.


A representative of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should be on the negotiator’s contact list, and a working relationship established. Low-flying media aircraft can cause real problems in an incident. FAA can make the airspace above the crisis site restricted. Any pilot who flies into the restricted airspace does so at the risk of his license. The multitude of media personnel who arrive at a major crisis can get in the way of crisis management team members. Across the street from one 11-day, major incident, rooftops that provided a better camera angle for the media were renting for $500.00 a day. It is recommended that negotiators do not put “Negotiator” on the back of raid jackets, because of the media attention that it will draw. One negotiator said he had “Negotiator” put on the back of his jacket so the snipers will know who he is. It is further recommended that if a negotiator is that concerned about his snipers, he does not go forward. Given the opportunity, the media will tie up the subject’s telephone line. Another person to have on a negotiator’s contact list is a representative of the local telephone company. Usually, they can change the subject’s telephone number quickly so only the telephone company and negotiators will know the subject’s number. Depending on the local equipment, they will be able to assist negotiators in any number of ways, but talk to them before the crisis arises. Meeting a telephone company security representative for the first time at 4:00 a.m. during an incident is not the way to establish a good working relationship. It is a good idea to have the negotiation and tactical team leader review any press releases before they are distributed, or any announcements before they are made. If the subject has access to radio or television, nothing should be said that would disrupt the negotiation or tactical effort. Use of Third-Party Intermediaries Third-party intermediaries are all non-law enforcement personnel, including family, friends, attorney, clergy, mental health professionals, media, and others. Even a law


enforcement officer may be regarded as a third-party intermediary if he is being used primarily because of a previously established personal relationship as opposed to professional relationship with the subject. Since the inception of hostage negotiation teams in the early 1970s, negotiation trainers generally have discouraged the use of third-party intermediaries (TPI). However, despite their training to the contrary, negotiators often have used TPIs, because sometimes they work. A TPI’s failure to resolve an incident would not be a disaster, but sometimes the use of TPIs does result in a disaster. Knowing when a TPI will be helpful and when he will be hurtful is the dilemma for negotiators and crisis managers. Frustration at the lack of apparent progress seems to be a major reason for using TPIs despite previous training and the known risks involved. There will be friends and relatives of the subject on-scene, insisting that they can talk the subject out with no problem. Negotiators should be asking themselves: If this person is such a powerful influence on the subject, why didn’t the subject go to him rather than do what he is doing? A negotiator related the story of a domestic incident where the husband had a gun to his wife’s head and raged on for hours. As time dragged on, his rage did not appear to be diminishing. Meanwhile, a man describing himself as “a friend of the family” was on-scene and insisting that he could resolve the situation for negotiators. Finally, after many hours, law enforcement put the self-described “family friend” on the telephone. Immediately, two shots were heard. The man negotiators put on the telephone was having an affair with the wife, and their affair was the reason for the incident. Negotiators never have all of the pertinent information. A patrol officer observed a man on the tenth-story balcony of a high-rise hotel on the beach of a popular vacation destination. The man was perched on the railing and hanging out into space. Initially, things were going well, but then the officer sent the man’s wife out onto the balcony. The first words out of her mouth were, “Harry, you’ve been doing


this ridiculous nonsense for the past 20 years and I’m getting fed up with it!” The officer, realizing that the situation was not developing the way he had intended, pulled her back into the hotel room. The couple had a teenage son who seemed to be a stable young man, and he was sent out onto the balcony. His unfortunate first words were, “Hey, Pop, you sure are screwing up our vacation!” With those words, the man let go and fell ten stories to his death. An officer, out on patrol, found a young man in a cemetery with a gun to his head. The officer and his backup offered the young man a soft drink in return for a bullet. The young man agreed and he was given a drink. The young man then reached into his pocket, retrieved one of nearly 50 rounds, and gave it to the officers. The trade sounded fair to him. As it happened, the subject had just broken up with his girlfriend, so officers had her brought to the scene. She was permitted to speak to the subject and cried, “You wimp. This is exactly why I broke up with you. You do wimpy stuff like this!” The subject responded with, “Wimp, huh,” and shot himself through the head. Threatened suicides are emotional situations. The negotiator’s objective should be to decrease the emotional factor. With no apparent progress over 10 hours with a barricaded, schizophrenic subject who had been shooting at passersby, the police were frustrated. Over the hours, the subject’s brother, who was on-scene, insisted that he could resolve the incident in 5 minutes if the police would just allow him to speak to his brother. Finally, the police relented. The subject’s brother peered around a corner of the building, called up a stairwell, and was immediately shot through the head by the subject. When the police called out, “Hey, you just shot your brother,” the distraught subject came charging out. He was tackled and subdued. Using third-party intermediaries can result in any number of problems. Consider the following: Ethical considerations may impede or prevent progress. The ethics of mental health professionals and the clergy are going to be different from those of law enforcement.


For example, negotiators may have no ethical problem with setting the subject up for a tactical resolution to the incident. Lying to the subject or setting him up for possible death or injury can put the clergy or mental health professional in very difficult ethical positions. Under the stress of the incident, third-party intermediaries may respond inappropriately. Despite the best intentions of TPIs, negotiators cannot expect them to respond to a stressful incident the way an experienced negotiator or officer would respond. Though a TPI may be trained in counseling, therapy, or some related field, he is not a trained, law enforcement negotiator. Crisis negotiation is an art taught to police. Another professional may be trained and even an expert in his own field, but his field is not law enforcement. Few people outside of law enforcement get an opportunity to see the things a law enforcement officer sees and must respond to on a near-daily basis. TPIs are not accustomed to violence. One of the things that law enforcement officers see that persons in other professions do not see is violence. Police are often there when violence is occurring or immediately afterwards. Counseling and therapy professions generally do not perform their services when the person is in crisis, with gun in hand and threatening violence or suicide. Few mental health professionals were in the presence of their patients when their patients committed suicide. Their ministrations are conducted under entirely different circumstances. When they meet the subject, the precipitating event has long since passed; he has calmed down, and he has something to gain by presenting a front that the negotiator never saw. TPIs are not familiar with police procedures and tactics and the law. Again, even with the best of intentions, the TPI can tell the subject something that causes law enforcement a problem. For example, he may blurt out something that is not to the tactical advantage of law enforcement. He does not understand that negotiators work closely with tactical teams before they make any statements that may affect the tactical effort.


The loss of law enforcement control can be a problem. Once law enforcement responds to an incident, the management of the incident becomes its responsibility. Once it starts using TPIs, it has effectively lost control because, it cannot control the intermediary. The subject’s response to the TPI is unpredictable. It is very difficult to predict the subject’s response to the TPI, even if the TPI has successfully fulfilled that role previously. In one situation, the subject’s mother was successfully used, as she talked him into surrendering in a short period of time. The subject, some time later, took a hostage for the second time. His mother was again used by law enforcement. This time he committed suicide. TPIs may not have the same goals as law enforcement. Persons in other professions, by training and experience, will not have the same goals as law enforcement. Reporters will see the incident as a story. Mental health professionals will tend to view the subject as a patient. Parents will view the subject as their child. The subject’s family members can present special problems. They often show up on-scene insisting that they can talk the subject out. Remember, though, that they bring their emotional baggage into a situation. They may feel the subject is embarrassing the family. They may feel guilt over something they said or did or did not say or do. Too often in law enforcement there has been an unfortunate assumption that a good family relationship exists. In one incident, the subject’s mother and sister brother arrived on-scene. Independently, they were asked what could be said to get the subject to surrender. Both said essentially the same thing: “Nothing. I suggest you shoot the son of a bitch.” Not the advice negotiators were hoping for! Family values are also hard to predict. In one long situation, the subject’s sister arrived on scene. After carefully briefing and de-briefing, she was put on the telephone with the subject. The first words out of her mouth were, “Hang in there. The whole family is really proud of you!” Sometimes there appears to be an assumption that the subject’s background is similar to the negotiator’s past. In one protracted siege, the negotiator offered to put the


subject’s father on the telephone, and she immediately began screaming and hung up on the negotiator. The subject’s sister, who was nearby, said, “Boy, you shouldn’t have mentioned Daddy.” The negotiator said, “Yeah, I see that, but why?” The sister said, “Well, he raped her when she was little and she’s never forgiven him for that.” The family dynamics are never fully known to the negotiator. The TPI’s perception of the relationship may differ from the subject’s opinion of their relationship. Introducing family members introduces additional factors that psychologically complicate the incident. Negotiators want to keep issues to a minimum and keep things simple. In incidents that are emotionally charged, as in spontaneous sieges, it is especially dangerous to use TPIs. In deliberate and anticipated sieges, the subject is far less emotional, and the risk of using TPIs would not appear to be as great as it is in spontaneous sieges. In fact, the emotion negotiators are injecting into deliberate and anticipated sieges by using TPIs may be helpful, if it doesn’t emotionally overwhelm the subject. The “Boss” as Negotiator Negotiators are not decision makers. In some agencies, however, the negotiator is permitted limited authority to grant relatively small requests for cigarettes and other minor items. This limited authority gives the negotiator some latitude to exercise his judgment. In general, though, the negotiator acts as a middleman between the subject and command. An old negotiation maxim goes, “Negotiators don’t command and commanders don’t negotiate.” In any kind of negotiation, the negotiator should not be the final authority or portray himor herself as the final authority for a variety of reasons. Before any deals or decisions are made, the negotiator wants to confer with others to ensure that the situation has not changed. While the negotiator has been talking to the subject, things have been happening,


information is being gathered, personnel may have been rotated, etc. A concern about the on-scene commander acting as negotiator is the loss of his objectivity. If a lower-ranking negotiator becomes too emotionally involved, he easily can be replaced, but with a ranking officer it can be problematic. The on-scene commander is in charge of the entire crisis management effort. The commander cannot split his time between being a commander and a negotiator. Neither can the commander also be the tactical team leader, intelligence gatherer, detective, public information officer, and electronics technician. If the commander is on the telephone, negotiating with the subject, he is neglecting the command of the rest of the crisis management effort. Stalling for time is the primary tactic of negotiators, especially in spontaneous sieges. If it becomes obvious to the subject the commander is stalling for time, it will be very difficult to maintain rapport with the subject. Stalling for time can be difficult for any negotiator, but if the person in charge is stalling, it is even more difficult. Street experience is an important attribute of a negotiator. If the on-scene commander is lacking in street experience or recent street experience, rapport building may be difficult. Unfortunately, the lack of street experience or even law enforcement experience and training has also been deadly for some law enforcement executives. In many jurisdictions, the chief law enforcement executive will delegate authority to manage “routine” incidents down to the sergeant or lieutenant level. Eventually, though, a major incident comes along, and with the publicity, the chief or sheriff will take personal command, even though he is not experienced or trained; resulting in a very dangerous scenario for all involved. Crisis Negotiation Team The precise structure of a crisis negotiation team is based upon local needs, resources, attitudes, personalities, skills, and talents. Reviewed here are the tasks that should be accomplished by someone on a crisis negotiation team.


Before getting into specific team tasks, remember that crisis negotiation is a team effort, and no matter what the size of your agency, never negotiate alone. If there are no other trained negotiators readily available, a patrol should sit next to the negotiator. There should always be someone with whom a negotiator can confer. The primary negotiator’s main role is to act as an intermediary between his negotiation team leader and the subject in an effort to optimize any opportunities for an arrest with minimum force, as required by law. In talking to the subject, the primary negotiator also develops intelligence for both the negotiation and tactical efforts. The secondary negotiator often has several jobs. The secondary negotiator’s most important job is to help the primary negotiator listen to the subject. Therefore, it is important that he monitor the negotiations and help the primary negotiator by providing topics for discussion. Another critically important task that often falls upon the secondary negotiator is maintaining a record or log of all negotiation events, with the time of the event. During a negotiation, negotiators sometimes have the feeling that they do not have to write events down, because they will never forget. Later, they do forget. Crisis negotiators should document everything because they may need to reconstruct events in court, and that is very difficult without a log. The secondary negotiator provides emotional support to the primary negotiator. A pat on the back of the primary, or going on a break with the primary negotiator, can do wonders for his stress level. The secondary negotiator is also available to relieve the primary negotiator if that need should arise. Generally, because of his other duties, the secondary negotiator is the most “tuned in” to what is happening in the negotiation process and is the logical same-shift replacement for the primary negotiator. The negotiation team leader monitors the negotiations and acts as liaison with on-scene commander and tactical team leader. He suggests tactics, strategy, and other advice to the primary negotiator. In some law enforcement agencies, a senior, experienced negotiator who is known and respected by commanders and tactical personnel fills this role.


It is best not to be whispering to the primary negotiator as he is attempting to listen to the subject. The primary negotiator cannot listen to two people at the same time, and it is vitally important that he listen to the subject. There is also the possibility that the subject may overhear what is being whispered to the primary, and the primary may lose credibility or worse. The best negotiation course for the primary negotiator is to meet with the rest of the negotiation team between contacts with the subject. In these meetings, the team should fully discuss what will be said, how it will be said, and the subject’s likely response to what the negotiator says. When contact is made, the primary goes with the team strategy as best he can. If the subject brings up a topic that has not been discussed, as is likely, it may even be better for the primary negotiator to tell the subject that he will have to get back to him on that topic. While the primary negotiator is actively talking to the subject, the most common form of communication is notes passed from the secondary to the primary. When the primary negotiator is talking to the subject, all notes to the primary go through the secondary. Some negotiation teams put the time on each note, and after the primary reads it, the note is put on a spindle. This procedure establishes a rough log of events, though not a substitute for a full log. A danger in using notes is that the primary may just read the note aloud to the subject without reading it first. During an incident, there should be an ongoing intelligence-gathering effort, debriefing first responding officers, the subject’s neighbors, friends, relatives, spouse, witnesses, employer, and anyone else who has pertinent information. The information that is gathered should come to a designated person on the crisis negotiation team. This intelligence support person provides the information to the team and posts it on the situation boards. Some teams appoint a resource person who essentially runs errands for the team. This person gets everything the team needs, from miscellaneous information to coffee. A tactical liaison person can be an important component on a crisis negotiation team. Usually, the tactical liaison


person is someone who has had tactical team experience. This person channels crucial information between tactical team and negotiators, especially when timing is critical. For example, if the tactical team is at their entry point and the subject discovers their presence, obviously, this information needs to get to the entry team immediately. The quickest way pass along this information is through direct communication between the negotiators and entry team. The tactical liaison person also listens to the negotiation for information of specific use to the tactical team. Negotiators are trained to provide an intelligence-gathering service to tactical personnel, but in the stress of the negotiation process, intelligence can be overlooked. Another problem is that a negotiator may not be aware the tactical team can use a particular piece of information. Be aware, though, that some commanders do not like negotiators talking directly to the tactical team. Their concern is that the negotiators and tactical personnel will leave them out of the loop by making decisions without their approval. It is the negotiation and tactical team leaders’ job to ensure that commanders are kept informed. Mental health professionals (MHP) provide a variety of services to the crisis negotiation team. While they do not negotiate, they do assess the mental state of the subject and recommend negotiation techniques and approaches to the team. They can also render emotional and stress management support to negotiation team. In fairness to them, any MHP working with a negotiation team should receive negotiation training before becoming a member of the negotiation team. Crisis negotiation is not something learned in graduate school. MHPs need time to work out how their experience can be most useful to the team. They also need time to learn what their role will be in a crisis situation. There may also be some ethical dilemmas for them to work out for themselves. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of getting all crisis management personnel working together as a team. Team members include tactical, negotiation, and command personnel, as well as others. Others requiring training may include patrol officers and road deputies; anyone with


specialized skills, such as electronics technicians; persons on the negotiators’ contact list; public information officers; persons searching databases for information on the subject; dispatchers; and many others. In the words of Casey Stengel, “It’s easy to get the players. Gettin’ ‘em to work together, that’s the hard part.” Supplies/Equipment for Ready Kit The more that can be accomplished before the crisis, the less negotiators will have to do during the crisis. It is worthwhile to set aside items that negotiators know they may need during an incident. The articles in a ready kit will depend on locality, weather, resources, and other variables. It is extremely difficult to be “warm and fuzzy” with someone when the negotiator is soaked to the skin, cold, and being eaten by mosquitoes. It helps to be creative before arriving on scene. Listed below are some typical items in a ready kit: ■ Box with activity logs, situation reports, pens, stick-on notes, 5x8 index cards, magic markers, lined tablets, reference materials, notes, hostage debriefing protocols ■ Battery-powered clock. ■ Tape recorder with extra batteries, jacks for headphones, speakers, fresh tapes, extension cord ■ Video and still camera with film and tape ■ Bullhorn ■ Battery-operated flashlight and/or reading light ■ Raid jacket ■ Body armor ■ Brown wrapping or butcher paper with masking tape or thumbtacks for situation boards ■ Foul-weather gear, hat, and sunglasses ■ Aspirin, antacid, and toilet paper ■ List of contacts and resources to be checked ■ Insect repellent and sunscreen ■ A reference book on medications ■ A Bible to look up biblical references ■ Mirror on a telescoping baton for looking around corners ■ Specialty tools


The Tactical Role of the Negotiator A crisis management team is just that, a team. As with all teams, to be effective, team players must train together on a regular basis. It follows that negotiators should train regularly with the tactical team. Training together not only leads to better timing during a crisis, but personnel learn each other’s job requirements and needs better. They also learn each other’s attitudes, skills, talents, and personalities. Intelligence gathering through direct dialogue with the subject is an important part of the negotiator’s role. The negotiation process itself produces additional time for intelligence gathering. Negotiators, as a by-product of the negotiation process, have additional opportunities for intelligence gathering. The release of hostages provides an opportunity for intelligence gathering, through their debriefing. Agreements to deliver items allow for an approach to the crisis site and provide occasions for direct, closer observation and photographic surveillance. The passage of time is important to the tactical team for the following reasons: ■ It generates time for the tactical team to develop and rehearse an emergency and deliberate assault plan, as well as an arrest plan. ■ Prolonged negotiation may lead to the subject’s developing a routine inside the crisis site that may be advantageous to the tactical team. ■ An ongoing dialogue may aid a forced entry or sniper option. ■ Negotiators may provide a cover story for tactical movement. A concern since the early days of hostage negotiation is whether a negotiation team should be told of an impending tactical entry. The main concerns are that the negotiator may inadvertently or even intentionally reveal the upcoming team entry or sniper shot. A second concern is that the negotiator’s emotional involvement may alter his objectivity


to the point of somehow disrupting the tactical option. Both of these concerns appear to be unsubstantiated. Over a period of years, FBI Academy crisis negotiation instructors asked thousands of negotiators all over the world if they know of any case where the negotiator gave away a tactical action or became so emotionally involved that he disrupted tactical plans. Not a single case was reported. Situation Boards A situation board in its simplest form is a length of paper taped or tacked to a wall or even taped to the side of a patrol car. As information regarding the subject, victims, and siege location comes in, the intelligence support person posts the new information in columns on the situation board. This information should be within view of the negotiators and updated continually. Anything of potential interest to negotiators should be posted. A typical situation board will have information such as the following: ■ Subject’s name, description, photograph, weapons, arrest record, mental health history, medical problems, and/or injuries ■ Hostage’s name, description, photograph, medical problems, and/or injuries ■ Demands ■ Deadlines ■ A floor plan, and photographs of the crisis site ■ Positive things done for the subject ■ Topics to be avoided in the negotiation ■ Pages of the log as they are completed Negotiating the Nonnegotiable Situation There may be situations that, at the outset, do not appear to be winnable via negotiation, but negotiations should still be opened. The negotiation process allows time for the tactical team to prepare and time for the gathering of information. The intelligence-gathering process may lead to alternatives, tactical and otherwise, that were not considered early in the incident.


The passage of time provides an interval for experts to arrive. An “expert” is anyone with specialized knowledge, such as the subject’s doctor, a mental health professional, or a technician, who may be of assistance to the crisis management team. The negotiation process also delays the subject’s actions and diverts the subject’s attention from whatever negotiators do not want him doing. For example, while the subject is talking to the negotiator, he is less likely to be engaged in harassing or harming his victims or fortifying his location. Finally, through negotiation, the authorities may discover what they thought was “non-negotiable” is negotiable after all. The Surrender A big part of a negotiator’s job is to educate the subject in how to surrender. The most common form of siege is the spontaneous siege, and as the name suggests, there has been little if any planning. Even if there has been some planning, it is unlikely that the plan will include surrender. The subject may want to surrender but not know how to go about it. Part of a negotiator’s job is to educate the subject as to how the surrender will happen. Several recommendations are listed below: ■ Describe to the subject what he will see when he comes out. ■ Emphasize what the subject has to gain by coming out at this time. ■ Minimize to the subject the damage he has done to this point. ■ Ask what assurances are needed. ■ Discuss the arrest plan with the tactical team early in the incident. ■ Keep the “surrender ritual” in mind. ■ To facilitate the surrender, the negotiator may be required to suggest scenarios and talk the subject out systematically. ■ Continue to say, “When you come out…”


■ Never take the weapon from the subject’s hand. ■ If the subject is surrendering to the negotiator, the negotiator should carefully coordinate all movement with tactical personnel, including snipers. In the 1970s, when negotiators spoke of the surrender ritual, they had two scenarios in mind. In one scenario, the subject wanted to surrender looking like a tough guy. In England, a subject was involved in a domestic dispute that required negotiators. When the subject surrendered, the negotiator offered to put a sweater over the handcuffs, so that the man’s friends and neighbors waiting outside would not see the handcuffs, causing the subject embarrassment. The subject said, “No, I want to go out with my fingers linked on top of my head, just like in the American movies.” The second surrender ritual involved persons who wanted to come out looking like gentlemen. These individuals wanted to shower, shave, and change clothes before surrendering and appearing before television cameras. While these two forms of surrender ritual are still observed, negotiators have seen the surrender ritual take additional forms. During two negotiated aircraft hijackings, food was provided in return for the release of a limited number of hostages. But the stairway was left in place, and in both hijackings, passengers continued getting off the plane; instead of 25 people coming off the plane, for example, 40 came down the stairway. The hijackers knew the incident was over and they merely let it die, a form of surrender ritual. Another form of surrender ritual has been observed in hostage situations. In this form of surrender ritual, the subject allows himself to be “taken down” by the tactical team. In one incident the subject came out of his location to retrieve some food, and in another incident he came out to turn off a light the authorities would not turn off. In both incidents the subjects had to know the tactical team was there and that the tactical team would jump all over them when they came through the door. Now, as they sit in their respective cells and tell fellow inmates how they were captured, they can say, “A SWAT team jumped me and there


must have been 5 or 10 or 15 of them, but I got in some good licks before the bastards got me.” He did not surrender. The SWAT team took him down. It makes for a much better story. Before Deviating from Guidelines With the understanding that crisis negotiation is an art rather than an exact science, and that “guidelines” are not “rules,” to be obeyed against good reason, the guidelines are often violated to meet the circumstances of a particular situation. Keep in mind, however, that the crisis negotiation guidelines are the accumulated wisdom of many previous negotiators and should not be carelessly disregarded. The surest way to fall short in a liability lawsuit is to have ignored the guidelines in a losing effort. The following should be considered before a guideline is broken: ■ ■ ■ ■

State the reason(s) for guideline. State the risk(s) involved in deviating from the guideline. State why the deviation will be helpful. State how the negotiators will know if the deviation is working or failing. ■ State a tentative plan for getting back on track or salvaging a failure. The Effects of Negotiating on Negotiators The effects of negotiating on negotiators can be anything from non-existent to subtle to severe. An event that has a profound impact on one negotiator may not affect another negotiator. Even if a negotiator has done many situations with no ill effects, it does not mean he will be well after the next situation. This section in no way predicts that any one negotiator will have problems as a result of the negotiation process. Most negotiators do not have major problems. But some do. Few negotiations go off without a hitch, and there are few negotiators who have not been distressed by some turn of events during a crisis. Many negotiators have remarked, for


example, that the bad guy was easy, but negotiating with their boss during the incident was tough. Sometimes the negotiator’s problem is for the duration of the incident, but sometimes the problem has longer-lasting effects. Look out for the welfare of all negotiation team members. Listed below are some of the problems encountered by negotiators: Possible Short-Term Stressors and Problems Identification with subject or victim is a source of stress, and can be a problem. In speaking of the effects of negotiating on negotiators, one negotiator said that any healthy law enforcement officer should be able to handle a negotiation. He was correct. But too many law enforcement officers are not healthy. Too many officers are going through divorces, have alcohol or substance abuse problems, are overweight and out of good physical condition, and lead unhealthy lifestyles. Too often the lifestyle of the subject is not too dissimilar to the lifestyle of the negotiator. Physical and psychological manifestations of anxiety can also be problem. A wide range of physical problems has been observed. After being ordered to go face-to-face with a copkiller and doing so, one negotiator said that he could not sit still for many hours afterward. Knowing he could not sleep, he walked to the station to do his report. He tried to do his report but he was too restless, so he walked home. When he arrived at home, he could not sleep, so back to the station he went. Another negotiator, who did an incident that received national press coverage, said he had to give a presentation on negotiation the next day. When he attempted to give the presentation his knees were still so weak that he had to give the entire presentation sitting down. Negotiators have also reported nightmares, insomnia, and impotence for up to two weeks. Virtually every symptom seen in post-traumatic stress disorder has been observed among negotiators. The most common psychological problem in the short run is a feeling of letdown. One negotiator said: “I’d been


negotiating with this depressed guy all night. He had been crying and pouring out his story to me. At about hour ten, he went out onto the front porch and blew the top of his head off. We were a couple of houses up the block and could clearly hear the shot. At the sound of the shot my lieutenant turned to me and said, ‘Okay, that’s it! Take a couple of hours off in the morning if you like.’ How do you begin to tell your wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, or husband what has happened to you over those 10 hours? You can’t.” Negotiators ride a crest of adrenaline for hours and then, for better or worse, the incident is over, sometimes suddenly. It is impossible to shut off the effects of adrenaline immediately. The adrenaline is there, but the negotiator does not need it. The resulting emotion is most often described as a feeling of letdown, or even depression. Isolation is a very common problem among negotiators that has been observed even in exercises. Sometimes the negotiator’s body language will give him away, as he will turn his back to the secondary negotiator. A negotiator who is attempting to isolate himself may say something like: “Leave me alone. Just give me a few more minutes with this guy. I can get him out if you will just leave me alone.” Frustrated negotiators have also been heard to say, “Let’s just do it without telling command.” A negotiator cannot “just do it” without advising command. The negotiation team, regardless of its frustration level, cannot isolate itself from their commander or exceed its authority. The on-scene commander must be informed as to developments and the negotiation team’s intentions. In many situations, the first shift is too long, and exhaustion on the part of negotiators can be become a problem. Exhaustion can lead to frustration, impulsivity, and poor judgment. The morning after one particularly grueling 16-hour shift, a negotiator said, “You know, it’s amazing how that idea sounded so good last night and so bad today!” During incidents that extend into several days, mounting exhaustion becomes a problem. At the end of a long, stressful day, negotiators go home, go to bed, dream about the incident all night, and then go right back into it the next


morning. It is almost as if they did not have a break. After several days of this routine, negotiators and other personnel are truly exhausted. Command personnel must be relieved on a timely basis, too. Good luck on getting your chief or sheriff to home after he has been overseeing the command of an important incident for 15 or 16 hours! Possible Long-Term Stressors and Problems Ego problems have been a recurring, troublesome problem for crisis negotiation teams, as well as for individual negotiators. Some negotiators have become hometown heroes. When an incident occurs, the chief or sheriff says, “I don’t want anybody talking to this guy but Negotiator X.” The bad guy says, “I’ll only talk to that guy I saw on television last week, Negotiator X!” Media people are asking, “Is Negotiator X here yet?” Before long, Negotiator X begins thinking, “I’m the only person who can really handle these situations. It must be a gift from God!” Elvis Presley once said, “If a man’s head gets too big, it eventually breaks his neck.” Negotiators who have been mentioned in this book have lost their positions on negotiation teams because their egos were getting out of control. Any negotiator who is assuming too much credit for “wins” or too much blame for “losses” can cause problems for himself, his team, and his future negotiation efforts. After developing a reputation as a negotiator, some negotiators start taking on command responsibilities. When the on-scene commander is no longer asking for recommendations but is looking to the negotiator to tell him or her what to do, the problems begin. Negotiator should never forget their limited role. Negotiators do not want the commander to negotiate, and negotiators should remember to never act the role of commander. Some negotiators become negotiation fanatics. Unquestionably, crisis negotiation is an interesting, exciting field, and the more a negotiator knows about it, the better. Law enforcement officers are often accused of living their


stressful jobs. Adding a preoccupation with negotiation to an already stressful lifestyle can only make things worse. Keep your job and your life outside the job in perspective. Any negotiator who wakes up in the morning and finds the first idea to occur to him is “hostage negotiator rising” should find a hobby. Sometimes, despite a negotiation team’s best effort, an incident does not end well. Some negotiators start reliving the incident or feeling guilty over things they feel should have been said or that they should have done. The best inoculation against feelings of responsibility over things that went wrong and guilt about the way things happened is to work and study. If a negotiator can walk away from an incident feeling that he gave it his best effort, that is all that can be asked and all a negotiator can do.

Chapter 7 Abnormal Psychology for Crisis Negotiators

Introduction In this chapter, the two most commonly diagnosed personality disorders, antisocial and borderline personality* disorders, will be reviewed. Schizophrenia and major depressive episodes also will be examined. The intent of this section is not to make a diagnostician of the negotiator, but to familiarize him with the common behavior of those with whom he will be negotiating. Further, the diagnostic category is not of particular interest to negotiators. Negotiators are concerned with controlling a person’s behavior, regardless of the diagnostic label placed on them. Even if a negotiator were capable of arriving at a correct diagnosis, a diagnosis does not help him control the subject’s behavior. Assuming the role of diagnostician may even embarrass the negotiator in court one day. A personality disorder is comprised of personality traits that are constant, maladaptive, and cause impairment and personal distress. Persons with personality disorders rarely visit an MHP because of their disorder. Though they frequently have many personal and legal problems, they do not think of themselves as requiring the assistance of an MHP. In a sense, a personality disorder is more like a lifestyle than a disease.

* The diagnostic categories referenced in this chapter are based upon those in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, of the American Psychiatric Association.

ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY FOR CRISIS NEGOTIATORS ■ 131

A non-law enforcement seminar attendee was asking for further clarification as to the antisocial personality and his view of the world. Knowing this student had a “lead foot” and four speeding tickets as evidence of her habit, the instructor asked if she had seen an MHP about her behavior. She replied, “No. Why?” The instructor said: “Well, you continue to speed despite the fact that you have been caught at it on several occasions. Apparently, you do not feel as if the laws apply to you. You are angry about paying the fines, though you readily admit you broke the law. You feel no guilt or remorse about having broken the law. You have recklessly disregarded your own safety and the safety of others. You lied to the officer when he stopped you, though you knew the lie could easily be detected if he chose to pursue it. Sounds like antisocial behavior to me!” Not really, but antisocial persons may feel the same way about far more serious crimes. People with personality disorders do not believe that they have a problem. It is the world that has it all wrong. Antisocial Personality Disorder An agent, new to the FBI, was assigned to the office fugitive squad. He participated in the arrest of a fugitive who had done four homicides and possibly several more. One of the subject’s victims, who had survived his assault, telephoned the FBI one afternoon and said that the subject was coming back to town. The fugitive had telephoned her and said he wanted to talk to her. She feared that he was coming back not to talk to her but to kill her. She had ample reason to be concerned. In his assault, the subject had slashed her face with a knife, and the injury had required 200 stitches to repair. He had sliced off her left ear, which surgeons had sewed back on. He also had cut off her left breast, but he now he wanted to “talk.” She told the FBI that he would be arriving at the city bus terminal, and provided details as to his arrival. The FBI arrived at the bus terminal with 17 agents to ensure that once he was in the terminal, there would be no way out.


They had every possible exit covered by several agents. When the subject entered the terminal, they took him down, frisked him, handcuffed him, and took him to the FBI office for interview. During the interview, the agent was shocked. The agent said that perhaps because he was so new to law enforcement, he still expected “bad guys” to look like the “bad guys” he had seen on television and in the movies. This subject was nothing at all like what he had expected. This “bad guy” was well dressed and well groomed, charming, articulate, a “nice” guy, and a serial killer. In short, he was an antisocial personality and astonishing in the incongruity. The reader may have studied the antisocial personality in high school, college, or the police academy, where these individuals were known as sociopaths or psychopaths. For our purposes, they will be treated as the same disorder. Characteristics Persons suffering from antisocial personality disorder tend to lack empathy. They are often cold, cynical, and scornful of the feelings, rights, and suffering of others. Some believe that this pattern begins in childhood—perhaps as early as age eight or nine— or in the early teens. Someone suffering from antisocial personality disorder may have an inflated opinion of himself to the point of arrogance, despite his lack of experience or training in a particular field. He may be unemployed because he insists upon a supervisory position, for example. He is cocky and self-assured with little legitimate reason to be so. He often possesses a glib, superficial charm that he will use to his advantage in a variety of situations, including those with the opposite sex, potential employers, and victims. Sometimes this individual will use technical terms to impress someone unfamiliar with a topic. He may, however, experience unpleasant moods, including complaints of tension, boredom, and depression. As with many persons suffering from personality disorders, he tends to be impulsive.


He is irresponsible and exploitative in sexual relationships and may have a history of many sexual partners. In fact, he may never have sustained a monogamous relationship. If a parent, he will be irresponsible in this relationship as well. Common backgrounds include less-than-honorable discharges from military service; failure to be selfsupporting; impoverished or even homeless; and sometimes many years in prison. Someone suffering from antisocial personality disorder is more likely than those in the general population to die by violent means. Childhood backgrounds include abuse or neglect, unstable or erratic parenting, and inconsistent parental discipline. This disorder has been associated most often with low socioeconomic status and urban settings. Common Behaviors When one considers the lifestyle of persons with antisocial personalities, it becomes evident why they often find themselves in jail or prison. They repeatedly con others for profit or just for the “fun” of it, with little thought to the future. They may be impulsive, irritable, and aggressive, as indicated by repeated verbal or physical assaults. They are recklessly indifferent regarding their own safety and the safety of others, as reflected in driving records that may include multiple speeding citations, drunk-driving arrests, and multiple accidents. Their recklessness may extend to high-risk sex and drug abuse. They are unwavering in their paths of irresponsibility in all facets of life. Their work and financial history are a shambles. They may quit showing up for work and have no plans for future employment. They may also be unemployed even when jobs are readily available. Further evidence of irresponsibility may be indicated by failure to pay debts, pay child support, or support other dependents on a regular basis. A person suffering from antisocial personality disorder may be indifferent to having hurt, abused, or otherwise mistreated someone else. In fact, he may blame the victim for being stupid or deserving what he got. After being


arrested on a rape charge, he might say something like, “What was she thinking walking out on the street at that hour? If I didn’t rape her, somebody else would have. She deserved what she got for being so dumb. She was just asking for it.” Communication Suggestions ■ As he does everything out of self-interest, keep the subject’s egocentricity in mind. ■ Keep the subject busy to preclude harassment of his victims or hostages. ■ The antisocial personality must be convinced that the safe release of the hostages is to his advantage because of his self-serving behavior. ■ Do not try to “con” this con man about how easy he is going to get out of punishment, because he knows the system. ■ It is unlikely that girlfriends, wives, or family can be of value as third-party intermediaries, because he generally cares little about these relationships. Borderline Personality Disorder There was a 911 call from a telephone booth located in a hotel parking lot. The caller said, “Help me. I’m dying,” and the line was left open. Upon arrival at the hotel, officers observed a trail of blood from the parking lot telephone booth to a hotel room. The subject, Tim, did not answer the door, and after a few seconds a forced entry was made into the hotel room. Tim was observed sitting on a chair with his elbows on his knees, staring at a lockblade knife. Tim’s jeans were blood-soaked, as were his hands, arms, and chest. There was a large amount of blood and a wide, flat rock on the bedspread. Tim remained silent for a moment, then turned towards the officers and said, “I cut my fucking balls off.” Tim eventually said that he had placed his scrotum on the rock, cut his scrotum open, cut off one of his testicles, and flushed it down the toilet. The initial puncture was so deep


that it had cut through his abdominal wall and caused severe internal bleeding within his leg. Tim apparently panicked at the amount of blood and used a needle and thread to sew up his scrotum. The sewing caused the scrotum to fill with blood and swell to the size of a cantaloupe. Tim’s family later reported that he had broken up with his girlfriend earlier that afternoon, and the breakup was just one more incident in their volatile relationship. Tim has made suicidal gestures in the past, slicing his wrists, but on each occasion he would immediately call 911. He had received treatment by mental health professionals, but never stuck with a long-term treatment program for more than three or four weeks. He also had a lengthy history of drug and alcohol abuse. Tim is an example of a borderline personality disorder. While he may be an extreme example of the disorder, law enforcement and corrections personnel must do business with the extremes. Law enforcement does not often see the mildly depressed. The mildly depressed talk to a spouse, girlfriend, doctor, crisis hotline personnel, or some other person. When those contacts provide no relief, law enforcement encounters these individuals. As with the depressed, law enforcement does not encounter borderline personalities people just because they are nasty, difficult people, or having problems in their personal relationships or on the job. Law enforcement sees them in their extremes while engaged in a violent domestic disturbance, cutting themselves, or making suicide threats. Interestingly, corrections personnel seem to recognize the borderline more quickly than patrol officers or road deputies. When a law enforcement officer encounters a borderline personality, he tends to think that the borderline is just someone having a bad day. Corrections officers, who see them every day, know that these individuals are not just having a bad day; they act this way every day. Corrections officers often report a wide variety of strange stories, such as the borderline inmate who slashed his chest open with a piece of sharpened metal, then packed the wound with feces. Later, this inmate said that he was


hoping that if the wound did not kill him, the infection would. Another inmate filled his scrotum with a quart of cooking oil, and another pushed ballpoint pen refills into his veins. A negotiator reported that during the course of a prison hostage situation, an inmate hostage taker lifted his tee shirt to show his chest to the negotiator. The man’s chest was a mass of scars. When the negotiator asked what had happened to him, the negotiator was told that the inmate would cut pieces of flesh off his chest and mail them to people. By the inmate’s reckoning, the recipient was then challenged to send a bigger piece of flesh back. If the recipient did not send a bigger piece back, the recipient was not as “macho” as the inmate. The inmate is a large, bisexual male who had been involved in a number of volatile homosexual relationships while in prison and who had assumed the male role with two inmate “queens” at the time of the incident. According to prison officials, he had mutilated his body with knife cuts on multiple occasions to “prove” his love to his homosexual lovers. In one extreme example of self-mutilation, when the warden was new to the penitentiary, the same inmate cut off one of his own testicles and threw it at the warden. Presumably, he was challenging the warden to throw two testicles back. The warden did not. The aforementioned gentleman was diagnosed as suffering from borderline personality disorder. This disorder is the second most commonly diagnosed personality disorder after the antisocial personality disorder. This individual is described as “borderline” because he is borderline psychotic, especially during times of stress. Some MHPs have reported that if they are interviewing a new patient and they hate the new patient within the first 10 minutes, the patient is often suffering from borderline personality disorder. Other MHPs have reported that they draw lots as to who gets the new borderline patient assigned to them. The loser gets the assignment.


Characteristics ■ Persons with borderline personality disorder may undermine themselves as they near a goal. They might, for example, drop out of school just before graduation, or quit a job just when it starts to look good. Corrections officers report that these individuals will get into trouble in prison or jail at exactly the worst time, such as just before release. ■ Suicide is more prevalent among borderlines than in the general population. The suicide completion rate is 8–10%. ■ Physical handicaps resulting from self-inflicted injuries and failed suicide attempts are common. Corrections personnel report that many borderline personalities have self-inflicted scars all over their bodies that the inmates refer to as “battle scars.” ■ The impairment from the disorder and the risk of suicide recede with advancing age, as do the recurring suicidal behavior, gestures, and threats, and/or self-mutilating behavior. ■ These individuals may experience psychotic-like behavior during times of stress. ■ They may feel more secure with a pet or inanimate object than in interpersonal relationships. ■ Recurrent job losses, interrupted education, and broken marriages are common. ■ Childhood histories may include physical and sexual abuse, neglect, familial conflict, and early parental loss or separation. Prevalence The prevalence among the general population is about 2 percent. Course There is considerable variability in the course of this disorder. The most common pattern is one of chronic instability in early adulthood and milder manifestations of the disorder as the person advances in age.


Familial Pattern The disorder is five times more common among close relatives of those with the disorder than in the general population. Common Behaviors ■ They often exhibit frenzied efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. They can barely tolerate being alone, and fear abandonment or rejection. This fear may be the reason for self-mutilating behavior and suicidal gestures. To them, “abandonment” implies that they have been “bad.” ■ Borderline personalities may experience a pattern of unstable and intense relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation. They may idealize lovers, for example, on a first or second meeting, demand a lot of time together, and share the most intimate details of their lives early in a relationship. Very soon, however, they may feel that the other person does not care enough, does not give enough, or is not there enough. It is has been suggested that these emotional extremes may be at the root of a significant number of “domestic” situations worked by negotiators. ■ They may also undergo identity disturbances—that is, experience an unstable self-image or sense of self. Examples of this experience include sudden and dramatic shifts in self-image, characterized by shifting goals, values, and vocational aspirations. There may be sudden changes in opinions and plans about career, sexual identity, values, and types of friends. Their usual selfimage is based on good or evil. ■ Borderline people can be impulsive in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging. Examples of their impulsivity may include sprees and binges of virtually any kind, including gambling, spending money irresponsibly, unsafe sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, and binge eating.


■ Their mood is basically unstable and unpleasant most of the time. This unpleasant mood is frequently spiked with periods of anger, panic, or despair. ■ Chronic feelings of emptiness are commonplace, as they are easily bored and may be constantly seeking something to do. ■ Their inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling their anger results in outbursts of temper and recurrent physical fights. They may display extreme sarcasm, bitterness, or verbal outbursts. Anger is seen when they believe a lover, for example, is being neglectful, withholding, uncaring, or abandoning. Afterwards, they express shame and guilt over their behavior. They view their own outbursts as evidence of their evil ways. ■ Sometimes borderline persons will undergo transient, stress-related feelings of suspiciousness, or the belief that they are being harassed, persecuted, or treated unfairly. ■ In differentiating between antisocial and borderline the borderline will: ■ Have a history of suicide attempts ■ Express self-loathing ■ Have intense, ambivalent attachments where the antisocial will have few or none ■ Have more conscience ■ Be far more emotional Communication Suggestions ■ Use active listening techniques, particularly emotion labeling, to build rapport, defuse emotionality, and gather intelligence. ■ Stay “with” the subject as much as possible to preclude him from doing something impulsively. ■ Be alert for clues to suicide or homicide/suicide. ■ Reassure the subject that help is available and that you will help. ■ Be prepared for displays of and shifts in emotionality. ■ Be extremely careful about allowing friends and relatives to speak directly to the subject.


Schizophrenia It was 3:00 p.m. Rose sat on a bench at the city airport and carefully observed security procedures. After watching for a while, she realized that she could never get through security with the revolver she had shoved in her coat pocket. Rose wondered how she was going to board an airplane. She had to go. After all, Prince Charles and Muhammad Ali were after her. Just that morning she had seen a sign that told her to leave the country. Rose noticed that arriving passengers were entering the airport through a nearby door. Only one woman, who often turned her back and who did not appear to Rose to be particularly watchful, was guarding this door. Going through this door appeared to be her best chance. If she was lucky, she could slip through this door while the woman’s back was turned. Rose braced herself and tried to slip through the door when the woman’s back was turned. As Rose, with all the nonchalance she could muster, walked through the door, the security guard turned and saw her. When the security guard attempted to stop her, Rose pulled her gun. She had to board that plane. As the security guard attempted to seize Rose’s gun, it discharged, and the guard was shot. Rose boarded the plane and saw that many passengers were already on board. Soon, airport security personnel were calling out to her and telling her that they only wanted to talk, that after they talked, Rose could go home. Rose knew they were lying. She had just shot somebody. Later, an FBI negotiator began talking to Rose, and she liked him until she realized he was just stalling for time. Rose knew that the FBI and police needed time to set up their command post and get tactical teams in place. Rose’s problems were mounting. Standing right next to the negotiator was Prince Charles, so there was no point in telling him about the Prince and Muhammad Ali. After several hours of negotiation, a tactical team boarded the aircraft in an attempt to arrest Rose, but she is a large woman and there was a struggle. Rose was finally restrained, but only after being shot in the shoulder and after an officer was injured in the struggle.


Rose, who was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic at any early age, was confined to a mental health facility for an indefinite period as a result of the shooting and aircrafthijacking attempt. Rose is doing well now, but each time an attempt is made to reduce her medication, she becomes violent again. Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness that affects about 2.5 million Americans, usually between the ages of 15 to 25. Persons who are diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia develop it somewhat later in life than persons with other forms of the disease. Among the public, there is often confusion that seems to stem from the word “schizophrenia” itself. Although schizophrenia literally means, “split mind,” people with the disorder do not have a “split,” or multiple, personalities. When word “schizophrenia” was coined, it was intended to indicate a split between emotions and thought processes. Also, when mental health professionals refer to a “loss of contact with reality,” this does not mean that schizophrenics do not know what is going on around them. They can be incredibly sensitive to what is going on around them. Finally, never confuse schizophrenia with being stupid. There are five forms of schizophrenia: the paranoid type, disorganized type, catatonic type, undifferentiated type, and residual type. In a study of schizophrenic hostage takers, the undifferentiated type was the most common, followed by the paranoid type. Definitions Schizophrenics encountered in hostage situations may be suffering from hallucinations and/or delusions that are defined as follows: ■ Hallucinations are a sensory perception that occurs without an external stimulus. Hallucinations may occur in any of the senses—i.e., hearing, vision, touch, smell, or taste. Hallucinations are generally unpleasant.


■ Auditory hallucinations are the most common and characteristic of schizophrenia. Auditory hallucinations may be either familiar or unfamiliar voices. The auditory hallucinations also may be sounds that appear to be coming from inside or outside the head, or from an electronic device. ■ Visual hallucinations are seeing things that are not there, such as giant bugs crawling all over a jail cell. ■ Tactile hallucinations are not uncommon among cocaine addicts, who may scratch bleeding wounds in their arms, attempting to rid themselves of “coke bugs” crawling beneath their skin. ■ Olfactory hallucinations involve smelling things that are not present, such as decaying bodies, dead fish, or burning rubber. ■ Gustatory hallucinations involve tasting things that are not there, such as poison in the person’s food. ■ A delusion is a fixed, false belief that is held despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Listed below are several forms of delusion: ■ Delusions of persecution, the most common form of delusion, are delusions in which the central theme is that the person is being attacked, harassed, cheated, persecuted, or conspired against. ■ Grandiose delusions are delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person, and often involve religious themes. ■ Delusional jealousy is the delusion that one’s sexual partner is being unfaithful ■ Erotomania is the delusion that another person, usually of higher status, is in love with the individual. This delusion involves feelings of love more than a sexual fantasy. ■ Delusions of being controlled occur when feelings, impulses, thoughts, or actions are experienced as being under the control of some external force. There are


three relatively common forms of thought control delusions: ■ Thought broadcast is the delusion that everyone around a person can hear what the person is thinking. ■ Thought insertion is the delusion that thoughts, in an almost physical way, are being inserted into the person’s head. ■ Thought withdrawal is the delusion that thoughts, in an almost physical way, are being pulled out of a person’s head. ■ A delusion of reference involves the theme that events, objects, or other persons in one’s immediate environment are related to one’s self. For example, a high school student studying Macbeth told her teacher that the witches in the play were talking about her, personally. She said that she was evil and deserved to die. She was later diagnosed as being bipolar. Associated Features Almost any symptom can occur as an associated feature, including: ■ ■ ■ ■

Perplexed or disheveled appearance Eccentric dress Brief, concrete responses to questions Ritualistic, stereotyped behavior associated with magical thinking. Magical thinking is believing two unrelated events to have a cause-and-effect relationship ■ Depression, anxiety, and/or anger Age and Gender The disorder is apparently equally common in both sexes, though there may be a higher rate among males. Women are more likely to have a later onset, more noticeable mood symptoms, and a better prognosis. Men tend to develop schizophrenia in their later teens to early twenties, and


women tend to develop it in their later twenties to early thirties. Onset is rare before adolescence and after age 50. Impairment There will be impairment in several areas of routine daily functioning, such as their jobs, social relations, and selfcare. The impairment may be to the point where they require supervision to meet the minimal standards of hygiene and safety. The organization of thinking, behavior, and emotional responsiveness often remains better preserved in the paranoid schizophrenic than in other forms of schizophrenia. In some ways, this relative lack of impairment in the paranoid schizophrenic allows them to plan, prepare, and carry out more complex crimes, such as an aircraft hijacking. Complications There is now somewhat controversial evidence indicating that these individuals are more violent than the general population, especially when not taking their medication. Their life expectancy is reduced due to an increased suicide rate and death from a variety of other causes, including long-term poor hygiene. A significant percentage of people with schizophrenia have a history of alcohol and substance abuse. Personality Prior to the Illness Before the onset of the disorder, persons are generally described as suspicious, introverted, withdrawn, eccentric, and/or impulsive. Predisposing Factors The diagnosis is made more commonly among the lower socio-economic groups for reasons that are unclear to researchers. Scientists do not know what causes the illness, but research suggests that problems with brain chemistry and structure may be responsible.


Prevalence The prevalence of schizophrenia is usually estimated to be between 0.5% and 1%. Course ■ The prodromal phase is the period during which the person is sliding into the disease. Prodromes are symptoms indicating the onset of a disease. During this phase, there is a clear deterioration from a previous level of functioning. The prodromal phase is characterized by social withdrawal, impairment in role functioning, peculiar behavior, neglect of personal hygiene and grooming, disturbances in communication, bizarre ideas, unusual perceptual experiences, and lack of initiative, interests, or energy. Friends and relatives often describe the behaviors as a change in personality, or the subject as no longer “being the same person.” ■ During the active phase, psychotic behavior, such as delusions and hallucinations, are clearly noticeable. ■ The residual phase follows the active phase. Behavior during this phase are similar to that of the prodromal phase, except that the impairment in role functioning tends to be more common in the residual phase. During this phase, some of the psychotic behavior, such as delusions or hallucinations, may persist. A return to the person’s original personality is not common. Residual impairment often increases between episodes during the initial years of the disorder. Familial Pattern There is a large genetic component to schizophrenia, but there appear to be environmental factors as well. The disease does not appear to be totally one or the other. There is no agreement as to a single cause for the disease, and there is no laboratory test.


Treatment/Medication Anti-psychotic medications often decrease agitation and anxiety, and soften or stop hallucinations, but unrealistic beliefs change more slowly. Some medications often have beneficial effects within hours of administration. There have not been many occasions where negotiators could get a schizophrenic to take medication during an incident. Many schizophrenics do not like to take their medication, because of the side effects. Additionally, most medications do not work fast enough, especially on delusions, to be of assistance to negotiators. Schizophrenics are sometimes seen with a cigarette in one hand and a can of soda in the other. One of the side effects of the medications given to schizophrenics is a feeling of “cotton” mouth. For that reason, officers may observe schizophrenics on medication walking around with something to drink in their hand. In the other hand, they have a cigarette because some schizophrenics report that smoking helps them to think clearly. As a practical matter for officers, it may not be a bad idea to offer a schizophrenic a cigarette and something to drink. Common Behaviors ■ The presence of hallucinations and delusions ■ Functioning in such areas as work, social relations, and self-care is markedly below the highest level achieved before the onset of the disturbance. ■ Marked social isolation or withdrawal and impairment in role functioning ■ Peculiar behavior ■ Impairment in personal hygiene and grooming ■ Unusual speech patterns ■ Clanging—a speech pattern that strings rhyming words or phrases together ■ Word salad—a speech pattern that strings words with no apparent connection together


■ Echolalia—the senseless repetition of a word or phrase just spoken by another person ■ Neologisms—words made up by the person ■ Words out of context—common words not used the way other persons use the word. In one hostage situation, the subject—who had been previously diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic—would occasionally say a word or entire sentence backwards and could do so with apparent ease. This speech pattern is not common. ■ Odd beliefs that may influence behavior A problem that has arisen on several occasions is the pathological fear of homosexuality on the part of some schizophrenics. Some MHPs report that opposite sex therapists are sometimes more effective with paranoid schizophrenics. Negotiators worked a barricade situation where the subject was convinced that his neighbor was a homosexual and was attempting to seduce him. The subject fired at the totally unsuspecting neighbor’s home. Another negotiator was working very effectively with a schizophrenic. He had taken several hostages at the hospital where his son had died. The subject believed that he knew the reason for his son’s illness and he was sure that he had the cure, but no one would listen to him. The subject was ready to walk out the door to surrender when a male doctor approached him from behind, put his hand on the subject’s shoulder, and said, “I love you. Let’s do it together.” The subject went into a fury and said that God had spoken to him when the doctor touched his shoulder. He said that God warned him about death awaiting him on the other side of the door. He did not surrender. At a forensic hospital where a schizophrenic was awaiting evaluation, he attacked a lieutenant working the night shift. He later accused the lieutenant and captain of misting his bunk with “homosexual spray” in an attempt to turn him into a homosexual.


A paranoid schizophrenic brutally killed a man who he thought was trying to seduce him. He refused to talk to male detectives but readily confessed to female detectives. Soon after getting out of prison on the first murder, he murdered again. On the second occasion, the male victim was wearing shorts, and the paranoid schizophrenic considered the shorts to be a sexual come on. It may be helpful to remember that paranoid schizophrenics also have a problem relating to authority. Officers will generally have less trouble taking a paranoid schizophrenic into custody if they are very polite and respectful, as opposed to abruptly ordering him to get up against the wall and spread them. If officers have to physically take down a paranoid schizophrenic, it is better to overwhelm him with force. If there are only two officers he will fight, but if there are six or eight officers he may cave in more readily. ■ ■ ■ ■

Fascination with mechanical and electronic devices Unusual perceptual experiences Lack of initiative, interests, or energy Preoccupation with delusions or auditory hallucinations Communication Suggestions

The subject’s need to explain may offer an opportunity to establish rapport. Do not try to argue the subject out of his/her delusions. The negotiator will not be able to talk a schizophrenic out of his delusions, and any attempt to do so will only make the subject angry. Neither should the negotiator say that he can see or hear things when he does not. If the subject asks the negotiator if he can see the hallucinated bugs, the negotiator should say, “No, I can’t see them, but I can understand that you do.” Negotiators should not get into a schizophrenic’s delusional system. Sometimes, negotiators may have to talk a narrow line to begin a dialogue. For example, a schizophrenic might not talk to an officer or negotiator unless he addresses the subject as “Princess.” In this case,


it might not be a bad idea to get into the delusional system to a minimal degree, just to begin a dialogue. Try to ally yourself with the subject’s perspective without sounding insincere. A negotiator reported that an elderly woman calls his department on a regular basis to complain of some people secretly living in her home with her. She never manages to get a good look at them, as they are always leaving just as she walks into the room. As a result, she can only obtain a glimpse of them turning the corner. An officer was dispatched to the lady’s residence, and he was determined to put an end to her telephone calls by “arresting” those persons secretly living in her home. As the officer was talking to the lady, she cried out, “There they go!” The officer “chased” after the phantom subjects, “tackled” them, and became engaged in a “scuffle” when he heard the loud report of a weapon just behind him. Standing behind him was the elderly woman, with a gun in her hand. The officer yelled, “Lady, what the hell are you doing?” She replied, “He was beating the shit out of you. I was just trying to help!” The moral of the story is do not become too involved in a delusional system, whether the individual is a schizophrenic or not. Getting too involved can too easily backfire on an officer. Avoid use of family members, as they may be part of the delusional system. Media attention may be a negotiable item. There may be a negative attitude toward the mental health profession. Do not stare or get too close (expanded body space). A psychological rule of thumb, while not theoretically pure, may be useful in maintaining officer safety: Depression equals anger and paranoia equals fear. Assume that depressed persons are angry and that suicidal, depressed persons are homicidally angry. Assume, too, that if a person is paranoid, something or someone is frightening him.


Major Depressive Episode An estimated 9 million Americans suffer from major depressive episodes (MDE). Approximately one in four women and one in ten men will experience at least one debilitating episode of mood disorder in their lifetime. Associated Features ■ Tearfulness, anxiety, irritability, brooding, excessive concern with physical health, panic attacks, and phobias ■ Difficulty in intimate relationships or sexual functioning ■ There may be marital, occupational, or academic problems. ■ Alcohol and/or substance abuse is common. ■ Increased use of medical services ■ The most serious consequence of this disorder is attempted or completed suicide. ■ The suicide risk is especially high for individuals with a history of mental illness, previous suicide attempts, a family history of suicide, or current substance abuse. About 15% of the people with this disorder go on to commit suicide. ■ Episodes often follow stressors such as a loss of any kind or childbirth. ■ Sleep abnormalities are common in this group with 40– 60% of outpatients and up to 90% of inpatients having problems. Culture and Gender Features ■ Culture can influence the experience and communication of depression. In some cultures, depression may be experienced in terms of bodily symptoms, rather than in sadness or guilt. In Latino and Mediterranean cultures, people complain of “nerves” and headaches. In China, people say they are experiencing weakness, tiredness, or “imbalance.” ■ Women tend to report a worsening of symptoms several days before their periods.


■ Depressive episodes occur twice as frequently in women as in men. Course ■ Symptoms of depression usually develop over days to weeks. ■ The duration of an episode is also variable, and, left untreated, may last six months or longer. ■ In most cases, the behaviors completely disappear and the individual returns to the premorbid level. However, in about 20–30% of the cases, some depressive behaviors may persist for months or years. Common Behaviors ■ A person suffering from MDE will describe his mood as depressed, sad, hopeless, discouraged, or “down in the dumps.” Many individuals report irritability, persistent anger, angry outbursts, or exaggerated frustration over minor matters. MDE is much more serious than and should not be confused with the passing feelings of unhappiness we all experience from time to time. MDE is a “whole body” illness that can last for months or even years. ■ MDE will often result in diminished interest or pleasure in usual activities. ■ People feel less interested in hobbies or “don’t care anymore.” Some depressed people may not realize that they are depressed. They just lose interest in things that normally interest them and get worse. A depressed man may not realize that though he usually went fishing a couple of times a week, he had not gone fishing in the last month. A negotiator was working with a depressed, suicidal, barricaded subject. The negotiator could not think of anything to say, but saw the subject’s bass boat in the backyard. With the thought that fishing might be something they could talk about, the negotiator asked the subject about fishing and the boat. The subject’s only


■ ■ ■ ■

■

■

■

■

response was that he had not been fishing for more than a month. In most persons, there is a significant reduction in sexual interest. In children and adolescents, the mood may be irritable rather than sad. Some depressed persons experience a significant weight loss or gain. “Significant” is generally considered to be a 5% weight loss or gain in a month when not trying. Persons suffering from MDE generally will have minimal problems going to sleep, only to wake up in the early morning hours and have trouble getting back to sleep. A less common experience is sleeping for more hours than is the person’s usual pattern. Some persons with MDE become agitated, both mentally and physically. For example, if an officer were to interview patrons after a barroom brawl, they might report that it was obvious that the subject was looking for a fight themoment he walked through the door. If the officer wereto ask the subject what was going on with him, he mightsay he just broke up with his girlfriend. Other people slowdown mentally and physically. Most people with MDE feel exhausted or lack the energy to accomplish even the smallest tasks. Decreased energy, tiredness, and weariness are common even without physical exertion. The subject’s family members may be on-scene and report that he was really bad last week, but that they all thought he was getting better. In fact, this observation may be accurate. Last week, he did not have enough energy to put a suicide plan together. This week, he is better and has the energy to act. The subject may feel worthless and guilty even about circumstances over which he has no control. It is for this reason that negotiators should be extremely careful about introducing non-law enforcement persons into an incident. The subject may feel guilty about things he has done, or feel he has let these very people down. As negotiators, we do not want to heighten these feelings,


but to make the negotiation seem very private between the negotiator and subject. ■ Diminished ability to think, concentrate, or make decisions. If the subject has decreased energy, there will not be the usual conversational pace. The subject will be talking slowly and will take a long time to answer, and sometimes the answer will not fit the negotiator’s question. ■ Recurrent thoughts of death or suicide are common. Treatment Treatment is highly successful, with 85% of institutionalized patients being discharged in a matter of two or three months. Negotiator Encounters with Depressed Persons There appear to be several periods in the course of a major depressive episode where law enforcement, and negotiators in particular, encounter depressed persons. ■ Negotiators encounter depressed persons not when they are in the depths of depression but when the person is getting better, often within weeks of being released from a mental health facility. When the depressed individual is bottoming out, he does not have the mental focus to formulate a plan or the energy to carry it out. When he is getting better, on the other hand, he has the focus and the energy but still feels depressed. It is during this period when he acts. It is for this reason that relatives and friends will arrive on the scene of a barricade and say things like, “We all thought Johnny was getting better. A couple of weeks ago it couldn’t pull himself out of bed. I can’t believe he is doing this now!” ■ Sometimes relatives strongly encourage a depressed person to see a mental health professional. Finally, the depressed person caves in to family pressure and sees a doctor, and the doctor puts him on an antidepressant. Law enforcement encounters these individuals after they have been on the medication for a short time but not long


enough for the medication to have any effects. Now the depressed person is utterly convinced that there is no hope of feeling any better, because he has been taking his medication as prescribed with no letup in the psychological pain. He is also convinced that there is no one who can help him. He told his relatives the doctor or medication would be no help, and sure enough, here it is a few days later and nothing is happening. A commonly prescribed group of antidepressants are called SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors), and these drugs may take two to three weeks before there are any appreciable effects—a fact the depressed individual does not understand. ■ Perhaps the depressed person has been taking an SSRI a sufficient length of time but the drug is, in fact, not helping. The patient returns to the doctor and the doctor agrees that the SSRI is not helping. The doctor then decides to try one of a group of drugs called MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitors). One of the benefits of SSRIs is they have a long half-life, meaning that if a patient misses a dose, he should not have a problem. SSRIs stay in the bloodstream for some time. The long half-life can also be a problem if a doctor wants to switch a patient over to a MAOI, because if an MAOI and SSRI are taken together, or too closely together, the result may be a serious and sometimes fatal reaction. To avoid this reaction, the doctor must wait five weeks to ensure that there is no SSRI left in the bloodstream. So now there is a seriously depressed, perhaps suicidal, individual on the street with no medication whatsoever, losing what little confidence he had in the mental health profession. ■ Sometimes persons with bipolar disorder will threaten or commit suicide as they are coming down from a manic episode. They commit suicide at this stage out of fear of going into a depressive episode. ■ Not only depressed persons, but also individuals being treated for a wide range of mental conditions will go off their medications for a variety of reasons. Among those reasons is the dislike for the side effects of their medication. Depressed persons in particular will feel that


they no longer need their medication, or they do not like the idea that the medication is controlling their lives. They think that they can beat the depression without the medication, and they want to take control of their lives. Communication Suggestions ■ If psychomotor retardation is present, you may have to wait longer than usual for a reply. ■ Friends and relatives may provoke or escalate feelings of worthlessness and guilt. ■ Beware of sudden improvements that are unrelated to your negotiation. Sudden, unexplained improvements, even reassurances to the negotiator, may indicate that the subject has made up his mind to proceed with the suicide. The decision to actually commit suicide has been made and he is now more at peace. ■ Keep your time perspective in the here and now. The negotiator should offer a promise of immediate help, not assurances that the subject will be feeling better in the months to come. ■ The subject will generally have a small body space. A negotiator approached the depressed subject who was seated on a park bench. The man had a knife to a child’s throat. The negotiator seated himself next to the man, patted him on the shoulder, and assured him that help was available. Not that his negotiation approach is being advocated here, but he did manage to get that close to the subject. A negotiator would have a difficult time doing the same thing with a depressed subject exhibiting paranoia and agitation. ■ A depressed subject will generally be honest and straightforward with the negotiator. ■ The negotiator should beware of “suicide-by-cop.” Though exact numbers are not available, suicidal persons have killed and attempted to kill officers acting in the role of negotiator in an effort to provoke the police into killing them. ■ Discuss real world versus abstract concepts when working with depressed persons. Negotiators should avoid


discussing abstract concepts such as theology, because it is a potential verbal and emotional minefield. Negotiators should ask, “Are you cold, hungry, thirsty, etc.?” and suggest going somewhere more comfortable to talk about the subject’s problem. ■ Negotiators should attempt to postpone the suicidal action, as opposed to changing the subject’s mood. It is acceptable to offer immediate assistance and tell the subject if that help fails, suicide is still an option at a later time. The negotiator can point out that officers cannot always be with the individual to stop them. It is unlikely that a negotiator will make the suicidal person happy, but the negotiator may be able to get the person past the suicidal impulse. ■ Active listening skills should be used to build empathy and establish a rapport with the subject. Without the development of rapport between the subject and negotiator, the negotiator may never even learn that the subject is suicidal.

Chapter 8 Dialogue and Actions

Rationale behind First Responder Dialogue and Actions The ideas presented in this chapter are intended for the patrol officer or road deputy’s use in hostage situations, barricade incidents, suicide threats, jail/prison incidents, and siege-type domestic situations. An officer may never see the situations presented in this chapter in his career. They are the extraordinary events, not the “usual” domestic or suicide call. Very often, especially in spontaneous sieges, the first law enforcement officer to arrive on-scene is a patrol officer or road deputy. The actions or inaction, words or silence of these responding law enforcement officers can set the tone of an incident for hours, if not the duration, and determine the outcome. There is general agreement among negotiators and patrol officers that the first hour to hour-and-a-half is the most perilous time period in a critical incident. It is the first responding officer who presides over that crucial time period. Generally, law enforcement is well along the way to a good outcome if the first hour to hour-and-a-half passes without injuries or deaths. It is not a question of whether or not the first responding officer should attempt to negotiate, because circumstances may dictate. The responding officer may see or hear the incident escalating as he answers what was expected to be a routine call. Or there may be nothing routine about the call from the very beginning. There may be no option but to


attempt some form of communications with the subject, especially as a typical crisis management team requires at least an hour to set up. To not allow an officer to open a dialogue with a subject is saying to him, “We trust you with a gun but not with words.” But words can be deadly, too. An officer or deputy must be trained how to respond verbally just as he is trained how to respond with a weapon. We can all talk and we can all pull a trigger. Neither action is difficult, but doing it effectively can make all the difference. No one is asking the first responding officer to replace a negotiation or a tactical team. There is no such thing as a one-man team anything. A team is a group of people organized to work together. The actions of the first responder are intended to contain the incident—that is, not allow the incident to spread and endanger additional persons —and to get the incident off to the best possible start. The responding officer’s actions are also intended to optimize the circumstances and maintain a holding action until backup, a negotiation team, and a tactical team arrive. First and Foremost Negotiators across the United States emphasize what should be an obvious point but apparently is not: First and foremost, the first responding officer should always ensure his personal safety. A dead or wounded officer can help or arrest no one, and may cause other officers to risk their lives in order to effect his rescue. Before attempting to open a dialogue with the subject, the officer should be sure that he is in a position of cover—that is, behind something that will stop a bullet. Remember the difference between cover and concealment. A wall or door may be concealment, but it is not necessarily cover. A stone wall is cover. Subjects sometimes shoot in the direction of an officer’s voice, so be ready. Subjects have made incredible shots and killed officers. Shots that law enforcement would not have taken because of the low probability of hitting the target, armed subjects have taken with deadly accuracy. An individual armed with a 9

DIALOGUE AND ACTIONS ■ 159

mm handgun killed a sheriff who had taken cover behind a telephone pole. The subject was inside a bank and holding two hostages when he fired through the front window of the bank. The round went through the front window, crossed the street, and fatally wounded the sheriff. First Actions The officer’s first action when confronted with the reality that he is into something more than he can handle alone is to call for backup. When calling in, provide two addresses. The first should be the address of the crime scene, the second where additional officers should respond—that is, the staging area. Too many first responding officers provide only the crime scene address, and subsequent officers pull up right in front of the offender’s residence, for example. The second action should be to make an effort to contain the threat. Containing an incident by oneself may not be possible, but talking to the subject may keep him busy and cause him to listen to the officer. Sometimes subjects are quietly thankful that the police have arrived, because they expect officers to impose order on a chaotic situation. The importance of containment is covered in more detail in the chapter on hostage negotiation. Witnesses and Other Innocent Persons First responding officers should then evacuate witnesses and other innocent persons to a place of safety. Witnesses should be held for later interview, and do not forget to tell detectives or other interviewers that they are being held for interview. At the same time, attempt to get some idea of what is going on and where the threat lies. Early in an incident, the biggest threat to the officer and the public is the officer’s not knowing the whole story. Initial Contact with the Subject As soon as practical, begin keeping a log of events, of what was said and done by all parties—what the responding


officer said and did, what the subject said and did, and at what time the event took place. During an extraordinary incident, the officer may be thinking that he will never forget what happened and why he took the actions that they did. Experience has demonstrated that it is very difficult to reconstruct events at a later date. Often, officers cannot remember the order of events, what was said or done, or the rationale behind the actions that were taken. The Officer’s First Few Statements The officer’s first few statements may set the tone for the next few hours or the duration of the incident, and may even affect the outcome. Instructors at the FBI Academy have suggested the following opening statement: “Hello in there. My name is—with the— Police (or Sheriff’s) Department. Everything is under control out here. Is everything all right in there?” Often, emotions will be driving the incident, especially in barricade, domestic, and suicide incidents. Extreme fear and anxiety are common emotions in these situations, but also expect to see anger, frustration, and desperation. These emotions may be focused at the authorities, a family member, friend, drug dealer, some other party, or a combination of parties the subject feels have done him wrong. So it is important that the first responding officer recognize that the incident may be driven by emotion, and attempt to help the subject get his emotions under control. (See the chapters on crisis intervention and active listening.) During the Initial Contact The responding officer’s objectives should be very similar to the actions and objectives of a trained negotiator. The responding officer should make an effort to calm the subject, as well as develop additional information for negotiators, the tactical team, and management. The importance of the passage of time has been described elsewhere is this book, but the effort to buy time starts with the first responding


officer. It is important, too, to keep the subject busy talking. The responding officer should attempt to distract the subject from doing harm to any potential victims. Finally, the first responder, like a negotiator, should make listening a high priority. Listening In real estate, the oft-heard saying is “location, location, location.” In negotiation, the analogous advice is “listen, listen, listen.” Officers and negotiators should be aware of their listen/talk ratio and make sure that they are not talking too much. ■ If the subject is talking he may provide valuable information that can be used later in the incident by negotiators, tactical personnel, or crisis managers. ■ Everything the subject says helps in some way. The officer can hear his emotional state, whether he is sober or stoned; can establish that the subject is, in fact, within the location, where he is within the crime scene, what is going on in the incident, etc. ■ All negotiators have heard the advice “Allow the subject to vent.” The reason that negotiators are given this advice is because venting or talking will help to calm the subject down. ■ Negotiators are also taught to stall for time. The passage of time is vitally important to a successful resolution. The more the subject is talking, the less a negotiator and first responder have to stall for time. ■ The subject’s talking and the officer’s listening may provide an indication of what it will take to end the incident. ■ Listening may aid in establishing a useful bond with the subject. Listening demonstrates respect for the person talking. Conversely, not listening demonstrates disrespect. ■ If you are not sure what the subject meant, be sure to ask him.


Continually Reassure Him In virtually all incidents, the subject is frightened by the law enforcement presence. He is concerned about what action law enforcement will take against him. During the incident, and often into the surrender process, the subject is anxious about the possibility of the tactical team’s hurting or killing him. He also is worried about what will happen to him if he does give up and goes to court. He also may have had a bad experience with the department that is now outside his door. Frankly, he does have a lot to worry and think about in his circumstances. His first and primary concern at the beginning of an incident is what actions law enforcement will take. He has impressions about law enforcement that come from the movies and television; his personal contacts with perhaps the very police that are now outside his door; highly publicized, though atypical, tactical actions on the local news; convicts with whom he has served time—and he is worried. In his first contacts with the subject, the officer should bear in mind that the subject is frightened, and continually reassure him that no one is coming in after him. Issues to Avoid ■ Officers should avoid escalating the incident in any way. In domestic situations, especially, the subject may not feel that he has done anything particularly wrong. After all, from his perspective, the victim is his wife or girlfriend, this is his home, and this is his gun, and it is not the business of law enforcement. Too often, the very presence of law enforcement personnel does escalate a situation, especially with the arrival of tactical teams, negotiators, perimeters, lights, sirens, bullhorns, squawking radios, etc. From his perspective, he was routinely threatening and beating his wife or girlfriend; now, all this! ■ First responders should not ask for trouble by soliciting demands. It may not have occurred to the perpetrator that law enforcement personnel may consider this incident


■

■

■

■

■

a hostage situation. Again, from his perspective, he was just having a loud disagreement with his wife or girlfriend, and the weapon was just part of that disagreement. Bargaining, making concessions, and offering anything should be avoided. Law enforcement does not want to be placed in a bargaining situation, and they do not want the subject to believe he is a bargaining situation. Bargaining, making concessions, and offering anything give a sense of power to the subject that he did not initially feel. No one likes a salesperson pushing him into a deal. Someone attempting to shove a deal down our throats causes us to be stubborn and suspicious. Likewise, when a first responder or negotiator too obviously pushes the surrender deal, the subject will become stubborn, dig in, and become suspicious. Do not try to be “cute.” Tricks and lying can be very difficult to pull off and may harm the later negotiation effort not only in the current case, but in future negotiated incidents and, possibly, in court. First responders should avoid making decisions, as well as referring to their “sheriffs,” “chiefs” or “bosses.” Referring to these individuals may cause the subject to ask for that person, especially if it looks like only that person can make a decision. Instead, the first responder may want to be more vague about the decision-making process—for example, saying he has to talk to “some people back at Headquarters” or “the county seat.” Face-to-face negotiations should be avoided not only for the officer’s safety sake but because it makes a negotiation more difficult. The safety factor should be obvious, but also, negotiation is a team effort, and it is much more difficult to act as a team when face-to-face with the subject. When face-to-face, it is harder for the negotiation team to consult with each other, and it is more difficult to bring information forward to the negotiators and send information back to command. It is also challenging to develop a rapport with the subject when a group of officers is milling around whispering with their hands on their weapons.


Trust Trust is critical. No one makes a deal with someone they do not trust to carry out their side of the bargain. From the subject’s perspective, he may feel that he is betting his life on the word of the negotiator that no one will shoot him if he steps out the door. So first responding officers should be as honest as possible. Subjects may test officers for the truth by asking, for example, if they are going to jail at the conclusion of the incident. The subject may know that he is going to jail, but he is testing the officer to see if the officer will be honest with him. Sometimes telling the harsh, unvarnished truth will buy a lot of credibility and trust for the negotiator or first responding officer. Logs Every crisis management element should maintain a log of events. A log is merely a record of events and the time of each event’s occurrence. What goes into a log may be a matter of agency procedure or training, but ultimately the contents of a log is up to the person maintaining that log. A first responder’s log may indicate the time of the call, what was seen upon arrival, immediate actions taken by the first responder, notes on any dialogue with or statements by the subject, etc. It may not be practical for a first responder to be taking notes in a log as the action is occurring, but a notation should be placed in a log as soon as it is feasible, because events will be very difficult to reconstruct at a later date. Dealing with Demands Dealing with demands is always difficult, and any bargaining by the first responder should be avoided. Having said that, if the subject is talking about an issue or is making demands, that demand or issue is important to him. So do not dismiss any request or demand as unimportant. As always, the first responder should listen to


the subject’s demands and make a note of the demands or issues in his log. A first responder may respond to a demand by saying, “I’ll pass that along.” By “passing the demand along,” the first responder is indicating that he is not the final authority, and at the same time not referring to an individual who is the final authority. The indication that someone is working on his demands and taking him seriously may placate the subject for the near future. While the first responder should attempt to avoid bargaining, bargaining may not be possible to avoid entirely. If pressed to respond to a demand, some would suggest, the first responder should attempt to “soften” the subject’s demands. For example, if the subject says, “I want a car and $10,000 in 30 minutes,” the first responder’s “softened” response might be, “Okay, I understand you would like some money and transportation. I’ll make sure someone starts working on it as soon as they get here.” First responders should also avoid saying “no” and totally shutting off any hope of the subject’s demands being fulfilled. Placing the subject in a completely hopeless situation may lead to other problems. Remember that avoiding the word “no” doesn’t mean the first responder is saying “yes,” acquiescing to demands, or agreeing with the subject. Dealing with Deadlines The first responder should not set a deadline on his team by telling the subject something will be done within a specific time frame, such as the delivery of coffee within 10 minutes. Hostages have been killed when negotiators set a deadline on a delivery. When law enforcement fails to meet its own deadline, subjects commonly believe that the authorities are deceiving them and, sometimes, take out their wrath on the victims or hostages. Subjects do not believe how chaotic the situation is or how bumbling we in law enforcement can be. If necessary, acknowledge the subject’s deadline but attempt to avoid any further conversation about it.


Minimizing the Damage First responders should attempt to minimize the seriousness of the crime or attempted crime or what has happened to this point in the incident. For example, the officer might say something like, “Not all that much has happened. No one has been hurt.” If the first responder is asked about the condition of a victim, he should consider saying, “I don’t know his condition because I’ve been talking with you.” If there have been injuries or deaths, and the subject has access to media coverage, there is not a whole lot the first responder can do but profess ignorance of the situation. It would not be the first time that a negotiator or first responder learned from the media what was going on in the incident he was working. Discussing Issues Discussing issues and, particularly, listening to the subject’s perspective assist in achieving a successful resolution in many, many ways. Most importantly, it keeps the subject talking or ventilating and allows time to pass. Listening and discussing also sets an excellent precedent for working together. If There are Victims or Hostages ■ First responders should avoid directing frequent attention to the victims. From the subject’s perspective, he is the one with the problem. He is the aggrieved party. The world is coming down on him and no one cares. ■ Officers should not express frequent concern about the victims or hostages. The officer does not want to build the value of the victims, or seem to indicate that the authorities will do anything to secure the safe release of the hostages or victims. Especially, negotiators and first responders do not want to reinforce the idea that the authorities will do anything up to and including taking action against the subject on behalf of the victims. The impression that first responders want to project is that


they are there to help him bring this incident to a safe resolution. Remember, too; from the subject’s viewpoint, this incident is about his troubles, and the victims are secondary. ■ When the time appears right, however, the officer or deputy should attempt to obtain the names of any hostages or victims and refer to them by name thereafter. The officer wants to personalize the victims in the mind of the subject. The first responder wants the subject to see the victim or hostage as a human being and not just an object to vent his rage upon or for trading. ■ Try to keep the subject involved with in conversation. While he is talking to the first responder, he is not harassing, abusing, threatening, or harming his victims ■ Law enforcement should not allow any exchange of victims or hostages or send anyone into a crime scene. Exchanging oneself for a victim or hostage especially should be strictly avoided. Exchanges of that nature are pure Hollywood, and become the material for war stories involving well-meaning but dead cops. Finally, the general guideline is that anyone that comes out stays out, and no one goes back into the crime scene. It Looks Like a Suicide If an incident looks like a suicide, treat it like a homicide until relieved by homicide detectives. Often relatives, for a variety of reasons, will claim that the individual would never have committed suicide, and someone must have killed him. If the incident is not treated like a homicide from the very beginning, the investigating agency may be plagued with claims by the victim’s family and friends that the investigation was not complete. The agency was incompetent. The agency was covering something up. There will be lawsuits, media pressure, and a general loss of public confidence. In short, treat the incident like you would treat a homicide until relieved by detectives and avoid a lot of paperwork and many year’s worth of headaches. If a gunshot is heard, do not presuppose that the subject has killed himself. If a decision has been made to go in after


the subject, it should be assumed that he is still alive, and the entry made with that idea in mind. Finally Always “what if” an incident. That is, first responders, negotiators, tactical personnel, and command should be asking and discussing all of the possibilities. Human beings can be amazingly devious and creative. The subjects have not often read law enforcement publications, and they do not know how they are “supposed” to react according to the book. Law enforcement should be constantly asking questions such as, “What if he comes out right now dragging a hostage? What if he wants to surrender right now? What if he starts a fire? What if we learn a victim is injured? What if we have to go into a second shift?”

Chapter 9 Drugs, Alcohol, and the Negotiation Process

In the 1970s and even into the 1980s, negotiators were taught very little about the effects of drugs and alcohol on the negotiation process, and what was taught was somewhat naïve or downright wrong. Since those early days, negotiators have interacted with persons using a very wide assortment of drugs. Alcohol is still the most popularly abused drug in the U.S., but negotiators have encountered people licking toads and smoking crack, marijuana, and PCP, among many others. The effects of drugs and alcohol are hard to ignore and should not be ignored in the negotiation process. There are many sources of information on drugs, but this chapter provides a unique contribution to the field in that it provides guidance to the negotiator as to how to communicate with a subject who is under the influence. To not take into account the effects of drugs and alcohol on the negotiation process is to omit a major factor from the equation. Negotiators across the U.S. report, from a low of 40% to a high of 100%, that the persons with whom they negotiate are under the influence of one or more drugs. In this chapter, background information on drugs, alcohol, and addiction is provided. The effect of drugs is an extremely complex subject. For example, for each drug category a set of communication guidelines is set forth. While these guidelines will be helpful, often drug users will mix drugs and drug categories. They might be under the influence of both stimulants and depressants. It is important for teams to obtain medical advice to help predict the subject’s behavior.


Purposes or Reasons for Taking Drugs ■ To change the user’s mood ■ To alter self-perceptions ■ To enhance one’s ability to function in certain settings The Pattern of Abuse Depends on: ■ ■ ■ ■

The The The The

emotional needs of the user effects of a given drug drugs currently used by the user’s associates availability of the drug

To determine a pattern of abuse you must know what drug (s) the individual uses and the schedule of use. Common Drug-Use Patterns ■ ■ ■ ■

Alcohol alone Alcohol and marijuana Heroin with a barbiturate or amphetamine Amphetamines and benzodiazepines The Pattern of Use Includes:

■ The size of the dose ■ The frequency of use ■ The route of administration The Classification of Drugs Each drug is assigned membership in a specific group. The Criteria for Drug Groups ■ ■ ■ ■

The The The The

anatomical site of action (e.g., neurotransmitters) effect they produce (e.g., stimulant) mechanism of action (e.g., enzyme) therapeutic indication of use (e.g., vitamin deficiency)

DRUGS, ALCOHOL, AND THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS ■ 171

■ The chemical structure (e.g., heavy metal) The pharmacological aspects of abuse are similar for all drugs within a given group. In other words, a person under the influence of one narcotic will be affected very similarly to a person under the influence of another narcotic. Drug Groups Narcotics ■ Generalized depressants of the central nervous system (CNS) ■ Stimulants of the CNS ■ Hallucinogens ■ Cannabis ■ Alcohol Drug Schedules Schedule I ■ The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. ■ The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S. ■ There is a lack of accepted safety for the use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. ■ Some Schedule I substances are heroin, LSD, marijuana, and methaqualone. Schedule II ■ The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. ■ The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S., or a currently accepted use with severe restrictions. ■ Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.


■ Schedule II substances include morphine, PCP, cocaine, methadone, and methamphetamine. Schedule III ■ The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II. ■ The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S. ■ Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. ■ Anabolic steroids, codeine and hydrocone with aspirin or Tylenol®, and some barbiturates are Schedule III substances. Schedule IV ■ The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in Schedule III. ■ The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S. ■ Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in Schedule III. ■ Included in Schedule IV are Darvon®, Talwin®, Equanil®, Valium®, and Xanax®. Schedule V ■ The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in Schedule IV. ■ The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S. ■ Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in Schedule IV. ■ Over-the-counter cough medicines with codeine are classified in Schedule V.


Sources of Information Regarding a Subject’s Drug/Alcohol Use ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Nuclear and extended family Neighborhood bars Area “dopers” and drinkers Personal doctor Area “street people” Police who work the area Local drug and alcohol clinics Arrest records Workplace The subject himself Information of Importance to the Negotiator

■ What is the subject’s intoxicating substance of preference? ■ Is the subject a polydrug user or abuser? ■ What means of ingestion does the subject prefer? ■ Is the subject a sporadic or constant user? ■ What is the subject’s common behavior and attitude while using? ■ Is the subject in treatment, e.g., AA, NA, etc.? ■ What is the subject’s usual dosage? ■ What is the subject’s normal lifestyle? The Negotiator Should also Determine: ■ The type of mind-altering substance usually consumed ■ The usage category of the subject ■ The extent to which the subject’s lifestyle has been impacted by drug use General Negotiation Guidelines ■ Attempt to obtain the subject’s drug use/abuse history, including:


■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Dosage Purity When How often Usual behavior under the influence and in withdrawal History

The negotiation team should have some readily available source of information about drugs that includes the purpose for the drug, overdose effects, side effects, and other pharmacological data. There are a number of excellent reference books on drugs for the general public, including The Pill Book, published in paperback and edited by Harold M.Silverman. The Physicians Desk Reference, commonly called the PDR, is a standard reference book for physicians, but while excellent for their purposes, it contains too much technical and unnecessary detail for negotiators. There are also a number of Web sites, such as www.WebMD.com, that can provide information on the effects of specific drugs. Negotiators may also want to call their local Poison Control Center or Shock Trauma Unit for medical advice. It is recommended that negotiators seek medical advice from some source during an incident. If there is any good news about the effects of drugs during an incident, it is that time is generally on the side of the negotiator, despite the time distortion effects of some drugs. Usage Categories Category I Frequency of Use: Experimenter: infrequently.

The

experimenter

uses

the

drug(s)

Lifestyle ■ The experimenter maintains a normal lifestyle. He may be employed or a student. There is no drug-related


criminality. Their family relationships are not impacted, and there is little if any connection to alcoholics or addicts. He may be experimenting with a variety of drugs and, perhaps, combining them with alcohol. ■ The experimenter may be extremely unpredictable because of a lack of experience with the effects of drugs. ■ With the experimenter, there is no tendency to selfmedicate. Category II Frequency Of Use Recreational User: The recreational user uses the drug(s) sporadically and/or socially. Acquaintances would describe this individual as a social drinker or casual drug user. Lifestyle ■ The recreational use has a normal lifestyle. He is employed or possibly going to school. He engages in no drug-related criminality, and his family relationships are not impacted. The recreational user tends to socialize with other social drinkers and drug users, and use of the substance is an accepted part of life. The recreational user is often poly-drug and alcohol user. ■ Little tendency to self-medicate with this individual. Category III Frequency of Use Abuser: The abuser uses the drug frequently, and is often described as a problem drinker or drug abuser. Lifestyle ■ The abuser’s lifestyle is affected by alcohol and/or drugs, and he often has a drink or drug of preference. Family


problems are common among drug abusers. Their employment, if any, is affected, and their lifestyle often does include related criminality. ■ Among drug abusers, short-duration addiction and selfmedication patterns common. Category IV Frequency of Use Addict/Alcoholic: Addicts and alcoholics are constantly under the influence. Lifestyle ■ The life of an addict or alcoholic is dominated by the addiction. He has a drink or drug of preference. Family problems and related criminality are common. Staying drunk or “loaded” is a top priority. The addict or alcoholic fears withdrawal. ■ Self-medication patterns present among alcoholics and addicts. Narcotics DRUG GROUP

EFFECT PERIOD

NARCOTICS Opium, Morphine, Codeine, Heroin, Demerol Methadone Others

3–6 hours 12–72 hours Variable

Dependence: Generally high physical and psychological dependence Possible effects: The effects of this drug group include euphoria, drowsiness, relaxed inhibitions, disoriented behavior, respiratory depression, constricted pupils, nausea, low pain threshold, and mood swings. Withdrawal symptoms: Withdrawal symptoms are extreme and include unpleasant mood, nausea, vomiting,


loss of appetite, tremors, panic, muscle aches, tearing, runny nose, sweating, diarrhea, yawning, chills, fever, and insomnia. Communication Guidelines: Narcotics ■ Negotiator should take initiative in conversation. ■ Moderately vary voice modulation to maintain attention. ■ Changing the focus of attention from the subject’s personal issues to your situational concerns requires tenacity and patience. ■ Remain non-judgmental about the subject’s use of narcotics. ■ Law enforcement, mental health agencies, and family may be sources of antagonism. ■ Be empathetic, though not supportive, of the subject’s “victim” role. ■ Remain aware of the pending withdrawal panic. ■ Timely closure is very important. The subject knows that withdrawal is approaching, and he wants to avoid being sick. The impending withdrawal presents an opportunity for the negotiator to offer medical help and press for surrender. ■ Do not argue or attempt to maintain eye contact. ■ Express your capability of solving the subject’s problems. Depressants DRUG GROUP

EFFECT PERIOD

DEPRESSANTS Chloral Hydrate Barbiturates Glutethimide, Benzodiazepines, Other Depressants

5–8 hours 1–16 hours 4–8 hours

Dependence: Most depressants have moderate-to-high physical and psychological dependence. Benzodiazepines have low levels of physical and psychological dependence. Possible effects: The effects of depressants include slurred speech, disorientation, relaxed inhibitions, drunken


behavior, high threshold for pain, fearlessness, and mood swings. Withdrawal symptoms: Withdrawal symptoms are extreme and include sweating; anxiety; high pulse rate; hand tremor; delirium; convulsions; insomnia; nausea; vomiting; visual, tactile, or auditory hallucinations or illusions; agitation; grand mal seizures, and possible death. Communication Guidelines: Depressants ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Do not challenge or threaten the subject. Request the subject’s advice on solving the situation. Try to reduce the subject’s suspicions. Withdrawal panic will increase the subject’s belligerence. The subject’s responses can be slow, and repetition common. ■ Attempt to postpone the subject’s actions, as changing his mood is more difficult. Stimulants DRUG GROUP

EFFECT PERIOD

STIMULANTS Cocaine/Crack Amphetamines/Methamphetamine, Other Stimulants

1–2 hours 2–4 hours

Dependence: Physical dependence to stimulants is possible, and psychological dependence is high. Possible effects: The effects of stimulants include alertness, excitation, euphoria, increased pulse rate and blood pressure, insomnia, paranoia, extreme mood swings, and loss of appetite. Withdrawal symptoms: Withdrawal symptoms include apathy, irritability, depression, disorientation, and unpleasant mood with one or more of the following: fatigue; vivid, unpleasant dreams; insomnia; hypersomnia; increased appetite; agitation; or general slowing.


Communication Guidelines: Stimulants ■ Maintain a slow, comforting, condensed conversational style. ■ Listening closely will increase rapport and decrease the subject’s fears. ■ The subject’s awareness of tactical activity will exaggerate paranoia. ■ Respect the subject’s vastly expanded body space. ■ Allow the subject to dominate the conversation while actively under the influence of the drug, and establish yourself as the effects of the drug diminish. ■ The subject’s excitability will turn to depression and anger as the effects of the drug diminish. ■ Keep the subject busy and active. ■ The subject will be very slow to fatigue. Hallucinogens DRUG GROUP

EFFECT PERIOD

HALLUCINOGENS LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, PCP, Others

8–12 hours

Dependence: None or unknown (Phencyclidine and analogs have high psychological dependence) Possible effects: The effects of hallucinogens include illusions, delusions, hallucinations, possible panic, poor perception of time and space, and feelings of invulnerability. Withdrawal symptoms: Unknown Communication Guidelines: Hallucinogens ■ To control panic, explain that the hallucinations and delusions will “mellow” soon. Do not argue the content or validity of the hallucinations, illusions, or delusions. ■ Maintain a slow, comforting conversational tone. ■ Consistently dominate the “talk down.” ■ Awareness of tactical activity will increase panic.


■ The subject may be susceptible to heightened suggestibility. ■ Remember that these drugs are often “cut” with stimulants. ■ Until rapport has been established, the subject will be experiencing an expanded body space. ■ The knowledgeable “rescuer” can be an effective role to assume. Cannabis DRUG GROUP

EFFECT PERIOD

CANNABIS Marijuana, Hashish, Hashish Oil

1–4 hours

Dependence: Moderate psychological dependence Possible effects: The effects of cannabis include euphoria, relaxed inhibitions, and disorientation. Physical symptoms vary widely, from drowsy and calm to “hyper” and excitable. The desire for food and drink is enhanced in most users. Withdrawal symptoms: Withdrawal symptoms include occasional reports of insomnia, hyperactivity, and decreased appetite. Communication Guidelines: Cannabis ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Listen closely to establish rapport and trust. Ask innocuous questions to stimulate responses. Offer food and drink. Try to focus conversation on real-world issues. Be aware of high potential for polydrug use. The subject is likely to continue using cannabis during the incident. ■ Antisocial feelings and “victim” role allow opportunities for empathy building. ■ Be aware of personality trait enhancement.


Alcohol DRUG GROUP

EFFECT PERIOD

ALCOHOL Beer, Wine, Whiskey, etc.

2–8 hours

Dependence: Physical/Psychological Possible effects: The effects of alcohol include euphoria, disorientation, fearlessness, relaxed inhibitions, high pain threshold, decreased coordination, and a smaller body space. The perception of time and distance is altered, and the interpretation of one’s situation and its consequences may be poor. Withdrawal symptoms: Withdrawal symptoms can be extreme. Withdrawal can be life-threatening if the individual is experiencing delirium tremors. The symptoms of delirium tremors include sweating; high pulse rate; hand tremor; insomnia; nausea; vomiting; visual, tactile, or auditory hallucinations or illusions; agitation; and grand mal seizures. Communication Guidelines: Alcohol ■ Do not challenge or threaten someone under the influence of alcohol. ■ Attempt to get the subject to postpone his actions, as a change in mood is unlikely until the effects of alcohol have worn off. ■ Do not argue or directly disagree with the subject’s perspective. ■ Offer food and non-alcoholic drink. ■ The subject’s awareness of tactical activity will exaggerate anger. ■ The alcohol’s diminishing effects will increase belligerence. ■ Be aware of high potential for polydrug effects. ■ Keep the time perspective in the “here and now.” ■ Exclude the nuclear family from the negotiation process.


Glossary Addict: One who devotes or gives himself habitually or compulsively. Analgesic: A medication that reduces or eliminates pain. Anemia: A condition in which there is a reduction in the number of circulating red blood cells. Antitussive: Capable of relieving coughing. Aplasia: The failure of an organ or part of the body to develop naturally. Arrhythmia: Irregular heartbeat. Aspiration Pneumonia: Inflammation of the lungs caused by something that has been inhaled. Chemical Pulmonary Edema: An excessive amount of fluid in the lungs due to the inhalation of a chemical substance. Cross Tolerance: The tolerance that develops to one drug as a result of exposure to a similar drug. Depressants: A drug that slows down the Central Nervous System. Drug Abuse: The non-medical use of drugs. Drug Dependence: Adaptive state due to repeated exposure to a drug. Results in the following: psychological dependence—craving; physical dependence—withdrawal— crossdependence: drug substitution. Drug Tolerance: A condition where the same dose no longer evokes the same effect; a larger dose is used to produce original effect. Effective Dose: The dose that produces the desired effect. Hallucination: A false perception with a characteristically compelling sense of reality of objects or events perceived in the absence of relevant or adequate stimuli. Hallucinogen: A drug that induces hallucination. Hepatoxic: Poisonous to the liver. Hypnotic: Having a sleep-inducing effect. Lethal Dose: The dosage causing death; varies with drug tolerance and amount of pure drug. Narcotic: Having a pain-relieving effect. Necrosis: The death of areas of tissue or bone. Organic Brain Syndrome (OBS): A psychological or behavioral abnormality associated with transient or permanent dysfunction of the brain. Sedative: Having a soothing, calming, or tranquilizing effect. Stimulant: Anything that temporarily arouses or accelerates physiological or organic activity.


Teratogenic: An abnormal structure in an embryo; a severely deformed fetus. Tranquilizer: Any of various drugs used to calm or pacify.

APPENDICES

Appendix A Suicide Intervention Flow Chart


SUICIDE INTERVENTION FLOW CHART ■ 187


SUICIDE INTERVENTION FLOW CHART ■ 189

Appendix B Interview Guide for Investigators

Subject Background Source’s name: Source’s age: Source’s relationship to subject: Interviewer’s name: Interviewer’s assessment of source: [Subject’s] full name: ■ Other names he has used: ■ Name [the subject] prefers: ■ Do you have a current photograph of [the subject]? Yes □ No □ ■ How has he changed since this photograph was taken? ■ Does [the subject] belong to any clubs, organizations, or gangs? Yes □ No □ If yes, what are their names? ■ Obtain current identification record □ Descriptive Information Date of birth: Weight:

Age: Hair color:

Race: Eye color:

Height: Tattoos:

Does [the subject] have any mental or physical handicaps? Yes □ No □ If yes, describe those handicaps. Do you know what clothes he has on? Yes □ No □ If yes, describe his clothes. Are there any pets in the residence? Yes □ No □ If yes, what pets? Does today’s date have any significance to [the subject],

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR INVESTIGATORS ■ 191

such as the anniversary of any family event? Yes □ No If yes, what was the event? Crime Scene Have you ever been inside the crime scene? Yes □ No □ If yes, can you draw an accurate floor plan? Electronics Is the telephone inside the crime scene hard-line, cordless, or cell phone? If hard-line, do you know where the telephone is located? Yes □ No □ Is there more than one telephone inside the crime scene? Yes □ No □ What is the telephone number(s) inside the crime scene? In whose name is the telephone? Does [the subject] own a scanner? Yes □ No □ Does [the subject] own a computer? Yes □ No □ How does [the subject] get online? Educational Level Did not complete high school □ Completed high school □ Completed college □ What was his major? Completed graduate school □ What was his field? Weapons Information What kind of weapon(s) does [the subject] have with him? How do you know? Has [the subject] ever used a weapon against anyone? Yes □ No □ If yes, describe the incident. Has [the subject] ever been in the military? Yes □ No □ If yes, describe his military experience. Has [the subject] ever received any kind of weapons training? Yes □ No □ If yes, tell me about the weapons training.


Similar Incidents Has he ever done anything like this incident before? Yes □ No □ If yes, describe that incident to me. What was the outcome of the previous incident? Where and when did that incident happen? Indicators of Impulsivity Do you consider [the subject] impulsive? Yes □ No □ Does [the subject] complain of people “getting in his face?” Yes □ No □ How often does he get into physical fights? How often does he get into verbal fights? Has [the subject] ever been arrested for assault? Yes □ No □ If yes, how many times? Does he often receive speeding or parking tickets? Yes □ No □ Drug/Alcohol History Preferred drug/drink: Do you believe [the subject] to be under the influence now? When was the last time he used this drug or alcohol? How long has [the subject] been using drugs and/or alcohol? What is his usual behavior while under the influence? What is his usual behavior while in withdrawal? Is he a member of any 12-step program, such as AA or NA? Yes □ No □ If yes, what is sponsor’s name and telephone number? Suicide Has he said anything to you or others about committing suicide? Yes □ No □ If yes, what was said? Has he ever attempted suicide? Yes □ No □ When was the last time he attempted suicide?


Describe each prior attempt: Has anyone in the family attempted or committed suicide? Yes □ No □ Who in the family has attempted or committed suicide? Has he seen a doctor recently? Yes □ No □ What was the doctor’s name? What was his complaint to the doctor? What can you tell me about that doctor visit(s)? If he was diagnosed, what was the diagnosis? If any medication was prescribed, what was it? Has [the subject] been taking the medication as prescribed? How has he been feeling recently? Has [the subject] been having sleeping problems? Yes □ No □ If yes, describe them. Has [the subject] lost or gained weight without trying recently? Yes □ No □ Has [the subject] been giving away personal possessions? Yes □ No □ Mental Health History Has he ever seen a mental health professional? Yes □ No □ What was that doctor’s name? What brought about that visit(s)? What can you tell me about that visit(s)? If he was diagnosed, what was the diagnosis? If any medication was prescribed, what was it? Has [the subject] been taking the medication as prescribed? How has he been feeling recently? Relationship to Victim (No Prior Relationship □) Give me a history of the relationship between [the subject] and the victim. What has been happening in their relationship recently?


Has he injured the victim in the past? Yes □ No □ Do the injuries appear to be increasingly frequent and/or severe? Yes □ No □ Current Stressors What has happened to bring on this incident? What other stressors has he been experiencing recently? Coping with Stress How does he normally cope with stress? What has he been doing recently to cope with stress? Has he been doing things recently that are not like him? If so, what has he been doing? Interests What does he enjoy doing in his spare time? Has he been doing this activity recently? What kind of books or magazines does he read? What kind of music does he listen to? How long has he been listening to this type of music? Occupational History What kinds of jobs has he held? How many jobs has he had in the last 5 years? Does he do anything at his job or in his spare time that he feels he is particularly good at doing, or about which he feels he is especially knowledgeable? How many times has he moved in the last 5 years? Children Does [the subject] have any children? Yes □ No □ If yes, what are their names and ages? Is he close to his children? Yes □ No □


Other Are there any topics that cause him to get particularly angry? Yes □ No □ If so, what are the topics and why do they anger him? Is there anything else that you think we should know about [the subject] that we have not asked about? Others Close To [the Subject] Name

Age

Relationship Name Relationship Name Relationship

How can we locate him/her? Age How can we locate him/her? Age How can we locate him/her?

Appendix C Overview of Active Listening Techniques

Emotion Labeling You sound (emotion heard by negotiator). You seem (emotion heard by negotiator). I hear (emotion heard by negotiator). Paraphrasing Are you saying (what negotiator has heard, in negotiator’s own words)? Are you telling me (what negotiator has heard, in negotiator’s own words)? Reflecting or Mirroring Repeat back the subject’s last word or phrase as a question. Example: Subject: “The way she acts just tears me up.” Negotiator: “Tears you up?” Open-Ended Questions Open-ended questions are questions that cannot be answered with a “yes” or “no.” These questions often begin with who, what, when, and where, but not why.

197

Minimal Encouragers Minimal encouragers are the words or even sounds, such as those made over the telephone, to let one party know that the other party is there and listening. Silence The negotiator should use silence just immediately after making an important point.

before

and

“I” Message I feel (the emotion the negotiator is feeling) when you (the subject’s behavior) because (the negotiator’s reason).

Appendix D The Continuing Need for Training

Two of the obvious lessons out of the events of September 11, 2001, are the constant need for vigilance against senseless acts of violence and the continuing need for training. No one and no place are safe from random acts of terror, whether committed by near-mythic Middle Eastern terrorists or heartland-of-America “good ol’ boys” with paranoid grievances against the federal government. Emergency personnel, who did a heroic job, spoke to the media regarding their training sessions for such an event. When disaster strikes, nothing surpasses quality training for managing the event. “What kind of person could commit an act like those of September 11?” This is a question often asked by the media in the aftermath. The answer is tragically simple for those of us who have been in law enforcement for a while: too many kinds of persons. Already mentioned are a couple of types, the terrorist and the paranoid person with a grievance. Other types envisioned as possibilities are paranoid schizophrenics on a mission, psychopaths with a score to settle, or any number of others. With the number of people around the world with grievances, it requires a frighteningly small percentage of them to concoct a murderous scenario such as those seen in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. In the media, too, are questions involving prevention. Here is another question: “What crime have we ever been able to prevent?” Ironically, stopping aircraft hijacking is probably as close as we have ever come to preventing a particular type of crime. Some crimes seem to go out of “style,” as opposed to being prevented. If we cannot prevent a crime or

199

crimes, what can we do? The answer: Prepare. Preparation involves training. Yesterday’s “hostage negotiators” have become today’s “crisis negotiators” because negotiators have been responding to such a wide variety of incidents. Today, negotiators respond to any kind of incident where the boss needs an officer to talk to a bad guy. In talking to negotiators from around the world, one is struck by the diversity of negotiator call-outs. Commanders expect negotiators to be prepared to talk to anyone under any conditions. Suppose one of the aircraft on September 11 did not get off the ground. Who in Boston, for example, would have been called to negotiate the incident to a non-violent conclusion? Law enforcement negotiators would have responded. Negotiation skills are just as perishable as tactical skills. We must have continual training and practice to meet the threat to human lives from constantly changing sources. None of us can predict the madness the human mind is capable of instigating. We can conceive of horribly tragic bombings or nerve gas attacks, but too few of us have gone so far as to plan a response or train for their occurrence. The FBI trained for such “unlikely” scenarios as a cruise ship being hijacked and multiple, simultaneous hostage takings. Then came the Achille Lauro hijacking and the Atlanta/Oakdale prison sieges. The FBI made decisions to prevent even the “unlikely” event of a hijacked aicraft being crashed into the heart of a major city. Emergency medical personnel in New York City undoubtedly grumbled and groaned through every training day. “A mass terrorist event here in New York City? It just won’t happen here. Tel Aviv, London, or Paris, maybe, but not here.” It probably will not happen in your town or city either. Probably.

Appendix E The Dangers of Manipulating Anxiety Levels

Shortly after the inception of modern hostage negotiation techniques in the 1970s, manipulation-of-anxiety techniques were being taught and used by many law enforcement agencies. Originally, this technique was intended for use when it was felt that the subject was getting too comfortable and even enjoying the attention he was receiving as a result of the hostage-taking incident. The procedure was to raise the subject’s anxiety level, then lower it, then raise it again, and so on—the idea being that raising and lowering the subject’s anxiety or arousal level would wear him out faster and bring the incident to resolution faster. Later, some agencies started using the technique to pressure subjects into talking to the negotiator. In fact, employing the technique to get people to talk became its primary and only use with many agencies. Curiously, though, these same departments often will say they do not employ manipulation-of-anxiety techniques. In the 1980s, the FBI began to see some dangers involved in the technique’s original intent. The FBI has never endorsed or taught manipulation of anxiety as a means of prodding a subject into talking. There is a vast difference between someone who is calmly sitting out a hostage situation and enjoying the attention he is receiving and someone who is too frightened or mistrustful of the authorities to speak. From the outside, however, the two situations may look alike. There is relatively less danger to victims in situations where the subject is calm. While it is easy to “jack” someone up, to put a cap on his fear and anxiety is extremely

THE DANGERS OF MANIPULATING ANXIETY LEVELS ■ 201

difficult. Once negotiators start the process of raising his anxiety, how can they be sure that they can stop its rise before he does something dangerous? Some police departments will do things like throw pebbles up on the roof or against the window of a residence, or do other things to scare the subject into talking. If sufficiently scared, subjects frequently do begin talking to or—more commonly— screaming at the negotiator. The most seductive aspect of this dangerous technique is the fact that it often works. During the incident at Ruby Ridge, ID, for example, Randall Weaver initiated the negotiator’s first contact and several subsequent contacts after he was unintentionally frightened. The FBI strongly suspected that this technique might be dangerous with some personality types, especially paranoid schizophrenics. During a hostage negotiation seminar, it was suggested to a group of police officers that, if applied inappropriately, this technique might panic certain subjects into a suicide, a homicide-suicide, or a suicide-by-cop, or cause them to attack the police. A police officer said on break that his department had thrown some pebbles up on a roof to get a paranoid schizophrenic to talk. He said the subject panicked and charged out of the house with a shotgun leveled at officers on the perimeter. The subject was killed. The FBI and others have long taught their negotiators to avoid tricks and lies for a variety of reasons. Manipulation of anxiety is one of those tricks that should be avoided. Though especially dangerous with paranoid persons, the danger of this technique’s backfiring on us is too great for it to be employed against anyone. With subjects who are too frightened, paranoid, or mistrustful of us to speak, we will confirm their beliefs and suspicions about the world outside by deliberately raising their anxiety level. In this common situation, the subject is already so frightened and terrified of us that he refuses to talk. To suggest that adding to his fear may be helpful is foolhardy and extremely dangerous. Negotiators spend much of their time trying to calm frightened people, and often it is not easy. Raising anxiety levels, on the other hand, is very easy, and has actually been “fun” for some bored persons on the inner perimeter.


There have been situations where people on the perimeter were deliberately scaring the bad guy for the “fun” of it and, obviously, without the knowledge of negotiators or command. Another problem with the technique is the probability that the subject will connect the negotiator with what is going on. The establishment of negotiator-subject rapport has been essential, and can be the most important factor in the successful resolution of a negotiated incident. Negotiators should be trying to build rapport with the bad guy, and if he suspects that the negotiator is also participating in harassment tactics, that will undermine the negotiator’s rapport-building efforts. Frightening the subject may even make the situation more dangerous for the tactical team. Tactical teams rehearse entries. They will find an identical room or building, or line one out in the dirt or on a gymnasium floor. They will choreograph their moves so each member of the team fully understands where he will be going and where his firing lanes will be. Many tactical and negotiation teams don’t appreciate that every time the subject is frightened, he too is induced to rehearse. Every time the subject is frightened, he moves into a defensive position and thinks about how he will respond to the tactical team’s entry. Tactical teams rely on speed, violence of action, and surprise. One reason explosive breaching is such a potentially valuable technique is that it is fast, violent, and a surprise. The subject has not rehearsed for scenario of the tactical team explosively coming through a wall. As with many things done in negotiation, negotiators can find examples of situations where a specific technique was attempted and worked. Negotiators can also find instances where the same technique led to disaster. In some ways, using manipulation-of-anxiety techniques is analogous to using third-party intermediaries. There is no question that using third-party intermediaries sometimes works, but sometimes, people die. The question for negotiators and

THE DANGERS OF MANIPULATING ANXIETY LEVELS ■ 203

command is, “Is this one of those instances where this technique will lead to success, or is this one of those instances where it will lead to disaster?”

Appendix F The Negotiation Effort

The negotiation effort is far more than a team of negotiators talking to the “bad guy” over the telephone. What negotiators are saying to the subject is only part of the message being conveyed to him. In a sense, every crisis management component is part of the negotiation effort. When viewing negotiation in this manner, the negotiation effort includes not only what the negotiators say to the subject but also encompasses every observed move the tactical team makes, every radio and television broadcast the subject hears, and every decision made by management. For the negotiation effort to be maximally effective, all actions taken or not taken by each of the crisis components must communicate the same message. It is essential that all crisis management components follow the same strategy. The crisis management components should meet early in the incident and regularly after that. Management must decide what message it wants to convey and how it wants it conveyed. If management decides it wants to be tough, everybody is tough. Negotiators take a hard line. Tactical teams display an obvious presence. Management adopts a strong position that is reflected in its decisions and media releases. If management decides it wants to take a softer line, negotiators are more empathic. Tactical teams maintain a low profile, and management is more conciliatory in its decision making. Management must make the decision on strategy, and each component communicates management’s message to the subject. Periodically throughout the incident, the components must meet to discuss progress, evaluate their strategy, and make adjustments as necessary. If the crisis management

THE NEGOTIATION EFFORT ■ 205

team shifts its strategy, everyone on the component teams must be informed as to the change in strategy, and what the new strategy is. Expressing the same message to the subject obviously requires communication and agreement between crisis management components. If the components are not talking to each other, and information is not passed down within their respective teams, it is unlikely that a single message will be communicated to the subject. What is required is not only interteam communication but intrateam communication. The actions of a single individual, if not in line with the current strategy, can destroy the efficacy of the negotiation effort and, perhaps, any chance of a peaceful resolution. Management giving negotiators “full rein” or allowing them to “do their thing” does little good unless the entire management team and the tactical team know what the negotiators are doing, and support them by sending the same message to the subject. Differing messages from each component lead to distrust of the negotiators, the subject’s believing that the negotiators have no influence with management, a prolonging of the incident, or worse. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the negotiators to convince the subject that the authorities intend him no harm when tactical teams are, in full view of the subject, moving into position. Any movement by the tactical team while operating under this strategy must be accomplished with complete discretion. If negotiators are attempting to be reassuring, all components must act in accordance with that posture if management expects its negotiators to have any credibility with the subject. Every critical incident is unique and requires a “game plan” of its own, just as each ballgame is unique and requires a “game plan” of its own. Some subjects can be persuaded and coaxed, while others must be pressured to do the “right thing.” (Conversely, some subjects cannot be pressured and will dig in when pressure is applied.) On those occasions when management decides to apply pressure, one sure way is to deliberately inject uncertainty into the equation. An easy means of instilling uncertainty in


an adversary’s mind is to convey multiple, differing messages. His fear and paranoia will do the rest. In a sense, every message communicated to the opposing side is part of the negotiation effort. Every person who conveys that message to the subject becomes part of the negotiation effort. Negotiators have tactical responsibilities, such as the passing of intelligence information. Similarly, tactical team members have negotiation responsibilities in the message they convey to the subject. It is not enough to know and respect the role of the other crisis management components. It is essential that all components view themselves as part of a single, unified effort, and convey only one message to the subject, if the desired outcome is to be achieved.

Appendix G The Troubled State of Crisis Management

Since the early 1970s, crisis negotiators have developed and put into practice a set of guidelines that have proven to be remarkably successful. Tactical personnel have developed their techniques over a similar time span, but where are comparable crisis management guidelines and techniques? Crisis negotiators often say their priorities are the preservation of life, the apprehension of the subject, and the recovery and protection of property, but negotiators do not set departmental priorities. Managers set priorities. Most negotiators assume that their top management has the same priorities as the negotiation team, but do they? Have crisis managers discussed priorities in a management seminar? How much is management willing to pay in overtime? How much is management willing to inconvenience a city? What is management willing to expend in manpower? How far has management gone to develop mutual aid pacts for that big incident that might occur at any time or never occur? When was the last time your chief or sheriff trained with your team? Often in crisis management seminars we hear such topics discussed as the importance of intelligence flow, setting up a command post, keeping the noise level in the command post to a minimum, etc. There is an underlying assumption that good intelligence flow and crisis management structure will lead to good decision making. Unfortunately, this assumption is not always true. Sometimes, bad decisions are made despite the presence of good information, a good crisis management structure, good seating arrangements in the command post, low noise levels, etc. Our top law


enforcement managers need training and experience just as much as good negotiators and tactical personnel do. In many departments, the chief or sheriff delegates onscene crisis management authority down to the sergeant or lieutenant level. In these departments, for the “routine” barricaded subject, domestic situations, and other lowerprofile situations, this arrangement works well. After all, “nothing really important” is happening. The incident just involves a man threatening to kill his wife or girlfriend, or threatening to kill himself. It is not really a high-priority incident. Is the chief or sheriff going to do the same thing when a high-profile situation comes along and the head of the state police and the FBI’s Special Agent in Charge are on-scene, and the state governor is calling for a report on negotiation progress? In our biggest incidents, we have our most inexperienced managers—i.e., top management— attempting to direct the incident. And, incidentally, getting themselves killed in the process. A number of years ago, the writer reviewed 10 years of hostage, barricade, and suicide situations out of the FBI’s annual report on law enforcement officers who had been killed the previous year. A significant percentage of the persons killed while attempting to negotiate were chiefs and sheriffs of smaller towns, cities, and counties. (Incidentally, most of the negotiators in that study were killed while attempting to negotiate with suicidal persons.) Typically, the officers who were killed did not appear to have much training, and many had only a few years in law enforcement. The incidents in which these law enforcement executives were killed was major ones for their areas and the executives apparently felt compelled to take personal command. A few years ago, the Special Operations and Research Unit —now the Crisis Negotiation Unit—at the FBI Academy at Quantico, VA, established a one-day course entitled “Hostage Negotiation and Tactics for Commanders.” This course was established after receiving complaints from law enforcement officers from all over the U.S. about the lack of crisis management training and the reluctance of ranking officers to participate in training when it was available. The

THE TROUBLED STATE OF CRISIS MANAGEMENT ■ 209

idea behind this 1-day seminar was that managers would be provided with an overview of negotiation and tactics so they would know what their people were doing in a crisis situation. The course was restricted to 1 day because of the difficulty in getting law enforcement executives away from their desks and other responsibilities for more than a day. Despite good critiques, the course was dropped in a short period of time. Rather than potential on-scene commanders attending the course, negotiators and tactical people were attending. Students often commented that the course content was just what commanders needed to hear, but the people who needed the training the most could not be lured into the classroom. How many crisis managers look forward to training as eagerly as do negotiators and tactical people? After a shooting by law enforcement, the persons investigating the shooting immediately put the officer on administrative leave, and the officer’s record—particularly his firearms training record—is pulled and scrutinized. The investigators look at the officer’s shooting scores, the weapons that he has qualified with, what courses he has fired, etc. Someday, after a crisis situation has turned sour, some smart attorney is going to file suit against a law enforcement agency and subpoena the on-scene commander’s training record. That opposing attorney is going to put the on-scene commander on the witness stand, and ask: “What crisis management courses have you attended? What were you taught? Do you have your notes? Where can I get a copy of the lesson plan? Did you do any role-playing? What kinds of situations were depicted? What score did you achieve? Chief (Sheriff, Lieutenant, Captain, or Major), since merely passing a promotional exam or getting elected does not make you a crisis manager, what makes you think you are qualified to manage a situation where lives were held in the balance?” It could be a very embarrassing and expensive series of questions for some department or agency. Crisis management needs enthusiasts. Crisis management needs people who are interested in crisis management as a discipline, and not only participate in


training but seek it out, and develop new crisis management ideas. There are negotiation and tactical newsletters and journals. Where is the crisis management newsletter? Unfortunately, since the presentation of these ideas appears in a negotiators’ reference book, perhaps all the writer has achieved is some “venting.”

Appendix H A Negotiator’sView of the Incident at Ruby Ridge

Crisis negotiation, in some respects, is an inherently nasty business. We negotiators often find ourselves bargaining for lives, and, occasionally, people die. At other times, it is enormously rewarding, and because of those good times I have been involved in crisis negotiation for nearly 25 years. This account is not the story of one of those good times. I would like to tell you more than a lengthy war story. I will tell you the negotiation team’s reasoning, where we made mistakes, and where we did well. One of the very unfortunate things about the incident at Ruby Ridge and, 6 months later, Waco, was that many things—including negotiations—were done very, very well. Those accomplishments forever will be overshadowed by the outcomes of those incidents, and there is a lesson to be learned right there. There have been many investigations, allegations, and developments since the conclusion of the Ruby Ridge incident, and I will not go into those developments, as they have been torturously investigated and documented elsewhere. My point here is to simply tell the story from a law enforcement negotiator’s perspective, from what the negotiation team knew at the time of the incident. To this writing, I have not extensively read accounts of this incident or watched the Senate hearings, though I did testify before the U.S. Senate. Until recently, I considered myself a potential witness, and I did not want to pollute my recollections of the event with the opinions, guesswork, and observations of others. As a result, some readers may be more informed about the non-negotiation aspects of this


situation than I. What I do know is what my negotiation team and I did. From the very beginning, I had a bad feeling about this incident. My only prior knowledge of the Weaver family was from a national newsmagazine that I had read casually some weeks earlier. I recalled reading about a fugitive who with his family had built a cabin on a mountaintop, and who had allegedly fired at helicopters. With only this knowledge, I told my wife, Donna, before I left, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this one. I really don’t want to do it.” The Initial Crime In October 1989, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) bought two sawed-off shotguns from Randall Weaver. Weaver contended that he was set up by ATF because he did not cooperate in their plan to have him act as an informant. In December 1990, Weaver was indicted on the charge of manufacturing the illegal shotguns. In January 1991, ATF and the local sheriff arrested Weaver. At the time of his arrest, Weaver’s pregnant wife, Vicki Weaver, was with him. Weaver alleges that Vicki was thrown to the ground and otherwise mistreated. In February 1991, Weaver failed to appear at a hearing, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Weaver sought refuge on a mountaintop where he garnered a considerable amount of local public sympathy. Weaver remained on the mountain for about 1½ years. There was no information that he ever went into town. I was told that Weaver was kicked out of the Aryan Nation for being too radical. He had wanted to train Aryan Nation children in firearms, as he had trained his own children. It was believed that he trained his entire family in the use of weapons, and family members were known in the community as being good with those weapons. He drilled his family in taking up firing positions on signal if the government came after him. I was also advised that Weaver let it be known that he would kill any law enforcement person who came after him.

A NEGOTIATOR’S VIEW OF THE INCIDENT AT RUBY RIDGE ■ 213

The Weaver family consisted of Randall Weaver, age 44 at the time; wife Vicki, 42; son Samuel, 14; daughters Sara, 16, Rachel, 10, and Elisheba (I was told that her name was Elizabeth), 8 months. Kevin Harris, a young man who appeared to be in his 20s, spent a lot of time at Weavers’ cabin. I was told that Randall treated him like a son. Friday, August 21, 1992 Meanwhile, the U.S. Marshal Service (USMS) was attempting to determine a means whereby it could safely arrest Weaver by making scouting trips on the mountaintop where Weaver built his home, Ruby Ridge. Again, what I am about to relate are the facts as I understood them to be at the outset of the incident. I understand and the reader should be aware that there are now other versions of this story. On the morning of August 21, 1992, the USMS sent two scouting teams up the mountain. They had orders to avoid a confrontation with the Weaver family, but a dog belonging to the Weavers spotted one team of Marshals. One of the persons on this team was William F. “Bill” Degan, 42, who was married and the father of 2. Degan and his team fled down the mountain with the Weaver family dog, Samuel Weaver, and Kevin Harris in pursuit. The dog was gaining on Degan, so he turned and fired at the animal, killing it. Degan then stepped off the dirt road and, as Samuel and Kevin passed him, announced his presence. I was told that Kevin Harris turned, fired, and hit Degan in the chest. Randall Weaver fired rounds from his shotgun and 9-mm handgun as a signal to retreat to the house. As Samuel and Kevin were returning back up the mountain, Degan apparently returned fire and hit Samuel. The remaining Marshals stayed on the mountain, believing themselves to be pinned down. At approximately 5:30 p.m., I was notified by telephone that FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) was probably going to Idaho, and that I would be accompanying them. (I was in the Special Operations and Research Unit, now the Crisis Negotiation Unit, at the FBI Academy, and was not a part of the HRT.) A short time later, I got the word from HRT that


we were, in fact, being deployed. I went to the HRT’s headquarters and was told to immediately proceed to Andrews Air Force Base. I was informed that the airplane would leave in 1 hour, and I was about 1 hour from the air base. I viewed this as a semi-legitimate reason to try out my new sports car, and headed up Interstate 95 at 90 miles per hour. The plane left about 4 hours later. We departed Andrews Air Force Base aboard 2 U.S. Air Force C141s at 12:30 a.m. en route to Fairchild Air Force Base near Spokane, WA. Saturday, August 22, 1992 Upon our arrival in Spokane, a caravan was formed, and we drove to Bonners Ferry, in the upper part of the Idaho panhandle, not far from the border with Canada. We arrived there at 7:22 a.m. and received a briefing from the HRT commander, Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Richard “Dick” Rogers, who was part of an HRT advance team. We were told that the Marshals were no longer pinned down, and that the only USMS casualty was Bill Degan. At the briefing, we were told the Rules of Engagement (ROE). The ROE authorized the HRT to fire upon any adult male with a weapon, but not to fire into the house. We were also told, “There will be no long siege.” The HRT and I received additional details regarding the current situation from other members of the advance team. After the briefing, we proceeded to the Command Post (CP) at the base of the mountain known as Ruby Ridge. It was clear to me that there were not to be any negotiations. I told ASAC Rogers that if there were not going to be any negotiation, I would work with his intelligencegathering component. He said, “Okay.” My misgivings about this incident began to grow from my initial “bad vibes.” The first thing that troubled me was the ROE, but I satisfied myself that the advance party had a sizeable jump on me in terms of gathering intelligence, and that maybe they were appropriate. Surely, I thought, the ROE were cleared with FBIHQ and the FBI’s Legal Counsel Division.


In all fairness to ASAC Rogers, and despite my long commitment to negotiation, tactical teams at a variety of locations around the U.S. every day surround objectives and order the occupants out. The occupants comply and the incident is over. My hope was that this incident would conclude in that fashion. Finally, I was heavily overshadowed by the commander of HRT in terms of both rank and the organizational prestige of his position. Additionally, the HRT’s presence on-scene is awesome. When these 50 vigorously selected, highly trained, physically fit, superbly equipped men arrive at an incident, it is very impressive. They have the best equipment money can buy. They bring a large command-and-control tent that “pops” up in minutes, computers, fax machines, and, in this case, six vehicles, including a helicopter. In contrast, I was in jeans and a camouflage jacket. I did not think we needed all that response. At the conclusion of the incident, I told FBI inspectors that the agency had overreacted, that the incident could have been more appropriately managed by a couple of negotiators and a five-man tactical team. We had a man, though a “copkiller,” barricaded on the top of a mountain with his family. He was no danger to the public or further danger to us if we were careful. We were not blocking any downtown traffic or tying up a city somewhere. In some respects, it should have been a relatively “routine” bad situation. Randall Weaver was considered in some quarters, perhaps in no small part due to his own rhetoric, a right wing terrorist. The HRT is a highly trained anti-terrorist organization, and if they are on-scene, it must be bad. The CP was down a one-lane dirt road at the base of a mountain several miles from protesters and a roadblock. At one point on this dirt road was a small bridge that I understand that the FBI rebuilt to accommodate some of the heavier equipment that later arrived. Initially, there were just a few military-style tents, but the number of tents rapidly grew, as did the number of people on-scene. A one point a local old-timer said to me, “You know, son, if we get just a few more men out here, we can get our own zip code!”


Early Saturday afternoon, FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Gene Glenn, the on-scene commander, said that since I was the most experienced negotiator on-scene, he wanted me to be the primary negotiator. I was also told to write a crisis negotiation section for the Operations Plan. The previous plan was rejected by FBIHQ because it did not include negotiations. With the suggestions of SAC Glenn, ASAC Rogers, and USMS personnel, I wrote the following: “A negotiator will go forward to the residence in the armored personnel carrier (APC). When the APC is in view of the house, it will stop, and the negotiator will make the following statement: ‘Mr. Weaver, this is Fred Lanceley of the FBI. You should understand that we have warrants for the arrest of yourself and Mr. Harris. I would like you to accept a telephone so that we can talk and work out how you will come out of the house without further violence. I would like you or one of your children to come out of the house, unarmed, pick up the telephone, and return to the house.’ “At the conclusion of this statement, the APC will proceed forward, drop the telephone, and withdraw. If Weaver or a child retrieves the telephone, the negotiator will attempt to initiate a dialogue.” Negotiator’s comment: I did not know it at the time, but at 6:01 p.m., an HRT sniper fired two shots. I debriefed the sniper later that evening when he came down the mountain. He told me that on the first shot, he fired just as Randall Weaver was turning the corner of the “birthing shed.” (I was told that when Vicki or Sara Weaver had their periods, they stayed in the birthing shed separate from the men in Old Testament fashion. Additionally, Vicki Weaver had given birth to Elisheba in the “birthing shed.” Hence, its name.) The sniper said that Weaver swung himself around the corner just as he fired, and caused him to miss the shot. He said that he knew he missed the shot, because he saw splinters fly off the corner of the shed. The sniper then aimed his rifle at the door and fired a second round. He said he saw Kevin Harris go down with a possible hit to the shoulder. He added that Kevin Harris also could have tripped going over the doorsill, or he may have just been “hitting the dirt,” as he did in the shootout with the Marshals. What actually happened was that his first round went through Randall Weaver’s fleshy back, upper arm, and out his armpit


before it hit the corner of the “birthing shed.” The sniper’s second shot hit Vicki Weaver’s head and then went through Kevin Harris’ arm and into his chest. The Weaver baby, Elisheba, was in Vicki’s arms as she attempted to open the door wider for Randall Weaver and Kevin Harris. I believe the sniper’s account of what had transpired was an accurate one, to the best of his knowledge. I believe that he thought he missed Randall Weaver. I do not think that he saw Vicki Weaver and the baby inside the darkened doorway from a distance of at least 200 yards. The truly remarkable fact was that this highly trained sniper missed what he was shooting at!

Approximately 6:30 p.m. I went up the mountain with several members of the HRT in an APC to drop off a portable telephone designed for crisis negotiators. We all sat in the APC with double layers of body armor and ballistic helmets, weapons drawn. No one spoke in the semi-darkness as the tracked APC loudly rumbled and clawed its way up the steep dirt logging road. The atmosphere was tense, as we were told that the road might be mined and the gate booby-trapped. We were also told that Weaver had armorpiercing ammunition. As we proceeded up the mountain in the APC, I began to wonder about the result of an accidental discharge in this tracked, steel box in which I was riding. A round would not stop ricocheting until one of us was hit. With that realization, and the thought that there was no way I could defend myself against an armor-piercing round in any case, I holstered my weapon. At the top of the mountain, the APC came to a stop, and the crew door at the back of the APC was opened. When the door swung open, I knew exactly where I was, because I had spent the afternoon studying surveillance photographs of the residence and its surroundings. I immediately recognized two unmistakable bright blue barrels perched off the ground on a kind of scaffolding near the cabin. I was also somewhat alarmed because we were so close to the house. We were no more than 20 yards away, and I considered our position to be a provocative one. I understood Weaver to have armor-piercing rounds, and I fully expected to hear rounds pinging off—if not through—


the sides of the APC at any moment. Despite our seeming provocation, nothing happened. At this point, I began thinking that Randall Weaver, despite his rhetoric, the shooting of Bill Degan, and his background with the Aryan Nation, was not as fanatical and dangerous as was generally believed. There were no booby traps on the gate, no mines in the road, and he did not fire at the APC. I read the announcement as written in the Operations Plan. I knew there had been a shooting, and that was a bad enough position for a negotiator. What actually happened was even worse. I was in the unknowing, ridiculous, tragic position of asking Weaver to step out onto the front porch within an hour or so of his wife’s being killed, Harris’ being shot, and Weaver’s being wounded. I did not even know that Samuel Weaver had been killed on Friday in the shootout with the Marshals. After reading the announcement and dropping the telephone, we started making our way down the mountain. As Weaver had neither electricity nor telephone, we laid down about one and a half miles of telephone wire. The Government’s Perspective Both sides of this confrontation had dug a very deep hole, from which the negotiation team was to work. The government was convinced that Randall Weaver was a very dangerous individual. Their conviction grew out of intelligence reports relating to his activity with the Aryan Nation and his being asked to leave because he was too radical. He was also known to keep weapons in the house, and the whole family, including 10-year-old Rachel, was trained in the use of weapons. As previously mentioned, before our trip up the mountain in the APC, it was thought that the road might be mined and the gate booby-trapped. Weaver was thought to possess armor-piercing ammunition, and some of his neighbors were frightened of him and his family. I was advised that Randall Weaver had told people that he would will kill any law enforcement officer that came after


him. As evidence that he was a man of his word, we had the dead body of Bill Degan. At one point in the siege, I told an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) that getting Randall Weaver out of the house was going to take something creative—maybe something legally creative. I suggested, as an example of legal creativity, that if convicted, he could do his time on the mountaintop. The AUSA said words to the effect that no judge would ever go along with that, because Weaver might kill a passing hunter. He added his belief that we were never going to get him to come out anyway. He then turned and walked away from me. I was livid with rage. Negotiator’s comment: A barricaded subject has a very limited number of options:

■ He can commit suicide. ■ He can commit homicide then suicide. ■ He can surrender. If Weaver was not going to commit suicide or homicide/suicide, he had no other option but to surrender if we just had the patience to wait. He had to come out, eventually. I did not think this was a difficult concept to grasp. As a further example of how dangerous Randall Weaver was thought to be, there was no 24-hour perimeter around the Weaver residence house, but there was a tactical team perimeter around our command post area at the base of the mountain to protect us from him. I asked why we did not have a 24-hour perimeter around the residence and was informed that at the top of the mountain it is dark, wet, and the terrain is rocky. Someone might get hurt! The HRT and FBI SWAT are equipped for just these conditions. I was incredulous and insulted for the HRT, especially since I considered them to be among the best equipped, highly trained, and most highly selected teams in the world. There was no 24-hour perimeter around the house until Sunday evening. Friday and Saturday nights,


Weaver and his family could have walked away from the house and across the mountains. Randall Weaver’s Perspective I have never spoken to Randall Weaver except during the siege, but he had to have been thinking that all of his worst right wing nightmare beliefs had come true. Federal agents had killed his wife and son. He and Kevin had been shot. Armed federal agents surrounded him, and helicopters were flying low over his house. He and his family were very frightened. Is it any wonder that he said nothing to me for days? Negotiator’s comment: All times are from the negotiators’ log, and all of the statements in quotes are just as they were read to the Weaver family. Though we had sophisticated, classified equipment on-scene, I could not get a good quality tape recorder, though we did have a small pocket recorder. Feeling certain that the Weaver family would sue the FBI at the conclusion of the siege, I told negotiators to be sure to document everything we said or did. We therefore scripted out our comments to Weaver and read them in our best conversational tones.

9:45 p.m. A county Drug Abuse Resistance and Education (DARE) van was established as a base for negotiators. In the DARE van, our telephone to the Weavers was up and operating. We attempted to contact Weaver at 9:45 p.m., 10:00 p.m., 10:30 p.m., 11:00 p.m., and 11:30 p.m. All attempts met with no response. Over the telephone’s receiver, raindrops could be heard hitting the telephone. Sunday, August 23, 1992 8:25 a.m. Muffled voices, footsteps, and a barking, whining dog can be heard over the telephone. People are walking around in Weaver’s yard, but there is no perimeter to see what is going on. The telephone is dialed, with no answer. 8:28 a.m.


A small dog can be heard over the telephone. 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. We attempt contact with no answer. The dog noises continue. 8:47 a.m. to 2:46 p.m. Contacts are attempted approximately every 15 minutes with no response. 3:04 p.m. The telephone wire is cut after having been run over by the APC. Approximately 9:00 p.m. I go to the top of the mountain to what became the Forward Command Post. Negotiator’s comment: All negotiators’ remarks were made to Weaver and his family over a remotely controlled vehicle commonly called a robot. The “robot” is a small, tracked machine that was originally developed for bomb technicians. It is equipped with a loudspeaker, a receiver, a closed-circuit television camera, and a shotgun. Bomb technicians blow up suspicious packages using the shotgun. During this incident, the shotgun was not loaded. I later had Bob Gritz, a person Weaver knew, look at the shotgun so there would be no question later that it was unloaded. I do not believe, though, that the Weavers saw the shotgun until the siege was almost over. Each time I called out to Weaver, I gave him time to get to a position in the house where he could hear me. My “threshold diagnosis” was that Weaver was not the kind of individual who would indulge in light chitchat, or like it if I attempted to get too “chummy” with him. As a result, I tried to remain somewhat formal and give him something to think about every time I addressed him.

10:01 p.m. “Mr. Weaver, please go to a place in the house where you can hear me. I’ll wait. “Mr. Weaver, this is Fred Lanceley. I am a negotiator with the FBI. I spoke to you briefly yesterday. “Mr. Weaver, we have moved a remote-controlled vehicle up to your house. This vehicle will allow you and I to talk. All you have to do is to speak up and I should be able to


hear you. I assure you that this vehicle is no threat to you or your family.” 10:05 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. “Mr. Weaver, this is Fred again. “We have found the body of a young man I presume to be Samuel. I urgently request that you provide some guidance as to how you want us to proceed with arrangements for Samuel. We do not want to take any steps that may violate your religious beliefs at this time of grief for your family. “Please communicate your wishes to us by speaking up.” Negotiator’s comment: The body of Samuel “Sammy” Weaver was found in the birthing shed by a member of the HRT who was manning the inner perimeter. Finding Sammy’s body was one of the most dramatic moments of the siege for me. I did not know that he had been killed on Friday, and one of my initial fears was that Randall Weaver might kill his family and himself. In the darkness, the HRT member whispered into his radio that he had found the body of a young white male with a small-caliber bullet wound to his forehead. (What he actually saw in the darkness was a smudge on Sammy’s forehead and a .22 caliber shell casing lying on the floor next to him. He apparently thought that a .22 caliber weapon had killed Sammy.) This was the first I had heard of Sammy’s death, and I remember thinking, “My god! He is killing his family!” I could not imagine that Weaver would not speak up and tell me how he wanted Sammy’s body cared for, and I attempted to use this topic to initiate some kind of dialogue.

10:30 p.m. “Mr. Weaver, you must understand that we are not going to go away. We have to talk. Let’s begin by making arrangements for Samuel. Give us the name of a friend you would like us to contact so they can take care of Samuel for you.” Negotiator’s comment: Here, I violated one of my own suggestions to student negotiators. In the classroom, I advocate that when using the pronoun “we,” it should mean the negotiator and subject, and not “we,” the authorities. I corrected this usage of “we” later on.

10:49 p.m.


“Mr. Weaver, for your information, the county coroner has taken custody of Samuel’s body. In a situation like this one, it is standard procedure to do an autopsy. I don’t know how you feel about the performance of an autopsy, but it will be done unless you tell us otherwise.” Negotiator’s comment: Here, I was attempting to put Weaver in a double bind. He did not want to talk, but I did not think he would want an autopsy done either. I thought that the idea of an autopsy would cause him to start talking to me. It did not work. He said nothing.

10:52 p.m. To ensure that Weaver could actually hear me, I asked that he move a curtain in the upstairs window to indicate that he could hear. He did not. 11:15 p.m. “Mr. Weaver, I know it has been a very difficult 3 days for you, your family, friends, and supporters. The only way we can get all this behind us is to begin talking. Like I said before, we are not going to go away. I am sure you realize things could get worse. Is there any point to putting Mrs. Weaver, Rachel, Sara, and Elizabeth through a worsening situation? I’ve been told that Mr. Harris may need medical attention. Let’s get that done. Talk to me.” Negotiator’s comment: One of the things I tell negotiation students is to be certain of getting people’s names correct. In the USMS briefing book, I read Elisheba’s name to be Elizabeth. To this day, I do not know whether I made the mistake or the information in the briefing book was mistaken. Unfortunately, I erroneously called her Elizabeth throughout the siege.

11:52 p.m. “Mr. Weaver, I have mentioned several topics tonight that I hope you, your family, and Mr. Harris will think about and talk over. “If you love your family like I love mine, I am sure you have some wishes for Samuel. Tell me about them. Provide a name for me to contact.


“Tell me what I can do or say to get all this behind us. Help me to help you and your family, Mr. Weaver. One more time, we are not going to go away. You and I can begin to end this nightmare for you, your wife, and children. “Think about these things, Mr. Weaver. Talk about them with Mrs. Weaver and Mr. Harris. Let’s you and I have a talk in the morning that will put an end to this situation.” Monday, August 24, 1992 Negotiator’s comment: Because of steep terrain, only tracked or four-wheel-drive vehicles could make it up the mountain, and they went up only periodically. Upon my arrival at the forward command post, I was told that 20 to 30 minutes earlier, Weaver had demanded that the robot be moved.

8:07 a.m. “Mr. Weaver, this is Fred. Good morning. I just came back up the mountain. “I’ve been told that you were saying something about 45 minutes ago. I’m sorry I missed it. The people out here could not make out what you were saying at the time but I should be able to hear you now. What I have been told is that you may have some concerns about the vehicle in front of your house. I want to hear what you have to say. Please talk to me Mr. Weaver.” 8:10 a.m. Weaver was told that the helicopter sounds he was probably hearing were a routine overflight. There was no cause for alarm. 8:15 a.m. I repeated the 8:07 a.m. statement. 8:42 a.m. “Mr. Weaver, the guys on the perimeter have told me that you were concerned about the vehicle and that you sounded angry. If you don’t talk to me, I can’t help you. Allow me to help you.” 10:32 a.m. and again at 10:34 a.m. “Randall Weaver, we will be moving the vehicle forward because we’re not sure we can hear you. Again, I want to assure you that this vehicle cannot harm you or your family


in any way. This machine is pretty amazing, but it may break down, or we may roll it and well lose communication. So, if you have anything to say, now is the time.” 10:36 a.m. “Randall, we are going to move the machine forward right now. It will move in the direction of the work bench.” 11:14 a.m. “Randall, I am going to present a thought to you. I’ve been told that you have strong religious and political convictions and principles that you have lived by. I understand that you would like others to adopt the same principles and convictions. Let’s you and I be realistic about this situation. “On the one hand, if you make yourself available to arrest, you can present your convictions in court. You will be big news for weeks, maybe months, worldwide, on television and in the newspapers. “On the other hand, if this situation ends violently and tragically, you and your convictions will be old news in 2 days. Instead of you and your convictions, the headlines will again be filled with all the evils of the world that your family and mine live in. “Let’s you and I talk about it.” 11:51 a.m. “Randall, have you and Mrs. Weaver thought about arrangements for Samuel? I don’t understand why you won’t provide instructions to me. Help me to understand. Is it a violation of your convictions to talk to me and tell me what you want done for Samuel? Is that it? Samuel has been and will be treated with respect by the authorities, but I don’t know if we are doing the right thing. Help me. Help Samuel. Talk to me. “I’ll wait 5 minutes for your response, then we have to shut the machine down to cool off. After the machine has taken a break, I’ll call you back.” Negotiator’s comment: Randall Weaver appeared to be very into words. In a shed on the property I found a book where he had written in big, bold, block letters, “righteousness=the right thing.” So I used the phrase “the right thing” several times. During a later conversation with Bo Gritz, Weaver said that he was not a


“human” being because hue means color. Weaver said he is not a colored man. He is a white man.

11:58 a.m. Weaver was told that the robot was being shut down to cool off. 1:16 p.m. Negotiator’s comment: People had told us that Mrs. Weaver was the tough one and the strength of the family, so negotiators addressed many remarks to her, having no inkling or clue whatever that she had been killed.

“Mrs. Weaver, I’m sure you have concern for little Elizabeth. I share your concern. Is there anything I can get for her that would take that worry off your mind? Do you need milk, food, or diapers for her? Please talk it over with Randall and I’ll do what I can for you. If there is anything I can do to ease your burden and concern for Elizabeth, let me know just by calling out.” 1:59 p.m. (twice) and a third time at 2:21 p.m. “Mrs. Weaver, you’ve had some time to talk to Randall about my offer to provide milk, food, and diapers for Elizabeth. As I have daughters of my own, I share your concern for the children. What do you want to do?” 4:27 p.m. “Mr. Weaver, I wanted you to know that the APC is coming forward. The APC means you no harm, but it is coming forward.” 6:11 p.m. “Mrs. Weaver, whatever yours and Randall’s convictions with regard to the government, the courts, and the police, we have a common concern in the children. Let’s not make their health and welfare an issue. Send them out and I will make sure that they sleep tonight in the home of your choosing. I’ll ensure the well-being of your children as I’m sure you would look after mine. We both want to do the right thing by the children. “Talk to me about it.” 8:09 p.m.


“Randall, let’s talk about your convictions, your future, and the future of your family. “A history of this situation will be written in the next few days. The question is, who will make and write that history? Will it be you in a courtroom with sufficient time to fully express your views, or will it be a secondhand story, written by someone else? “Randall, I don’t know your intentions, but I’ve been told that you are willing to die in defense of your convictions. I admire that strength. I’d like to think I would have that kind of courage. Randall, if you have told people you are willing to die, I believe you, but you don’t have to die for your convictions. Live for your convictions. Live to tell your story to the world and to your grandchildren—the children of Sara, Rachel, and Elizabeth. Live to educate your children and your children’s children. You and I know in our hearts it’s the right thing to do. “What do you think? Talk to me.” 9:47 p.m. “Randall, I’ve told you before, I don’t know what your intentions are in this situation, but I think real courage is living to face adversity. I think real courage is living to maintain your convictions through all adversity. Set an example of courage to your children by coming out unarmed and facing your adversary in open court. “You may not believe the courts of the U.S. have authority over you, but if you think about it, no one who believes as you do has ever had the opportunity you now have. If you had $1 million, you couldn’t buy the publicity for your cause that you will receive by just having the courage to walk out of the house unarmed. “Please do it, Randall.” Tuesday, August 25, 1992 Negotiator’s comment: When I arrived on-scene, there was only one other experienced negotiator present, Special Agent Wilson Lima, and his negotiation experience was limited. I wanted a negotiator at the forward Command Post 24 hours a day, and Wilson graciously manned the midnight shift without a grumble.


However, we virtually shut down the negotiations at night in an attempt to avoid possible sleep deprivation problems. During the weekend, Special Agent Ed Burke arrived. My colleague and friend at the FBI Academy, now Unit Chief Gary W.Noesner, urged that I bring in additional negotiators, so I asked for Special Agents James Botting and John Dolan, All of the team’s negotiators were talented agents and, more importantly, great people. Jim and John arrived on Tuesday.

10:02 a.m. and 10:08 a.m. “Randall, this is Fred. Good morning. “I thought you might like to know that we’re taking care of your dog—the one with the mismatched eyes. The last time I saw him, he was eating a big plate of spaghetti. We’re calling him ‘J.J.’ because he looks like one of the guys that’s with me.” Negotiator’s comment: I tell my students to avoid using humor during a negotiation. I was not trying to be funny here but attempting to lighten the monologue. Weaver later told Bo Gritz that I was not taking the situation seriously, apparently because of this statement. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

“Once again, let me know if Elizabeth needs anything. “Over the next few days, I hope to demonstrate to you, Mrs. Weaver, and Kevin that despite all that’s happened, everything is being done to ensure that this situation ends without further violence.” 11:02 a.m. “Randall, this is Fred. “I live in Virginia, and until a couple of days ago I had not heard of your religious convictions and beliefs. Even today, all I know is the government’s version of what they say are your religious beliefs. “I’d like to know what is going on here. I feel frustrated when you, Mrs. Weaver, and Kevin refuse to talk to me because I want to work this out with you. “Randall, these people are not going to go away. It may take a few days to prove that to you, but if that’s what it takes, they are prepared to do it.


“Talk to me, Randall, so you and I can start working on something and perhaps spare Rachel, Sara, and Elizabeth a few days of discomfort. Let’s you and I begin resolving this situation peacefully. I’ll talk to you later. “Randall, one last thing: I was just handed a taperecorded message from Mrs. Weaver’s family. I’ll play that for you.” 12:14 p.m. “Mrs. Weaver, Randall, this is Fred. “I am going to play a tape-recorded message from some of your family members. I hope you can hear this message okay. I’ve only got a small recorder and it might be hard to understand. I’ll play it now. (Taped messages played from family members.) “I hope you could hear that. I’ll play it again when I get a better recorder in the hope that you will be able to hear it better. “I’ll talk to you later. Remember, all you have to do is call out to our robot and I’ll be able to hear you. “The APC ran over my original phone. I’m trying to get another phone for you.” 1:03 p.m. “Randall, let me tell you what is happening out here. First, I’m trying to get a better tape recorder. The guys out here told me they couldn’t hear the message so you probably couldn’t either. “Secondly, they are going to put a better speaker in place so that you’ll be able to hear me more clearly. The speaker, when I get it, will be dropped off by the APC. “Lastly, I’m trying to get another telephone to put in front of your house. “That’s what is going on out here. I hope all is well inside. Talk to you later.” 1:37 p.m. Weaver was told that an APC was coming up the hill. It meant him no harm. It would be in the front yard. 3:20 p.m. “Randall, I’d like to hear from you about what happened the other day. Apparently, you have told people you would


defend your property. Is that what you were doing— defending your property? What happened? “There’s not only me that would like to know what happened. A whole lot of people would like to hear your side of the story. Tell your story, Randall. Tell your story to the world. Tell it to me. Tell it to the media. Tell it in court. I know you’ve got a story to tell. Do it. You’ve got people’s interest and curiosity. Now is the time to tell your story. “Before I leave, is there anything I can get for the kids— food, medicine, milk, diapers? If there is anything, just call out. “Talk to you later.” 4:19 p.m. “Mrs. Weaver, this is Fred. “I want to talk to you about your family. I assure you that no one out here means any harm to you or your family. Everyone is, of course, most concerned about Sara, Rachel, and Elizabeth. As a mother, I’m sure that one of your hopes for your daughters is that they grow up to raise children of their own. Help fulfill that dream by sending them out. “I’m telling you that when your daughters come out, whether it be tonight or 5 days from now, they will sleep in the home of people of your choosing. “As I told Randall, just speak out to the robot.” 5:24 p.m. “Mrs. Weaver, this is Fred. “Mrs. Weaver, I’ve been told by several people that you are the kind of wife who will stick with her husband through rough times. That’s an admirable quality, but allow me to present you with a thought. We have no arrest warrant for you. You’ve done nothing illegal. Think about what you could do for your husband if you came out with your children tonight. You could tell your side of the story. You could tell what happened at the shooting. You could be talking to the media tonight. Couldn’t you do more for your husband and for your convictions by going down the mountain with your children? “Please think about it, Mrs. Weaver, and let me know what you want to do.” A short time later


“Mrs. Weaver, I’m about to play the tape again. I hope you can hear it better this time.” (Taped messages played again.) “I hope all is well inside. I’ll talk to you later.” 9:15 p.m. “Mr. Weaver, this is Wilson (Lima). “Fred is gone for a little while. He asked me to give you a call. I am sure you had a lot to think about and also to talk about since Fred last talked to you. We are still very much interested to hear your side of the story. It is not too late. You can do it tonight. All it takes is for you, Mr. Weaver, and Kevin Harris to come out, unarmed. Do this for your convictions. Do this for your children. Do this for your wife. Do this for yourself, Mr. Weaver. You and Kevin Harris come out now, unarmed.” Wednesday, August 26, 1992 4:33 a.m. “Randall Weaver, this is Wilson. Good morning. “We are still waiting to hear from you. I’ve been thinking about you and your family all night long. “Is everyone well inside? Is there anything I can do for you? Please let me know. “This is a new day, Randall. Show your family that you care. You and Kevin come out, unarmed—come out and tell the world about your cause. This is the right time, Randall.” 6:00 a.m. “Vicki Weaver: This is Wilson. Good morning. “We all know that behind every successful man there is a strong woman. A woman of principles—a strong believer in your cause. You are the motivating force behind Randall. As an intelligent woman, I am sure you realize that the sooner Randall solves this problem, the better it will be for him, for the family, and for the cause. Please encourage Randall to come out, unarmed. Also encourage Kevin to do the same. They will listen to you. It will be a noble gesture on their part. People from all over will always remember this moment. There is a time and place for everything under the


sun. This is the right time for Randall and Kevin to come out. Mrs. Weaver, please support them to come out now!” Later “Vicki: You and I know that the race not always belongs to the swiftest, but to the smartest. Do the smart thing: Encourage your husband, Randall, and Kevin to come out, unarmed. Encourage them to race and face the courts—to spread your convictions. “This situation will eventually be over—it is up to you to make the best out of it. By encouraging Randall and Kevin to come out, unarmed, you will be sharing with them the joy of spreading your beliefs. By coming out, unarmed, they will not be hurt. “I am concerned about you all. I want this situation to be solved peacefully; I’m sure you want the same. Are the children all right? Can we get some milk for Elizabeth? Let me know if I can be of any help by just calling out.” Mid-morning “Randall, good morning. This is Fred. “Shortly, the APC will be approaching your home for the purpose of transferring the telephone to the robot. This may take some time. Again, you’ve got no cause for alarm. You’ve got my word on it.” 12:27 p.m. Weaver was told that the robot would be approaching the house with the telephone. 1:27 p.m. We told Weaver that the robot had the telephone, and requested that he take the telephone from the robot. 2:05 p.m. “Randall, I can understand your concern about the telephone, and I can also understand why you might not want to step outside onto the front porch. So here is what they are going to do: The robot will go to the window on the right side of the porch. The grippers will try [to] push the telephone through the window. The glass will break. After the telephone is delivered, the robot will back off the porch. “Randall, up until now you have not had a good way to talk to me. Let’s take advantage of this opportunity to get a constructive dialogue going.


“You’ve got nothing to worry about here.” 2:08 p.m. We made a correction to the previous statement. Weaver was told that the telephone would come through the door window, not the window on the right side of the porch. 2:08 p.m. Unidentified male voice later identified as that of Randall Weaver (RW): “Get the fuck out of here.” 2:15 p.m. Weaver was told that we now had a good opportunity for dialogue. 2:16 p.m. Weaver makes unintelligible response. Weaver was told that he could not be heard. 2:17 p.m. Weaver makes unintelligible response. RW: “Get out of here.” RW: “…this kike son of a bitch.” RW: “Fucking pig.” Weaver was told he could not be heard. 2:19 p.m. RW: “Get the fuck out of here.” Negotiator’s comment: I had never been so delighted to get cussed out in all my life. To me, it had the sweet sound of progress, though I am sure that is not what Weaver intended.

2:20 p.m. RW: “Lying motherfuckers.” 2:21 p.m. FL: “I understand your anger. Let’s try to resolve this.” 2:23 p.m. FL: “Let’s try to start anew.” 2:27 p.m. FL: “Is Vicki close by? We will play a taped message to Vicki.” 2:39 p.m. FL: “We are having a technical problem with the tape recorder.” 2:45 p.m.


We played taped messages from Vicki’s family. 2:48 p.m. FL: “Your supporters and family are concerned about you, and we want to start dialogue. Please pick up the telephone.” 2:49 p.m. Taped messages were played, but perimeter personnel could not hear it. 2:50 p.m. The taped messages were replayed. 2:53 p.m. FL: “Please pick up the telephone.” 2:55 p.m. RW: “I ain’t taking no goddamn telephone.” 2:56 p.m. Weaver is heard to say he wants to give his sister and somebody else his story. 2:57 p.m. FL: “I heard ‘sister’ and somebody else?” FL: “We spoke to your father earlier.” 2:57 p.m. RW: Is Father here? 2:58 p.m. FL: “I don’t know if he is here now.” 2:58 p.m. FL: “None of your relatives are here yet.” 2:58 p.m. RW: “I want to speak to my sister.” 3:00 p.m. FL: “We will try to locate your sister.” RW: (Unintelligible.) 3:00 p.m. FL: “I can’t hear you.” 3:01 p.m. RW: “I want my sister to come here.” 3:11 p.m. FL: “I just made a telephone call. Is your sister Marnis Joy?” 3:12 p.m. RW: “She lives in Iowa.”


3:14 p.m. FL: “Is there anyone local who knows Marnis Joy’s telephone number?” Negotiator comment: I advocate to my students that they avoid lying in a negotiation, and this occasion was the only time I lied to Randall Weaver. We had located and interviewed Marnis Joy previously, but if Randall Weaver was talking, we wanted to keep him talking and feel comfortable in doing so.

3:22 p.m. FL: “I will be off-air.” 3:24 p.m. RW: “Fine.” 3:57 p.m. FL: “Randall, this is Fred. I’ve got some people working on locating Marnis Joy in Iowa. I’ll let you know as soon as I hear anything. Meanwhile, is there anything I can get for you, Mrs. Weaver, Kevin, or your girls?” 3:57 p.m. RW: (Unintelligible.) 3:58 p.m. FL: “I can’t hear you.” 3:59 p.m. RW: “…my sister…” 3:59 p.m. RW: “I want my sister.” 4:00 p.m. RW: “No, no.” 5:02 p.m. FL: “Randall, can you hear me okay? “I told you earlier I would keep you informed. Well, we’ve located a friend of your sister in Jefferson, IA. He is out rightnow trying to find Marnis.

“Please be thinking about how you want to get this phone in to talk to Marnis. “Let me know if you can hear me.” 5:04 p.m. RW: “I can hear you. No phone.” 5:05 p.m. RW: “I want my sister here in person.”


FL: “How can we do this?” RW: (Unintelligible.) 5:06 p.m. FL: “How can we do this?” FL: “Couldn’t we do this more safely for you and your sister?” RW: (Unintelligible.) RW: “No phone.” 5:07 p.m. RW: “I want my sister.” 5:08 p.m. RW: “You guys are trigger-happy.” 5:09 p.m. FL: “Think about how you and your sister can communicate safely.” 5:11 p.m. FL: “Just think about how to do it safely. Did you hear?” RW: “Yes, I heard you.” 6:14 p.m. FL: “A concern out here is that if speak to your sister, you will tell your story to her, and then commit suicide. Randall, is that your intent? Are you going to commit suicide? “You are going to have to promise me that you will not harm your family or yourself. I’ve got to get an answer from you so I can relay it back.” Negotiator’s comment: Any time a negotiator is concerned about suicide, he should ask about it directly. After the first day or so, my concern about suicide or homicide/suicide had receded, but I had not totally ruled it out.

6:17 p.m. RW: “I promise you no one will be hurt.” RW: “I promise you no one will be hurt.” 6:18 p.m. RW: “I want my sister by the back door.” Negotiator’s comment: It never ceases to amaze me how the little things can so thoroughly mess things up. In this case, I did not know which door he considered the “back” door. There were two doors to the house, and one looked no more like the back door


than the other. To make things worse, when Marnis arrived, she did not know which door he considered the back door either. When she questioned Weaver about it, I got the impression he thought she was now on “our side.”

6:20 p.m. FL: “I don’t know if we can do that.” 7:08 p.m. FL: “Randall, I thought you might like to know that we have located Marnis. As you and I speak, someone is talking to her about coming out here. “Can you hear me?” 7:09 p.m. RW: “Yeah.” Negotiator’s comment: I recommended to the on-scene commander that Randall Weaver’s sister, Marnis Joy, be brought to the scene. I also recommended that an FBI Special Agent negotiator travel with her so he could make an assessment of her and of her potential usefulness to the situation. I also wanted her to be assured that we were making a good faith effort to end this incident without further violence. She was flown to the scene aboard a chartered jet with her boyfriend, Mike Mumma, who was the Weaver family attorney, and an FBI agent/negotiator. It was her first time aboard an airplane, and it cost the taxpayers $10,000. I mention the cost only to point out the extremes to which the FBI was going at this point.

8:20 p.m. FL: “Randall, I have just learned that Marnis has agreed to talk to you and she will be travelling out here. Her travel arrangements are being made, and she will be here tomorrow. In the meantime, if I get any additional information I’ll let you know.” 8:22 p.m. I repeated 8:20 p.m. message. Thursday, August 27, 1992 9:56 a.m. John Dolan (JD): “Randall, this John. Can you hear me?” RW: “Yes.”


JD: “Your sister has arrived in Coeur D’Alene and she will be en route here. Understand me?” RW: “Yes.” 9:57 a.m. JD: “Do your children need anything?” Negotiator’s comment: Some tactical team members suggested that I call Randall “Randy,” as many townspeople did. I did not want to call him “Randy,” because I wanted to stay more formal with him, and I did not think he would like me getting too “chummy” with him. Secondly, I did not know how he felt about the name “Randy.” When Marnis arrived, she referred to Randall as “Pete.” I asked why she called him “Pete,” and she said that the townspeople called him “Randy” and he hated the name. The only person he allowed to call him “Randy” was Vicki. As it turned out, what some of the tactical guys were advocating was that I call Randall by his wife’s pet name for him, and we had killed his wife. I never called him “Randy.”

11:41 a.m. FL: “This is Fred. I am taking you at your promise. Marnis is ready to talk to you. Can you hear me?” 11:42 a.m. FL: “Get in a location where you can hear.” 11:43 a.m. RW: “…back door… Marnis, can you hear? They’re playing games. Don’t believe a goddamn thing they’re saying.” 11:49 a.m. RW: “Marnis…last Saturday…and they’re afraid to let the truth out.” 11:50 a.m. Marnis Joy (MJ): “I have Mike with me…help you and love you.” 11:51 a.m. RW: (Unintelligible.) “…come in and kill someone.” 11:53 a.m. MJ: “Brother, I’m going to tell you the truth. Mumma called me at home. I tried to do right. I brought Mike. Said would not be around. My brother…sending my love. I tell you. I have studied about Yahweh. Study books. Changed my life. Don’t let me down. You know what’s right. I brought Mike with me so we could do that.”


Negotiator’s notes: Our negotiator’s notes are fragmentary because we were taking notes as fast as we could and she was speaking rapidly.

11:55 a.m. (Unintelligible.) 11:58 a.m. MJ: “Take phone. I’m hard of hearing from machines at work. I don’t want to miss a word. Go get that phone. I can’t hardly hear you. Pick up the phone. I want to hear what you have to say.” Negotiator’s comment: Negotiators viewed Marnis Joy’s hearing condition as a serious setback. She had visited Idaho the previous summer and not mentioned her hearing loss to Weaver. Now, she was saying the same thing we were saying; that is, that he could not be heard, and please pick up the telephone. We were certain that he thought she had gone over to “our side.”

12:01 p.m. MJ: “I want to know how my babies are.” Girl’s voice: (Unintelligible.) 12:02 p.m. MJ: “Sara. Rachel. Please get the phone. Marnis wants to talk to you. I want to communicate.” 12:03 p.m. Girl’s voice: (Unintelligible.) 12:04 p.m. MJ: “Take time. I want you on phone. I can hear girls talking. I want more.” 12:15 p.m. MJ: “Brother, I’ve been trying to think how to get you to pick up the phone. Please, please, my family, tell me.” RW: “No phone.” 12:16 p.m. MJ: “Tell me if you’re all okay.” RW: “No, we’re not.”


Negotiator’s comment: Though we wrote it down, none of us followed up on Randall’s response until later in the day, when I saw it in our negotiator’s notes.

MJ: “I need phone. It’s just better for you and me, Honey.” 12:17 p.m. MJ: “Brother, I’ve got your strong beliefs. I hope I stand tall as you do on your beliefs.” 12:18 p.m. MJ: “I tried to. I hope I can help. What do you need? Tell me.” 12:19 p.m. MJ: “Tell me what you need, Randall.” 12:20 p.m. MJ: “I came to find out. I talked your religion. Tell me how “I can help, help you.” 12:22 p.m. MJ: “I want to tell you what happened since I got on the plane. He (an FBI agent) could talk the Bible. Study to go to ministry.” 12:23 p.m. MJ: “Please pick up phone, please.” 12:49 p.m. MJ: “Is robot in the front or back of the house?” 12:50 p.m. Marnis repeats the 12:49 question. MJ: “Is robot in front?” MJ: “I need to get to where I can talk. Is robot in the front or rear?” 12:52 p.m. FL: “We are confused. We want to make sure which side we are talking about.” 12:53 p.m. FL: “Marnis told me that the last time she was here, she didn’t tell you about her hearing problem. We will work with you on this.” 12:57 p.m. FL: “We want to get Marnis close to the house. We don’t know what side you are talking about. Help us work this out. Please.”


12:59 p.m. FL: “If I can work it out that Marnis approached the robot side of the house, is that agreeable?” 1:00 p.m. RW: (Unintelligible.) 1:01 p.m. FL: “We can have Marnis approach the robot side of the house, is that okay with you?” 1:12 p.m. FL: “Let me give you some options. We must establish better communications. You can have one of the girls take the phone into the house. It is a telephone. We wouldn’t do anything in front of your sister. First option is have one of the girls pick up phone. Second option, Marnis and Fred get into APC and drive up to near vicinity of the robot. Talk it over.” 1:14 p.m. FL: “Let me know what you want to do.” 1:27 p.m. FL: “Marnis wants an answer. We brought her out here. She just told me she is not going down the hill without you, and she’d talk it out. Talk to your sister.” 1:37 p.m. FL: “Please go to where you can hear me. You are having trouble trusting me. I can understand that, but trust your own sister. Trust the sister you asked for. Give me an answer.” 1:41 p.m. FL: “Please go to where you can hear me. It seems this boils down to trust. You’re going to have to trust somebody. You trusted her last night. Trust her today. Take a risk on your sister.” 1:43 p.m. FL: “Talk to me about this.” 1:44 p.m. Negotiator’s comment: I now tried another double bind. He would not talk to me, but I did not think he would want us any closer to the house, either. This time, he responded.


FL: “Unless you tell me otherwise, Marnis and I will approach in the APC so we can get some communication going. This is our only reason for approaching the house, and we will be approaching unless I hear from you otherwise. Talk to me.” 1:46 p.m. FL: “We are taking your no response as your agreement to do this. Marnis and I will come forward in the APC in the next few minutes.” 1:47 p.m. RW: “Back off, Fred, back off.” FL: “Good, we are not going to do anything to upset you or your family.” 1:48 p.m. FL: “You’ve got your sister upset. She is sitting here in tears, tell me what I can tell her. Let’s not spread this misery any further than it’s already spread.” 2:04 p.m. FL: “Marnis asked me to ask you if you had any Diet Pepsi in there. All we have out here is Diet Coke.” 2:05 p.m. FL: “I guess you don’t have any Diet Pepsi. How about if Marnis and I get into the APC, get behind the woodpile, and the APC leaves?” RW: “No.” 2:06 p.m. FL: “Okay, I just heard you say no. Let’s go to plan 137.” 2:07 p.m. FL: “I’ve learned a few things about you. I know you have a military background. You are taking into consideration the tactical considerations. Tell us what you have in mind.” 2:08 p.m. RW: “No.” (Unintelligible.) 2:09 p.m. FL: “We got ‘No something.’ Tell us one more time.” FL: “There is uncertainty. We will keep trying until you and I can sit down and work this out.” 3:15 p.m. FL: “Just so you know, we are trying to get better equipment to hear you so we can talk. We’ll give that a try.”


3:16 p.m. FL: “Can you hear me?” 3:17 p.m. FL: Repeated above. “Can you hear me?” 3:19 p.m. We repeated the 3:15 p.m. comment. “We may try a new position. We’ll get back to you in a few minutes.” 3:38 p.m. Marnis Joy, SA James M.Botting (JB), and I went to what the HRT referred to as the “green” side of the house with a parabolic microphone. We could hear birds chirping, but we were not sure if the “chirps” came from inside or outside of the house. Negotiator’s comment: Some tactical teams color-code various sides of a building so there is no question as to what side of the structure they are referring to. We were negotiating from a position of cover and were on a virtual cliff. Marnis made several impassioned, tearful pleas that were met with silence. I deliberately “chewed out” Weaver for asking that his sister be brought to the scene and then breaking her heart by not talking to her. I told him I had heard he was a good family man, his sister was part of his family, and he owed her an explanation and an apology. There was no response.

4:58 p.m. We all returned from the “green” side of the house after our failed attempts to open a dialogue with Weaver. All of our attempts were met with no response. Negotiator’s comment: Using a nonlaw enforcement person as an intermediary is always a potentially dangerous move, but Marnis Joy was great—and that was bad news. I was thinking, “If she can’t get to him, what will it take?”

7:19 p.m. FL: “Randall, Vicki, can you hear me? This morning, when Marnis was talking and she asked if everyone was all right, you said ‘No.’ We have a doctor here if anyone needs a doctor.


We are concerned about everyone, especially Elizabeth. Young kids can’t take the punishment that adults can, if she needs anything, let us know.” 7:21 p.m. FL: “Give me a sign you heard me.” FL: “If you need anything just call out.” 7:26 p.m. I repeated the 7:19 p.m. statement. 11:25 p.m. FL: “Think about how we might better communicate tomorrow, as today was a disappointing day for both of us. Please give me some indication that you heard me.” Friday, August 28, 1992 3:25 a.m. Wilson Lima (WL): “Randall, good morning, how are you? Is everyone all right? Thinking of you and your family, concerned about you and your family, very much concerned about Elizabeth. Is she okay? Does she need a doctor? We have a doctor out here. Does anyone need medical attention in there? Let me tell you this again, I care about them. I care about you. So let me know how I can help, speak out.” 6:25 a.m. WL: “Randall, hello again. It’s breakfast time. Do you have enough food there? You know it’s going to be a hot day today, in the 80s. The kids probably would love to be outside. It’s time for you all to come out. These people are going to be here until you all come out. They are not leaving. Make things easy for the kids. Let’s solve this problem right now. People out here want to hear from you. We are all concerned about you, your wife, and the kids.” 10:24 a.m. Marnis Joy, Jim Botting, and I again went to the “green” side of the house in an effort to establish contact via bullhorn. Negotiator’s comment: The negotiation team was concerned that a repeat of the previous day’s emotional experience would be too difficult for Marnis. We decided that if she could not accomplish anything before noon on this day, we would send her home. After


she made an impassioned appeal to Weaver that resulted in no response, she said, “I am not doing you guys any good. I’ll get out of your way and go home.” (Not an exact quote.)

10:36 a.m. Marnis Joy spoke to Weaver via a bullhorn. Sorry I cried. I wish I knew what I could do. These guys are sincere, and I have tried to make them understand. Let me know, those kids are important to you. I am concerned about Kevin. I love you. 10:46 a.m. Marnis talks about the children and asks Weaver to come out. 11:15 a.m. Marnis again appeals to hear from someone. Wants peace and love, and love in the house is strong. I love everyone. Tell me who you want to tell. You tell your story. This is traumatic to your family. Tell in your own words. I want to help you. I want to help anyway I can. Please talk to me so I know you are all right. Marnis has trouble hearing. Please talk to me. I’ll talk to anyone. 12:23 p.m. Radio personality Paul Harvey had commented on the incident in his broadcast, and had urged Weaver to surrender. A tape recording of his broadcast was played. 12:25 p.m. The Paul Harvey tape was repeated. 3:23 p.m. JD: Notified Weaver that robot was moving rearward. 4:27 p.m. JD: “Mr. and Mrs. Weaver, this is John. We didn’t have to pull the robot back as we thought. This is not a trick. We want to bring the robot closer to the door to make it easier for you take the telephone. It is only a telephone. I understand that this may cause you some concern, but it will make it safer and easier for you to take the telephone. We will do this shortly, please take the telephone.” RW: “Back off, back off, we are not taking no goddamn telephone.” 4:57 p.m.


JD: “Mr. and Mrs. Weaver, this is John again, we have moved the robot closer now. We are offering you another opportunity to accept the telephone. Please take the phone so that Vicki’s father, Bo Gritz, John Reynolds, and others can talk to you. You can take it or one of the kids can take it. It is only a telephone.” 4:59 p.m. JD: Repeated 4:57 p.m. message. 5:15 p.m. (approximately) RW: “I will talk to Bo Gritz in person.” 5:18 p.m. JD: “What do you mean ‘in person?’” 5:25 p.m. RW: “I will talk to Bo Gritz in person, that’s it or no more talking.” 5:46 p.m. JD: “We are working on contacting Bo now. How are we to make communications any better?” 5:48 p.m. RW: “He can come in through the back door.” Negotiator’s comment: Bo Gritz had called in, offering his services, saying that Randall Weaver may have been in his U.S. Army unit at Fort Bragg, and he may know him. Gritz was an unknown entity to me, but Ed Burke, a mature, experienced FBI agent, knew the significance of Gritz to some right wingers. Based upon Burke’s recommendation, I advocated to SAC Glenn that we use him. I went down the mountain in a four-wheel drive vehicle to meet and pick up Gritz. Halfway back up the mountain, I stopped the vehicle. Gritz and I got out for a talk. I told him that he was going to work with us, and if he failed to cooperate and follow instructions, he would be going back down the mountain. He agreed to my conditions and we shook hands on it. To his credit, he cooperated fully.

5:49 p.m. JD: “How are we going to improve communication?” JD: “How are we going to improve communication?” 5:57 p.m.


JD: “Bo is not going to the back door, because of safety. Let’s devise a plan to talk safely. Let me know what you think.” 6:01 p.m. JD: “Bo cannot go to the back door because of his safety. How will this be any different than with Marnis? Let me know.” 6:04 p.m. JD: “Mr. and Mrs. Weaver, we need to resolve this, we need to communicate better. Let me know.” 6:06 p.m. JD: “Please talk to me, please talk to me, let me know.” 6:08 p.m. JD: “What are you thinking about communicating?” 6:15 p.m. JD: “Communications are terrible, we need to improve communication. Several people want to talk. We are going to place the telephone through the window.” 6:17 p.m. RW: “Better not or it’s all over, asshole. Back off, goddamn it, back off, son of a bitch. You’ve got my family upset, so back off.” A short time later JD: “Mr. and Mrs. Weaver, this is John. We will not move the robot any further, if you just establish a dialogue with us. Just talk with us about the situation, that is all we ask. Can we agree to this?” 6:36 p.m. JD: “I’ve reached Bo Gritz, he will be coming up. Please give some thought to how you and your family with Bo’s help can resolve this peacefully.” 6:50 p.m.-6:55 p.m. Bo Gritz attempted to talk to Weaver from the robot, but once again it was very difficult, if not impossible, to hear Weaver. Bo Gritz spoke to Weaver about a variety of topics over the robot’s bullhorn. It was decided that Bo Gritz, HRT members, and I would go forward—that is, closer to the house, in the APC, so that we might be able to hear Weaver’s responses. A short time later


The APC approached the house, and Gritz established his identity from the crew position at the top of the APC. I told Gritz to ask if everyone was all right inside the house. When he did, Randall said, “No.” I told Gritz, “Follow up on that.” When he did, Randall said that Vicki was dead and that he and Kevin were wounded. I have never been so shocked in all my life. I had been “talking to“Vicki all week, and I knew the obvious impact it must have had on the family. As Gritz continued his attempts to establish a dialogue, we still could not hear Weaver’s replies very well. Gritz, ASAC Rogers, and I then got out of the APC, and Gritz attempted to speak to Weaver from a position of cover beside the APC. Hearing Weaver was still bordering on the impossible. Gritz then left his position of cover, went forward, and opened a dialogue with Weaver. As FBI negotiators could not hear Weaver’s side of these communications, they were not recorded in any way. Saturday, August 29, 1992 8:43 a.m. JD: “Randy, this John, Bo is coming up.” 8:45 a.m. RW: “No bullhorn. Speak man-to-man. Only way.” 8:46 a.m. JD: “Understand, no bullhorn through window.” Negotiator’s comment: When Bo Gritz arrived in the morning, Jackie Brown, who was a neighbor and friend of Vicki Weaver, accompanied him. A minister who described himself as a personal friend of Randall Weaver also accompanied Gritz. (I later was told that the minister lied to us, that Randall Weaver did not even know him.) These individuals left their positions of cover and went forward with Gritz to speak directly to Weaver. In the afternoon and into the night, Gritz and retired Phoenix police officer Jack McLamb spoke to Weaver from outside the house.


Sunday, August 30, 1992 Gritz and McLamb resumed discussions with Weaver, and at approximately 1:30 p.m., Kevin Harris surrendered. He was checked by paramedics and flown to the hospital via helicopter. Jack McLamb accompanied Harris to the hospital. Gritz returned to the house. On this occasion, he agreed to wear a body transmitter, and he was again accompanied by Jackie Brown. This was the first time I heard Randall Weaver talk in conversational tones. To me, he sounded frighteningly unstable. For example, it was at this point that Weaver made his “I’m not a human being” point. Later that same day, Gritz and Brown removed Vicki Weaver’s body from the residence in a body bag. Upon his return, McLamb went into the Weaver residence with Gritz. The negotiation team strongly suspected that there would be an assault that night, but no one told us why it was being considered. To this day, I do not know why the HRT came so close to an assault. At one point, I stopped SAC Robin Montgomery by putting my hands on both his shoulders. I told him that if he was going to authorize an entry, he might have to testify in court someday as to why an entry was not appropriate a week ago but was appropriate now. In other words, he must be able to verbalize with specificity what had changed in the incident to make tactical action necessary. I believe this concept is absolutely crucial in crisis management’s “go, no go” decision making. Though I was concerned about the possibility of an assault, I did not want to display my apprehension to Bo. When the negotiation team approached him about planning the next day’s negotiations, Gritz said, “Negotiations are out. Tactics are in.” It appeared that command was telling Gritz things they were not telling their negotiators. That night, being relatively certain that we no longer would be needed, the negotiation team went into Sandpoint, ID, to spend the night in a motel. I took my first hot shower in over a week and slept in a real bed. The following morning, I turned on Cable News Network (CNN) to see what had happened at Ruby Ridge overnight. I was sure that if the HRT had made entry, it would be on the news.


Apparently, the siege was not over. We returned to Ruby Ridge and resumed our negotiation effort. On our way back to Ruby Ridge, we passed a skinhead wearing a Nazi armband and attempting to hitch a ride. We facetiously considered providing this “Nazi” insult to my father’s generation a ride to the roadblock with five FBI agents. Monday, August 31, 1992 9:35 a.m. Bo Gritz and Jack McLamb went to the “black” side of the house. Both men were wearing body transmitters. An emergency assault word of “Alaska” was established, and they would also indicate when the baby was in a safe location should a rescue be necessary. Before Bo Gritz and Jack McLamb went forward, negotiation options, surrender plans, and what to expect in the event of an emergency assault were discussed in detail. 10:00 a.m. At this time, Gritz and McLamb were on the porch talking into the house. Weaver was told what Gritz had told media representatives. Specifically, Gritz told Weaver that Kevin was charged with murder, and this news agitated Weaver significantly. It did not appear that Weaver was going to allow Gritz into the house. Gritz and McLamb remained on the porch. Negotiator’s comment: The negotiation team was concerned about the possibility that Gritz might take action on his own and attempt to physically subdue Weaver. We wondered if Weaver was concerned about the same possibility.

10:26 a.m. It was agreed that the robot would withdraw. Gritz helped in the withdrawal of the robot, and was asked to look at the shotgun so he could later attest to the fact that it was not loaded. McLamb stayed with the Weavers. Negotiator’s comment: When the robot initially went forward, our only thought was to use it to move the telephone closer to the


house safely. However, when it got close to the house, we immediately saw the advantage of leaving it in place so we could take advantage of the closed circuit television capability. We could also speak to Weaver over the loud hailer and, sometimes, could hear Weaver when he called out. Additionally, as I had told Weaver, the terrain was very rough, even for a tracked vehicle, and we were afraid it would turn over.

10:30 a.m. The robot began its withdrawal, and Gritz gave steering directions to the HRT operators of the robot. 11:00 a.m. The robot withdrawal was completed. 11:05 a.m. Gritz returned to the house. Meanwhile, Weaver had been trying to talk Sara into surrendering. It was during this period that Jack McLamb said what I believe to be the single most important sentence of the negotiation effort: “Bo and I are your guardian angels, and we are here to protect you, but we’ve got to leave.” 11:30 a.m. Gritz and McLamb continued a dialogue with the Weavers in their house. 11:50 a.m. Weaver and his daughters had been in a private conference for about five minutes. 11:53 a.m. Weaver told Gritz and McLamb to tell the people down at the roadblock to go about their business, and that they would be down in 9 days. 12:16 p.m. McLamb came back to the forward command post for 5 minutes to get a promise from SAC Gene Glenn and then returned to the residence. The promise was that McLamb and Gritz would be able to act as a shield and accompany the Weavers to a place of safety. The girls were promised that they would be allowed to return to their home by September 9, a day that is meaningful in their religious beliefs. 12:34 p.m.


The door on the “black” side of the house was opened and Gritz and McLamb enter the house. As the end of the siege neared, I turned to one of the other negotiators and said, “Bet you $5 that when Weaver comes out, he will be carrying the baby.” I was sure that Weaver would believe himself still to be in danger and would be holding the baby for protection. 1:11 p.m. When he came out of the cabin and descended the nearby hill, he walked within a few feet of me. I realized that even though we had been in this struggle for more than a week, strangely, he would not even recognize me. I was also thinking, “My God, he looks like a Nazi death camp survivor.” I noticed that he was carrying the baby. The Aftermath I have been asked if I considered the end result to be a negotiation victory. My partner, Gary Noesner, reminded me that not a shot was fired after we began the negotiation effort. I do not have to personally talk someone out to consider the resolution to be a negotiation success. However, with the deaths of Bill Degan and Vicki and Samuel Weaver, the outcome was nothing any of us could celebrate. A major disappointment came with the realization that we had let Bill Degan down. He was no part of some “New World Order” movement. He was no part of some governmental conspiracy. He was a family man just doing his job, just as I am a family man doing mine. No one was punished for the death of Bill Degan. On the first day back at my office, I received a telephone call. It was a FBI agent/negotiator who was helping a police agency with a hostage situation in a motel. He asked for my assistance with the incident, and for the first time I realized how emotionally drained I was. It was a good thing that he did not need much, because I had virtually nothing left to give. I was on empty and exhausted. I felt hollow, like an empty barrel.


Sometime after the siege, I received a telephone call from Mike Mumma, the Weaver family attorney in Iowa. Upon hearing his name, my first thought was that I was about to be sued. Instead, he said he was in his office with the Weaver family. (I do not know which members of the Weaver family.) He said that though others were getting all the publicity in the media, the Weaver family knew who the real hero of Ruby Ridge was, and they wanted to thank me. I was so stunned, shocked and overjoyed, I nearly fell out of my chair! Bo Gritz sent me an autographed copy of his autobiography. On the inside cover, he wrote that Randall Weaver did not think much of me but Gritz thought I was a hell of a guy! Though there were certainly major crisis management problems at Ruby Ridge, nothing changed in the FBI’s crisis management response. Nothing changed, that is, until another incident occurred in a small Texas city called Waco. In its aftermath, everything about the way the FBI conducts sieges changed— and changed for the better.

Figure H.1 View from Randall Weaver’s cabin.


Figure H.2 The hostage rescue team’s robot was used in the attempts to open a dialogue wih Randal Weaver, maintain a video surveillance of the residence and as a delivery vehicle for the telephone.

Figure H.3 The FBI’s negotiation team. From left to right are John Dolan, James Botting, Frederick J.Lanceley, and Ed Burke. (Not pictured is Wilson Lima.)


Figure H.4 The FBI used Bo Gritz as an intermediary.

Figure H.5 Kevin Harris was provided on-scene medical assistance upon his surrender.


Figure H.6 Sara Weaver, with clenched fist, exited the residence.

Figure H.7 Bo Gritz accompanies Randall Weaver and Elisheba from the Weaver cabin.

Index

A Abandonment, 137 Abnormal psychology, 129–156 major depressive episodes, 129, 149–156 associated features, 149–150 common behaviors, 150–152 communication suggestions, 154–156 course, 150 culture and gender features, 150 negotiator encounters, 153– 154 prevalence, 149 treatment, 152 personality disorder, 129–130 antisocial, 130–133 characteristics, 131–132 common behaviors, 132–133 communication suggestions, 133 borderline, 133–139 characteristics, 136 common behaviors, 137–138 communication suggestions, 138–139 course, 137 familial, 137 prevalence, 136 schizophrenia, 129, 139–149 age and gender, 143 associated features, 142–143 common behaviors, 146–147 communication suggestions, 148–149

complications, 143 course, 144–145 definitions, 141–142 familial pattern, 145 impairment, 143 personality prior to onset, 143 predisposing factors, 144 prevalence, 144 treatment, 145 Achille Lauro hijacking, 198 Active listening, 17–26, 196–196 assumptions, 18 concepts, 18–21 skills, 21–26 emotional labeling, 22–24, 196 “I“messages, 25, 196 minimal encouragers, 25, 196 open-ended questions, 25–26, 196 paraphrasing, 24, 196 reflecting/mirroring, 25, 196 Addict, defined, 181 Aircraft hijacking, 25, 97, 124 Alcohol, 11, 169 Ammunition, 11 Analgesics, defined, 181 Anemia, defined, 181 Anger, 143, 233 suicide and, 55 Antitussive, defined, 181 Anxiety, 106, 143 dangers of manipulating levels of, 199–202 APC. See Armored personnel carrier Aplasia, defined, 181 257


Armored personnel carrier, 215, 229, 241, 242 Arrhythmia, defined, 181 Aryan Nation, 211–212, 217 ASAC, Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Aspiration pneumonia, defined, 181 Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC), 213, 247 Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), 218 ATF. See Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Auditory hallucinations, 141 AUSA. See Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Autopsy, 222 B Barbiturates, 44 Barricades, 61–65 manpower concerns, 86 tactical entry, 62–65 reasons for, 63–65 Barroom brawls, 15 Battle scars, 136 Benzodiazepine tranquilizers, 44 Body armor, 71, 105 Bomb threat, 106 Boredom, 85, 132 Botting, James, 227, 254 Branch Davidians, 21 Brooding, 149 Bullhorn, 80, 120, 220, 247 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 211 Burke, Ed, 227, 254 C Cable News Network, 249 Cancer, terminal, 13 Career criminals, 77 Chest pains, 101 Childhood backgrounds, 132 Clergy, 112 Close-ended questions, 26

CNN. See Cable News Network Command Post, 213, 214, 220, 227 Communication, 74, 80–82, 94, 133 Containment, 71 Contingency plans, 86 Correction officers, 135 CP. See Command Post Creeping-up effect, 85 Crime scene, 190 Crisis characteristics, 14–16 defined, 12 intervention during (See Crisis intervention) management, 206–209 rule of thumb, 74 team, 72 Crisis intervention description, 16 hostage negotiation vs., 28 purposes, 16 for suicide, 52–53 techniques, 66 allow subject to vent emotions, 66 explore subject’s feelings, 66 explore what is still meaningful for subject, 67–68 focus on cause of suicidal feelings, 66 focus on specific situation that caused crisis, 67 help subject put actions in perspective, 68 let the person get angry, 66 negotiator should express personal concern, 68 stall for time, 68 talk openly about finality of death, 66–67 using the reverse “hook,” 68 Crisis state, 12–14 Cross tolerance, defined, 181 Custodial disputes, 4

INDEX ■ 259

D DARE. See Drug Abuse Resistance and Education (DARE) Deadlines, 87–88, 164–165 Degan, William F., 212 shooting of, 217 Delusions, 141–142 Demands, 88–90 Depressants, defined, 181 Depression, 19, 143, 151 Digestive system, disorders of, 101 Dispatcher, 86 Disturbance call, 49 Divorce, 19 Dolan, John, 227, 254 Domestic disputes, 4, 86 Domestic siege, 3 Drink, drugging, 73 Drug(s), 11 classification, 170 communication guidelines, 177– 180 dependence, 176, 177, 178, 178, 179, 180 glossary, 181–182 pattern of use, 169–170 possible effects, 176, 177, 178, 178, 179, 180 reasons for taking, 169 schedules, 171–172 sources of information regarding subject’s substance abuse, 172 subject abuse, 169 usage categories, 174–176 withdrawal symptoms, 176, 178, 178, 179, 180 Drug abuse, defined, 181 Drug Abuse Resistance and Education (DARE), 219 Drug dependence, defined, 181 Drug tolerance, defined, 181 E Electronics, 190 Embassy takeover, 2 Emergency assault, 249

Ethical considerations, 112 Exhaustion, 84–85 F FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Federal Aviation Administration, 109 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), xv, 200 Academy, 227 agent, 130, 240 Hostage Rescue Team, 213 instructors, xv Legal Counsel Division, 214 negotiator, 2, 140, 221 Rules of Engagement, 213 Special Agent negotiator, 237 Firearms, 31–33, 208 Food, drugging, 73 Forward Command Post, 220 G Gambling, 138 Glenn, Gene, 215 Go, no go decision making, 248 Gritz, Bo, 247, 249, 251, 252, 254, 256 Gustatory hallucinations, 141 H Hallucinations, 141 defined, 181 Hallucinogen, defined, 181 Hanging, suicide, 34, 67 Harris, Kevin, 212, 255 Heart attacks, 101 Helicopter, 214 Helplessness, 42 Hijackings Achille Lauro, 198 aircraft, 25, 97, 124 completed, 97 incomplete, 97 Homelessness, 132 Homicide/suicide, 200, 236 Hopelessness, 42, 150


Hostage, defined, 2 Hostage injuries, 97 Hostage negotiation, 70–129 action imperative, 85 boredom and, 85 communications during, 74, 80– 82, 94 concerns that arise with passage of time, 84–87 containment, 71 courses of action, 70–71 creeping-up effect, 85 crisis intervention vs., 28 in deliberate sieges, 102 demands during, 88–90, 164 determining what is negotiable, 72–77 double-checking intelligence, 94–95 elements, xv exhaustion and, 84–85 face-to-face considerations, 104–106 first responder, 156–160 approach to apparent suicides, 167 attitude toward victims, 165– 166 dealing with deadlines, 164– 165 dealing with demands, 164 dialogue and actions, 156–157 ensuring personal safety, 157 evacuation of witnesses, 158– 159 initial actions, 158 initial contact with subject, 159 minimizing the damage, 165 statements, 159 guidelines, deviating from, 125 importance of trust, 163 indicators of progress, 106–107 introduction of negotiator, 77– 80 issues to avoid, 161–163 in kidnappings, 2 (See also Kidnapping)

listening, 160–161 log of events, 163 lying by negotiator, 83–84 nonnegotiable situations, 122– 123 in nonresponse situations, 95– 97 perimeters, 71–72 potential media problems, 107– 110 priorities, 70 reassuring subject, 161 role of time, 82–83 stalling for time, 83 subject weaknesses, 102 subject’s needs, 90–93 supplies/equipment for ready kit, 119–120 surrender, 123–124 teams, xv techniques, 1 use of third-party intermediaries, 110–115 when subject is a drug addict, 173 Hostage Rescue Team, 213 I I messages, 25, 196 Identity disturbances, 137 Innocents, in sieges, 9 Insomnia, 46, 101 Intelligence support persons, 118 Interview guide, 190–194 coping with stress, 193 current stressors, 193 descriptive information, 190 drug/alcohol history, 191–192 educational level, 190–191 indicators of impulsivity, 191 interests, 193 mental-health history, 192–193 occupational history, 194 weapons information, 191 Irritability, 149 K

INDEX ■ 261

Kevlar blanket, 105 Kidnapping, 2–5 contained, 4 definitions, 2–4 known location, 5 types, 2, 6 unknown location, 4 Koresh, David, 21 L Language differences, 96 Law enforcement agencies, 86 executives, 116 loss of control, 113 negotiators, 1, 69 officers, 53, 207 suicide and, 27 Listening active, 17–26, 196–196 assumptions, 18 concepts, 18–21 skills, 21–26 emotional labeling, 22–24, 196 “I” messages, 25, 196 minimal encouragers, 25, 196 open-ended questions, 25–26, 196 paraphrasing, 24, 196 reflecting/mirroring, 25, 196 skills, 21–26 Lying, 83–84 M Major depressive episodes, 129, 149–156 associated features, 149–150 common behaviors, 150–152 communication suggestions, 154–156 course, 150 culture and gender features, 150 negotiator encounters, 153–154 prevalence, 149 treatment, 152 McLamb, Jack, 248, 249, 251

Media, 15, 87, 109–110 Medical problems, in high-stress situations, 101 Mental health professional, 119 assistance, 130 elderly, 77 ethics, 112 patient interview, 135 Microphone, parabolic, 243 Military service, 132 Miranda warning, 104 Mirroring, 25, 196 Morale, 80 Motivation, 10, 54 Mutual-aid pacts, 206 N Name, disrespectful form, 79 Narcotic, deifined, 181 Necrosis, defined, 181 Negative contact, 99 Negotiation(s) in deliberate sieges, 102 effort, 203–205 guidelines for drug use/abuse, 173 hostage (See also Hostage negotiation) crisis intervention vs., 28 elements, xv in kidnappings, 2 (See also Kidnapping) teams, xv techniques, 1 qualities of negotiator, 69 tape-recording, 103–104 team, 116–117 telephone techniques, 102–103 use of robot, 220 Negotiator(s) boss as, 115–116 continuing need for training, 197–198 dealing with subject’s anxiety, 201 effects of negotiating on, 125– 129


encounters with depressed persons, 153–154 expression of personal concern, 68 gut feelings of experienced, 46 importance of substance abuse information, 173 introduction of, 77–80 lying by, 83–84 primary, 116 qualities, 69 rapport with subject, 201 secondary, 116, 117 tactical role, 120–121 Neighbor killing, 12 New World Order movement, 227 New York City Police Department, xv Noesner, Gary, 227, 251 Non-response situations, 95–97 Nonnegotiable situations, 122–123 O Olfactory hallucinations, 141 On-scene commanders, 115, 117, 215 Open-ended questions, 25–26, 196 Organic brain syndrome, defined, 182 P Parabolic microphone, 243 Paraphrasing, 24, 196 People skills, 17 Perimeters, 71–72 Personality disorder, 129–130 antisocial, 130–133 characteristics, 131–132 common behaviors, 132–133 communication suggestions, 133 borderline, 133–139 characteristics, 136 common behaviors, 137–138 communication suggestions, 138–139 course, 137

familial, 137 prevalence, 136 Poison Control Center, 174 Police, xv, 113 Political convictions, 224 Positive contact, 99 Profanity, 94 Promiscuous sex, 15 Psychological pain, 14 Psychomotor retardation, 154 Public attention, 87 Pulmonary edema, chemical, 181 Purposeful timing, 8 Q Questions, 25–26, 196 R Radio broadcast, 203 Rapport-building, 77, 80, 91, 138, 156 Ready kit, supplies for, 119–120 Reckless driving, 15 Reflecting, 25, 196 Rejection, 137 Religious considerations, 4 Religious convictions, 224 Robot, 220 bullhorn, 220 shut down, 225 speaking to, 230 transferring telephone to, 232 withdrawal, 250 Rodgers, Richard, 213 Ruby Ridge incident, 21, 210–256. See also Weaver, Randall S Sadness, 19 Sarcasm, 138 Schizophrenia, 129, 139–149 age and gender, 143 associated features, 142–143 common behaviors, 146–147 communication suggestions, 148–149 complications, 143

INDEX ■ 263

course, 144–145 definitions, 141–142 familial pattern, 145 impairment, 143 personality prior to onset, 143 predisposing factors, 144 prevalence, 144 treatment, 145 Sedative, defined, 182 Self-esteem, 91, 93 Self-image, 137 Self-loathing, 57, 138 Self-mutilation, 135, 137 Serial killer, 131 Sexual abuse, 136 Sexual assault, 4 Sexual identity, 137 Sexual partners, 132 Shock Trauma Unit, 174 Siege(s) anticipated, 9, 10 approach, 9 deliberate, 7, 8, 9, 10 ammunition, 11 location, 10 negotiations in, 102 purposeful preparation, 11 purposeful timing, 10–11 stance, 10 domestic, 3 duration, 9–10 innocents in, 9 motivation, 10 number of subjects, 10 occurrence, 10 spontaneous, 9, 10 drugs and alcohol, 11 state of mind, 10 substantive demands, 8 types and characteristics, 7, 8 weapons, 11 Silence, 196 Situation board, 122 Sleep disturbance, 150, 227 Snipers, 110, 215–216 Social isolation, 146 Stalling for time, 68, 83 Stimulant, defined, 182

Stockholm Syndrome, 82, 98–101 elements, 82, 98 negative contact, 99 no contact between subject and hostages, 100 positive contact, 99 Stress, 101, 112 Subject barricaded, 61–65 bomb threat, 106 contact between hostages and, 159 exhaustion of, 84 expressive needs of, 90 frightening, 201 needs, 90–93 putting pressure on, 204 reassurances from, 47–48 weaknesses, 102 yielding to demands of, 88 Substantive demand, 4, 8 Suicide, 27–69, 192 action criteria, 60–61 ambivalence and, 55 anger and, 55 barricaded subjects, 61–65 clues, 38–39 communicating intent, 51–52 by cop, 58–60 crisis intervention techniques, 66–67 determining intent, 39–42 elderly, 53–54 high risk indicators, 53–54 chronic illness and pain, 54 family burden, 54 profound loneliness, 54 reduced standard of living, 54 social isolation, 54 sudden losses, 53–54 unfulfilled expectations, 54 emotions associated with, 55 face-to-face situations, 66 by hanging, 34, 67 high risk indicators, 42–48 detailed suicidal threat, fantasy, or plan, 45–46


drug and alcohol use, 45 extreme insomnia, 46 family history of suicide, 43– 44 gut feelings of experienced negotiators, 46 history of impulsivity, 43 hopelessness and helplessness, 42 isolation in terms of geography or time, 45 previous attempts at taking one’s life, 46 psychological history, 46–47 reassurance from the subject, 47–48 test-firing a weapon, 44–45 indicators of progress during negotiations, 65 intervention flow chart, 185– 188 means, 30–38 drug overdose, 33 firearms, 31–33 gas, 33 hanging, 34 jumping, 34, 66 poison, 33 motivation, 54 negotiations in, 1 basic concepts for, 52–53 as a problem-solving option, 50 rate, 30 reaction of first responder, 166– 167 taking others, 50–51 time-outs during negotiations, 65 vindictive goodbyes, 55–57 Surrender, 123–124 Surveillance, 121, 217, 253 SWAT team, 77 Sympathy, 18 T Tactical liaison person, 118 Tactical personnel, 86

Tactical teams, 140 Tactile hallucinations, 141 Tape-recording, 103 Tearfulness, 149 Telephone(s) company security representative, 110 cordless, 82 tape-recording capability, 81 techniques, 102–103 Television broadcast, 203 Teratogenic, defined, 182 Terrorism, xv, 2 Theology, as emotional minefield, 155 Third-party intermediaries, 14, 110–115 potential problems associated with, 112–114 ethical considerations, 112 lack of familiarity with police procedures, 113 lack of training in law enforcement, 112–113 response to stress, 112 unfamiliarity with violence, 113 variation in goals, 113 subject’s response to, 113 Threshold diagnosis, 220 Time, importance of passage, 84– 87 Training, continuing need for, 197– 198 Tranquilizer(s), 44 defined, 182 Trust, 163 U U.S. Marshal Service, 212 V Values, 20 Vehicle, remote-controlled, 221 Venting, 66, 209 Verbal outbursts, 138 Victim injuries, 97

INDEX ■ 265

Visual hallucinations, 141 W Weapons, 11, 191 suicide, 32 test-firing, 44, 74 Weaver, Elisheba, 256 Weaver, Randall, 21, 256 association with Aryan Nation, 211–212 bench warrant issued for arrest, 211 failure to appear at hearing, 211 family, 211–212 indictment, 211 Old Testament way of life, 215 terrorist reputation, 214 Weaver, Sammy, 221 Weaver, Sara, 255 Weaver, Vicki mistreatment by authorities, 211 shooting of, 216 Whole body illness, 151 Witnesses, 118

On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators, Second Edition

Negotiators

Negotiators

Retief Negotiators

MATLAB Guide, Second Edition

What's Fair: Ethics for Negotiators

Retief Negotiators

Ophthalmologic Drug Guide, Second Edition

Microfluidics for Biotechnology, Second Edition

Crocheting For Dummies, Second Edition

Ethics for Psychologists, Second Edition

Biology For Dummies, Second Edition

Maui For Dummies, Second Edition

Songwriting For Dummies, Second Edition

Lacrosse For Dummies, Second Edition

Biology For Dummies, Second Edition

Genetics For Dummies, Second Edition

Timing for Animation, Second Edition

Design for Creep, Second edition

Lacrosse For Dummies, Second Edition

Computers For Seniors For Dummies, Second Edition

A Field Guide for Science Writers. Second edition

Developmental Biology: A Guide for Experimental Study, Second edition

Marketing Plans for Service Businesses, Second Edition: A Complete Guide

IP Sockets in Java, Second Edition: Practical Guide for Programmers

Excel for Chemists: A Comprehensive Guide, Second Edition

Medical Manager: A Practical Guide for Clinicians, Second Edition

Marketing Plans for Service Businesses, Second Edition: A Complete Guide

Safety Management: A Guide for Facility Managers, Second Edition

Excel for Chemists: A Comprehensive Guide, Second Edition

On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators, Second Edition

Negotiators

Negotiators

Retief Negotiators

MATLAB Guide, Second Edition

What's Fair: Ethics for Negotiators

Retief Negotiators

Ophthalmologic Drug Guide, Second Edition

Microfluidics for Biotechnology, Second Edition

Crocheting For Dummies, Second Edition

Ethics for Psychologists, Second Edition

Biology For Dummies, Second Edition

Maui For Dummies, Second Edition

Songwriting For Dummies, Second Edition

Lacrosse For Dummies, Second Edition

Biology For Dummies, Second Edition

Genetics For Dummies, Second Edition

Timing for Animation, Second Edition

Design for Creep, Second edition

Lacrosse For Dummies, Second Edition

Computers For Seniors For Dummies, Second Edition

A Field Guide for Science Writers. Second edition

Developmental Biology: A Guide for Experimental Study, Second edition

Marketing Plans for Service Businesses, Second Edition: A Complete Guide

IP Sockets in Java, Second Edition: Practical Guide for Programmers

Excel for Chemists: A Comprehensive Guide, Second Edition

Medical Manager: A Practical Guide for Clinicians, Second Edition

Marketing Plans for Service Businesses, Second Edition: A Complete Guide

Safety Management: A Guide for Facility Managers, Second Edition

Excel for Chemists: A Comprehensive Guide, Second Edition

Recommend Documents