Negotiation concepts for commanders

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The, Jan, 1999 by Gary W. Noesner

From humble beginnings in the New York City Police Department (NYPD) in 1972, the field of hostage negotiation has grown to impact significantly upon law enforcement's ability to peacefully resolve critical incidents. In 1973, building upon the NYPD's foundation, the FBI further developed the practical application of negotiation principles and embarked upon an unprecedented effort, which continues today, to instruct police officers worldwide on negotiation skills and practices. Today, police throughout the industrialized world, and increasingly in developing nations, recognize negotiation as one of the most important tools available to law enforcement to peacefully resolve crisis events. In fact, over the past 25 years, the application of negotiation skills has proven consistently to be one of the most successful and cost-effective innovations in all of law enforcement.

Today, negotiators respond not only to hostage incidents but also to barricades, suicides, domestic disputes, kidnappings, and other types of critical events where the application of their communication skills and specialized training can positively influence outcomes. The FBI, and many other police agencies, reflects this expanded application of negotiation skills by characterizing their trained practitioners as "crisis negotiators."

While police agencies recognize the importance of crisis negotiators, law enforcement administrators, the on-scene decision makers during a crisis, may not understand their negotiators' abilities and methods and may interfere or make decisions that impede the crisis team's efforts. For example, during the Waco standoff, on-scene managers received sound advice from the negotiation team but often did not follow that advice or appreciate the recommended approaches.(1)

To address these concerns, the FBI developed a block of instruction for prospective crisis decision makers. The training, Negotiation Concepts for Commanders, served as the template for the successful resolution of the 81-day Freemen siege in Jordan, Montana, in 1996, as well as the peaceful resolution by the Texas Rangers of the 7-day Republic of Texas siege at Fort Davis, Texas, in 1997. It provides commanders with an essential understanding of the important principles and concepts needed to effectively manage the negotiation process during a crisis event.

THE ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

Types of Incidents

The FBI characterizes all critical events - regardless of the motive, mental health, or criminal history of the subject - as either hostage or nonhostage situations.(2) Understanding the difference between the two remains paramount to peacefully resolving such incidents and thus represents the bulk of the FBI's training for commanders.

Hostage Situations

During hostage situations, subjects hold another person or persons for the purpose of forcing the fulfillment of substantive demands upon a third party, usually law enforcement. Typically, subjects make direct or implied threats to harm hostages if their demands are not met. Substantive demands include things that subjects cannot obtain for themselves, such as money, escape, and political or social change.

Hostage takers demonstrate goal-oriented and purposeful behavior. Thus, they use hostages as leverage to force law enforcement to fulfill their demands. While the hostages remain at risk, the primary goal of hostage takers is not to harm the hostages. In fact, hostage takers realize that only through keeping the hostages alive can they hope to achieve their goals. They understand that if they harm the hostages, they will change the incident dynamics and increase the likelihood that the authorities will use force to resolve the incident. Therefore, it remains in the best interests of hostage takers to keep the hostages alive and avoid actions that might trigger a violent response from police.

Law enforcement negotiators have learned to handle hostage events by stalling for time, lowering subjects' expectations, and reversing their sense of empowerment and control. Negotiators buy time by using delay tactics and initiating give-and-take bargaining (making subjects work for everything they get). At the same time, the tactical team uses highly visible containment strategies to demonstrate to the subject that the police are willing and able to use force if necessary. Still, the police should never directly threaten to use force because doing so may cause subjects to resist further.

Hostage takers may initially feel in control and empowered, but as time passes, the negotiation team builds trust and rapport and convinces them that they will not accomplish their objectives and that they should surrender peacefully. Ultimately, hostage takers must decide whether to come out peacefully and live or to get injured or killed when the police inevitably take action against them. Fortunately, almost all hostage incidents are resolved peacefully as hostage takers' desire to live outweighs their need to have their demands met.

This process may take time, and the negotiation team must employ patience and understanding and use active listening skills(3) in an effort to thoughtfully communicate with the hostage taker, defuse the conflict, and work toward establishing a level of rapport that allows them to explore problem-solving options and progress to a nonviolent resolution. This approach enables police practitioners to de-escalate and defuse in a peaceful manner most volatile conflicts they encounter. This process enjoys an extremely high success rate in achieving surrenders without bloodshed.