Police Suggestion Don't Require TFOs to Consider Made-up Threats to Hostages

[teby]

Suggestion Title: Don't Require TFOs to Consider Made-up Threats to Hostages
Suggestion Description: Currently, the SOP for hostage situations in the TFU Handbook does not require hostage takers to prove the threats they're claiming are genuine and credible. Once proof of life has been established, the hostage(s) could be taken to a different room, where the hostage takers would make up a claim about a threat/danger to the hostage(s) from outside of the TFOs' sight.

This creates a situation where TFOs are restricted and severely limited in their response to the hostage takers. Take this example:
- There are multiple hostage takers attempting to free their friends
- One or two cop hostage(s), both in zip ties
- Negotiations began, the incident commander has seen proof of life
- All of this is happening in the PD jail cells with the negotiator standing between the double doors

Once proof of life has been established, the hostage(s) aren't required to stay in the negotiator's line of sight, as they'd have nowhere else to escape from (refer to the blue note under "General Tips"). This allows the hostage takers to come up with a hypothetical threat, such as "I placed a remote explosive on the hostages which I've left in the jail cells and wish to leave the PD before you enter the booking area".

This is an issue because there isn't a policy within said SOP which requires the negotiator to see the hostage at ALL times, nor is there a policy which encourages TFOs to verify that each threat is genuine and credible. This effectively guarantees the hostage takers' freedom and gives them clear leverage over the negotiating TFOs.

I propose to change this line in the SOP from
"Before attempting negotiations, you must establish if there is any evidence of a hostage in the first place."
to
"Before attempting negotiations, you must establish if there is any evidence of a hostage in the first place and a credible threat to their safety. Each hostage and any credible threat claimed by the hostage taker(s) must be verified prior to being considered in negotiations."

Another line that should be added to the SOP's page is:
Note: While negotiators should make the best effort to check each declared threat, TFOs will not be liable to disciplinary action for ignoring practically unfalsifiable claims made by the hostage taker(s).

Why should this be added?:
- Puts less strain on the incident commander and allows for fair negotiations
- Requires the TFO to fully assess the situation before considering taking action
- Allowing TFOs to take action without being horrified of an imminent IA, the hostage takers couldn't use this to their advantage.

What negatives could this have?:
- Slightly more complex policy, but at the cost of being far more reasonable altogether

What problem would this suggestion solve?: It would make it simpler and easier for TFOs to reason about situations with explosives or unfalsifiable threats presented by the hostage takers.

 

[Nakos]

Basically, this means TFOs don't have to consider ridiculous claims like:

• I have a sniper trained on the hostage and you can't see them, nor will I tell you where they are
• There is a hidden bomb that my friend will blow up
• I have a remote explosive in bazaar, which I will detonate unless you release my friend

This can reduce the IA bait nature of hostage situations and would make them much easier to navigate, and would probably improve the PD's attitude towards them, making cops more likely to want to engage in negotiations.

 

[iiTzWasParsnip]

I don't think this would be a great idea.

While in theory, it should be, it also increases the risk of "I think he's bluffing, so I am going to disregard their threat", which results in the death of the hostage(s).

It should also be common practise to keep eyes on the hostage to ensure their safety at all times.

As an Incident commander, you have a certain amount of leverage over the situation, including not allowing the hostages to leave your sight. If the hostage takers do not comply with this demand, you can use your discretion, such as not being able to guarantee the hostage's safety, and you are forced to escalate the situation, as the hostage takers are not complying with well beyond reasonable demands.

Not in any situation have I let a hostage be out of my view. I also make this clear to the hostage takers, we MUST be able to see the hostage at all times to ensure their safety.

You also can evacuate areas, to which a threat has been made (such as a bomb at bazaar), all threats should be taken seriously unless they are profound in nature. It is also within policy, to not act unless the hostage(s) safety is guaranteed.

So the sniper threat would also not make sense; you would let the hostage takers leave, secure the hostages, get them out of public view, before ordering officers to pursue the hostage takers. Therefore, trying to create a policy change, for disregarding threats, in order to shoot at hostage takers, as soon as they're easy pickings, before the hostages are in a safe location, would break policy anyway.

So long story short, I believe it's just comes down to changing plans and the way you communicate and handle situations regarding hostages and unfounded threats.

You can also use discretion, such as hostage takers not being on the phone or in external communication with anyone and saying things that require constant communication and coordination to plan out. i.e., if you don't let them leave, we will kill the hostage. Or if I die, the bomb explodes, or, if you do anything, a sniper will execute the hostage.

 

[exrobite]

Not in any situation have I let a hostage be out of my view. I also make this clear to the hostage takers, we MUST be able to see the hostage at all times to ensure their safety.

There are advantages to having the hostage taker / hostage in a different room, it's not a strictly "this way is better" vibe. Seperation between negotiators and suspects lowers tensions and is less likely to lead to the kind of retarded shot in the head after giving them 5k shtick people seem to like to do.

 

[Nakos]

While in theory, it should be, it also increases the risk of "I think he's bluffing, so I am going to disregard their threat", which results in the death of the hostage(s).

The actions of TFOs will still be bound by 6e, so disregarding because "I think he's bluffing" wouldn't be allowed if you had the means to check, as it would be a practically falsifiable threat

Not in any situation have I let a hostage be out of my view. I also make this clear to the hostage takers, we MUST be able to see the hostage at all times to ensure their safety.

The policy as it is does not protect your right to do this. You are only allowed to firmly demand this if they would be taking the hostages to an area where they could be further extracted, but it does not apply to an enclosed area like a cell or bathroom. Also. you should avoid escalation whenever you can and the hostage takers putting hostages in a separate room out of your sight is not necessarily grounds for hostage rescue on its own. It would be an unnecessary escalation and could leave you liable to an IA

You can also use discretion, such as hostage takers not being on the phone or in external communication with anyone and saying things that require constant communication and coordination to plan out. i.e., if you don't let them leave, we will kill the hostage. Or if I die, the bomb explodes, or, if you do anything, a sniper will execute the hostage.

Solidifying this in policy makes TFOs less afraid to use their discretion or "common sense" if they know they won't get a stupid IA over it

 

[teby]

While in theory, it should be, it also increases the risk of "I think he's bluffing, so I am going to disregard their threat", which results in the death of the hostage(s).

No, it wouldn't. If you know of an unverified threat and you can verify it by witnessing it on your own or via another officer's confirmation, you then know to act in accordance with said threat. The hostage takers have absolutely no responsibilities to prove the threat does exist at this moment in time. Thus you will never actually know about the threat unless they make it clear, of which most of the time they do not. It also encourages fully assessing the situation before taking any action

As an Incident commander, you have a certain amount of leverage over the situation, including not allowing the hostages to leave your sight. If the hostage takers do not comply with this demand, you can use your discretion, such as not being able to guarantee the hostage's safety, and you are forced to escalate the situation, as the hostage takers are not complying with well beyond reasonable demands.

Not in any situation have I let a hostage be out of my view. I also make this clear to the hostage takers, we MUST be able to see the hostage at all times to ensure their safety.

Are you going to let the hostages die if the hostage takers end up taking the hostages into another room where they cannot escape from? It would fall on you for disregarding negotiations over something the policy defines clearly.

The note below in the SOP for hostage negotiations clearly states to not let the hostage takers move the hostages away from you IF they could be transported to another geographic location. There is no problem with letting the hostage takers, for an example, place the hostages in the jail cells and continue negotiations at the double doors.

Note: Never allow the hostage taker(s) to move the hostage(s) to a new geographic location or out of your sight, where they could then be transported away by the hostage taker(s).

 

[joey]

This seems like a suggestion to handle very nuanced situations.

I do hope most people understand that this doesn’t change anything in your typical gun pointed at a hostage style of hostage taking.

When it comes to bomb threats, as soon as someone threatens the usage of a bomb, we should treat it as a bomb being there UNTIL proved otherwise Forcing TFOs- my interpretation of your suggestion is the contrary to this

Forcing TFOs and Police in general to confirm a possible threat to life (in this specific circumstance) could result in more deaths.

I am strongly for treating every threat as a credible until proven otherwise, I think this suggestion is unfortunately quite dangerous due to this.

 

[iiTzWasParsnip]

The policy as it is does not protect your right to do this. You are only allowed to firmly demand this if they would be taking the hostages to an area where they could be further extracted, but it does not apply to an enclosed area like a cell or bathroom. Also. you should avoid escalation whenever you can and the hostage takers putting hostages in a separate room out of your sight is not necessarily grounds for hostage rescue on its own. It would be an unnecessary escalation and could leave you liable to an IA

As stated, you can use your discretion and create reasonable demands of your own. This is a tactic to help de-escalate the situation, as there is no reason for hostage takers to not comply with this request, as it also protects them, but having the hostage takers, move the hostage to a location where you can't keep eyes on them and make sure they're safe, is more of a cause for escalation to due lack of cooperation and unknown safety of the hostage, albeit, escalation would only occur in more extreme cases to where you believe not acting will risk the hostages life.

No, it wouldn't. If you know there is a threat and you can verify it by witnessing it (on your own or via another officer's confirmation), you then know the threat exists. The hostage takers have absolutely no responsibilities to prove the threat does exist at this moment in time. Thus you will never actually know about the threat unless they make it clear, of which most of the time they do not. It also encourages fully assessing the situation before taking any action

In such a situation, it is more likely to lead to the hostage takers shooting their way out, instead of peacefully leaving, as you would be removing what little leverage they already have, in a very hostile environment. Once you can falsify the claim, then you can take action, but being allowed to not take their word on a threat, without verifying it, will only make it lead to disaster and a huge lack of responsibility.

Solidifying this in policy makes TFOs less afraid to use their discretion or "common sense" if they know they won't get a stupid IA over it

As stated above, doing so will leave less leverage for hostage takers to act peacefully.

The policy as it is does not protect your right to do this. You are only allowed to firmly demand this if they would be taking the hostages to an area where they could be further extracted, but it does not apply to an enclosed area like a cell or bathroom. Also. you should avoid escalation whenever you can and the hostage takers putting hostages in a separate room out of your sight is not necessarily grounds for hostage rescue on its own. It would be an unnecessary escalation and could leave you liable to an IA

You are allowed to create reasonable demands for the safety of the hostage. This of course, would not be the only demand you can make. Noncompliant hostage takers will cause the death of the hostage and or officers in most cases; therefore, having reasonable demands met is an expectation. As a TFO, you need to take control, as no control creates a dangerous environment for everybody involved; it's the same thing for hostage takers; they need some feeling of control over a situation, otherwise they will shoot their way out, which is why you also give in to reasonable demands.

Just because it isn't clearly defined in SOPs/Policies does not mean you are not able to do it.

If no demands are being met by hostage takers, as well as very poor communication, there is usually beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a threat to the hostage(s) life, as well as your own and many others. So performing a controlled and coordinated escalation should not violate the Duty of Care policy even if that results in the hostage(s) injury/death.

On the other hand, escalating a situation with a complaint, or reasonably complaint hostage taker(s), even if controlled and coordinated, would violate the Duty of Care Policy unless there was an imminent threat to the life of either the hostages or your own/other officers.

At the end of the day, this would all come down to the discretion of the command committee and policy board, but removing what little hostage takers have as leverage is not a good idea, even if unfound.