Correspondence

The Negotiator and the Bomber: Analyzing the Critical Role of Active Listening in Crisis Negotiations

“…From the negotiator's point of view, he sees himself as a member of a governmentally approved legal and political discourse community that follows approved operational procedures and holds certain societal values about appropriate behavior. From discussions with O’Reilly (2003), the NSW Police Force negotiation policy appears to agree with what is generally considered by scholars on negotiation dynamics to be appropriate and acceptable principles.…”

“…Another important aspect of prior expectations in this context can be seen in the fact that the negotiation and tactical teams fully expected that this crisis would not be resolved peacefully and would end with the bomber's death or serious injury. According to O’Reilly (2003), this expectation was based not only on the informant's information but also on the responses received from consultations with crisis negotiation organizations in the United Kingdom, Israel, and U.S., each of which apparently responded that they would most likely have to end up shooting the bomber. As a result, the NSW negotiation and tactical teams lodged a report with the NSW coroner prior to the actual negotiation on the expectation that the situation would very likely end in them having to shoot the bomber.…”

“…As a result, the NSW negotiation and tactical teams lodged a report with the NSW coroner prior to the actual negotiation on the expectation that the situation would very likely end in them having to shoot the bomber. Given the potential close oversight by various government and non‐governmental organizations of police involvement regarding life‐threatening action, this kind of preplanning to ensure legal requirements was also instrumental in the careful drafting of O’Reilly’s opening statement, which he delivered by megaphone to the bomber (2003).…”

“…The continuation and multiple use of “I know” in response to the bomber's direct and abrupt statement on safety are also instances of the rapport‐building “I” messages. O’Reilly still, however, must ensure that the bomber still sees him, at some level, as a figure associated with the police by the brief use of the inclusive first person plural “we,” but he quickly switches again into the use of the more intimate first person singular to convey the fact that the bomber will be dealing with him and not those “others,” whom he also refers to as “police.” These choices are deliberate and necessary for the bomber to be able to start aligning himself with O’Reilly, to feel some sense of rapport (O’Reilly 2003). This attempt at relationship building is further reinforced through the use of the third person plural pronominal “they” for the tactical team and the noun phrase “the people in town” in the following:…”

“…At this point O’Reilly cuts him off with an imperative but continues to refer to “the police” and “them” in order to maintain the sense of separation and the idea that it is these “others” who are constraining the bomber, not O’Reilly. His reference to the Saracen adds further to the sense of the “otherness” for the bomber, and is a deliberate choice of words by O’Reilly because he knows that the bomber would be impressed by the machine and the tactics used (O’Reilly 2003).…”