The Alabama hostage crisis started on January 29, 2013 and lasted for 6 days, ending on February 4, 2013. During the crisis, 65-year-old Jimmy Lee Dykes, a Vietnam veteran, boarded a school bus and demanded that two children, preferably boys aged 6-10 years old, went with him (Phillips, n.d.). In the note he passed to the driver, Charles Poland, Dykes insisted that children would not be hurt and that he needed “two hostages to force the powers that be to listen” (Phillips, n.d.). As a result, he kidnapped 5-year-old Ethan Gilman and took him to the 6x8-ft underground bunker that he had previously built for this purpose. In the course of events, he shot Poland to death in front of the children. Since one of the children called 911, the rescue operation started immediately (Phillips, n.d.).
During the negotiations, Dykes demanded that the FBI negotiator talked to him through a special PVC pipe installed by the front gate of his property (Phillips, n.d.). The rescue team could not enter the bunker because of its one-of-a-kind, complex construction. An agent has discovered that there was a bomb installed in the pipe, which meant that Dykes may have wanted to kill the police and FBI agents (Phillips, n.d.). Dykes also demanded that Ethan was traded for a TV reporter, who would broadcast Dykes message to the American citizens, after which Dykes would commit suicide (Phillips, n.d.). During the 6 days of hostage negotiations and crisis intervention, an FBI agent established the rapport and trust with Dykes, betrayed the latter’s trust and was substituted by Lt. Rafferty. Although the FBI team assisted by the local police and citizens tried to free the hostage, Dykes has grown very anxious and angry by the 6th day, which made the FBI and the police believe that he the man was on the verge of either killing the boy or blowing up the bunker with them both inside. For this reason, on February 4, the hostage rescue team entered the bunker, with the help of Dykes’ daughter, killed the man and rescued Ethan (Phillips, n.d.).
There were two main parties involved in the crisis. The first party was the hostage-taker, who devised a plan of taking a hostage in order to attract attention of the public and authorities to his cause. The man was profiled by the FBI’s lead profiler on the case as an “injustice collector” and a “promise-keeper,” which meant that he wanted revenge for the many injustices that happened to him in the past and were perceived as being inflicted on by the authorities, and that he was prone to keeping his promises (Phillips, n.d.). He was characterized by his neighbors as being angry, scary and dangerous, although Poland has mentioned to his wife prior to his death that Dykes seemed to be in need of a friend. He has already been caught by the police for threatening a person with a firearm and possessing drugs, and he has battered his estranged wife before she left him (Phillips, n.d.). His wife also told the police that she believed he would eventually kill her unless she left (Phillips, n.d.). The second party of the crisis was the team of professionals summoned to participate in various parts of the hostage rescue operation. The main two participants of the operation were the two negotiators: an FBI agent and Lt. Rafferty. While the first man was specifically trained for crisis negotiations, Lt. Rafferty, a sheriff’s deputy, did not have such training. Another two significant parties involved in the crisis intervention were the hostage and Dykes’ daughter, whom he has not seen for years and whom he was apparently very happy to meet again (Phillips, n.d.).
The crisis intervention can be divided into two parts: the first one with the FBI agents acting as a negotiator, and the second one with Lt. Rafferty, who substituted the former. While the first negotiator managed to talk Dykes into accepting medicine that Ethan had to take, along with coloring books, crayons and toys, all passed to the hostage-taker by sheriff’s deputies. He also persuaded Dykes to accept communication through a throw phone, a very common means of communication in such situations (Miller, 2007). However, the FBI agent was the one talking most of the time, which, according to Laurence Miller, a clinical and forensic psychologist and law enforcement educator and trainer, is a major mistake, since it is crucial to be listening actively and talking less during hostage negotiations (Miller, 2007). For this reason, the agent may have failed to establish contact and trust with Dykes, which became apparent, when Dykes doubted the negotiator’s words and came to realize that the FBI fooled him into thinking that they have brought a real TV reporter. The FBI negotiator, however, did not try to persuade Dykes that a female agent in disguise was truly a TV reporter. With these two incidents, the crisis intervention went wrong. However, when Lt. Rafferty stepped in as a negotiator, the rapport has been established once again. According to Miller (2007), active listening and observation are of utmost importance during crisis intervention, and Lt. Rafferty knew this, which helped him established strong connection with Dykes for the next several days. The new negotiator talked with Dykes for several days about all kinds of issues that bothered the hostage-taker, which was a very smart decision. However, he also made a mistake when he inquired about the hostage’s health and safety, without ever asking how Dykes’ well-being was. According to Miller (2007), “Inquire about the welfare of all parties, but focus on the HT first, and then weave in concern for the other people”. However, Lt. Rafferty failed to show that he cared about Dykes, which could possibly have caused the lack of cooperation from Dykes’ side. Finally, despite Dykes being profiles as a promise-keeper, he was never praised for this positive trait, although the negotiators could have used it to make sure the boy would not be hurt.
The analysis of the event has taught me that crisis intervention requires the participation of a very qualified specialist, who felt he could establish trust and rapport with a person in crisis. The crisis also demonstrated that listening without making clear promises is crucial during hostage crises. Crisis intervention also requires a qualified person to assess emotional, cognitive and behavioral functioning of a person in crisis, in order to be able to choose appropriate methods to manage the crisis.
References
Miller, L. (2007, May 22). Hostage negotiations: Psychological strategies for resolving crises. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from https://www.policeone.com/standoff/articles/1247470-Hostage-negotiations-Psychological-strategies-for-resolving-crises/
Phillips, M. M. (n.d.). Inside an FBI hostage crisis: A stolen boy, an angry loner, an underground bunker. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from http://graphics.wsj.com/hostage/
