If you’ve shot at a range or have taken more advanced handgun classes, the term “hostage scenario” likely comes to mind when you see one of those targets that depict a bad guy with a gun mostly concealed by an innocent hostage. Though a favorite situation in fiction, TV, and movies and a key drill in many classes, the reality is that a true hostage scenario is extremely rare, especially for a civilian encounter.
Most of the research on such events focuses on politically driven groups taking hostages, usually in other countries. The FBI does track civilian law enforcement crisis interventions in the United States, finding that 88% do not involve taking a hostage and are more in the ‘just leave me alone’ category. These situations are also more likely to involve a negative outcome, such as injury or death. Of the 12% that involve hostage taking, the person is more likely to be open to a negotiated end without violence. The odds of a civilian gun owner being faced with a hostage situation is very low, but never zero. Additionally, when confronted by such a situation, law enforcement has a solid track record of talking such situations to a non-violent conclusion, but there is still always a chance for a violent end. These base rates are a good place to start if we decide to plan around such an event. Such plans should start with negotiation and de-escalation.
In Training
I have shot hostage drills in most of the classes I have taken, from short four-hour handgun courses focusing on tactics to almost all the two to five-day long classes I have participated in across the country. The drills often vary based on the condition of the firearms (holstered, at ready, or on target). The targets may also vary but are generally similar with a non-combatant as the primary target area and the threat behind with only a small portion of their chest, weapon arm, and head visible. More than once we were asked to write the name of a loved one the hostage’s silhouette. The focus of this drill is generally fast accuracy at closer range with a general goal of one-shot-stop head shots on the threat with no hits on the hostage. I have often used such drills in my own classes.
The problem, if you want to call it that, is that the drill does not address the actual reality of a hostage situation. The reason I question if this is a problem, is that few instructors would claim this drill is about preparing someone for a true hostage scenario. The drill is about increasing the perceived stakes of a class-based drill (misses are no longer just misses) and focusing on the overall need for highly accurate shooting.
Most of the time I have shot this drill the instructors made it clear the drill was about accuracy and the ‘cost’ of misses. However, the problem becomes real when students interpret these practice drills as preparing them for a real-life hostage scenario. A true hostage scenario involves far more than just shooting a static target. Preparing for a true hostage scenario includes determining the intent of the threat (remember most of these events involving law enforcement end with negotiation), having a preplanned set of communications with the hostage prior to the event, engaging the threat verbally before acting, and only at the very end ‘taking the shot’ if absolutely necessary. In many cases, resorting to shooting the hostage-taker is extremely risky.
In the Real World: Everything Before the Shot
It is hard to think of a more stressful situation than having a loved one taken hostage and threatened. Thus, pre-planning is key. The following steps make a few assumptions. The first assumption is that the hostage taker is allowing some communication. In other words, some form of negotiation, even if chaotic, is happening. The second is that the person being held hostage is at least somewhat rational and able to respond and act if needed. If these two assumptions are not true, the risks of not acting are likely already exceeding the risks of acting. But if these assumptions are true, pre-planning will likely result in a better outcome.
What is the situation?
The first step must be an honest appraisal of the situation.
- How agitated is the threat?
- Is help on the way?
- Is the person taken hostage behaving rationally?
- Is the threat willing to negotiate?
- What is the condition and position of the hostage?
All these factors need to be considered. At one end of the spectrum, there is a relatively rational hostage taker who is willing to talk. Police are soon to arrive and the threat is clearly looking for a way out, all while holding a relatively rational hostage. Based on law enforcement data this is a situation that can likely be ended peacefully. The other end of the spectrum is an irrational and dangerous hostage taker who is unwilling to discuss any terms. Police are unlikely to arrive in time, the taker communicates their willingness to kill and/or die, and the hostage is behaving irrationally as well. In this situation ‘taking the shot’ may be the only option. The problem lies in successfully evaluating all the situations that exist between these two polar opposites.
The first key in any situation is to keep calm, do your best to not escalate the situation, and as much as possible keep the threat talking. The longer the communication, the more opportunities for a successful resolution and/or the arrival of further help. However, unlike in the movies, do not under any circumstances disarm. Communication and negotiation are occurring as you both have leverage; you don’t want the hostage harmed and the threat does not want to be harmed. If you surrender your weapon, you have given up all your leverage and it is likely that you will now become a hostage as well. Without leverage, the possibility of both you and the original hostage being killed has increased.
What is the plan?
Once the situation has been appraised the next step is coordinating a plan. If there is a plan in place with the person being held hostage, then communication can be pre-arranged for even such a stressful situation. The person being held hostage can provide information on their own assessment of the situation, their willingness for the threat to be stopped, and finally to aid in a positive outcome. The communication can be very easily done, with preplanning, right under the nose of the hostage taker.
In the case of my wife and I, we have set up a simple set of questions using real and fake names. If either of us is taken hostage and the other is considering taking defensive action, they are to ask if the hostage is all right using a fake name. So, in our case, I would ask my wife Meghan if she was the hostage, “How are you holding up, are you all right Sheila?” My use of her wrong name communicates that I have decided that the situation needs me to act. Her response will tell me if she agrees. If she responds using my actual name, in our case “Joel” then she disagrees with me and is unwilling at this time for me to act. However, if she responded, “I’m doing as well as can be expected, Dan.” This tells me she agrees with my assessment and is ready to act. If we have both used fake names, she is waiting for me to say, “OK” to start a preplanned sequence of actions.
Preparing to take the shot.
Having given and gotten the responses using the wrong names I can now determine we are both on the same page and the hostage is awaiting the trigger word. If possible, I will now re-engage the hostage, taker asking them to tell me exactly what they want. The goal is to get them thinking and talking. As they talk, I will respond clearly with the trigger word “OK” in the middle of one of their sentences. This is the trigger for the hostage to drop dead weight (go limp) in their grip if possible, with the intent of catching them off guard and removing the hostage from shielding the hostage taker as much as possible from incoming fire. Near simultaneously, the second the hostage goes dead weight I am ready to take the needed shot to end the threat.
The pre-planning and ‘secret’ communication hopefully worked in conjunction to unify the defender and the hostages’ actions. Additionally, by staging the actions it becomes easier to distract the hostage taker. Finally, the combined actions will hopefully result in a greatly increased chance of a successful stoppage of the threat.
Conclusions
Hopefully, it is clear that the accuracy of the hostage drill, though an important skill, is just the culmination of several steps that can work either toward or against a successful outcome. Fortunately, very few of us will ever find ourselves in such a situation, but that does not mean that having a simple plan ready is not worthwhile. We often plan for events we hope will never happen, and that is no different for a hostage scenario. Having a plan will make sure both innocent people involved can work in concert to either negotiate the situation to a peaceful outcome, or if absolutely necessary, work together to stop the threat.
Note: Thank you to Captain Anthony Gregory (Homecroft, IN Police Department) for his review and comments on this manuscript.
