People often confuse de-escalation as “backing down”, rather than as a means of achieving a desired outcome by non-physical means. De-escalation should never occur without there also being a demonstration of having the capability of being able to also end the confrontation physically. Part of the process of de-escalation, is determining whether the aggressor is willing to resolve whatever dispute there is through non-physical means. If there is no demonstration of willingness, then you know that you have no choice but to make a pre-emptive assault – I say an assault, as it should be all out and continuous, until your assailant has either taken themselves out of the fight or is no longer able to physically continue.

When crisis negotiators deal with hostage takers, they make it abundantly clear that, despite wanting to end the confrontation peacefully, they are also equally able to resolve the dispute via tactical means. You may not be in the same position of strength as the FBI or the IDF’s Crisis Negotiation Unit (CNU) however you must still demonstrate that you have the ability to physically defend yourself. De-escalation can only be effective if your aggressor believes it is in their best interest to resolve whatever disagreement or injustice they believe has been committed without resorting to violence. If they believe you have no ability to defend yourself then they have little reason to move off the path of violence.

This also means you have to have a zero tolerance approach to physical action, and understand when the time for talking is over. Whilst you attempt to de-escalate you should also be setting up your pre-emptive assault and be ready to deal with any attack that is made. Emotional and angry people are volatile, and even if you believe they are responding to what you are saying, can snap at any moment until the dispute is fully/completely resolved. In most Hostage situations, the firing of a single shot, will mean that action rather than further talking is required. If in an argument, somebody touches you, pushes you etc, action is required.

It is worth noting that aggressive individuals have little if any idea of what they wish to accomplish through violence, other than a belief that they are entitled to act this way and some form of vague justice will be served. This means that you are not dealing with someone in a rational frame of mind. When someone feels they are entitled to act a certain way, it is almost impossible to argue against them, and so even if you believe that you are being effective at calming them down, that entitlement will not disappear, you are merely presenting an alternative method (a non-physical one) to meeting their goal(s).

Hostage and Crisis Negotiation is a relatively new and modern science, and like a lot of new methods of law enforcement, was initially founded on ideas, rather than reality, which lead to it being based on many false premises. One of these that soon became apparent was that despite much of the planning that may have gone into a hostage taking incident, the actual goals are shaky, fluid or unclear, which soon become apparent when negotiations start i.e. they don’t really know what they wish to accomplish. It is often one of the goals of a crisis negotiator to frame or set the goals of the hostage taker. This is less the case in acts of hostage taking involving terrorists however when Palestinian groups kidnap Israeli Soldiers there is often no clear agenda or distinct/particular demands that accompany the kidnapping – it is more that an opportunity presented itself and a vague understanding that the hostage would be valuable. Often you will have to frame and present an alternative outcome to your aggressor and put alternative solutions on the table e.g. offering to replace a spilt drink, paying for dry cleaning etc, in order to resolve the dispute - all the time being ready, willing and able to act physically.

De-escalation although the preferred method of dealing with potentially violent situations shouldn’t be seen as the only one and you should be equally willing to use physical force should the situation dictate.