Twenty-Eight Suicides: the Law Enforcement Experience

Frederick J. Lanceley

11/8/2018, 1:18 PM

TWENTY-EIGHT SUICIDES: THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE

By

Frederick J. Lanceley

In the early 1980s, the author incorporated crisis/suicide intervention into the hostage negotiation course at the FBI Academy. In preparing to teach the course, the author took some crisis/suicide intervention courses, studied many articles, and read several books by authorities in the field. Over the course of several years in teaching suicide intervention to law enforcement negotiators and working suicides, it became increasingly obvious that the law enforcement experience did not match the literature on suicide.

Becauseof this apparent disparity, the author conducted a research project that looked at the final moments of the suicidal person’s life. Twenty-eight incidents were reviewed in detail by systematically interviewing negotiators who were in the author’s seminars and who were talking to individuals when thosepersons committed suicide. The observations and recommendations in this paper are based upon that research, personal experience, crisis negotiator reports and courtroom observations by the author.

CRISIS NEGOTIATOR OBSERVATIONS ON SUICIDE

The mental health profession has made very significant strides in the treatment of depression in recent years. However, few mental health professionals have been on-scene to witness a suicide. Who is sometimes there when someone commits suicide? Law enforcement.

There is no doubt that suicide and crisis centers have helped many thousands of people across the United States. However, studies have indicated that the emergence of these centers has not significantly affected the suicide rate in the United States. One explanation for the lack of impact on the suicide rate is that only the mildly suicidal person telephones a suicide/crisis hotline. If suicide/crisis hotlines are not in contact with seriously suicidal persons or those who actually commit suicide, who does interact with these individuals? Law enforcement.

Law enforcement interacts with persons at all levels of suicidal intentfrom the mildly depressed, lonely, suicidal homemakerto a man standing at the top of a bridge threatening to jump or sitting in his car with a gun in his mouth. Law enforcement and, particularly, negotiators work with the seriously suicidal and law enforcement is, on occasion, there when people commit suicide.

If one wanted to know what a person who is intent on suicide looks like, it seemed reasonable to ask someone who was there when the suicide occurred and that is what the author did. Via an interview protocol, the author questionednegotiators about their experience with persons who went on to commit suicide.

The results of the author’s study seem to contradict several points seen in the literature and the following explanations are offered to explain this difference:

• One explanation is the presence of law enforcement. People who commit suicide in the presence of law enforcement may act differentlythan persons who commit suicide while alone.

• The second explanation is that the literature reflects the subject’s behavior in the days and weeks before the suicide and not his behavior and emotions in the hours and moments before the suicide. Relatives and friends report that the suicidal individual was drinking heavily or using drugs, was agitated or highly emotional, doing things that were not like them such as being promiscuous or reckless, etc. These behaviors are those of someone in crisis and not necessarily someone who goes on to commit suicide. Apparently, in the moments and hours before suicide, the person is quite different from the days and weeks before the suicide.

NEGOTIATOR INTRODUCTION

Historically in the United States, hostage negotiators have not indicated their rank to a hostage taker. The idea was that if a negotiator told a hostage taker his or her rank the hostage taker might think that the negotiator had the power to fulfill the hostage taker’s demands. However, in working suicide situations,crisis negotiatorswant the subject to know that he or she has the power to help the suicidal individual.

Commonly, suicidal subjects feel that no one can help them and there is no hope that their psychological pain will ever cease. Convincing the subject that the negotiator has the rank, power and authority to help and thereby introduce hope is a major negotiation objective.

When working with a suicidal individual the negotiator should use rank as part of his or her introduction and continue to indicate rank throughout the negotiation. For example, when re-contacting a suicidal subject the negotiator should say, “Mr. Smith, this is Officer Jones again.”

Negotiators from one major police department said, “When asked about our rank, we always tell subjects that we are sergeants regardless of our true rank.” These very successful negotiators are, in effect, saying, “I am a sergeant and I have the power to help you.”

When working with a suicidal individual, the negotiator’s task is to convince the subject that the negotiator has the power or has access to the power to be of some help. In a suicide situation, the negotiator needs to be perceived as powerful. In a hostage situation, he or she does not want to be viewed as powerful or the decision-maker.

NEGOTIATOR/SUBJECT RAPPORT

The rapport that the negotiator wants to establish is a doctor/patient-type relationship, not a friendship. If one has a serious health problem, the patient wants to believe that his or her doctor has the special knowledge, power and skills to assist them with their recovery. Mental health professionals and medical doctors do not ask or encourage their patients to call them by their first name. The patient experiences a level of comfort and confidence in the formal relationship with their doctor. The patient or suicidal subject addresses that professional as “doctor, sergeant or officer” not “Bill, Bob or Mary.”

One of the early objectives of negotiations is to establish rapport with the subject. A very experienced, successful negotiator from a large department spoke of a suicidal subject with whom he was working. Early on, the subject sounded depressed but over time the subject sounded better and better. In fact, the subject began laughing and joking with the negotiator. In other words, there was great rapport. The negotiator was feeling good about the progress of the negotiation and was giving a “thumbs up” to his sergeant until he heard the fatal gunshot.

In the author’s study, there was excellent negotiator/subject rapport in many of the cases. The tentative explanation is that the suicidal subject and negotiator developed a friendship not rapport. The suicidal person liked the negotiator and related to the negotiator as a friend not as an authority figure who disapproved of the suicidal action.

At the point where the negotiator loses his or her identity as an authority figure and becomes more of a friend to the subject, he or she begins losing ground. A law enforcement officer’s authority and disapproval of the suicidal actionholds some people back from committing suicide. A negotiator can establish rapport and communicate empathy but still maintain a position of authority much like a doctor does.

Typically, crisis negotiators do not see subject/negotiator rapport established in suicide-by-cop cases. The subject often makes angry gestures and screams at the negotiator up to the end.

PERTURBATION

In the literature, suicidal persons are often described as being in a state of perturbation, that is, they are highly agitated or perturbed. In talking to negotiators who were there when someone committed suicide, the suicidal person was most often calm. These individuals were not agitated at all.

The consistent exception, however, is in suicide-by-cop cases. These individuals, typically, do not calm down nor is any rapport established. Generally, they sound angry and agitated right up to the end. Interestingly, if there are innocent persons with the subject or the subject talks to people on the telephone he will sometimes sound calm while talking to them. If a subject fails to calm down over five or more hours, it would behoove a negotiator to consider the possibility of a suicide-by-cop scenario.

A PROBLEM FOR GOOD NEGOTIATORS?

Many observers would say that an officer or deputy who had the ability or skills to calm a citizen in short order and who can readily establish rapport would be a good negotiator. A surprising outcome of this study was that good negotiators were “losing” suicidal persons. Were these good crisis negotiators establishing a “friendship”rather than rapport and thereby inadvertently lowering the barrier to suicide?

If those who commit suicide are typicallycalm, do negotiators want to calm people down? It is suspected that negotiator still wants a calm subject. However, we do not know the difference between someone who is calm and comes out seeking help and someone who is calm and goes on to commit suicide. So, merely calming a suicidal person is not nearly enough.

HONEST AND STRAIGHTFORWARD?

Many years ago, a prominent psychiatrist taught in negotiation classes that depressed, suicidal persons wouldbe honest and straightforward with the negotiator. This idea was passed along in FBI seminars for years. Now, this negotiator has his own opinion based upon personal experience, the opinion of other experienced negotiators and the current study. Many negotiators have seen depressed, suicidal persons tell outrageous lies on many occasions. This negotiator’s advice is to believe nothing a suicidal person says including a surrender statement. The idea of having a “contract” with the negotiator about not committing suicide while off the telephone may be worth trying but do not count on it.

DRUGS AND ALCOHOL

The suicide literature reports that people who commit suicide are involved with drugs, alcohol, and use of drugs and alcohol is a high risk factor. Actually, only a small number of the persons in the current study were doing drugs or alcohol when they committed suicide. In the current study, the people who committed suicide were generally sober. Many negotiators have observed that most people with whom they negotiate are drunk or under the influence of drugs. Strangely, perhaps being sober is a high-risk indicator in suicide cases! People kill themselves while sober in negotiated incidents.

In the current study, only four ofthe 28 who committed suicide were using drugs or alcohol. In fact, two of the four were drinking in a “celebratory” manner and were not considered inebriated by the negotiation team.

MEASURING NEGOTIATION PROGRESS IN A SUICIDE CASE

Over the years,the writer’s position on measuring negotiation progress in suicide cases has evolved. Early on, he had a list of indicators of negotiation progress. Then, he changed his seminar note-taking guide to read “possible” indicators of negotiation progress. Now, he is not sure that there are any guaranteed indicators of negotiation progress. The writer would not even bet on the words, “I’m coming out,” because persons have committed suicide after telling the negotiator of their intention to surrender.

Give up on the idea of measuring progress in a negotiated incident involving a suicidal individual. At this stage of the negotiation art, it cannot be done accurately.

SUDDEN IMPROVEMENT

Many crisis negotiators were taughtto beware of any sudden improvement while negotiating with suicidal persons. The idea being if the subject sounds depressed and suicidal then suddenly sounds improved for no apparent reason, the difference may indicate that they have made up their mind to proceed with the suicide. If so, the pressure to make the “yes or no” decision to commit suicide has been made and the subject is now ready to proceed. This idea has been taught for many years.

The author’s advice, surprising as it may seem, is to be wary of any improvement, sudden or otherwise. If the subject is depressed at the beginning of a negotiation, he or she will be depressed at the end of the negotiation. If mental health professionals could lift people out of a depression merely by talking to them for four or five hours, it would bankrupt the multi-billion dollar drug industry. Contrary to the opinion of Mr. Tom Cruise, most clinically depressed persons need medication.

The major difference between the start of a negotiation and the end of a negotiation will be the subject’s willingness to accept help and his or her belief that the negotiator can provide that help. By selling the idea that the negotiator can provide help, he or she is also providing hope to the subject.

Crisis negotiators should not let their guard down just because the subject sounds better or is talking about the future. A suicide threat is not over until the subject is in handcuffs and being taken off for treatment.

“REGULAR” SUICIDES

In one of the 28 cases in the current study, a psychiatrist testified, in essence, against the police,in what the author is certain was a suicide-by-cop case. The doctor said without knowing anything about suicide-by-cop that the scenario did not have some classic suicide indicators. If suicide-by-cop cases looked like “regular” suicides,society would have recognized the phenomenon long before the early 1980s. Suicide-by-cop scenarios look different from “regular” suicides.

CONTAINMENT IN SUICIDE SITUATIONS

In one of the 28 cases, officers testified as to the subject being contained. Be very careful regarding containment in suicide situations. What keeps most subjects contained is fear of the tactical team, that is, the fear of being killed or injured. If the subject wants to die and has no fear of the tactical team, containment can become a dangerous illusion.

TELEPHONE CALLS FROM SUICIDAL PEOPLE

In the author’s seminar note-taking guide there was a section entitled “Telephone calls from suicidal people.” The author hadbeen saying that suicidal people call the authorities because they want verification and permission meaning that they want someone to say, “You’re doing the right thing and you have my permission.” Additionally, they do not want to die alone. Great answer, right? There is only one problem with this great answer, suicidal people do notcall the police; not one in 28 cases of the current study. Suicidal persons may call suicide hotlines but not law enforcement. Family members called in most of the suicide calls in the current study.

VINDICTIVE GOOD-BYES

The literature on suicide indicates that vindictive good-byes are not common. Vindictive good-byes may not be common but that does not mean that the crisis negotiator will not see a vindictive good-bye. One suicidal subject made certain the negotiator could see him before putting a gun to his head and committing suicide. Another subject hanged himself from an overpass that he knew was on his estranged wife’s route home from work. Another subject instructed in a suicide note that his ashes be spread on the driveway so that his wife could continue to drive over him as she had been doing for the past 40 years. Still another subject told the negotiator that he had read all about crisis and suicide intervention and told the negotiator before killing himself, “You suck at it!” Vindictive good-byes may not be common but they do happen.

TRADING AND BARGAINING

The negotiator should not attempt any serious trading or bargaining in suicide situations. If the subject commits suicide and the negotiator did not give the subject some small thing,the negotiator and his or her agency are going to look insensitivein court as they did in one of the 28 cases. If the subject wants a cigarette and if the authorities can do it safely, give him a cigarette. It is recognized that this idea will not go over very well with some command and tactical personnel, especially if the subject has fired shots. However, the author can report from personal experience how bad the authorities look in court if they do not acquiesce on some small point such as providing a cigarette. The quid-pro-quoposition, that is, give him nothing without something in return that command may insist upon, is a hostage negotiation idea and not appropriate for suicide cases.

BAD OUTCOMES

If negotiating with someone who is bipolar and that subject commits suicide or the authorities kill him, guaranteed, if sued, one of the first things the negotiator will be asked in court is his or her training regarding bipolar disorder. The author receives several telephone calls per a year from attorneys looking to sue law enforcement agencies. Usually the subject was suicidal, wanting to commit suicide-by-cop or was schizophrenic.

Lawsuits arise where there is a bad outcome to a bad incident and bad feelings arise because of the outcome. Bad outcomes and the resultant bad feelings lead to bad jury decisions. For example if a child, a mentally ill person or a woman dies at the hands of law enforcement or by suicide, the public generally believes that there must have been somethinglaw enforcement could have done or done better but did not.