CRISIS INTERVENTION NEWS

Editor's Note: As promised in Crisis Negotiation News, Summer 2003, here is the full text of the response contributed by John D. Willis. For the text of the dilemma, and other responses, please refer to the Newsletter.

Ethical Dilemma:What Should John Do?

Preliminary Observations

As is true with any casus conscientiae, the information is elliptical and invites queries for fuller information, e.g. What does 'mediation' mean in John's practice? What kinds and complexities of 'custody and visitation cases'? What does 'angry and unreasonable' mean compared with the context of this story? What did John allege concerning his abilities or experience concerning his willing to 'help'? Since none of that is available, the following observations apply to what is given.

Ethical Analysis

1. John may suffer from various levels of insecurity, egotism, and surely, lack of perspective or professional discretion. The text indicates he 'just moved' to the area. His offer may stem more from a desire to establish himself in the community, to demonstrate his value as a new citizen, in that he initiated to 'help' in commonplace events—domestic violence—that any police chief would have training and knowledge. His offer may indeed be more political in that he selected a 'town meeting' at which to make the offer. John's statement itself shows lack of perspective in that, as a newcomer in a rural environment, neither the police nor domestic violence parties would likely welcome a stranger with whom they have no prior relationships and communications.

John has a false sense of what he has to offer since he is willing to extrapolate from a number of 'angry or unreasonable clients' in a mediation context—where he has been either assigned by the Court, or sought by the parties, which in itself has a structure, quasi-authority, and process—and move outside his experiential orbit into the entirely different psychology of domestic abuse criminal behavior, substance abuse, and a wide range of legal issues pertaining to such interventions. John is naïve at best, overreaching at least, and professionally risk-taking in fact. By extending his limited conflict experiences for insertion into a completely different set of conflict dynamics— domestic violence psychology, law enforcement procedures, and crisis negation education, all areas in which he is inexperienced, untrained, and ignorant—John has overstepped his professional boundaries.

His very offer shows his professional immaturity and ignorance of the risks he so readily invites to damage or destroy his mediation practice, should things go awry and a news report reach his workplace region two hours away. Also in contradiction to his ethical obligations as a mediator, John has shown willingness to suspend the interests of the conflicted domestic partners, as well as the accompanying officers who now will have added risk to their own lives (or who may be called upon to use additional levels of force as a direct, or indirect, result of John's likely-inappropriate intervention techniques). John essentially has demonstrated an unusual and dangerous willingness to embrace unnecessary risks that may result in physical injury to others or himself, potential or litigation, and the premature damage or foreclosure of his own mediation practice due to bad press.

2. While we may observe that the Chief's identity is revealed by his 'worry' with the amazing and unique information that (1) a person is drinking because he is upset and (2) owns guns—this is Chief Barney Fife on the job—nevertheless, he has been foolish and unprofessional enough to accept the offer from the self-appointed Helper John. Now our mediator is being asked to fulfill his offer of assistance. Given John's naivete, megalomania, and attendant high-risk behavior, the facts in the narrative suggest John probably will jump on this opportunity to finish the job he has begun!

What should John do? Would that he would simply read the following statement over the telephone.

"Chief Fife, thank you for calling me. I do recall our conversation and my offer to assist. When I spoke, I imagined experiences that were simpler and more manageable than what we have here now. May I ask a few questions? How long have you been Chief? Do you have training in domestic violence situations, and knowledge of the law? Do your officers being sent to this home have training? Have any of you had similar experiences before? Good. My best help may come in the future, if and when the court needs a mediator for the conditions that led up to tonight's crisis. Let me work closely with you at that time, since you know your townspeople well, and together we may be able to do something really good for Sally and Buddy, and for our community. Better get off now and let you go to this critical scene. Get back to me. Bye."

And if Chief Fife, Goober, and Gomer, 'ain't never done nuthin' lak this, please come'?

"Chief, call the state police and request the nearest cruiser. How long will that take? Sally already has been hurt, and I don't like the dead phone line. OK. Let Goober and Gomer pick me up, and I'll do the best I can until the troopers arrive. Meet us there and be sure to bring your bullet. Let's hope that Sally is alive and Buddy has not yet thought of his guns. Is there anything you can tell me about the facts as you know them that can help us all try to save Sally and calm and control Buddy? Let's talk on our cell phones as we drive there about strategy—and keep our fingers crossed. You know the people, I don't. I need you to be calm and tell me what you can. I have basic experience with anger and calming sober patients, but not substance-affected rage or violence in progress. Maybe between our two sets of limited experience we can do some good to help these people until the troops arrive. And if they don't get there in time, let's stay calm and be careful. We'll do the best we can. I can hear panic in your voice. Relax, together we'll do the best we can. Bye."

3. Summary. John's lack of professional experience, education, training, and either psychological immaturity or calculating political maneuver has created this ethical dilemma. Given what we know of ordinary police training, and certainly for police administrators who usually come from many years experience (even in a rural environment), Chief Fife would have thanked John for his offer and neglected to take him up on it.

Nevertheless, as these narratives go, the Chief's own lack of experience and immaturity matched well the problems created by John. Both now share the responsibility for what will or will not unfold.

If John has cooled off in his ardor to serve his community, he will decline the offer and redirect the Chief to use his trained staff or other law enforcement professionals, and re-defining the 'help' to be useful in what John normally does—court-ordered, or party elected, mediation.

If the Chief's call came less out of professional inexperience but his own feelings of inferiority in responding to the situation because of complex personal reasons and/or, if there are no other resources available, then John may embrace the risks and hope his tangentially-related experiences, and skill in anger management, can be applied carefully to this situation.

Moral: He who moves to small town and opens big mouth is heard by all and will have opportunities to be again the talk of the town, for good or ill.