Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
I loved it! Gary Noesner is awesome and his story is really interesting and in depth. He went through so much throughout his time in the FBI and I loved reading about his perspective on negotiation. He seems like such a nice man. I thought the end was a tiny bit slow but loved it overall.
informative
medium-paced
I hate to say this book was boring because hostage negotiation is anything but boring, but I just could not get into this book. So many unneeded details in my opinion, this is a personal perspective, but it did not capture my attention at all. Maybe it was the writing style.
What an incredibly suspenseful, engaging and thought provoking memoir about trying to speak to humans while they’re at their worst. Loaded with so much wisdom while remaining a page-turning read is quite the feat. Strongly recommend any human with a beating heart to read and enjoy this book.
dark
informative
tense
fast-paced
After watching the television miniseries Waco (2018), I was compelled to listen to Gary Noesner's book, since it was credited as being one of the inspirations for the series. This was an incredibly fast read, and despite the heavy content, I found Noesner's writing to be quite compelling. Sometimes reading law enforcement-centric stories can make me a little uncomfortable due to the way they can glorify violence and/or authoritative power, but Noesner himself calls out this tendency for tactical units to lead with aggression, and he counters this by explaining why he thinks that preserving human life should always be a goal. He further demonstrates the ways that leading with listening and communicating has proven successful in the past in actual real-life siege situations. If you found the Waco miniseries to be interesting, I highly recommend this book to provide additional context and insights.
I thought that this book and the authors first hand knowledge with many of the hostage and siege situations in the late 90s was very interesting and enlightening.
informative
medium-paced
dark
informative
medium-paced
I was listening to the American Scandal podcast about the standoff at Waco and they referenced this book so in hearing how the negotiators were overlooked by command I decided to check out this book to see what Noesner's perspective on that event was.
I got the answers to that but also a lot more. Being involved in the development of negotiating tactics gives him an interesting view into not just specific negotiations and incidents but on the concepts that have developed the art and how different situations require different strategies and that the most important things are to listen, adapt and not be driven by your own emotions. Knowing what your goals are and being focused on those instead of what it may look like is important. I thought that this could be a dry book but it was none of that.
I got the answers to that but also a lot more. Being involved in the development of negotiating tactics gives him an interesting view into not just specific negotiations and incidents but on the concepts that have developed the art and how different situations require different strategies and that the most important things are to listen, adapt and not be driven by your own emotions. Knowing what your goals are and being focused on those instead of what it may look like is important. I thought that this could be a dry book but it was none of that.
I really enjoyed this book. Basically, it's a bunch of stories about various hostage negotiations from the author's career, which he uses to illustrate his beliefs about the utility of negotiation in law enforcement. It's written in a very conversational, matter-of-fact way. The various anecdotes are always interesting, and sometimes tense, but they never feel dressed-up.
At first I thought it was strange that the book begins with an example where negotiation "failed". He essentially tricked a guy into walking into an area where a sniper could get a clear shot. This really shocked me, and sounds incredibly cold-hearted, but it did succeed in freeing the woman and child this man was threatening to kill, and he believed that this was the only solution that would save their lives. Later the author gives some reasons for starting the book with this story, and I'm sure it's partially to begin the book with something dramatic as well. But on top of that, it helps the reader understand something about the author. The author criticizes overly aggressive policing throughout the book, but he is not opposed to the use of force. He believes that sometimes it is necessary for law enforcement to kill people, and that one of the major uses of negotiation is to provide time and information that will help a tactical squad prepare to go in forcefully. This is probably a good thing to get across right away so people don't get the wrong idea.
The author uses these anecdotes to illustrate the development of hostage negotiation as a discipline, to discuss the uses of negotiation, and also to criticize some flaws he sees in law enforcement in general, and particularly in situations where he thinks negotiation could've solved a problem but failed to due to impatience, inexperience, or mismanaged from the officer in charge of the situation. His criticisms are mostly fairly nuanced, but he is very blunt on a few occasions, particularly when it comes to Waco, where he names specific individuals who he thinks undermined the negotiations, escalated the conflict, and just in general managed the situation poorly. I'm sure a lot of people come to this book particularly because of Waco (especially after that miniseries where Michael Shannon played the author), but it makes up a relatively small portion of the book and focuses on the role he played and what he personally observed, which I think is for the best. This book would've been poorer if a lot of it was taken up with a detailed blow-by-blow analysis of Waco.
I do wish the author spoke a bit more about some of the broader societal issues involved. He's clearly very loyal to the FBI, but also willing to examine its failing critically in some cases. However, he completely refuses to discuss the political or moral consequences of the FBI's (and his own) actions in some very political cases. It seems like there's this attitude that the politics of the situation are irrelevant, and he just needs to focus on his job. I can admire that kind of professionalism, but sometimes his blank statements of fact bring up some very obvious questions that he simply doesn't even acknowledge. Still, I respect that he chose to focus the book on his own experiences and mostly limit his thoughts to the narrower topic of hostage negotiation.
At first I thought it was strange that the book begins with an example where negotiation "failed". He essentially tricked a guy into walking into an area where a sniper could get a clear shot. This really shocked me, and sounds incredibly cold-hearted, but it did succeed in freeing the woman and child this man was threatening to kill, and he believed that this was the only solution that would save their lives. Later the author gives some reasons for starting the book with this story, and I'm sure it's partially to begin the book with something dramatic as well. But on top of that, it helps the reader understand something about the author. The author criticizes overly aggressive policing throughout the book, but he is not opposed to the use of force. He believes that sometimes it is necessary for law enforcement to kill people, and that one of the major uses of negotiation is to provide time and information that will help a tactical squad prepare to go in forcefully. This is probably a good thing to get across right away so people don't get the wrong idea.
The author uses these anecdotes to illustrate the development of hostage negotiation as a discipline, to discuss the uses of negotiation, and also to criticize some flaws he sees in law enforcement in general, and particularly in situations where he thinks negotiation could've solved a problem but failed to due to impatience, inexperience, or mismanaged from the officer in charge of the situation. His criticisms are mostly fairly nuanced, but he is very blunt on a few occasions, particularly when it comes to Waco, where he names specific individuals who he thinks undermined the negotiations, escalated the conflict, and just in general managed the situation poorly. I'm sure a lot of people come to this book particularly because of Waco (especially after that miniseries where Michael Shannon played the author), but it makes up a relatively small portion of the book and focuses on the role he played and what he personally observed, which I think is for the best. This book would've been poorer if a lot of it was taken up with a detailed blow-by-blow analysis of Waco.
I do wish the author spoke a bit more about some of the broader societal issues involved. He's clearly very loyal to the FBI, but also willing to examine its failing critically in some cases. However, he completely refuses to discuss the political or moral consequences of the FBI's (and his own) actions in some very political cases. It seems like there's this attitude that the politics of the situation are irrelevant, and he just needs to focus on his job. I can admire that kind of professionalism, but sometimes his blank statements of fact bring up some very obvious questions that he simply doesn't even acknowledge. Still, I respect that he chose to focus the book on his own experiences and mostly limit his thoughts to the narrower topic of hostage negotiation.