Упражнение 1.

Use of Non-Police Negotiators in a Hostage Incident

While I’m on the topic of who should or shouldn’t negotiate, I’d like to warn you about non-police negotiators. The SOARU (Special Operation and Research Unit) points out that using “civilian” negotiators like members of the subject’s family, friends, clergy, a mental health professional, or an attorney is a high-risk proposition. Since these people have generally not been trained in negotiation, they will probably, under the stress of the situation, revert to their usual way of talking with the subject. All negotiators have heard stories about family members who come to the scene and say, “Let me talk to him, he’ll listen to me”. When they get on the phone, some will call the subject a jerk; another will say, “Hang in there, Joey, we’re all proud of you”.

Clergymen, on the other hand, may get excessively moralistic or theological, while attorneys may have difficulty deciding which side they represent. Even mental health professionals with experience in crisis intervention may have little to offer if they have not had negotiation training. They are accustomed to people coming to them and asking for help, not resisting it. And, generally, they don’t have the mental “set” to expect demands and to deal with lying or threats if those demands aren’t met. After getting negotiation training, however, they can work well as consultants to the negotiation team.

Finally, if a non-police negotiator is being used and you decide to go tactical, that person may be reluctant (or may refuse) to participate in a tactical response and may alert the subject by changing or disrupting the negotiations. So, unless there are specific reasons to the contrary, negotiators should be drawn from our trained officers, with professional consultants to back them up if necessary.

Упражнение 1.

А) Выпишите из текста № 1 пять предложений с модальными глаголами. Подчеркните модальные глаголы. Переведите предложения на русский язык.

1. While I’m on the topic of who should or shouldn’t negotiate, I’d like to warn you about non-police negotiators. –Когда я рассуждаю на тему о том, кому следует или не следует вести переговоры, я бы хотел предостеречь вас о переговорщиках не из числа полицейских.

2. Clergymen, on the other hand, may get excessively moralistic or theological, while attorneys may have difficulty deciding which side they represent. – С другой стороны, священники могут оказаться слишком моралистичными, в то время как для адвокатов может оказаться сложным выбор, чью сторону они представляют.

3. Even mental health professionals with experience in crisis intervention may have little to offer if they have not had negotiation training. – Даже психологи с опытом работы в кризисных ситуациях могут не справиться, если они не прошли необходимую подготовку.

4. After getting negotiation training, however, they can work well as consultants to the negotiation team. – После того, как они получат необходимую подготовку, они могут работать консультантами в команде по переговорам.

5. So, unless there are specific reasons to the contrary, negotiators should be drawn from our trained officers, with professional consultants to back them up if necessary. – Итак, пока на то нет особых причин, тех, кто будет вести переговоры необходимо выбирать из числа обученных сотрудников и, если это необходимо, профессиональных консультантов для поддержки.

Б) В следующих предложениях подчеркните модальные глаголы или их эквиваленты. Переведите предложения на русский язык.

1. Safety and control must be the prime consideration in the decision-making process. – Безопасность и контроль должны стоять на первом месте в процессе принятия решений.

2. We are to differentiate terrorists from the wide range of criminal personalities. – Мы должны отличать террористов от широкого круга других преступников.

3. We have to find ways of breaking the vicious circle of repetition of offending. – Мы должны найти способ разорвать порочный круг совершения преступлений.