"Told them point blank" -- I mean, there was no private channel where police could confidentially tell the hostages about this. It's a negotiation point -- make the hostage-takers aware that they do not have unlimited immunity from consequences just because they have hostages. If the police had caused injury to come to a hostage, whether as collateral damage from police action or from the captors retaliating for police action, the afterwards I can see this being a cause of concern for the hostages.
"Pop science" seems orthogonal to this concept -- it's like saying the concept of "jury of your peers" is pop science. It's a phenomenon that has some descriptive power, that's all. I mean, if you're going to say that in a hostage situation, it's okay for the police to deliberately endanger or harm the hostages because of Stockholm Syndrome, then that's clearly a misuse. But in hostage negotation and rescue, keeping in mind that the hostages may not be sympathetic or cooperative with the authorities seems like a really great thing to keep in mind.
"Pop science" seems orthogonal to this concept -- it's like saying the concept of "jury of your peers" is pop science. It's a phenomenon that has some descriptive power, that's all. I mean, if you're going to say that in a hostage situation, it's okay for the police to deliberately endanger or harm the hostages because of Stockholm Syndrome, then that's clearly a misuse. But in hostage negotation and rescue, keeping in mind that the hostages may not be sympathetic or cooperative with the authorities seems like a really great thing to keep in mind.