i was trying not to comment on the hostage drama yesterday since i think everyone has said their piece about it and my comments wouldnt be different but since i commented on the Ducat hostage taking incident last 2007 and im trying not to go back to sleep (this recurring insomnia is really a pain in the neck), im going to write something about it.
i learned about the hostage-taking incident as early as noon yesterday. when i learned the hostages were Hong Kong nationals, i immediately thought what T. Failon would say hours later in TV Patrol, what's going to be the effect of this incident in Philippine international relations (i think Failon said what's going to be the repercussions in the international arena or something to that effect)? of course it would have a negative effect but up to what extent? it also made me think, has there been any successful hostage-taking incident, where the hostage-taker was able to get his demands or get a good deal? why do people keep resorting to this criminal act when its not really a good way of claiming demands? maybe he just wants to get the people's attention and be heard? well, the act of taking someone hostage has an international relations origin and primarily used for political ends so it has been tool to make a party take notice and listen to one's demands but its been used for political reasons and not just to air private grievances (so in a way, Ducat had the concept right but his choice of hostages werent).
anyway, i was able to watch the coverage from the point Mendoza's brother was arrested up to the point Mendoza was shot and some of the remaining hostages were rescued. while Mendoza's brother was being arrested, the reporter keeps saying that the police have said that they are worried that Mendoza might be able to see the arrest incident and agitate him. the reporter repeatedly mentioned this. then why do they keep airing it? couldnt they just broadcast the arrest incident footage later, when its "safer" to broadcast it? was the media waiting for the government to tell them to stop the live broadcast of the arrest incicent? shouldnt the PNP and the media have a protocol for broadcasting sensitive police operations like this? weve had some notable hostage taking situations in the past, the PNP and the media should have set-up a way to properly broadcast this kind of operations.
Mendoza's brother shouldnt have resisted arrest either. if he's worried that his arrest isnt valid, we have legal procedures to remedy that. if he's worried about whether something "bad" might happen to him, all he had to do was cooperate peacefully, tell the media he is being arrested, inform the media who are his arresting officers and tell the media where the police is taking him. i think thats some sufficient safeguard to make sure his arresting officers dont do anything stupid.
as for the Assault team's manner of taking an offensive stance, i think the footage speaks for itself. im no expert on hostage crisis situations but i think our police is still very much insufficiently trained. as for the negotiators, i dont know how the negotiations went but the fact it took that long, an improvement in negotiating skills should be done (they know the hostage taker was one of their own so they should have thought of ways how to handle the negotiations suited for him, even the offensive operation). but i would have to praise them for their cautiousness. or maybe not. some members of the assault team didnt have bullet proof vests and one had his police cap worn backwards (some of those who entered the bus while Mendoza was still alive werent wearing any protective gear. thats how brave our policemen are. or maybe its the latest technology thats why i didnt see it). but i think its still good news that some hostages were still rescued after Mendoza was shot.
as for Mendoza being shot, my initial reaction then was, why the crap did they shoot Mendoza? i would rather have him prosecuted than be killed. killing him is doing him a favor. now he doesnt have to worry about his non-reinstatement. he will no longer feel pain, suffering, regret, etc. if i was Hong Kong, i would like to see the killer of my nationals prosecuted and incarcerated. but then again, if i was the sniper who shot him (and i do mean, if i was the sniper, im not saying this is what the sniper thought. the sniper could just be probably itching to have the incident over with), i probably would have shot him too. my information was he is heavily armed, i have a clear shot and only seconds (or maybe a split second) to make a decision. he could have some sort of explosives tied all over his body and if allowed to be arrested, he could detonate himself and cause further damage. but then again, i think sniper's are just given the go signal to shoot when they have the chance and doesnt really exercise that much discretion in performing their duties.
its easy to criticize but when youre actually there, things are really different. even the field reporters fail to see what's obvious to an objective observer. its difficult not to be caught in the tension and drama when youre actually in the middle of it. judgment's impaired, time is limited. im not saying this is an excuse because it reflects inadequate training and preparation. also lack of sufficient safeguards (thats how you deal with high tension situations). but taking these into consideration, i think the effort and attempt to do it properly is close to satisfactory. the policemen involved deserve some credit for being able to rescue some of the hostages and taking down the hostage taker but shouldnt be allowed to repeat their shortcomings and should do something to address it.
No comments:
Post a Comment