Before everything break into hell, the fury of the agitated Mendoza worsened when he saw his police brother manhandled like a “pig” from the bus TV. The exchange of dialogues between hostage-taker Rolando Mendoza and the press represented by Michael Rogas and Erwin Tulfo confirms that.
Already enraged in the impossibility of his reinstatement to the police force, he is believed to have started shooting his hostages when his brother “who has nothing to do with the incident” was in police custody. Mendoza, the transcript says, also saw SWATs and snipers surrounding the bus. Felt threatened, he asked that they move back. In many instances we read that he threatened to kill his hostages if . . . and a lot of ifs.
The enemy, able to see the location of snipers going after him implies poor training of the officers. Nothing is simpler than that.
What was wrong when all of the demands were granted instead of the horror and death of the foreigners who were here for a visit? Mendoza could have come to his senses, calmed down and end the story of the day. That does not necessarily mean that had he survived, he would not be charged with hostage taking or endangering the lives of the innocent. The probability of his conviction on that ground was very probable, anyway. Other charges such as illegal possession of firearms, insubordination and usurpation of power were also possible.
The police say that they arrested the other Mendoza believing that he was in cahoots with his brother inside the bus. But how could that be proven on the spot? What if Gregorio was there to pacify his brother? Rolando said many times that they have to release his brother or else --- again the threat; he would finish all of his hostages.
In that fiasco, is the press totally to be blamed?
I don’t think so.
Note how Rogas and Tulfo did their best to appease the deranged former police captain. The two radio personalities, one on the scene and the other in the studio played the role of a negotiator between Mendoza and the police by relaying the messages of the former to the latter and possibly vice versa. Take note the times when the broadcast journalists cajoled Mendoza to “take it easy”.
What was entirely wrong was the live TV and radio broadcast of the drama where Mendoza was tracking everything: SWAT, police and sniper movements right before his very eyes. The police should have ordered the media to stop their live coverage or as I said before, they should have scrambled the TV and radio signals of the bus. Gregorio who might have been a peace maker should have been sequestered beyond the camera range for questioning.
Some media advocates say that informing the public is their primary job. I agree with that but they should have exercised prudence when at stake were the lives of innocent foreigners. Could the police have stopped their coverage? I believe so after invoking the police power of the state in safeguarding the security and protection of lives and properties.
Now there are moves in restructuring media protocol when covering between life and death events. After the police is exposed as poorly trained and meagerly equipped, the government is in haste to look for solutions.
Why did the government wait for a disaster before doing its job? -30-
No comments:
Post a Comment