Hostage-taking in Manila
i know the police know the protocol in hostage-taking situations. This protocol- playbook is uniform and internationally practised/ recognized; and so, i never Monday- quarterback hostage-taking situations. (when the hostage-taker started shooting inside the bus, the breach, by protocol, was necessary; on the other hand, the daytime early negotiations done by the book, resulting in the release of more than half-a-dozen hostages, to the credit of the local officials, went well; this however leaves us with the 7:20pm spectacle, which resulted in disaster, leaving eight hostages dead). Since the 7:20pm fiasco involved media facilities, maybe i’m allowed to Monday- quarterback that.
The police did not manage the hostage-taker’s access to media facilities; nor to who else was communicating with him from the outside. At worst, the police did not know the hostage-taker had access to television and what kind of media/ communication facilities the bus had.
Because of the mismanagement of the hostage-taker’s access to media facilities and various communication lines and to the media, the hostage-taker viewed the spectacle of his brother, and young nephews and nieces, on the floor, being roughed up by the police in television news blow-by-blow; was enraged, and started shooting. The usual practice is that individuals who are allowed to talk to the hostage-taker are also secured, and their media-interviews, managed. These went south today.
i will not Monday- quarterback the warrantless arrest of the brother even if that involved legal issues because this was a hostage-taking situation maybe he had to be restrained because earlier he reportedly further inflamed his brother- hostage-taker when he allegedly told his brother- hostage-taker “don’t give up until they return my gun to me”; the situation became more volatile when the grappling and scuffle occurred, because the hostage-taker could see it in full, living color on TV. (for that matter, the so-called “arrest” was such a show of bruteness it shouldn’t have been done in such manner but i’m trying not to second-guess that at this time because the hostages’ lives were on the line).
Even with the tried-and-tested hostage-taking protocol-playbook, the police might have missed out on something. Teeny-weeny. The terrain. The terrain is not just Quirino grandstand. It’s the bus. They didn’t research it; what facilities it had inside and outside.They also didn’t manage who else and how many were talking to him from the outside. (okay, i limited myself to media facilities; this incident has a whole a lot of legal and ethical issues — maybe another day.)
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For lawmakers, interested lawyers, and research assistants:
[The First Amendment bars Congress from making any law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. These rights generally involve the dissemination of information, not the collection of it. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court said in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) that the right to free press “could be eviscerated” if there were no corollary right to gather news. The news media serve as surrogates for the public, reporting information that individuals would want to know if they could witness it themselves.
Where a proceeding or an area is off-limits to the general public, the news media have no clearly established right to gain access to it. Although the Supreme Court said in Branzburg that newsgathering is protected by the First Amendment, it also cautioned that journalists “have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded.”]
From http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/topic.aspx?topic=journalist_access
In today’s modern world, newsgathering by gaining access to any information through mobile phone or any other means involving no personal contact can always be done. But a direct media contact to criminals holding hostages may foretell doom to innocent lives.
Interviewing a perpetrator (such as a hostage taker or a criminal who barricaded himself from apprehension with a victim at gunpoint) may be made unlawful inasmuch as the general public is already barred from getting information because of the ongoing criminal act. I believe “prior restraint” may be applicable in this kind of situation.
Of course, it’s a different story if the perpetrator requested for an interview with a particular journalist and authorities acceded to the request. Just like what happened with Susan Enriquez (though the reporter revealed that it was not really an interview and that it was not aired live).
LikeLike
The Aug23 (read: Uhg! 23) Incident really captured the ineptness, incompetence, or clumsiness (or plain stupidity?) of our government in their failure to secure everyone and to save precious human lives in times of crisis.
But there is another powerful sector of society that shares the responsibility in bringing about global shame to us Filipinos. This is media…specifically, the Broadcast Media.
Michelle Ward Ghetti laid down the two general areas of conflict that particularly caused media coverage during publicity-seeking crimes to become the hotbed of controversy.
1. On media dissemination of information…
[Media can serve as the “intelligence arm” of the criminal in many ways. Today, in most hostage situations, the criminal has a television or radio device within near proximity. By broadcasting police strategies, activities, plans, or the presence of hidden persons or escaping hostages, the media endangers the lives of the hostages, law enforcement personnel, and innocent citizens. They also assist the criminals in determining escape routes and repelling police assaults.]
2. On media interference with law enforcement…
[Direct media contact with the criminal:
a. can tie up telephone access,
b. incite the criminal by use of inflammatory questions or phrases,
c. goad the criminal into action to prove himself in the spotlight, and
d. can have the effect of isolating a trained professional negotiator from the mediating process by increasing the role of the untrained media person]
(From http://law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v60/no3/8-Ghetti.pdf )
It appears the TV broadcasters and the RMN people had not learned from past lessons and so were guilty in complicating things and possibly helped Rolando Mendoza to pull the trigger of his M16.
However, it also appears that the most the media will get is probably censure (or a “slap on the wrist”) or Grave Offense sanction for the two meddling radio broadcasters [unless there really is “a law against interference to police actions” – contrary to Nene’s (Pimentel) trumpeting words that no ethical code or law was violated by the two clowns Rogas and Tulfo, backed-up by the stout ringmaster Maderazo!].
Sadly, the all-too-powerful media that even our senators are in fear of could probably be “scot-free” again to go on their merry-way of being a “watchdog” of government…all for the sake of public service…and, of course, NOT for the ratings as some insinuated!
Anyway, Ghetti also explained in her paper the Media’s Reasoning why they continue to cover (with eagerness and zest! I believe) publicity-seeking crimes such as the Aug23 Incident.
—–
dinggageloniadotblogspotdotcom has this:
[The scuttlebutt:
1. At least two political figures “will be recommended for prosecution or suspension.
2. Up to eight police officers will also be leveled with severe sanctions.
3. Two news media personalities and their media entities will be publicly reprimanded while further investigation may be sought with regard (to) possible infractions of the terms of their broadcasting franchises.]
—–
Sec. de Lima said “high enough” when asked who were accountable. How we FERVENTLY wish it’s gonna be truly high enough…both in government and in media…
LikeLike