Of fear and paranoia
Lately, the world has been spiraling down into a cesspool of fear and terrorism. It makes people feel vulnerable and feeling vulnerable, people tend to act rashly. Take for example the incident in London a few months back and the more recent incident in France. Fear. It is the great divider.
Back here, there was another incident that sparked fear into the already paranoia-driven society we call the Metro. An incident involving the deaths of young men in the hands of law-enforcers. Young men who belonged to rich, prominent families.
These young men were suspected carnappers or carjackers if you prefer that term. The police report basically stated that law-enforcers got a tip that this group of men were planning a carnapping on that night and they followed through with it.
Upon identifying the suspects, they moved to apprehend the vehicle they were in only to be shot at (as per the police report). So the police returned fire, killing and incapacitating the suspects. Later on, a video footage showed the same policemen closing up on the suspects' vehicle and opening fire at point-blank range. Execution? Maybe. Some people would like to believe it at least.
This is the dilemma of a third-world country that deals so much with politics and a corrupted system that views the informal exchange of money as commonplace. It has more flaws than could be seen as a genuine attempt at justice.
All of the reports bear incident to what happened, who were involved and the where and when it happened. But the question comes to mind; of all the speculation and the finger-pointing happening out there, did anyone really bother to trace the events in chronological order? What about post-mortem autopsy on the deceased? At the least, they should have had them tested for gunpowder discharge for both sides. It is after all a standard operating procedure in these instances right?
I'm not saying any party is guilty. That is up for the courts to decide. But when you throw away the facts and focus instead on looking pretty, all you have left are just thugs with guns and badges. It is not hard to ascertain if the deceased suspects were in fact innocent or guilty. Gunpowder discharge would have left a trace if they indeed have fired the weapons in question. As to if they were under the influence or not, a quick autopsy should reveal all that. It is also a part of the investigation I believe to determine which law-enforcer fired how many shots to which target. Execution or not.
Although it may be true (at least to their thinking) that the policemen were only doing their jobs. Mind you, I don't envy them because they're always on the spot whether or not they catch the bad guys. They have a bigger obligation to instill confidence that they can do their job better. It was never a matter of people trusting policemen. It was always a matter of policemen instilling fear into the people they were sworn to protect. Fear. And when people fear something, they act rashly.
Hopefully, this incident will enable other people to realize the system is so flawed that it's pointless to have it. Because what good is a system in place if no one ever follows it? What good is having a law if even the ones tasked to enforce it break it? I have no love lost for the deceased suspects, even less if they were proven guilty. But that doesn't make what the law-enforcers did any less wrong. Sure, they can say they acted only in response and the adrenaline that went with it. But if that's the case, then any crook can also say the same thing. The only difference is one wears a badge and the other doesn't.
Fear. It is something that an already tarnished law-enforcement image can do without. You instill fear in the lawbreakers, not the ones you are sworn to protect. It's not easy but it is a part of the job.
Back here, there was another incident that sparked fear into the already paranoia-driven society we call the Metro. An incident involving the deaths of young men in the hands of law-enforcers. Young men who belonged to rich, prominent families.
These young men were suspected carnappers or carjackers if you prefer that term. The police report basically stated that law-enforcers got a tip that this group of men were planning a carnapping on that night and they followed through with it.
Upon identifying the suspects, they moved to apprehend the vehicle they were in only to be shot at (as per the police report). So the police returned fire, killing and incapacitating the suspects. Later on, a video footage showed the same policemen closing up on the suspects' vehicle and opening fire at point-blank range. Execution? Maybe. Some people would like to believe it at least.
This is the dilemma of a third-world country that deals so much with politics and a corrupted system that views the informal exchange of money as commonplace. It has more flaws than could be seen as a genuine attempt at justice.
All of the reports bear incident to what happened, who were involved and the where and when it happened. But the question comes to mind; of all the speculation and the finger-pointing happening out there, did anyone really bother to trace the events in chronological order? What about post-mortem autopsy on the deceased? At the least, they should have had them tested for gunpowder discharge for both sides. It is after all a standard operating procedure in these instances right?
I'm not saying any party is guilty. That is up for the courts to decide. But when you throw away the facts and focus instead on looking pretty, all you have left are just thugs with guns and badges. It is not hard to ascertain if the deceased suspects were in fact innocent or guilty. Gunpowder discharge would have left a trace if they indeed have fired the weapons in question. As to if they were under the influence or not, a quick autopsy should reveal all that. It is also a part of the investigation I believe to determine which law-enforcer fired how many shots to which target. Execution or not.
Although it may be true (at least to their thinking) that the policemen were only doing their jobs. Mind you, I don't envy them because they're always on the spot whether or not they catch the bad guys. They have a bigger obligation to instill confidence that they can do their job better. It was never a matter of people trusting policemen. It was always a matter of policemen instilling fear into the people they were sworn to protect. Fear. And when people fear something, they act rashly.
Hopefully, this incident will enable other people to realize the system is so flawed that it's pointless to have it. Because what good is a system in place if no one ever follows it? What good is having a law if even the ones tasked to enforce it break it? I have no love lost for the deceased suspects, even less if they were proven guilty. But that doesn't make what the law-enforcers did any less wrong. Sure, they can say they acted only in response and the adrenaline that went with it. But if that's the case, then any crook can also say the same thing. The only difference is one wears a badge and the other doesn't.
Fear. It is something that an already tarnished law-enforcement image can do without. You instill fear in the lawbreakers, not the ones you are sworn to protect. It's not easy but it is a part of the job.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home