I thought so...
All this fuss about someone bringing a gun in that "cannonization" rally a few days ago has been explained by a senator as being her bodyguard. (See Jove's entry on this. Hey Jove! Where's my iPod? Heheheheheh!)
I thought so. A guy dressed in short barong plus a gun plus an umbrella plus a senator equals bodyguard. Assuming that guy has a permit to carry that gun, what are the police going to charge him? Illegal dispossession of firearms?
Making an issue out of this gun is one of the oldest techniques in magic called "misdirection." So I think once this explanation gets out, egg will be on the faces of the police if they continue pushing this issue.
They would want us to believe that this gun triggered (pardon the pun) the hose down. C'mon! That's the most blatant, most obvious afterthought I've ever heard! (And believe me, I've heard a lot of them already.) They saw the gun after the hose down and not before... This gun-toting Kevin Costner was discovered way after, when the police were grasping at straws for an excuse.
But clearly, this is not the issue here. Focus, people!
Let us not forget the issue here is freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Even if that rally was purely political, it did not merit or deserve that kind of response. All it proved that the police is as trigger happy (or valve happy) as the paranoid administration it serves.
The only good thing that came out of this police fiasco is the reversion to "maximum tolerance" before calibrated pre-emptive response. Of course being budget season, the good senator may have that erring fireman appear in the budget hearings of the Department of Interior and Local Government to give him a hose down of her own.
Shame on them, nevertheless! It only bolsters the theory that police intelligence is even lower than military, animal and human intelligence in the heirarchy. But there's no sense arguing with them anyway, with their sa presinto ka na lang magpaliwanag (just explain it in the precinct after I arrest you) mentality.
I thought so. A guy dressed in short barong plus a gun plus an umbrella plus a senator equals bodyguard. Assuming that guy has a permit to carry that gun, what are the police going to charge him? Illegal dispossession of firearms?
Making an issue out of this gun is one of the oldest techniques in magic called "misdirection." So I think once this explanation gets out, egg will be on the faces of the police if they continue pushing this issue.
They would want us to believe that this gun triggered (pardon the pun) the hose down. C'mon! That's the most blatant, most obvious afterthought I've ever heard! (And believe me, I've heard a lot of them already.) They saw the gun after the hose down and not before... This gun-toting Kevin Costner was discovered way after, when the police were grasping at straws for an excuse.
But clearly, this is not the issue here. Focus, people!
Let us not forget the issue here is freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Even if that rally was purely political, it did not merit or deserve that kind of response. All it proved that the police is as trigger happy (or valve happy) as the paranoid administration it serves.
The only good thing that came out of this police fiasco is the reversion to "maximum tolerance" before calibrated pre-emptive response. Of course being budget season, the good senator may have that erring fireman appear in the budget hearings of the Department of Interior and Local Government to give him a hose down of her own.
Shame on them, nevertheless! It only bolsters the theory that police intelligence is even lower than military, animal and human intelligence in the heirarchy. But there's no sense arguing with them anyway, with their sa presinto ka na lang magpaliwanag (just explain it in the precinct after I arrest you) mentality.
transcription by Punzi @ 9:16 AM
2 Objection(s):
Punzi,
This was most unfortunate on the part of Jamby's bodyguard. It's been played up because even if he had the right to carry, the powerful suggestion is made that in fact anyone could be bringing guns to these rallies. If Sen. Madrigal's security thought that carrying a gun was the only way to ensure her safety at the event, then she shouldn't have gone at all.
Now the authorities can claim that violence could PLAUSIBLY break out at these rallies and demonstrations, whatever the legality of this particular incident.
Dean Jorge,
A point well taken. It's a learning experience for all those concerned. But from the legal standpoint, the rallyists should take comfort in the fact that the standard is "clear and present danger" which the presence of armed bodyguard may still not meet (because arguably, he had a right to be there with a gun).
But just the same, either she sheds her protection next time or not participate at all because she may jeopardize the entire affair.
regards
Post a Comment
<< Home