Three (3) days have passed since that fateful night when 8 HK tourists were killed during a hostage-taking event by an ex-cop who was axed due to extortion charges. Fingers are pointing everywhere as who is to be blamed. I sympathize with the family and the HK people over the obvious bungling of the Philippine National Police SWAT (Sorry Wala Akong Training) team.
Anyway, several hostage situation experts have voiced their opinion on what went wrong. There was one guy from UK's Scotland Yard who gave his comments at today's Inquirer. Some of them made sense -- ex. there were several instances when a sniper could have taken Mendoza out; or when a negotiator could have disarmed him since they were very close; etc.
But one comment from him stood out particularly for me because it sounded so logical. He basically said -- why didn't the government just agree to his demands? After all, it wasn't as if the guy was asking money to be wired to a Swiss bank account and to be provided with a fully-fueled, getaway jet plane. He was just asking to be reinstated to the police force. So why didn't the police just agree to reinstate him, then on the next day, imprison him for hostage-taking. Its not as if anyone will expect them to hold onto their word since any promise given under force or coercion is invalid and is most probably not legally binding anyway.
Wouldn't that have ended everything peacefully if they did?