In a hostage situation, the police always say that the safety of the hostages come first.
Q. Why don’t you shoot the hostage taker with a sniper as soon as a shot is clear?
A. Because we also want to capture the hostage taker.
But keeping the hostage-taker alive endangers the lives of the hostages. Doesn’t that contradict “the safety of the hostages come first”?
Not that I don’t care about the hostage taker’s life, but maybe the new policy in hostage taking incidents should be. Kill the suspect ASAP, that way:
1. We ensure the safety of the hostages
2. We don’t encourage more hostage taking because they know that they will die before they get a chance to talk to media.
Either that or the police should stop saying that “the safety of the hostages come first”. Because it is not true.
Maybe our cops are so afraid of “Human Rights” advocates that they have abdicated on their duty. Usually kasi, the human rights advocates would castigate the cops for killing a hostage taker. Nakakapikon sila minsan.
I believe that once you threaten someone else’s life by taking them hostage:
1. the police have a moral duty to kill the hostage-taker “in defense of a stranger”
2. the hostage-taker forfeits the protection of the law the minute he threatened other people’s lives.