[quote=“markku, post:24, topic:2595, full:true”]
So are you saying the police should shoot when they don’t feel completely safe? They are policemen, they’ve had more training in dealing with situations like this. They have more tools available to them, not to mention the exact state of our legal system (and our leaders) are likely leaning towards their exoneration in incidents like this.[/quote]
Exactly. Their training kicked in that’s why the policeman shot the guy.
read page 32: ROE
A. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
The use of force/firearms is justifiable only by virtue of the Doctrines of
Self-Defense and Defense of a Stranger.
The use of force/firearms shall be applied only as a last resort, when all
other peaceful and non-violent means have been exhausted.
Only necessary and reasonable force shall be resorted to and applied
under the following circumstances:
a. self defense
b. defense of a stranger
c. to subdue/overcome a clear and imminent danger
7.5 Application of Necessary and Reasonable Force
During confrontation with an armed offender, only such necessary and reasonable force should be applied as
would be sufficient to overcome the resistance put up by the offender; subdue the clear and imminent danger posed by him; or to justify the force/act under the principles of self defense, defense of relative, or defense of stranger.
7.6 Factors to Consider in the Reasonableness of the Force Employed
A police officer, however, is not required to afford offender/s attacking him the opportunity for a fair or equal struggle. The reasonableness of the force employed will depend upon the number of aggressors, nature and characteristic of the weapon used, physical condition, size and other circumstances to include the place and occasion of the assault. The police officer is given the sound discretion to consider these factors in employing reasonable force.
RULE 8. USE OF FIREARM DURING POLICE OPERATIONS
8.1 Use of Firearm When Justified
The use of firearm is justified if the offender poses imminent danger of causing death or injury to the police officer or other persons. The use of firearm is also justified under the doctrines of self-defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a stranger. However, one who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on his life, and the peril sought to be avoided must be actual, imminent and real. Unlawful aggression should be present for self-defense to be considered as a justifying circumstance.
I speak primarily from the point of view of a typical Filipino citizen, yung may pangangailangang lumabas every week or so to buy supplies for my family. And this incident brings so much fear, pain, and uncertainty. I don’t know about you, but it seems you fail to see the other side.[/quote]
Majority point of view mo? Lakas mo makahingi ng basis, e ano basehan mo na you speak for the majority?
You should fear the police if you do NOT have any intention to comply with law enforcement, or, if you are committing or about to commit a crime. Otherwise, the police is your friend, is your protector.
What is nonsense is making accusations and bringing in things like “wala ka sa facebook or sa twitter” which has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.
I have a cousin who is a police chief in some town (ongoing PhD) and I have more friends who are policemen, so I know the challenges they face on a day to day basis.
Things on the ground happen so quickly and if they make a mistake, it could end their lives in an instant.
The legal basis above is OUT OF CONTEXT.
The case G.R. No. 128871. March 18, 2003. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. JIMMY RUBISO, alias “ALOG,” Accused-Appellant…
is a civilian-to-civilian crime, NOT a law enforcement officer trying enforce the law on an ECQ violator.
"Prosecution eyewitness Alejandro Pulomeda testified that on November 6, 1992, he went to Jaspe Metal Craft Industries (Jaspe) at Pavia, Iloilo to canvass the price of a rice thresher. He intended to ask assistance from his friend, Serafin Hubines who was working at Jaspe. Then, he went straight and saw Hubines busy putting a bolt on a rice thresher. Hubines was in a squatting position. While he was walking toward Hubines’ direction, he saw herein appellant also approaching Hubines’ from behind. He noticed that appellant’s left hand was wrapped with a towel. As appellant walked closer to Hubines, he unwrapped his hand revealing a handgun of unknown caliber, and shot Hubines. The latter still managed to stand but he was again successively shot by appellant…
the defense has a different version.
Appellant has been working as a welder at the Jaspe Light and Steel Industries. On November 6, 1992, while he was welding a tiller, Serafin Hubines, Jr. passed by and kicked it. When he confronted appellant, the latter asked, “Why, do you want to fight?” Then Hubines boxed appellant on his chest. He fell down on a sitting position. At that point, Hubines pulled his gun. Appellant immediately stood up and held Hubines’ hands. They grappled for its possession and both fell on the ground. Then the gun exploded. According to appellant, he was not sure who “caused” the shot. He noticed that many people approached them. Appellant lied down on his stomach and covered his ears. That was the time he heard three or more shots. He stood up and saw Hubines lying on the ground full of blood. He walked a few steps and met PO3 Danilo Opong. Appellant told the latter that he was only defending himself.