there were two events that took place on the 23rd of August that is both disturbing to my attention.
the first one was a car accident that happened and injured one of my new associate, and of course, the other one is the hostage-taking.
in both cases, the result will surely put a scar on the minds of those people directly involved in the incidents.
if we have to put a parallel on both events, you would say that both came close to putting an end to one’s life which it actually did to some eight HongKong nationals.
the first one though is uncontainable by human intervention while the hostage crisis is tenable by a good leadership direction.
but if we are to delude on these experiences just for the sake of some discussion, and let us say that we assume that the first one can become a ‘managed accident’ and the second as a ’spontaneous hostage act’… how well do we think can these episodes become less dreadful than it already was.
if we start on the accident and as a managed one… and say we have no control on the ‘impact factors’ but only on the tempo and duration of the accident and also the calibration of airbags and seatbelt activators.
i could imagine these scenarios to happen.
when the car was finally swerving to the opposite direction of the “hit” and in order to minimize the slambang effect… you are to micro manage if you are to release the airbag in one-go or have it blown, half-way at a time in order not to hurt the individual sitting on the front seats. of course, since you also seen the emerging accident, you may now have to tighten the seatbelt in full so as to help in securing the position of the passenger. the gas pedal is also a contention here since you may opt to gas-up to fully avoid the collission or you may end up adding to the force of the slam.
these are little decisions that you can make since you have known after the accident that the passenger was severly hurt by the airbag and the seatbelt tightened only at the instance of the impact.
quite circumstancial and never to be concurred since it will be hard to re-create the same instance again.
the design of the airbag and seatbelts produces its desired result — to save the lives of the passengers and minimize the injuries… not necessarily to completely make the passengers unharmed since releasing those accident peripherals will really mean some forceful eventualities that can cause injuries to any human’s frail body.
the point here is that, when you have designed the right equipments, and calculated the forces involved in a collission… you will only need one more thing — that is prayer to really escape a bad hatch. no amount of ‘micro managing’ can determine your luck, anything can always go the other way.
now, going about a spontaneous hostage drama will come like this…
a hostage taker will be there together with his victims, a little show of force and surprise… a setting inside a house or a bus… a demand and a deadline.
if this will be all streaming in your face and you are tasked to decide. you will look into the situation of the victims, their chances of escape. then, after getting to nowhere, will be led on the demand.
if this gets to be doable, and much less of a weight than the lives of the hostages. you will end up writing an accord about agreeing to some extent and putting some diminutive demands of your own just in order to level your score with the hostage taker.
if the terrorist agreed, you can even lower your demand yourself to ensure a good finish.
this, without having to think in anyway about your own reserves.
why do you have to? you are more powerful and the hostage taker is into this because this is his only way to deliver his message across.
there isn’t a way for you to diminish your status or equate your strength with him. these are all given in this kind of situation.
if you have to have it shrewdly managed, unlike making decisions spontaneously like the one as stated above… you might end up with so many other opinions delving on issues other than the topic of the hostage taker’s demand and the lives of victims at stake.
this should mean that you will only need a little prayer than when you are faced with in an accident.
the event will happen a little longer than it would in an accident, but will have a happier ending.
you will not need a veteran of a person for this spontaneous hostage-taking event. but it will help if you are one. what more if you are a high-ranking personality.
while at these, you might think that i am stressing a better way to handle this situation, and banking on the reason of a recent failure that i am showing a path different from what was dismal.
but my point here is to have a different situation like a ‘managed accident‘ and a ‘spontaneous hostage-taking‘.
why does it make sense that you can both be lucky if you are praying hard enough and with definite goals on each instance.
to the accident, the standard car peripherals can save your life as it did to my associate.
and to the hostage taking, just a standard reply to a demand could have stirred us to a happy ending.
in real life, there is no such animal called “managed car accident” … but we can have both a spontaneous or a micro managed “hostage event”.
do you think that my rejoinder here is beyond comprehension?
i would think that it is not, and i am still wondering why the problem of Mendoza was not pursued within the ambit of the Mendoza Episode, his issues which is so petty vis à vis those tourists’ lives.
you will begin to realize that, the demand was forgotten and the hostages’ safety was not really put on top of the decision-making.
we lost eight, nine including Mendoza’s.
how then do you think that the Ombudsman, the Media, Isko, Tulfo, Lim, DILG and the others bungled this? they didn’t ? but in the first place, we lost track of the demand.
we now lost a lot, and stands to lose some more… i pray not.