So I got to talk to a friend who had some “inside info” on the other side – that is to say the politicians. Apparently there are also similar accounts in the news as well so I guess it’s “safe” to talk about it.
While it’s still hard to swallow said scenario that would justify what had transpired, I think it only be fair to state the other side if only to try to balance the views. Again, if I were to pigeon-hole the issue, I’m currently still on the “victims” side. However I do admit that after hearing my friend out, the issue does seem to be extremely polarized because of the publicity – and I always believed that the more angles you have on an issue, the better.
Standard disclaimer holds; I do not know these people personally, nor can I confirm if what has been said on either side is gospel (after all, everyone tends to manipulate facts at their convenience) so take my interpretation with a grain of salt.
Also, before I begin, I’d urge you to read up on a recent post by Punzi lecturing about self-defense – which is extremely helpful in weighing in the “facts.”
This is also the time when I ask the readers to shift their bias and just try to accept the politicians’ side as the “truth” – if only for a little while. There are things that will be mentioned that if I had “omitted” them – wouldn’t have the same impact, but if mentioned will seem extremely asshole-ish – but only because the majority (myself included) are [currently] already on the victims’ side.
Having said that, I will treat this account as truth for purposes of this particular post. Meaning since my previous post had already treated the account by the victims as the truth; it’s only fair to extend the same courtesy 1 “Benefit of the doubt” for those who are really having a hard time to temporarily shift views to the other side.
Another angle
Apparently, the old man (which I’ll refer to as the “troublemaker” – because that’s how he was described as) was looking for trouble the whole time – and he certainly got it.
The politicians teed off as a group of 6; 2 Valley Golf has a 4-man limit on each flight split into a pair of three. Behind them was the group of the troublemaker – who was accompanying his kids. 3 Valley Golf has a minimum requirement of 3 PLAYERS (not just people) per flight during the holidays or weekends – so technically, they shouldn’t even have been in the course
Then may humabol sa group ng politicians – which should be perfectly fine given the quota per flight. Nakita ni troublemaker na may sumingit sa kanila…
Before hitting into the flight the troublemaker complained to the marshall. When it was explained na may humabol lang sa flight ahead and wala naman talaga sumingit, he kept it up and told his kids to hit even when the flight ahead wasn’t clear. So they were hitting into the flight ahead of them before they cleared.
Apparently, this happened more than once. So the mayor walks back to the flight of the troublemaker (after being hit on), I think he even walked back to the troublemakers flight and told them to go ahead… and the troublemaker instead of just letting things be or playing through; gets his umbrella and hits the mayor. So no shit these guys are going to be armed to the teeth and all.
Long story short, nabugbog yun troublemaker – so tumawag siya ng reinforcements; called the wife and the son ata who of all things, brings a baseball bat.
Then I guess we all know how everything went down from the original post about the issue.
Then Cris interrupted this post and we ended up talking about it, and basically all the things I wanted to say about it I said in the conversation, so I thought I’d post it here:
CRIS:I saw a comment before; the commenter was disgusted that the news about the golfing thing was in the front page
CRIS:He said it was just a battle of egos and pride – na the issue’s not too important
CRIS:I guess he has a point
ME:Yeah, it was indeed an appeal to the primal/reptilian part of males’ brains
CRIS:would you engage in a fight? If you were in their place?
ME:Well, if the guy did take a swing at me. I don’t care what age he is.
CRIS:but you wouldn’t be the first?
ME:Of course I would never draw “first blood” as it were
ME:Actually, even if he had hit me I’d probably refrain given his age
ME:BUT
ME:there’s the whole issue of them teeing while we werent’ done – and the fact that we offered to let them go ahead – then he still hits me.
ME:In that case, I, as a male, can perfectly understand why even I would be tempted to use “excessive force.” Pride talaga; mababaw, pero ganon eh
ME:Literally kse, pag ganon katigas yung ulo ng “kalaban;” I could relate to the insatiable urge to really put them in their place know what I mean?
ME:And the politician I guess was unlucky enough to be perfectly “equipped” to carry out such a task – at the risk of their reputation.
CRIS:But to what extent would you “hurt” the person to qualify that they’re “put in their place?”
ME:I certainly wouldn’t gang up on him.
ME:I’d take him out on my own… and probably stop when I was done.
CRIS:What’s “done?” As in crippling, crying uncle?
ME:Ummm probably when he’s on the ground – crying or crippled would be irrelevant to me at that point.
ME:Kasi, if you hit someone and he hits you back, you as males don’t just call it quits then hahaha. That’s just not the way men operate
ME:Someone has to fall once something like that starts
CRIS:Okay
ME:The “excess” for me is the ganging up on him – not really the fact that he was old and the mayor was young.
ME:Just because you’re old, doesn’t give you the right to act like people will just bend over for you even if you’re in the wrong.
ME:Moreso if you actually took a swing at them with an umbrella š
CRIS:I see
CRIS:I guess
CRIS:Sige nga
CRIS:Let me read what your arguments are RE the incident
ME:You know, I’ll probably post this conversation – because it’s pretty much what I was supposed to say
ME:It’s really all about the whole male pride thing
ME:To put context into why they responded with such force
ME:That’s not to say that I approve of it; but I can certainly understand why it [unfortunately] turned out that way
ME:Of course this is assuming if what<NAME EDITED OUT>told me was in fact how it all went down,
ME:If he did take the first swing (after all that hullabaloo before the confrontation), the fact that he was “old” shouldn’t matter
ME:I can only speak for myself, but if a person does something like that to me, as a male, that’s practically a challenge
ME:And if they had the nerve to do something like that, then they better be able to stand their ground – because I will certainly push right back
ME:kala niya purkit matanda siya pede siya manakit pero hindi siya gagantihan? So ayun, he was “put in his proper place” so to speak
CRIS:Malas yung matanda; that he didn’t think of the number of people he could be up against
ME:Yeah
ME:Tas warfreak pa man din daw din yung mayor (so I hear) so ayun, obvious sino mananalo sa pataasan ng ihi non.
CRIS:Haay… the male way of solving things
ME:Hahaha. Yep, very petty, very shallow, but that’s how we are when it comes to machismo.
ME:Also, it’s worth mentioning the original poster is a woman
ME:As a guy, if I was her dad and picked a fight like that, I have no right to complain if I get beat up no matter how unfair the situation turned out to be – because I started the tussle.
ME:As much as nakakahiya din yung mayor to have his henchmen gang-up on him, nakakahiya din if the Dad has the nerve to use that fact to his advantage – when he was the one who essentially challenged them.
ME:She can’t possibly fathom male pride sa ganon, which is why she sees things that way.
ME:But she certainly dealt with it the way WOMEN do; by spreading gossip (true or otherwise)
CRIS:True
CRIS:But can she be considered a witness? I mean her view would be, rather, one-sided
CRIS:So, could she still be considered an eyewitness?
ME:Pede pa din naman… she was physically present naman daw
ME:It depends on her nalang if she wants to really tell the unbiased truth under oath or not
ME:No one would really know naman eh
ME:Then again, there are caddies din that can be witnesses; who say otherwise.
CRIS:But then we can never really know if the caddies were paid to tell that story
ME:True
ME:Ewan ko ba hahaha
ME:Problema nila yon. That whole issue is all just a goddamned mess
ME:Sa akin lang, dapat hindi na pinagtulungan – but the fight in and of itself I really have no problem with (sans physical advantages and all).
CRIS:Wait, did the mayor admit that he did “beat up” the others?
ME:I think he did
ME:kaya nga he’s in a bad spot – kse it’s now a case of “self defense” daw
ME:and medyo lugi ata siya don hahaha
CRIS:well yeah, that’s his best defense
ME:http://thepunziblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/blog-lecture-no-84-self-defense.html
ME:From what I understand, he fails the second requisite
CRIS:haha yeah
ME:but again, as a man, I can’t blame him… all of us men would fail the second requisite if it was any fight.
ME:Kse based on the law, to me, lumalabas lang na pede ka mag-self defense was if you were mugged or robbed etc.
ME:Eh what about regular fights? Which when I look at this thing, is pretty much all it was – a brawl.
ME:The fact that he was ganged up on isn’t new to fights
ME:It’s unfortunate, but the way I see it as far as fights/brawls go; ganging up on someone only diminishes honor (i.e. the fact that had minions deal with a person you could’ve easily dealt with yourself) – it doesn’t diminish the effectiveness of the, for lack of a better term: “lesson being imparted” (by “lesson” I mean, shutting the old man up)
CRIS:But still, they can’t call it self-defense at that point anymore
ME:True I don’t think it constitutes as self defense… but my point is it shouldn’t a legal matter in the first place
ME:Kse it was just a plain fight against two egos
ME:kaya tama yung sabi ng commenter; it’s just a battle of pride
CRIS:sa bagay
CRIS:if he wasn’t mayor… I guess it’s also bec the people involved were somewhat high profile DAR secretary yung tatay ng mayor eh.
ME:yeah, which is why very unfortunate talaga for the politicians
ME:Because as a public figure, they have responsibilities
ME:And they’re under much more scrutiny – and are required to act differently from us normal folks
CRIS:Well the odds are against the politicians; they should act differently – it’s part of their responsibility
ME:Yep, that much is certain, and pound for pound I’m still on the victim’s side
ME:Pero if what<NAME EDITED OUT>said is indeed the case, then I don’t feel sorry for either side; they all got (or are getting exactly) what they had coming to them.
CRIS:gusto ko yung sabi ng isang nagcomment:
CRIS:kasi they claimed na the politicians said “di nyo ba ko kilala?”
CRIS:You have every right naman din to say na “kami nagpapasweldo sa inyo” – which is true
CRIS:IF you’re a taxpayer
ME:Yeah, uncalled for nga nga yung sinabi ng mayor
ME:Pero given how heated up he was I can understand din why he could say that.
ME:Kse nga irrational na; you can’t keep yourself in check if you’re that angry na
ME:It’s the same irrationality why us males want to beat a person to the ground even if a fight could be avoided altogether
ME:Which is unfortunate nga since you’re a public figure
CRIS:I know
CRIS:I’ve had my fair share of irrational “blowups”
CRIS:Like wishing upon you bad things
CRIS:oops
CRIS:sorry
ME:no worries
ME:I probably deserve them anyways, so ok lang š
Ok that’s about all I had to say. But I felt it would be important to say that that whole argument was IF my friend’s account was in fact the case. If not, then there’s no question that I’m 100% behind the “victims.”
But if it were the case, I’d still be behind the victims pound for pound… however I wouldn’t feel sorry for the “pain” they experienced. Because it would have been deserved… only excessive 4 And that’s the key to me taking their side… that it was too much, not that they were “right”
Notes
| ⇡1 | “Benefit of the doubt” for those who are really having a hard time to temporarily shift views |
|---|---|
| ⇡2 | Valley Golf has a 4-man limit on each flight |
| ⇡3 | Valley Golf has a minimum requirement of 3 PLAYERS (not just people) per flight during the holidays or weekends – so technically, they shouldn’t even have been in the course |
| ⇡4 | And that’s the key to me taking their side… that it was too much, not that they were “right” |
Hmm… interesting. If that other side is to be believed, may laban nga siya. Pero excessive lang yung ginamit to repel the alleged aggression.
In any case, an incomplete self-defense is a mitigating circumstance which will lower the penalty for the “crime” to a slap on the wrist.
But I don’t believe that will count for the beating of the 14-year old. That’s child abuse. And I think, that is the worse crime. The elder guy may have gotten what was coming to him but the child is innocent of all the man-games we play. That crime should be highlighted instead from this incident.
if i remember enough from crim 1 and 2, regarding the child, the closest article i can think of that may apply is death in a tumultuous affray, while obviously the child did not die, it would be difficult to pinpoint who if any directed an attack at the son. Physical injuries (slight, less serious or serious) may attach taking article 4 into account.
If i were the one defending, I’d claim that the acts are justifiable not only through self defense, I’d also include for the bodyguards that they were acting under orders and were fulfilling a duty (now the issue changes from excessive force to legality of orders which i think is easier to prove since the exact role of bodyguards are to defend their bosses from threats, where clearly, the “troublemaker” proved himself to be one). As for the politician, I’d claim self defense and that I was acting under an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. I’d argue this by claiming that the life of a public servant is open to heavy criticism and in most cases death threats and/or attempts (hence the bodyguards and the permits to carry firearms). This of course is what you call throwing in the kitchen sink and hoping the judge will rule in your favor.
If I were prosecuting on the other hand, I’d focus on the excessive force which is very easy to prove (by the numbers and the alleged drawn gun and the beating the supposed aggressors took), I may consider filing a complaint under the vawc law, but i’m nt sure if that will work, but if it does, steeper punishments for the same amount of proof, at lest in regards to the child.