Assault rifle versus a helpless fisherman

Last May of this year, I interviewed a policeman who, with the use of a motorcycle chased a criminal in Tagbilaran City, Bohol. He showed maximum tolerance until the later was pinned down. I appreciated it. The video of his act went viral in social media.

However, recently in the same province, a policeman shot a fisherman last Sunday afternoon in Mabini, Bohol. The victim has been confined at a hospital in the province. But what was the real story?

I had the chance to interview the cousin of the victim who came to station dyHP RMN Cebu as a guest during my Straight to the Point radio program. I also interviewed the chief of police of Mabini in the same program.

The victim’s cousin said that Noel Vallinete, the victim, went fishing together with his three fishermen relatives in the waters of Ubay, Bohol.

The policeman, Police Staff Sergeant Joel Bayron of Mabini police station, a neighboring town, was on-board his motorized banca and chased somebody --not the victim and his companions-- in the same area.

The person being chased tried to hide behind the victim’s motorized banca. When the policeman fired at the person being chased, Vallinete was hit twice in the head and his banca was peppered with 13 bullet holes.

The police version, based on my interview of the Mabini, Bohol, chief of police Lieutenant Angelo Cabrera, said the policeman was with the Bantay Dagat. He chased the fishermen because they were allegedly engaged in dynamite fishing, which is an offense.

As the policeman got closer to the said fishermen, the latter allegedly threw dynamite at him, prompting the former to retaliate using his M-16 Armalite rifle.

So which version is more credible?

While the allegations that the fishermen used dynamite fishing is still highly debatable, I grant just for the sake of discussion that it’s true, yet does such an act justify the policeman in using an assault rifle against those civilians? No.

The allegations that the fishermen threw dynamite at the policeman, is highly questionable. This theory will only show that the distance between the police and the fishermen was already very near, a throwing distance.

Such distance means that the fishermen could also clearly see that the chasing policeman was armed with a high-powered assault rifle. The size of the said rifle cannot be concealed, unlike short firearms. So does it mean to say that the fishermen were brave enough to throw dynamite at a heavily-armed policeman? This is something very contrary to human behavior.

The circumstances did not put the life of the policeman in danger. According to the PNP operational procedures, the use of firearms is justified only if the offender poses an imminent danger of causing death or injury to the police officer. It is also justified under the doctrine of self-defense.

The additional unavoidable questions are the following: Why was the policeman alone in chasing the fishermen? Was it an official operation? Why was he not accompanied by PNP operatives?

During the incident, why was he wearing civilian clothes? Why did he use his personal motorized banca, instead of the official PNP banca? Why was he bringing an assault rifle when he was not going to war?

Was he dedicated enough to conduct an operation alone like Ricardo Dalisay or Rambo in the movies? Or was he there purposely alone to extort money or fish from the fishermen?