Skip to main content

Philly Police: The Beating of Bernard

Ronnie Polaneczky:

"'They screamed at him multiple times to get his hands behind his back, get on the ground,' recalls Landgren. 'The man cowered. He never spoke. I told them, 'Officer, he doesn't understand you! Please, he's mentally ill!' They kept screaming. It seemed to make him more agitated.

'One of the officers could only get one cuff on the man. He said, 'OK, that's it, you f---er,' and hit him hard with a billy club. The man fell and covered his face with his hands. Then all three officers were on him.

'He was curled in a ball. They pulled his hands from his face and maced him multiple times. They Tasered him over and over. He was like a cornered animal.'"


The police are silent about their view of things. Interestingly, the police report cites Bernard for "aggravated assault" on an officer ... even though nobody else saw such a thing.

Which takes me back to something I meant to write about a week ago. The Daily News ran a feature story about a crisis-intervention program that is training Philadelphia officers to distinguish between criminal behavior and mental illness that requires help -- the better not to end up Tasering or abusing somebody who isn't really in full control of their actions. Great idea! There's only one problem: Only 800 cops out of a force of 6,500 have received the training. And not nearly all of them will get it:

Ultimately, Healy said, 25 to 30 percent of patrol cops will receive the training.

There are no plans to make the training mandatory, Healy said, because police brass believe that the training is more effective when it's offered voluntarily.


I'm not sure what to make of this: Two-thirds of Philly police officers think it's ok to blow off training that can help them serve their community better? (One in 10 police encounters involve someone with mental illness.) Police brass are conceding that most of their force would rather use billy clubs and Tasers than deal in a nuanced way with a nuanced situation? It's good that the training is being offered to officers who want it; the fact that not all officers are getting it is troubling.

And even with the training, it's important to realize that encounters like Bernard's, above, will probably still happen from time-to-time. But maybe it doesn't have to happen as often as it does.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Yoga

I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Interesting:
Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…