Following a cell phone video that shows SJSU student Phuong Ho being hit with batons and tased by the SJPD officers, the department claimed he was resisting arrest. Enhanced audio of the video taken by one of Ho’s housemates on his cellphone seems to tell a different story.
In the audio and accompanying video, Ho can be seen lying on the floor, telling the policemen that he is just looking for his glasses, which were knocked off. He can also be heard apologizing repeatedly while he was beaten.
While the Mayor has called for a public safety committee meeting tonight to begin investigating whether the SJPD is using excessive force, some students are beginning to ask questions about the incident and how it is being covered by the press.
In an editorial published in SJSU’s Spartan Daily, Kyle Szymanski points out that the existing video covers just a few moments of the incident and that it was recorded by Ho’s friends. While he states clearly that this in no way exonerates the police, he suggests that further investigation is needed before people jump to conclusions about what happened.
“Let’s remember that independent investigators need time to get both sides of the story,” he concludes his piece.
Read More at The Mercury News.
Read More at the Spartan Daily.
The Mercury News, Metro, and the Spartan Daily seem to be the ones wanting full disclosure on this story. I will support that. Where is the orgainzed student association, paid for with student fees, on this story? Out to lunch. San Jose State’s student government is completely unconcerned and politically impotent on this matter. Their leadership and executive director could care less about students though they take money to represent students. The media have to be the ones asking questions. It seesm that people paid to be student advocates are hiding under their desks doing nothing but drawing a check.
James Rowen
I know what you mean. The only public action that I have seen was a protest by the SJSU Vietnamese Student Association a couple of weeks ago.
As for the audio, Phuong Ho does sound like he is saying he is looking for his glasses and that he is sorry. It is not the cops job to punish. Just intervene to prevent law breaking and arrest those who break laws. It looks and sounds like unilateral punishment.
“Their leadership and executive director could care less about students though they take money to represent students.”
The correct expression is couldn’t care less, James, not could care less. Think about it. Get educated.
She will be posting her standard defense of all that is SJPD shortly. She is currently standing in front of the SJ Police station genuflecting in front of Chief Davis and getting her talking points.
The talking points will sound something like this: I know victims of crime, the video is grainy, the sound is not clear, we don’t know what happened before the video started, police are always right and you should obey every command given by them, for all we know Ho liked the beat down, didn’t really hurt Ho, screaming apologize in some circles means beat me more, asking for glasses could have reasonably been interpreted by SJPD as meaning: i want my glasses so that I can break them and use the sharp pieces to cut you, how does the public know that the police in the video are really SJPD, etc., etc., etc.
You forgot – if the police were called in the first place, there was a *victim.* What about his rights? If Ho had a fight with the victim, then he deserves whatever treatment he got.
One More Thing,
Well you got part of my point correct when you asked, ” If the police were called in the first place, there was a *victim.* What about his rights?”
You asked a very good question! Now you’re catching on!;-) Yes what about the victim’s rights? Or is that something you and your cohorts can blindly dismiss in your ignorant pursuit of bashing the Police, and in your need to defend a man who was in the commission of a crime which could gave resulted in the stabbing death of an Officer, or his roommate over a stupid prank?
Why do you feel the need to defend criminals and bash the Police so badly? Do you have an arrest record? You sound like someone who has a real axe to grind with the Police.
OK, so we start out with a 9-1-1 call that Mr. Ho has threatened to kill one of his roommates and that he has a knife. Mr. Ho weighs well over 200 pounds. This is all that the cops know when they enter the premises. They locate Mr. Ho and give him a simple direct order to stay in a certain place. Mr. Ho disobeys that order. The police enter his room to locate weapons. In contravention of police orders, he follows one of the officers into his room. He is told to stay out. He disobeys that order. The knife could easily have been in that room.
Cops should not have to guess about that…for their own safety and that of the others in the apartment. They need to secure weapons and the scene. if they failed to do that and someone else was injured, you can bet that someone else would sue the Citgy of San Jose and the individual cops.
Mr. Ho gets shoved, or whatever, to keep him out of the room, and he looses his glasses. He is told to put his hands behind his back. He is told to roll over on his stomach. He refuses to do so. Instead of obeying the lawful order of the officers he gets all bent out of shape about his stupid glasses. I understand that, since I wear glasses. But he needed to shut the f*ck up and forget about his GD glasses and do what the officers told him to do and sort it all out later once calm has been restored. The cops correctly see Mr. Ho as a guy who threatened to kill his roommate with a knife and the knife hasn’t been found and secured by the officers.
Read the transcript published today in the Murky News. It does not support Mr. Webby’s argument (Uh, Mr. Webby, you are supposed to be a reporter, not an editorializer, so just the facts, M’aam.)
Mr. Ho’s roommates, as well as the officers, told him repeatedly to do as the officers ordered. He continued to refuse and the knife still had not been located and secured. What the hell does anyone expect the officers to do when faced with a person who has threatened to kill a friend/roommate with a knife and repeatedly refuses to obey a simple command that even his roommates told him to obey when the knife still had not been located and secured? For all the officers knew at the time, the knife could have been in Mr. Ho’s room, or still in his possession.
Monday morning quarterbacking regarding this wack-job Mr. Ho is misplaced. And there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the cops would have behaved differently had Mr. Ho been white, black, Muslim, Latino, or anything else. Mr. Ho was a knife-wielding, threatening individual who needed to calm down and do as he was told. If he had done so, it all would have worked out. Cops should not be required to take a knife wound or a bullet before they take someone down with force.
Mr. Ho weighs well over 200 pounds.
He must be the biggest Vietnamese in the world.
JMO, and FF,
With respect, I think you are both missing the point here. These so-called reporters just want to sell newspapers/ad space, and make a name for themselves. Like some of these SJI commentors, they don’t care about the facts, or victims. They hate the Police and want a safe, anonymous place to attach people like us to get their jollies. It is a real waste of time to comment on this case any more because they want to believe a dying paper pushing a private agenda to hang the Police out to dry, and the paper is using this and community groups to get open records to save money on Public Information Requests, and law suits against the City.
It has all become very boring to me. I’m moving on to better discussions on more vital issues, and I am presently working with others to better this community and toward peace building.
Where is Kathleen?
While you were hiding behind a fake name posting this childish comment on SJI, I was at work contributing to peace in the community by teaching conflict resolution, and tolerance of other cultures, and fellow co-workers.
BTW- I am just fascinated by your lack of compassion toward victims of violent crimes, and rather than pre-judge you, I’d like to ask you a few questions to educate myself on this new F*&% victims and Police Officers mentality, I’ve seen since the OJ Simpson case took place.
I’m curious about you and people like you who feel the need to bash people who fight for victim’s rights, and who support the Police.
Why do you rush to judgment on the Police, even when all the facts and evidence is not in, or even when both Civil and Criminal Grand Juries find there was no wrong doing on the part of SJPD? Victims are just innocent people and they rarely ever recover fully or at all from the crime they’ve been subjected to. So is their victimization something that takes a back seat to your need to hate the Police, or what?
What drives you to defend criminals? Did you have a bad experience with the Police or something? Do you have an arrest record? I really find it hard to believe, or least I hope you wouldn’t, find pulling knives on people, threatening to murder people over a silly prank, or slitting someone’s throat, or raping a child, or stabbing/shooting a child, and resisting arrest acceptable.
Seriously, what is this urgent need to defend attempted murders or gang members while bashing people who fight to preserve victim’s rights, or who feel gratitude toward public servants who do an excellent job in our community?
Kathleen: First, nobody on SJI has ever defended an attempted murderer. And in this case, there was an altercation and no allegation of attempted murder. Second, I can’t speak for others, but I fully support the police and err on the side of their use of reasonable force to subdue potential perpetrators.
But in this case, there are reasonable questions about whether force used was excessive. You and JMO and others are implying that any use of force is justified if (a) the police have been called and (b) if the police on the scene decide it is necessary.
But there are grey areas. In this case, once the suspect was on the ground face down, it appears that there may have been excess force used. Wouldn’t it be better to investigate and clarify procedure so that everyone is comfortable with police practices than to automatically assume that the police act appropriately every time?
That’s all I believe is being asked here. I for one am glad that the Mercury News will ask these kinds of questions. That is their job, after all, not just to report murders and write movie reviews.
Attempted murderers?
You have some valid points when it comes to accountability, and making sure proper policy is being followed. For the record, AGAIN, I am not excusing, nor have I ever defended any uncalled for, or use of excessive force by a Police Officer. The problem here is that we do not know the entire truth. We only know what we are seeing in video, tapped by a college student who SOLD, not gave Ho’s attorney the tape. In turn the attorney gave it to the press to get his client out of trouble.
Pham running at the Police with a knife is considered by me to be attempted murder. He wasn’t threatening them, he was running at them with it when he was killed, and YES, SOME SJI bloggers HAVE defended his actions.
Having said that, reporting is one thing, sensationalism, bias reporting, and convicting someone without all the facts is most certainly yellow journalism to me. Rushing to judgment is not due process. Wait for ALL the facts and then make a decision is all I’m saying.
Where’s Kathleen,
Yeah! Why do you hate freedom and America so much!
Who are you going to believe:
Kathleen or your own eyes?
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=7127100
Downtownster,
He/she can believe whom they want this is America. And since it IS America, let us all stop rushing to judgment based on an incomplete video tapped by Ho’s friend, a friend who SOLD it to Ho’s attorney, and allow due process to take its course.
Um, Downtownster, did you read your own posted article on SJPD? It supports my point of view, or did you just read video, excessive force, and put it on here in an effort to further your own contention that SJPD is racist and violent? Or don’t ALL the facts matter to you?
“Thursday the Consortium for Police Leadership in Equity presented its first report to a council committee. So far their data crunching does not support what many critics contend—that the police department engages in racial basis.”
The protestations of a non-compliant suspect are evidence of nothing. A pleading person, no matter what he might be saying, is no less dangerous than one who is silent or one who is screaming threats. The danger to arresting officers comes not from the suspect’s vocal cords but from his arms and legs. A suspect who “just wants to pick his glasses from the floor” might have harmless intentions or might be preparing to pull a weapon or deliver a sucker punch. How is the officer to know? How is the officer to defend himself?
The answer to the first question is: the officer can’t know. The answer to the second is: by taking command of the suspect’s movements and immobilizing his hands and legs (something that can be accomplished without the use of force provided the suspect obeys the officer’s commands). We know, of course, that Mr. Ho was not complying, as very clear at the beginning of the tape is the desperate plea of a friend begging him to obey the police.
There is not a single person reading this who could, even with three of his toughest friends, render safe a potentially dangerous person without immobilizing his arms and his legs. Training or no training, taking a non-compliant person into custody requires the use of some type of force.
The police were there because Mr. Ho, through his reckless behavior, frightened someone enough to make them call for help. The police used force because Mr. Ho, by his refusal to comply, gave them no other choice. The question of how reasonable that force was has yet to be answered, however the hysteria and political grandstanding is challenging the objectivity of the investigation of that question (and it is incredibly unwise to deny a police force due process).
One thing of which we can be sure: Mr Ho is an immature jackass who, thanks to a barnyard chorus of Chicken Little’s, can expect to cash in big time for his one day performance as a knife-wielding asshole. One can only hope that the next time he decides to go berserk and wave a knife around that Sean Webby will get there before the police arrive.
This arrest may be recorded for quality control purposes.
The council showed tone-deafness when it decided to not implement full sunshine reform. The public does not trust its police. Rumor around town says that it is not safe being Black, Mexican or Vietnamese in this town. Instead of alleviating distrust, by making it policy to be upfront and transparent with the public, we now have to drag out bad police (and fire department) behavior in the press, bit by messy bit. You can’t cover up in the information age.
I praise HO’s room mate, because they had the courage and the presence of mind to film the beating. I myself would have been entirely intimidated by the jack boot tactics. My respect doubles if HO’s roommates grew up in Vietnam, China or Burma where you are taught to fear the police.
Instead of relying on random acts of public bravery, we should have all cops wear embedded cameras. We have them in their cars, why not on the cops themselves. The problems identified by the second guessing Spartan reporter can be solve if we built cameras into the uniforms as well. The $60 U-camera records for 8 hours before needing a data dump. It can be carried in the front pocket continuously recording. The cost of equipting the entire police department should be less then the price of one minor lawsuit.
“The public does not trust its police.”
What public is that, Tony? The non-law-abiding public, which, thankfully, is but a small percentage of the entire public.
There are a lot of noisy folks making a big stir over violent people who have been given what they deserve. The rest of us, the mostly silent majority, have no sympathy for the malefactors or for those too stupid to obey a simple command from a police officer.
Phuong Ho needs to announce publicly that he IS not seeking and WILL not seek, monetary compensation from the City of San Jose, and state that his only interest is in reforming the behaviour of the SJPD.
Then and only then will I believe that he is not just another in an endless string of greedy, opportunistic immigrants who come here and work our system for monetary gain- with NO benefit to our country.
The left claims that we have been run roughshod by greedy bastards. They are to be considered the most contemptible among us. Then why should we be sympathetic to Phuong Ho if it turns out he’s looking for a big settlement? That settlement would, after all, be paid by you and by me. To a person who is in our country as a guest.
Some guest.
John Galt says,
“Phuong Ho needs to announce publicly that he IS not seeking and WILL not seek, monetary compensation from the City of San Jose, and state that his only interest is in reforming the behaviour of the SJPD.”
Or else what? You won’t believe him? You’ll defame his character and intelligence without ever meeting him? You will taunt him a second time?
The video above may (or may not) be enough to convince a jury that he is entitled to damages. I agree with you that it would be good if there were some reforms to hold the police accountable, but in the absence of those reforms (which the judicial branch cannot create) the only avenue open to Phuong Ho is to file his complaints which will be rejected as all the use of force complaints from 2008 were rejected, declare his intent to sue, and then sue. Maybe, when the taxpayers get sick of watching their money go to paying for the overzealous application of batons and tasers by our police, they will vote out the politicians who would not implement real police accountability.
downtownster says
“the only avenue open to Phuong Ho is to file his complaints which will be rejected… declare his intent to sue, and then sue”.
That’s his ONLY avenue, downtownster?
How about NOT suing? Isn’t that a choice?
How about if Ho wrote a letter in the Merc announcing that he has no intention of suing but that he wants people to understand that the SJPD uses unnecessary force? That would carry a lot more weight in implementing change than yet another City payout to a greedy fortune hunter.
And yes, I will make judgements about Phuong Ho’s character. I’ll base those judgements on his actions. If he pursues the course which he appears to have set out on, I will likely dismiss his opinions as lacking credibility- as will many. No weight will be added to the anti-police argument. The status will remain quo.
downtownster goes on to say, “Maybe, when the taxpayers get sick of watching their money go to paying for the overzealous application of batons and tasers by our police, they will vote out the politicians who would not implement real police accountability”.
I may sort of agree with you on this, downtownster, but I see it as a part of a much bigger problem. The mush-brained voters of San Jose don’t seem to have any interest in holding ANY City employees accountable for doing their job properly. Why should we expect the SJPD to be exempt from this general apathy? In a City that’s run in as sloppy a fashion as this one, is it realistic to think that one department should somehow distinguish itself by being perfectly competent and efficient?
John,
If you agree with “Downtownster” that this was an “overzealous application of batons and tasers” by the police, how would you have handled this situation differently if you were the responding police officer keeping in mind that this individual just threatened to kill his roommate with a knife?
Steve,
I didn’t explain myself very well there.
Regarding this situation, I have to give the police the benefit of the doubt and assume that Ho was being uncooperative and was resisting. I DON’T agree that this was an overzealous application of force.
My point of “agreement” with d’t’ster was in being dissatisfied with our elected leaders.
John,
Thanks for clarifying…I agree with you on both points.
Downtownster asks, “You’ll defame his character and intelligence without ever meeting him? You will taunt him a second time?” You mean like you consistently do to the SJPD whenever the Mercury News reports their usual BS?
Christian,
I do not taunt or defame the SJPD, unless finfan or Kathleen are SJPD and not just officers of the SJPD fan club.
I speak in favor of holding the department and individual officers accountable for their behavior because they have the power of life and death over us all. That is not defamation and it is not taunting. You will also notice I do not make ad hominem attacks on posters to this site the way the right wingers on SJI do.
DT said, “I do not taunt or defame the SJPD, unless finfan or Kathleen are SJPD and not just officers of the SJPD fan club.” Thanks for proving my point. Anyone who disagrees with you is labeled as SJPD or in a Fan Club.
“I speak in favor of holding the department and individual officers accountable for their behavior because they have the power of life and death over us all.”
So do Kathleen and Fin Fan but they go one step further. They speak up for victim’s rights, due process, and Police safety you don’t. Re-read your posts and make an attempt to answer the facts and leave out the wise cracks.
Christian
I have no issue with Kathleen or you being steadfast in your effort to be zealous in your effort to support the police. There is no more thankless job than to be a police officer. You and Kathleen should never stop working for their rights because they need your intelligence. Yes I am obessed with Hazelnut in Santa Clara because he openly advocates justifications for shooting officers. So i blast him here,there, and everywhere. I think the PD prevented a killing that night. However, I do think this kid deserves a forum as SJSU student leaders are too stupid or scared to do it .
HO apologized after everything he did?! Whooooa, did not know that. Well, I guess ALL CHARGES MUST BE DISMISSED,…IMMEDIATELY!!!!
Hey, and maybe after I get caught for speeding next time I can just cry and apologize and have it GO AWAY TOO! Brilliant! Should have thought of that one!!! HAHAHAHAHA, the sheer genious here at times is STAGGERING!
Why doesn’t the piece of crap Mercury News have the guts to report both sides of the story regarding the San Jose Police??
Report: No bias in San Jose police arrests
SAN JOSE—A group of independent researchers is saying their research shows no pattern of bias by San Jose Police in their arresting of Hispanic suspects.
The preliminary findings by the Consortium for Police Leadership in Equity run direclety counter to a series of articles in the Mercury News that conclude San Jose Police Arrest Hispanics at a much higher rate than other ethnic groups.
Speaking yesterday before a City Council Committee, UCLA social scientist Phillip Goff said the consortium has reviewed 10 years of police records.
While labeling the findings “preliminary,” Goff also said “on the surface of it, there doesn’t seem to be a pattern of bias” by the police.
http://kliv.com/Report—No-bias-in-San-Jose-police-arrests/5724318
attempted murderers?
Though I believe your intentions are above board I do have a few qualms with your post.
First, the word “altercation” may satisfy your understanding of the situation, but when police officers are dispatched to a call involving an armed person their first order of business is locating, disarming, and taking control of that person. The nature of the argument, the relationship between the combatants, the suspect’s true intent—none of that matters until the potential threat is neutralized. Remember, not only must the police protect themselves, but they are obligated to protect others, and had Mr. Ho stabbed someone because the officers handled the situation in a low-key, it’s-just-an-altercation manner, they would have been subject to discipline and the city held civilly liable.
Second, yes, there is a question about the amount of force used, but it is a question that the Mercury has blown out of proportion and been far less than objective about in its reporting. Consider:
– Mr. Ho is attending a university where classes are taught in English, yet the first thing the Mercury did was to emphasize his ethnicity and report that his language limitations may have led the police to mistake his confusion as aggression. Pure nonsense. The video clearly demonstrates that Mr. Ho’s roommates, who knew him well, were frantically yelling at him to obey the officers—in English.
– Mr. Ho’s injuries, which were apparently not very serious, are at worst, only partly due to police overzealousness.
– The value of the video is minimal, yet the newspaper has hyped it as if it’s another Zapruder film, going so far as to seek out the opinions of police experts(?) who are unknown to Merc readers and completely lacking in local credentials (the implication being that this county is devoid of reliable, objective police professionals).
– This incident was packaged with last year’s police shooting of a knife-wielding Asian nut job. Absolutely irresponsible, and clearly pandering to Asian activists who have so little to complain about in this city that they’ve had to manufacture controversy to fuel their quest for power. Don’t think for one minute that they don’t have at least one Asian police professional in mind to succeed Chief Davis.
– The newspaper is exploiting this incident for marketing and political reasons, and in the final analysis, doing great harm to our police department, which is already struggling with mass retirements (most of them early), lagging hiring, sagging morale, and real recruitment challenges (“Perpetual Danger and Public Disparagement” does not an attractive slogan make). San Jose is doing okay with a lousy newspaper, but it needs a good police department.
As for the suspect being face down, a person being held face down is not under control, unless you define under control as a momentary condition. The officers had to have him handcuffed in order to get him to his feet, hold him secure, and then investigate the call by finding the knife, questioning the victim, interviewing the witnesses, etc. For their purposes, under control means handcuffed and physically secured, and as long as Mr. Ho resisted handcuffing the officers’ use of force (to compel him to submit) was proper. If one of the officers struck him after it was known that Mr. Ho was cuffed, well then that officer should be held to answer.
The Murky Biased Opinionated News of Silicon Valley should be their motto and they will never, never report both sides of a story as we have seen for years
They believe biased reporters are right and Police are wrong regardless of facts or law
The San Francisco Examiner came out with an article supporting the SJPD and the use of force against Ho, saying they used necessary force to take a violent suspect into custody. Here it is reprinted:
“Every time law enforcement is doing its job properly, their is always a cry of “police brutality” that follows. The latest involves San Jose Police arresting SJSU student Phuong Ho back in October.
Ho was arrested by SJPD for making a threat to his room mate. Apparently the room mate spilled some soup and Ho threated him with a knife in response. When SJPD attempted to arrest Ho (rather then cooperate), went for his glasses and provoked the incident.
One could already sense that the SJPD acted appropriately and that Ho is greatly to blame for the beating that he received.
For one, he threated to kill some one on a school campus. Schools have a zero tolerance for such actions. Why? Because of Colombian. Remember the murders made a few death threats that were largely ignored until they came to school with an intent to kill. Second, because he over reacted to a trivial accident just shows how violent or unstable he is.
Hence, his room mate just tipped of the campus administration along with law enforcement to a possible time bomb and now they prevented a future massacre from happening.
As for the excuse about his glasses, common sense indicates when the cops are after you then you should just get on the ground and cooperate. Ho may have been going for his glasses, but the officers had to assume it was a weapon. Cops have to deal with street gangs and drug dealers who pull the same stunt only they try to pull out a knife.
So rather then for all the community groups, activists and opportunists to start crying about “police brutality”, its wise to look into the issue for a view point the involves common sense rather then primitive reaction.”
I don’t know where everyone gets the idea that reporters get paid commission based on the number of papers or ad space they sell. I Hate to break it to you all, but there is no correlation there.
And I suppose when the Merc reports both sides that is just to appear non biased?
And I don’t know how much to read into that sloppy KLIV story. I’m not sure how independent that consortium is, based on its Web site. And if the findings are just preliminary, why did they send out a news release to KLIV instead of finishing the study?
zero tolerance??
San Jose State campus administrators such as the Vice President of Student Affairs, who opposes student voter registration efforts, approved a demonstration one week after the Virginia Tech massacre in which students dressed in fatigues walked up to students on their way to class wearing military fatigues and very authentic guns. The students were not informed and Verril Phillips that was time to teach students that Isrealis “have too much control.” Verril and the Elders of Zion. Steve is right about alot of things in this matter. He is dead on about the fact that lives were at stake given the tragedy at Sacramento State, and Steve is right when he defends the police. I suppor their actions as well. My issue is with the student leaders and incompetent student affairs officials at San Jose State who have been hiding under their desks about this incident. A person has a gun a block away from the campus. SJSU’s PD act with appropriate force, but the campus alert system takes three hours to call a kid seeing the drama from his dorm room, and witnessing alert campus police handling it, that there is an incident. Dorm fires occur at SJSU every week and Phillips is trimming his beard on his desk wondering why there are dorm fires. Yes, Steve, the polic prevented a tragedy, but the people responsible for handling student affairs at SJSU are incompetent, impotent, and just plain dumb.
SJEastsider writes, “I don’t know where everyone gets the idea that reporters get paid commission based on the number of papers or ad space they sell.”
My response to that is, I don’t know where you got the idea that anyone thinks reporters work on commission? We all have a pretty good idea of the fiscal relationship between grabbing the public’s attention—achieved either by maintaining high journalist standards or engaging in sensationalism, and increasing circulation—which translates to increased advertising fees. We also understand the role of bias in reporting, and how that bias translates into the power to persuade the public in a favored direction, or, as is often the case, to deprive it completely of the knowledge of something disfavored. In truth, the public has good reason to always be suspicious of a newspaper, and in the case of the Mercury’s persecution of the police department, many factual reasons to scream foul.
A case in point is the paper’s never-ending campaign to convince the public that the shooting death of a knife-wielding Vietnamese man was the result of some failed policy or procedure of the SJPD, most lately with its focus on the suspect’s mental state. By exploiting the value that trained mental health professionals might bring to negotiations with a mentally-ill person, something few would dispute, the newspaper has created in the public’s mind a number of fallacies, including:
1) The notion that the mental state of a dangerous person can ever be more important than the safety of the officers and the public they are sworn to protect. A sharp blade can cut and kill no matter if it’s in the hands of Charlie Manson or Mister Rogers. The first step in any approach to the practice of psychological tactics is to make safe the environment, something the cops on the scene in the Pham case tried desperately to do. Prior to achieving a reasonable level of control the suspect’s mental state is a non-factor.
2) The idea of that an officer’s inability to control a given person is evidence of a lack of training. Nonsense. The record is full of cases where well-trained officers failed, rookie officers succeeded, and reliable approaches failed inexplicably. Consider this: mental health satellite facilities (which serve walk-ins) routinely call the police when faced with physically-aggressive clients. Apparently, when it comes to their personal safety, they prefer relying on force rather than psychology.
3) That the motive for a department establishing a Crisis Intervention unit is the removal of force as a tactic for controlling the mentally ill. Dream on. Police professionals realize, given the huge numbers of deranged, volatile people living uncontrolled lives, that the use of force against the mentally ill is inevitable. Many such people are, episodically, uncommunicative, a condition which, when coupled with an angry or aggressive state, makes the use of force unavoidable. CI units benefit departments primarily by providing inexperienced officers with a starting point (training that is available through other avenues), standardizing practices and tactics (that will, no doubt, change regularly), and by assuring the public (and civil court juries) that the department is doing “all it can.” Street cops will welcome anything (like the TASER) that really helps them in their most difficult tasks, but most things that come along—like CI and community policing, are recognized as just the latest slight of hand to keep alive the delusion that aggressive and violent people can be policed without aggression and violence.
Lastly, no one is saying that the Mercury reports every story in a lopsided manner—that would be too stupid even for that bunch of jackasses. Bias in reporting is an exercise of power, and as it is with all power, it must be used and abused selectively, lest it impact and anger so many as to stir a revolt. Imagine if the Merc were to do a special series on “The Color of Murder,” and report, using the available statistics, how very rare murder would be in the Bay Area were it not for the bloody contributions of Blacks and Hispanics? That the data would overwhelmingly support such a position would not change the fact that the paper would come under fire from outraged government officials, educators, minority groups, church leaders, and every other local source of politically-correct stupidity. So, rather than violate their own political perspectives AND risk the wrath of reporting the truth, the paper happily panders to the idiots by attacking the easiest and most identifiably non-liberal institution available, law enforcement.
So a few of us bitch about it. Are we to be denied even that?