Latest in a series of posts about the Bethlehem Police
I have been troubled by this post since I read it. First, there is the comment by Dana, suggesting that people holding divergent views are flying past each other on the highway, which makes the hope of any communication and understanding between them seem impossible. Someone like Dana might actually be able to bridge such a divide, but not if he’s looking at it that way. Second, there is the comment by Lisa Ann Rosa, insisting that her experience of the former Police Chief is the only one that matters. She’s confused why people are upset by the Chief’s behavior but can’t fathom the possibility that there is validity in the views of other people who have different experiences–only hers can be correct because she’s judging a bunch of people with whom she’s probably never had a single conversation. Third, there is the threat in the first post, which fails to convey the convincing reasons and data that those who are critical of the Bethlehem PD brought to bear on the public discussion during the public safety meeting. As someone who would like to see some serious public safety reforms in Bethlehem, I’d like to see the people who are critical of the Bethlehem PD brought into the ongoing discussion, rather than reduced to threat-mongering “radicals,” which this kind of post makes it too easy for people like Lisa Ann Rosa to do. I really don’t see any value in this post. It’s not cleverly descriptive, it’s unlikely to help Lisa Ann Rosa understand why people are upset with the Chief, and it’s unlikely to lend any legitimacy to the empirically backed and well-reasoned arguments presented by members of Lehigh Valley Stands Up at public meetings.