[mobglob-discuss] an un'bear'able case of police brutality

[Graeme Bacque]

Questions persist on bear
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
By Dianne Williamson
Telegram & Gazette Columnist

Deputy Daniel Connolly of the state environmental police released an
audible sigh while addressing yet one more telephone inquiry yesterday morning.
"I'll bet you're calling to see how my Father's Day was," he said.

Fat chance, and he knew it. Like many others, I was calling about the bear.
The dead bear. The bear that was shot and killed early Sunday by Worcester
police after it wandered into a residential neighborhood and perched in a
tree between a pair of three-deckers off Grafton Street.

This is one of those stories that's known in journalistic parlance as
"having legs," and not just because it involves a black bear. The story has
legs because many people are still upset about it, because questions remain
unanswered, and because the incident has sparked possible bear-related
litigation over possession of a videotape depicting a 300-pound mammal
lounging in a tree at 2 in the morning.

"I want that videotape!" Ralph Casey was shouting yesterday to the house
across the street and to a group of newscasters who had descended on his
neighborhood. "I've already called a lawyer! I have a good case and I'm
taking that woman to court!"

More on that later. First, the bear.

Dubbed "Yogi" by charmed but nonplused neighbors, the bear wandered into
the densely populated Grafton Street neighborhood early Sunday and climbed
a tree in Mr. Casey's yard at 19 Mendon St., which is near downtown. Police
who had followed the bear called environmental police and Tufts University
School of Veterinary Medicine, hoping someone could come and tranquilize
the creature. After two and a half hours, fearing that the bear could pose

a safety hazard when residents awoke and came outside, an officer shot the
animal about 2:30 a.m. with a 12-gauge pump shotgun.

The killing has prompted many irate phone calls to local and environmental
police and to places such as the EcoTarium, which was also contacted by
police but is not regulated to tranquilize animals outside of its center,
according to executive director Laura Myers.

"That bear should not have been killed," said Ms. Meyers, who pointed out
that the EcoTarium received more than two dozen phone calls yesterday from
people who agree with her. "I don't know what the rush was to shoot it."

State environmental police Officer Andrew P. Beaulieu said his agency does
not typically tranquilize bears after dark because of the risks involved
with poor visibility, a policy also followed by Tufts. Adding that his
agency is understaffed, Officer Beaulieu said it was his understanding that
an environmental officer was headed from Warren to Worcester to assess the
situation when the bear was killed.

"I would never second-guess another police agency," Officer Beaulieu said,
calling the incident a "no-win" situation. "The police made the call to use
deadly force because public safety comes first. Unfortunately, the public
doesn't always understand that. This is not an exact science, and things
could go wrong just like that."

Privately, though, some environmental officials questioned the decision to
shoot the animal, while Worcester police have expressed frustration that
environmental cops failed to show up. Does this mean that local police
acted too hastily and environmental police weren't quick enough? And was
the bear doomed from the start because environmental police would sedate it
only in daylight, while Worcester police decided to shoot it because
daylight was approaching?

Most important -- shouldn't a system exist to respond to such incidents,
given that your average bear doesn't consult his watch before venturing
into urban areas?

No one can accuse the Worcester police of being overly concerned with
public relations. While a state environmental police officer patiently gave
interviews to local and Boston reporters yesterday on Mendon Street,
Worcester police gave the media the runaround. Calls made to the chief's
office were referred to the Operations Division; operations referred calls
to the chief's office, then later suggested we contact the officer who gave
the order to shoot the animal, Lt. Richard D. Krasinskas, who doesn't
report for work until 11 p.m.

On Sunday, a group of neighborhood children held a somber candlelight vigil
for the bear at the base of the tree, which they inscribed.

"Yogi," reads the simple memorial, written on the tree trunk in red paint.
"06-15-02." Some of the children clutched teddy bears and "hummed a little
bit," according to Mr. Casey, who is involved in a feud with a neighbor who
videotaped the bear Sunday morning from Mr. Casey's apartment and now
refuses to give him a copy of the tape, he said.

"She ordered me out of her house when I asked for it," said Mr. Casey, who
vowed yesterday to sue. "That's a valuable tape. How often do you see a
large black bear 10 feet away from your window?"

Such scenarios have increased as animals lose their habitat to development
and the number of bear hunters has declined, Officer Beaulieu said. He said
bears can become dangerous if cornered or placed in fear, and that reports
of "problem bears" are one of his most frequent calls in the spring.

While no one was sure where the bear had come from, more than one local wag
suggested that it may have been headed to a vast undeveloped tract of land,
such as Union Station or downtown Worcester.

"In any situation like this, you're always going to have people in an
uproar," Officer Beaulieu said. "Sometimes we come out smelling like a
rose, but that didn't happen this time. Unfortunately, the bear came out on
the short end of the stick."

That's one assessment everyone can agree on.

Dianne Williamson can be reached via e-mail at dwilliamson at telegram
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 6/20/02