I was driving southbound on Naito at 4:05 p.m., and noticed two men (age 30-50) in nice suits walking cheerfully on the sidewalk (southbound) on the western edge of Naito Pkwy (the eastern edge is currently closed). I observed them breaking their stride, with visible fear on their faces, as they quickly began walking in the opposite direction (as one of them reached for his cellphone).

As I drove under the Hawthorne Bridge, I learned why: roughly 30 street kids + dogs had congregated underneath the darkness of the Hawthorne Bridge, and they were completely blocking the sidewalk. They were laughing at the two men who had decided to do a 180. There was glorious sunshine streaming downtown, so I can only assume they were assembled there from some other purpose than shelter.

That wouldn't have happened in the "old days" either. The cops wouldn't have let a bunch of kids block the sidewalk and practically DARE somebody to try and use it.

If the 2 guys in suits were headed towards the Marriot, I would guess they made it there safely after a quick detour past the rat pack. If they are visiting from another city (they looked like visitors: no umbrellas/overcoats), I would bet they relate this experience to the hometown crowd.

Anybody think this may have something to do with the decline of downtown?

I observed them breaking their stride, with visible fear on their faces, as they quickly began walking in the opposite direction (as one of them reached for his cellphone).

Good thing there weren't any cops around. This sort of behavior will get you shot.

1948?

Wouldn't that have been right about the time that Terry Schrunk was Sheriff of Multnomah County, now wouldn't it?

No, the story quotes a sheriff by the name of Martin T. Pratt.

And the interesting thing is that the escaped prisoner had been convicted of killing a police officer. It must have been controversial to indict a police officer for assaulting him.

On the other hand, the assault occurred when the prisoner was handcuffed which would make it a very clear case and somewhat distinguishable from some of the recent police brutality cases.

bIXsie:

I presume you aren't referring to Chasse, who wasn't "shot" by the Police. You could be referring to Kendra James, who had outstanding warrants and was resisting arrest when she ignored police instructions not to jump from the back to the front seat: hardly an example of Joe Citizen just walking funny. Or maybe you're thinking of that poor kid in Tigard who had a knife and threatened to kill his family? Or the twenty year old high on Shrooms who broke into a neighbors apartment and assaulted a mother and her 8 year old girl. Because, even YOU would have to agree that the Police were completely justified when they "shot" that dude.

Right?

Close, b!X, but not quite. From the official history of Oregon sheriffs [who knew?]:

Marion Leroy "Mike" Elliott was elected in 1949 but served only 10 months before he was recalled after being charged with campaign fraud.

Terry D. Schrunk was appointed to take Elliott's place and went on to serve as Multnomah County Sheriff until December 1956, when he left to become Mayor of Portland.

That last comment shouldn't be addressed to me, because I didn't say anything about who the sheriff was.

At to the comment above, I wasn't making an explicit reference to any particular case. I was being snarky. Tho it's nice to see people still get the facts of the Kendra James case wrong.

(Grr, don't click post until you're done, b!X.)

The snark deriving from "breaking their stride, with visible fear on their faces" which is remiscent of things that have been said about Chasse, and "one of them reached for his cellphone" which has echoes of James Jahar Perez, for those who actually bother to remember the evidence Schrunk may have withheld from the grand jury in that case, in the manner in which we know he withheld it from the inquest jury.

"may have withheld" ?? That's a very casual way of accusing the district attorney of some serious wrongdoing.

"may have withheld" ?? That's a very casual way of accusing the district attorney of some serious wrongdoing.

The short version: We know for a fact that he withheld the presence of a cellphone in Perez' car, which conceivably could have been what he was reaching for (a dumb move, of course), from the inquest jury. Why? Because the officers simply said they never saw a cellphone, and their word was good enough for him.

Never been answered: Whether he also did the same before the grand jury. I say "may have" simply because if the officers' word was good enough for Schrunk for the inquest jury, it's not a stretch to consider that it was good enough for him before the grand jury as well.