This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 19, 2009 4:29 PM. The previous post in this blog was All bricks, all the time. The next post in this blog is Clap off! State police pay to settle malicious prosecution claim.. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Rogue cop at it again

"Thumper" Humphreys, the Portland cop who brutally killed James Chasse, has just been yanked off the street after shooting a 12-year-old girl with a beanbag gun at close range.

It's a good thing he didn't kill someone else. It's been known for years that he's got issues that put lots of people's well being in jeopardy. Will this be the end of his career as a policeman? Don't be silly. The union will probably give him another prize.

Of course, they're probably only busting him now to try to soften the multi-million-dollar verdict they're looking at after a sensational trial in the Chasse civil case. This town is so sad sometimes.

Comments (79)

Sizer said she is "troubled" by the video.

Imagine if there had been video of the murder of James Chasse. The post-beating still photos are nauseating enough.

It won't take 15 minutes before Scott Westerman will be holding forth loud and long. In his opinion, NO PPB officer can EVER do anything wrong. Both he and his predecessor, whose name escapes me now, are not doing the GOOD officers of the PPB any service by so vociferously defending the bad apples.

The photo showing that Humphreys went for coffee while Chasse lay on the sidewalk, dying -- that did it for me. Welcome to hell.

NO PPB officer can EVER do anything wrong.

He should know -- isn't he a killer cop himself?

I don't know Westerman's history. Anyone?

This entire Chasse thing, now compounded with this latest adventure of a big man with a Bean Bag versus a 12 year old girl, makes me furious. The PPB has been, on some level (with apologies to the good officers out there) running amok for YEARS in Portland. Will anyone in City government ever grow a pair and do something about it?

It's up to Fish and Fritz. The three swingin' playboys haven't a soul left among them.

There are approximately 70 uniformed cops standing behind Westermann as he speaks (according to the Oregonian). Shouldn't they be working? Why are they defending this guy? He's a creep and a criminal. I admire our police force and what they do for us, but get back to work and let officer Humphry's fend for himself. You will be better of for it.

This is just disturbing on so many levels. Fortunately for me, I'm no longer in the area. Unfortunately, three of my favorite people 10 and under are.

Sizer may be hoping to hold the Chasee damage award under $ 10 million. fat chance.

The real question will be if Sizer can hold the damage's kid's lawsuit for civil rights violation, and negligent failure to train, supervise and discipline Humphreys under $ 25 Million.

Rosie, the whole command staff, and Central Precinct commander Mike Reese have to go.

As do Saltzman and Adams.

"There are approximately 70 uniformed cops standing behind Westermann as he speaks, Shouldn't they be working?"

4 PM is shift change, so they were off duty.

Bad Brad: Thank you for clarifying about the shift change. I can appreciate these officers wanting to support the union. Although in this case I think it is misguided loyalty. Too bad there isn't someone to organize 70 cops who think that Humphry is a blemish on the PPD and has to go. Preferably directly to jail.

The whole bureau runs on fear.

We are about to get a knee-jerk reaction from the cop haters and the beatings-are-the-only-things-these-people-understand mobs. In this case I fear I agree with both of them. This cop is a thug and an embarrassment to all of those defending him. Having said that, a twelve year old girl out at night alone that punches a cop may just be lacking adequate parental guidance. If the "parent" makes money off this I'm going to be really miffed.

I just saw the video on Channel 8. Yes, the girl was out of control and fighting. Yes, she should have been home, not on a MAX train at that time of night. Agreed on all points.

But two adult trained male officers who cannot control a flailing 12 year old? And it was frankly, chilling, to watch Humphreys step back and fire his weapon, bean bag or no, and watch that child (and yes, still a child) go limp.

And disturbing. I'd be interested to see the 'only a bruise' from a bean bag round fired into her leg at a range that (to me) looked to be no more than four feet.

I've never had much use for cops and as a rule avoid them. But, this thread is as irrational as a race prejudice.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote an article in The New Yorker a few years ago that mentioned a study they did in LA, they found that a small minority (less than 10%) of LA cops were responsible for the vast majority of excessive force complaints. If the cops would police their own and weed out the bad apples rather than circling the wagons with the "thin blue line" stuff they'd probably all be better off.

Just curious:

What should they have done? Had they slammed her to the ground, you would take offense. Had they tased her, same. Use an asp, ditto. Mace, nope she's just a child. A child who punched a police officer in the face.

If you think that a young girl is not a danger, use google.

This is just sick.

At what point does management / Politicians
/Union figure out they have an employee with major anger and power issues?

As bad as it sounds, she is lucky to not have been dog piled and killed like several others in the Northwest.

I don't think you can use the "rogue" designation seriously here -- the system has backed and covered for him every step of the way. He is no rogue. The rogue would be the cop who tells the truth about him and what they did to Chasse.

Had they slammed her to the ground, you would take offense.

Not really.

If he slammed her to the ground and kneed and kicked her until she had several dozen broken ribs, or hit her 30 times with a baton, that might have been a bit excessive.

But if he can't enforce a Tri-Met exclusion against a 12-year-old without shooting her, he needs a job selling whatever steroids he's on.

It is obvious from the various comments, that many have not been on the Metropolitan Ghetto Xpress(MGX) out to da'hood, which is now 122nd MGX stop to the 188 MGX stop. Ride out there and maybe some of you will understand Humphries use of force.

Look at the video. They could have taken her down without shooting her. Strutting around with his gun -- the guy has problems. He needs a different job.


I had jury duty yesterday. I was in the jury pool for a misdemeanor criminal trial, but I was not selected as a member of the seated jury.

During voir dire, one of the attorneys asked us what we thought of the police.

I had a silent chuckle over that one.

She has been charged with assaulting a public safety officer, resisting arrest and interfering with public transportation.

They charged Chasse too. But then he died.

The issue here is whether the force used was reasonable, and whether the episode was handled with good judgment. Hard to tell from a grainy video, but it looks as though there was no need to be parading around with a rifle over your shoulder and then shooting a 12-year-old girl over a Tri-Met exclusion.

"More than two dozen young men and woman – some of them suspected gang members – were leaving a party in the area and got into a tussle with others in the area.

Many of the young people boarded a westbound MAX train."

Given that they didn't know exactly what they were going to encounter, I would say that taking some LTL precautions were in order. BTW, the shotgun, not a rifle, was clearly marked as LTL by it's orange stock and front grip.

Whatever you call that particular firearm, it was totally unnecessary to strap it on your back and strut up and down the platform looking for trouble.

got into a tussle

WTF is that supposed to mean? I don't see any melee, violence, or trouble of any kind on that video. I see cops looking for trouble, and then shooting some girl over a Tri-Met exclusion. It is totally unprofessional, and totally unacceptable.

Thumper should be standing trial for second degree murder. He shouldn't even be on that platform. If he can't be fired, then give him a job training Fireman Randy's water cops how to shoot or stomp first, and ask questions later.

Sounds like Sgt. Westerman needs to be put on permanent leave as well. If my tax dollars paid for even one of those officers to stand downtown for even one minute, I want that person fired.

Come to think of it, let's just make a clean sweep of the whole force and start over. Portland PD are a useless unprofessional incompetent embarrassment to the city.

Only takes 4 of you and a gun to handle a 12 year old girl? Pathetic.

I hope it's not lost on you gestapo that if any other group formed an impromptu group of 70 protesters Downtown that you'd bust it up with riot gear and horses.

Sherwood -

I understand you not wanting a malfeasing (?) (invented word ?) to "profit" from the id being out too late and witthout supervision.

But how, other than costing the City beaucoup bucks, are we going to force the politicians to pay attention to the festering cancer that is the PPB?

costing the City beaucoup bucks

that means the taxpayer pays, and we get the added bonus of out of control cops. win-win.

The people give police officers a great power - to use force. This gift is not unconditional. The people should be able to revoke this power from any officer at any time without argument without stalling.

This power is taken for granted by the Portland Police Association, and perhaps by police officers in general, and perhaps by police officers elsewhere. They are mistaken.

Whether leadership is to be prepared to decide or be decided is immaterial. A leader must ACT.

The time to ACT was 3 years ago. Failure to act is considered by cops as inconsistency, which is perceived as dangerous and perhaps treacherous. They are fragile sorts.

Forever now all action can be cast through the prism of inaction - childish foot-stamping. The only solution is that ALL the players need to be swept away, the good and the bad and the hapless.

I just read the text of Scott Westerman's speech this afternoon, with his goon squad of intimidators lined up behind him.

I agree with Westerman: I, too, have no confidence in Sizer or Saltzman.

The idea that Sizer was not going to suspend Humphries, and had to be overruled by Saltzman, is simply sickening.

Before I go on to defend the police, let me state that I have dealt with police in the past, I have been arrested, and I have spent a little time in jail.

First, the police have every right to ask a 12 year old why she is out past the curfew time for minors without a guardian present.

Second, police are not trained to be social workers. They are trained with a command-and-control type of thinking where the situation is out of control until they have the suspect in cuffs and inside a squad car.

Third, law enforcement attracts control freak sociopaths who get off on running other people's lives. 99% of individuals who work in law enforcement are the best of us, but individuals like this officer are the exception that cop haters bring up to perpetuate their deluded, ignorant opinion based entirely on the fallacy that the exception is the rule (which it is clearly not).

Fourth, why was a 12 year old out at that time of night? Where is the outrage against her blatantly negligent parent(s)?

Fifth, why was the 12 year old resisting like she did? Where is the basic intelligence that you do not argue with someone who has a gun, is trained to use it, and can put you in cuffs and beat you where there are no cameras? Real stupid kid in my opinion. Real phucking stupid.

If this child was 18 or over and she hit a cop, then they could slap her with a felony for assaulting an officer. She is lucky this time that she is still a minor. Next time she will be doing time.

Finally, why all the faux outrage and crocodile tears for this 12 year old? Her behavior foreshadows that she will not be an upstanding member of society.

I may be wrong and she may be another "Precious," but the numbers don't lie and if we bring the numbers into the equation, then charges of racism will rebound endlessly.

For me the worst part is how Orwellian the language gets:

"Chasse’s confrontation with police left him with several internal injuries, including 26 broken bones, broken ribs and a punctured left lung."

Notice how "Chasses's confrontation with police" did the damage, not the police .... And to call it "Chasses's confrontation" -- when he was running away from them -- shameful.

How about just writing the reality without the responsibility-shifting passive voice?

"Humphrey left Chasse with several internal injuries, including 26 broken bones, broken ribs, and a punctured left lung."

Fourth, why was a 12 year old out at that time of night?

Wasn't it quarter to 11 on a Saturday night? It's not like it was 2 in the morning.

why was the 12 year old resisting like she did?

Probably no good reason. But no one knows for sure. Who knows what the first cop said to her?

why all the faux outrage and crocodile tears for this 12 year old? Her behavior foreshadows that she will not be an upstanding member of society.

She did not deserve to be shot, just as Chasse did not deserve to die. We have a criminal justice system in which judges and juries are supposed to decide guilt and punishment, not some psycho killer in a uniform, hopped up on steroids, itchy trigger finger on his shotgun, and empowered by the undying support of union goons.


I understand where you are coming from. Personally, I have not followed this officer's controversies year over year, therefore I do not feel the same kind of outrage that you and others feel at the moment.

What I try to do is to cut it down the line. Both sides have their story. Yet, when you bring cameras into the equation then questions such as why was she out at the time get drowned out by the chorus of "LOOK AT THE FOOTAGE IT TELLS EVERYTHING!" Cameras only tell one side of the story just as police reports only tell one side of the story.

It may be that Officer Humphreys is the exception that cop haters use to reinforce their views. The evidence you cite would lead me to that conclusion.

However, you, I and many others who comment on this blog are not police officers who go into work everyday dealing with the scum sucking dregs of society with no thanks for keeping order in society. From their point of view 90%+ of the time, they do their job fairly, by the book, and attract little controversy. Yet, do we thank police officers for keeping society under control? No, like the media we focus in on the controversy, forget that 99 out of 100 police officers are the best of us, and try to paint the 1 officer out of 100 as the poster child for law enforcement.

We need to take a step back, acknowledge that some groups self marginalize themselves with their unwarranted, negative view on those who maintain an orderly society, and let the system work itself out.

Then again, if it bleeds; it leads.

"From their point of view 90%+ of the time, they do their job fairly, by the book, and attract little controversy. Yet, do we thank police officers for keeping society under control? No, like the media we focus in on the controversy, forget that 99 out of 100 police officers are the best of us, and try to paint the 1 officer out of 100 as the poster child for law enforcement."

Police are only profession of whom any criticism whatsoever instantly brings the charge of "hater." Nobody finds criticisms of lawyers, doctors, teachers or bureaucrats out of line; nobody gets accused of being a "teacher hater" for complaining about bad teachers, and nobody is ever criticized for being a "lawyer hater" for criticizing lawyers, judges or anyone else connected with the legal system -- a system where cops routinely lie every single day.

Even when that (supposedly only) 1 out of 100 has made himself abundantly easy to identify, the cops don't purge themselves. If they feel any shame for what the (supposedly only 1 in 100) thugs do, they do a great job concealing it and turning outrage about the 1 into attacks on anyone who dares question them or suggest that the laws should apply to them.


You hit on it exactly. The unions and the "blue shield" have become so powerful that police departments have no way to manage the risk that can be a renegade police officer. The same goes for Teacher's unions and bad teachers who consistently get COLA raises year after year.

As for "hater" you must not be a "player" if you know what I mean :)

When you see a pattern of violence like this, talking about whether it was within the rules or not is almost a diversion from the real problem: We seem to have a cop here who enjoys inflicting pain.

I believe if he is not fired we will continue to find him in controversial situations that involve him hurting others. God knows after James Chasse, I felt like we'd be reading about Officer Humphreys again.

There are many cops out there who are different than this - who risk their own lives to avoid hurting people. I have seen that with my own eyes. I have seen a cop right after a teenager pointed a gun at him. The cop had every right to shoot and he passed. He was trembling, and kept saying, "I almost shot him" but he apprehended the kid and he did it without beating him up.

I don't think Humphreys is that kind of officer. Maybe he was once, but I believe he's crossed over to the dark side. I think he searches out opportunities to go off. I believe on some powerful level, it is what he wants to do.

So expect more of the same from Officer Humphrey if he sticks around. He is very much in a position to make these opportunities come about. By now he is very cognizant of the rules and how to escalate a situation into his wheelhouse - a chance for him to go off.

Another cop and maybe this kid doesn't lose it. And I don't mean a social worker, like the comment above, but a skilled officer trying to diffuse a situation and certainly not leaving any openings for a sucker punch, etc...

I believe on some level that possibility may have been left open on purpose. In my opinion, with Humphreys it's about escalating instead of diffusing. The right words, the right opening, the right moment to let this angry - and probably scared - 12-year-old lose it.

And then, it happens - what Humphreys waits for through all the boring hours of too many shifts: Another chance to let loose and hurt someone. I can imagine him telling himself later, "Ahh, the rush never gets old. This is why you're a police officer."

Did Humphreys really take a coffee break after beating James Chasse while the body was still on the pavement? Really?

I bet the coffee never tasted as good to him as it did that day. Ahh, the warm caffeine rush mixed with the rush of inflicting pain.

Not all cops are bad, check out this story from Salem-


I bet the whole tri-met exclusion thing is a complete fabrication. The video looks like the kid got off the train, was approached by the officer, she tried to keep moving away, he grabbed, she pushed back. The issue that I suspect is being covered up is that the officers had no reasonable basis to stop her, let alone shoot her. She doesn't look 12, and, as was repeatedly stressed by Westerman, she was an adult size, why would she look like she was subject to curfews?. I seriously question the cops "recognizing" someone on a curfew list. Huh? Like, um, recognizing that Chasse couldn't breathe, right?

The kid looks Latina. Maybe she has come to hate and fear cops. I wonder why. Jose Angel Padilla, Victor Mejia Poot, to name a few.

Remember when we were teenagers and heard the phrase, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they won't get you?

I once thought that was a funny line. After Chasse, that line makes me want to cry.

Why is a 12 year old out by herself at almost 11pm? Already banned from riding the MAX, at 12 years old, for stealing a purse. Absolutely 0 respect for those that serve and protect the law. Sounds like this girl is well on her way.

I did not know that there was a "curfew list?" I assume that most cities including Portland, OR have a general curfew starting between 11 pm-2 am for minors.

If there is a curfew, then the cops have every right to stop her and ask her why she is out past the curfew for minors. They have no right to manhandle her like an animal and shoot her with a pellet gun.

If she is a minor, my bet would be on her winning multi-millions in tax payer dollars in a civil suit.

If she is an adult, then she could get tagged with a felony for assaulting an officer. However, seeing as how she is a minority, she may very likely win in court when her lawyer drags up the same, tired "police target minorities" argument, which juries laden with white guilt will swallow wholesale in the Portland Metro Area.

As for cop hating, what is the alternative? No law enforcement? Then get a gun because you will be the one keeping order in society.

My preference is that the City takes a thorough look at the Police Union and finds someway to cut them off at the knees so that the Portland Police Bureau can rid themselves of liabilities such as Officer Humphreys.

Here's what really happened>>>Hump-the-Thumper slipped and fell down with the
big bus rolling his way, Rosie quickly jumped in to rescue him and Dan-the-Man grabs him from Rosie and throws him under the bus as it rushes by. Way to go Dan! You
are now the man! WE THE PEEPS fully stand by you and support you as you finally force the pigsters at PoPo to take a fall as they defecate their pants as one of their own is forced to stand ACCOUNTABLE! A NEW DAY is here for PDX as reason is coming back and fear is taking a ride on that rushing bus that ran over Hump-the-Thumper!

Ryan, I understand what you're saying but having lived around the country for the last 30 years, I'm amazed at how many times the Portland cops get themselves in trouble for, to be honest, a lot of stupid reasoning and lack of common sense. Some of those cities have included a much larger criminal element that WAS aiming at cops. Yet the mentally ill and teens weren't getting beaten or shot because of that.

There is a systemic issue in the Portland force and it should be dealt with. It won't be, because this is Portland.

And, no, I'm not a cop hater, in any way, shape or form.

That was a 12 year old? Thats one big kid. She looked as tall as the cops.
And they had to "wrestle" her to the ground? They have that much trouble handling a 12 year old? Seriously?

Did Humphreys really take a coffee break after beating James Chasse while the body was still on the pavement? Really?


If she is an adult, then she could get tagged with a felony for assaulting an officer.

Wait...why shouldnt a minor get tagged with assaulting an officer?

It's pathetic that our city leaders are so desperate for the police endorsement that they'll just look the other way on this one. I mean, really, that's what this is all about. They're afraid that their opponent will get the "tough on crime!" label in the next election. Pathetic.

As someone asked earlier: Shouldn't we be talking to the folks at 20/20, 48 Hours or MSNBC Investigates?

If I punched a police officer in the face and walked away with only a bruised thigh, I would consider myself very lucky.

Of course, I would never punch a police officer in the face so they would never have a reason to bean bag me in the first place.

They have that much trouble handling a 12 year old?

Next time you see a police officer on patrol, take a close look. They are so laden and festooned with weapons, communications devices and other tools of their trade that any actual physical activity or engagement is pretty much out of the equation. When they step back to attack, the only serious question is, will it be with the stick, the bean bag gun, the Taser or the Glock?

The advent of non-lethal options for the police has made them less willing to go hands on with a perp. I mean really, if you could tase someone, why would you want to fight them.

The mindset of the police is that they are going home at the end of their shift to their families no matter what. Can you blame them?

"The advent of non-lethal options for the police has made them less willing to go hands on with a perp. I mean really, if you could tase someone, why would you want to fight them."

Remember when all those 'non-lethal' options were sold as ALTERNATIVES to lethal force, which would only be used in situations where, otherwise, the officer would have to throw down on the "perp"?

Now we've got supermilitarized police forces using sonic blasters and heat rays as "crowd control" devices and individual cops so loaded down with weapons that only the lizard parts of their brains ever seem to get engaged, and every incident becomes about the cop's manhood and the need to establish dominance.

When they step back to attack, the only serious question is, will it be with the stick, the bean bag gun, the Taser or the Glock?

Right. So what person in their right mind would HIT A COP?

Also, The fact that this was a 12-yr-old out kid out at a party with known gang members, after 11pm, means some parent has not done their job.

Yes, the bean bag shot was WAY out of line.
But this kid has some serious issues.

To all of those who say that the cops should just be able to "subdue" a 12 year old, consider this. This "child" is 5'7''/160 lbs. The video shows that without provocation, this "child" struck the officer in the face. If any of you brave souls were being attacked by this "child" and an officer was standing next to you, what would you want the officer to do? Yell that you should be able to subdue this "child" yourself??

I guarantee if no beanbag had been used there would have had to have been handstrikes and the injuries would have been worse. But again, since most on this board criticize law enforcement without having the faintest idea of what police have to deal with, I suppose that would have caused an uproar as well.

Chris -

Humphreys' defenders can't have it both ways. If the person is 5'7" and 160 lbs. (you have the booking sheet, perhaps?) there is no way Humphries and Dauchy "knew" that she was a minor out after curfew.

So, no cause at all for Dauchy to grab the kid in the first place.

And no, here's hint for you - there is no curfew list with photo id, and no TriMet exclusion list with photo id. No way either Humphreys or Ddauchy "knew: before the encounter that the kid may have been on a Tri Met exclusion list. They may have learned that after the fact, and are bootstrapping that into a "reasonable cause" to apprehend the kid initially. That part of the PPB spin on this story is as much bovine waste as was the initial story that Humphreys observed Chassee urininating in the street before that encounter.

I expect the kid mouthed off at the cops from the train, and they decided to be judge, jury and executioner by apprehending and punishing herher.

Here's a hint - it ain't a crime to yell at a cop.

And it ain't a crime to resist an illegal arrest.


Don't you think that "Humphreys and Officer Aaron Dauchy, both 10-year veterans assigned to the TriMet Transit Police" might have some idea of who has been excluded from trimet?

Have any of you read the article or just looked at the pretty pictures?

The video shows that without provocation, this "child" struck the officer in the face.

Does it? From what I saw in the first video, the girl walks off the train under her own power just past the one minute mark, an officer grabs her hands behind her at 1:09, she walks almost off the left frame of the image with the officer still holding her left arm at 1:11, there's a lot of blurry, indistinct wrangling, with Humphreys appearing to help pull her back into the frame for several seconds, then by 1:19 you can see the bean bag skittering across the platform after she's been shot. Frankly, I don't think the video's even good enough evidence to say that she'd been shot -- all you can tell is that the bean bag's been discharged -- much less that she supposedly hit an officer in the face. And since they spent less than ten seconds in their attempt to subdue her before they shot her, it really doesn't square with the original account that they gave "repeated warnings to stop resisting or [Humphreys] would shoot a beanbag gun". Are they the world's fastest talkers or something?


There is a second video from a second angle. I agree it is not the best quality, but you can clearly see her arm raise up and strike the officer which precedes the "indistinct wrangling" i.e. the officer defending himself after he was being struck repeatedly, which you can see.

No, I don't have a booking sheet, that is what is being reported on various news outlets. No, I am a not a Humphrey defender. I think the Chasse situation is a mess and unjustifiable, excessive force was used.

However, I'm just someone who doesn't like knee jerk reactions and bumper sticker arguments, whether they come from the right or the left. I also like to judge each situation independently, after viewing the available facts and coming to an individual conclusion. Is that really so wrong? You have drawn a quick conclsuion without all of the facts and misunderstand the point I am trying to make. Unfortunately, you are doing exactly what you accuse the police of doing: Making indiscriminate accusations without proof to back it up.

It ain't a crime to yell at a cop, but it is to hit one.

Please, the next person who says the cops could have easily subdued her without giving her a bruise on her leg using a 1.5 oz beanbag, please tell me EXACTLY what YOU would have done that would have descreased the chances for injury to ALL involved. Also, the next person who accuses placing of making something up to justify placing her under arrest (what a coincidence, she really was excluded from Trimet for stealing a stranger's purse), please include you proof specific to THIS situation.

The only reason this is such a big deal is because of who fired the bean bag. On any other day by any other cop this would have been a marginally if acceptable action subject to review and maybe a little "retraining". But this was Officer Humphrys who has a history or excessive force. Rasheed Wallace can get a technical in an NBA game by looking at a ref the wrong way. It is a unique privilege that he has brought upon himself after years of petulant behaviour.

Officer Humphreys put himself under the microscope by killing Jim Chasse. When he is involved a situation regarding force he will get special attention. Cry me a river.

I saw the video on the news, and without sound, and without knowing who was on the Max, what was going on in the train, etc., it sure looked like the young woman stepped off the Max and was immediately grabbed by the arm and yanked forward by a police officer. If that happened to me I might start swinging too; it appears there is no communication between the officers and this woman before the physical contact.

I have friends and neighbors who are police officers - I wish they didn't have to put up with such crap co-workers.

If this youth indeed punched the arresting officer and was resisting arrest, I think she earned the beanbag shot to the butt. I really don't get the outrage.

The police are not authorized to punish people. That is the work of the court system and the corrections system. The police's job is to arrest and detain criminals, using no more than reasonable force, turning them over to judges and juries.

It's amazing how many Americans are ignorant of how these institutions are supposed to work.

Christopher Humphreys is a head case. Now he's going for a disability pension. Fine -- get him off the streets before he kills somebody else.

It wasn't punishment.

As soon as you start with "she deserved it," you're talking about punishment.

And the Oregonian editorial board STILL cannot bring themselves to say what happened to Chasse; writing about Humprhreys, they still revert to the "language of nonresponsibility," (the passive voice) to suggest that James Chasse just up and died one day.

"And let's admit that he does have another strike against him. He was one of three officers involved in the fatal foot pursuit of James P. Chasse Jr., the schizophrenic man who died in police custody three years ago."

How about "He was one of the three officers who tackled and inflicted the 26 broken ribs and a punctured lung -- with blows to the body, including knee drops -- that killed James P. Chasse three years ago."

Nice that they get the bit in about the schizophrenia too, just to show that they didn't anyone NORMAL or anything. Too bad I've already cancelled that rag.

This just in:

Humphries is filing a disability claim for stress. What a shocker.

Oops, missed where Jack already mentioned the disability claim. Sorry.

If a cop with Humphries' reputation was trying to pull me off a train - away from the relative security of my friends - onto a lonely Max platform at 11 pm, I think I'd struggle too. Especially if he already had a hard on for me. Humphries said he recognized her, she probably recognized him too.

He and his partner were there looking for trouble from a supposed near-riot, all jacked up and anticipating some excitment. I'm pretty sure transit cops don't usually go around sporting their beanbag shotguns on their shoulder the way these guy were, after all. They didn't find any trouble, so they had to settle for the horrendous crime of riding the Max after being excluded. If I were her lawyer, I'd say I was acting in self-defense because Humphries abusive rep is so well known.

Does anyone know where I can get one of those nifty beanbag shotguns? I have an unruly 14-yr-old at home and the personal taser just isn't working like it once did.

Seriously. My teens were both bigger than me by the age of 14. I'm a petite, single mom, with no police training, and am expected to keep my kids in line without the use of force. Somehow, I manage. I better, or I'd be off to jail - even if my kid instigated it.

When you don't have the physical advantage, you learn to deal with people in less violent and confrontational ways. Not saying all police encounters can be handled without any force, but there sure is a disconnect between the seriousness of the crime and the way cops like Humphries deal with it.

I agree it is not the best quality, but you can clearly see her arm raise up and strike the officer which precedes the "indistinct wrangling"

You can't "clearly" see squat. The second video is from such a long distance that it's even less useful than the first is. You might be able to see her arm in silhouette in the vicinity of the officer's head, but that does not show contact any more than the first video showed who the beanbag hit.

And in either case, you've got an incident that took just ten seconds to escalate from a girl walking off the MAX under her own power to where she's being dragged across the platform by two cops and shot with a beanbag gun. Ten seconds. Again, that timeline pokes some big holes into the police version of the incident.

If I was the girl's lawyer, I think I could make a case that her arm hit the officer by accident as she was being dragged backward from the fast walk with which she exited the train, circled at close range by a guy with a shotgun.

Woke up this morning thinking "What if Portland had a K-9 pit bull who killed someone fleeing instead of just stopping him? What would happen then?"

Would we let the vicious dog continue in the force and unleash it on anyone it decided needed a lesson?

Oh, and then there's this, from today's report:

During the past several years, reports from the Police Assessment Resource Center, outside experts, have recommended that the bureau adopt a more specific policy on beanbag shotguns, noting that model policies recommend shots be aimed at the abdomen, thighs or forearms and not at the head, neck or groin, with optimal shooting distance between 21 and 50 feet. They note that rounds present a risk of death or serious injury at less than 10 feet when fired at the chest, head, neck or groin.

So one second the guy's participating in the struggle with her and the next he shoots her in the thigh. He doesn't have a lot of time to aim, and one thing that's evident from the video is that he's nowhere near 10 feet away, never mind 20 or 50.

Because she wasn't supposed to be on a MAX train.

You know what might be producing some confusion is that Humphrey's shot at least twice within about ten seconds, including one time while the brutal assailant was already on the ground.

the people at Faux News are reporting this!
do you wonder if there is anything to it??

"Faux News is reporting the following: PPB's Brett Burton may have been overheard saying the following at the Central Precinct's Locker-room...."...oh my Gawd!...I ain't going near any bus now, for look what happened to Christey, and we all know Kyle "Not-so-Nice" Nice isn't going to be thrown under any bus due to his powerful friends in powerful places....I'm next!!!!!!....oh my Gawd!...."

And so, the beat goes on....

Bad Robot reporting 4 FAUX NEWS"


Then you must have vision problems. Are you really saying you can't see her strike the officer before going to the ground. In your case, I think you are willful in your blindness. You "can't clearly see squat", yet you can clearly see her being drug across the platform before her arm goes up and strikes the officer? Really?

I hate to break it to you, but in real life things only take 10 seconds to escalate. She had been trespassed from TRi Met for stealing someone's purse. She chose to ride it again. She was being arrested for trespass, then she struck the officer. In you experience handling these situations, what would you have done different? Your defense argument is contradicted by what is right on the video.

Are you really saying you can't see her strike the officer before going to the ground.

Yeah, I am. I can see her arm and hand go up to head level, but I can't actually see it hit the officer in the face or any obvious physical reaction to such a blow on the part of the officer. The second video's gone from the Oregonian link now, but I think anyone who claims they can clearly see the officer hit in the face is simply lying. For one thing, the faces of the principles are pixelated, so it'd be pretty difficult to see an anything actually strike the face of the officer.

But like I said earlier, I don't claim the video clips I saw show who was shot, either. They're just not good enough quality. If you think otherwise, you tell me what second in the recording you see her hand hit the officer's face.

Although frankly, if you look at the recording, the point at which her hand is raised comes at about 1:19, which is less than a second before the first bean bag rolls across the floor after having bounced off of someone or something. That wouldn't square very well with a timeline in which she hit someone first.

You "can't clearly see squat", yet you can clearly see her being drug across the platform before her arm goes up and strikes the officer? Really?

Yeah, really. It's called physics. An object in motion has to have force exerted on it in order to change its direction. You can see the girl walking quickly off the MAX, she covers the width of the video in less than two seconds. You can see an officer grab her arm to slow her down. You can see two officers struyggling with her for a couple of seconds. But from the point where Humphreys is standing in front of both the girl and the other officer to where he backs off to shoot the gun, I don't think there's enough clarity to say exactly what position everyone was in, no.

Chris, I've been in front of the business end of a real shotgun held by a nutjob. Not some bean bag-happy cop but a real, certifiable crazy person who I once saw shoot the the same shotgun into the wall of his suburban home just because he was pissed off. So spare me the sanctimonious "real life" lecture about how things can escalate.

If the cops knew who this girl was — which they presumably did if they knew she was on the MAX exclusion list — they could have picked her up at their leisure, assuming they needed to pick her up. I may be mistaken but I believe violation of a Tri-Met exclusion is Second Degree Trespass, a Class C misdemeanor, and probably not something anyone's going to be serving jail time for. What you've got is two armed adult men, ganging up on a 12-year-old girl for a misdemeanor violation and turning it into a major crime. She may very well be at fault but they're police. They're adults. They're supposed to have better judgment than a 12-year-old.

Clicky Web Analytics