When juries actually get to hear claims against Portland police officers, they almost always find in favor of the officers at the Police Bureau. Funny how that is, when facts are viewed straight-on and not through the lens of Maxine Bernstein.

Yeah right. Do I really need to list all the civil suits the PPD has lost and the millions of dollars paid out to it's victims? Really?

*PPB

I don't know about other cases, but a verdict after only 4 hours of deliberation following an 8 day trial suggests to me the O missed some important evidence or witness demeanor issues in its coverage of this trial. I guess that's why we don't try cases in the press.

Along with many good officers, there are a handful who try to game the system. Gender gaming is a vibrant and healthy avenue for working toward financial windfall success. I say this and I say it with a quiver of outrage in my voice, that this should never have been put to the hazard of a a jury. It should have been decided by a small coterie of sympathetic activists.

From the articles it sounds like they were able to cast doubt on why she washed out, saying she wasn't fit to serve for other reasons.

I didn't hear a lot of push back on her specific allegations. Only that they weren't the reason that she didn't make it on the force.

I find every part of her story to be completely believable. Whatever the facts, the police should be concerned that they have no credibility left.

So is DPSST going to open investigations from the trial testimony? They seem to be pretty good at revoking certifications.

Snards: Every part you" read" in the newspaper, which is my point. It is quite often a dramatically different story you hear and see sitting in the jury box. Here, the jury seems to have taken the quickest and easiest path to its intended result, which suggests to me that the story line we were getting in the O was a lot different than what the jury observed and heard. I don't think one can draw any conclusions from the other evidence headlined in the O, since it was not convincing (or believable) enough to get the jury to side with the plaintiff.

The weakest part of her story was the allegation that she was forced out. I can't blame the jury for not buying that. If you can't handle running with a pack of naughty boys, don't sign up.

The most important parts were that the cops around her were sleazy, and when she complained, the top brass gave her their gangster act. Regardless of whether she deserves any money, that story was one that needed to be told.

My point Drewbob is that she seems to have lost on the narrow technical point of whether she was "retaliated" against, not on whether she saw what she saw.

If you want to keep believing the "all cops are noble" storyline, knock yourself out. Ten years ago, I would have been right there with you. But I've been watching PPB for too long now.

Every one of them is either a lawless thug, or a "good" cop who knows who all of lawless thugs are and does nothing about it. When a James Chasse is needlessly and heartlessly beat to death, they all sing the same tune.

overheard a group of people talking and seems the
jury had some people on it that shouldn't have
made the cut as they're compromised by past dealings
with some of the star-players in this drama. The judge
will have to toss out this rather meaningless verdict
once it becomes public. Stay tuned! This case is getting
good (bad for the copsters--good for the WE THE PEEPS)

Whether a legal claim is proven, as Jack says and knows, doesn't mean that the conduct underlying it was "ok" in any sense. The conduct that came to light needs to be weeded out and stopped, especially when it comes from those who claim to have the right to enforce our laws and represent out justice system; it is not conduct that should endorsed by blind apologists because the technical elements of a random legal claim are not proven to a jury. Our justice system is not necessarily a just system, but the PPB should not strive to make that its motto.

It's pretty hard to pull off the whole "constructive discharge" argument when you quit your job as opposed to being outright fired. When I first heard the details it wasn't my impression that the situation was so horrible that she "had" to quit her job. It is good that the behavior in question came into the light of day regardless of the outcome.