He is a little test for y'all. Let's say you are a cop and have me at gunpoint. I reach behind my back and draw an object.

How long will it take you to determine if what I am drawing is a Glock or a comb? Can you do that faster than I can squeeze off 3 rounds? Now try it at night. How long?

As a side note, I wonder if the proactive response from police is a direct result of the advent of gangbangers carrying guns such as Tec-9's that can unload a 40 rd. clip in a second or two?

The PPA meme "By the time you see the gun, you're dead" started being shopped by Scott Westerman to the media a day or so after Campbell's death. It assumes a preemptive strike is acceptable as city policy, and is, in my amateur opinion, insane.

The continuation by the Bureau was a media tour of some police training was shown slavishly on KATU, KGW, KOIN, and online at the Mercury. Pure fluffery.

KGW - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LrduXxR_Dk
KATU - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YI-5esoLcc
KOIN - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh7-OX0TZ8

Almost everything about Aaron Campbell at http://www.mentalhealthportland.org/?page_id=4359

The point is, their training, as described here and by Scott Westerman, tells them to shoot before they even see something that they could mistake for a gun.

Let's just call it the South Park rule. Remember when Jimbo took the boys hunting? He explained the basics:

"You see boys, the Democrats have passed a lot of laws trying to stop us from hunting. They say we can't shoot certain aanimals anymore unless they're posing an immediate threat. Therefore, before we shoot something, we have to say: 'It's coming right for us!'"

It's "shoot first, ask questions later." It's a training problem and it's a personnel problem.

bojack,

Instead of criticizing, why don't you offer a specific protocol you think the police should follow? And I mean specific, not some cop-out comment like "don't shoot unarmed people".

I think mp97303 highlighted the issue the best.

bojack: can you quote some numbers which back up your repeated comment about Saturday's print readership being lower than Monday thru Friday. Lower than Sunday, sure. But lower than Monday through Friday? Specifics, please. Thanks.

Here in Portland, after one of these murders, the cops like to invite reporters to "learn how dangerous it is to be a cop" by participating in a training video scenario. Presumably, the hope is that the reporters will go write a story favorable to the police.

Here is a blurb about the most recent example:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/02/shoot_or_dont_shoot_portland_p.html

The thing that continually twists my titty about all of this is the definition of Police Officer in the first place. These people enjoy an affirmative-defense against our citizen arrest laws.

That's it, and that's all. A cop is just an ordinary citizen that is, essentially, just exempt from the regs relevant to a citizen's arrest. They've armed themselves to the teeth, branched out into various specialties, created their own policies for policing, the list is long. That just wasn't in the deal when we made it.

All predicated upon a few lines in an Oregon Revised Statute.

I want to take the bastards' weapons, all of them. Everything, not even hand-cuffs, or a stick. Nothing but a badge and a radio. This person would replace ALL patrol officers, who would then sit around fireman-style, waiting for the call that the unarmed folks can't handle.

Take this new-type patrol officer out of the state's evidence loop too, as that is the stick with which we are encouraged to allow the police to recruit exclusively from the ex-military. Then, make a cop job a job like a bus driver, or parcel carrier.

Some folks are going to whine about response times, but no. They won't change one bit. Patrol officers rarely intercede in the commission of felonies, and when they do, likely call in back-up anyway.

can't help but wonder if this "learn how dangerous it is to be a cop"-training video is produced/prepared by former PPB-spinmeister C.W. Jensen? He, as you'll all recall, was the notorious PPB mug who'd get on TV as soon as any "image problem" came up for PPB and spinmeister it all away.

Till, that is, Vera Katz grew tired of his duplicitous expense account submissions and fired him in highly public manner. He moved on to became a "police consultant" for local TV stations and was nothing more than in-your-face Cop Apologists whenever some "image problem" needed attending to.

This is how they keep the game going...use of their own "in house" "experts" and so-called "consultants" and the sheepeople continue to lap it up...totally oblivious to these toadies history and backgrounds, nor questionable spinmeistered statements.

WHEN WE WAKE UP THE SHEEPEOPLE ENOUGH TO WHERE THEY REMEMBER WHO THESE DUDES REALLY ARE, THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO FORCE CHANGE TO COME ABOUT...WE MUST HOLD THESE TOADIES TO BEING ACCOUNTABLE!

Much can be done to improve police response and decision trees, of course. (As in, ....hey,guys, 911 call says dude tried to kill himself four times with a gun, the gun "malfunctioned", and oh, BTW, he's thinking about suicide by cop cos he's worried he might go to hell otherwise...lessee, should we have the special team called, or should we just handle that ourselves? Whaddya think?
I think we should call the special team.")

But in the end, the fundamental issue which needs to be addressed is the nation's gun laws. I think Canada has plenty of happy hunters and gun afficionados, doesn't it?

Let's say you are a cop and have me at gunpoint. I reach behind my back and draw an object.

Here's a little test for you. I'll shoot you in the back six times with a shotgun. You won't know if each shot is a bag filled with steel shot or a regular shotgun shell. If you stagger forward or reach around to feel where I hit you, someone else will shoot you with a rifle, saying they thought you were either running away or about to reach into your waistband for a gun, spin around, take aim, and shoot at an officer before they had a chance to see if you were actually going for a gun or, you know, just sort of surprised at getting shot in the back six times.

Did anyone else notice in Andy Parker's column about the PPD clearing the Gresham sherriff who shot his wife and her friends today that he mentions two studies saying that police officers are four times as likely as the general population to be involved in domestic violence? I suppose next we'll be told that we can't judge how much their families deserve abuse until we've done some sort of domestic ride-along.

DarrelPlant

How long would it take you to determine if I drew a gun or a comb?

In other states, lethal force isn't depending on the "what ifs" and imagination of an officer that shows a propensity of violence.
I'm told seeing a person with a gun pointed down whether or not they are being told to drop it is not reason enough to shoot them down. Now if they tip that muzzle up, the hot lead curtain closes in.

When we get down to these cute split second old west scenarios, keep in mind the difference between the time an officer has to take to pull, level, aim and shoot versus a subject in the sights of an assault rife.

Then we are also talking about a department that condones knee dropping on a subject already down and soon to die.

How long would it take you to determine if I drew a gun or a comb?
Plenty of time when you are in my cross hairs and my finger half squeezed on the trigger!

Jesse was right - this was an execution. The guy was a known gang member with a long rap sheet. The cops were looking for an excuse to shoot him, and he willingly obliged. The "I thought he was reaching for his gun" decision criterion makes it real easy to justify pulling the trigger. It's open season on black people in Portland.

What is the prime concern: safety of the civilian populace, or safety of the officer? Which group should carry the weight of risk.
The police have decided (and their supporters) that any officers life is worth some multiple of civilians. I (and others) feel that men with body armor, who have chosen to serve, and represent the law, should carry the risk. Better 100 officers die, than one innocent. They are supposed to be like the Secret Service for the rest of us, instead they have become a Service with Secrets, and we should all be afraid.

can you quote some numbers which back up your repeated comment about Saturday's print readership being lower than Monday thru Friday. Lower than Sunday, sure. But lower than Monday through Friday?

You can start here. That is, if you really care and are not just some toad:

http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s14jackbogsblog&r=5

Some of the criticism levied against law enforcement is fair. However, the irony of all of this is that the most critical of law enforcement sound like republicans: All criticism, no solutions, no real experience in areas which they claim to be experts.

Bojack, please let your readers know your answer to this question: Do you believe this officer deserves life in prison? Because that is what you are advocating. Also, your statement the other day that rules of evidence don't apply to grand jury proceedings is (almost) completely incorrect. See ORS 132.320. If you hold yourself out to be an expert on the criminal law, shouldn't you be a little more careful?

Do you believe this officer deserves life in prison? Because that is what you are advocating.

No, the penalty for negligent homicide is not life imprisonment.

(almost) completely incorrect.

Good one. Thanks for the chuckle.

Grand jury proceedings are the most one-sided judicial proceedings in the United States. You can flash your badge and get all huffy about it, but that's the truth and everybody knows it.

Special prosecutor, and new training protocols. For starters.

I (and others) feel that men with body armor, who have chosen to serve, and represent the law, should carry the risk. Better 100 officers die, than one innocent...

That really says it all right there. If there's gonna be blood in the streets, he'd rather that it be police blood.

bojack: your link brought me to a site which appeared to measure traffic on your site. Can you link me to something which (to repeat my initial question) shows how Saturday print readership of the newspaper is less than Monday-Friday readership? Thanks.

I ask since, when I was in the newspaper business, for over 30 years, the Monday-Friday "readership" gains were due to free copies in hotels and schools which weren't delivered on Saturday. My understanding is that's changed recently and these free copies aren't delivered any more. But, I'm sure you knew this.

Jack:

Thank you for your reply. One of your previous posts stated that "rules of evidence don't apply at grand jury". ORS 132.320 states "Except as provided in subsections (2) to (11) of this section, in the investigation of a charge for the purpose of indictment, the grand jury shall receive no other evidence than such as might be given on the trial of the person charged with the crime in question." The rules of evidence apply at trial.

Saying "good one" isn't an answer. It's the opposite of an answer. It's one thing to say grand juries are one sided, it's another thing to offer an incorrect interpretation of the law to buttress a point.

Thank you for clarifying the issue regarding the type of charge you would submit the grand jury. As you have been quite vociferous about the fact that the officer should be indicted, but never saying for what, I assumed it was for Murder. My apologies in advance if I missed a previous post where you stated your position on this issue.

Why would a "special prosecutor" be any better? Wouldn't you assume the special prosecutor would work closely with law enforcement in whatever jurisdiction he/she is from and have all of the same inherent pro law enforcement bias that you think is so dangerous? What new training protocols would you suggest?

Summary execution is exactly what it looks like -- nobody was at risk from either Chasse or Campbell! When they talk honestly, the shooters talk about WHO THE VICTIMS WERE. They were status hate crimes and this is a civil rights problem, not just a training problem.

The fact that fear of retaliation is the biggest reason it isn't getting fixed proves the civil rights issue. The hate crime bit is proven by the way they always say how sub-human the victim is. Chasse was looking mental in a public place, which the Thumper defenders keep hammering he shouldn't have been. Lies about his having peed on a wall and having drugs prove they knew there was no real excuse. Campbell was mental with grief over his brother and joking in a comradely way with a negotiator, but we get story about what a hard core sociopath he was.

Part of the proof these are hate/civil rights cases is that in every case, command is not functional in the event, but command helps cover for it after. The senior person in charge at the Campbell shooting didn't order a shot taken. He was negotiating with the guy! But, afterward, all good! And dude gets promoted two days later! That is WAY beyond dysfunction or poor communication.

The rules of evidence apply at trial.

Saying "good one" isn't an answer.

And who is there in the grand jury to object if the rules are violated? No one. And who gets to cross-examine witnesses? No one. The D.A. could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if the D.A. wanted to.

The only answer here is a special prosecutor. For starters, anyone but the local D.A. would do. How about a D.A. from a county at least 50 miles away? An assistant state A.G.?

For your demand that I somehow write a training protocol, time and space do not permit a thorough reply, but I'd start with NOT chanting stupid memes like "by the time you see the gun, you're dead."

(to repeat my initial question) shows how Saturday print readership of the newspaper is less than Monday-Friday readership?

Print readership is not the same thing as print circulation. Nobody reads the paper on Saturday, which is why nobody advertises in it. Copies of the Saturday paper delivered to many businesses sit unopened, and thrown unread into the recycling bin on Monday morning. It has been that way at every business at which I ever worked. Even in my three years as a reporter at a Newhouse newspaper, we were never around on Saturday, and we knew that when our stuff ran there, relatively few readers saw it.

And indeed, on the internet, where readership is increasing, not declining, and where people don't click and then not read, traffic on Friday night (when they run Bernstein's good stuff) is the lowest of the week. Not just on my site -- on all sites. People read internet news and blogs mostly at work, on their boss' dime, and not so much at home.

Any p.r. person knows that you release the bad news on Friday, for the Friday night TV news, the Friday night internet, and the Saturday paper. And any editor knows that that's when you bury stuff you don't want people to see.

Feel free to continue to disagree.

But silently.

Nobody reads the paper on Saturday, which is why nobody advertises in it.

Except cars.

Yeah...that advertising thing is the dead giveaway. Compare the column inches of advertising in the Saturday rag to any other day of the week...

Even think about what's on television on Friday nights and Saturdays...I'd bet it is the highest level of low-grade, low-cost advertising....

"The other truth that emerges from the Bernstein story is that no police officer will ever be indicted for killing a civilian, because all he or she has to say is 'I thought he was reaching for a gun.' If they are trained to shoot before they actually see a weapon, with no requirement of any cause other than their own subjective perceptions, then every time they kill, they're essentially just following orders."

Police all over the country have wrestled with the issue of when it is proper to use lethal force.

In the landmark case of TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) the U. S. Supreme Court said, “Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given”.

Prior to that 1985 opinion Tennessee and other state laws allowed police to use deadly force on a fleeing person if only suspected of having committed a felony.

The Police Policy Studies Council has some interesting additional reading (PPSC Staff Views) about some of the particular difficulties police encounter. I believe their slogan is, “Bridging the Gap Between the Reality of Policing and the Public Perception of Policing”.

Unless someone much smarter than any of us can come up with a solution, this matter is not going to go away any time soon.

not constitutionally unreasonable

That does not have to be the standard that we use in Portland. We can hold our officers to a higher standard, if we want.

My standard says to stop shooting unarmed people in the back -- like Kendra James, Dennis Young, and Aaron Campbell, to name three.

No one yet has answered mp's question that started this threat. And hasn't mp raised the core issue?

Cops face these shoot/don't shoot decisions all the time. Maybe its when they're stopping a traffic violator at 2:30 a.m. in a dark area, maybe its when they're chasing someone on foot, and maybe it's when they're in the middle of a violent domestic disturbance. A quick turn, a lunge with a hand into a pocket, and a suspect pulling the trigger, that can all happen in less than a second, and then the cop isn't going home to a family. This isn't hypothetical. It happens, and police departments have to train officers accordingly.

We've got a police department with one of the lowest rates of use of deadly force in the country, and yet all we do is excoriate and second-guess them for split-second decisions few of us would be willing to make. Why anyone would be a cop in this town is beyond me.

A quick turn, a lunge with a hand into a pocket, and a suspect pulling the trigger, that can all happen in less than a second, and then the cop isn't going home to a family.

Yes, but does that mean the cop shoots to kill as soon as he or she feels the fear that you instill with these little speeches? How about retreating to a safe place until they have a better read on whether the suspect is really armed?

With Kendra James, Dennis Young, and Aaron Campbell, the suspects were running away -- two in a car and one on foot. No one made any quick turns. All three were shot dead in the back. There's something wrong with that.

In the Young case in particular, Lt. Kaer acted in direct violation of policies that were adopted in the James case. He got fired for it, but our dysfunctonal bully union got him reinstated.

If you can't do a dangerous job without killing unarmed people who are running away from you (and that includes James Chasse), you need a different job.

It's a situation that happens all over the country, not just in Portland. Police critics have a profound Road to Damascus moment whenever it happens that they are then subjected to the ordeal of experiencing it from the police perspective. Not only does it silence their criticisms, they often are the first ones to shoot.

I'm not a cop. What I would do is not relevant. These young men are paid good salaries and get a king's pension. To retain the public's respect, they need to perform their duties professionally.

Sometimes they make careless, unjustified mistakes, and people are killed. That is what is called negligent homicide, and unfortunately it needs to be prosecuted as such. That will never happen in Portland, which diminishes us as a community. But with the continuing protests, and the upcoming Chasse civil verdict, this is far from over.

I haven't heard anybody here criticize any cop's choice in a wild situation of real hazard with real bad guys. These were not situations of real hazard and the only thing wild was the cop. They were hate crimes.

If you think a police officer can retreat anywhere in less than a second, you've got a perspective police departments shouldn't share. Try it on for size one time. Have a friend face away from you and then turn on you quickly, pulling something out of her pocket or waistband or wherever. It will be over in a flash, long before you can react enough to move one foot much less retreat to safety.

That's what cops have to be trained to deal with. And it's a tragedy when the person they reasonably believed was going to kill them or someone else turns out to be unarmed. But it doesn't make the cops murderers.

No, it makes it negligent homicide.

That's if you have a legitimate "reasonably believed". Which would be, for instance, if they were getting their information and direction from command on scene. Or, for instance, if a crime had been committed.

mp's question, about a suspect reaching behind their back to draw a weapon, is actually pretty stupid, considering that in the Campbell case that he was facing away from the officers. He couldn't see the officers to shoot at them, the officers were under partial cover behind a car, one officer had already shot Campbell six times, and, oh yeah, Campbell was unarmed.

If the police cannot be called to account for their actions, speculation over whether their violence is justified or not is just a parlor game.

Some years ago, the dubious law spinmeisters at the MultCo DAs office sent mailers to homes in PDX stating that even if you had an intruder in your home you had a duty to retreat and not use deadly force against the intruder. Of course, this is in direct contradiction to established law in Oregon that holds you may shoot to kill an intruder in your home as long as they are inside. They seem to have a low set of standards for homocide for badges and a high set of standards for average folks. However, grand juries don't always convict ham sandwiches. A number of years ago, a homeowner shot a teenager breaking into homeowner's car in the driveway (clearly not in the home). Homeowner said he saw metal and thought it was a knife and shot and killed teenager. DA wanted an indictment but the grand jury took a different point of view (and not necessarily the right one though I understand their reasoning) in that case.

I am reading a great book written 20 years ago by Kent Anderson called "Night Dogs" which relates to his time as a Portland Cop. He and several other officers shot a black Vietnam Veteran -- who had just threatened to kill his shrink -- when the PTSD sufferer reached inside his vest. Turns out he was unarmed, but they had the good sense to carry a throwdown gun, which they used. Though illegal and morally repugnant, it served to eliminate any doubt as to whether or not the shooting was justified, and they uniformly agreed that it was a "good shooting" with or without a real weapon...Ahhh, the good ol' days.

I think the expert testimony about reaction time makes sense if an officer on foot and exposed is approaching a potentially volatile suspect. Here the officer was behind the cover of an apparently unmarked car with the suspect in the sights of a high powered rifle that the officer actually trains other cops to use. It is unclear if Campbell even knew he was there. He was the sniper. Then another officer hits him in the back with several rounds from a beanbag shotgun. As commented above it does not seem hard to imagine what any of our instinctive reactions would be to such pain. He was probably moving his hand around to his back to see if he had been shot with a live round of lead and was bleeding, and then the flight instinct kicked in. "They are shooting at me". It defies common sense to think that the shooter himself felt at risk that Campbell, hit by several bean bag rounds and with his back to him fleeing, could reasonably pull a hand gun, pivot and shoot the shooter behind cover, before he could squeeze off a sighted round from his aimed high power rifle. Sorry, the actual scenario does not match up with the training hypothetical, something a witness for the decedent's family would have pointed out to the Grand Jury, and something the DA, in the pursuit of justice, should have presented evidence on as well.. They had the guy covered from multiple sides, and had an attack dog ready to go. I don't think you put him in jail for this, but he should definitely be required to find a line of work that does not put him behind that gun sight ever again. There should be no winners here, but the PPB and the union seem to insist that there has to be a police victory in these matter regardless of the actual facts. I support the police and have profound respect for the risks they take and the job they do. But sometimes they have to break ranks and admit a tragic and inexcusable screw up.

If you think a police officer can retreat anywhere in less than a second, you've got a perspective police departments shouldn't share. Try it on for size one time. Have a friend face away from you and then turn on you quickly, pulling something out of her pocket or waistband or wherever. It will be over in a flash, long before you can react enough to move one foot much less retreat to safety.

The officers were under partial cover. Campbell couldn't see them because he came out walking backward. There were multiple officers, with weapons at ready and trained on Campbell. They were dozens of feet away, not at close-in handgun range.

A more accurate training scenario would be to have your "friend" stand fifty feet off while you have several buddies and a barking dog shouting at them to walk backward and/or get on the ground, then shoot them in the back several times with a shotgun. Then see if they make a move that looks "threatening" to you.

On that larger policy question -- what the citizens of Portland want as a community standard -- it needs to be clearly stated that any officer who doesn't see what was wrong in the Chasse and Campbell cases needs to find another line of work. Bringing back the requirement for a real college degree (and no back-of-matchpack law enforcement certificates) would be an excellent first step. The lack of personal and collective discipline demonstrated in these cases that allows these hate crimes to arise and be excused must end. This is why Shrunk's statements about this incident being "unique" and "unusual" are so pernicious. He's not just protecting these individual officers, he's protecting the systemic lack of discipline.

I wonder if there is some common thread that ties all of these incidents together? Something that happens that escalates the response from the police. Anyone have any ideas as to what it might be?

I wonder if there is some common thread that ties all of these incidents together? Something that happens that escalates the response from the police. Anyone have any ideas as to what it might be?

They didn't go on a police ride-along?

Not clear to me why the officer did not have the earpiece in and when was he given permission to shoot. Doesn't the ranking officer at the scene have to give the go ahead? Does the officer have independent authority for this?

"I wonder if there is some common thread that ties all of these incidents together? Something that happens that escalates the response from the police. Anyone have any ideas as to what it might be?"

Apologists for the police state who demand that all bow down to the authority of police to shoot unarmed people in the street if they can claim to be afraid, shoot unarmed people in their homes when the police burst in and throw flash-bangs around when they've got the wrong house entirely, and who think that people who question these practices do so because they "hate cops" -- that's where I'd start looking.

Oh, and don't forget the "thin blue line" that keeps honest cops quiet so that the rest can keep on unmolested by quaint concepts such as accountability.