Killer cop backed Frashour in Campbell case
A few more details have emerged about last night's killing of a man by Portland police, and they're not encouraging. All the police can say so far is that dead guy, who is still unidentified, had pointed a gun at a hospital security guard earlier in the evening. They're not saying he pointed a gun at, or showed a gun to, the three police officers who together shot him to death. They're not even saying the deceased had a gun on his person when he died. All they're saying so far is that he had pointed a gun sometime earlier.
That's what they said the last time, and this other time, and no doubt plenty of other times. If the man was not actually armed when he died, the next thing we'll likely hear is that three cops who opened fire thought he was reaching for a gun.
We're hoping that this fatal shooting turns out to have been justified, but 23 hours later, it doesn't look all too promising.
And guess who was one of the shooters. One of the defenders of killer cop Ron Frashour in the notorious Aaron Campbell case -- Nathan Voeller:
According to court documents, 11 Portland police training instructors, and retired Portland Officer Mike Stradley, who was Frashour's field training officer, were ready to testify otherwise. All are, or have been, members of the same union fighting Frashour's firing, the Portland Police Association.Officer Nathan Voeller, a lead defensive tactics instructor, was ready to testify that Portland officers are trained that they're not required to see a gun before using lethal force if the officer believes the suspect poses an immediate risk of death or serious injury. "They are trained they need to be preemptive," Voeller was to testify, according to a trial memorandum filed by Frashour's lawyer.
According to the document, Portland police are taught that if they wait to see a person pull or point a firearm, they won't be able to react fast enough before the suspect fires.
And now Officer Voeller has "pre-empted" someone himself.
But is it even worth knowing, really? Even if the killing was unjustified, the county D.A. isn't going to indict anybody. And the internal investigation within the police bureau won't be candid. The officers involved still have another day or so to get their story straight before they're interviewed by investigators, who will be fellow union members. Any discipline that gets recommended will be downgraded or rejected by the police chief. And any discipline that miraculously gets imposed will be overturned by some faceless arbitrator.
It's the Portland script. We've already seen it too many times. One more rerun might be too much to bear.
UPDATE, 10:06 p.m.: The O gets around to connecting another dot on Officer Voeller:
Voeller was involved in the fatal police shooting of unarmed fugitive David E. Hughes in November 2006. He fired seven rounds from an AR-15 rifle. Two other officers also fired their handguns.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
| Posted at 9:06 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (19)
Just amazing, troubling, especially since it seems routine nowadays.
The corruption in reporting starts very early. It's like the police reporting on the police.
(Julian Assange)
Posted by al m | February 18, 2013 9:13 PM
Jack - how many times do I have to tell you! This is not the PPB cop shooting you're looking for. Move along now.
Posted by Chief Toadie | February 18, 2013 9:29 PM
Eyes rolling still.....
Posted by Wally | February 18, 2013 10:08 PM
I hope stunned silence is your next reaction.
Posted by Jack Bog | February 18, 2013 10:10 PM
I once needed the POPO for a situation in my home. The police were wonderful, the charge officer was very helpful, and because of his (not legal to do) advice the person in need got the help needed. This is the service and protection we are supposed to expect.
No cop pulled a gun. But it appears that when they do, someone gets dead.
Do all cops need guns? Maybe it should be just a carefully selected few. How to do this I have no idea.
Posted by B.P. Red | February 18, 2013 10:50 PM
If Voeller was again using the AR15 my guess is that he is the marksman of the group, and shooting people dead is his assignment.
We won't know what happened, if we ever do, until we learn which officer fired first. Once one fires,I guess everybody else assumes the first shooter saw something and opens up on the person.
If they are going to use rifles, I wonder why their training does not require officers to take safe cover until they can see what if anything a person is armed with and whether he/she intends to actually do anything.
Does anyone publish a box score on how often medium sized city police forces confront
a reportedly armed subject and how often that leads to gunfire?
Posted by niceoldguy | February 18, 2013 10:51 PM
Faceless arbitrator? What? The arbitrator in the Campbell shooting was not faceless nor where any of the other arbitrators. They were all identified and their background given. The city suggested the arbitrator in the Campbell case. The arbitrator is mutually chosen by both sides.
Posted by Carl | February 19, 2013 4:26 AM
And does the media ever show their pictures? Does anybody keep a track record of how many times they rule for the cop, how many times for the civilian? How the verdicts of juries differ from the arbitrators' outcomes? No. This is why I say they're faceless.
Posted by Jack Bog | February 19, 2013 5:44 AM
There are good cops, perhaps quite a few. And this is based partly on personal experience working with several. The two salient problems Are "preemptive" shooting and the deep culture that police never are wrong. And Darryl Turner is a key part of cops are never wrong.
Posted by Don | February 19, 2013 6:06 AM
Yes people keep track of how many times the arbitrator rules for the employer or the employee. Both labor and management keep very close track of that. Most arbitrators have a link on their sites to past decsions. Both sides know the arbitrators record in detail.They both have a lot at stake. Both sides must agree to the arbitrator.The city wanted the arbitrator that they got in the Campbell case. Granted the Oregonian should do an article the process but likely they will not.
Posted by Carl | February 19, 2013 6:40 AM
This is what I was saying yesterday--I am fairly sure that no weapon was found on the guy. Maybe they've spent the last 24 hours searching the hospital grounds looking for one, and have come up empty. Or maybe the security guard *thought* he saw a gun (maybe a menacing gesture with a cell phone....seen from a car, who knows how that could appear), but in fact did not. The silence is very telling.
Posted by Dave J. | February 19, 2013 6:56 AM
It's the dead guys fault, he jumped in front of a speeding bullet, so states the review board.
Posted by phil | February 19, 2013 6:58 AM
1. Man acts suspiciously in parking lot.
2. Man shot.
3. Police act suspiciously.
Posted by Langston | February 19, 2013 7:41 AM
4. Police look for citizens with cameras.
5. Police confiscate cameras looking for "EVIDENCE".
Posted by ltjd | February 19, 2013 9:37 AM
The arbitrators are not "faceless." But, they are the product of a corrupt system. Arbitrators must come from a list provided by the Employment Relations Board (ERB). The Oregon ERB has been a captured agency - captured by the Oregon AFL-CIO and the OEA - for four decades. Don't confuse the ERB with fairness or neutrality. Also, arbitrators only get business when a union files a grievance - so guess who they seek to please anyway they can. Unions love the arbitration process, especially in Oregon. The unions control who gets on the list, who stays on the list and who gets business off the list.
Arbitration is fair? BUWHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!
Posted by x-portlander | February 19, 2013 9:43 AM
Sadly, much arbitration runs on the He Who Has The Most-Gold-(or power)-Makes-the-Rules model. Anyone signing a contract with a company/family/crony should be aware of this. The fine print can kill you. We've come to this.
Mediation clauses might be better, big emphasis on the "might."
Posted by JadeQueen | February 19, 2013 11:27 AM
x-portlander. Could you get more information wrong? Portland police arbitrators do not come from a list provided by the ERB. That's Tri-Met.ERB has not been captured either. It's three person board.Look at who is currently on that board. One person from the employee side one from management and an at large person. That third person currently is from management side.If anything the board is slanted towards the employer. Like I said the employer in case of the PPB must agree to the arbitrator and with the PPB there is no list. If an arbitrator always sided with the employee no PPB management would agree to them. Even with Tri-Met unions have no say who is on the list and who stays on it. It's easy to say it's a corrupt system when you don't know how the system works. Read some arbitration awards and point out where they went wrong. The city keeps losing because they deserve to lose. They had bad cases.
Posted by Carl | February 19, 2013 5:32 PM
Carl - See clause 22.5 of the City of Portland - PPA labor contract. It starts off by stating:
"To invoke arbitration, the City or the Association shall request from the Oregon Employment Relations Board, a list of the names of five (5) arbitrators. "
Posted by x-portlander | February 19, 2013 6:23 PM
I stand corrected. The information about the ERB is correct though. The city choose the Frashour/ Campbell arbitrator.
Posted by Carl | February 20, 2013 6:20 AM