The grand jury in the death of Aaron Campbell has written a letter to District Attorney Mike Schrunk outlining problems with the police approach to the incident. It concludes: “Portland deserves better. Aaron Campbell deserved better.”
Download a copy of the letter here.
The letter says that while the Grand Jury felt they could not indict Officer Ronald Frashour on any criminal charge (because of the laws and statutes about the use of deadly force by a police officer), “this was very difficult for us as a grand jury, as our sympathies lie with the Campbell family and the mood of the community. As a group, we are outraged at what happened at Sandy Terrace.”
The letter says that Campbell’s death resulted from “flawed police policies, incomplete or inappropriate training, incomplete communication, and other issues with the police effort.” The Grand Jury called for corrective action, and that “the Portland Police Bureau should be held responsible for this tragedy.”
The Grand Jury urged a judge to make the Grand Jury transcripts public, and in particular, those of Officer Frashour. “We came to agree that he genuinely believed Aaron Campbell was armed and dangerous, and was running for ‘hard cover’ in order to fire on the police,” wrote the Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury also pointed out some “problems” with the police scene at Sandy Terrace…
•Officer Frashour was not informed of the status of negotiations between a police negotiator, Officer Quackenbush, and Campbell. “No one communicated to the tactical group, or at least not to Officer Frashour, the status of the negotiation or that Mr.Campbell had specifically and emphatically said he was not going to hurt himself or anyone else,” wrote the Grand Jury. “We felt this was a critical error, as knowledge of Campbell’s statements could have made a difference in Ron Frashour’s decision to use or not use deadly force.”
•”Apparently there were insufficient personnel on site to address the issues of a person in the midst of an intense personal tragedy, as was Mr.Campbell,” wrote the Grand Jury. “If ever there was a case that required specially trained individuals and handling with kid gloves, this was the one.”
•Why did the incident go so wrong? A K9 officer testified that the shot was fired after a K9 unit had been released—with the aim of using the dog to take down Campbell.
•”Officer Frashour was over-trained to be the shooter, and under-trained to reassess the situation based on changes in the available information,” wrote the Grand Jury. “Training in the correct use of the AR-15 rifle may have taken precedence over training in decision making regarding the use of deadly force with the AR-15. By his own testimony, Officer Frashour was so focused on keeping his sights on Mr.Campbell’s “center of mass” that he really didn’t digest what the other officers were saying to Campbell as he backed out of his apartment with his hands on his head. Frashour testified that he did not see the dog running to attack Mr.Campbell after he started running. While such intense focus may be required to correctly operate the AR-15, maintaining that level of focus and making life or death decisions at the same time may well be incompatible activities.”
The Grand Jury wrote that this was a “‘welfare check’ gone wrong. Ultimately, it placed blame on the PPB for placing the decision to shoot in the hands of one individual, Ron Frashour. “We feel that Officer Frashour should not have been put into the position of making that life or death decision in those circumstances,” wrote the Grand Jury. “Portland deserves better. Aaron Campbell deserved better.”
Update, 1:06
Police Chief Rosie Sizer has issued a statement in response:
To the members of the Grand Jury:
“Thank you for your letter regarding your observations from the recent grand jury involving the officer involved shooting of Aaron Campbell. Serving on a grand jury such as this can be very difficult, and I thank you for your service to the community.
“In regard to your letter, we will take your concerns and observations into consideration during the Bureau’s officer-involved shooting review process.
“We have worked hard over a number of years on the Bureau’s use of force investigative and review processes. Our goal for our force investigations is that they are thorough, accurate and impartial. Our goal for our review process is that it is rigorous and honest, and that it includes a focus on policies, training and practice as well as individual member performance and decision making. When the Bureau’s review is complete, an independent contractor hired by the City Auditor analyzes how well we performed in meeting these goals.
“Next week we will be releasing the detective reports regarding this shooting. At that time, we will also explain to the community the entire review process.
“Thank you again for your letter and commitment to this process.”
Update, 3:42: Full transcript, courtesy of the Mental Health Association of Portland, follows:
February 10, 2010
Michael D. Schrunk
District Attorney
Multnomah County Courthouse
1021 SW 4th Avenue, Room 600
Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Schrunk,
We are Multnomah county Grand Jury 1, session 1. We began our service for Multnomah County on 1/12/10. Our service ended at 8:30 P. M. on 2/9/10, when we finished deliberation over testimony for Grand Jury Case #108, the police shooting of Aaron Campbell at the Sandy Terrace Apartments on 1/29/10.
After significant testimony in the Aaron Campbell case, study of the relevant laws, and deliberation amongst ourselves, we the grand jury determined that we could not indict Officer Ron Frashour on any criminal charge. That is not to say that we found him innocent, agreed with his decisions, or found that the police incident at Sandy Terrace was without flaw. What we found was that Officer Frashour’s actions were consistent with the relevant laws and statutes regarding the use of deadly force by a police officer. After much discussion, we realized we could not indict for emotional reasons, when the legal reason indicated otherwise. This was very difficult for us as a grand jury, as our sympathies he with the Campbell family and the mood of the community. As a group, we are outraged at what happened at Sandy Terrace.
We know something went terribly, terribly wrong at Sandy Terrace and that Aaron Campbell should not have died that day. He was not accused of a crime. The police were called to do a “welfare check” because Mr. Campbell was distraught over his brother’s death and family members were worried about him. We feel that his death resulted from flawed police policies, incomplete or inappropriate training, incomplete communication, and other issues with the police effort. We feel strongly that something must be done to correct this, and the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) should be held responsible for this tragedy. However, the charter of the grand jury does not include indicting or censuring the Portland Police Bureau. We are hoping you can help make the police department aware of the problems we have observed. The public also needs to know what went wrong, and what measures will be taken to insure that this never happens again. We also feel that the recorded Grand Jury testimony should be made public ‚Äî in particular, that of Officer Frashour. By bringing information to the public, perhaps others will come to understand why there is no indictment. With understanding and a plan for correction, perhaps the community unrest over this case will ease; perhaps the healing process can begin.
As you know, it is not the Grand Jury’s responsibility to assess actual guilt, assign punishment, or try a case. A grand jury is chartered to determine if, based on the evidence presented with no contradictory evidence, we feel that a jury would find the defendant guilty of the crimes with which they are charged. In the end, we were convinced that a jury would not convict Officer Frashour. In fact, we could find no crime committed. The use of deadly force by a police officer is considered justifiable under very specific conditions, and in this case the applicable conditions were whether or not Officer Frashour believed he or his fellow officers were in imminent danger. We found Officer Frashour to be a serious and sincere young man who was credible and honest in his testimony. In our deliberations we came to agree that he genuinely believed Aaron Campbell was armed and dangerous, and was running for “hard cover” in order to fire on the police. Later it was found that Mr. Campbell was not armed, and that, sadly, will be Officer Frashour’s issue to resolve within himself, probably for a very long time.
The Sandy Terrace police scene had many problems. Here are a few of our observations.
The command post where Officer Quackenbush was negotiating with Mr. Campbell via telephone, and the tactical unit in the middle of the parking lot, were only a few feet apart. Those feet were not in the line of any potential danger from Mr. Campbell in his apartment. Yet no one communicated to the tactical group, at least not to Officer Frashour, the status of the negotiation or that Mr. Campbell had specifically and emphatically said he was not going to hurt himself or anyone else. We felt this was a critical error, as knowledge of Campbell’s statements could have made a difference in Ron Frashour’s decision to use or not use deadly force. His testimony indicated he made his decision to shoot based on the information he had gleaned from PPB’s CAD system while he was coming to the site and what he learned when he first arrived on the scene, prior to setting up his gun in the middle of the parking lot.
Apparently there were insufficient personnel on site to address the issues of a person in the midst of an intense personal tragedy, as was Mr. Campbell. If ever there were a case that required specially trained individuals and required handling with kid gloves, this was the one. No family members were brought in to help him. The closest was Officer Quackenbush, who was very effective as a negotiator with Mr. Campbell, and who clearly offered him moral support and sympathy.
The grand jury heard testimony from 30 witnesses or more, but one person we did not hear was Sgt Reyna, the officer in charge of managing the scene. While we did not need her testimony to determine if Officer Frashour should be held over for a crime, Sgt Reyna’s testimony may have provided information that could answer some of the questions regarding why this incident went so wrong. It seems that each officer was given his or her small piece of the puzzle, but there was little evidence to indicate they were communicating and working as a team instead of as a group of individuals. Officer Frashour did not know about the negotiation phone calls with Mr. Campbell, or much about Campbell’s mental state. Additionally, the tactical team did not take proper advantage of the K9 team on site. The purpose of the K9 team is to use the dog to take down the target, giving the police additional time to reach and subdue the subject. Testimony varied concerning whether the fatal shot preceded, coincided with, or followed the release of the dog, though Officer Elias clearly stated he released his dog prior to the fatal shot being fired. In his testimony, Officer Frashour stated that he never saw the dog running to attack Mr. Campbell. Had these two groups been better coordinated, Officer Frashour might have delayed his shot, waiting to see if the dog could successfully take Mr. Campbell down.
We learned that the AR 15 rifle is used to provide additional safety for the police by allowing the officers to be distanced from potential harm. The bullets used are not “armor piercing”, do not pierce walls, and thus do not cause collateral damage. The shooter is trained to aim for large muscle groups of the target to ensure the target is taken down.
Officer Frashour was over-trained to be the shooter, and under-trained to reassess the situation based on changes in the available information. Training in correct use of the AR-15 rifle may have taken precedence over training in decision making regarding the use of deadly force with the AR-15. By his own testimony, Officer Frashour was so focused on keeping his sights on Mr. Campbell’s “center of mass” that he really didn’t digest what the other officers were saying to Campbell as he backed out of his apartment with his hands on his head. Frashour testified that he did not see the dog running to attack Mr. Campbell after he started running. While such intense focus may be required to correctly operate the AR-15, maintaining that level of focus and making life or death decisions at the same time may well be incompatible activities. It was dark, and hard to actually see details. Officer Frashour saw Campbell grabbing in the back of his pants the whole time he was running, thinking he was grabbing for a gun. But another officer standing near Frashour saw no gun in Mr. Campbell’s waistband and couldn’t see Campbell’s hands at all after he began to run.
We know problems can be unavoidable in a large scene with many people and when things happen quickly. But, did this ever need to be that big of a scene? If so, why was SERT not called immediately? This was a 911 “welfare check” gone wrong. Aaron Campbell was not accused of a crime, yet he lost his life that day, and his Mother lost two sons that day.
Ultimately, the largest failure by the PPB was this: the decision to use or not use deadly force was left to one individual, Ron Frashour, an individual who may have been incompletely trained for this type of situation and over-trained in other areas, who had not received critical information updates, and may not have had sufficient background information about Mr. Campbell in the first place. We feel that Officer Frashour should not have been put into the position of making that life or death decision in those circumstances. No one person is responsible for this tragedy, and the errors of many people in the PPB need to be identified and addressed. In addition, PPB policies such as the lone-gunman approach need to be revised along with, possibly, some training and communication policy changes.
Portland deserves better.
Aaron Campbell deserved better.
Sincerely,
Grand Jury 1 Session 1 2010
The Portland PD doesn’t give a shit about letters, angry words, nasty looks or anything else. Eventually, SOMEONE will have to actually be punished for SOMETHING.
“We’re awfully concerned….” Who gives a shit? Way to go Grand Jury.
“In regard to your letter, we will take your concerns and observations into consideration during the Bureau’s officer-involved shooting review process.”
Insert Grand Jury letter into shredder. Press “on”.
Yep. Much ado about nothing. And that’s sad.
Changes in training? Agreed. For too long the Police Bureau has allowed the vocal minority, liberal blowhards (i.e. AMA, Copwatch, Portland Mercury readers, etc.), and clueless politicians to dictate what kind of training is seen as a priority for officers. For the past several years there has been almost no emphasis placed on the “skills” based aspect of the job. It’s been nearly over a decade since there has been any sort of defensive tactics training, aside from about an hour spent on how to remove combative/uncooperative subjects from a car. There has been very little or no large scale scenario based training that would allow officers to work through calls not unlike what happened a few weeks ago. Instead public outcry has provided officers with multiple cultural diversity classes (Shouldn’t we focus on unity? I can’t help but think of the whole “United we stand, divided we fall” thing), racial profiling classes, and Crisis Intervention Training. None of these classes deals with the issue of using force and/or making life and death decisions in the blink of an eye. Ask just about any officer and they will tell you taking hours and hours of classes such as these made no difference in the way their jobs are done on a day to day basis. The reason these classes were given is to appease the masses who have no clue what the real world is like.
There is one issue in common in all of the cases people get upset about. It’s not the race of the people involved. It’s not about mental health. The common issue is use of force. When you demand more CIT training, cultural diversity training, etc., it takes away from training that could be used in use of force, training that could potentially change the outcome of these incidents.
Portland, you have gotten what you asked for.
Deport Matt Davis has some good points in there.
Without making any predictions on what this letter will accomplish, I think their points are great.
I especially like their statement in the last bullet, that the decision to fire shouldn’t have been left up to the guy who had to have one eye on his gunsight and the other eye closed, and who hadn’t been told about interrogations or the activities of the other officers. Awfully hard for that guy to make a good, split-second decision.
(Do not feed the idiots, do not feed the idiots.)
Given all this, why exactly did the have to let him bleed to death in the parking lot while the SERT team was looking up the TriMet schedule?
That’s a good question, Matthew D. The letter seems like it’s saying that at least some of the police knew he wasn’t armed. Obviously it’s a bad idea to approach an armed man that you just wounded, but if someone there knew he didn’t have a gun…?
Although – do we know he bled to death? He may have been dead immediately, in which case it wouldn’t matter how quickly the SERT team got there.
Letter from Copwatch to the District Attorney:
February 11, 2010
District Attorney Schrunk
We read with great interest the letter issued by the grand jury in the Aaron Campbell police shooting incident. We wholeheartedly agree that the Bureau as a whole, its training and its policies are partially responsible for the tragic death of Mr. Campbell.
However, we are more seriously concerned with what appears to be a deliberate decision on your part that changed the outcome of the jury’s deliberations: They stated that they had no reason to call the on scene commander, Sgt. Reyna, because there was no reason to do so to decide whether Officer Frashour committed a crime in killing Mr. Campbell.
However, to paraphrase legal terminology applied to police use of force incidents, given the totality of the circumstances, it is unimaginable that a serious investigation into this death would not include calling the Sergeant to the stand.
–Simply in the context of this one incident, did the Sergeant have ongoing communication with all the officers on the scene? Did she personally approve the use of an AR-15 and the location chosen by Officer Frashour? Did she give general or specific orders under what circumstances it was ok to fire without her direct command to do so? Depending on the answers to these questions, couldn’t Officer Frashour be indicted for criminally negligent homicide?
–In the broader context of Officer Frashour’s history, which we believe must be made relevant to this criminal investigation, he was criticized in open court by Chief Sizer for using a Taser on a man simultaneously to another officer using a “bean bag.”* Frank Waterhouse was videotaping officers at a salvage yard in late 2006, and Frashour said he fired the Taser because he felt Waterhouse’s camcorder could have been used as a weapon. Given Frashour’s lack of making a plan and coordinating with other officers in this earlier incident, the grand jury should have been allowed to consider that in deciding whether he was criminally negligent in shooting Mr. Campbell. After all, he appears to have unilaterally decided to use deadly force at the same time a dog was unleashed on Mr. Campbell. The civil jury awarded Mr. Waterhouse $55,000, more than the $30,000 he was asking for.
–In the even broader context of two other incidents in the last five years in which officers shot unarmed civilians in the back with AR-15 assault rifles, the incident commander should have been in charge of the entire scene. After the death of Raymond Gwerder in November, 2005, while he was on the phone with a negotiator, the police shot and wounded Lesley Paul Stewart, who was also talking to a negotiator, in August, 2007. The police have claimed that they used these two incidents to train certain officers in high-risk incident command, yet Sgt. Reyna’s testimony was not included in the hearing. Is it possible that Sgt. Reyna could also be criminally liable for Mr. Campbell’s death?
DA Schrunk, we have written to you several times before, notably after the shooting of Mr. Stewart and also after the in-custody death of James Chasse, at which time we pointed out that your office has never criminally indicted an officer for on-duty use of force. While officers are being held accountable for lying, cheating, and sexual misconduct, the community concerns about use of force go unanswered.
Finally, we raise the question to you whether you are following all the steps adopted in Multnomah County regarding SB 111. This is the third officer-involved shooting that has occurred in our county since the plan was adopted in June, 2008. We don’t recall community listening sessions being set up when a railway police officer shot George Hawkins in October, 2008, with Portland Police present, or when Portland Police shot Osmar Lovaina-Bermudez in late August, 2009.
Please let us know:
–Whether a thorough criminal review including an interview of the incident commander, the officer’s history, and the context of Portland Police trainings and shootings will be conducted;
and
–How you are fulfilling the terms of SB 111 and the County’s plan.
Again, we commend the grand jury for its attention to the lack of communication and training, and its conclusion that the Police Bureau bears responsibility for Mr. Campbell’s death. We just feel that they could have gone further with stronger leadership from your office.
Sincerely,
Dan Handelman
Portland Copwatch
* see http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/no…
———————
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:17:02
From: Portland Copwatch
To: District Attorney Michael Schrunk
Cc: News Media
Subject: Urging a Grand Jury investigation in the Leslie Stewart shooting
District Attorney Mike Schrunk
Deputy District Attorney Traci Anderson
Multnomah County Courthouse
1021 S.W. Fourth Avenue, Room 600
Portland, OR 97204
August 31, 2007
OPEN LETTER RE: Grand Jury in Leslie Stewart case
District Attorney Schrunk and Deputy DA Anderson:
We urge you to convene a grand jury hearing in the police shooting of Leslie Stewart.
You told the Oregonian that your office generally does not hold grand jury hearings in officer shootings if “no one was injured.” Mr. Stewart was injured, however minor it may be, either directly or indirectly by the bullet.
Regardless, the Oregon State Statute governing police use of deadly force requires that officers reasonably believe that there is an imminent threat to them or to another person. It does not require that the officer’s use of deadly force result in an injury or death.
Therefore, if Officer Stephanie Rabey’s shot through a window at Mr. Stewart was not justifiable under the statute, a crime has been committed.
Because the Attorney General’s plan for County response procedures to be developed for police shootings and deaths, we hope that your office will make a commitment to investigate and hold a grand jury hearing on every case where officers discharge weapons toward other human beings in the line of duty.
Please reconsider this decision, as it is crucial for the public to believe that our officers are being held to the strictest standards as they are given the power of life and death over the community.
Sincerely
Dan Handelman
Portland Copwatch
Alejandro Queral,
NW Constitutional Rights Center
————–
October 2, 2006
District Attorney Schrunk:
We are writing to you today to urge you to present an aggressive and thorough case before the grand jury convening tomorrow in the case of the police in-custody death of James Chasse Jr.
By the accounts we have read of this case, Mr. Chasse:
–was unarmed
–was not posing a threat of serious bodily injury or death to police or the public
–suffered from mental illness
–died as a result of his inability to breathe caused in part by blunt force trauma to the chest during the struggle with police
Those same accounts indicate that the police officers involved:
–kicked Mr. Chasse in the head
(as noted in the Portland Police directive on deadly force, the use of body parts can
constitute the use of deadly force)
–Tasered Mr. Chasse repeatedly
(an October, 2005 training memorandum warned against multiple uses of
the Taser in part because “Repeated, prolonged and/or continuous exposure on the subject to the TASER electrical discharge may cause strong muscle contractions. These muscle contractions, especially if probes are placed across the chest and diaphragm, may impede breathing and respiration.”)
–lay Mr. Chasse on his chest and “hog-tied” him despite his difficulty in breathing
–made the determination to take Mr. Chasse to jail rather than the hospital.
All of the above indicates that even if the officers did not intend to kill Mr. Chasse, they should have known that their actions could cause his death. It seems reasonable that a jury could indict the officers for criminally negligent homicide.
Your office has come under great scrutiny over the past few years in other cases which involved unarmed civilians dying at the hands of the police. To our knowledge there has never been an indictment of an on-duty officer for excessive use of force in Portland. In the last high-profile case, of James Jahar Perez, your office accepted paid testimony from a biased “expert” on police shootings to speak of “action-reaction” theories, which probably swayed the outcome of that case.
Attorney General Hardy Myers, when looking at the issue of deaths in police custody in 2005, recommended that transcripts of grand juries in these cases be released publicly. The Oregon Senate passed a bill to allow that transparency to happen, but the bill never made it to the house floor.
We would like to thank you for apparently agreeing with the Police Assessment Resource Center, which has been studying shootings and deaths in custody by the Portland Police, who recommended that deaths in custody be treated with the same procedures as police shootings. We hope it is never a question whether a death in custody should be presented to a grand jury.
Many members of the public are aware that the District Attorney’s office has a very close relationship with the police and is thus reluctant to bring charges. It seems to us that an aggressive and thorough presentation of the facts in this case might lead to an indictment and the end of speculation that your office has a serious conflict of interest when considering police shootings and deaths in custody.
Sincerely,
Dan Handelman
Portland Copwatch
even if he had died immediately after the gun shot wound, SERT should have already been on scene. i want to know why no one bothered to call them until after he was shot.
“In the broader context of Officer Frashour’s history, which we believe must be made relevant to this criminal investigation”
So Handleman wants a one set of rules for cops and another for everyone else. Can’t testify to someone’s history in a criminal trial. If that were the case there would be 10 times as many dirt bags in prison. I’m all for changing the rules, but let’s make it for everyone.
Handleman is part of the problem with the police bureau for the reasons I mention above.
Nathan Turner died nearly twenty years ago. He was in the 8-12 age range. An IV drug user had broken in to the house and was holding the kid hostage, at knifepoint.
A Portland cop shot and killed Nathan Turner because “he thought the kid was in imminent danger”.
The dad is a pillar in the community, a pediatric oncologist without an ounce of hubris. He and the mom spent a huge amount of time with the PPD leadership and agreements were drawn up. The Turner family would not sue PPB, if PPB fixed its haywire use of force policy and training. Evidently, changes have not been implemented, or were not enough.
It must tear the Turners apart to watch other families being savaged on a regular basis because of this absolutely criminally dysfunctional police department and local governing body- the Portland city council and its ridiculous mayor.
@Gontorio – I don’t know the details of that story, but you make it sound like a cop tried to shoot a hostage-taking junkie because he thought the guy was about to kill a child, but the cop missed and hit the kid instead. Is that right? And you’re still bashing him about it 20 years later? Christ, leave the guy alone! Where the hell were YOU that night? What were YOU doing to save kids from knife-wielding junkies? What are you doing, now? When was the last time you put yourself in harms way to save someone else? Sounds like it was a tragic accident, but how are YOUR marksman skills? How good are YOU with a pistol, in a life-or-death situation? Good lord, man, shut the hell up!
The kid’s names was Thomas, not Turner. And, yes Reymont, that’s that is what happened. The officers fired to stop the junkie when he started cutting the kid’s throat. The Thomas family is still very supportive of the Portland Police.
After reading about Brashours’ involvement in the Watehouse case, I have to wonder why Brashour was chosen to be the triggerman in this instance. Doesn’t seem like such a great idea.
Apologies, yes, the name was Thomas, not Turner.
Nathan Thomas might be here today if there had been hostage negotiaters running things, rather than an officer with a gun.
I’m sure that officer regrets his mistake every day, and I am not bashing him. I am bashing an organization which is criminally dysfunctional with regards to self-management, which has clearly not changed enough in the last 18 years to prevent another sad loss of life due to the exact same circumstances that operated in Nathan’s case, ie, negotiaters were not in control. Once again, a man with a gun was.
Reymont, I’ve already told you my job involves personal risk. Do I use a gun? No. Do I have a useful role in society? I believe I do, even though I do not carry a weapon, my job confers other powers to protect the vulnerable. Sorry to disappoint you.