Almost any large man with a gun or a bat can protect people, the police are supposed to be more than that, I thought. Oh well. F-it.

Here's a better idea what to tell the kiddies - when there's trouble in public that doesn't involve you and authorities are on the scene - don't insert yourself in the situation.

Also - what happened with the tased guy?

Hmm, city dropping charges in exchange for a promise not to sue. Nothing fishy here, please move on.

And I like that, out of all of the issues raised by this, they're willing to investigate the officer's f-bomb:

"Hey Mike, did you say fuck?"

"No."

"Hey you other guys. Did you hear him say fuck?"

"Nope."

Investigation Closed.

De Court says the charges against him were dismissed, but I've been unable to locate his records, because she didn't know his name. Still working on that angle though, and will let you know when something comes of it.

@D: No, cause if you were being tazed illegally, (or worse yet, murdered, like a man in SF was a year ago,) by a gun in uniform, you wouldn't want anyone to stop and make sure everything was on the up and up either. Don't worry, we won't.

While I understand her logic, and would do the same thing if I was her on a personal level, as someone who isn't her, and doesn't have to deal with the emotional problems, I think she should sue.

Matthew, do you know he was being tased 'illegally'?(whatever that means)
Emergency crews are the ones whom are enabled by law to keep the 'up and up,' their actions and words are all painstakingly documented and then they are called to account if something goes wrong.

When screechy Joe doogooder interrupts police doing their job (or whatever they're doing) nothing good will come of it, I can guarantee you.
Ever.

Damn, these pathetic boot-licking apologists for psychopathic police behavior piss me off. Is it going to take getting beaten up or tasered by a cop to make you wake up and pull your head out? Sad.

I won't be tasered or beaten by a cop because I'm not stupid or nosy enough to enter a situation I know nothing about, against people who outnumber and outgun me, and my help is not requested.

That's pretty much what Chamberlain said in 1937.

In other words, don't question authority, under any circumstances.

Great words to live by. A regular Thomas fucking Paine this one is.

If the people who are supposed to protect the peace respond this way to a minor infraction (regardless of whether or not one feels what she did was wrong, it was minor) how are they going to respond in an actual crisis. What happens if there was real panic and the armed guards were occupied elsewhere? The police are all we have and many people don't respect/like/trust them. How are they supposed to keep the peace when it matters if they can't keep the peace when it doesn't.

Matt - have you ever heard of the axiom whereby the party that first brings up a Hitler reference automatically loses the argument?

A more accurate comparison might be someone coming away from the conflict with a piece of paper signed by the bad guy (whoever that might be) declaring 'peace in our time,' a naive and childish expectation history shows us is deeply flawed.

No one has yet shown me where the police did anything wrong.

No one has yet shown me one instance where the consequences of getting involved in a confrontation did not lead to the situation getting any better. Conversely, there are several accounts of witnesses bringing malfeasance to light by NOT directly confronting the alleged wrongdoer, but by introducing video, pics testimony, etc.

I'm just trying to keep you kids from getting your heads cracked in.

(Correction DID lead to the situation getting better...)

Slamming a woman into the ground for asking a question isn't wrong (in front of her child no less)? What is your standard? There are many analogous situations that one could easily see the value in asking whether or not the police are following the law (since they are vivid and include things best not posted on the internet I won't elaborate but I am sure you can think of something a police officer might do where you would want to question their actions).

Also, general question, can a person citizen arrest a police officer?

I wonder how the kid is going to view authority figures.

D—it's called Godwin's law. And yes. I'm aware of it.

And of course we all know that this is about winning a discussion and not about injustice or any of that non-sense. I also wonder how far the police can actually go. What can't they do?

So wait, nothing at all happened between the woman getting back on the train and her getting thrown to the ground? Really? Nothing at all? It seems like a very strange sequence of events to me.

@D & Matt Davis: Godwin's Law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1". It's got nothing to do with being right or wrong. It's just a time based observation. Speaking of time based observations, I'm still surprised that the Mary Volm post hasn't been Godwined yet.

There are multiple arguments about going too far without resorting to the Hitler argument.

Kent State.
Gitmo Bay.
Many unnamed atrocities that happen everywhere all the time that we don't know about or did know about but have forgotten.

The point though is that we let it happen.
How many of things like that happened before the Hitler regime was allowed to go too far?

At what point do you tell those in power that they have gone too far? When they become like Hitler?

I think, perhaps, when they rally outside city hall in the name of one of their most notorious buddies, and demand that the police commissioner reinstate him or else?

Why does anyone want to protect a bad cop? It just makes them all look worse. That endangers police safety more than people pursuing action against bad officers. WTF? And the DA's office making deals to protect cops against legal suits? That sounds wildly illegal to me. If it's not, it should be.

Zero accountability.

This reminds me of the video of the girl getting bean bagged on the MAX platform. They told all the bystanders to leave. Do the cops really have a right to force people to "mind their own business"? It seems like a person can stand in public and watch cops from afar, and their speech towards cops should be largely protected as well.

Anyway, if I were a cop in this town, I'd beat the shit out of anyone who looked at me wrong every single day, knowing that nothing at all would happen to me.

Wow, this is horrible. Thanks for the coverage, Matt.

Geez, just might there be another side to this story? Perhaps as dismaying as the lack of objectivity in the article is how quickly the herd jumps on the bandwagon. Sentence first, verdict afterwards!

Don't the facts matter at all? Does anyone care that law enforcement use of deadly force in Oregon is among the lowest in the nation? That Portland cops use deadly force much, much less frequently than their counterparts in similar cities across the country? That complaints about excessive force are as low as they've ever been? That Portland citizens not only like their police force, but the percentage saying they do has been rising?

Dontbesheep - you must understand - if you want to bleat along with the rest of the sheep followers here, law enforcement is automatically the enemy in any said situation.

Nevermind facts or that we have no corroboration from the other side of the equation that actually has to deal with criminal elements all day, every day. Mostly just overeducated sissies who think they're aping their stoned hippy parents by not actually doing anything, just whiningly 'sticking it to The Man.'

All ineffectually, of course, their arguments are based on intentions and not results.

To fill in a few blanks:

The young man who was tased was already in custody, with four officers abusing him.

I learned that I should take footage or pictures and turn them in to superiors and The Independent Review Board if I see something like this again. Though it's sad a citizen can be abused for exercising their freedom of speech.

Why should we question authority? It's not like that was the reason our country was founded or anything.

I mean institutions don't harbor corruption right?

Like most non-violent protests- in the name of human rights, mine was responded to with verbal and physical abuse. Followed by menacing, fear tactics, mockery and unjust imprisonment.

We explained to our children that like any proffesion there are people who will make good choices. People who will stand for Truth and justice, and then there are the other people, who make bad choices. We can hope that the later will act diferently in the future.

"The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty of the bad people but the silence over that by the good people". -Martin Luther King Jr.

Milwaukie.

@D: We don't have to take her word vs the police's word. The entire story is told by the DA's actions, specifically: The DA plea bargained. And I very much doubt that she came to them with this deal, they most likely came to her with this one. At BEST, the DA knew that they didn't have a very good case against her and the lawsuit would be expensive to defend against. However, more likely, they did it because they knew they had no case against this woman, and she'd win the lawsuit. If the DA knew that that they could make the charges stick and that she didn't have a good lawsuit they wouldn't have offered to "drop" the charges in exchange for her dropping the lawsuit. Open your eyes: If simply threatening to sue when you got arrested was a way to get the charges dropped, then every crook in town would do it!

@Bob R. Thanks. Corrected. I swear I should just never write that word.

Yes, who the hell do the taxpayers think they are observing and questioning those whose salaries they pay!

Pretty sure Matthew D just hit the nail on the head.

D, Polis, and Dontbesheep have it right.

At least we don't have to deal with this guy, some sort of strange Humphreys-Leonard hybrid. And I heard he has fangs. Like in Twilight, but for reals.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/…

You're correct Matthew D. They did offer the deal. Without knowing whether or not I intended to press a civil suit. Neither my attorney nor any of her superiors had seen such an offer before. This in and of itself speaks about who was in the wrong and who was not.

The Tri-Met video I had requested was destroyed, if they thought they were acting appropriately why didn't they request the footage?

My complaint will in fact be the 7th or 8th (of similar situations) on one of the officers records.

And D if the trouble in public is due to the criminal activities of the authorities it is our right and responsibility to bring light to the situation. I hope that people will not be to afraid to look out for one another's basic human rights.

@a4truth: What bugs me about this isn't just that the cops are out of line, but that the DA seems to be covering for them. I can deal with the fact that the police make split second mistakes, I understand that it is a difficult job and they are only human, (I may not like it, but I do understand it.) But this is a deliberate cover up, not done in the heat of the moment or anything else, this is done by someone(s) that is thinking clearly and have plenty of time to think their actions through.

Good luck with your complaint. As I said, I understand why you don't want to go through with the lawsuit, and I'd do the same thing, but someone does need to deal with these roaches.

I have something to say here.. Neither one of them were told they were under arrest until after they were cuffed and hurt. She brought that to the officer's attention and they laughed, saying they don't have to tell you anything, one of the officers told her he had just gotten off on the very same thing recently. He bragged about getting away with it. One of those officers had 8 previous battery cases.
The MAX footage was destroyed. why??? WHY is this happening? Why does an officer bean bag a 12 year old without a weapon? that is the ONLY reason anyone should be taken down that way. For a BUS TICKET??? THEN you see the supporters rallying for Humphreys with BANNERS and T-SHIRTS.
That banner cost at least $300 alone. WHO payed for that? The tax payers? US? THE PARENTS OF THE LITTLE GIRL THAT WAS SHOT PAYED FOR THAT PARAPHANALIA!!! WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? In case we ALL forgot:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To Protect and Serve.

Bullies with weapons are allowed to run our streets. They prey on the weak and meager. They should be ALLOWED to be weeded out, so that good cops can help us. I am connected by family of friends to the Lakewood officers that were shot. They were good cops, I know good cops, I'm related to good cops. But this is unacceptable. This should be blown apart.

A question for all you apologists of government thuggery: do you stand in front of a mirror each morning, click your heels, and shout "Sieg Heil!"? If not, why not?

Another thing that bugs me about this: She wasn't just a random person off the street that they wrongly beat up, arrested, and then covered up, she was someone that was questioning the police's actions. It is one thing to cover up the police officers mistakes, it is quite another to cover it up when the police officers deliberate thuggery in reaction to a complaint. They just, "didn't have a case against this woman and she had a good lawsuit," the lawsuit would have been very ugly for the police department. At this point, her complaint shouldn't just be against the police, but the district attorney's office as well.

It is common procedure in courts today for the Prosecuting Attorney to coerce a "voluntary" agreement to not sue the city in return for a dismissal.
It is called a "stipulation of probable cause" and the only reason the DA asks for that is to protect the police.
I contend it is not the DA's job to protect the police. And many INNOCENT defendants who have their civil rights violated, agree to this stipulation just to have the case end.
Then if upon reflection, out of the courtroom and in a position of duress, they decide they should sue the city, in the interest of justice or in the interest of preventing this abuse to others, they are out of luck.
There is a precedent (Salazar vs Upland Police) where the court ruled against a woman who had signed the stipuation of probable cause, and then recanted and later sued the city.
The court ruled against her because of she signed the agreement. She appealed and later lost that suit on appeal for the same reason and had to pay all the defendant's (police) costs and court costs.

It's clear to me, based on other things like this that I've seen personally, Angela was coerced into signing the agreement. I think after hearing the story and others like it, any reasonable juror would look at officials involved in this mess and wonder why they would make such an offer if they knew Angela was guilty and officers hadn't harmed her in front of her young child. Obviously that was not the case, was it? They would also wonder why this man chose not to fully investigate Angela's claims...does not look good, does it?

And in my opinion, this is exactly where the problem lays. If deputized officers and stewards of the court were prosecuted when it's found they've violated another's rights, and/or used their power of office to make a union dysfuntionals problems go away, and suppressed evidence and or failed to fully investigate complaints at the expense of violating a citizen's rights, we wouldn't even be having these discussions.

They themselves speak about the need for stiff sentences to deter crime, but when it comes to punishing one of their own for similar crimes, and/or it's a deputized union dysfunctional that's tuccus is on the burner, the law doesn't apply.

If it makes Angela feel any better, there's been other serious retaliation, and harassment of families associated with government employee whistle blowers of deputy misconduct, including anonymous systematic harassment and threats sent to whistle-blower's wife at their home, in addition to threats/harassment from someone who claimed they rape little girls...of which the whistle blower and his wife have! You think this isn't happening? I've got physical proof. Funny thing, when it was reported to Ret. Officer Schmit and the cybercats at the PPB on at least two occasions, with the IP Addresses and the ISP's acknowledging it was an offense, the PPB stated that it's not against the law to send those kind of harassing threats anonymously to women and children. Buck Wild ring a bell? No wonder that officer felt comfortable calling local women and claiming to be hiding in their basements while threatening to rape them and their children. Based on what Officer Wild's employer told this woman in September of 07' and her husband in August of 08', the PPB didn't seem to think there is anything wrong with making anonymous threats of sexual assault against local women and children. Consider that because of police stonewalling, that woman still does not know if there is a credible threat against her and her children. Her life is not the same.

I hope Angela DeCorte is able to find competent counsel who subpoenas all past complaints made to officials against deputized union dysfunctionals who have; stalked, harassed and terrorized others...you will be surprised at all the things they've been hiding from the public and chose not even to investigate, because of their relationship with the unions, and make them tell how what ALL they have done to whistle-blowers of misconduct by deputized union dysfunctionals, and the whistle-blowers families.

And if they don't give Angela's counsel all the "stuff" they subpoena, evidencing a pattern of conduct certainly pertinent to Angela's case, "stuff" that includes suppression and coercion by a local public servant and steward of the court, one just might face the same repercussions Mike Nifong did.

Multnomah County needs to come clean, REAL CLEAN!

personally to have f-ing morons like these pigs on the street is retarded! inprison the bastards. the end!

personally to have pigs like that on the street is retarded! they shouldnt just be sued they should be inprisoned and f-ed in the a. Im just sorry to see we all waste our money on trash. All you can do is arm yourself to protect your family's the end!