This is another disgusting action and lame justification/excuse by the city. The DA is complicit in the cover-up and could have easily had the grand jury indict on any number of charges.

We need to know what legal options the grand jury were presented because it sounds like criminally negligent homicide to me at the very least. Did the DA only ask them to conside murder charges? I hope Shrunk is serious about getting the transcripts out and doesn't just halfass it and then when it is denied say "I tried."

Why the delay to getting this person medical attention? Bean bag 'em, shoot em in the the back, sic the dog on him, then wait for the SERT team to show up 30+ minutes later as he bleeds out? I wouldn't trust Frashour to mow my lawn while I was out of town if they have that little common sense.

All that being said, Al Sharpton needs to stay the hell out of this. The people of Portland need to deal with this by getting real police oversight, running Saltzman out of office and cleaning up the police union and police force. Criminal charges would be nice too.

That's great, Number 6. Not only are the police officers "in on it," but so is the DA. And now, apparently, 7 randomly-selected citizens are also conspiring to cover everything up. Good thing YOU know the truth! You don't even need to hear the evidence or listen to the testimony, because you're the only one who isn't crazy! Sure glad we've got you around to keep shouting baseless, unfounded accusations, otherwise I might be swayed by all this consensus...

Protest/picket starts 2/11/10 @downtown Justice Center

Picket/Protests start 2/11/10 @ downtown Justice Center.

As I said, I hope Shrunk's request is granted and the testimony is released because I would like to see more of the evidence than the lawyer issued press release from the cops and the witness statements as given by the Oregonian. I'd love to see the 20 witness' names and what they said. For instance, were they 20 people from the scene or did the DA bring in 'use of force' experts to present a defense at the grand jury?

The DA controls what evidence goes to the grand jurors and controls what legal options are given to the grand jurors (murder v. crim neg hom for instance) so the DA is "in on" most indictments or no true bills. For instance, if the DA chose to bring in just the civilian witnesses quoted in the Oregonian and suggested that the grand jury indict on crim neg homicide, the grand jury would have come back with a true bill.

I think it is perfectly warranted to be worried about the DA in this town and to assume they will help the police. The DA's office relies on cops on a daily basis, works with them and has never indicted a cop in any officer use of force or shooting that I am aware of.

I certainly hope that the seven citizens on the grand jury panel followed their oath (in ORS 132.060) but I also hope they were presented the full story.

Reymont, do you think that our current level of police oversight is adequate? Do you support Dan Saltzman's decidions as police commissioner? Do you think the police union and police force needs reform and to clean house? Or do you just want to ignore the fact that any officer in any encounter can shoot you dead and then to justify it say "he was coming right at me," have the union bully the city into backing off, and get a few weeks, months or years of paid leave to boot?

Business as usual... no surprise here if you've lived in Portland longer than five minutes.

PS: Only five of the grand jurors out of the seven have to concur on the decision by the way.

@Number Six—I didn't know that. I actually thought it had to be unanimous. Thanks.

!32.010 through 132.990 explain th grand Jury process in Oregon. ORS 132 .360 explains the "number of jurors required to concur."

Although I don't particularly like Al Sharpton, maybe our city needs its problems with our police force exposed front page on a national level.

It amazes me how the very mention of an investigation brings so much defensiveness out of the police after a death or two, or several. The mere suggestion of watching the watcher and they go crazy in a really bad way.

OK everybody, I'm going to play the devils' advocate here, so get ready to annihilate me. IF the cops were told that Campbell was armed and suicidal, exits the building and then refuses to do what he's told to do, gets shot with a (or several) bean bag rounds and is observed to reach into the back of his pants like he could possibly have a weapon there (while he is trying to go back inside), then what do you expect the cops to do? Let him go back in the apartment building and possibly kill or wound another person, and given the lack of any other way to incapacitate him, I think that the cops did what was right. Again, I base my thoughts on whether what the cops said about being warned that he was armed is true. And we won't know until we hear the 911 tapes. Ok, have at it.

@Number Six - your second post was great! :) Same opinion, but had really good info, and made it your ideas sound very reasonable.

Your first one sounded - to me - like you wear tinfoil hats. Sorry. ;)

You asked about my opinions. I think the current level of police overview is "adequate," I suppose, but I wish it was more transparent. I don't think Saltzmann has been consistent as commissioner, and I think that's caused confusion with both the police and the public. I think the police contract is likely too strong - I've seen similar stories around the US, so apparently it's endemic. So fix all that - make the reviews more public, more understandable, more uniform. But at the same time I give the police a lot of leeway about use of force. They should never have to risk themselves, even a little, even a bruise, in deference to someone breaking the law. All risk, all injuries, should be born by the person farking up.

"They should never have to risk themselves, even a little, even a bruise, in deference to someone breaking the law."

Reymont, you and people who think like you are the problem.

Why should the police never have to risk themselves, pray tell?

Tell that to all the slaughterhouse workers, truckers, and construction workers who get killed and injured every year to provide for your table.

I can't seem to write a coherent reply. Are you kidding? Why SHOULD they assume any risk? Why on earth would you think they should?

What do you do for a living? Should I expect you to tackle violent people with knifes, as part of your daily routine? Why not?

it's too bad poor "Reymont" isn't in the loop and knows some of our local history here. recall that our DA was son of one of Portland's most famously corrupt politicians and thus, was suckled at the table of corruption so as to being able to Gerry-Rig a Grand Jury being a piece of cake for this piker.

recall too that he did it before when it came to helping our his colleague (Court Administrator) and friend, when the man's bungling son just somehow killed Kendra James (young pregnant mother) while wearing a PPB Uniform (Officer Scott McCollister) with all sorts of conflicting "stories" being told by this Killer-Kop and the other two officers involved.

how does he do it? it's long rumored that he just selectively cherry-picks Mormon's (or other known fundaloonies) who're known to hold right-wing views, such as simplistic notions that cops are always right in disputes with citizens, etc. etc. and are historically known for their own racism, and think cop's are "forced" by the citizen to their being shot ((poor cops have a rough job, etc. etc.!!)) with verdicts coming back as he intended all along....exonerated to get by with MURDER and the truth lost in all the court-sanctioned confusion and obfuscation.

it's beyond me as to WHY he is allowed to get by with such, and I remain dumbfounded that some group refuses to sing Cumbayah and march, but instead decides to become very "proactive" and actually takes RETALIATORY REPRISALS against the offending cop and the "officialdom" that allows 'em to get away with such "high crimes against citizens"???

I sense it's merely a matter of time till we see a reversal in this sorry state of affairs and cops are forced to being held ACOUNTABLE for their actions and their abuse of power is held in check by PROACTIVE CITIZENRY that sidesteps the joker's we have for "officials", who are left wanking on the sidelines as the "beat goes on" in the REAL WORLD of the Big City! anyone want to place a bet?

(I was almost on that grand jury: I got off because I would have had to take 3 weeks of vacation time to serve.)

The DA presents the case to the grand jury and the grand jury decides if there is enough evidence to bring it to a real trial. If the DA "does a bad job" presenting the evidence, then the grand jury's duty is to NOT bring it to trial, (the whole, "Innocent until proven guilty," thingee.) The DA can do a bad job any number of ways, from not presenting the right charges, to not bringing forward all the evidence, etc, things that can all be covered up as "honest mistakes" if anyone ever asks later. The DA's office has the motivation to not bring this case to trial, something that should be considered by itself a conflict of interest, they need the help of officers to make their cases so they have an interest in not pissing them off...

I'd like to see what the grand jury has to say in their letter.

Hello Reymont,

"Why SHOULD they assume any risk? Why on earth would you think they should? "

They should because it is part of their job description. Coming in to contact with violent/unstable people is always dangerous. They signed on to do just that. There are other jobs that are more dangerous, though. I won't go through them, but being a police officer is not in the top ten (Forbes).

The point that you seem not to get is that consideration for the officer's safety must be balanced with their sworn duty to "Serve and Protect". That is why there are rules concerning escalation of force. Bad people doing bad things should expect a bad outcome; not so bad people doing not so bad things should expect a not so bad outcome. There is a twist, though...

We have reduced the capacity of our state hospitals for budget reasons, and have made civil commitment very close to impossible because the previous rules were too lenient and were abused. Thus, we have added the burden of being emergency psychiatric workers to the duties of an officer. They are not prepared for this. We no longer have the men in white coats to put you in a straight-jacket and haul you off to the booby hatch, therefore we need to prepare officers for this part of the job. I would pay slightly higher taxes for a functioning mental health triage and state hospital system, but as a state and a nation we have collectively decided to not fund such a system. All we have left is the police, so we need to prepare them.

All of the above is said in general. Regarding this specific case, I have not formed a conclusion yet. If the officers were informed that he had a gun, and he was behaving as irrationally as has been reported, I cannot condemn the shooting. I can envision a very different out come, though, having been a mental health worker for 15+ years. Were the mental health system functioning, in at least in some manner, it is possible that the men in white coats would have been called before the situation escalated to an AR15 being deployed. It would have been much nicer if restraints and Thorazine were deployed instead. But we will not fund the system, so we're back to the police.

So what are we going to do? Train the cops to deal with the crazies with a minimum amount of force? Decide to pay for a functioning mental health system? Nothing?

Yeah, Reymont, I know you're struggling with the whole blinkered/blindered/nosebag problem of all the people who think like you.

Check out some information below and you will find that working a job can be dangerous. Period. And I do most definitely take personal risks every single day of my working life and I am not a police officer.

1. Fishers and related fishing workers

Fatality rate*: 128.9

2. Logging workers

Fatality rate: 115.7

3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers

Fatality rate: 72.4

4. Structural iron and steel workers

Fatality rate: 46.4

5. Farmers and ranchers

Fatality rate: 39.5

6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors

Fatality rate:: 36.8

7. Roofers

Fatality rate: 34.4

8. Electrical power line installers and repairers

Fatality rate: 29.8

9. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers

Fatality rate: 22.8

10. Taxi drivers and chauffeurs

Fatality rate: 19.3


Jobs with the most fatalities

The following 10 positions saw the most deaths in 2008:


1. Motor vehicle operators<

Number of victims: 908

Most common manner of death: 66 were highway-related.

2. Construction trades workers

Number of victims: 720

Most common manner of death: 37 were attributed to falls

3. Material moving workers

Number of victims: 248

Most common manner of death: 14 fall-related fatalities and 12 were struck by objects

4. Law enforcement workers

Number of victims: 144

Most common manner of death: 38 were highway-related and 33 were homicides

More likely to die if you are a taxi driver than a police officer! The only reason the police occupy the 4th ranking in the second category (actual numbers of deaths) is because there are way more police officers than there are taxi drivers.

So please, please go away with your crazy ideas that police safety comes before everyone else's safety, including unarmed people who are drunk, high, or nuts, or some combination of the above, and just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the cops show up, get scared, and blow their brains out to make sure they stay safe.

I am a armed citizen,and have a concealed weapons permit.I go the the shooting range on a regular basis.If some one was to run the other way after a threat had been made against me,I would shoot the in the leg,arm,shoulder and they would stop what ever they are doing and change whatever plan they had.They teach you that before you get a permit.If you have to kill some one,that would be YOUR decision.Frashour has used tazers and had other officer do the same ,he got charged for it but at the end of the day,everyone one goes home alive!I also have a dog that is trained to stop attackers .If I made that decision to kill a person when I pulled the trigger ,I would be a killer!!