Pretty much cut and dry. And if anyone keeps a track record of my posts on the PPB, they'll know that this coming from me goes a long way.

The ONLY thing I could see Officer Walters doing differently is possible use of the Tazer, but I'm not sure on protocol nor the situation so I'll not hold that against him.

I believe the officer was justified in this case, based on the information we have.

So was the guy shot in the bathroom, with no witnesses, other than the officer?

@Jackattak - Sure, if that's how it went down it was totally justified. I often post here in support of lethal force in this kind of situation - but even I've noticed that the initial police reports usually make it sound more cut and dried than it really is. If it really was this simple, why did it take 20 hours to compile this statement?

Now we Trust In Smirk(tm) to investigate.

Did the guy hurt anyone? It just says he had a razor blade and was covered in blood. Was it his blood? Was he simply mentally ill and cutting himself?

A couple of facts need touching up here...

Those are good questions to ask of Sizer at the press conference, Reymont and Alan, keep 'em coming.

Understood, Reymont. I'm in the same boat as you, which is why I ended everything with "based on the information we have." ;)

There wasn't anything even closely resembling justification in the Campbell case, so that's why I was quick to admonish. My gut tells me this won't be another fiasco (unless The People turn it into one), at least at this juncture.

@Jackattak - We're on a boat! :)

@Smirk - This blog has made me care about the news.

Westerman's comments seem to contradict witness statements who heard "drop it" three times and then heard shots. Ol' Scotty's saying there was no verbal communication between the cop and the transient.

So which is it? Oh boy.

Sarah I think it's now ok to say, "Here we go again..."

@Jackattak - Well, to be fair, the actual quote was "There was no chance for dialogue." Yelling "Drop it!" can't count as a dialogue! He may have meant the officer had no chance to verbally de-escalate the situation.

Google says Chris Humphreys is a 10-year veteran, so that rules him out. Do we have any other names that might match the 13-year figure?

It took them how long to come up with this story? If this is how it happened why didn't they release this last night? I'm not saying I don't believe them...I'm just saying waiting as long as they did to tell this story looks fishy.

Did the guy lunge with the knife? "Approach" does not equal "threaten" in my opinion, especially if the guy was mentally ill. I second the questions about whether it was himself he was cutting. And why not use a taser instead of a gun -- or shoot him in the leg, something non-lethal? (Or at least less likely to be lethal).

how does scotty know so much when "the officer involved has not been interviewed yet"? It is a real problem that officers who shoot people get several days with the union and attorneys to practice their story before being interviewed.

Why the need for the 2nd round of shots a few seconds later?

Reymont -

If you're looking for the officer's name, it was Jason Walters. Says so in paragraph one of this article. ;)

@Jackattak - Haha, thanks. Was he involved in any of the other recent shootings?

The homeless guy had a "razor knife". Do they mean box cutter?

The first release said, "The officer retreated and gave repeated commands to the subject to drop the razor knife, but the subject refused to do so."

Repeated commands...

Then the second said, "the officer, a 13-year veteran of the force who was named officer of the month in March at Central Precinct, did not communicate with the man. “There was no chance for dialogue.""

So which was is, repeated commands to drop the razor, or no chance for dialoge?

I bet you it was a Bic razor.

Frankly, if you know that restroom area, it is pretty cornered. Meaning, if the guy wanted to scram from the cops, he would have to pretty much run over the cop....

I think that it could also mean a Sweeney Todd-style straight razor.

If Officer Walters was in the restroom alone with the blood covered man when he shot him, and Officer Walters has not been interviewed, how does anyone know what happened?
Is the interview a more critical questioning process then the Officer just saying what happened?
If they knew yesterday afternoon the blood covered man came at a officer with a razor knife why didn't they say that instead of leaving this aora of doubt about this situation?

Shooting live rounds in a public space does and should leave a heavy burden of proof on law enforcement to prove it was absolutely necessary.

@Dan yeah. that makes zero sense to me too.

Again, the reason that it STILL IS NOT JUSTIFIED: other people in Portland deal with situations like this in their jobs every day and don't get to have guns, so they actually have to SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

"di·a·logue
1. conversation between two or more persons. "

So if the guy with the razor isn't responding than it wasn't technically a dialogue, so chill out.

How did Rosie get back from the UK so quickly? She was there yesterday.

now that the police have told their "story" it's time for the "unknown citizen" to step forward with their cellphone film footage. I'd suggest that it NOT be given to the police for obvious reasons, but instead given to the public's media so it won't be tampered with and all can see it and make up their own minds as to what really happened. we are grown people now folks and we don't need "authority figures" telling us what we see with our own eyes...

Over 20 hours later and the officer involved in the shooting has yet to be interviewed. Is this pretty standard? Doesn't seem like you could have the full story without it.

Why are cops trained in "shoot-to-kill" and not "shoot-to-disarm" ??? He did NOT have to shoot that man to death regardless of whether he had a knife or not. What's more is because the man was shot to death instantly with at least 3 rounds (according to witnesses they heard at least 3 shots fired). I can only assume that Jason Walters was a mere ten feet or fifteen feet away when he decided to fire upon the unknown "razor-knife" wielding man. I mean, really .. 3+ shots to kill someone at that close of a range that had a knife?!?! Really officer, you couldn't just run to your car or get farther away to turn around with a tazer? You're that afraid of getting a little bit wounded by a blade that you had to shoot another human being to death?
It's high time that we drag all these "officers of the law" or "peace officers" (I call fvcking bullsh!t on both those two labels) out of their positions, and into the streets for a good ol' time PUBLIC TRIAL like they did in the Colonial Days.
The justice/court system does not work as it almost always favors the police or people in positions of power. Look at commiss. Salzman for christsake! He bent over backwards to the Police Union every time so far!! He has no spine and does NOT deserve to be a city commissioner any longer or ever again especially being the Police Commissioner.

Captain America-

Cops all over America, in interviews after shots-fired incidents, consistently answer the question of "how many shots did you fire" with "one or two" when in a lot of cases they emptied magazines or even took the time to reload their weapons.

This isn't a lie when they're answering, at least in the cops' minds. They don't remember in the heat of action and go into some auto-response and just shoot.

It happens in the military as well...I've seen it first-hand.

Not saying he's justified, just offering one opinion/possible answer to your question of why he shot three+ rounds.

Also, "shoot-to-disarm" is Hollywood bullshit. Your chances of pulling anything like that off when enduring a frightening situation are slim-to-none. Cops, like soldiers, are trained to fire center-mass, e.g. right in the middle of the body, where your target area is at its greatest.

Anything else is Hollywood bullshit.

Again, not making apologies, just trying to shed some light on some of your questions.

hey 'user', thanks for posting a pic but can you post source of pic or some other version or give some kind of other stuff to help verify that it is in fact the officer involved. It's not the easiest picture to see, and since he's not in uniform and there's no other info, I would like some other info to compare that this is actually him.

My two cents. If you've ever been to the Hoyt Arboretum you'd know that the area with the bathroom is small and confined atrium next to the store. The area is maybe 12-15 feet square, surrounded on three sides by the visitor's center and opening onto a larger garden area and the street on one side. If the officer was in by the doors and the transient came out of the bathroom and rushed at him, the transient would be able to cover that space quickly... leaving the officer few options to retreat. I don't know the exact situation and placement of the two people, but I can understand why deadly force would have been necessary. The possibility that the transient appeared and was covered in blood would have increased the tension of the situation.
- Keith