- Lawyer Tom Steensen and the step-father of Aaron Campbell (left) at a city hall rally protesting the forced re-hiring of Officer Ron Frashour this morning.
Who’s in charge of deciding whether police officers can be fired? In Portland, not the police commissioner. Here it’s the state employment bureaucratsโthe Oregon Employment Relations Board issued a ruling last week that forces the city to rehire Officer Ron Frashour, who Mayor Sam Adams fired two years ago after he fatally shot Portlander Aaron Campbell in the back.
The perfunctory decision ironically comes just a week after a major federal investigation found that Portland police lack oversight and accountability when using force and have a pattern of using excessive force against people with mental illnesses (like Aaron Campbell). The Portland Police Association successfully argued that Frashour’s shooting of Campbell was within police policy.
“I will never believe that police are trained to shoot someone in the back,” said Campbell’s mother, Marva Davis, in a statement read aloud at a police oversight rally this morning at city hall. “The community doesn’t need people like you, you are a liability.”
The rally raised the issue: If the mayor can’t fire Officer Frashour, who can he fire? Police oversight activists worry that the strength of the police union will lead to less accountability for officers who the city tries to punish.
Portland National Lawyers Guild President Ashlee Albies says the police union is far too powerful in its influence over the outcome of use-of-force cases. “This is above and beyond protecting workers rights, this is the police making public policy to protect cops who kill people,” says Albies. “When the community and the city are crying out for the ability to hold officers accountable and that can’t happen because of a labor agreementโthat’s problematic.”
“The city must take control of its police force,” echoes Aaron Campbell family attorney Tom Steenson. “We have lost it.”
Portland Copwatch‘s Dan Handelman is “ticked off” by this week’s ruling, but congratulates Mayor Adams on his promise to take the issue to court. “Whatever the mayor does could set precedent, but it would be a long, protracted court battle,” says Handelman.
For the meantime, police oversight advocates are pressing the police force to not return Officer Frashour to patrol but, if they do rehire him, put him in a desk job. For his part, police union President Daryl Turner says Mayor Sam Adams is continuing to pursue the firing of Officer Frashour because he has a “personal vendetta.”
Lets see the actual decision so we can read the facts
Sarah: Who sets the department’s policy regarding use of force? If ruling after ruling after ruling says Frashour was within regulations, shouldn’t it be asked who is in charge of setting those regulations? It’s way easier for the Adams to make an example out of one officer rather than actually addressing the problem, a problem which he has done nothing to fix. Adams is covering his own ass here, and you guys seem perfectly happy to help him out rather than asking why he hasnt attempted to bring use of force standards in line with what a reasonable person would consider sensible.
@Chuck – I don’t think the mayor has the ability to set DPSST use of force training. In addition, the basis for deadly force is arguing that the *officer feared for his life* – Thatโs never going to change, and is entirely legitimate reason to kill someone.
But in this situation it was complicated by the absurdity of what qualifies for โfearingโ. The reasoning behind this argument of Frashour fearing for his life was offered up during the grand jury, and it’s a fairly common narrative called the “Action-Reaction Principal”, which has been debunked by Myth Busters of all people. The idea is somewhat strange, but does play out in some incidents: even if you have your weapon aimed at the target/suspect, the suspect can pull a weapon and shoot you before you have an opportunity to “react” to their “action.” The concept is that the quickest to “act” always has the advantage. In court, this boiled down to arguing that Campbell could lower his hands, reach for his belt, pull a gun, turn around, aim it at the officers, and fire at the police before the half-dozen cops could fire.
The reality is that we have a self-described paramilitary police force, trained in paramilitary tactics, and that’s not a direction that this city has allowed, but a direction that the entire civil police force of the United States has drifted into due to the war on drugs. These mother fuckers own tanks and armored cars, the Portland Police have an Air Force – do you think the mayor authorized that, or do you think that was a grant offered via the Department of Defense? Calculate how a self-described, self-perceived paramilitary organization would use force.
If the Mercury wants to take a shot at the โAction Reaction Principalโ, Iโd be interested in demoing it and showing how absurd it is. Iโve been meaning to for some time, but havenโt invested the money. We could use nerf guns.
As I understood it, the basics of this case include a police sniper who was out of radio contact, who then subsequently shot someone the rest of the officers present understood to be surrendering. Is that right?
@rich – there was a lot of confusion* and lack of communication about if Campbell was surrendering or not. There was also confusion* about if Campbell was reaching for his waistband or not. There was confusion* about the situation in general.
*by confusion, I mean contradicting accounts by police, and contradicting statements by impartial witnesses. This is not unusual, it’s a regular Rashลmon.
The Mercury has pretty good reporting on this issue, if you dig around a bit.
Yeah, I was around at the time; I just wanted to check my recollection against other peoples’ regarding what I felt was a pretty central aspect of the case that seems to never get mentioned anymore.