- REVEREND DOCTOR LEROY HAYNES
- FORMER STATE SENATOR AVEL GORDLY
Updates after the jump.
Well, here we are again. It’s been almost three months since the last rally on the Justice Center steps, and the tone of this morning’s rally was more outraged, more disbelieving, and frankly, louder than the last.
Reverend Doctor Leroy Haynes led proceedings with a statement signed by 32 ministers from churches all over Portland. He said the shooting death of Aaron Campbell on Friday, January 29, was “preventable and unnecessary,” and called on the city council to support a public inquiry into Campbell’s death. He also called for the District Attorney’s office to establish a special prosecutor for police excessive force and deadly force cases, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest in these cases. A Grand Jury failed to indict Officer Ronald Frashour late Tuesday.
Haynes also supported City Commissioner Randy Leonard’s proposal to strengthen the Independent Police Review Division with the future goal of adding subpoena power, and called on Police Chief Rosie Sizer to review its training, “with diverse citizen participation and to make recommendations for change.”
Campbell was “shot in the back by Officer Frashour with an AR-15 rifle while demonstrating his intent to follow the commands of the officers and after the officers had set up a containment area to limit his movement,” said Haynes.
“Here we are again, standing on the steps like the woman in the story that Jesus told,” said Haynes. “She went to the judge every day saying ‘render me justice’. And because of her persistency, her faith…the judge was forced to render her justice. We stand at this door to say, we will keep knocking. We will keep coming, until justice is rendered. Until the police bureau is changed.”
Gordly, meanwhile, urged those gathered to “point across the street to city hall.” “The language being spoken by the head of the police union is unacceptable,” she said. “The police are here in service to the citizens, and so are our elected officials. We’re in pursuit of a different sort of leadership out of city hall, and we’re going to claim it.”
“Unfortunately, after a tragedy like this, for a couple of days the media pays attention and the everybody goes home,” said Jo Ann Bowman—Executive Director of Oregon Action. “Clearly we have not done an effective job of training Portland Police officers to cope with mental health crises.”
“The buck stops with our mayor,” said Bowman. “It stops with every City Commissioner.”
“They continue to be the only force that I know that has not done anything wrong,” said the Reverend T.Allen Bethel. “And the only one I know who has not done anything wrong is God. They are not God. And we need to tell our City Commissioners: If you do not want to help us then we know how to help you pack your bags and leave your office, and do something else.”
Police officers’ temperaments need to be assessed, said Bishop AA.Wells. “We can move grizzly bears, we can move lions, but when it comes to certain citizens in our community, we say, ‘I thought he had a gun.’ They should be in a different job.”
Update, 11:36:
Marva Campbell-Davis, Campbell’s mother, showed for the rally on the courthouse and to City Hall.
- CAMPBELL-DAVIS: CENTER, IN LONG COAT
Cries included: “What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!”
And: “Stop the killing! Stop the violence!”
- CAMPBELL-DAVIS: JOINED MARCH ON CITY HALL
“Thank you for your support,” she told the crowd. “This could be anyone. I don’t want this to happen again.”
- PRAYER IN SUPPORT OF CAMPBELL-DAVIS ON CITY HALL THRESHOLD
It seems to me that a lot of this rhetoric is based on hindsight. Until you are in the position the police shooter was in, you cannot factually judge what should or should not have happened. It is too bad, though, that there is not some alternative to stopping someone bent on suicide (he was suicidal, you know) rather than just shooting them There needs to be some other way to incapacitate a person, other than killing them. One of my thoughts was maybe the shooter could have shot him in the leg, or some other non-vital area, but I wasn’t there, and do not know exactly what happened. If all the police ststements I have read are true, then, like another poster, I cannot condemn the police for this action.
I’ve been reading the news articles on the shooting since it happened, but those speakers seemed to have a lot more information that I do. Were they there? Did they conduct their own investigation?
I can’t recommend a 4-point fold on your pocket square, either. It just screams “I want attention!”
I really don’t think that there is an acceptable margin of error in a life or death situation. If you’re right, fine. If you’re wrong, find another line of work at the very least and be held accountable. For once, I’d like to see the police say, “We’re sorry; we made a tragic mistake.”, instead of the defensive posturings.
I’m really sick of being asked to see the police side of things when someone lies dead and unarmed on the street. Can they see the citizen’s side of things? We pay them, and instead they act like we owe THEM something. No, I think that its about time for the police to look at our side of things. As a city we’re sick of paying for the fatal errors and violent responses to peaceful protests.
The worst part is the attitude of the police when their mistakes come into question. Fuck that! A cop needs to be the most forthright in the room when questioned. Instead there’s the police union, designed to keep the police paid no matter what at the city’s expense, while deflecting responsibility for the error. True, hindsight is 20/20 so let’s learn from it and make the adjustment.
@ujfoyt: Generally if you want to shoot someone with a bullet, you should shoot to kill. I do agree with the officers there: If they thought he was so dangerous that he had to be hit with a bullet, then they need to actually use that bullet well. What I disagree with it the need for the bullet in the first place: A bean bag works, (it tends to result in certain reflexive actions, which they didn’t seem to know about,) or tear gas. Even better is a tactical shield and a night stick, and then just have the officers walk up to the guy, which is how they deal with actual (as opposed to just suspected) armed&dangerous people in most civilized countries The tactical shield is what the SERT officers used to get close to him after he went down, why couldn’t they have used it in the first place? The “lethal cover officer” even has pictures of him with it.
@Reymont: I believe this is your question http://questionland.portlandmercury.com/qu…
1) If you are drunk, you probably will be acting less than normally, which you’ve said before is justification for the police to kill you. So why do you think you are going to be offered a breathalyzer in the first place, and not a bullet?
2) If you don’t cooperate with the police by taking the breathalyzer, then they are going to suspect that you aren’t drunk but just crazy, and won’t that raise the the odds of you getting shot?
3) Do you think death should be the penalty for drunk driving? (Don’t get me wrong, it often is anyways, but are you encouraging that?)
4) Since you seem to be intent on finding a way to kill yourself, doesn’t that make you suicidal?
5) And finally: Since you are suicidal, can we just shoot you now and get it over with?
Some contractor out there has convinced the Portland Police that buying a bunch of expensive “non-lethal” toys can solve their problems and take the place of training and good judgement.
This particular incident seems like it could easily could have been handled appropriately OR inappropriately, depending on if we’re willing to believe the PPB’s explanation.
However, in recent years they’ve made it perfectly clear that they can push their weight around and make the chips fall where they want. They pressured Saltzman into packpedaling on the bean bag incident and then flexed their union muscle with their own rally– quite a bizarre scene. That was the turning point for my opinion: they’re now unabashedly self-preserving, and they’ll defend the abuse of teens, minorities and the homeless to avoid any real oversight.
PPB doesn’t feel like a part of city government. Rather, it acts like an independent entity that plays by its own rules. Every time the community is upset, all we hear are defensive, dismissive excuses. While it’s hard to say whether police did the wrong thing when they shot a possibly-armed man who supposedly wanted to be shot, it’s the immediate case-closed attitude that irks me. When they covered up abuses in the past, we heard the same tired act.
I don’t think they’re interested in being objective about what happened. They’re interested in preserving their own power and infallibility. And that’s bad po-lice.
@Matthew D –
I couldn’t follow your questions, there. Missing some words? Anyhow, it looks like you start with a breathalyzer, which is hilarious. “I think that guy might have a gun, and I think he might shoot me, and he refuses to show me his hands or put his hands behind his head. So I’m going to walk up and stick this tube in his mouth and have him blow for five seconds.”
That’s really your logic?
[COMMENT DELETED: RACIST LANGUAGE.]
I’m just wondering why there isn’t an official videographer at these kind of events to make an accurate recording of what is going down. A lot of speculation would be obviated if there was a film record of the event.
looks like things in PPB havent changed much in 4 years since I left…Disgraceful and sooooo sad……in the back…that is just astounding that there will be no prosecution, no jail time…..nothing…..
Well…maybe Frashour, Humphreys and the rest of the gang can form their own execution squad….Oh wait,,,they have…..Good Job Shrunk….
Reymont….You dont have to stick your hand up a bulls ass……If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and walks like a duck……ITS A DUCK