Copwatch Protests Change to Police Oversight Policy


Your last "split" - sustained (22%) vs exonerated (78%) - adds up to 110% Is it 12% sustained? Or 78% exonerated?
Of course, in a great many cases, people are accusing the police of things as a feeble attempt to get out of whatever trouble they got themselves into, and the charges are quite right to be dismissed. I'm sure there are valid cases that don't result in disciplinary action (the size of the "declined to investigate" arrow is particularly disconcerting), but that graphic is misleading at best since it implies all rejected cases were in fact valid.

I can't believe I just defended the PPB. I feel nauseous now.
Still, judging by comment #1, at least the city's police service is better than the city's education...
awww dang, thanks for pointing out the typo, myswandive. It should be a 22% to 78% split, not 88% exonerated. I'll swap it out now.
So Constantin, why should we position the degree of credibility at "a lot of times"? Does that mean 80%? If so then is it perhaps suitable to have a self-interested person in a position of judgment 20% of the time?

Seems simpler, sustainable, impartial, independent and far far more convincing to set the degree of conflict of interest and judgment at zero. And, as Dan illustrates, easy.

Our legal community and those interested in the benefits of civil society in Oregon should applaud Dan Handelman again for providing pressure on the process.
Even before this, how is it that a jury (review board) of 1 civilian and 4 cops is a jury of your peers? Oh, I guess it's the cops peers...
Don't these numbers just prove that we get a lot of baseless complaints?
The complaint sustained arrow should be 1.4% as thick as the origin arrow.
Dimensions of arrows are misleading. Edward Tufte has been notified, and is now en route in his invisible jet.