That’s the question coming up again and again in this week’s shooting of “hobby knife”-wielding Jackie Collins. The officer who pulled the trigger, Officer James Walters (who police union president Scott Westerman described this morning as a “very Portland” vegan bike rider) has still not been formally interviewed by investigators.
Public defender and Portland Mental Health Association representative Chris O’Connor pointed out on Think Out Loud this morning, Portland is only one of a few cities were police do not have to give statements to investigators shortly after use of force incidents. As Maxine Bernstein reported in the O, outside police oversight groups recommended in 2003 and again in 2005 that the police do same-day interviews with officers involved in shootings.
- Matt Davis
- Public defender Chris O’Connor
The issue is a little tricky. Thanks to the 5th Amendment, no American can be forced to incriminate themselves in court. That means if police officers were forced to explain what happened in shootings, their statement could not be used in court and therefore they could not be criminally prosecuted for any crimes that occurred. As O’Connor explains, “Let’s say investigators interviewed an officer after a shooting and the officer says, ‘I shot him because I didn’t like him.’ That officer’s statement would never be valid in court, so he couldn’t be tried for murder.”
But not forcing officers to quickly give statements can cause serious problems, says O’Connor. “The problem is officers can get together and collude. You get this situation where the ultimate statement is rehearsed. In a system where you don’t have to give a statement immediately, it gives them time to meet with their lawyer and figure out what’s legal.”
What O’Connor wants (and the police oversight groups recommended years ago) is for the Portland police union to change its contract to force officers to give statements about shootings within 24 hours. That would lose the chance to prosecute officers for crimes relating to use-of-force, but, says O’Connor, that is a moot point because Portland does not have a habit of prosecuting its officers for crimes involving force. “Let’s face it, they’re not going to prosecute ‘em anyway. There’s almost no situation where the police would criticize an officer in a use of force case, much less prosecute him with a crime. So it’s irrelevant, it’s a moot point. You may wind up with some disciplinary action, but that’s the most we can hope for anyway.”
With no story straight from the officer involved, information about the shooting has trickled out in not always logical ways, notes O’Connor. “We got a statement from Scott Westerman before the police chief yesterday. Why is the union rep more on top of this than the police chief?”
before people start, one question, since we do not do this already (force same day testimony) have we EVER used an officer’s statement against them in court? If not, then it is time to change the policy.
thanks
Patrick
Johannes Mehserle, the officer who shot Oscar Grant on BART the new years before last is being charged for murder in criminal court. It’s not an option the community should forfeit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_s…
Memory of traumatic events is an odd thing. If an interview takes place immediately after the event it’s possible that things will be missed. Try to add details after the initial interview and people will accuse the officer of embellishment.
I assume you’re readers won’t like this source but that doesn’t make the information wrong: http://www.killology.com/article_amnesia.h…
I only used that link because it was one of the first I saw and I’m just about ready to leave the house. It wouldn’t take much effort, I think, to find research similar to his findings.
@pdxperson – read most of the site you provided and it explicitly says: “3. After the first sleep period (generally 24 hours later) the subject should be interviewed again, and the subject can be expected to remember the majority of the details regarding the incident and to refine many of the fine points.” Even if I were to believe this article and the studies it sites, it’s been over 48 hours and still this officer hasn’t been interviewed. Their conclusion is pretty much that you need a night of REM to better piece things together. And it also suggests a debriefing period. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make through the site you provided.
“”hobby knife”-wielding Jackie Collins.”
Fan the flames much? For the record, a razor knife is common in construction. It folds away like a jack-knife, but instead of blade it has straight edge razor that you can change out when one gets dull. Much, much different than a “hobby knife.”
Doesn’t seem like there’s much difference between an immediate admission that you can’t use in court, and a lawyer-drafted statement a day later that doesn’t admit any wrongdoing.
Either way, you’re left with something that isn’t much use when trying to convict the officer. So why not go for the useful, same-day statement, for all the reasons posted above?
The current system seems to prioritize convicting the officers over investigate the incidents, which doesn’t make much sense.
@DLS 3.0 – Police Chief Rosie Sizer said it was razor knife with a six inch handle and like an X-Acto knife, although they don’t know the brand at this time. The statement she made is in a video from yesterday around 11:30am.
DLS 3.0,
This morning’s OPB news broadcast described the weapon as a hobby knife. The medical examiner described it as a box cutter. The police describe it as a razor knife. Semantics.
Bee – unless the BART has a stop in Portland, that is a non sequitur.
thanks
Patrick
dls 3.o
A officer has a batman-like utility belt with multiple ways to take down a 58 year old transient with a boxcutter . To think shooting this poor man was the only viable option is sickening . Police officers are trained to deal with these situations without taking a life. In portland, it seems, they dont care .
Allowing the pigs 3 days to get their stories togeather is mind boggeling . They get a chance to hear witness accounts prior to telling their side ? WTF :O Sounds like a foolproff plan .
Just because you couldn’t use the statement in court doesn’t mean you can’t prosecute. The cop on the bart could have said anything to anyone and it wouldn’t matter because there is video of him executing an unarmed man.
O’Connor says, “You get this situation where the ultimate statement is rehearsed. In a system where you don’t have to give a statement immediately, it gives them time to meet with their lawyer and figure out what’s legal.”
Isn’t this what defense does with their criminal clients?
Patrick — Sorry, what I was trying to express with the BART example was that with sufficient community pressure, cities can and will pursue charges against the police when they kill people.
I am not a lawyer — Would requiring them to give a statement shortly after the incident make it more difficult to charge them in court? If not, than I certainly agree that the policy should change. If so, I would hate to give up that option simply because isn’t “not done here”.
PDX oddball: I would like to see a list of the things an officer has in his utility belt that would allow him to dis-arm a person wielding a box cutter.
I see to recall a couple of fellows taking control of a few plays with box cutters.
Planes, not “plays”, though that probably happened too.
@PDX_REZ, Most defense attorneys are not appointed until after the police have already questioned their client. Their clients, not having been educated on their rights, waive their right to remain silent and talk. Also, their clients are arrested and held and taken to an interview room very soon after an incident. The cop just gets sent off to talk to his union rep, who gets them hooked up with an attorney (paid for by the union?) and of course they have access to all the reports and other statements in the investigation, which most criminal defendants won’t have access to.
Bee – as I stated above, if we had ever had an officer brought up on charges, then maybe the way things are done now would make sense… as it is now though, there is no punishment for them for breaking the law… AND they get to have a few days/weeks to make up their mind what the best story is…
if Chris is reading the comments, maybe he can tell us how many times an officer has been taken to court as a defendant for something like this?
my thought is, if it doesn’t happen, there is no reason to hold hope out for it, and we should hear from the officer same day…
thanks
Patrick
ch, don’t be stupid. It wasn’t the threat of box cutters that got control of the planes, it was the fear of bombs. Box cutters, hobby knives, x-actos, whatever you call them, just aren’t a very effective lethal weapon. Good for suicide, sure, but in a fight a razor is just going to cut someone up, not kill them.
You can cut a persons throat with a box cutter. That is usually a fatal wound. A straight razor is even more deadly.
No, I think it was the box cutters. If the pilots/passengers were afraid of a bomb, wouldn’t they have acted more aggressively?
All I’m saying is a box cutter is a perfectly dangerous weapon.
ujfoyt
How about mace , a taser , a knightstick or retractor . I could have neutrolized him with a hot dog . He was 58 and not in the best shape with a 1/2 inch blade . Pull your head out.
Answer – Garrity v. New Jersey, 1967 Supreme Court…..Read it, read the 5th Ammendment…then you will understand. Maybe?
hey ch . What the hell are you talking about ? How did we get on 9/11 . It’s like comparing apples to monkeys . The planes didn’t have alleged trained professionals with a multitude of ways to control the situation . Boxcutters took down the planes on 9/11 so the pig was justified ? Am i missing something ?
Tell you what PDX. I’ll get me a box cutter, and you get yourself a hot dog, I will stand 21 feet away from you and attack you with the boxcutter. We will see who wins this one, and I’m 73 years old. I’ll make you a bet that you will be on the losing end of this deal. Do you have any idea how fast a person can cover 21 feet? You don’t have time to decide which non-lethal weapon to use. Tasers don’t work very well on thick clothing, mace takes a while to work, and if you make a swipe at the person with your nightstick or retractor and miss, guess what, you are going to get cut. You have to realize that there is not always a peaceful solution to an occurence.
@ ujfoyt –
I’m beginning to doubt…very seriously…that Jackie advanced on Officer Walters at all.
I think Walters panicked.
Again, I’ll I’m saying us that a box cutter is a very real weapon. You don’t advance your argument by making baseless claims that suit your purpose.
ujfoyt
Walters had time to bark multiple commands but not time to use mace ? He shot because Jackie wouldnt do what he said . You keep forgetting that pigs are trained to disarm people . They are trained to use alternate forms of force for occasions such as this . Mace takes about a tenth of a second to work . I know this from experience . The point of mace is to hamper a aggressive person , not allways to incapacitate them . Mace travels 20 to 30 feet . If someone can’t see , how the hell can they cut you ? And just for the record , if you came at me with a razor I would mash you . Your no spring chicken and it doesn’t apear that poor Jackie was . Walters could and should have handled this differently . If Jackie had a gun I could understand the reaction . But a boxcutter ?