It turns out that Police Chief Rosie Sizer testified against Officer Ronald Frashour, the officer who shot Aaron Campbell, in a separate “trigger-happy” lawsuit last year.
Update, 7:11pm This story was referenced in Oregonian reporting later today.
Original post:
Frashour was one of the officers who Tasered Keith Waterhouse—who was video-taping police on the property of some friends. Waterhouse won a $55,000 settlement against the cops last year. You can read more about the case in this Mercury story from October 2009, cited by activist group Portland Copwatch in a letter to the District Attorney yesterday. Here’s the relevant clip from that story:
In other words, it would seem the only way to fairly punish Portland’s cops for excessive force is to take them to court.
Just ask Frank Waterhouse—the cops’ internal review recommended no discipline for the officers who Tasered and shot him with less-lethal ammunition without warning in October 2006. Waterhouse had been filming the officers as they searched for a jaywalker at a Northeast Portland garage where he was working as an apprentice.
Waterhouse, who was cleared of all charges relating to the incident, wasn’t satisfied with the Use of Force Review Board’s findings, and took the officers to court. Two weeks ago he won a settlement of $55,000 after a jury agreed that the officers’ use of force was indeed excessive. Waterhouse had only sought $30,000 in the suit, but the jury awarded him almost twice as much.
Perhaps most surprising of all in the case was the identity of Waterhouse’s star witness: Chief Sizer.
Sizer testified for Waterhouse, against her own Use of Force Review Board’s findings, and against the city, arguing that the officers had ample time to coordinate their efforts so Waterhouse wasn’t hit with two weapons at once, and that they had plenty of time to give warning. Sizer also told the jury Waterhouse was not actively resisting, a requirement for the use of a beanbag round, which is fired from a 12-guage shotgun.
“It blew my mind, really,” Waterhouse says. “I couldn’t believe that somebody from their side actually looked at my case and determined that they went overboard.”
Sizer declined comment on her decision to testify against the internal review board’s findings by press time, but it certainly sets an uncomfortable precedent for police officers working the street.
“These officers felt blindsided by the chief in court,” says Portland Police Association boss Scott Westerman, who adds that mitigating circumstances for the force used on Waterhouse were excluded from the court testimony—they thought Waterhouse was the jaywalker they were looking for, he says.
“The circumstances to which these officers were responding were minimized by the attorney,” he adds.
Waterhouse’s attorney, Benjamin Haile, says Westerman’s remarks are “insulting” to juries because they assume that the public can’t understand the work that police do.
“In my experience, people on juries are very willing to give police officers the benefit of the doubt, very willing to assume they’re doing the best they can,” Haile says. “A trial is a time to get the entire truth out in the open. The officers are not going to be held responsible for their actions unless all of those people agree that what they did was wrong.”
Jumping…
Waterhouse’s attorney, Benjamin Haile, plans to issue a press release in association with the National Lawyers’ Guild today, highlighting similarities between the cases. In the meantime Haile has this to say:
“Officer Frashour’s shooting of Mr. Campbell is remarkably similar to his tasing of Mr. Waterhouse. In both cases, Officer Frashour did not properly coordinate his actions with the other police officers present. In both cases, other officers were taking actions to incapacitate the victim at the same time that Officer Frashour pulled the trigger. Like the grand jury, I am primarily concerned about the City of Portland’s failure to properly train and lead its officers. Both incidents could have been avoided.”
“I’m glad that Frashour did not have a rifle when he attacked Mr. Waterhouse,” Haile continues. “Otherwise, I fear that Mr. Waterhouse would have been killed. Portland police training policies and use of force policies need to be seriously overhauled.”
Here’s the video of the Waterhouse incident:
We’ve got requests for comment in to the chief and police commissioner.
Hey Matt, this prior Frashour case was mentioned in the comments on this blogotown post [ http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto… ] back on Feb 3. So it isn’t really breaking news. Those of us following the case knew that Frashour had a record.
@Number Six: You think I actually read the comments on these posts? Okay. Okay.
The BREAKING part is Haile’s quote, and the fact that Chief Sizer testified against Frashour in court. But you’re free to be an under-miner. Under-miner.
All the police activity in Waterhouses’ case was over a jaywalker? Gimme a break. What a heinous crime.
Wow, no police protection from Reymont on this. Color me surprised…
Reported Jaywalker! Leash up the dogs and get out the bean bag gun! Let’s tag a bystander while we’re at it!
This is enough to tear the hair out. So, it emerges that the cop tased the guy AFTER he had been yelling for at least a minute that he “getting it all on tape”, ie, videotaping the officers tearing the cars apart.
Meaning that Frashour is a LIAR, as well as a lit fuse. He lied at least twice (‘I thought the camera was a weapon” and “I thought he might have been our man”). That Sizer would have testified against him means she was on to him, and not just his nervous reaction tendencies.
And the grand jury was not supposed to know they were dealing with a LIAR?
Man, am I ever going to go out and get some recall signatures today.
F*** you, Portland City Council, for maintaining this culture of cover up by sucking up to mister cover-up- in-chief.
I might like Sizer after all.
Haha – I just woke up, Jackattak. Give me time!
No police defense from me on this, though – if the chief is testifying against the findings of her own review board and her own officers, that sure makes it seem like they’ve got a broken review system!
Is there really anyone left other than the polic union that denies that PPD has huge problems?
It’s like more than an elephant in the room. It’s like five elephants in the room crushing us all to death. But we’re still whistling and twiddling our thumbs. “What elephants?”
I hope there is a 200,000,000 verdict against the city for negligence for ever handing Frashour an assault rifle to “keep the peace”. That will give these everything-is-cool-here-in-Portland-and-I-make-50Kplus-working-for-Sam- crowd some dynamite in their pants.
@Blabby – Well, ‘accountability’ should be possible. Right now it sounds like it’s just not possible to find against an officer, no matter what they do. That’s definitely a huge problem.
But I think I still side with the officers on most of the cases I’ve read about. I don’t have a problem against the use of justified force, and if it’s justified the correct procedure is ‘overwhelming force.’
I sometimes wonder if Matt Davis, and your wonderful self, have ever been beaten up? Or beaten anyone up? That may explain why “force” is so abhorrent to you. It happens, it’s just a thing in life. 🙂
If your friend or loved one is having mental problems the moral of this story (and others) is don’t dial 9-1-1.
“…and if it’s justified the correct procedure is ‘overwhelming force.'”
Are you sure that’s the standard for police? It sounds like the Powell Doctrine for the military.
I know you’re comfortable with the cops, Reymont. I just think that when an unarmed man gets shot in the back, there has to be some sort of real inquiry. And I no longer trust the PPD to do a real inquiry on themselves.
99% of cops are fine, but let me ask you this. IF you were a dirty Portland Police Officer in the 1%, would you feel the least bit concerned that you’d face punishment for your misdeeds, up to and including an unjustified shooting of a citizen? I don’t see where any portland cop would fear any accountability for any action at this point.
Yup, you’re totally right – and that inability to punish the 1% is a huge problem and needs to be fixed.
Surprised to hear you say it’s only 1%, though – I’m not even sure it’s that low! From his posts, I’d have guess Matt Davis thinks it’s more like 70% bad apples. 🙂
@Reymont:
I’d put the figure at around five cops on the entire force. Possibly three. But I do appreciate your weighing in on these posts with your perspective.
I think Mr. Davis just nailed it. There’s about 5 disgustingly filthy cops on the force.
It’s pretty easy to tell who they are. I don’t think anyone needs to spell it out for anyone else. Just read any local news reports regarding the Portland Police Bureau and you’ll get your 5 names PDQ.
I want to know why my tax dollars are being used to have 3 officers and a K-9 unit track down a jaywalker in the first place.
@Matthew D – Don’t worry! My tax dollars are being used to build you a bike lane, so it all works out. 😉