The incentive for the way cops behave in this city is very clear: shoot, beat, or murder someone regardless of whether that person is non-threatening, non-violent, - & get paid leave (paid vacation). A year or two down the road, you may even get PROMOTED.

Everyone talks about reform, about holding these pigs accountable, over-sight, etc. Here's the thing: simply FIRE cops for mis-conduct! And PROSECUTE cops on CRIMINAL charges where it involves the out-right murder of un-armed citizens (e.i. Aaron Cambell, James Chasse, etc. etc.). I thought we were facing a major budget crisis. So why keep employing a cop who costs soo much more trouble than his ass is worth? Much less promoting him, thus, giving him a larger salary. This doesn't make any fucking sense, what so ever!

So let me get this straight...the city makes a business decision (and that's exactly what it is), to settle a lawsuit in order to effectively dispose of a case; and we should hold the officer accountable for this?? The city routinely settles cases to avoid even the slimmest possibility of having to pay massive plaintiff attorney fees due to the changes in US code 1983. This is not news, in fact what would make a great story is chasing down the plaintiff attorney's who do nothing but troll for "victims" they can trot out with legal standing for nothing more than the hope that the city will settle the case to avoid exposure. In these instances, the only true "winner" is the plaintiff's attorney; who usually walks away with about half of whatever the city pays out. I won't name any names, but if you bother to look, you will find that more than a few attorney's make a living by routinely suing the city with any "good victim" they can find. I could buy the argument here if the city was promoting an officer who was found to have engaged in violating policy or the law, but that is not the case here. On another note...to the author of this article...it's nice to see that you are keeping up the tradition established by previous editors at the Mercury by not allowing the facts from getting in the way of a good story; nice work. Did you bother to read any of the actual reports from any of the cases involved here...or did you just Google the names of the involved officers? In any case...I have wasted enough time trying to balance the weight of the scales here. Happy Holidays!

What is the actual policy on use of DEADLY force. I've been in the Portland area now nearly 3 years and it seems to me that an alarming number of police shootings have come under scrutiny, and far too often an unarmed suspect ends up dead. Of course a man wielding a knife is not totally without justification but too often its been a mentally challenged individual or worse a fleeing UNARMED suspect that ends up deceased

When I was in law enforcement (in the Service) we had the "Reasonable Man" approach to deadly force. meaning there really is only one reason to use deadly force... EMINENT LOSS OF LIFE! either to protect oneself or another from eminent danger. I mean everyone has heard the joke "don't bring a knife to a gunfight"....There is a distinct advantage to having firearms, especially if the guys with the guns are trained. I didn't read that the 60 year old guy was an expert in KNIFE THROWING so I'm wondering Are the Portland officers trained to control a situation without deadly force, as I see it if there is Two officers to one knife wielding perp and he cannot be controlled then call more officers to the scene!! Suicide by Police is becoming the Hallmark of the Portland Police Dept, better training is a start but SOME COMMON SENSE TRAINING IS A MUST.

Pigs are just pigs.....i've never met a nice one on PPB's force until I met a female officer that was taping off the shooting scene last Sun. She actually smiled at me while interacting!