Portland police have released the names of the seven police officers and one Multnomah County Sheriff’s Deputy involved in fatally shooting John Elifritz at a Southeast homeless shelter. Based on video of the Saturday, April 7 incident and witness testimony, it appears Elifritz was in the midst of a mental crisis when he was shot. PPB have yet to verify this claim. PPB initially refused to release the names, after claiming to have received threats on the officers’ lives.
“Investigators from the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office and the Portland Police Bureau worked to verify if any actual threats existed, but ultimately could not locate any credible information,” writes PPB spokesperson Sgt. Christopher Burley in a Tuesday press statement
The Portland police officers involved: Richard Bailey, Justin Damerville, Kameron Fender, Alexandru Martiniuc, Bradley Nutting, Chad Phifer, and Andrew Polas. Officers’ history with the bureau range from 14 to two years. Deputy Aaron Sieczkowski is the lone member of county law enforcement involved in the shooting. He’s been with the Sheriff’f Office for six years.
At least three officers already have a history with using excessive force against people with mental illness.
Let’s start with Officer Phifer. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice pointed to five instances to illustrate Portland police officers’ “pattern of excessive force.” This report was part of the investigation that led to a federal lawsuit being filed against Portland for the Police Bureau’s poor track record regarding use of force against people with a mental illness.
One of the DOJ’s examples is a 2010 incident with Officer Phifer involving a man in a mental health crisis in an Old Town apartment— summarized in an Oregonian article. While the man had no weapons on him and was making “incoherent statements,” Phifer chose to physically detain him. When the man rolled away from him, Phifer fired a Taser into the man’s back several times. Phifer then punched the man in the ribs at least six times. According to the federal report, Phifer and another officer Tased the man six more times before handcuffing him and then taking him to a mental health hospital.
Then there’s Officer Nutting. You may remember when, in September 2014, Nutting Tased Portland bicyclist Matthew Klug six times for resisting arrest after Klug yelled at a driver he said hit his bike. Witnesses to the arrest said Klug, who has epilepsy and a traumatic brain injury, was clearly in the midst of a mental health crisis during the incident.
Officer Polas was involved in what may be the most recognizable case of the three: The 2010 shooting death of 25-year-old Keaton Otis, a man whose parents say struggled with mood disorders. Three officers shot Otis 23 times after pulling him over for looking “suspicious” (that, and not signaling before changing lanes). Polas was one of those officers.
According to Burley, the seven officers and deputy will remain on paid administrative leave until the completion of the investigation and Grand Jury.
Alex: I know you’re new, but please, next time you’re feeling compelled to use “sarcasm quotes” in your reporting –just don’t.
It’s trite and lazy, and for some of us, things like the “housing emergency” and police use of “excessive force” aren’t punchlines.
Euphonius, excessive force is a well-understood legal concept, typically defined as “the use of force greater than that which a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.”
In contrast, the current “housing emergency” has not been defined at all, with no criteria offered up by our elected officials other than deeming it an “emergency” from on high in order to circumvent the need to actually legislate and pass ordinances and laws through the normal process. Some people can’t afford to live in an expensive and desirable major city. I can’t afford to live in a beachfront house in Malibu. Is that similarly a “crisis”?
There is no equivalence here as you claim.
Perhaps the quotes are in-place because the officers weren’t held legally liable for excessive force, but the DOJ’s analysis argues they should have been..? (I see that the city council decided Nutting used an “inappropriate” amount of force according to the linked article, but that doesn’t equate to excessive, near as I can tell.)
Reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessiv…
Listen “Flavio” whoever you are: I get that you’re happy to defend the indefensible if it happens to align with your idiotic opinions. That’s why I didn’t ask you for them. Nobody did. Every single comment doesn’t require your 2-cents. You convince no one of anything –except that you’re a pedantic bore with nothing to do except post nonstop on this site.
Why you haven’t been banned is a continuing mystery.
@Sok: You seem to be suggesting that Alex is using the quotes to shield himself from repercussions of reporting an allegation as being true when it is unproven and perhaps opening himself up to a defamation claim. But using quotes doesn’t accomplish that. In fact, if anything, using a term of art like “excessive force” –quotes or no –requires even more precision. Had he used a more general phrase he’d have plenty more leeway, in fact.
My critique isn’t a legal one, it’s a stylistic one and a journalistic one: Use of “quotes” that enable you to “say” the “things” you don’t have the “factual support” or “guts” to say “explicitly” is lazy. It’s also a habit that is readily clear even after just a couple of weeks on the job.
I’m actually allowed to point that out, regardless of the wishes of self-appointed hall monitors like whatshisname up there, who really should just shut his fucking yap.
@Euphonius: I’m just suggesting the quotes are used in a “de facto if not de jure” sort of way rather than sarcastic. That’s how it struck me, anyhow. Figure Alex can elaborate if she’s so inclined.
@Sok It sure seemed like the housing emergency one was sarcasm, at least. (That’s why dipwad up there liked it so much.) This one? It seemed like sarcasm to me, but maybe you’re right.
It’s still trite, either way. If Alex has something to say, say it, support it, own it. Derisively implying it while preserving your deniability is just gutless.