Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

Returning to the ongoing aftermath of the Kendra James shooting, The Oregonian today examines the police-conducted re-enactment and response to it:

The videotaped re-creation, accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation and a detailed account by detectives, was the most comprehensive police explanation to date of why Officer Scott McCollister feared for his life.

But several community members questioned whether McCollister was really in mortal danger. After watching the video, they asked how McCollister's single gunshot, fired as he said he was falling out of the car, in any way helped the officer regain his footing. McCollister told detectives he had one foot in the car and feared that he might fall beneath it as it moved forward.

Others asked why McCollister did not use his arms to pull himself to safety.

Critics of the Bureau's presentation appear to be honing in on something that hadn't occurred to me at the time, but is (I think) a fair characterization:

After the tape's release and discussion of the physical evidence at Tuesday night's public forum, community members left wondering whether the detectives and prosecutors asked all the hard questions in an objective inquiry or narrowly focused on determining whether McCollister's account of what occurred was feasible.

"When we re-enact this scene . . . it comes across that there's a special effort to justify everything that's done versus a clear objective search for the truth," said Bishop A.A. Wells, who heads the Albina Ministerial Alliance's investigation committee.

Meanwhile, the paper also provides a run-down on some of the questions raised, several of which, it is pointed out, were never anwered Tuesday night. For those interested in just who was on the panel, the paper also provides two lists, one for the police panel and one for the public panel.

And today's lead editorial follows in the footsteps of yesterday's Steve Duin column:

Portland police leaders probably left this week's public forum on the shooting of Kendra James feeling bruised and battered.

They deserved it.

The outcome of the May 5 traffic stop that culminated in James' death from a bullet fired by Office Scott McCollister was so grave, and the conduct of the police at the scene and afterwward was so baffling, that the public deserved an explanation of not only what happened, but why.

Instead, the public got an inconclusive summary of various accounts of the incident, the assurance of the police chief that racism wasn't involved and a bureaucratic runaround about police shooting policies and disciplinary rules.

Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten to put this editorial online, so you'll have to go find a copy of the print edition to read the whole thing.

And down in Salem, there was testimony on changes to state law regarding use of deadly force:

On the heels of last night's hearing in Portland, a committee in Salem took testimony today on a bill that would respond to some of the concerns raised by the Kendra James shooting. House Bill 3426 specifies under what circumstances a police officer can use deadly force.

It also includes a provision to open to the public transcripts from grand jury hearings on such cases. House Bill 3426 was drafted before Kendra James was shot by a Portland police officer in May. But the tragedy has given the bill new momentum.

Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schrunk was among those testifying in favor of opening up grand jury proceedings via public transcripts, "[giving] up secrecy in those cases if it means they'd have more credibility in the long run."

This entry was posted by The One True b!X on July 3rd, 2003, at 3:48 PM and is filed under Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics. There are one comments (most recently on July 3rd, 2003, at 8:29 PM) and .