April 06, 2004
(Updated) More Disputes Over Officer-Involved Shooting
Witness Says Gun Drawn Early, Officer Sues To Stop Inquest
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
On the one hand we have today's Portland Tribune report on a witness to the incident:
Police officer Jason Sery had drawn his gun by the time he stepped out of his police cruiser moments before fatally shooting motorist James Jahar Perez on March 28, according to a North Portland resident who says he witnessed the entire incident.
"He had the gun out as soon as he got out of the car. That's what caught my eye," said Martin Dennis.
Dennis previously sued the Portland Police Bureau, including Officer Sery, That suit was settled (as previously-mentioned here) for $5,000. According to the Tribune, Dennis also "said Perez did not struggle with the other officer on the scene in the moments before he was allegedly shot by Sery."
And on the other hand, we have today's Oregonian report that Sery has filed a lawsuit of his own:
Portland Police Officer Jason Sery on Monday filed a lawsuit in Multnomah County Circuit Court seeking to prohibit the district attorney from holding an inquest into the March 28 shooting of an unarmed motorist.
Sery's lawyer, Lawrence Matasar, argued in the complaint that a public, televised inquest into the death of James Jahar Perez, 28, would be prejudicial and deny the officer's right to an impartial grand jury.
The complaint also contends that Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk's stated purpose for holding an inquest is to provide the public with information about the police shooting, which Matasar said is not the purpose of an inquest according to Oregon state law.
That's certainly true, as far as it goes, as we can see from our previous item detailing the statutory provisions governing juries of inquest:
146.155 Inquest proceedings. (1) The six members of the jury of inquest shall be sworn by the district attorney to:
(a) Inquire into who the deceased person was, when and where the deceased person came to death, the cause of death and the manner of death.
Then again, there does not appear to be anything in that which prevents a jury of inquest from also having the function of providing public information. In fact, its arguable that a jury of inquest in fact is a method of obtaining a public account of a death.
More than this, however, is the question of whether someone can sue to prevent a jury of inquest. Under Oregon law, there are three types of juries: grand, trial, and inquest. Last we knew, its impossible for someone to sue to stop a grand or trial jury from being empaneled, so we're not quite sure of the basis for suing to stop an inquest jury from being empaneled.
Oregon law states:
"Jury" means a body of persons temporarily selected from persons who live in a particular county or district, and invested with power to present or indict in respect to a crime or to try a question of fact.
That includes all three types of juries authorized by state law, and as we said, if one cannot sue to prevent grand or trial juries, we fail to see how one can sue to prevent an inquest jury.
According to The Oregonian: "Presiding Judge Dale Koch has asked each side to meet with him before he schedules a hearing." So we'll have to wait and see what Koch says on this matter.
Update
One other point being raised by the lawsuit, which is reiterated in the OPB News report is the premise that the District Attorney should "outline the standards for when an inquest is appropriate."
We tend to agree, but not quite in the way in which Sery and his attorney would prefer. For us, the answer is simple: When there is an officer-involved shooting, there's a jury of inquest. Period.
Update
Elsewhere in this story, KGW reported on television tonight that James Jahar Perez has a bit of history of confrontational incidents with the police (or the other way around, depending on the facts, we suppose). It's not posted as an online story, and we didn't happen to get it on tape, so we can't offer the details.
Meanwhile, the witness account of Dennis mentioend above, we should point out, conflicts with witness statements to KATU after the shooting, or at least with that of one woman who claimed to have seen a struggle, and seen Perez reach for his seatbelt. Both of those descriptions of the incident utterly fail to match what Dennis says. So that will have to get sorted out along the way.
Comments (16)
pdxkona on 06 Apr 2004
What's interesting to me is, just how 'small world' likely is it that Dennis was there at that exact moment? How did he get to be driving behind Ofcr. Sery- fate or follow (or fiction)?
aero on 06 Apr 2004
Indeed. This whole situation seems odd in that there are so many people "coming out of the woodwork" with stories of confrontations with Sery. I find it odd that this Dennis would have the extraordinary luck (if thats the right word) to witness this happening, having had a run-in with, and law suit against Sery in the past...
Rob on 07 Apr 2004
You may think it "odd" all you like, but the fact is Martin Dennis was there. He has an audio recording of the event just after the shots were fired.
Pay attention people!!
Michelle on 07 Apr 2004
At first for a slight moment I found it curious too (that Dennis and Sery met again). Then I realized this is where Dennis lives and where Sery patrols.
longtimeportres on 07 Apr 2004
If this was a *routine* stop, why did both officers have guns drawn? According to the Oregonian..that is not what is considered routine. This is the question I am waiting to have answered. Not suggesting any wrong doing..just curious.
brett on 07 Apr 2004
It obviously was not a routine stop. The officers probably had their guns drawn because they had already run Perez's plates and had seen his history of violent confrontations with police. They may have been following him for some time looking for a pretext to pull him over and get him on a parole violation. Failure to signal when turning into a driveway seems like a pretextual stop to me. Happens all the time.
Rob on 07 Apr 2004
If others are reluctant to suggest any wrong doing, then allow me...This was an outright execution!! I've seen the same scenario played out in the movies with mobsters instead of cops! Why waste our time speculating why the officers had their guns drawn so soon? Our only chance at learning the answer to that is at the grand jury proceedings. It surely won't be at the public inquest. Remember there are only four issues which will be addressed at the inquest, and we already know the answers to those issues. The inquest is a waste of time. Speculation is a waste of time, especially when it's uniformed speculation. The cops have already stated there is no indication that either officer knew who they were pulling over, and besides, Perez was not the registered owner of the vehicle he was driving. The cops made a mistake with that statement, and they know it! They have been pretty tight-lipped since. Knowing they were pulling over Perez with his history would be the closest thing they could come up with to justify their actions. Allow me to speculate the cops will back up on that one, and it will come out at the grand jury proceedings they did indeed know who they were pulling over. Does it really matter though? Based on eyewitness accounts (4) that all coincide with one another as reported in todays Oregonian, nothing happened to warrant the actions of the officers involved. In fact, the way I see it, the only thing that would justify the officers actions is if Perez was armed.
Remember Mogadishu, Somalia? Remember the movie “Black Hawk Down?” Remember the “rules of engagement” for our soldiers there? They could not fire without being fired upon first. These were our soldiers who are trained to kill, and were in a hostile environment. Are we to believe that our police officers should have less stringent “rules of engagement” in dealing with our own citizens?
Sery was a timebomb looking for a place to explode! This can't be allowed to happen again and again. Twice in less than a year is twice to much!
Ran Dem on 07 Apr 2004
I agree with most of your points, but "I've seen the same scenario played out in the movies..."??? Turn off the TV! Let’s not slam speculation and then in turn speculate. We need to continue to pursue the truth, and therefore alleviate the need for any speculation. We also need to see the reality of the situation and not a Hollywood fantasy.
Rob on 07 Apr 2004
I was simply pointing out that you can see the same type of scenario as the Perez shooting played out on tv in the form of a mob killing. The two parallel each other somewhat. Maybe Sery is the one who needs to turn off the tv. As for my own speculation that the cops will back up on their statement that neither officer knew who they were pulling over, you're right, I should've refrained from that. But remember where you heard that first. Thanks for calling me on that anyway.
aero on 07 Apr 2004
Rob, is the sky indeed falling as well? I am not quite sure why you are bringing up soldiers, mobsters and hollywood. Other than to draw attention to your post in which you decide what happened without all the facts... perhaps we should wait and see what facts are revealed before declaring what exactly happened. I never said that no wrong was done or that Dennis was not there, I simply said it was odd and the poster after you explained the reason for him being there.
Randi La Faun II Esd. on 08 Apr 2004
I just stumbled on-to this story.
It bears an uncanny resemblance to an scripted "scenario"presented in Feb.'03 concearning yet another summary execution by SPD of an marginalised "black" named Shawn Maxwell.
Place:
9th.Ave N.& 55th.
Three witnesses,two self-identified Anarchists,whom watched and videotaped the ruthless execution of an homeless man.
Interestingly,one of the SPD officers,Mr.Brett Rodgers,Is fairly familiar to me.
I observed,between '98 and '00,at least an dozen incidents of Off.Rodgers' so-called "off-duty"vendettas against homeless individuals near an area where he secretly owns property in his wife's maiden name,and a number of aliases.
Off.Rodgers belongs to the "Lake City Vigilantes",an self-described "Civics organisation".
Off.Rodgers dresses as an petit-bourgeoise with a dog.
Late at night,useing an un-traceable phone given to him by the Chamber of Commerce,he makes "crank"anonymous complaints about individuals he harasses or assaults.
He calls the "Precinct desk" and ORDERS the patrols in his area of authority to go away.
He then makes sabotage and abuses the unfortunate marginalised indviduals;vandaliseing their vehicles and property.
Then,he writes out threat notes--in recogniseable handwriteing--on the back of an business card stolen from someone he opposes.
Then,of course,the other detectives,etc,claim"WE DUNNO"and trash any complaints.
Rob on 09 Apr 2004
Aero-I don't see what is so difficult about understanding the context of my original post. The reference to mobsters on tv was simply an attempt to show a parallel. Obviously you don't get it. As for accusing me of deciding what happened without knowing all the facts, how do you figure? My interpretation of what happened came from eyewitness accounts. The same eyewitnesses that will testify at the public inquest and grand jury. The public inquest is the only forum for which we the public will be able to hear their eyewitness accounts repeated. None of the grand jury proceedings will be made public. So why are you suggesting I wait for these eyewitnesses to repeat themselves at an inquest? Seems to me their account of what happened is just as valid now as it will be at an inquest. Then again we may be prevented from hearing certain testimony from these eyewitnesses because it may not relate (in the eyes of the DA) to the four specific topics, and only these four, which it is the purpose of the inquest to address. We surely won't hear from Sery or his partner at the inquest. They will only testify at the grand jury proceedings, so when is it exactly you think ALL the facts are gonna come out? Face the facts, Sery will simply say he feared for his life. That's all he has to say! That's the "rule of engagement" that allows cops to use deadly force on any one of us. I'm not comfortable with that, are you? My reference to our soldiers in Somalia was to point out how they actually had to wait until they were fired upon before they could fire their own weapon. Do you see the comparison any better now? Perez's criminal history, the drugs, none of it matters. All these facts have come out after the shooting. How can these facts have anything to do with why the officer chose to use deadly force when they weren't discovered until after the shooting? With what we have already learned, this was nothing close to a routine traffic stop. If the officers knew who Perez was, and knew his history, they should've waited for backup and approached the suspect and the situation with caution. Instead, both officers approached this situation with "Marshall Dillon attitudes". Had Perez been armed while he was wacked out on coke could've resulted in innocent bystanders being injured or killed from a shootout that might've occured instigated by the manner in which the officers approached this suspect. Had they just waited for backup it's very unlikely Sery would've ever placed himself in a position to fear for his life.
Newark Police & HIDTA Blog on 09 Apr 2004
Here is a blog regarding an act of injustice you may find of great interest: Newark Police & HIDTA Drug Task Force Blog
http://www.angelfire.com/blog/thecrime
lisha on 10 Apr 2004
I think it's a shame that totally unrelated police stops, suspects and officers are being used as evidence in the mind of the public to support the "Sery is an executioner" theory.
There have been many people claiming to have witnessed bad behaviour on the part of Sery, but I've heard some rather good things that I wish were as interesting front-page news as all the negatives.
For one thing, Sery has attended St. Johns block parties and came across to my coworker (serving on the St. Johns Neighborhood Association...) as an extremely considerate and gentle man who is genuinely interested in the North Portland community and cares about his work. After personally meeting the man, she seemed convinced that he would never hurt somebody without cause.
His superiors in Montana called him 'the best officer they had,' and frankly, I don't see any reason to be so convinced that this guy did anything wrong.
I also don't see any reason to be so convinced that this guy did anything right, seeing as how the only public evidence of what happened is pure speculation on all parts.
The ranting that 'This was obviously an execution...', etcetera, is totally unwarranted, egoist, arrogant, and ravingly accusatory, in the same way that I imagine witch-hunters in Salem would have presented themselves.
There *are* some people out there who are simply looking for something to be outraged about, reasonable cause be damned, and feel a perverse sense of glee when an unfortunate death of this type occurs. I'm not entirely convinced that the poster above isn't one of them.
Thanks,
Alicia
Sioen on 11 Apr 2004
The police cannot be shooting unarmed citizens. I feel no perverse sense of glee, just disgust and, yes, outrage that a police officer's fatal actions are being called "an unfortunate death" and are being defended at all costs by other public servants in uniform.
Sery's incredible humanity, genuine kindness and fabulous record in Montana don't make it any less likely that he acted incorrectly and killed a citizen. And The Oregonian and other news outlets have reported on Sery's supporters and his religious and community involvement.
But none of that changes his actions, which were unacceptable according to all of the information presented so far. Except for the question of why the cocaine hadn't metabolized in Perez's system, Rob is right -- we've heard all the salient information we're likely to, and the most sympathetic conclusion is that Sery was a trigger-happy danger.
The least sympathetic involves any of a number of "business as usual" scenarios with police that I've seen time and again living in New York and San Francisco.
I recently moved to Portland and didn't expect it here. Why do people allow themselves to be targets for their police? Let's stand up and demand something different.
The One True b!X on 11 Apr 2004
We should also remember (as long as we're speculating) that the people speaking of Sery's good character are not necessarily from the circles of his life which would tend ot have direct experience of him as an officer on patrol out on the street.