May 02, 2004
(Updated) Some Reaction To 'Oregonian' Story On Reaction To Inquest
Addressing The Lingering Issues
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
We don't normally structure items as responses to a single article, but today's Sunday Oregonian has reaction to the jury of inquest and it includes a number of issues worth exploring.
We'll hit on three four of them here, without much structure to tie them together into any sort of reportorial whole.
... And many, like [Mayor Vera] Katz, want the Legislature to consider changing the law to allow inquest jurors to judge whether police shootings, among other things, are justified. "Watching it," Katz said, "I really thought it was too limited."
Unlike a trial, where defense attorneys and prosecutors help jurors make sense of what they hear, the inquest offered a collection of unfiltered and untested facts.
[District Attorney Michael] Schrunk, who was the lone inquisitor, said the flawed process, if nothing else, got all the information available on the shooting to the community.
We do need changes to how juries of inquest function, but such changes should not be limited to expanding what sorts of determinations jurors are permitted to consider. One of the most aggravating limitations -- and we're unsure whether this is inherent in a jury of inquest or simply an artifact of how the District Attorney structured this one -- was the fact that witnesses were not recalled once conflicting versions of events had been established.
One example in particular that strikes us is that Officer Sean Macomber should have been recalled to the stand after the various eyewitness accounts had been heard. There were follow-up questions for Macomber that practically screamed to be asked, but weren't. This limitation -- whether one of law or one of practice -- needs to be removed.
"But I sort of hope we never do anything like this again because of the traumatic impact on the officers," [Robert King, president of the Portland Police Association] said. "They were on display for the public -- everybody, everywhere."
Fears of intense public scrutiny shouldn't be part of the process of deciding whether to use deadly force when an officer feels his life is threatened, King said. "Am I going to become political and media fodder? Often, that is the primary question in the minds of officers who take action," he said.
Here again, King manages to dis the very officers he claims to represent. Two weeks ago, King argued that requiring officers to write a report every time they point their weapons at someone would "inhibit police from using deadly force when necessary and put them and others at harm" (those are the words of The Oregonian, not of King directly).
We translated this to mean that King, in essence, believes the City's officers are "so poorly-trained and so easily distracted by the need for paperwork that they will no longer be able to respond properly to each situation as it comes before them."
For all of the cultural and training issues in the Portland Police Bureau, we don't happen to believe that most of its officers are quite that stupid. Yet here again in today's article, King appears to suggest that our City's police officers are so unstable and poorly trained that worrying about becoming "political and media fodder" is often "the primary question in the minds of officers."
Heaven help us if he's correct, because that would say something profoundly disturbing and dangerously weak-minded about the Portland police. If we were an officer in the Portland Police Bureau, at this point we would be calling for King's head.
"I'm not upset," said Diana Perez, who said she felt bad for Officer Sean Macomber after hearing his testimony in which he described his efforts to contain an escalating situation with Perez. "I am looking for understanding."
But she said the inquest did not offer any. She said she heard a lot about the drugs found on her stepson, but not much about what Sery could have done to control the situation other than firing his gun.
Readers know that in fact we believe more attention needs to be paid to Macomber's actions when it comes to the matter of controlling the situation at the time of the incident. We, at least, do not especially "feel sorry" for Macomber (except in the sense that we feel sorry on a human level for everyone involved) since he was the officer responsible for making decisions on the scene.
At a brief news conference held by family members Saturday, their attorney, Elden Rosenthal, said the inquest jury has more to say on the shooting. Rosenthal explained that Schrunk had phoned him Friday night and said that during a meeting with jurors after the inquest, they had "some concerns" about what they heard.
Schrunk "said those concerns would be voiced to the family," Rosenthal said.
Schrunk confirmed Saturday night that, at the jurors' request, he met with them Friday night.
"They did have some concerns and observations, and we said we'd figure out a way for them to get it out," he said.
But the district attorney would not characterize the jury's concerns or the intended audience.
In fact, at the close of the inquest, Schrunk specifically informed jurors that if they had concerns that could not be communicated within their narrowly-construed duties at the inquest itself, he would meet with them to discuss those concerns.
Obviously, we encourage these concerns to be made public and clearly and quickly as possible, and not be left to private back channels into City Hall or the Police Bureau. If the point of conducting a jury of inquest at all (as Schrunk has argued) was to get all of the evidence before the public, then any further concerns on the part of the jurors themselves need to become a part of the public record and the public conversation as soon as possible.
Additionally, also see Steve Duin's column, where he manages to offer this:
While Officer Sean Macomber initiated "contact" with Perez, Sery was responsible for supplying lethal cover if the traffic stop went bad.
Unfortunately, he then goes on to focus on Sery, ignoring the implication of the above, which is that determining whether or not the "traffic stop went bad" -- and what to do if it did -- was Macomber's responsibility.
Update
Today's Oregonian article about one of the inquest jurors includes information that Schrunk "is expected to issue a news release this week on behalf of the jurors."
Update
There's also some OPB News follow-up on the inquest.
Meanwhile, we're told that Elden Rosenthal, the attorney for the Perez family, has apparently filed suit to force the release of the material from the grand jury which refused to indict Officer Jason Sery, although we're having a difficult time finding any story which mentions this.
Comments (9)
Jon on 02 May 2004
As much as I agree with you about Macomber, I think Sery really is the one to blame. Macomber "tried" to apprehend Perez with a wrist lock, which is not in question. He at least gave an effort to subdue Perez. But of course you can always argue the guy never needed to be subdued in the first place.
I think Sery was itchy on the trigger to say the least, and I know Foxworth thinks pretext stops are "good police work." So maybe he feels it's ok for cops to kill people whom they deem as less than worthy citizens.
There are so many unanswered questions from this, and unfortunately if no onw looks at the right people i.e. Mayor Katz and DA Mike Shrunk, the Police Bureau will never be fixed.
A question to you b!X:
Do you think Mike Shrunk was fair and impartial in that public inquest?
The One True b!X on 02 May 2004
Do you think Mike Shrunk was fair and impartial in that public inquest?
No. But I'm not ready to try to piece that together into an explanation of that answer yet.
The One True b!X on 02 May 2004
Macomber "tried" to apprehend Perez with a wrist lock, which is not in question. He at least gave an effort to subdue Perez. But of course you can always argue the guy never needed to be subdued in the first place.
Or you could argue that once the situation went beyond their clear control -- ie, the overly-tinted window rolling up -- they should never have tried to do anything until there were other officers on the scene. Ultimately, my contention is that if Macomber had done his job, Sery would never have been in the position he was in to begin with.
Jon on 02 May 2004
My ultimate feeling about it all is Sery was VERY well rehearsed. He was far too cool and collected, even for a cop who spends alot of time in court defending his actions.
And I think Shrunk was FULLY aware of what order the witnesses were put on the stand. He was very quick to put citizen witnesses that were in the same car back to back in the inquest, but when it came to the cops they were split at opposite ends of the inquest.
And then the ultimate slap in the face is when Shruk asked Sery if he had spoken with Macomber at all since the incident and of course he said no. But dontcha think he watched Macmober on NWCN on Wednesday?
And correct me if I am wrong but didn't they both use the "feverishly digging in his pocket" phrase? Not something you hear everyday?
The One True b!X on 02 May 2004
Well, they don't need to have spoken to each other -- or even watched each other testify -- for there to have been coordination.
Now, I'm not claiming that there was, because there's simply no legitimate way to make such a charge. But it'd be no surprise if there were third parties who spoke with both officers.
Jon on 02 May 2004
Errr, can you say Robert King?
The One True b!X on 02 May 2004
Yeah, well, I wasn't going to go there explicitly. But that's where I was coming from, yes.
Jon on 04 May 2004
The hearing for the info to be released has been delayed and it has not been put on the calendar. At least for now. It will be heard eventually in Judge Frantz's court from what I hear
Shelley on 04 May 2004
I am surprised that nothing has been said about Mr. Perez' severely crossed left eye. Both photos of the deceased have clearly shown it. Could this be the reason that he kept turning back over his left shoulder? There is no way he would be able to see who was talking to him unless he looked back. It is human nature to 'look at' whoever is speaking to you. So, here both officers felt there was "something odd" about the "way he turned to look at them" as if he was "posistioning where they were" in order to aim. The poor man more than likely was only responding to them, and they did not notice that he was not able to see them without turning back. I find it odd that two officers were frightened by the WAY someone looked at them! Was this one of those situations of "if looks could kill" ? I know that there were other factors involved too...it just seems so dang obvious from the pictures of the man, that he must have had a vision impairment.