June 28, 2005

Comments (8)

1. Michael Eaton on 29 Jun 2005

   The silence here is deafening.

   Nearly 24 hours have gone by since this article went up and we've got zilch in the comments department. My knee-jerk reaction is to point out no matter how progressive you people think you are, you're silence is proof that this city is stacked to the rafters with elitist crackers who don't have time to even dash off a hastilly cobbled opinion about the plight of blacks in the Portland Metropolitan area.

   However, while that may be true to a certain degree, I think it obfuscates a more substantial observation. The O reports this morning about the response of the "black community" to the civil verdict. I looked and I can't find the "black community" on a map anywhere. So if it's not geographical, what is it? Am *I* a member of the "black community" because there are "blacks" in my family? Is Eminem in the "black community" because of the neigborhood he grew up in, his lifestyle, and the cultural roots of his music? For that matter, how about millionaire Blazers living in Lake O? Are they in the "black community"?

   Geeze people, it's a PIGMENTATION for crissakes, not a community. If blacks and whites would both get over themselves and remember that Kendra James was a PORTLANDER first and foremost, we might have some real progress here. After all, if you can pretend like your opinion about the PDC matters because a slice of your tax dollars end up in their budget, then you can pretend your opinion about Kendra James matters because one of your cops shot one of your neighbors.

   For the record, this elitist cracker believes that Portlanders of any pigmentation should accept the consensus of two seperate juries. Going forward, we all need to be cognizant of the procedural changes the PoPo has implemented to prevent further incidents like this, and hold their feet to the fire if these reforms prove inadequate.

2. truffula on 29 Jun 2005

   Oh come on Michael, maybe nobody had anything profound to write. I, for one, went to the PPB's website to read Foxworth's statement (B!x's link is broken), sent an email to a list where people have been involved in activism on the issue of police accountability, and later in the evening talked about the verdict with real live people.

   As to the "just get over it" sentiment, easy to write when it's not your child who was killed.

   Geeze.

3. Jonathan on 29 Jun 2005

   Browbeaten for not commenting??? Undoubtedly the jury, like many members of the public, were affected by the fact that Ms. James was apparently high on cocaine. And while her killing does not seem justified (I can't say I agree with the verdict, based on what I've heard), a group of 8 people who spent lots of time listening to it all came up with a pretty quick answer. Most of us were neither at the scene of the shooting nor at the scene of the trial. While that sometimes makes for lots of people to speculate about that which they know nothing, this one leaves me feeling cold -- I don't like the cop, but think that Ms. James put herself in a very dangerous situation.

4. Michael Eaton on 29 Jun 2005

   If it was Kendra James's death I was inviting people to get over, then I would agree with you completely. But I was imploring people to get over thinking of Kendra James as "black." I would like people to think of her as a Portlander, a neighbor, and a human being. If you look back at the last few years, all of our major ethnic groups have had ample opportunities to be shot, beaten, tazered, and pepper sprayed under highly questionable circumstances. Yet both inside and outside the press, we seem somehow compelled to frame this tragedy in a racial context.

   As far as my criticism of the peanut gallery goes, what I'm suggesting is that *because* people are looking at this in a racial context, that whites are indifferent to the issue. I base that on the *striking absence* of commentary on this thread. Not because they hate blacks, but because the shooting of Kendra James is a problem in the "black community," and whites don't belong to the "black community," and therefore have no need, or right, or whatever, to comment on it.

   As an extension to that, I'm also accuisng the readership of this blog of being overwhelmingly white. I have absolutely no facts to back that up, and I'd be genuinely happy if you proved me wrong on that point.

   Finally, I'm trying to suggest that whites are not alone in perpetuating "us" and "them" attitudes regarding the color of one's skin. All people, regardless of the color of their skin or their cultural heritage need to recognize that we're ALL PEOPLE. The subject of police accountability is complex and important and would be best served if we stopped thinking about the people involved as "black" "white" "mexican" or even "patchouli-soaked hippie".

   Anyway, I'm sorry if being cranky and flippant got in the way of my point. :-)

5. Vashti on 29 Jun 2005

   Want comments: Here goes.
   1. The jury were all except for one person White. No African Americans and say what you like that matters, because Whites and Blacks are divided on this issue as on many others.
   Also the jury were all people who knew nothing about the case beforehand. That means they don't have an interest in police accountability issues or race relations. People without any awareness of these issues are unlikely to believe that a police officer would act with such disregard for life without good cause.

   2. About 50 percent of the citizens of Portland killed by police are minority-- a far higher percentage than their numbers merit. If you think Blacks are more likely to commit crimes check out Tim Wise, who has a website timwise.org He has studied and written about the issue extensively and shows racist policing is the critical problem here.

   3. The police officers who took the stand were likable individuals. Their position was difficult. The jury clearly felt sympathy for them. (I attended part of the trial) Kendra James was a wacked out cocaine addict who was giving them lip. Hard to sympathize with unless you have a lot of understanding for addicts.

   4. The jury only heard part of the evidence. They never heard that McCollister was suspended for his behavior -- not following procedures --by the department..

   5. Many people seem to find it acceptable for police to shoot anyone who tries to flee or who "resists." Police are taught that they must control the situation at all costs.
   Most people seem to believe that it's ok for police to demand obedience. But in fact how bad is it for a suspect to flee? In most cases no harm would result.
   In fact our entire system is set up to train children out of questioning and into unthinking compliance with authority. Unfortunately, much religious teaching also reinforces this. But unqestioning obedience to authority is dangerous and leads to atrocities of all kinds.

   
   5. Did McCollister lie? Witness and forensic evidence from the state crimelab showed the gun was at least 30 ins away from James. James was leaning away from McCollister but that still puts the gun outside the car -- a witness said McCollister stepped back before shooting -- How could he then be inside the car and afraid for his life?
   No gunshot residue found in car.
   Bullet entered Kendras hip and traveled to her shoulder. Expert witness said she was leaning right away from McCollister when he shot her. On the stand the other officers couldn't say where McCollister was. McCollister said he tried to use pepper spray. But none was detected
   One officer (Reynolds) tased James right at the time McCollister shot. The car was on a slope. Did it roll away when Kendra lost control? Did her lifeless body slump onto the accelerator?
   McCollister was tussling with Kendra and she was resisting him. Then she tries to drive off. Did he get mad and shoot -- possibly "instinctively" as he said at trial?

   
   Check out the Albina MInisterial Alliance report , which contains details not shown to the jury. http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/AMAreport.html

   To the jury Kendra was just a criminal who should have shut up and done what she was told. But she left a son, a family. She had a whole life ahead of her. She could have gotten into drug treatment and done something good with her life -- but even if she didn't she didn't deserve to die.

   I think McCollister should not be a police officer. I'm scared to death of the cops mentality that they only have to say they were afraid for their lives to make shooting someone ok. I'm scared for myself, I'm scared for every teenage boy in the city. I'm really scared for the Black and Latino boys and men. And I'm scared for black girls who don't know they must shut up and do what they are told or pay with their lives.

   
   

6. doretta on 29 Jun 2005

   but even if she didn't she didn't deserve to die

   This statement gets thrown around a lot but I wonder if anyone can tell me what it actually means. It seems to imply that normally people die because of some moral "deservedness" but in reality that isn't how life works most of the time.

   Does a heroin addict who ODs "deserve to die"? Does a drunk driver who runs into a concrete pillar at 90mph "deserve to die"? What if he's not drunk but sleepy? Does a 15-year-old gang member who gets in a shootout "deserve to die"? Does a driver who fumbles for a CD and runs off the road into a tree "deserve to die"? What if he is distracted when he spills hot coffee? Does a pedestrian who doesn't see a car coming and steps into the street "deserve to die"? Does a snowboarder who loses control in a bad spot "deserve to die"?

   Misjudgements and dangerous behavior can cause people to die, "deserving" as often as not has nothing to do with it. Perception-altering drugs magnify the potential for misjudgment and dangerous behavior. That's how the world works. We can't change that by arguing that it shouldn't be that way any more than we can make things fall up by complaining about gravity.

   It is imperative that our police officers are trained to take every reasonable measure to prevent this sort of situation from arising and that they take the responsibility to do that very seriously. Chief Foxworth and the Bureau acknowledge that and we should all hold them to it.

   At the same time, the community needs to take the responsibility to discourage that sort of behavior by citizens equally seriously and I'm not seeing us taking responsibility for that.

   Officers have a legal right to protect themselves. They spend a lot of time dealing with people who exhibit bad judgment and engage in dangerous behavior. Their training tells them that "action beats reaction"--they know that they may have to make life or death decisions on the spur of the moment with incomplete information and that their actions may result in their own death or someone else's. It's a big responsibility and I can tell you that race and all other considerations aside, in the absence of overtly abusive behavior by the police any jury is going to give the benefit of the doubt to an officer making split-second decisions while trying to do his job and stay alive over a person behaving irrationally and/or engaging in behavior that might be interpreted as dangerous to the officer.

   Actively resisting arrest or failing to respond to an officer's reasonable requests in a volatile situation makes that situation more dangerous for everyone. The person doing the resisting has very short odds. There are certainly times and places for challenging authority, that just isn't one of them. Convincing people in the community that they should do so is unconscionable. You can't win in that venue, you can only make things worse. We should not be encouraging people to believe that resisting arrest or failing to comply with an officer's reasonable requests is the right thing to do.

   We have courts where you can win if a police officer behaves improperly, yes, you may lose there even if you are in the right but your odds are a lot better than they are on the street. We have public policy venues where you can change how some things work. Those are the avenues we should be encouraging people to follow.

7. truffula on 29 Jun 2005

   But I was imploring people to get over thinking of Kendra James as "black."

   And I respectfully say again, easy to write when it's not your child who was killed. I understood what you meant, Michael. But the sad reality is that memebers of "non-white" groups are disproportionately likely to be on the receiving end of police violence. I agree that we all need to think of each other as simply people before anything else but that's not the reality that Ms. James experienced and it is not the reality that many people of color experience. We need to be honest about that, say it simply and plainly and loudly before we can change things.

   As you allude, the problem is not with identifying the color of a person's skin but with stereotypes. Perhaps that is why you placed black in quotes. For what it's worth, I have recently learned to overcome a stereotype of my own, that of "anrgy young white males who support the war." It turns out that my neighbors, who fit that description, are polite, respectful, help their neighbors out, and get pissed off at people who drive too fast on residential streets.

   I know a host of "white" people who are involved in a wide range of community and activist endeavors, including police accountability. Not a single one of them was indifferent to the the killing of Kendra James, Jose Mejia-Poot, James Jahar Perez, and others. Not a single one of them saw it as somebody else's problem.

8. Vashti on 30 Jun 2005

   Re MY previous post and Doretta's response

   I agree with Doretta. In fact I lost sleep thinking about my post.

   The police are in a very difficult situation and under Foxworth they are working to avoid such situations.

   McCollister is the only one who knows how afraid for his life he was. Who would wish to be in his shoes? Not me.

   It's important that the Kroeker era is over, and the PPD have changed many policies. I hope the results reduce the violence.