Police Officer shares candid perspective on Taser incident
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on June 12th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
(Photo © J. Maus)
The article below was written by Portland Police Officer Robert Pickett. Pickett — who regular readers know by his user name “PoPo” (he’s a regular commenter and member of the Portland Bike Forums) — is a former member of the SE Precinct Bicycle Patrol Unit and now works in the Bureau’s Neighborhood Response Team division. Pickett is also a former BTA Alice Awards nominee for his dedication to community policing.
Pickett was recently selected by Police Chief Sizer to be an official communications liaison to the community on bicycle issues. On BikePortland.org he previously shared his thoughts on humility and wrote about why cops ride on sidewalks.
I was racking my brain last night, trying to figure out if there was anything constructive I could provide to this commentary in the face of the knowledge that whatever I write will certainly be ripped to pieces by upset, anonymous critics. (I am now anticipating many comments opening “here’s what would be constructive, PoPo…”)
I also wanted to be constructive and not simply defensive, since of course, a part of me feels that way.
Policing is a complicated, difficult, sometimes dangerous job. Cops are also under close scrutiny from many angles, and are quickly judged. Information generated from official investigations is also usually slow to come, as it takes time to collect and write, and sometimes can’t be released immediately for fear of jeopardizing successful prosecution of a case.
At the same time the public and the media is screaming for information now! Sometimes the best the police can do immediately after a controversial incident is release a brief overall statement, leaving out the smaller, but perhaps pertinent details. This can leave the police open to somewhat one-sided criticism for awhile, based on incomplete or possibly biased information, but that is part of the deal. Cops know it and decide to do the work anyway.
“Generally when officers end up having to use force, it is in response to their perception of the subject’s resistance, and not a result of the particular infraction observed.”
And indeed, sometimes cops make bad calls and that comes out too. We appropriately have high standards for our officers, but they are human.
So there I go, being defensive anyway. Sorry about that. Anyway, it seemed that while I can’t talk about the incident in particular, for reasons stated above, perhaps I could try to provide perspective on numbers and how police usually work.
First of all, I asked for some statistics regarding use of force in the Traffic Division. They have about 32 officers and sergeants who actively work the street (others are investigators, command staff, etc). These street officers (mostly motorcycle-mounted) are distributed across seven days of the week and two different shifts, and their primary job is enforcement of traffic laws.
From 6/1/2007 to 6/1/2008, the Traffic Division issued 53,895 citations and made 1,647 arrests. (These numbers do not include other citizen contacts and traffic stops that resulted in warnings.) Many of those arrests are certainly for DUII and hit and run, but some come as a result of other criminal activity discovered during the stops. During this period, Traffic Division officers used force in only 31 cases — using force means something more than handcuffing or specific control holds-using a Taser, pointing or shooting a firearm, punches, tackles, pushing down, pepper spray and utilizing a baton are all examples of “use of force.”
All the above numbers means that force was used in about .05% of the cases.
Situations where officers are trying to arrest someone generally provoke more force incidents than simple traffic stops. Traffic officers used force in 1.9% of the 1,647 arrest situations during that time period, which is actually lower than the Bureau average. The entire Operations Branch, which also includes all precinct officers—the ones who patrol neighborhoods and respond to 911 calls–used force 6.65% of the time when making an arrest.
Officers are allowed to use force if they perceive that citizens are refusing to stop when lawfully ordered.
Generally when officers end up having to use force, it is in response to their perception of the subject’s resistance, and not a result of the particular infraction observed. Does that make sense? For example, usually police use force not because someone ran a red light, but because the person resisted when an officer was trying to stop them for running a red light.
The general idea behind Tasers is that while painful (I can attest to that personally) they actually reduce injuries to all parties involved, as they can take the place of protracted physical struggles, which might involve tackling or punching or strikes with a metal baton, or the danger of a suspect grabbing one of an officer’s weapons while fighting in close quarters with an officer. And on the other end, sometimes, based on the specific situation, it is feasible to attempt to use a Taser in a situation where using deadly force (usually in the form of shooting a gun) would be justified.
This is not to say, however, that anybody likes to be Tasered.
The dark uniforms Traffic officers wear, with reflective police patches, were specifically designed to stand out more sharply during the daytime, and to be more visible at night, than the traditional blue uniforms. It doesn’t mean they are perfectly recognizable in every case, but the intent was to make them as recognizable as possible. The Traffic Division is actually considering the uniforms for it’s non-motorcycle mounted officers as well, because they are more visible, and therefore safer for officers who spend a lot of their time stopped on the side of the road in traffic.
I’m sure there will be many frustrated, irritated comments replying to this one. Completely understandable. But Jonathan has created an excellent forum that traditionally has quite thoughtful commentary from all different perspectives. I wanted to help continue in that tradition if I could, knowing that not everyone would agree. I am always happy to attempt to explain.
The southeast Precinct Bicycle Patrol will be hosting a family-friendly rodeo, as part of Pedalpalooza, Friday afternoon from 5pm until 8pm at Sunnyside Park. If you are interested in how police bicycle officers are trained or want to try our slow-speed cone course, please come by with your bike.
We will also do our best to answer how cops do and why we do things.
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
June 12th, 2008 17:37
Thank you for writing this. This sort of perspective is always helpful.
June 12th, 2008 17:38
Thank you for your willingness to add to the dialog.
June 12th, 2008 17:42
PoPo:
I just wanted to thank you for the work you choose to do for the city of Portland. It's not often that police officers hear that, so I wanted to put it out there.
Also, thanks for the candid look at the statistics and the quick run-down of police mentality. I for one completely understand the view that most police officers have when out on the street. You never know who's going to pull a gun or some other weapon on you, and it's hard to balance the constant tension with the correct judgment. I admire the police officers who do it with aplomb.
Hopefully someday soon you'll be able to give us an actual commentary on this specific incident, since all we get is what we read in the news or from the rumor mill.
Again, thanks for your service, Officer Pickett.
June 12th, 2008 17:53
Thanks for the perspective.
Are there typically investigations or followup reports in cases where physical force or tasers are used. What type of citizen oversight is available for cases such as this where there is a wide difference of opinion about the circumstances and degree of force warranted?
Thanks for performing a hard and demanding job and posting on the forum.
June 12th, 2008 18:22
These are all interesting points, and individually they may hold some merit. But when applied to this specific case, they hold none.
I recognize this officer can't comment on the specific case. We can. Nothing we have heard, from anyone, has provided a justification for the unprovoked attack on Rev. Phil.
He was not evading arrest. He was not posing a danger to himself or to others. And as many have noted the police failed to properly identify themselves; Rev. Phil had every right to act as he did throughout the entire affair.
Policing is a hard and demanding job, and it is a job that comes with enormous scrutiny. It cannot be any other way. In a free society, giving anyone that kind of power requires constant and exacting oversight, and zero tolerance for misuse of force. If cops don't like that they are always free to find another job.
In any case, this event and others like it suggest some of the basic rules and procedures the popo function under need to be changed. Cops serve the public. Too many of them have forgotten that fact.
June 12th, 2008 18:23
I'm more concerned about the few officers who have very high rates of use of force. It is far too easy for us to say that the police force as a whole doesn't have a problem with excessive use of force, or that on average portland police don't use racial profiling, rather than looking at which officers are statistically far from the norm and trying to do something about them. It is great that force was used only 1.9% of the time in traffic arrests, but what is more relevant is the percent of time this officer uses force, and how it compares to that 1.9% number.
Also there is nothing about a grey car with lights behind the grill and no light bar on the top that says designed to be easy to see to me. I'm glad the uniforms are designed to be easy to spot, the next step is to make the cars match.
June 12th, 2008 18:29
It's too bad the 99% of Police Officers give the other 1% a bad name.
June 12th, 2008 18:36
I'll try to leave my "frustrated, irritated comments" on the other thread. I have no doubt that most police departments have many professional officers who don't gain pleasure from inflicting pain. The problem is that to the casual observer there are only excuses for the officers who are not caught crossing that line on camera, in a manner that few can deny.
We need a police force for a civil society unfortunately. We also however as tax payers and citizens deserve a police force that really has a mission "to serve and protect" and not a group that sees themselves at best as outsiders who are our betters, and at worst as military occupiers.
June 12th, 2008 18:39
Force should never be used on someone who just hesitates. They should not even be touched until asked or commanded to stop, assume a certain position, or attempted reasoning first. Unless, of course, you park your car in a bike lane, cut-off or door a cyclist - then it's reasonable :)
I'm not speaking about this case per se, as I wasn't there. I guess I watch Cops too much. Thanks for the insight, and without cops our city would really be in the shitter.
June 12th, 2008 19:34
POPO You wrote: "Sometimes the best the police can do immediately after a controversial incident is release a brief overall statement, leaving out the smaller, but perhaps pertinent details."
That has a Make-it-up-as-we-go-along-spin-it-in-our-favor kind of ring to it. Good god, You are unreal. I hope my opinions make you "seeth".
June 12th, 2008 19:40
I am not going to defend what the officer did - obviously he made a bad judgment call. But I will say, I think it must be really, really tough to have to make those kinds of split second decisions about whether this guy is resisting arrest because he's zipping his sweater up and doesn't have his hands free or this guy is resisting arrest because he's reaching into his sweater to pull out a weapon. And when, instead of complying he starts yelling loudly, what do you do? This cop went over the top and I am in no way condoning the use of force, I'm just saying it's really easy to judge from the onlooker's perspective, but can we all be sure we would have reacted totally calmly? If you've ever been a parent, babysat, taught, or been in charge of kids or people, I'm sure you've had a moment or two where you did or said something when you made a bad judgment call or said or did something you wish you could take back. But the police aren't in charge of cute little kids, they have daily run-ins with the disenfranchised of society. I'm sure it would be easy to become over-stressed, scared, jaded...
June 12th, 2008 19:43
PoPo (Officer Pickett)
Thank you for your perspective. I understand you have a hard job. And, as I have read on this site, you ride a bicycle fairly often. So put yourself in this situation. You are riding your bicycle down the street, relaxing having a night out when someone walks up to you and says, "Hey buddy, we need to talk to you." You shrug it off and continue riding, the statement shows no authority what so ever, and then all of a sudden the person reaches out, tries and does remove you from your bicycle.
If anyone ever tried to remove you from your bike, would you not put up a fight? Your moving on two wheels, you'll at least resist the temptation of falling, or resist, it's human nature, then you stand up wondering what the hell.
Sometimes the actions police take, could be taken with a little more thoughtful tact. Thats all. If i screw up at my job its OK, but sometimes when the police make mistakes people get hurt, and the police don't hold up to the responsibility of their actions.
Cause and effect, push a person off a moving bike, they stand up in defense. The officer should have looked around and assessed before the volts of electricity was flowing.
June 12th, 2008 20:16
Policing is a dirty job that sucks. Now that 75% of modern TV is about police, we get that. Some officers actually do serve and protect, and we probably almost never hear about them on the news.
I encountered some police officers in several cities in Holland, though, and it's interesting how the cops there are helpful, friendly, and liked. I watched friendly riot police on horseback in downtown Sydney Australia controlling thousands of drunk, shouting people in the street after a soccer game, and no one in the crowd seemed at all worried about being hurt by the police. In fact, everyone, including the horses, seemed to be having a great day.
Why are the police in the US seemingly at war with everyone? Did it happen when the MPs came back from Viet Nam? Is it the TV?
Tragically, in Portland as in other US cities, there are some trigger-happy incidents occurring, and these are not being handled in a way that promotes peace and understanding between the LEOs and the citizenry. I think we need to change what we reward and punish on both sides of that blue line.
What's really frustrating lately is that while some officers seem to be gleefully tasering non-dangerous people repeatedly as punishment for disobedience (real or imagined), idiots seem to be running rampant on the light rail and bad things happen a lot in some of our neighborhoods.
Can I get a WTF? Surely in a smart, progressive city like ours we can do better. I believe we must. What are our elected officials doing about these issues?
Can we please have consequential citizen review of all officers who use force often, and some effective police presence on the trains and platforms and other trouble spots? Neighborhood policing, anyone? Less Robocop ... more Adam12?
I want to feel safer when I see the police instead of more threatened. I don't know if that's achievable, but it's a goal I think we should all work toward, because the situation has gone way too far in the wrong direction.
June 12th, 2008 20:16
Popo, I greatly appreciate your words and the work you do for Portland.
I encourage all to re/view the Portland Police Manual of Policy and Procedure. Download it to your hard drive, read it again and again. It is located here:
http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=29867
Section 1010 references Deadly Physical Force and Physical Force. When can an officer push a person from a bicycle?
Also check out section 1051 - Use of Taser
This section outlines when tasers can be used, who not to use them on, cautions for taser use, warnings.
I'm not an expert, but these sections appear to set a policy for use of a taser as a method of control when a subject is engaged in Aggressive Physical Resistance. It's also interesting that Section 1051 also mentions that officers should consider the "severity of the crime." prior to using a taser. The verbal warnings (a subsection of 1051) given by Hoesly and/or Smith are still unclear. It would be interesting to know what the Portland Police policy is regarding an officer's responsibility to clearly identify himself before issuing a command to stop. Also, what are Police procedures and policies for allowing a subject time to actually comply with a command before physical force is selected as a
The reading is quite interesting, at least for me.
Popo, if you're willing perhaps you can shed some light onto some of these Police Policies. I'm hoping you can go into greater depth on what "lawfully ordered" is (you mention it in your 11th paragraph).
June 12th, 2008 20:17
Here are 3 exerpts from Jonathan's report:
From Rev. Phil: He then sprinted, lunged and tackled me.
From the written statement of PPB's Brian Schmautz: The officer, then reached out to stop Sano and they began to struggle.
From the witness: ... the cop took two steps after him, grabbed him by the shirt, yanked him off the bike,,,
Here's what I want to know. What is the official Portland Police policy for dealing with a bicyclist who doesn't respond to an officer on foot giving a verbal order to stop. In particular, a bicyclist who is not posing any immediate threat to himself or others but is merely in (possible) violation of a traffic infraction.
Somehow, sprinting after the bike, possibly struggling with the cyclist, and then knocking him/her to the ground does not seem appropriate in such an instance. I'd like to know if indeed police are instructed that this is appropriate behavior.
It seems that everything else that happened in this particular encounter is a direct result of natural behavior of all parties resulting from this act, especially if Rev. Phil was unaware that it was a police officer he was involved with. (It is not clear to me from the report that Rev. Phil should or should not have been aware of this.)
If this is acceptable police behavior, I think we (meaning bicycle advocates and police policy folks) need a discussion to come up with a more reasonable initial behavior for a police officer in this situation.
June 12th, 2008 20:19
Mr. Pickett:
Thank you very much for sharing.
Truly,
Mark Allyn
June 12th, 2008 20:20
As a black woman who is regularly mistaken for a male, I shudder to think what would happen to me in a similar situation. Personally, if some man shouted at me to stop while I was out riding at night, I would sprint as fast as my little legs would take me.
According to all the witness reports we've heard so far, the officer in this incident failed to identify himself. Correct me if I'm wrong PoPo, but isn't that sort of one of the basic rule #1 type things that officers are supposed to do?
That and the comment from another poster about this same officer's excessive use of force during the rose festival parade, makes me think that he needs to be relieved of badge and gun until he can go through some anger management training.
I too appreciate your perspective, and the fact that you are such an active participant in this forum. But for this case, it's hard to think what information might come to light that will make this make any sense.
June 12th, 2008 20:32
PoPo
Thanks again for writing.
It seems to me that this situation could have been averted if a bicycle mounted officer was present and had halted Phil by simply pulling in front of him. Being yanked off your bike from behind would produce a negative reaction from anyone.
Can you comment on the use of bicycle mounted police during enforcement operations targeting bicyclists? Or in this case, the lack there of?
June 12th, 2008 20:41
Kendra James. James Chasse. Siobhan Doyle. Brett Jarolimek. The list goes on and on and on...
Now this.
The facts speak for themselves. The PPB has a serious problem. You may not have been a part of it, but once you start apologizing for it you become part of the problem. Sycophant.
June 12th, 2008 20:55
I don't think that he is apologizing for the PPB. He's just trying to add some perspective.
Admittedly though, if I understand it right, this was just flat out dumb. I mean what did they think was going to happen? Targeting bicyclist after dark without lights using officers on foot in dark uniforms without lights? And combining that with an apparent policy that allows immediate "use of force" after a simple audible command? What if the guy is hard of hearing or wearing ear phones? Or as in this case simply doesn't understand? Again, this was just needlessly dumb.
June 12th, 2008 21:07
To #19
I disagree completely. The officer was just explaining from his view. I didn't take his article as apologetic in any way shape or form. Also, because you say, "I'm sorry" doesn't mean you're part of a problem.
June 12th, 2008 21:23
I would ride like a mad man if someone yelled at me. Cripes what was the officer thinking?
I have been a bike commuter for 28 years now. I have a good repore with the PPB but again I have to agree with the earlier post WTF?
kev
peace
June 12th, 2008 21:29
Come on, now. Let's keep an open mind.
I didn't read anywhere in Officer Pickett's letter where he apologized for the specific actions of the police who tasered Rev. Phil. Pickett stated very clearly, "While I can’t talk about the incident in particular ... perhaps I could try to provide perspective on ... how police usually work."
IMHO, having Officer Pickett share his persepective, as a police officer, makes him part of the solution, not part of the problem. What we need is more honesty and more dialogue, not more name calling.
PS. I'm a friend of Rev. Phil and served as a witness in his 2006 case, in which the police f***ed up badly. I know the police can make mistakes and sometimes use excessive force. Nevertheless, denigrating Officer Pickett isn't a solution to anything.
June 12th, 2008 21:41
During the silent ride a few weeks back, we (the riders who rode) received a courteous and professional escort by a well-coordinated and, from where I sat, empathetic fleet of motor cops.
While some or most or none of them agreed with our cause, they all took our safety above their own and provided safe passage where, without their presence, there may have been none.
They didn't do it do because they mourned the loss of a friend or family member. They did it because they are civil servents and they were told to do it.
It takes a special kind of person to suffer the daily slings and arrows of second guessers and armchair officers and face again and again the horrors and terrors and ugliness from which most of us would recoil.
I have no idea beyond what I've read what happened to the subject in question on the night in question at the hands of the officers in question.
But I know when I dial 911, someone out there, despite their headache or their mounting financial issues or 9th-hour hunger, is going to come running to help.
I feel that if you forget that hanging need, that potential disaster from which you may require rescue, you run the risk of forming an opinion that is only partially relevant.
I understand the desire and need to have effective oversight of this profession. I don't understand the third hand gossip and attendant alarmist rabidity I've been reading in response to an encounter that could have been avoided if the subject had been using the light given to him by the same folks that found it necessary to shock him when he, in his own words, took a defensive stance against an officer who, by all accounts, gave him a lawful order to stop at a scene decorated by the flashing lights of a cruiser.
June 12th, 2008 21:50
In general it seems police cars are moving away from being marked and uniforms are becoming more military like. This is not a good trend.
June 12th, 2008 21:50
I have to wonder if this was a motorist with a headlight out and their window rolled down would the officer reach through the window of the moving car to try to rip the motorist out of the car?
Unfortunately as we all know cyclists are more vulnerable largely because we pose a far smaller threat. It is incidents like this that make me oppose all cycling equipment legislation.
Bjorn
June 12th, 2008 21:57
Thanks for your extremely thoughtful comments. I'm at home reading them aloud to my wife, learning and thinking.
Some people asked about police oversight and investigating allegations of police misconduct. Below is a link with information about the Independent Police Review Division and the Citizen Review Committee as well as other related resources.
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=26646
June 12th, 2008 22:06
"Apologizing" is not meant literally, you fools.
This "perspective sharing" bullsh#t is meant to make you go, "Oh, they have such a hard job. And they're not all bad. Let's cut 'em some slack."
Meanwhile, THEY KEEP MURDERING PEOPLE.
And they keep you sheep divided and unable to effectively challenge the creeping state power...until it's a POLICE STATE. Until nobody seriously questions things like this. It's already happening...
There is a serious problem in the PPB. If you can't see it, you're either in denial or blind.
Where's Kendra James' perspective? She's dead. Murdered by the PPB.
Where's James Chasse's perspective? He's dead. Murdered by the PPB.
You think these are the only two?
Pickett doesn't mention any of this in his "perspective." He doesn't mention the PSU student who was arrested by PPB officers for exercising his free speech rights last year, then intimidated and beat up illegally while he was in jail by PPB officers.
He doesn't mention any of the DEATHS CAUSED BY TASERS. Instead he claims they "reduce injuries." It's positively Orwellian.
When it's your brother, sister, mother, father, son, or daughter, you'll change your mind...
How many more will the PPB have to kill?
June 12th, 2008 22:08
Officer Pickett
You state you wish to be constructive, even though a part of you feels defensive. This is unfortunate, because you nor your profession are under attack here. The actions of a few police officers are under attack and you are under no obligation to defend them (unless of course your boss told you to, which incidentally is part of a larger problem. Police bureaus are not supposed to be fraternities where officers watch each other's backs at times where they should be looking out for us - community members - as in this case).
You say the PPB have high standards but sometimes, police officers make mistakes too. There is a huge difference between the kind of mistakes that are "human" like forgetting important things because you are distracted, and those mistakes which are physically and emotionally detrimental to other human beings. Accidents happen, but this incident was no accident. The officers in this incident purposefully, intentionally inflicted physical harm on a person where it was not necessary to do so. What is the worst that could have happened? Rev Phil might have gotten away without using a bike light? How terrible would that have been?
And also, as a statistician, I can tell you that your statistics are meaningless. 1.9% of the traffic incidents were cases in which force was used and that is below the bureau average. What's the national average? What's the average of other police bureaus around the city, the state, the nation? What about the averages of just traffic incidents? Does the PPB use force more often in traffic incidents than other police bureaus in traffic incidents? Your statistics are just numbers without context and they mean nothing. It almost seems like you are implying that a certain amount of force, however mild or excessive, is acceptable if the numbers of cases that result in the use of force fall within the desired percentage. Also, we don't know the specifics of those cases in which the officers used force. We don't know if it was warranted. Now, Rev's Phil's traffic incident will be added to those numbers, but the details will be lost.
And still with regard to this incident, I don't think the use of tasers in any way reduced the injury to Phil. It was the police officer's choice to use it, and from the sounds of things, they used it with abandon.
June 12th, 2008 22:15
I don't necessarily agree that the uniforms (at least as far as patrolmen are concerned - not about SWAT or such) becoming *more* military-like. However, my impression of the traffic uniforms (at least on the motor officers I've run across) - the reflective patches work well in specific instances. (for example, coming up behind an officer while illuminating him with automobile headlamps). But in other instances (for example, approaching an officer on foot without illumination) the reflective patches alone don't help a whole lot.
I think it'd help if the traffic officers had higher visibility sections on their uniforms, particularly the upper body or arms. Not only would it help them be readily identified as officers, but it can only help them in the line of duty considering how much time they have to spend on the road at the risk of being run over themselves.
June 12th, 2008 22:19
Let this be the lesson: Don't even unknowingly let the cops have ANY fear of you. It is their right to always be in control of you. Wear your Junior Communty Police Officer peel-n-stick badge and try not to be too intimidating.
Everyone is equal here on the Farm,but pigs are more equal than all the other animals.
Get back to work.
June 12th, 2008 22:44
Walk on two legs not on four.
Walk on four legs breaks the law.
June 12th, 2008 22:46
I honestly don't understand why police can't comment. It seems like a blanket cover your ass kind of policy. Details like what time the incident took place and whether or not the police identified themselves as police before yanking the guy off his bike should be pretty cut and dried. I'm sure the police officers involved have already written up their reports. Why can't those be released? Waiting just makes it seem like the police are getting their stories straight and making sure no embarrassing video footage contradicting them comes to light.
I still haven't seen a direct response to the fact that the incident may have taken place at 9:30pm, which is before dark at 9:37pm, so lights might not have even been legally required.
June 12th, 2008 22:58
With everyone else, I say thanks to you officer Pickett for having offered explanation you can about the workings behind the actions of the officers that stopped Phil Sano on his bike. The following excerpt from your comment seems particularly key to understanding this incident:
"Generally when officers end up having to use force, it is in response to their perception of the subject’s resistance, and not a result of the particular infraction observed. Does that make sense? For example, usually police use force not because someone ran a red light, but because the person resisted when an officer was trying to stop them for running a red light." popo/pickett
Unfortunately, it seems as though many people don't understand how their actions might be seen from the perspective of police procedure. It's like two different world's colliding. Some, but not all of the public may be capable of reading the PPD policy and procedure manual, learning from it and by other means how to respond safely in an encounter with the police.
People commenting in this thread have mentioned James Chasse and Kendra James. Each had personal problems that significantly impaired their ability to abide by a standard, police issued order. As a result, their lives vanished abruptly in encounters with the police. Given the specifics of current PPD policy and procedure, there's significant reason to doubt that people such as they, will be able to survive an encounter with the police.
It seems Phil Sano, riding his bike last night, was just smart enough and sufficiently in control of his mental faculties to avoid the fate of Kendra James and James Chasse. If he were just a little more 'out there' than he really is, he would possibly have been dead. Really, can anyone say that's good enough for Portland and the PPD?
Policy and procedure for the PPD needs to be reviewed and revised to create a much more conscientious and reliably safe means of managing encounters between the police and the people they're sworn to protect. I'm not sure what form that would take, but something has got to be done.
re; the dark uniforms: if anyone has a link to where we could see exactly what they look like, I'd be interested. All I really remember is that they're black. The reflective details on the front of the uniform is something I can't remember at all. I'd like to see if there is any such details on the front of the black uniforms.
June 13th, 2008 00:22
Whatever everyone else says... especially when it comes to police cars and having them blend in to public.... Those of you that have that problem, you are not trustworthy. To be watch, means you act differently. To be observed, you act accordingly. I myself could care less, as i haven't a problem with the PPB. My problem lies within, being accountable for actions. Thats it. PoPo wrote his article, and I thank him for, and i personally wish Portland had more officers like him. Portland would be a better place.
June 13th, 2008 00:36
All I really remember is that they're black. The reflective details on the front of the uniform is something I can't remember at all.
Which is decidedly non-fantastic. Even if each and every member of the PPB were identifying themselves correctly upon an effort made for arrest, it presents a problem: any hulking, intimidating human mass done up in all black hollering "STOP! POLICE!" could conceivably stop the law-abiding citizens. Regardless of the details in this latest incident with Rev. Phil, there needs to be some enhancement in terms of unique identifying markings to indicate legitimate PPB personnel, rather than some savvy gang of random thugs looking to "confiscate" the contents of one's wallet.
And yes, that's an overwhelmingly optimistic perspective. Even in the best-case-scenario, the PPB could present a much more clear and obvious program to catch violators of actual traffic violations, rather than at-whim selective enforcement that contributes to all negative PPB myths.
June 13th, 2008 01:14
this statement is posted by a 911 dispatcher in Jefferson county.
and i have her permission to post what is said. her statement is a follows.,
there'll always be people who hate police regardless of the great things they've done for the good of the many. Its the minority few who ruin it for everyone else. Its sad that people are calssifying "Po-Po" as one of those few, but it took courage to post his own artilce and take on the incident, knowing full well he'd be attacked and misunderstood. His article was objective with a hit of embarassment because of his profession.
June 13th, 2008 01:18
Given that we as a society grant police the power to order us around, carry weapons, and sometimes use those weapons on us, I think we're always within our rights to push back on, and question the slightest hint of abuse of that power.
This country was founded on suspicion of - and resistance to - concentrated power. (And from the little I know of him, the good Reverend is a grand champion of that tradition.)
PoPo, thanks for making the effort to bridge the divide.
You say, "Officers are allowed to use force if they perceive that citizens are refusing to stop when lawfully ordered." Can you elaborate on the "lawfully ordered" part?
Also, you cite the statistics: "Traffic officers used force in 1.9% of the 1,647 arrest situations during that time period, which is actually lower than the Bureau average." Are there statistics for how that breaks down on a bike stop vs. car stop basis?
It seems like cyclists are treated differently by cops, and I have the nagging feeling it has to do with us being such easy targets relative to car drivers.
Case in point, we can be dragged off our bikes by a guy on foot.
Could it be that, to people whose day to day jobs involve the application of power, those of us with less power - i.e. not in cars - are more likely to be treated with contempt?
In my own experience, the times in my life I've been pulled over while driving a car, the interaction has been as polite as can be: lots of "sir"s, very businesslike, and with no emotion expressed. Whereas my one experience with police while riding a bike - a Critical Mass in which I rode safely and legally (with the exception of some rolling right-on-reds) - I was growled at by the escorting officers, and generally made to feel like I was a criminal just for being there.
All of which causes me some trepidation when considering my first-ever World Naked Bike Ride this Saturday...
June 13th, 2008 06:37
Officer Pickett,
Thanks for stepping up to the plate here...
but...
"The dark uniforms Traffic officers wear, with reflective police patches, were specifically designed to ... be more visible at night"
this sort of statement stretches credibilty and not a little bit.
It's VERY obvious that the uniform choice and stealthy light bar on the unmarked cars are designed to be invisible to casual observers.
Thanks, but I'll pass on your Coolaid today.
June 13th, 2008 07:21
I'll pass also. protect and serve?
(to provide services that benefit or help)
June 13th, 2008 08:31
Officer Picket, Thank you for your input and for all you do. The problem I see with this incident as it has been presented so far is that the police response is so incredibly inappropriate. The offense was riding without a light at night. This is very dangerous mostly for the person on the bike without a light. The act of tackling a person off their bike could be deadly all by itself. It should be viewed as the extreme action that it is. Everything that follows that act is fairly irrelevant because after the initial assault by the Police officer you are dealing with a beast of a different nature.
The Police officer took a fairly benign situation and made it into something very dangerous through his own actions and decisions.
June 13th, 2008 08:55
this is all pretty basic:
Dude got tased for not having a light. He never laid a hand on any of the cops, never said a word. Never harmed anyone, never put anyone in danger. He was tased to the point he needed medical attention.
Rodney King may have got the beat down, but one could justify it because he was putting others in danger prior to said beat down. The Rev WAS RIDING A BIKE WITHOUT A LIGHT.
I'll just repeat that for everyone, HE WAS RIDING A BIKE WITHOUT A LIGHT.
June 13th, 2008 08:58
wsbob - I don't have any photos, but from what I recall, they're black with "Police" in large letters on the back, I think with a reflective stripe underneath it. On the front I think there are two reflective stripes, one at each breast pocket.
Trouble is, unless you have very specific conditions (illuminated by car headlights) you basically have a black uniform with greyish lettering. Particularly in twilight when you have vehicles without lights on, you're a ninja.
With hi-vis yellow arms, not only would the uniforms be more recognizable in all conditions, but it would make gesturing (such as ordering a vehicle to stop, or directing traffic) easier as well.
Not to mention the safety factor for an officer who spends a fair amount of time along the roadside, whether at a traffic stop, accident response, or whatnot.
Thanks you, Po-Po for sharing your perspective and continuing to be a bridge between the Bureau and the cycling community here. :)
June 13th, 2008 09:34
Yes, PoPo, being tasered does not feel good...being tasered 3 or 4 times feels even less nice.
Sorry you're judged here for the actions of others....but exactly where is the disconnect between your training and mannerisms in the field and these trigger happy morons?
June 13th, 2008 11:33
I generally have a lot of respect for what the police have to do. It's a tough, mostly thankless job, and I think that most cops wouldn't be there if they weren't trying to help people. They catch a lot of flak for every little thing they do.
But, I'm speaking in general terms here; as is PoPo in his letter. The issue is you can't use generalities when looking at an individual circumstances. Statistics are irrelevant to whether or not this was justified or even an understandable error. Granted, police have to make split second decisions, and sometimes they decide poorly, but there was no emergency here to even warrant the need to go into that mode.
The officer in this situation was way, WAY out of line. Rev Phil was TASED MORE THAN ONCE - meaning that he was tased after being completely disabled (not to mention being ripped off his bike in the first place). I think part of what is so disturbing about this is that any one who bikes could picture themselves in the same situation, and that is scary. Usually there is at least something to provoke an officer - even if the officer overreacts, but it sounds like this guy acted like any normal person would if someone started yelling at them and tackled them off their bike. This could have been any one of us.
I realise that PoPo's letter isn't justifying this incident. The letter seems like more a plea for the biker community not to take this one incident and turn it in to a generality. However, the way to do that is by holding the officer accountable, not by listing statistics. The biking community has a right to be angry and scared over this and I hope that the police force is going to do more about it than send out their biking mascot to smooth it over.
June 13th, 2008 11:42
Dude, you are a glutton for punishment! Regardless, very well written and informative. Thank you, again, for shedding some necessary light and perspective on this contentious issue.
June 13th, 2008 11:50
Thanks for writing this, but all your points assume that the enforcement officer you are referring to is trustworthy and honorable, and we know there are many who aren't.
June 13th, 2008 12:01
"The general idea behind Tasers is that while painful (I can attest to that personally) they actually reduce injuries to all parties involved, as they can take the place of protracted physical struggles."
This statement contradicts the majority of studies out there, which show that cops are using Tasers when no force would, otherwise, be applied at all.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/06/13/colby-cosh-on-tasers-the-shocks-keep-coming.aspx
June 13th, 2008 12:10
PoPo, about those uniforms: They are completely unrecognizable by a cyclist or pedestrian on the street or sidewalk at night. Maybe if you're behind the wheel of a car at a traffic stop with headlights and such, people could recognize you for a LEO. I honestly don't think I could even with my bike light on. That could be due to my lousy night vision, but I'm not the only human being in Portland with that problem...
Perhaps there are times and places where they are of benefit. A community where people actually conduct their lives outside the confines of their motor vehicles isn't one of them.
And yes, I will definitely pass my thoughts along to Chief Sizer, Mayor Potter, and Commissioner Adams...
June 13th, 2008 12:19
well, here's the thing, yes a cop's job is suckey and hard. but guess what, so are a BUNCH of other jobs. but in those jobs, when someone pisses you off, you don't have the right to beat the living crap out of them.
Police work is statistically one of the more SAFER jobs you can work. the most dangerous job (highest rates of injury/death)? Farmhand. and yet, people treat and pay immigrant farmhands like shit, and cops get put on a pedestal. just trying to put in some perspective.
i respect individuals, not uniforms. if a cop is respectful with me, i return the favor, as i would anyone else. the problem is when they (cops) power trip.
June 13th, 2008 12:34
I certainly hope that everyone realizes that the vast majority of negative interactions between the PPB and the bike community can all be traced to less than a dozen cops. I've been given to understand that they are all (or nearly all) part of a particular clique in the Traffic Division. I also hear that PoPo is most assuredly not part of said clique. Consider that when you read his writing.
More gossip: There are no orders or anything coming from "above" in regards to how we are treated the way we are. That is to say, this clique takes it upon themselves to create their own unwritten policy within the confines of the judgment they are permitted to exercise in regards to how they interact with us. They can get away with a great deal of terrible behavior within the framework of that judgment.
We will continue to have these incidents so long as that clique in the Traffic Division exists. Also, don't kid yourselves: it will be very difficult for even the Mayor to deal with them because of the incredible power of the police union. They tend to defend even the dirtiest of cops to the bitter end.
If the PPB is truly recruiting LEOs from cities like Chicago and other hopelessly corrupt cities east of the Rockies where the populace considers abuse from the police to be a normal part of everyday life, we can also expect even more problems like this. Moreover, I doubt such cops will limit themselves to targeting the bicycle community.
Where to begin? I haven't the slightest idea. After all, that's one of the reasons I left "East of the Rockies" in the first place.
June 13th, 2008 12:36
Pickett reaches out, and I'm stoked on that. He gives me a smidgen of hope for the future of the PPB and community policing policy. Seeing him mingle with folk at Col. Sumner park after the parade (whilst all the other cops huddled in the corner like shady gang members) is encouraging to me. He's WITH the people (though its gotta suck to sit on the fence by way of defending antiquated practices of belligerent co-workers. Not to mention simultaneously being on the defensive with people like me who don't trust cops). And because of that, I doubt Pickett would be as quick as other xenophobic cops to pull the trigger. Thanks for being a part of the conversation/community, Pickett!
June 13th, 2008 12:48
Apparently Rev. Phil's big mouth is such a dangerous weapon that even a taser in ineffective against it.
June 13th, 2008 12:55
Is the PPD going to actually step up and address this issue beyond their BS press release? I'm talking chief, mayor or someone else with some cajones?
Oh wait, it's Friday we'll all go home and hope this is forgotten Monday.
June 13th, 2008 12:56
Popo,
Thanks for your comments. They are very thoughtful and give some useful context, without diving headlong into the particulars of this incident before all the facts have been sorted out.
However, the thought that black is a hi-vis color is weird, particularly at night. I'd think that true hi-vis would look more like these London police uniforms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Police.three.on.patrol.london.arp.jpg
Anecdotally, it seems that some local police uniforms are tending toward a more militaristic/commando style. Multnomah County Sheriff's Deputy uniforms now look just like green combat fatigues, compared to their old style that was almost like a forest ranger. Black Portland Police traffic uniforms have a decidedly commando-style look.
These "tactical" style uniforms no doubt have functional benefits for folks who wear them outside in all weather, sometimes in altercations, etc. However, I've wondered about the psychology underlying these uniforms, both for the folks wearing them and for the public who sees them. That's for a different thread.
June 13th, 2008 13:11
I just want to offer two quick points:
First, I consider the new police uniforms to be at least as recognizable as the classic "blues". The reflective striping and large "POLICE" lettering are quite visible, and the new design has one *huge* advantage over the old one: officers no longer look indistinguishable from every two-bit rent-a-cop from >10 feet away.
Second, while I have no particular personal agenda against Rev. Phil, I think that his history of negative interactions with the police (however unjust or unfair the causes and outcomes) predisposes him to be less compliant (or even reasonable) when faced with a uniformed officer than most cyclists. I won't presume understand his thinking or motivations, but I certainly wouldn't be shocked to discover that he was entirely aware that he was being hailed by a police officer, and chose to attempt to ride away precisely for that reason, not because he was afraid of some anonymous attacker.
I think the "us vs. them" attitude that I hear reflected in so many of these comments is the most dangerous and worrying response we could make to this incident. Police are members of the community like anyone else, and forcing them into a defensive position only makes it harder for us to build understanding and make sure that this kind of violent altercation can be avoided in the future.
June 13th, 2008 13:14
This incident reminds me of jury trial I participated in. Note that I am no expert on law, and that I am neutral on cops, forming my opinions on a case-by-case basis, though time and time again I hear stories that make me believe the police culture in Eugene and Portland needs a serious overhaul. The police in the city where I live now don't seem to have these kinds of issues. So I once was on a jury where the defendant was being tried for resisting arrest, failure to obey a lawful order and assault. The Eugene Police had responded to a noise complaint at his house. Entering the house, the police encountered the defendant--a big, tall, white, dreadlocked man with a beer bottle in his hand--and several other partygoers in their early twenties drinking beer in the kitchen. The defendent mistakenly thought that the police needed a warrant to enter his house (they don't) and he began waving his arms and and yelling for the police to get out of his house. A scuffle ensued where the defendant was "taken down", and it appears that excessive force may have been used. Note the defendant did not initiate the physical contact. The defendant was dragged outside and one of the arresting officers at some point injured his shoulder. This is the officer who said he was assaulted.
From my perspective, this is what happened. The officers encountered a culture of people with which they were unfamiliar, who may or may not have been under the influence. Apparently a lawful order was given to the defendant to put his hands up, which he did not obey. (Testimony differed as to whether or not the order was actually given before the physical altercation occurred--the deliberations included a discussion about whether or not cops are capable of lying. We also wondered if the defendent would have been able to hear the order had it been given.) Much like the case of Rev. being discussed, since the order was not obeyed, the decision was made to restrain the defendant, as he appeared to be acting in a threatening manner. Meanwhile, the shocked onlookers start yelling at the officers to stop hurting their friend. I would imagine the officers found this pretty scary, as they were outnumbered. Being familiar with the hippie culture to which these people belonged, I think it highly unlikely the officers were in any danger, but they had no way of knowing that. The Halloween riots at the UO, where police were senselessly attacked by huge bottle-throwing mobs (of ordinary students), may have been fresh on their minds.
The officer who was injured failed to file a report at the time detailing the assault, claiming his injury prevented him from doing so. The defense attorney tartly asked him if it was possible he could have dictated a report, and he admitted that he could have. Meanwhile, the officer who had made the initial contact with the defendent, who seemed like a decent guy, said "I don't recall" a lot. It appeared to me that, being a good cop, he wasn't going to perjure himself by lying to back up the other officer's story, but nor was he going to give an alternate version of events, since he was naturally going to be loyal to a fellow officer. Or perhaps he was just being honest and careful, because we all know that it's hard to recall the order of events in a stressful situation like this. For instance, the testimony of the witnesses to the altercation in the kitchen varied wildly, though it is clear *some sort* of altercation happened.
In the end, the jury concluded that a lawful order had been given and it had been disobeyed. (I'm still dubious about that one, but my peers concluded that one can generally assume that cops don't lie.) We concluded that he had resisted arrest, because, the way we understood the concept, even tensing up your muscles might be interpreted as resisting arrest. It appears the only way to avoid this charge if being physically restrained is to go completely limp. (I think one couldn't help at least tensing up--it's a natural reaction to being restrained.) However, the testimony did not back up the charge of assault (the most serious charge), the conclusion being that the injury inflicted on the officer was not deliberate but occured during the scuffle.
My observations: 1) Police may not react appropriately to people who appear to be "counterculture" in some way. Bicyclists are likely to fit this category. Your average police officer, on the other hand, is likely to be a mainstream American. If s/he doesn't participate in the counterculture, s/he will have very little knowledge about it except what they learn in the mainstream press. Note how the mainstream press covers counterculture events. For example, it always seems to be noted that a peace rally was...peaceful! Imagine. 2) Police overreaction to perceived danger escalates otherwise non-violent situations needlessly. 3) Police culture, at least in Eugene and Portland, needs to be changed. There has been some crisis intervention training since the James Chasse incident, but obviously some of the officers involved in the Taser incident need a refresher. In the Eugene case, if the police had responded calmly to the defendant rather than escalating the situation, it is likely everyone would have relaxed, the music would have been turned down, and taxpayer dollars wouldn't have been wasted bringing the case to trial. A feeling of mutual respect and shifts in perspective may have even occured! Should the defendant have yelled at the cops? Probably not. But the police officers are the professionals here, and their extensive training (that we pay for) should allow them to de-escalate situations just as easily as escalate them. Any idiot can escalate a situation. 4) Finally, an important safety tip. If you have to go to trial, note that your peers may a) believe cops are incapable of doing wrong or lying under oath b) judge you by your appearance. (I was on the jury with a nice, if slightly daft, older lady who said of the defendant and witnesses. "well, they're not dressed very well, are they?" I pointed out that how they were dressed had no bearing on the case, and that, as a matter of fact, they actually *were* dressed up--buttoned shirts, clean khakis and clean hiking shoes.)
June 13th, 2008 13:59
Thanks for your perspective, PoPo. I'm happy to see others here appreciate it as well.
You enter the lion's den most every time you post. There are some pretty vitriolic responses thrown your way based more on your profession than what you have to say. I’m glad you still come back. The cycling community will benefit from better relations with the police, and they with us. This is what I see you trying to do.
June 13th, 2008 14:07
"Lawful order to stop" refers to an officer having probable cause that an infraction has occurred, giving him or her authority to order someone to stop to be identified and possibly receive a citation.
For example, if an officer sees you run a red light, he/she then has legal authority to order you to stop.
In this case, it seems that the authority to order to stop came from the violation of failing to have proper equipment on a bicycle (no front light).
If you try to get away while an officer is trying to stop you, you then potentially start committing crimes like Elude or Escape or Resist Arrest.
June 13th, 2008 14:21
Regarding #51: I agree with much of what you say. This is why I feel it is critical to focus on the range of behavior permitted by internal PPB policy (see my earlier #15). In other outrageous cases of police behavior (e.g. Kendra James), this is the issue that actually got traction and was the basis of any discipline (albeit insufficient from a broader perspective, if you ask me).
If renegade members of the PPB can be shown to act outside of their internal PPB rules, then action against them can be taken. (And lawsuits against the city for police brutality might have more likelihood of success – another tool for reining in renegades.) On the other hand, if the internal PPB rules permit behavior that an "ordinary" citizen would raise eyebrows at (such as immediately yanking a non-threatening rider off their bike for not reacting to a shouted "Stop!"), this can get the attention of politicians and the press and lead to discussions to create internal PPB policy that is more reasonable.
June 13th, 2008 14:25
But PoPo, I think there is a bit more to "lawful order to stop" than just probable cause to stop the person. An officer may have probable cause to stop somebody, but choose not to do it. For example, an officer may see a cyclist ride by without a light, or may see somebody exceeding the speed limit, but choose not to enforce the law at that moment. Probable cause just gives the cop the authority to make a stop, but it doesn't constitute a lawful order in and of itself-- there also has to be an order given.
And (understanding that you can't comment on this particular arrest) by way of example, a siren and lights would be interpreted as an order to stop. A command by a uniformed police officer to "Stop!" would be interpreted as an order to stop. A command by a plainclothes officer of "Police! Stop!" (accompanied by a badge) would be interpreted as an order to stop. But a guy approaching you on a dark street, wearing what may or may not be a uniform, saying "Hey buddy we need to talk" is something more ambiguous, and therefore, may or may not be a lawful order to stop, depending on the facts.
June 13th, 2008 14:35
PoPo - Re #59: I understand. But upon potentially starting to commit crimes such as Elude or Escape or Resist Arrest, there must be limits to what a police officer may do as their next act.
For example, in the case of a non-threatening bicyclist riding along without a light who does not stop, I can hardly believe that internal policy would permit an officer to immediately withdraw their gun and shoot the bicyclist. So where is the line?
Is it appropriate to immediately chase after the bicycle on foot and tackle them to the ground without first taking other action to enforce the officer's intent? (I'm not saying this is exactly what happened in this particular case - there may have been some sort of "struggle" that changes the circumstance, but I don't know what this really means from the account I read.)
June 13th, 2008 14:44
Popo,
I would be really interested in learning from you what is the Police policy in terms of proportionality and appropriateness regarding the use of force to stop someone. Because its one thing for a person suspected to have a gund failing to stop, and a totally different one a cyclist without a light.
The authority to forcefully stop someone cannot be unlimited. Or is it???
June 13th, 2008 15:43
It's clear this is an another example of a bad cop causing serious damage to the Police/Public relationship. No doubt 90%+ of cops are hard working, restrained, professional etc.....
But it's also clear that these bad cops are rarely punished.
I'd like to see good cops like PoPo and Chief Sizer step up and call bad cops on their bad shit.
June 13th, 2008 15:47
I was very happy to see officer Pickett at the bike parade. I recoginised him from an informative talk he gave at Lewis and Clark Law school this last spring. So, I was delighted when I heard that Police Chief Sizer had apointed him to be the offical communication liaison on bike issues. This incident is upsetting yes, but that is what it is, an incident. Incidents happen everywhere, but good governance doesn't. Police Chief Sizer deserves praise for this smart appointment and officer Pickett likewise for taking the job.
June 13th, 2008 16:03
@ 64:
That's what's so frustrating about "the good cops"-- they will look the other way when "bad cops" do their thing, remain silent, but get offended and defensive if the public criticizes the police.
If "the good cops" would flush "the bad cops" out of the system, they wouldn't have to get so defensive, because the public would appreciate that they're not just marching lockstep with the lowest common denominators on the force.
June 13th, 2008 16:19
If you go after the 2 who were involved in this, you won't do squat to change things as they are. The root of the problem is this anti-bike clique in the Traffic Division that no one seems to have the power to control.
If we decide to take on this clique of "bad cops", then we've declared war on the police union by default. This is something that leaves even the most reform-minded folk quaking in their shoes.
Even if there was success, the PPB is recruiting right now from cities where the police are feared - even by the "law-abiding". Get rid of one den of snakes only to hire another?
June 13th, 2008 16:57
Thank you officer Pickett for further clarifying that you have zero credibility.
He is the officially sanctioned mouthpiece the PPD has pointed our way people. He is not our friend, he is on the job here. He is no more free to speak his mind than Jonathan, or your favorite politician. These people are working!
What would it take for you to condemn the actions of a fellow officer Pickett? Have you thoughts of your own you wish to share with us? Care to offer one of your children or family members up to be beaten and tased? It's not so bad right? How sad to have to carry your job everywhere you go. While posting on forums, while parking illegally. What a burden!
Oh, fellow sheeple.. Where is Sam Adams?
I am assuming Rev. Phil will get his own space for a rebuttal, yes?
June 14th, 2008 11:20
The use of a TASER (it's an acronym) is a form of police abuse that is seen as acceptable because it is non-marking. Police have adopted TASER's and Stun Guns specifically because they DO NOT leave marks. The point is to avoid public monitoring and limit the individuals ability to monitor the behavior of the police.
If you want a good intro to the use and abuse of TASER's and stun technology in modern policing see Darius Rejali's "Torture and Democracy" (2007, Princeton University Press). He discusses electro torture, TASER's and stun technology at length.
I take issue with Officer Pickett's statement below as well as the claim that TASER's reduce policing violence.
"The general idea behind Tasers is that while painful (I can attest to that personally) they actually reduce injuries to all parties involved, as they can take the place of protracted physical struggles, which might involve tackling or punching or strikes with a metal baton, or the danger of a suspect grabbing one of an officer’s weapons while fighting in close quarters with an officer. And on the other end, sometimes, based on the specific situation, it is feasible to attempt to use a Taser in a situation where using deadly force (usually in the form of shooting a gun) would be justified."
I strongly disagree that this is a full explanation. A victim of a police beating has marks that allow them to mobilize media and public monitoring of police acts. Stun and taser technology leaves only small marks that quickly go away. It is avoidance of public scrutiny that caused police to adopt these weapons and encourage their continued use. It isn't a choice of a TASER or a lethal gun, sometimes the choice should be TASER or nothing and the police choose the former.
It may be counter intuitive, but it is likely that the public isn't well served by police having Tasers and stun guns.
Lets think back and remember that Rodney King was TASERed before being beaten with batons. The beating left marks and allowed for the police to be held to account, the TASER was the stealth violence on the part of the police. I don't write this as a specific attack on the Portland Police but it needs to be recognized that police departments seek to avoid monitoring through stealth violence and electro devices are one way to do that. We as a public need to be allowed to decide if this is an option we want to give to the police.
June 14th, 2008 19:47
Officer Bob,
Are you really the official communications liason for the Portland Police? I guess maybe you were rushed to get that post out or stayed up all night polishing it. But your post turns out to have some huge whopping ...er untruths. And about stuff that is easily looked up. Not to good for your dept. credibilty.
Black is chosen because it is intimidating, certainly not for added visibilty at night.
Tasers are meant to supplant deadly force.
An officer can indeed consider the offense when deciding to go after someone or escalate the force.
Perhaps you should read your own policy manual before you write your next article.
just sayin'
June 15th, 2008 10:14
PoPo, without regard to this specific case and since we are all cyclists who want to better understand our relationship with the PPB...
As a cyclist, under what circumstances is it fair to expect to be tackled off of our bikes by a member of the PPB?
June 15th, 2008 11:37
Our real questions should be directed at Jonathan. What on Earth has the PPD done to deserve a platform like this?
Jonathan you should be giving a voice to the cyclists without one. Not further enhancing the propaganda machine of our local piggies.
Welcome to Portland, where the Bicycle Transportation Alliane supports a multi-billion dollar interstate project, and Bikeportland gives voice to those in need. Police justifying and rationalizing tackling and tasing an unarmed cyclist.
Real progressives amongst us, for sure.
June 15th, 2008 12:35
Where is the propaganda in Pickett's main thread comment? I see a response from one officers perspective to questions concerned people have raised regarding the nature of police response to this incident with Sano, but not propaganda. Examples are welcome.
My impression is that this weblog is a news source and an open forum where all civil comments are welcome. Personally, I'm glad to see that someone from the department has the guts to address people's concerns directly to the setting where the people are discussing those concerns. So far, it seems only one has.
June 16th, 2008 09:12
"Our real questions should be directed at Jonathan. What on Earth has the PPD done to deserve a platform like this?...
Jonathan you should be giving a voice to the cyclists without one. "
Steve.. I'm a publisher and I publish the news/perspectives I deem necessary.
Ask all the questions you want. I'm happy to answer best as I can.
Pickett's story above first came in as a comment to the original story, but I decided to turn it into its own story.
as for, "giving a voice to cyclists."... you must not have read my initial story on the Sano incident. If you did, you would have seen that I quoted Sano extensively.
I agree, Sano did not get the same "guest article" treatment that Pickett did... but that's just how it all came out.
I am happy to "give voice" to cyclists. I have been doing it for 3 years now...
thanks for reading. i appreciate your feedback.
June 16th, 2008 11:22
Right Jonathan. Colour me unconvinced.
This guys last 'article' was about how people should be more polite when pointing out trivial illegalities to others. He reported that he "seethed" with rage when told by a passing cyclist that he was illegally parked.
Now he is here explaining to us that his coworkers were quite polite while tasing, beating, and tackling a man for not having a headlight.
Officer pickett's hypocrisy appears to know no bounds. Yours is showing a bit as well, kind sir.
Rationalize it how you want Jonathan. This man is a paid representative of the police and you have chosen to give him an extra large platform here. He is not freely speaking his mind and it is disingenuous to a large degree, to not frame his words in the form of an official press release.
It is also disgusting to post his words in the form of an article, when he is so nonchalantly discussing brutality against a member of our community.
Shame on you.
June 16th, 2008 11:27
"Right Jonathan. Colour me unconvinced... Shame on you."
thanks for your feedback Steve.
I appreciate it and I will keep it in mind when making future editorial decisions.
June 16th, 2008 11:45
Future editorial decisions..
Like whether or not to give Jeremy Jordan a guest article spot, defending drunk driving and stealing beer? To explain that while no one enjoys being run over, sometimes it is best for all involved? I am sure he could cite some irrelevant statistics and everything!
Sorry for the strawman, though I do not feel it is that outlandish a comparison.
June 16th, 2008 21:32
"Now he is here explaining to us that his coworkers were quite polite while tasing, beating, and tackling a man for not having a headlight." steve #75
Pure fantasy. Steve, where exactly, in the lead article to his thread does he do that? Publish such an article as an "official press realease"? Sure, why not for all those readers failing to note that the article above leads off with the introductory note:
"The article below was written by Portland Police Officer Robert Pickett. Pickett — who regular readers know by his user name “PoPo” (he’s a regular commenter and member of the Portland Bike Forums) — is a former member of the SE Precinct Bicycle Patrol Unit and now works in the Bureau’s Neighborhood Response Team division. Pickett is also a former BTA Alice Awards nominee for his dedication to community policing.
Pickett was recently selected by Police Chief Sizer to be an official communications liaison to the community on bicycle issues. On BikePortland.org he previously shared his thoughts on humility and wrote about why cops ride on sidewalks." editor J. Maus, bikeportland.org
If that's not a disclaimer, what is? And would the lead article actually be an "official press realease"? Pickett would probably have to answer that, but I wonder if it is. Pickett might have had to, or chosen to get dept approval to post it, but it seems to me that the article is largely his own perspective as a police officer about how dept members are supposed to, (not necessarily the way they do) go about their business interacting with the public.
The relationship between cops and members of the public isn't guaranteed to be warm and fuzzy all the time, but I personally find it encouraging when officers at least try, in the capacity of their job, to be human some of the time.
So Pickett loses his cool sometimes, like other humans do...so what? At least he admits it, unlike the fat pigs every department seems to have some of, that unofficially consider themselves above the law. Admitting fallibility is the first step to improvement. If that can be expected from some of the people in the cop shop, there exists a possibility for change to a more consistently humane relationship between people and cops.
Moving in that direction is not helped when certain individuals insist on perpetuating separation and animosity according to old stereotypes.
June 16th, 2008 21:58
Steve, if a reporter is unbiased, the liberals will always think he's too conservative and the conservatives will always think he's too liberal. Your criticisms of jonathan just highlight that fact. I think his reporting is incredibly level-headed and fair. The whole idea of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is that even those opinions you find offensive deserve the chance to be heard. You are, of course, allowed to publicly disagree. And I am allowed to publicly pounce on you for disagreeing, and so on. Isn't it fun?
June 17th, 2008 09:33
"Black is chosen because it is intimidating, certainly not for added visibilty at night." - 3M makes a highly reflective black product (used frequently in cycling clothes) that is easy to be seen both in daytime and at night. I'm not as certain as you seem to be, but I bet that product is used in PPB's black uniforms.
"Jonathan you should be giving a voice to the cyclists without one." - Officer Pickett is a cyclist, as is Rev Phil. Jonathan's blog does give voice to cyclists in a professional, unbiased manner, including our very own paranoid rantings. If Jonathan gave Jordan the opportunity to defend himself here that would be unbiased journalism, not necessarily advocacy of drunk driving and theft, depending on how it was presented.
Presentation of facts is an important factor in journalism, and the beauty of an interactive forum is that we all get to play judge and jury with each other. E's point is right on.