Phil Sano found not guilty in bike light taser trial

Hell yes! Now I want to see him win a civil suit against the PPB. We need to reign in irresponsible policing behavior. It’s good to see a jury return a verdict like this.

Go, Phil! Go civil suit! After reading the liveblogging of the first two days of the trial, it seems to me that a suit would be an easy win for Phil, and give him a unique voice in how to fix the PPB. If he works with some of the other police watchdog groups on the case, it could be about much more than money; it could be about change.

Hell YEAH!

Viva Phil! And to hell with PPB!

This does add to the pile of Taser abuse stories. Hopefully we can get Taser’s treated with more respect. There is no reason Phil should have been Tasered, especially twice at once.

Well, regardless of this outcome, I’m leery of his civil trial. If Mr. Sano achieves a large settlement or a jury awards him a large sum, who will pay for it? The same people that pay for the police. Us. Citizen taxpayers. A large chunk of change may indeed help Mr. Sano feel better, but regardless of the officers’ behavior, these reports indicate Mr. Sano suffered no lasting physical or emotional harm.

And if he somehow gets a large payment out of his civil suit, it will further hurt our already weak financial infrastructure. State sector and private sector jobs are being lost at an enormous rate, a rate not seen in Portland since the early ’80s. I sincerely hope Mr. Sano considers the other bike-riding, taser-fearing taxpayers in making his civil demands.

This is great news! Congratulations Phil

I am glad Rev. Phil was found not guilty. The facts supported that outcome and the jury after hearing all the facts agreed. I think the real loser in this is PPB Officer Ron Hoesly. He was the second officer at the scene. From what I have read, he was not the initial officer who Tazered Phil. But of course once his “partner” has started this mess, Officer Hoesly is forced to support his work-mate. Officer Hoesly has been fair to cyclists in the past and worked with the bicycling community and it saddens me to see him involved in this. My personally hope is that he comes out of this at least as supportive of cyclists as when this started. If any of you have ever seen a friend start a fight, sadly, while you might not agree with your friend, if you need to pick sides, you stick with your friend, or in this case, the fellow police officer.

congrats!

one of the odd parts of this case is the revelation from the officers themselves that upwards of 550 pounds of law enforcement officers(even with all their hand to hand combat and weight training and weaponry) could not subdue phil?

in my experience, phil ain’t that tough. what does this say about our ppb? if they are that weak, no wonder they get their weapons out so frequently. be careful out there.

As I hoped. Thanks for your reporting on this!

Congrats to Phil and his lawyer! Now if we can just ban tasers all together!!!

I have been in a few fights on the job.

One of the major concerns is always controlling the hands and arms of a suspect, because they can grab for weapons or be weapons themselves.

My experience has been that if someone really does not want to be arrested, two officers are often not enough to quickly control and cuff hands.

You can try it by playing “resist arrest” with your friends. One person clenches their arms and fists in front of their body, then have two people try to pry his/her hands behind his/her back. The resister should also squirm around, turn his/her torso back and forth and generally make it hard to be controlled.

Anyway, it isn’t so surprising to me that they had trouble “subduing” Phil, but I’ve also had personal experience (not subduing Phil, just subduing!)

Justice has been served and everyone knows it, even the cops.

PoPo – Thank you for responding to this post.

I asked you a question in a long ago post published around the time of the original incident this trial is about. Perhaps you answered then but I never saw your response if you did answer. So I will ask again.

In a situation such as this where a bicycle rider’s only menace is riding without a light at dusk, if that bicycle rider fails to stop at a verbal command, does PPB policy allow that the next response by the officer should involve running up to the rider and grabbing the bike and/or rider to bring him/her to a stop?

There must be limits as to what an officer may do in such a situation. For example, I can hardly believe policy would permit the officer to draw a weapon and fire at the rider. Plainly, there are limits.

According to PPB policy, what would an officers permissable options be in this type of situation? Does PPB policy dictate some other action to be more appropriate before choosing to act in a way that would create direct officer-to-bike-rider contact?

Will he still refuse to use lights at night?

#10 I can think of one way in which Phil has been permanently damaged, Criminal Defense lawyers aren’t free and he has had this nonsense hanging over him for months. I wonder if the charges had stayed dropped if there would be talk of a Civil Suit.

No such suit had been filed before the charges were reinstated, but now Phil has monetary damages beyond the initial pain and suffering. I think it would be nice if any settlement involved paying all phil’s legal bills, clarifying the policy for how an officer on foot should stop a cyclist (including banning foot patrol officers from tackling cyclists for equipment violations), and agreeing to stop issuing tasers to Portland Police Officers. It may end up costing more than that, but it isn’t Phil’s fault, he isn’t the one who violated the PPB’s taser policy.

That said in my experience Phil isn’t really motivated by money, there are probably bigger issues here for him. Settlements aren’t always just monetary.

First OJ and now this!? What the $^$#^%

Hey PeeJay,

Calm down.

-Robert

Tasers are interesting tools. They claim to reduce the possibility of lasting injury to police and suspects. Used properly this is probably true. However, they appear to have a significant downside. In the wrong hands they may be used for torture that doesn’t leave any marks. To protect against these claims, the latest models are available with audio and video recording to protect the police from lawsuits over justifiable use. Or, maybe to deter the use of tasers for torture. How would they look if we called them by a less tech sounding name – cattle prode.

Hi, Bjorn #30! Phil was represented by a court-appointed lawyer, and, AFIK, won’t have any payments to make for this criminal trial. The traffic court case, on the other hand….well, a few hundred bucks in traffic tickets seems worth it to expose this injustice.

benefit for phil! Let’s take up a collection on Friday from all the “poor” zoobombers! Hooray!!! Huzzah! Can I put any more explanation points on this?

Robert: Don’t be annoying about it. You asked what the facts were and PeeJay told you what they were. Don’t reply with “calm down.” His post was totally rational and not even remotely hot headed.

I’m very relieved! Congratulations Phil. And thanks for the great coverage Elly.

I also believe that the officers should be disciplined.

In response to mark (post 14) who said you have to side with your friend when a conflict breaks out: I agree, but that doesn’t mean you escape the consequences are any different.

I understand how people are concerned about the economy and the city budget, but it is absurd to suggest that a victim of an overzealous police action should refrain from a civil suit on behalf of the greater good. If I’m tasered by the police, then vindicated by a court of law as not resisting arrest, you can be damn sure that I’m filing a civil suit.
If a civil suit succeeds, and Sano gets some compensation, then the police force will (hopefully) be compelled to rethink its tasering policy. And isn’t that the point?

Racer X-
If the driver refused to pull over for an undercover police car, then was “resisting” arrest, while the officer smelled alcohal on his breath? You bet your @@@ that driver would get tased. Not only that, but most of the commenters here would be supportive, feeling that one less unsafe driver was on the road.
Aaron-
I mentioned the civil suit in the last article. My thoughts are this: who does the suit benefit? Truly? Only the “victim”. PBB will not instate some pro-cyclist training program, the officers will not be fired, PBB will not suffer. Phil could make an obscene amount of money and the Taxpayers will suffer. That’s all, end of story. The questions are these: How much will Phil make the taxpayers suffer and for what purpose? Personal gain, set up a wrongly accused cyclist fund, keep bike friendly attorneys on retainer for incidents like this (although he would probably end up using the bulk of that anyway)?

Mike:

How do you know what Rev Phil will do? Do you know him?

And, how do you know that the PPB won’t change if they have to keep paying out large settlements. As I recall, when Los Angeles had all of its police brutality cases, the reason the city worked so hard to get the commissioner out of office is that it was costing the city tens of millions of dollars a year in settlements. To the extent that we have a disfunctional PPB now, we will continue to have one until such time as the city can no longer afford not to fix it. If it costs us as taxpayers some money to have this happen, then I guess its our fault as voters for not making this a bigger issue during elections.

Would it really be so bad if he got a half million dollar settlement? There are (roughly) a half million people in portland, so we’re looking at about a dollar each.
I know I can afford it.

Did yall know there is a documentary about Rev Phil available at Film Baby?

http://www.filmbaby.com/films/1062

krstnjb:

Well said. I don’t want to pay money out for settlements, and I hope nobody else does. But having to pay out settlements is what motivates a city to make changes. If we had an uncontrollable police force, but most citizens felt it didn’t affect them because they weren’t likely to wind up being victimized by it, then there’s no motivation. Lawsuit settlements provide the motivation for citizens to act to fix the problem. An imperfect system, true, but it does the job.

Rev Phil ain’t gonna get no half-million dollar settlement. That’s for sure. The Rev ain’t no saint. Yes the PPB officer made a big mistake, but Phil’s got a long way to go before getting any money from the city.

Mike:

OK, that’s a different point. There’s a middle ground between resisting arrest and civilly liable police actions, in which no one is in the wrong. I do believe that this is not one of those cases, though. There is another middle ground, in which the cops did something wrong but it’s unlikely to be proven in court, and that is what Phil has to decide. I think the transcripts of this case can only help Phil’s case. The burden of proof changes from the criminal case where the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, to the civil case, where Mr Sano has merely to show a preponderance of evidence that makes his case, which is a little easier.

actually, SkidMark, it could have been anyone who doesn’t use lights on their bike at night…

OK..show of hands…who here drives their car at night and doesn’t turn on their lights? anyone…anyone…?

yet, still across PDX during my daily evening commutes, I see 6-8 riders typically with ZERO lights…

It’s not rocket science. It’s common sense….and its severely lacking in many of this towns bike commuters…

the police were wrong. Sano was wrong. just so happens the Police were more wrong in this instance…

The cops did identify themselves; with uniform mounted name tags, badges, and bureau issue big domestic unmarked sedan (with red and blue flashing lights on behind rear view mirror). The cops were remiss in not calling out a vocal i.d. when Sano did not stop at their command, but never the less, they did identify themselves.

I think most people would have recognized the i.d. indicators present as suggesting a strong likelihood that it was the police, and would have stopped and asked who the guy approaching them was rather than ignoring him. If Sano had done that, the cop likely would not have pulled him off his bike.

Given that the cops, up until Sano rode by, had been peacefully talking to a young woman across the street, there doesn’t seem to be much basis for him to conclude that the guy approaching him was a citizen bent on taking his bike or hurting him. Sano managed to claim he didn’t recognize what the person approaching him was, but it seems to be a weak claim.

If I had just handed over the money, the mugger would likely have not shot at me. My bad!

I think nothing has changed. Phil will still be defiant of the laws and will probably still not use a light. Next time he might get run into by a car that didn’t see him and he will sue the driver fornot seeing him… He new that was a cop, he was watching the whole scene with the cop car and knew that it was a cop approaching him that he was playing his stupid game with. I wish they would have had to do a persuit of him OJ style, that’s a felony when you elude police. He will get tasered again some day for playing more stupid games with the cops, normal people will stop and cooperate with the police and most people will never get tased, but not Phil

And Jim, I ride with Rev. Phil quite a bit. He prefers to have a headlight at night.

Also, I know when I plan to f**ck with and evade Police, I casually ride into the situation riding no-handed while unzipping my jacket.

I’d love to know how any of you could identify a cop who was tackling you from behind. Eyes in the back of your head?

I don’t know where you get off making judgements about someone you don’t even know.

When you see people like Bob or Bahueh or Mike or Jim who persist in casting aspersions on Sano even though (a) they do not know the guy, (b) did not witness the situation, and (c) the State was unable to prove any criminal culpability in court, it becomes obvious that they’re simply intent on continuing to beat a dead horse.

The sort of bias that persists in the face of ample contrary evidence is driven by emotion, not rationality.

Bahueh’s position, for example, requires him to claim that he has never violated a traffic law, a ridiculous proposition. It also requires him to claim that police never do any wrong, another ridiculous proposition. Seeing people who do not follow the letter of the law at every instant makes his sphincter close and drives him toward bikeportland to express his impotent outrage. Over and over again. It’s very effective in making Portland a better place to ride.

Bob’s position requires him to substitute the judgment of 12 of his peers who listened intently to days of evidence and spent hours considering the question of what Sano knew. That’s arrogance at its finest. He’s still making the case for the police, based on what he thinks “most people” would have done, even after the acquittal. Bob’s vision is so clouded he would have voted guilty regardless of the evidence.

Jim simply ignores the fact that people who know Sano have explained that Phil does use a light and Sano’s claim that someone had stolen the bracket before he got on the bike that night. Instead, Jim characterizes Sano as someone who has it out for the police or motorists despite no evidence of any of that. Jim so badly wants to see people who aren’t “normal” get punished.

Mike thinks an appropriate police response to a traffic law violation is to pull someone off their bicycle at considerable risk of harm even though it would have been very simple to use a verbal identification or a patrol car’s lights to accomplish a “better” result (arrest with no possibility of a lawsuit). He doesn’t understand what value civil rights lawsuits have in preserving our government’s encroachment on everyone’s rights. People who don’t value their rights won’t keep them for long.

Arguing with a pig gets you nowhere and annoys the pig.

Nor did I beat him

Ethical views put aside, I’m glad we live in a place where people like Sano can be free to live the life he wants and he does get a certain amount of respect for that. The govt. is getting the idea now they can take away a lot of our rights and that they will make decisions for us, I support our police but not our politicians.
And Skidmark- you get a little respect too

Justice always works perfectly? Try this story out. For those too lazy to click, a couple of judges were caught taking kickbacks for sending kids to a for-profit juvenile detention center. The point: painfully obvious to all but the trolliest trolls.

go away jim. You’ve worn out your welcome, and are beginning to smell this place up, troll.

Bob Bob Bob…I know its a little passe for a cop in a black uniform, at night, on foot, to approach a distracted cyclist whose wearing glasses, who is committing a small traffic infraction and say: “stop Police” instead of “hey buddy”. Maybe its even a little passe to NOT taser a person suspected of a minor traffic violation,(I must get with the times) Yet my gut tells me that “Common Sense” is still a valued commodity among those whom are entrusted with carrying weapons. The very same weapons WE as taxpayers provided these “peace officers” with the authority to enforce OUR laws.I hate to paraphrase spiderman but: With great power comes great responsibility. legally carrying a gun is a great responsibility PERIOD! I would expect a modicum of due care on their part.

Its We The People for a reason Bob. That goes for you Bahuah.

Elly-

‘Troll’ is not a bad word. It in fact, has a definition. Jim is the poster child of an internet Troll. Calling him out on his bad actions is perfectly reasonable.

Again I ask you, please get a dictionary.

steve

did you ever consider that many times a jury is not aware of all the facts, news stories, tv reports, many more things not allowed into court.
also- is anyone who dosn’t agree with your liberal viewpoints considered a troll?

sorry Steve for calling you a liberal- my bad

Steve, thanks for all the love and support! Actually, I’m not second guessing the jury’s decision. Never once have I questioned the jury’s decision. In fact, if you would take care to think about what you’ve read, you would probably notice that I’ve agreed with the jury’s verdict.

Regardless what the jury decides or does not decide, everyone is entitled to formulate their own ideas and draw their own conclusions based on the information available to them. The result is not a verdict, it’s just an opinion.

If you, Steve, choose not to think anything more about an incident after a jury has presented their verdict, that’s your business. You’re mistaken if you believe anyone else is obliged to think and act similarly to yourself.

Steve, in your own way, you always manage to help keep things interesting around here…

Just like on the cop car in ‘Transformers’ maybe the new motto of Portland Police should be “To punish and enslave”.

So many posts, so little understanding on both sides. While I agree that police in general need to be reined in, Po-town has it pretty easy. Check out Chicago’s cops sometime. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM0Lm8PgM9U there is some peaceful resolution… Try getting in a conflict with one of these meatheads.