I've linked to the Oregonian story on this, but the online version has a section cut from it that contains the line in the printed version that made me shake my head about this new guy again. If you didn't follow the link yet, Portlander Eric Bryant used a little-cited law allowing citizens to ticket other citizens this summer, nailing policeman Chadd Stensgaard (does he get paid by the letter?)* for parking illegally in a non-emergency situation. Clearly public safety vehicles should have the ability and right to park just about anywhere they need to in an emergency. "Lunch" does not qualify. "Depositing a check" doesn't, either, nor does "more coffee and donuts."
In the printed version, Westerman's response after listening to Bryant's press conference on the new tickets reads this way: "He's the one trying to cause financial hardship to my officers." Sweet fancy Jesus, talk about an oppression complex! "Financial hardship" for a $35 ticket? For people who have good paying jobs? What a load of fucking nonsense, really. What does that make the $250 fine when a HOMELESS person sits on the sidewalk for more than an hour? Financial nuclear devastation?
This is just absurd passing of the buck, and reflects a poor eye for both public relations and the sense in Portland that cops are mostly arrogant pricks who think they can do whatever they want because they're cops. I'm not saying that's true; I'm saying that Westerman is doing himself no favors by repeatedly saying things that reinforce such a construct.
Matt Davis at the Portland Mercury is carving out quite a niche as police watchdog; both the tasing story and this one are originally his, and here's the story that PM broke a day before The O's version. If you can believe it, Westerman says something ELSE that's brash and stupid:
"Mr. Bryant has got a bone to pick and he's got the right to do that," Westerman continues. "But he's on a crusade, he was camped out at the parking garage next to the police bureau. All he's going to do is force the city into creating formal legal exceptions for Police Officers, which he's not going to like." [emph me]
What he's clearly implying is that stuff like parking in a "no government spot" to eat lunch will become legal in the City, but that's surely not what the transportation bureau is saying in The O's piece, again only available in the printed version:
"What we want to do is continue to allow emergency vehicles access to parking they need to do their business to protect people and property," said Cheryl Kuck, of the city transportation bureau. "At the same time, we want them to be more responsible and have some rules."
Catch that? DOT is suggesting that the police "need to be more responsible." That doesn't sound like the change Westerman is alleging will occur, that the City will simply do their bidding so they can continue to blow off the law. And now that this has happened again, the "but we have an informal agreement!" excuse REALLY is not going to fly any more. Suck it up and find a parking spot like the rest of us. We know it's tough; we actually have to do it if we want to leave our car.
The new issue of Street Roots came out last week, and you can help them celebrate their 10-year anniversary by giving a little bit of holiday cheer through the Willy Week Give Guide. Why would you want to do such a thing? Because besides empowering people in transition, and creating a dignified way for people to earn money through their own efforts...the paper is a pretty damn good little rag, folks. If you haven't paid a dollar for a copy since the days of heartfelt but lame poetry and scads of white space, dig down and pony up for one the next time you see a vendor. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
SR's original reporting is virtually second to none in this city is on anything regarding homeless issues (as you might expect), and this month they're on top of a little-publicized change in Portland Police practices towards homeless camps on public property.
The new guidelines say homeless and civil rights advocates, have created definition loopholes and exceptions to the 24-hour posting requirement, making it permissible for police to not give notice before a sweep.
The old guidelines mandated that exceptions to providing 24-hour notice were made for camps on private or state property, and in cases where illegal activities and emergencies occurred.
The new guidelines continue to provide those exceptions, but now add city and parks property to the list. They also interpret permanent postings and signs prohibiting camping as providing sufficient notice before a sweep.
If you mentally ticked off private, state and city property as places where notice is no longer given, you'd be left pretty much with the Multno courthouse and the various federal buildings around town--none of which tend to be places where homeless people like to camp. So the gross effect of this rule change is that the 24 hr notice rule has almost no chance of ever being granted to a camper anymore.
Which might be something just to grumble about as the number of people needing transitional services continues to spike during this recession...except that it also appears to violate state law:
“I don’t think the police have the authority to do that under state law,” says David Fidanque, the executive director of the ACLU of Oregon. Fidanque is referring to ORS 203.079, the state law requiring that 24-hour notice be given to camps not on “public property that is a day-use recreational area” or a “designated campground.” The law also says removal of camps needs to be done in a “humane and just manner.”
The constitutionality of Portland’s anti-camping ordinance already is under question. [Oregon Law Center attorney Monica] Goracke sent a demand letter to the city attorney in November 2007, stating concerns that the ordinance cruelly and unusually punishes homeless individuals because of their status as homeless. “I don’t think the ordinance as it is currently applied is humane in letter or in spirit,” Goracke says.
Goracke is currently working with the city attorney’s office to reach a settlement. She says if the case makes it to court, she would tack on the new guidelines to the case.
Sgt. Matt Engen, who patrols Old Town/Chinatown and was in charge of re-writing the guidelines, maintains that the new guidelines are both legal and humane.
“If an officer was going to act inhumanely, I really don’t think a few words on a piece of paper would change that,” Engen says.
When pressed to provide an example of a place where homeless individuals could legally camp and be given 24-hour notice, Engen offered no specifics.
I can only hope that Egan is just trying to spin us, and doesn't actually believe that laws enforce themselves. It's painfully clear that while nothing prevents the free will of officers in the field, a rule that seeks to ensure humane treatment for a city's residents--if ENFORCED can provide a disincentive to break that rule. Not having the rule creates no such disincentive, obviously. In Egan's mind, cops are just going to be dicks if they want to, and there's no utility in trying to craft guidelines seeking to avoid such behavior. Maybe the previous rule was not being broadly enforced, fine. See how far you get trying to obtain compliance with a rule that DOESN'T EXIST.
And still Portland's finest wonder why a fair segment of the citizenry thinks they're a mean-spirited group of jackboots. Not even state law shall impede their quest for total control!
Update, Saturday 530pm--turns out tasing can also be an occupational hazard...
This week's Portland Mercury has a very interesting piece by Matt Davis on the use of Tasers, particularly of late in the Rose City. What The Merc initially found was a drop in the use of tasers over the last three to four years--which sounds like good news, except for informed supposition that the usage pattern seems to have shifted: originally touted for "less-than-lethal" situations, now compliance instead of submission in order to directly protect public safety, is more often the goal.
While the evidence for Portland is generally anecdotal (itself an issue, given the bureau's apparent refusal to publicly track situation and outcome data associated with tasering), the Merc relies on global taser data published in Australia that indicates a sense of "mission creep" among police across multiple jurisdictions:
"Tasers were initially introduced to provide police with an alternative to using lethal force in extremely high-risk incidents," says a 114-page report on global Taser use issued this month by the ombudsman's office for the state of New South Wales, Australia. "However, in many jurisdictions, Tasers are increasingly being used by police in situations where high levels of risk are not present, and police could likely manage the situation effectively without resorting to force...For example," the report continues, "On some occasions Tasers are being used in the first instance on people who are being uncooperative or non-compliant, but who are not acting in an aggressive or threatening manner."
Now, ordinarily I might not jump so quickly to allow Australia's empirical study to characterize the situation in Portland, especially without more precise data from our bureau on usage patterns. But the new head of the police union, Scott Westerman, does a bang-up job of reflecting exactly the kind of sentiment that would lead to a broader, more aggressive style of use:
"As more and more people mistakenly believe it's socially acceptable to publicly challenge the police, it creates an environment where people think that it is okay to ignore a uniformed police officer giving them commands," Westerman continues. "The environment in Portland allows this more frequently than in other cities."
I had to read that a couple of times to make sure he was saying what I thought he was saying, but he is: Westerman is telling us that Portland tases people because they're disrespectful punks who are insufficiently restrained by the city's social culture.
I frankly don't know what he's referring to when he talks about "social acceptability," other than the idea that Portland residents may actually better understand their LEGAL rights to challenge police activity, and asserting that knowledge is more acceptable here than elsewhere. It is entirely legal to challenge police on their behavior regarding your rights, certainly until one is told they are under detention for some reason (not arrest, but detention--as in, when you ask "am I free to go," they say no.") Cops of course don't like to have their authority challenged, and Westerman is pretty clear that in his view, it's this permissiveness about boldly attempting to assert one's rights that's the problem--not, say, the fact that Portlanders tend to pose a more consistent threat to public safety, which would explain the tasings on a more rattional-legal basis.
By giving this response to the question of changing usage patterns at PPB, Westerman not only implicitly admits that the focus HAS shifted from less-than-lethal to compliance circumstances--but pins that shift on cultural issues in the COMMUNITY, rather than those of the police bureau. In other words, if people would just shut up and do exactly as they're told without being rude or asking questions, they wouldn't be asking for the short sharp shock.
I don't think I need to explain how disturbing an attitude this is for the head of the policeman's union to express, do I? Tasers aren't being used because they're a safe way to protect people from harming themselves or others; they're being used because people often give cops a hard time about being stopped and/or detained. To me, that's a flatly unacceptable use of force by the police--a mouthy hooker or junkie is NOT a safety situation.
So Portlanders beware--if you think demanding your rights is an opportunity that law enforcement should be granting you, you might be in for a shock.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
