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!
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Portland police on Wednesday gave a woman who killed the hit man hired by her estranged husband an award for "sheer determination."
The man surprised Susan Kuhnhausen in her home in September 2006 and hit her in the head with a claw hammer.
But she wrestled him to the ground and choked him to death.
Michael Kuhnhausen, 58, pleaded guilty in September to conspiring to commit murder. He hired Edward Haffey, 59, whom he had employed as a janitor in an adult bookstore. Haffey had told friends he was going to get $50,000, according to court testimony.
The Portland Police Bureau held a ceremony Wednesday to honor 85 people and officers for heroism, lifesaving skills or distinguished service. Susan Kuhnhausen, 53, an emergency room nurse received a Civilian Medal of Heroism.
Obviously, good on Ms. Kuhnhausen for acting with courage to save her own life and protect herself from further danger by incapacitating an intruder. No one would ever fault her for what she did, and I'm sure many of us would do the same thing.
But that's not heroism, that's self-preservation--often the inverse of heroism, which is usually a selfless act done to protect the lives of others. She was attacked, and was brave and strong enough to fend off her attacker. And in fact she killed him. But even though the killing may be justified, is it really heroic? Could she have knocked him unconscious and then simply ran for help?
Let me be clear again, I have no beef whatsoever with what she did. But pinning your highest civilian honor on someone who acted to save their own life strikes me less as heroism, more as grandstanding for vigilantism. There's a theme of "good riddance" buried in the honor, as if the contract killer simply got what he deserved, and the cops only wish they'd been there to mete it out themselves.
In a dissimilar situation but similarly misidentified outcome, I heard a lot of the 9/11 victims referred to as heroes. For what, going to work and burning in a flaming building? Tragic figures, symbols of our will to fight back and mourn in their names, sure. But the heroes were the people trying to get others out, not the ones who perished for whatever reason. We have another name for them: victims.
I can't help but wonder what past recipients of the Heroism medal might think, having their (hopefully) truly heroic acts set alongside someone who merely acted to save their own life, as most of us would. Do you get a medal for fighting the riptide in the ocean and swimming ashore safely? Are you a hero for being successfully released as a hostage in a bank robbery? Simply surviving a life threatening event doesn't make you a hero--they have another name for that, too: survivor. Courageous survivor, resourceful survivor, strong-willed survivor. Not, however, a heroic survivor. I'd rather not begin hailing the death of anyone, even a contract killer, as a celebration of what's best about America.
I'll let Israel at Street Roots handle most of the analysis on this one; he does a nice job summing up the new concept being pushed by Portland Police on/for downtown businesses:
Two Portland Patrol Inc. security guards just walked into Street Roots, and asked two of our vendors (one of whom slept in our doorway last night) and then me if we wanted to sign up for a trespass enforcement agreement with the Portland Police Bureau. They are going door-to-door in the neighborhood.
The agreement would authorize the Portland Police Bureau to act as agents for the purpose of enforcing trespass laws on private property(s).
What does this mean? It means that the Portland Patrol funded by the Portland Business Alliance and the Portland Police Bureau continue to offer a stick without a carrot. They walk a big talk, and offer money for direct service in the guise of caring about homeless people. Where’s the carrots, folks?
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
