portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro

neighborhood news | police / legal

Kaady update

There has been an extension in the investigation of Fouad Kaady's death.
Sheriff Craig Roberts, according to Oregonian writer Stuart Tomlinson, has extended the internal investigation of Fouad Kaady's death at the hands of officers David Willard and William Bergin. The Sheriff has added 60 days to the process to "allow the board the time necessary to thoroughly review this complex incident and to complete a clear and comprehensive report and recommendations." The review board will be meeting each week for the next two months and will present its report to Sheriff Roberts late in January. We need to keep an ear to the ground on this one.
Thanks 23.Nov.2005 16:44

Den Mark, Vancouver

Thanks for this update. The case is just as tragic at the end of November as it was at the start of September. The "authorities" might recognize that we are not about to forget this. We are not about to accept less than Justice. We are not about to abandon the Kaady family, nor Fouad's memory.

Absolutely 23.Nov.2005 17:32


Thanks, Den Mark, and Red Tree. This is really an important story, and the fishwrappers are wont to consider it a case closed. Like you, I am not prone to allow this issue to die. Push it to the fore whenever we can.

view their actions closesly 23.Nov.2005 19:04


We could benefit from information about the said Clackamas County Sheriff's Review Board; who it's comprised of, how it works, and what their guidelines and authority are. Wonder if someone reading indy has that information. Here's the address to the story RedTree refers to:

 link to www.oregonlive.com

In searching for the above story, I also discovered this other story about Fouad Kaady's shooting from the 14th of this month that I manged to miss. It's well worth reading. The writer raises a number of interesting, important questions; about the type of shooting exemplified by the one involving Fouad; about the effectiveness of the reviews such shootings are subject to. He offers some information about the national picture regarding police shootings, and brainstorms about what factors might serve to minimize them.

This writer, Andy Parker, seems as though he might have read the police reports, since in his article, he recounts how the shooting proceeded. It sounds as though his impression of how the shooting proceeded differs from that of some of those commenting here on indy, who claim to have read the reports. It seems very important to have an independently arrived upon analysis of how the shooting proceeded. Is the Clackamas County Sheriff's Review Board capable of doing this?

address for the Andy Parker story:

 link to www.oregonlive.com

Review board 24.Nov.2005 08:24


First, we need to remember that it was the Sandy officer who started the shooting, and fired five times. Sandy has so far not indicated whether any further review will take place, although, given the fact that they put Bergin back on the street even before the grand jury met may be a clue to how much review, if any will be given. In the following days, I am sure someone will be able to make contact at the Sheriff's office to see what can be learned of their process. PPB's process, as we all know, is terribly flawed. Peer review seldom does a lot of good ("there, but for blind freakin luck, go I.").

Second, we must remember that Andy Parker has to satisfy his corporate office, and must deal with the fact that the police wield all of the power in his city. They can make or break anyone who opposes them. That said, Andy did a pretty commendable job with his column, and I have written him a couple of times. One response included the following statement, which indicates that he did, in fact, see the real cause of the shooting, as did most of us who had access to the reports:

"Among the many things in the police report
that surprised me was how many times the deputy expressed his extreme
concern with not getting contaminated by Kaady's blood. At times, it
seemed to be his primary concern. And this is from a highly trained cop.
Which makes you wonder what they're taught about ranking their concerns
when under this type of pressure."

In addition, Andy reiterated my sentiments above, in the following message:

"As you can imagine, I've gotten quite a few e-mails today from
people furious that I was misdirected enough to suggest those cops were
anything but heroes. It'll be interesting to see where the sheriff takes

Which, taken as a whole, would seem to once again reinforce our belief that you cannot ever rely upon the corporate media to give you a fair and balanced approach, any more than you can rely upon a once and disenchanted cop to provide such a view. You have to read as much as you can from as many sources as possible, then apply your own thought processe to arrive at your view, and hopefully, between us all, we will keep the ball rolling.

waiting period 24.Nov.2005 08:33


I am wondering if perhaps the sheriff and the review board are waiting for the lapse of the 6 month time period for filing a tort action. That would prevent any pertinant information from being inadvertantly provided. Is that cynical? I would have thought so a few years ago.

What Sheriff says: 24.Nov.2005 10:10


Here is the official statement. Will try to get more details when the S.O is actually open for business:

Shooting Review Board Granted Extension to Review Fouad Kaady Incident - 11/22/05
Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts has granted a 60-day extension to the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) Shooting Review Board tasked with the internal review of this shooting incident.

Sheriff Roberts agreed to the extension in order to allow the board the time necessary to thoroughly review this complex incident and to complete a clear and comprehensive report and recommendations.

CCSO Captain Don Howard, who is heading the review board, requested the extension, citing the need for more time due to the large volume of reports, and documents involved in the review. Review board members must review all written reports and other documents in the case file; they may interview witnesses and may also consult with experts regarding tactics and equipment used.

The review board will address whether department policies or procedures were followed and then make recommendations about adaptations or additions to department training, equipment and procedures.

Members of the CCSO Shooting Review Board meet weekly and will continue to meet weekly until they have concluded their review and made their recommendations to Sheriff Roberts.

CCSO website

they killed Fouad Kaady, now they're just killing time 24.Nov.2005 12:44


I tend to be too chicken to call up these police departments and ask them questions about their review board, and its process, myself. Naturally, I imagine it's reasonable to assume staff and personel at those offices will be less than delighted to hear questions from the public on this matter. So, I still wonder if the Clackamas County Sheriff's Review Board is peer review or citizen staffed. Same question applies to the Sandy outfit. We need to know these things. Maybe I'm closer to being able to raise those questions to the appropriate parties.

As to the portland police review boards in their various configurations over the years, I've never heard that they've been able to do much of an independent job with appreciable affect on department policy or procedures. They're always hampered by the police union, or city hall or something. That's why, ultimately, it would seem that only something like a trial will get to the bottom of the causology of Fouad Kaady's death by police shooting.

To get an accurate as possible semblence of what happened on the September 9th day of 2005, it will probably require the presence of a well prepared team in a fair court arguing a case dedicated to revelation of truth and to the restoration of respect and dignity Fouad Kaady and his family is entitled to. To accomplish this, the body of individuals investigating and studying the incident cannot be compromised by allegiances to agencies who employed the very individuals responsible for ending the life of the vicitm.

As a vehicle for securing truth and justice, it sounds as if the grand jury in Oregon City was just a joke, an insult to the Kaady family, and to the intelligence of Oregon citizens. Clackamas County AG John S. Foote's hands off attitude is shameful avoidance strategy. If he couldn't support a public inquest in the Fouad Kaady case, he should have publicly committed himself to the pursuit of an effective altenative that would have provided a fair and reasonable result for the public. It's time for the public to be provided with an accurate, in depth accounting of what happened on the day of Kaady's death, and why.

So these two law enforcefemet agencies conduct their own, in-house reviews of the Kaady case...so what? For what? Why are they even bothering? I imagine it's to satisfy some state or federal regulatory requierment, but so far, no one from those agencies seems to have made efforts except for those designed to cover their ass.

Andy Parker's article summarizes the following from the police reports:

"As Kaady appeared to be lunging toward the deputy, both cops opened fire, hitting Kaady seven times."

What about the other 9 people that were supposedly witness to the shooting? Did their testimony corroborate this? Someone commenting here on indy earlier noted that from their reading of the police reports, on the matter of Kaady allegedly yelling that he was going to kill the officers, the police officers claim to have heard this, but none of the 9 witnesses did. Why is that?

We don't seem to have learned why from the grand jury or the police reports. So far, there has been no fact finding efforts, therefore, there is no consensus about what happened. The statement about "lunging" is so far, just something the police said to back up their actions. Without corroborating testimony from witnesses present the contention that there was "lunging" has little credence. Mr. Foot, talk about a "flawed legal process"....

All the legal efforts so far on the part of public agencies and appointees seem to be just bureaucratic, accountability evasive, and coldly indifferent. The public should considier suing the lot of them for failure to provide service contracted for.

he lunged at my baton 24.Nov.2005 17:18

with his face

> As Kaady appeared to be lunging toward the deputy

They always say this. They said that guy they executed in his car was "lunging" for his seatbelt. They said Mike Wallace "lunged" at a cop last year, and Wallace is 87 years old.

 link to www.cbsnews.com

Plenty of Stickers , Folks 24.Nov.2005 17:23


I have plenty of stickers that say NEVER FORGET FOAUD that are free with a self addressed stamped envelope. I wish someone from Sandy would write and I'd send a bunch...put em where Bergin sees em every day. I plan to , but live about 60 miles from there and havent yet. For free stickers , send a self addressed stamped envelope to: Fouad Stickers 19754 McKillop Rd. N.E. Scotts Mills , Or 97375 We will never forget!

ooops 24.Nov.2005 17:46


I meant to type that the stickers say NEVER FORGET FOUAD (I misspelled his name in the first post) The stickers are spelled correctly :)

More about "Lunging" 24.Nov.2005 19:04


Very good observations, ST. However, the officer's statements were really not even all that certain that he lunged at them. More like one of them thought he "Might" lunge at them, and they did not want to be touched by his blood. It is good to be cautious, but I would hate to think that all first responders are that paranoid about blood.
As for the "I'm going to kill you" allegations, no, the officers (and I do not currently have the report in front of me, but I think that it was only one of the officers that "thought" he heard him say that), and no other witnesses actually "heard" this threat, and lacking any clear means to do so, it would have been an empty threat at that. Fouad actually jumped up on the hood (where Willard left his shotgun laying...why?), but then passed that opportunity to kill them ( he would first need to "jack a round into the chamber"), and proceeded to the highest ground he could reach, trying to get away from the source of the pain. Why would he then turn around and leap down into the source of pain? It is just plain murder, I fear.

well, just great 24.Nov.2005 19:35


I haven't read the police reports as of yet....but it pains me to read what LN summarizes from the reports about Fouad's alleged lunging and verbal threats. Personally, I still leave open the possibility that the officers acted with all possible responsibilty and sincerity in response to what they perceived as a genuine threat to their lives. Any confidence I have in that possibility is shaken when conclusions revealing that there was likely not such a valid threat to the officers life after all, are so easily drawn from the reports.

Exactly, ST 25.Nov.2005 09:11


Again, accent on your original message: The grand jury process is a joke, as is peer review. I think that many cops would agree. If the story could be aired publicly, and all were allowed to view the proceedings, take away their own opinions of the veracity of various witness statements, I think that in most cases, the public would still be willing to accept a few errors, even egregious ones, from the folks that they hire to do a very demanding job. What they would not accept, is the attempt to demonize the victim of such mistakes, or the attempt to cover up such mistakes. As has been shown so many times in public life, we do not demand perfection, but we will not accept cover ups.

Sites like Indy (are there others?) will gradually assure that the word gets out, and it would be better for the system to air it as soon as possible, keeping tinfoil heads out of the mix, as well as armchair quarterbacks such as myself.

Check out the Sandy Post series 26.Nov.2005 15:09

Madam Hatter

Have you all seen the Sandy Post series? Part 3 of 3 was in this past Wednesday's paper: www.sandypost.com. For some reason, I can't get on the website from my computer (if any one can tell me why, I'd appreciate it) so don't know the exact link - sorry. Parts 1 and 2 didn't say much new, but Part 3 said that Bergin's primary concern was that he didn't get blood on himself. It goes on about how most of the witnesses didn't hear FK say he was going to kill them and thought use of deadly force was unnecessary.

There's also a good article in the Whoreogonian ( link to www.oregonlive.com) about the other cop shooting of the suicidal man in Portland. All the grand jurors expressed concern about the police's lack of communication and were dismayed that they were charged with deciding on the very narrow definition of whether the cops were guilty of criminal wrongdoing. They all shared their concerns with the Mult. Co. DA's office. Per one juror:

"It was frankly highly frustrating to hear all the things that could have been done better to save this man's life" Arquilevich said, "but in the end, we as jurors had a very narrow duty to determine if criminal charges were appropriate."

It seems to me, that by this and by Robert's statement following the grand jury's decision in FK's case, one problem may be with the laws re: police use of lethal force. Any attempts to changing departmental policies and culture will be for naught if the law sanctions this behavior. An attorney friend of mine told me that no cop in Oregon has ever been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by a grand jury. Perhaps the first step is to lobby for stricter laws?

Good article 26.Nov.2005 17:20


Thanks for the heads up re/ the Sandy Post article, MH. It is a really good article, and I would re post it in it's entirety here, but I imagine that the gate keepers would flush it. I am going to just quote a small portion of the third segment, but I hope that all interested would check the sandy post link, type Kaady into the search bar, and read the whole thing. Well written, and comprehensive. Much more legible than the report the CCSO put out.
Read this portion, then go to www.sandypost.com:

Several witnesses testified that when Sandy Police Officer Bill Bergin and Clackamas County Sheriff's Deputy David Willard pulled up to the naked hit-and-run suspect, they emerged from the squad car, guns drawn. One of Kaady's hands was tucked into his lap.

"He appeared to be just kind of catatonic," Willard said, noting that Kaady was just sitting and rocking, not looking at anyone.

For the next four to five minutes, the officers talked with Kaady, urging him to lie on his stomach, a command Kaady reportedly ignored. Family members say that Kaady did not want to put his burned flesh on the hot pavement, although police say they pointed to a grassy area.

"We wanted to get him to lie on his stomach so that we could get him in restraints," Bergin said. "That's one of the safest ways to apprehend a cooperative subject."

Willard said he wasn't going to let Kaady leave the scene but admitted he wasn't sure how he was going to apprehend him, even if he complied. He thought, "I'm gonna wait until other officers get here before we do anything."

He said he did not want to touch Kaady at all due to the amount of blood that covered the man's body. Willard was specifically concerned that by touching Kaady, he could contract hepatitis or AIDS.

"Somebody needs to glove up before they touch this man," Willard thought to himself.

After it was clear to the police that Kaady wasn't going to comply with their commands, Willard threatened him with a Taser a nonlethal weapon that delivers 50,000 volts of electricity to a subject via two metal prongs.

"Please don't," Kaady said to the police. He wearily begged but still did not comply with the officers' commands.
One of the witnesses closest to the incident, Ron Van Meter of Van Meter Nursery, said Kaady was growling at the officers and taunting them throughout the exchange.

"He just kind of sat there and shook his head," Bergin agreed, "and almost had like a grin (on) his face."
Bergin then sneaked behind Kaady and shot the Taser barbs into the suspect's shoulder blades, which sent Kaady flat on his back.

"He continued to move a little bit during the first shock," Willard said, "which sort of surprised me."

Officers then told Kaady to roll on his stomach or he'd be shocked again. There was no response. Bergin delivered another shock through the barbs that were still in Kaady's back.

"At this point," Bergin told investigators later, "he started laughing and giggling."

Kaady then sat up. Willard fired his Taser, but only one barb penetrated Kaady's arm.

Then, according to several witnesses, Kaady sprang up with a burst of energy. "He went nutso on them" all of the sudden, said witness Herbert Lloyd.

"He came to life with a vigor of energy," agreed Karl Neering, who was working at Van Meter Nursery about 50 feet away from the scene. He said Kaady soon realized that the Taser darts were causing him pain, and he physically removed them from his shoulder blades and arm.

"He basically became wilder and wilder. I was afraid," Neering said.

At about that time, an ambulance arrived at the scene and parked a few hundred feet to the north of the incident. Paramedic Barbara Noland said that from the time Kaady sprang up, "he was wild and appeared to be out of control."

Willard said Kaady was still visibly being shocked when he got up. "I remembered thinking, 'Oh, my God, I'm Tasing this guy and he's getting up.' And I started to get really scared about the kind of strength I was seeing."

Van Meter said he was concerned that Kaady was going to come and attack him and admitted that if he came any closer, he would have been forced to run him over to protect himself.

Co-worker Pavel Androsov said the burst of energy sent Kaady running zig-zag toward the patrol car. Witness Robert Montgomery said Kaady "came at" the officers but noted, "He was either trying to get away or was trying to attack them."

The officers testified that it was the latter. Willard said Kaady ran away from the officers until the Taser darts came out of his body. "Then he turned and faced us," he said.

They alleged that Kaady had repeatedly yelled, "I'm going to kill you!" as he ran at them. No other witnesses reported that Kaady said that.

Willard said Kaady began to chase him until the suspect leaped onto the trunk of the patrol car. He moved on top of the roof, waving his arms in the air.

At that point, Willard thought to himself, "I'm going to need to shoot this man," again stating that he did not want to come in contact with Kaady's blood. "I can't let him touch me."

It wasn't long until the officers realized that the shotgun Deputy Willard had brought was sitting on the hood of the patrol car, in plain view. The car's driver's side door was wide open, and the engine was running.

Many witnesses said the next few moments happened extremely fast.

Several witnesses said Kaady was just standing and/or jumping up and down on the patrol car and didn't say that he was in attack stance. But police say Kaady readied himself to lunge at Willard and again threatened to kill the officers.

Bergin said he was concerned that Kaady was about to attack the deputy to hurt him or steal his handgun. He was also worried that the suspect would try to get the shotgun on the hood of the car.

Willard said he didn't want Kaady to touch him for any reason and yelled, "Shoot!"

He fired three very quick succession rounds at the center of Kaady's chest. Bergin fired five shots. They shot to kill, assuming that the man was on drugs and that he could have possessed chemically enhanced strength. Toxicology reports, which could corroborate or disprove that theory, will not be released.

Willard said after that after Kaady was hit three times, he exhibited what appeared to be a shocked, surprised look before he fell backward onto the pavement.

It was the blood that spooked them.

One small discrepancy 26.Nov.2005 19:13


According to the statements of the officers, they messed around trying to "control" a seated, and at the time non violent victim for "about five minutes, before tasering the living shit out of him to get him to roll over and play dead. That would seem like a long time, and might lead one to think that they were actually trying. The problem: According to the timeline provided by the S.O. and by the 911 radio logs, almost two minutes lapsed from the time that the stalwart and frightenned officers announced that they had arrived on scene (ta da), and when they announced that there had been shots fired, ambulance needed, officers o.k. Where in the hell did they get the five minutes or so?

the stink takes visual form 27.Nov.2005 21:51


Hey LN, that was a gripping exerpt from the Sandy post. I'm offline for a few days, so I can't catch the rest as of yet. Each new bit of information revealed about the FK case leaves the officers decisions in a worse light. Having just read the Post story, what came immediately to mind in regards to the officers was, what pathetic excuses for human beings these guys are. How much more inept and incompetent can two supposed professionals be? On the basis of their actions in the FK incident, both of those individuals are probably a threat to sane and not so sane society and should be suspended immediately.

Toxicology reports 11.Jan.2006 20:43


He was clean with a trace of marijuana. It will be released here soon after the civil suite is filled.

Seriously ... 19.Jan.2006 00:10


I've read these articles and I am confused. I'm not confused about the facts; they seem pretty clear. I'm not confused about the amount of public outrage. What I'm confused about is why, in face of what amounts to an intentional homicide by people who we have empowered to uphold, defend, and protect our laws is there no call for their deaths? An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

I've never met Fouad Kaady and I don't know any of his friends. I couldn't tell you if he was a good man or not. I can say that if my son/brother/father was gunned down by anyone, even the Almighty himself, I'd be looking to execute the murderers of my family.

I can't begin to understand the grief felt by this man's kin and I can offer them no suggestions as to what they should do to "make it right". But even though I have no suggestion, I don't understand why people scream at the blank wall that is our government and shake thier fists at people who care nothing about our liberties as.

Does everyone but me believe that conversation can prevent another of these tragedies? Am I the only one that believes that given the callous regard our governments (pick one, local, state, or federal) have for us can only be stopped by way of force of arms?