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

human & civil rights | police / legal

Kaady: Policy NOT followed

Police did NOT follow all policies and procedures in Foaud Kaady's case.
There's been a lot of discussion here re: the CCSO review panel's decision about Foaud Kaady:

and about police policies and procedures:

But what hasn't been examined very thoroughly (though a couple of comments did mention it) is that the police did NOT follow all policies and procedures in FK's case. Careful reading of the Sandy Post's article misleading titled "Board: Kaady shooters followed protocol" which appeared on January 25, 2006 clearly shows this. Why, even the headline for the continuation of the article on page 8A states: "Kaady: Questions about shotgun use remain."

From the article:
"In the shooting review board's report, the board reviewed the events in light of the sheriff's office rules and regulations, specifically regarding conduct, the use of force, the use of firearms, apprehension and arrest, miscellaneous procedures and Taser use. The officers were found compliant in all of the 33 policies and procedures reviewed.

According to the report, "Willard properly perceived a risk to himself and to Officer Bergin, as well as others in and responding to the vicinity."

Skelton agreed with that assessment. "The officers did use the tools at their disposal at the time, and this reinforces that the officers weren't just out looking for someone to shoot. They did their best in that particular circumstance."

Although the officers were said to be in compliance with all of the listed polices and procedures deemed relevant to the case, witness testimony -- including that of the officers themselves -- indicated that a possible breech of firearms use had occurred when Willard left his loaded shotgun on the hood of the patrol car.

Specifically, in Chapter 14, Section 5.1 of the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office code, "Any shotgun in possession of a deputy will be secure at all times." From witness testimony, it was made clear that the shotgun was not secure during the encounter with Kaady, and the presence of the unsecured weapon was used as justification for opening fire on the suspect.

Sheriff's department reports also indicated that Bergin's shotgun would have been readily available to Kaady had he gotten inside the patrol vehicle. The same section requires that while in a patrol car, "the (shotgun) operator is responsible for assuring that the firearm is secured in the locked gun rack or hard case in the trunk."

Neither case was addressed in the shooting review board's report."

Did you get that?
"Although the officers were said to be in compliance with all of the listed polices and procedures DEEMED RELEVANT to the case... "

You'll note in media coverage over the course of this investigation that the cops' reasons for shooting FK have varied and evolved over time. Originally, we were told he was shot because he acted with superhuman strength (by reacting to the taser and jumping onto the squad car), and threatened the cops by screaming "I'm going to kill you", which made them fear for their lives.

As testimony from the grand jury started to come out and nine witnesses said they didn't hear FK make these threats, the story changed. I do recall at that time some mention being made of the shotgun left on the hood of the squad car by Willard. This latest article in the post says:
"From witness testimony, it was made clear that the shotgun was not secure during the encounter with Kaady, and the presence of the unsecured weapon was used as justification for opening fire on the suspect."

Did you get that?

Now, we're being told that they shot because they were afraid of getting blood on themselves.

The report says, "Willard properly perceived a risk to himself and to Officer Bergin, as well as others in and responding to the vicinity."
But if the risk was due to police NOT following policy (specifically, Ch. 14, Section 5.1 of the CCSO's code), how can they be absolved of all culpability?

This graphically demonstrates why an entity cannot be trusted to police itself. Who, exactly, determines which policies are DEEMED RELEVANT to the case?

This point, I think, needs to be hammered on. What good are policies and procedures if they can pick and choose which ones to apply to each case?
Rules of Naked engagement !! and Thank-YOU to DATELINE NBC!!!! 29.Jan.2006 15:38


Rule 1 of engagement, dont leave your toys out unattended if you dont want someone else to come along and touch them, or possible use them on You, or break them !!! Dontleave unattended Guns on the hood of COP CARS.

Rule number 2 of Engagement,if a person is naked and bleeding and cant get up off the ground and comply with your demands,they are propably in alot of pain and can't follow an order.

Rule number 3 of engagement,Dont taze the subject into submission !!

Rule number 4 of engagement, dont kill the person, because you were stupid enough to leave your loaded Gun laying under the feet of the person you tazed and further deprived of Civil Rights !!!

Rule number 5 of engagement,SEE number 1-4

Rule number 6, of engagement ,If you can not do your job in away to protect us and follow a policy of secureing your GUNS...QUIT YOUR JOB !!!!

Rule number 7 of engagement,First rule of GOD !!! thou shall not kill!!!

Rule number 8 of engagement,If you see me naked and begging for help, you better get me some!! and not kill me in the process (course you would have assumed differently with a woman...you'd of 1st thought a woman naked, had been raped )

FOR years NOw I personally have heard Citizens of Oregon City,Oregon walk up to and ask the LOCAL news Media reporters Parked on Main street during the WARD WEAVER murder trial and court apperances(ASHLEY POND AND MIRANDA GADDIS deaths)
ASK repeatedly "When are you going to do a Story on Our CROOKED COPS in this town ?? well I and they got that request somewhat answered on DATELINE NBC this past FRIDAY NIGHT JAN 27th,2006 .

OUR OREGON CITY ,OREGON POLICE DEPARTMENT was deservedly displayed all over the country as the Police department whom botched up the investigations of 2 Oregon City Girls whom were murdered about 12 blocks from the Police Department.
even after They had recieved tip after tip, and did not follow up on them ,unfortunetly Friday night, IN this paticular case the PORTLAND FBI undeservedly took most of the BRUNT for the local P.D.s screwing up.
The Oregon City Police dog, TITUS, didnt seem to pick up a death alert scent at the Weaver property, yet a private investigators dog at the same location did and his written report to the O.C.P.D was declared insignificant because their dog and others did not pick up a scent.
What academy did TITUS come from ?? MONMOUNTH ,Oregon like his handeler ?

IT took Young Randi Onedia getting raped by Ward Weaver to finaly break the case, even after their were earlier reports of Ward sexually abusing one of the Missing girls.

So when A cop wants to cover up his own mis behaviors on the job, or not following a policy of checks and balances (leave no tip unturned) US citizens pay for it in the end.2 dead girls,our Towns lously P.D displayed all over the nation
THE Oregon City,Oregon Police department needs to get on board with our agenda and not theirs. OR we'll fire them all and their Pretty little Mayor TOO !!!!
Shame on Mayor Alice NORRIS !!! and her 4 commisioners too for keeping up pretense that all is well in the O.C.And the Mayor needs to take up the HIGH school on the offer of the $40,000 offer to help pay for a School resource officer,Even the Chief of Police is demanding us Local citizens to light a fire under ther Mayor on that one ( a school resource Officer could have found out a.s.a.p. where the allegedly runaway girls were staying.

In addition, because both Girls MOMs were knowen on Local POLICE Blotters as well as ONe Girls rapist Father, The POLICE did not warrant the missing Girls as more than runaways,and they dont give you much lip service in Oregon City,Oregon if you've had any run in with them. The cops in this Town our well knowen for letting you know how unwelcome you are if you challenge them.

Oh yeah !! Chief Huris, NEXT TIME sit up straight on T.V and suck in your Fat GUT !!! and straighten your Tie !!! You looked as stupid on T.V. as the rest of the city commando's you pretend to Call a POLICE Department !!!there are probably only 2 good cops(I wont name) left on your force,and they arent even up in the ranks.

Teresa Teater ,Citizen from Oregon City fed up with a so called Police DEPartment..go do your usal damage control !!!

a good point 29.Jan.2006 15:39


I'd like to see them elaborate further on the justification for leaving the shotgun out on the hood of the car. I can imagine them automatically pulling the shotgun out, thinking they might want to have ready access to it (although against a naked unaremed guy...hmm) but I can't quite grasp how they managed to let the shotgun come to be in an area relative to Kaady that made them feel that shooting him was their only option. Now that was just stupid. Both officers were carrying multiple weaponry, right? It's conceivable they could have brought the shotgun out, but why wasn't it secured for ready use in an on person holster. I think they have things for that specific purpose. Sounds like the same pathalogically lame excuse pattern. Cops have discretion in regards to how policy and procedure are used, but there's a difference between discretion, responsible use of p&p, and stupidity.

Excellant article, MH 29.Jan.2006 16:23


Very inciteful. The first thing a private in the Marines, or a rookie cop should learn (must, if he is to live) is that a loaded weapon can NEVER be left unattended. Hell, in the Marines, even an unloaded one not properly secured could result in dire punishment.

Just plain basic cop work. The SECOND thing one must not forget, is to take one's keys with him when exiting an automobile. Even you or I can be charged, should our unlocked, motor running, car be taken by a kid or a bad guy, and harm come to someone as a result thereof.

There were so many things wrong, and absolutely nothing right, with what these two adrenilin rushed guys did. That the S,O. found no foul with tasering a helpless, defenseless, and non combative (by their OWN admission), injured, naked person, is indicative of what is wrong with our entire cop culture. Time to start seeking vengeance, I am afraid.

AP partially responsible for covering up police failures 29.Jan.2006 18:56


dont forget the portland AP office's culpability in passing off the sherrifs office press release as news...without any editorial review even.

No one seemed to dare to do anything during the joke of the inictment 30.Jan.2006 22:11


No one cared to do anything when there was the last opportunity to get these guys indicted, and then we could of had a real trial where ALL the evidence and witnesses could have been examined, what about Carlos? Good luck trying to get answers now. Way too much, way too late. I do not think another incident like Fouads will ever happen again to such a clean (no drugs), no mental illness, loved, and active member of the community. The Portland Metro Area allowed the savage murder of a severely burned (he had to be identified by his feet) kid. Simply gross and sick, GROSS AND SICK! And his murder and blood is on everyone's hands. WE are all guilty, we allowed the cowards who would murder a kid in this shape do exactly that, MURDER HIM. Simply sick, only in America. And that coward of a surveyor attacked him before the police arrived, and then cried to them and got them scared and pumped up somehow of a naked, burned, and injured kid. That surveyor is more responsible for his murder than the police, he is a coward and a liar, liar, liar, yeah, he tried to grab Fouad for his safety, right, uh ha, what a liar, so that is how Fouads BLOOD and SKIN TISSUE GOT ON THAT SURVAYOR, and it was a coincidence that it was his nieces car who Fouad hit, and of course he did not know about it when he tried to grab a burned kid who's skin was falling off, what a liar and a coward. HE WILL GET HIS. And somehow Fouad was able to jump as high as this tall mans chest and kick him in his shirt pocket, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, and of most of all a COWARD. Maybe some day someone he loves will be murdered, then he will know the pain he started into motion. But seriously, it kinda stupid and to late to be complaining about a murder of just another Arab, we do it every day. When we had them right there in our hands, only a hand full of people outside of hi family EVER showed. IF THEY CAN KILL FOUAD, THEN THEY CAN KILL SONS, DAUGHTERS, PARRENTS, UNCLES, AUNTS, GRANDPARRENTS, ANYONE. Anyone even your family.

Correction on Gaddis/Pond comments 31.Jan.2006 09:11

SAR guy

I won't make any comment about the dilligence of the investigators in the Pond-Gaddis case other than to say that I know a great deal about the person who claims his dog picked up the death scent at Weaver's house. Harry Oaks is, not to put too fine a point on it, a fraud. He has been showing up at crime scene's and search and rescue missions for years claiming to be able to find your loved one for a fee. He uses peoples emotions against them in order to make a living. He will insert himself in front of the media and claim to be able to find your loved ones when no one else can. The real irony is that he rarely finds anything, yet claims that he found previously found "scent" after the investigation finds evidence using other means. Mr. Oaks is in the same catagory as psychics and palm readers.



February 10, 2006

PLEASE read this as there is a very important connection with your case against the police departments in the killing in Sandy. Jerry Atlansky  js@atlansky.com 24/366

January 31, 2006

Dear Senator Deborah Boone,


With the documents provided with this letter I trust you will in a bi-partisan discussion and action submit a concise legislation somewhat like John McCain's banning all torture with absolutely no exceptions. The new policy and procedures should be expanded to all police groups throughout the state.

You may call on me at any time and as often as needed to succeed on this top priority proposed legislation for the many reasons as stated in the following data.

Your civil/human activist,

Jerry Atlansky
503-630-3681 EXT.22

January 30, 2006

Governor Ted Kulongoski
160 State capitol
900 Court Street
Salem Oregon 97301-4047

Dear Governor Kulongoski,

We have communicated via telephone and e-mail with the State Police Training Department and their Superintendent's Office for many months to no avail, and now we request that your staff and the Attorney General's Personnel need to intervene to change the current policy and procedures regarding police excessive force and reporting to the proper authorities.

On my first phone call to Lt. Douthit, top manager of training the question was asked, when an officer has a suspect restrained and that officer is hitting the suspect even though there is no resistance by the suspect, what action is required by another officer that witnesses this excessive force? Lt. Douthit said, "the second officer should help the other officer arrest the suspect." My reply was what good would that be if the suspect sustained permanent injury or death if the first officer is permitted to continue the illegal force? After further discussion Lt. Douthit finally agreed with me that the second officer should be required to stop the illegal and dangerous action and their policy should be changed. Lt. Douthit sent to me almost two months later that important change but failed to include the proper reporting of the incident to their superiors within and outside their department. At that loss of faith I had by that time in the proper action being followed, I started to press for full compliance in both steps and it took about another two months and no reply to me, so I gave an ultimatum to Cathy, in Superintendent Ron Ruecker's Office as Mr. Ruecker wouldn't accept my calls 3 times last Friday from about 8:45 A.M. to 3:45 P. M..

After research on how other police departments handle policy and procedures of police excessive force on suspects, (please keep in mind some suspects are not guilty of any crime) I received an excellent reply from the Santa Cruz, California Police Department as submitted for your inspection within this letter. Keeping in mind this dire problem will result in major law suits, in the future creating a financial burden in properly equipping and staffing the State Police Department.

Please find and review the 3 sections of the, Oregon Constitution, Article 1., Bill of Rights cited as relevant to this case but not limited to this cited law, of the State Police Departments lack of policy and procedures to protect the people of this Great State of Oregon in the last section of these statements.

Best wishes,

Jerry Marshall Atlansky
37950 SE Courpland Road
Estacada, Oregon 97023

 js@atlansky.com <mailto: js@atlansky.com> 24/366

503-630-3681 EXT. 22


January 27, 2006 (9:15 A.M.)

Superintendent Ron Ruecker
Oregon State Police

Dear Superintendent Ruecker,

Your secretary, Cathy just advised me when I called that the e-mail address I was given last Tuesday from your office was incorrect when I sent a letter to you on Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006 and two letters today. When I'm writing e-mail addresses and I repeat it back slowly this is very strange it still was incorrect. Please check with your entire staff that they are not reversing your first and last names with the dot in between. Looking at my notes I know I didn't make the mistake.

Here is todays two letters I sent to you today and two other letters regarding this subject.

Awaiting your quick response.

Jerry Atlansky  js@atlansky.com <mailto: js@atlansky.com> 24/36

January 27, 2006

Superintendant Ron Ruecker
Oregon State Police

Dear Superintendant Ruecker,

On Jan. 24, 2006, 3 days ago I sent you a letter as noted below this letter, of your top manager of the training department's incomplete and extremely delayed response to me in changing your departments policy and procedures with dealing with alleged police excessive force against a suspects.

If you have been on family death, vacation or inpatient hospital leave for the past three days I completely understand your reason for at least not advising me on a date I will hear your action on this matter. What I'm at a complete loss of understanding is why you have waited many months after your training manager had to have advised you on the details on this matter.

Without further immediate action back to me I will take all legal action to bring this issue to light and solved.

I trust you will respond now.

Civil servant & military veteran,

Jerry Atlansky  js@atlansky.com <mailto: js@atlansky.com> 24/366

Superintendant Ron Ruecker,

This is the second part as mailed on Jan. 24, 2006.

Jerry Atlansky

Jan. 24, 2006

Superintendent Ron Ruecker
Oregon State Police

Dear Superintendent Ruecker,

This communication is another attempt to improve on the safety and well being of the Oregon State Police and the general public, as I have been in contact for many months with your top manager of your training department, Lt. Douthit on policy of what steps are taken when there is an alleged police excessive force against a suspect. The past one response to me by Lt. Douthit was inconclusive and I immediately responded to his one e-mail, that no reporting was noted as a procedure, but months later still no response from him.

I'm a very patient person and I'm aware of your departments great needs as published in The Oregonian Newspaper so I gave a lot of extra time without repeated contacts to get this issue resolved.

Please let me assure you and your staff I have no hidden agendas, I'm just a strong advocate of safety and security for everyone and I gave two examples of my past and current projects to further those successes. Since there has been a reluctance of past cooperation on this matter, I said in my last letter that I would like to observe all your future training and re-training classes to see how effective the new procedures will be conducted in your entire police force.

The following letters are:
1. My letter to the Santa Cruz, California Police Department Auditor.
2. A response from the California Police Department Auditor, that same day.

Please note the expedited manner in which they responded and detailed and professional complete steps that are required per their policy and procedures on this very important matter.

January 23, 2006

Robert H. Anderson-Police Auditor
City Government
915 Cedar St.
Santa Cruz, California 95060

Dear Mr. Anderson,

Please provide me with specific information regarding the following general situation that may be a future incident that is documented current Santa Cruz Police Department's Policy and Procedures:

Santa Cruz Police Officer/s have a suspect of a possible crime in a position that is in a restraint status, to the point the suspect can't strike or harm the officer/s, and the officer/s are beating the suspect with a clear violation of excess use of force, what action is required of another officer that has witnessed this scenario, at the scene and reporting duties?

Please make clear by words and action in a general manner of how an officer could legally stop said officer/s from further physical harm to avoid a permanent damage or death of the suspect.

Please state the titles, (not names) of all superior officers, non police city officials and outside city officials that will receive a report on this type of police brutality crime.

Your cooperation in an expedited manner is of the utmost importance. We have not requested this data from the Santa Cruz Police Department as we feel your agency in an independent state, have the access to receive it in total details since you represent the safety and service of the entire community of Santa Cruz.

Thanking you in advance for all your time and efforts on this crucial matter, as one of our goals is to minimize possible lawsuits against the city is to better use public funds for all police matters.

Future success,

Jerry Atlansky
 js@atlansky.com <mailto: js@atlansky.com>

January 23, 2006

Dear Mr. Atlansky:

Excessive force by a peace officer is almost always a violation of the California Penal Code (assault under cover of authority). Therefore, every officer witnessing what he/she recognizes as excessive force has a duty to intervene and a duty to report. The means and methods an intervening officer might chose will vary enormously by circumstances; those methods should be effective in stopping the incident without being excessive themselves. But, obviously, the big issue in all this is "what he/she recognizes".

That officer who recognizes it also will have a duty to report the incident up the chain of command. It would be formally investigated as a personnel matter and also referred to the District Attorney's office for their investigation and possible criminal prosecution.
The personnel investigation would be reviewed all the way up the chain of command to the Chief of Police, for a decision on whether excessive force was proven and if so, what the consequences for the offending officer should be. The Police Auditor would review the report and the Chief's decisions and issue an audit report on them. The City Manager's office would review the file in the event that discipline was going to be imposed; as well, they could review it simply by asking for it. The Public Safety Subcommittee (of the City Council) could also request to review the file and the audit report.

I hope the foregoing answers your questions. Thank you for your interest.

Robert H. Aaronson
Independent Police Auditor for the City of Santa Cruz

Superintendent Rucker, please review the documents Lt. Douthit has on file and respond at your first chance available. I feel we will come to terms when you respond to my letter.

Thanks in advance for your involvement.

Best wishes,

Jerry Atlansky
 js@atlansky.com <mailto: js@atlansky.com> 24/366
503-630-3681 EXT. 22




Section 1, Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all people, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times the right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Section 13. Treatment of arrested or confined persons. No person arrested, or confined in jail, shall be treated with unnecessary rigor.

Section 15. Foundation principles of criminal law. Saws for the punishment of crime shall be founded on these principles: Protection of society, personal responsibility, accountability for one's actions and reformation. [Constitution of 1859, Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 32, 1995, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 1996]

Copies to:

Attorney General, Hardy Myers
All State Senators
All State Representatives
State Police Superintendent, Ron Ruecker
Newspapers throughout Oregon