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?
THE PRESENCE OF THE UNSECURED WEAPON WAS USED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR OPENING FIRE ON THE SUSPECT.
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?