portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting oregon & cascadia

police / legal

Fouad Kaady Demo Report Back

I learned today, from Rachid Kaady, that the name "Fouad" means "heart" in Lebanese. Somehow, that seems very fitting. Because, although I never met the young man whose life was taken by the police, his presence was nevertheless everywhere today. In the passionate words of his cousins and friends, in the gentle hugs from his father, and in the people who will not let his story fade away, there was surely a lot of heart in Clackamas County this afternoon. And from the bottom of my own heart, I thank each and every one of you who came to stand together on the doorstep of the CCSO, to say we've had enough.
Alejandro Queral, from the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center, began the event by eloquently explaining why we came. "This is not about retaliation," he said. "This is about justice. This is about feeling safe in our communities. This is about holding police accountable for their actions." Alejandro expressed shock and outrage about what happened to Fouad Kaady, and demanded transparency from the police. "We can't have officers investigating themselves," he said. "I hope that you will join me in demanding that Sheriff Roberts create a mechanism by which incidents of this nature can be reviewed by the citizens of this county, and where the entire investigation is made public so that there can be scrutiny of the police department."

Immediately following Alejandro's speech, Alton McDonald of the National Action Network gave a rousing call to action. "Why did the police react in such a brutal and vicious way upon this young man, who needed medical help?" He asked. "Why didn't they call for a paramedic? Why did they do this? The question has yet to be answered." Alton pointed out that the way the police have handled this incident is the way they always handle such incidents: They spend days working on cover stories and spinning lies through the corporate media. They do not seek justice. "This facility," he said, "That was built with tax payer's dollars to protect and serve the community, has now become a place where evil prevails. A place where injustice prevails. The People's rights have been violated by people who work in that building, who are paid by our tax dollars. So I ask you, the citizens of Oregon, is this right?" The crowd answered with a resounding "No!"

Alton went on to call upon the crowd to call the sheriff's office to demand accountability, and to join him, protest signs in hand, at the next county commissioner's meeting to demand that something be done. A woman in the crowd said that she believes that the next meeting will be this Thursday, February 16th, at 9:30am. (I hope that this will be verified by someone who has the time and will to do so.) Alton committed to returning to Clackamas County on Thursday, and asked everyone to join him. I have the distinct impression that they will.

George Kaady then took the microphone to thank the gathered crowd. He expressed gratitude for everything that people had done for his family, and shared that this gathering helped to let his family know "that people do care and we're not alone in this." Said the soft-spoken young man, "We're just going to keep fighting until there's justice for my cousin. This is the reason I'm here today, and I'm going to be out here as much as I have to be until I get justice for Fouad, and until people see what's going on here." He broke down and wept as he described the person Fouad was. Much of the crowd wept with him. He said that Fouad was a peaceful man who respected everyone. "It's really hard to be without him," he said. "He was a big part of my life."

Michael B, from Portland Anti-Imperialists spoke next. "I don't think we can go another day," He said, "And allow one more person to be taken away from us, without complaint." He pointed out that police brutality in America is "a symptom of a larger problem." The message being communicated with each of these police murders, he said, is intentional. "What we're being told with these murders is that they're powerful and we are not." After reading down a long list of people who have been killed by police, Michael B asked the people assembled to understand the meaning of such state-sponsored violence. "The people working in city hall," He said, "They're not working for us. Their campaigns are being paid for by business and money." He pointed out that the police work for these interests, and not for ours. "They want us to know that they can take our lives away at any time." He then asked why they are so afraid. Why do the police kill people in the streets, and then claim they did it because they feared for their lives? "They have the guns," He said. "We don't have guns. We don't have tanks." He concluded, "They are afraid that people from different communities are going to stand up. We're going to stand up, and work together. We're going to stand up against the government, and work against repression. That's what they're afraid of."

All of the speakers today called for accountability. Michael B went a step further, and outlined a plan by which this could be accomplished. "Hey, maybe communities, maybe neighborhood associations, maybe they should be in charge of the money for the police in their area. So if the cops are killing someone in your community, you can say 'hey, I ain't gonna sign your check.'" The crowd heartily approved of this proposal.

Finally, after the mic passed around the crowd for a bit, Ashes (also from the Portland Anti-Imperialists) stood up to speak. "One thing I've been going over in my head," He said, "is, where are we gonna go from here?" He said he wants justice for the Kaady family, but also, "I want justice for everyone. How do we obtain that?" He outlined a plan by which the people no longer allow the police to investigate themselves. He asked that people take the power to oversee the police back into their own neighborhood coalitions. Further, he said, "The police should have to live in the areas that they patrol. This is accountability. If you live next to someone, it's a hell of a lot harder to kill them and walk away."

This was a very spirited gathering. I counted somewhere between 75 and 100 people who had trekked in from all over Cascadia. Considering the very short notice, the logistical issues involved, and the battle fatigue everyone has been feeling lately, this was a pretty good showing. (In an amusing twist, it seems that the CCSO had far more faith in our abilities to mobilize enormous forces on short notice than we did: They had apparently arranged for a huge crowd. According to one observer, there was a staging area behind the building, along with roped-off parking areas which seemed to indicate that they were expecting thousands of demonstrators. Wow! Well, maybe next time.)

I found this event very touching in many ways. When I looked around this gathering, I saw what I had hoped to see: I saw anarchist kids dressed in black bloc, and spirited little old ladies. And I saw everything in between. And, in spite of a healthy dose of skepticism from at least some old-school organizers, there was no need for any "ground rules." This was a very respectful gathering, where everyone was focused on the issues at hand. Many people rode the bus in from Portland, while others came from Sandy, Colton, Scotts Mills, and from right there in Oregon City. I think it meant a lot to the Kaady family.

The most touching thing of all was the quiet dignity and grace of Fouad's father, Rachid Kaady. I don't know if I have ever met a man with so much strength. Clearly devastated by what has happened to his family, Rachid nevertheless had the grace to personally thank each and every person who came. When I introduced myself to him, he hugged me. I watched him walk through the crowd, quietly greeting and hugging everyone he spoke with. Something about watching this man desperately trying to hold together in the face of all this, this man who so clearly deserves better, something about it made me both very angry -- at the police, for what they have done -- but it also made me feel hopeful. If he can be strong enough to keep his faith in his fellow human beings after everything that's happened, then I think we can all be strong enough to do what we need to do to bring justice to his family.

Addendum 11.Feb.2006 20:50

Cat

Here's the commissioner's schedule:  http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/bcc/ag_sch.htm

Looks like there is, in fact, a meeting this Thursday morning.

More on County Commissioners' Board Meeting 11.Feb.2006 21:30

vnodi

Further, for your convenience, here is the agenda for Thursday's (2/16) meeting. So no one is caught unprepared, at the bottom of this agenda Webpage appears a statement about the conditions of citizen comment, and the availability of videos of commissioners' meetings.
 http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/bcc/ag_bcc.htm

repost of comment from earlier post 11.Feb.2006 22:43

reposter

channel 8 lies about the number of people who showed up in oregon city.

channel 8 television had a 15 second spot on the evening news about this rally. essentially they glossed over the facts and spoonfed their audience the clackamas county sheriff's department's version of events about the killing of fouad kaady, i.e. that he was a threat to police (despite being badly burned, naked, and extremely disoriented) and deserved to die. to top things off, they said "about a dozen" people showed up and showed a quick video of about four people standing with signs along kaen road.

this makes me ill.

from these pictures alone, it is obvious that way more people showed up than they said. are they blind or incompetent journalists? of course not. they are LIARS!

a quick glance of these pictures and others on the site shows that a significant portion of the people who attended are friends and acquantances of mine. i could not be more proud to be able to call these folks my friends and allies.

i could not attend because i had to work.

katu leads 11pm news with demo story 11.Feb.2006 23:12

wow!

A couple of minutes ago, KATU-TV ran the Fouad Kaady demo story as its 11pm news lead. I am extremely surprised by their story. In my opinion, they produced a fair story about the demo, interviewing Foaud's father and several attendees and even had about a 10-second soundbite of Alejandro Queral's presentation to the people there. They went into the story quite a bit and explained why the community is so angry about this killing. Unlike KGW channel 8, they also showed a lot of video of the people in attendance, clearly showing that a lot of people showed up.

I usually hate KATU's skewed presentation of protests and demonstrations, but am pleasantly surprised by this rare truthful story.

I don't trust the mainstream media and I certainly don't think we need to rely on the stream of lies and obfuscation that usually pours out of the television, but in those rare instances where the corporate media presents a story in a fair manner, I think it is important to acknowledge it.

I wonder why channel 8 lied and covered for the Clackamas cops while KATU decided to tell the truth...

nicely done 12.Feb.2006 01:02

st

Sorry to blab on at such length, but tonight the words just kept coming. Hope there will be something of value to someone.

Sounds like there was pretty good representation and a good program too. In reference to comments by Alejandro Queral; I know people will say it's been tried and it hasn't worked, but reviews of police shootings and performance should be joint efforts by citizen non-bureau members and police. You're not going to be able to get people who risk taking a bullet in the performance of their job, to be reviewed exclusively by people who don't. A joint effort might work if the powers would give its conclusions authority.

"why didn't they call a paramedic". That is an extraordinarily interesting question. Being the slow study I am, I'm still reading the CCSO SRB report. The fascinating thing is, according to the report, it sounds quite clearly as though the EMT's were standing by as Willard and Bergin shot FK. STANDING BY ready for the police to finish their business with him so they could attend to Fouad.

The two cops probably called for the EMT's after stepping out of the police car, observing Fouad, confirming he had no weapons, and coming to the conclusion by way of his appearance and response to their questions, that he was in need of medical attention. This is when Bergin put the shotgun on the hood of the squad car, probably so he could work his radio and call for back up in response to their failed commands for Fouad to lie down, roll over on his stomach, hands behind his back or whatever. They probably appraised the authorities of his medical needs at that time.

As I read the reports, Fouad was sitting quietly when the two cops rolled up, and he continued to do so while they communicated with him. It was only after they'd called for backup and were standing around trying to think of something to do that they decided to take further measures to take him into custody, hence the tase, which provoked Fouad into confrontational action.

Why oh why didn't they just let him quietly sit there until the EMT's could arrive if they weren't there already, or come forward within speaking distance if they were, and let them make some effort to offer Fouad the relief of medical attention? Instead, the two police insisted on issuing commands (shouting?) to do things that would probably not be reasonable for a person in his physical condition, sitting quietly, even if he had been involved in and had initiated auto collisions.

There's little question that if the EMT's weren't there at that exact moment, they were shortly thereafter, because according to the report, after the call, the two cops initiated the tase phase, provoking Foad to get up, "charge" the two now un-nerved cops who retreated past the shotgun lying on the hood of the car, past the open doors of the car with the motor running, to the safety of the car's rear bumper.

Fouad in his earnest effort to "...kill..." the two cops, then climbs to the roof of the car, moving towards the two officers at the rear. (With his "superhuman" strength, did he jump from the ground to the roof in one fell swoop, or in a display of somewhat more normal human strength did he do what most people would do...climb to the roof from the hood of the car ?... passing by the shotgun as he did so it would seem)The report does not specify about this point.

Aparrently, the EMT's, ("...who were already standing by at a nearby staging area.") were there by this time, but this was the final showdown between the naked, burned, unarmed, virtually defenseless, Fouad (yet, according to the SRB: "Willard had correctly concluded that Kaady had gained a tactical advantage when he leapt to the roof of the police car".....and the cops.

How the Sheriff's Review Board was ever possible to arrive at the conclusion that a critically burned, naked, unarmed man standing on the roof of a police car and confronted by two police officers with their guns pointed and ready to shoot him, had a tactical advantage over the two crouching cops, is a marvel of strategic thinking. In future, when confronted by dangerous people, shall we expect that cops will rush to gain that tactical advantage over them by climbing on top of the police car while the dangerous people get set to take the cops out from the safety of some nice hiding place?

Eyewitness and the EMT's were obliged to stand by, deferring to the unconditional higher authority assigned to the two cops. The two cops, intimidated and cowering behind the bumper of the car, assaulted by shouts of "I am going to kill you" from the burned,naked, unarmed Fouad, fired their handguns repeatedly into him causing him to be dead as the EMT's found him when they could finally walk over to where he lie.

I hope the effort everyone made today is the start of some movement towards realistic changes in the Sheriff's Office policy and procedure, and also in Portland and Sandy. It makes no sense for the police to be so thoroughly independent of oversight from the public.

The status quo has resulted in a situation where Bureau/Sheriff's office policy and procedure diminishes people, irregardless of mental or psychological emergencies they may be having, so as to expedite the fundamental police objective directing them to take such people into custody regardles of the consequences to that person.

Despite suggestions that doubters and skeptics may rush to quash, there are likely, more humane alternatives to police procedure that has consistently resulted in death for people with certain defining kinds of conditions and behavior. The police could be provided with avoidance and containment strategies for people based on a more sophisticated threat determination scale.

In Fouad's case, it was a slam-dunk situation: just let him sit, maybe let the EMT's come close enough to see whether Fouad would have submitted to med care. Meanwhile the backup could have come gloved up ready to tackle him if they were so scared about blood. While the EMT's were working up to approach him, the two cops could have been planning strategy in the event Fouad did decide to split and thrash someone. I'm sure if Fouad would have attacked an EMT, the cops would have happily disabled him by busting his head open with the baton.

For the future, cops, EMT's and citizen volunteer intervention teams should be established for a far more sensitive, acutely discerning approach to extraordinary, debatably dangerous citizen related incidents. Such a unified front would probably involve no small amount of money, and a more heightend awareness from the public than exists now. What is the alternative?

Currently, as my awareness stands, there is very little provision made for ordinary citizens to formulate new policy and procedure directives for their Police Departments. For the PPB manual, the procedure is clearly laid out, but it implies that the procedure is designed for "members". The manual mentions something about a "policy advisory committee", but I haven't been able to find it on the PPB website. People today, wanting to refer new directives they've written, would have to appeal and present it to the mayor or the chief in Portland I expect, and cross their fingers extra tight.

To st 12.Feb.2006 08:40

Matilda

I agree with most of what you have said, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which you said it. The only thing I want to add, is a response to this:

"You're not going to be able to get people who risk taking a bullet in the performance of their job, to be reviewed exclusively by people who don't."

Just to point out the obvious, as long as they are walking our streets with guns in their hands and "procedures" as nebulous as theirs, we ALL risk taking bullets in the performance of our daily routines. Because until we take back control over the police forces we are paying for, any one of us could be their next victim. We are the only ones who can change that, and we need to start by taking the advice of Alejandro and all the other speakers: We need to reclaim our own power over the people we have hired "to serve and protect" our community. We do not need to ask them for this power, we need to take it.

on the KATU coverage 12.Feb.2006 09:08

gotta say

I was surprised to hear that Rachid had been interviewed on KATU, since I was standing near him when he repeatedly politely declined to speak to the corporate media. He was very polite and respectful, but just wasn't talking to the people who worked with the police to justify Fouad's murder. I did not watch the corporate "coverage" of this event, so I thought perhaps I had just missed his one interview.

However, I just spoke with someone who saw the KATU report last night. According to this person, the interview with Rachid was stock footage, and was not from this event. In fact, it was from the demonstration outside the Oregon City courthouse, back when the family was still waiting for justice from the system.

Agree with Matilda 12.Feb.2006 09:35

LN

O.K. I said to myself, shut up, let someone else say it, and I did, for a while. Matilda hit the nail right upon the top of the naily thing. Cops cannot be allowed to police themselves. They are doing a piss poor job of policing the REST of us, why would you think that they could police their own?
In my experience, cops, like the rest of us, will do pretty much as their bosses require, and their bosses are us. Sure, they will give you a great song and dance about the risks (we all take them, every day), the shit hours (yep, those, too.) and the poor pay(are they KIDDING? Where the hell else can a barely legible high school graduate tear down the kind of money these guys are making?), but in the long run, if we require them to answer to civilians, they will do so.
There is no way that a review board, with any cops on it at all, will do anything more than the "grand" jury did. Most folks really want to please the cops, because, hell, they have a LOT of power. They can hurt us, financially and physically, and there is not a damn thing anyone can do to them, unless there is civilian review with disciplinary authority.
Take back your government now, or soon you will not recognize it at all, at all. Already, guys my age are saying, "this is not the country that we grew up in." They are right.

rashid kaady 12.Feb.2006 09:39

to "gotta say"

To "Gotta Say":

Thanks for this clarification about the interview footage on KATU with Rashid Kaady, Fouad's father, being "stock footage" from an earlier day. I did not know enough about the story to notice that it was from an interview at a prior demonstration. I can certainly understand his reluctance to be further abused by the corporate media.

Whenever the footage was taken, the message was the same: Mr. Kaady is heartbroken about what happened to his son and the justice that so badly eludes his family and the commmunity. Whenever the interview was done, he expressed thanks to the commmunity members who have shown their support to his family and proven to him that he is not alone in this.

Again, overall, I commend Katu for running an accurate story. If the interview was shot on a different day, they should have said so (by putting 'file footage' on the screen, for example). Still, the words of Mr. Kaady that they used, I believe, fit well with the story they produced.

I want to specifically say again that the mainstream media can generally get bent and is essentially worthless to dangerous. CatWoman's article and quotes above, in addition to the obvious fact that Portland Indymedia, the community, and Fouad's family members have brought the truth of this tragedy to the people, is to me a prime example of the value and strength of community-based, independent media. I commend them all.

Not really that "Accurate," or complete 12.Feb.2006 10:12

Watkin Isay

Well, the article on two (because that's how high they can count) was not really accurate at all. It was lengthier, and did mention some of the family's concern, but then went right on to tell how Fouad was out of control when police arrived (he was seated, "catatonic," and trying to cooperate, according to the officer's own statements), and told a story about how they desperately tried to control him, by tasering him, but their tasers malfunctioned (again, they tasered him in his badly burned back, while he was seated, simply rocking back and forth, moaning in anguish, while an ambulance waited within view. The "malfunction" was due to the fact that they had completely discharged both of their tasers into his horrendously burned body.) No, not an accurate story at all.

It was so great to see all those people there 12.Feb.2006 10:23

Solidarity

It is funny that the CCSO was apparently expecting so many more people. And maybe, it's kind of depressing that more did not come. (Copwatch, for example, where on earth were you?) But for myself, I was expecting maybe 15 or 20 people. Because I know how long it usually takes to put together a big showing, and I was very heartened to see so many people come from so many places, on such very short notice.

Upcoming Action? 12.Feb.2006 10:30

??

I have been so impressed that the Kaady family, and whoever else, have been persistent in keeping the issue alive. I have followed this story with great interest and regret not being able to attend events thus far--yet I am with you in heart and soul. Interestingly, I can make it to the county commission meeting. Are other people going to be there. Can we turn this into some kind of action? Is there anyone I should get in touch with, or should I just show up?

dk503 12.Feb.2006 10:33

media

Attended the protest and was disappointed by the number of like minded people. If you removed family and friends, there were few of "us". Can't make a difference sitting on your ass. A number of comments on IM also quote the big farce media. Do your own thinking and don't believe a word on tv or any other government publication. Can't say big propaganda media is fu*ked and then quote them when it suits our arguements. Ask your own questions, stand by cops, "officials", and so called news people, listen to comments, you will be very surprised. Unfilter the BS. Don't buy into the crap by actually using it to make points. Power to the people, get in and stay in the fight!!!

policy at fault 12.Feb.2006 10:34

??

By the way, I have worked for police accountability for some time. Of course the citizens being policed should have some say in how they are policed. The real problem is not that they need more training or that they don't follow the rules. The problem IS the RULES. It's the policy that needs to be rewritten and overseen by the public. It's the policy that tells them how to behave and when. The policy, which is NOT PUBLIC INFORMATION, must be telling them to put their safety first and shoot before getting bloody. We need to take control of the policy.

More info about further action 12.Feb.2006 10:41

Yes! Others will be there.

Alton McDonald, always a thrill to speak with, will be there on Thursday. And so will I. I know of at least a few other people who will be there, and I would love to see as many as possible. As far as whom to contact, I'm not sure. This is something that we talked about at the demo, and agreed to pursue. I think you could contact the NWCRC (295-6400 I think), or the National Action Network, or the Portland Anti-Imperialists. I believe they were the people who were organizing this event.

Can someone post the exact address for the commissioner's meeting on Thursday? I do not know the address, I only know that it's supposed to be on the 4th floor of the building we were standing in front of yesterday. And, just to let people know, the county workers were pretty cool about allowing us to park in their lots -- those of us who drove there.

the way to take it back 12.Feb.2006 11:25

st

I've listened to a lot of comments here on indy about review committees...followed reports of the effectiveness(they had virtually none) committees and boards Portland has had. I've heard about how dangerous the job is suggested to be and how dangerous it is according to those qualified to say.

I believe the fact remains, that to effectively review police performance and incidents, revise and formulate policy procedure, people that are working as cops in some capacity have to be jointly involved with citizen non-bureau members in those activities. They are the only ones that are going to be able to provide the critical perspective related to real life on the street situations. Their experience, perspective, and representation is neccessary to create policy and procedure that bureau members will accept and use.

Citizen participation and input(currently minimal despite formal appearances)is essential towards creating humanely realistic policy. Currently, police bureau's have brutal efficiency as their standing operating procedure. The slightest resistance is responded to with force that rapidly progesses to a violent degree.

Police currently have too much exclusive power to decide what they do and how they'll do it. They do a good job of keeping the city attorney and city hall scared, with the threat of strike or things more subtle and damaging, at least in Portland's case.

As far as getting cops to be successfully reviewed and bossed exclusively by non-bureau members is concerned, I'll believe it when I see it. I'd probably consider supporting somebody who put together a working proposal of that kind. I just have serious doubts that it would work out. (You people that have that idea, make it work. Put your idea together and sell it. I don't know who you'll pitch it to. Potter? Randy Leanord? The city attorney....don't even know who he is. Do you think it's a serious proposition to attempt a groundswell acceptance of such an idea?)

I think what would happen, is that the non-member panel, board, etc., would deliver the results of their reviews, formulate p&p, issue directives to the cops, and the cops might outwardly say they would do it, to keep the job and get the money. Oh sure, you could get them to do the easy risk free stuff, but as soon as they realize that someone else deciding their fate has no concern for their welfare, they're just going to avoid the tough stuff.

I'm not exactly sure what would happen, but I have a feeling certain things done today that we need and are working out o.k. just wouldn't get done.

A better future exists where compassionate, intelligent, determined people come together with similarly equipped cops, serve together on the review and policy boards to put together new and more effectively humane ways of working for the best interests of everyone.

The public are likely to stand behind that kind of idea because it includes them in a working relationship with cops that they've not had before, but that more realistically represents their interests. The cops might go for it when they realize the public has a realistic concern for all concerned, and they, the cops have no other reasonable, honorable alternative but to give it a try.

address for commissioners meeting 12.Feb.2006 14:07

rt

Here is the address for the meeting. Be there by 9:30 so you can add your name to the list if you wish to speak. Each person has 3 minutes. Just being there is the action!

Phone: (503) 655-8581
Fax: (503) 742-5919
Address: 2051 Kaen Road
Oregon City, OR 97045

I just want to say 12.Feb.2006 17:52

Alejandro Queral rocks!

Didn't that guy just get into town like, what, a month ago? And he's already going out of his way to do the work that really means something. Great job, NWCRC! Great job, Alejandro. Welcome to Portland. You have made new friends, and we will remember who stood in our corner.

public parking anyone? 12.Feb.2006 19:05

Rev. Rawhide Wagontire

It will be curious to see what lengths our county goes to, to make it difficult to attend this county commission meeting Thursday morning, now that our intent has been announced. Sheriff Craig Roberts posted heavily armed guards & blocked the street leading to the county castle for yesterdays (Feb 11th) event, and also went to the extreme of roping off publiclly owned parking lots close to the park where demonstrators met. We own these lots & Cowardly Craig should be held accountable for yet one more devious, illegal action aimed at blocking public access to the facilities and representation we pay for as citizens. This Idea of bringing this to the county commissioners & elected officials is the only way as far as I'm concerned.
This is what I have suggested from the onset of this tradgety. We need to start taking the fight to them; It is the elected official who can be held accountable for the actions of the county. As Alton McDonald said so eloquently yesterday: This facility," he said, "That was built with tax payer's dollars to protect and serve the community, has now become a place where evil prevails. A place where injustice prevails. The People's rights have been violated by people who work in that building, who are paid by our tax dollars. So I ask you, the citizens of Oregon, is this right?" The crowd answered with a resounding "No!" .
We need to go to these buildings that we are share holders in and demand that those working there collecting our tax money start listning and responding. Another good thing about the commission meetings is that they are televised and recorded. That means that whatever you might wish to say will be heard by at least a few hundred people, and that someone from the corporate media will not be censoring you or have the ability to put a spin on what you are saying. If there is one good thing that has came out of this tradgety so far it is the raised awareness of just how hard the powers that be in our county, work on spinning the truth and fabricating lies to be fed to us via the corporate media. Last night's KGW report is another disgusting example of blatant and overt the conspiracy and lying are. I have been fighting the corruption in our county for a long time, and our officials like Craig Roberts and Bill Kennemer are real good at ignoring letters and emails. They can't ignore us if we attend these televised commission meetings on Thurday mornings. I for one think that we should plan on attending every week untill we have real justice and solutions & maybe new officials. I like the idea of grass roots community groups connecting and forming alliances. We should have the power to sign off on our deparments and officials pay checks before they recieve them. If they are not serving us, they don't get paid. And if enough of these small neighborhood groups form, maybe we can take back our government and have a truely democratic society for the people and by the people.

parking 12.Feb.2006 19:54

RT

There is some confusion regarding the roped-off parking area. That is parking which the employees use during the week, and it had been reserved for people coming to the rally. We got that information directly from an officer on Saturday as folks began to arrive. Most of us chose to park elsewhere, though, not feeling comfortable parking in a lot which could easily be cut off. I just did not want any of you to think that we were being denied that parking.

As for the media coverage mentioned by Rev. Rawhide Wagontire...right on! It was woefully inadequate. Family members are not pleased with the use of file footage which did not make clear the fact that it was nearly 4 months old.

Alton McDonald gave us a clear direction when he said we should attend the commissioners meetings, and I hope that all who can will join us there this Thursday and every Thursday until we make some changes.

Dear 'Media' 12.Feb.2006 21:16

WendyB

Who were the people that were not "like minded" that showed up in support? I do not know the family, but I showed up in solidarity. Why? It could be my cousin, my friend, my brother, my son, my neighbor, my community. I thought that it was appropriate that everyone that showed up, showed up.
And, I cried. I did not think I would, but the injustice of the situation welled in my mind and in my eyes. I went to the other rallies for Kendra James, Jahred Parez (sp), Majia Poot (sp), and I started to wonder how much more? How MUCH more can we take? How many more rallies have to happen? How many more will have to die? I am not sitting on my ass. I advocate action. The action that I advocte might differ than yours, but, I would like to think that we are like minded.

OREGON STATE POLICE REFUSE TO REPORT EXCESSIVE FORCE AT SUSPECTS 13.Feb.2006 01:57

Jerry Atlansky js@atlansky.com

ALL FAMILY, PEOPLE THAT KNOW, AND NEW FRIENDS OF FOUAD KAADY PLEASE READ:

OREGON STATE POLICE REFUSE TO REPORT EXCESSIVE FORCE AT SUSPECTS

February 7, 2006

Risk Management
Board of Accountantancy
State of Oregon
Salem, Oregon

Please read the following documents during Non-government work time, to determine if you will support my over the last four month investigation of violation of protection of concise policy and procedures for suspects, and against The Oregon State Police excessive force which is a breach of our state & federal constitution.

If you agree with my findings that I should receive a copy of all documents of their old & new policy/procedures of inaction, to precise steps of stopping alleged police excessive force and authority for me to observe all future training & retraining of police officers only regarding this one matter, this will eliminate, "no oversight, no justice."

We are at a tipping point in this country of losing many of our constitutional rights and YOU now have a chance to help reverse that trend. PLEASE send me an e-mail after reading this report if you agree with me and my very reasonable requests.

Your fellow Civil Servant and U.S. Military Veteran,

Jerry Atlansky

February 13, 2006

Dear Representative Brad Witt,

SUBJECT: OREGON STATE POLICE REFUSE TO REPORT EXCESSIVE FORCE AT SUSPECTS

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, which would give us the honor of being the first U.S. State to do so.

This will be a turning point in your political career as WE THE PEOPLE, trust you will uphold your solemn oath of office to protect the state & federal contsitutions of our beloved AMERICA.

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



STATE POLICE REFUSES TO REPORT EXCESSIVE FORCE AT SUSPECTS

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

OREGON CONSTITUTION


ARITCLE 1.

BILL OF RIGHTS

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:

Governor Ted Kulongoski
Attorney General, Hardy Myers
All State Senators
All State Representatives
State Police Superintendent, Ron Ruecker
Oregon Office of Professional Standards, Captain Cynthia Kok
Board of Accountantancy
Office of Administrative Hearings
All Newspapers throughout Oregon


Thanks for being there WendyB 13.Feb.2006 07:00

mn

I don't mean to speak for Media, but I think what s/he meant was just that there should have been more people there. I don't think it was meant as an insult. But the fact is, bringing nearly 100 people out to a little backroad in Clackamas County on barely a week's notice...that was pretty remarkable. And it demonstrates just how strongly people do feel about this. The kind of large, permitted marches we often see in Portland made the CCSO think there would be thousands of us, I think. But it takes months and months of planning and organizing for something like that. This, on the other hand, was people spontaneously pulling together on very short notice. It was a very good showing, thanks to people like you!

Regarding parking, yes that's what I heard too: That the lot that was roped off was for people coming to the demo. I only heard that second hand, but I believe it to be the case. The people who work in that building are, after all, public employees, and many of them are probably (secretly) on our side.

We need a way to isolate and punish cops that don't represent us 13.Feb.2006 19:35

mb

This is in response to a comment made by St. It isn't meant as a charachterization of your words in entirety. I really appreciated many of the things you said.

Basicly I don't feel that saying "You're not going to be able to get people who risk taking a bullet in the performance of their job, to be reviewed exclusively by people who don't." Takes into account the fact that these people work for us. This statement gives all of our power away. Not just yours but mine, and our neighbors as well.
The problem is we havn't figured out a way to create institutions powerfull enough to fire cops that murder civilians. If we're going to talk about policies lets talk about the policies of new institutions, powerfull community based institutions, local and democraticly controlled institutions that can fire bad cops. I think this problem is exacerbated by the fact that the police union stands behind cops that act like murderous criminals. I think that the police union needs to be reminded that they work for a democracy.
It is awsome that they stand together to maintain a degree of dignity, and a fair wage. What isn't ok is when they exonerate and reward cops that murder unarmed civilians. There can be no solidarity with that. There's no mincing words here. Either the police work for the democracy and are the "communities police" or they act as enemies of our democracy and are what George Jackson described as a "Pig Class" working for the likes of the Portland Buisiness Alliance and the defense contractors they represent.

I beleave that the labor movement needs to stand up to these people and demand that they work with campaigns to hold the murderers and crooks among them accountable. Being from a working class background is no blank check to get away with murder. I grew up working poor. If one of us went out and murdered a cop there would be thunderous uproar. To me this doesn't seem so much about class as it does about holding individuals, and institutions accountable. We all know that among our various social justice movements there are police collaborators. People that co-ordinate thier every effort with the police. People that feel that they are in principle on equal ground with institutions that have defended murderers. Mainly I feel that people that people that have a heartfealt and sincere regard for equality, have been forced and co-erced into defending this position without regard to "equal justice." The consequences are clear. We cannot afford to let one more die in the name of understanding.

In essence it is important to recognize the simple truth that we are all equal. We all live we all die. If we are dealing with an oppostion that respected us, our protests, our efforts to respect them and ask for change would be respected. They clearly have not. What we need is a break. A declaration that workers (cops) that kill, or defend those that murder the working class are not our brothers, are not our friends. That indeed no, we are seperate. Our goals are not thier goal. Which is silence. Again, our efforts at reform would have gained traction if they viewed us as equals, as participants in a dialogue about our democracy. If they simply acted like we have a RIGHT to be treated as equals. If you read the documents issued on the local chapter of the fraternal order of police, and witness as they mock the people they murder, mock the people that protest the murders, mock our very right to have a problem with thier actions you'll see that we need to distance our selves from them. To say CLEARLY: YOU ARE NOT US! You must change or we will change you. This is our right. This is our duty. Anything less conceeds or absolves those rights.

quadruple for everyone what you give away to a few 14.Feb.2006 02:16

st

"mb", thanks for the heartfelt thoughts on the idea about why cops should be obliged submit to review of their performance by people who aren't cops.

There's far more people than there are police. It's simply a question of how to get those people up and moving.

An unease in perception between police and citizens towards each other can no doubt, be said to exist, possibly to some degree, in all quarters of the population, but definitely amongst certain localities of people more than others. Even though they are entitled to the same level of protection from the police that the population at large enjoys from the police, people in those localities are likely to be more frequent targets of police policy and procedure that rapidly escaltes towards the use of violent force.

Accessible involvement by the public in formulation of policy and procedure, and oversight of police performance is of less concern to the public at large, even though their concern should be considerable, because they are comparatively far less likely to be targets of police p&p and performance.

The public at large, those members of it with property, good jobs are generally happy with the performance of the police and have few issues with p&p. They rarely get rousted by the police, caught DUI, dealing, or just being the focus of the cops attention for fitting a profile.

All of this means that any effort towards a more humane, less violent, more sophisticated arrest procedure, will likely not enjoy the support of the public at large unless a particularly strong argument is made for such a change.

If such an argument existed, some of the most inert citizens could be disloged from their passivity, and in doing so, bring great pressure to bear on the bureaucrats. Characterizing many of the shootings in recent years, the argument that seems to me to be the strongest, is that the victims had a presence of diminished mental competency which police p&p does not advise them to factor into their arrest procedure.

I know my use of that phrase "diminished mental competency" is general, touchy, and controversial, but I think where it exists in the field where cops have to make an arrest, it is the distinguishing factor that could direct police away from the kind of dumb fatal arrests such as befell Vernon Allen and Fouad Kaady. The public, if brought to the realization that this is happening, might gradually take exception to the outrage that police, legally following p&p are routinely killing people who may not have been capable of responsibility for their actions.

Then it would be a sustaining question of whether it's morally, ethically, humanely acceptable to use a standard arrest procedure.

This is not a question of whether someone is crazy. Forget that lame, prejudice inviting term. Crazy is not a proper term for the kind of state we're talking about here. We're talking about levels of mental competence. Is a person mentally, or physically as the case may be, capable of obliging a police officer's commands, where there are identifiable signs that person's mental function may be impaired? Given that contingency, what is the most humane procedure for arresting that person that would best serve the interests of everyone?

It's not unreasonable for people in targeted quarters of the population to feel like any participation by the police in reviewing their performance would be unreliable and a compromise towards an outcome that would be in the best interests of everyone. We do pay the cops, they do work for us. It may even be possible to put together some kind of non-cop institution that could fire cops like Bergin and Willard for shooting Fouad Kaady under the circumstances they did.

Would such an institution work? Probably not, because it would undermine one critical component of Bureau member reliability; Confidence. Having no cops on review boards or p&p staffs would erode cop confidence in protection they have a right to expect from the structure that outlines their job obligations. Cops might have a lazy donut shop run on a lot of their shifts, but when one comes where they got to stick it out there, if the structure isn't there for them...well, they're not that stupid....in short order, they're going to distance themselves from the tough stuff.

I don't claim to be that smart. I like to think about certain issues.... this is one. Many, many years ago, I had a kind of starry eyed view of cops. You might laugh when I say this, but, then I read the book Serpico. It was an eye-opener. It took me awhile to accept the idea that police would really do the kind of shit described in that book.

At this point, cops still seem to me to be comprized of people who see themselves as being a world apart from the public at large. A kingdom to themselves. I meet people who disagree with that view, because there are these forums and advisory committees supposedly accessing bureau administration on the part of the public. Of course, sadly, those organizations today tend largely to be pretty pictures, but largely ineffectual. Maybe they can be made to have more authority, or, create something totally independent that is. Invite some cops to come on board instead of the status quo vice versa.

The kingdom to themselves complex is a big part of the problem. I really don't understand it yet. But a note somewhere in the paper or elsewhere emphasises the problem. In June or something, the city is going to sign a "contract" with the bureau. What?? I think that tells you someone is subordinate here, and it's probably not the police.

So there is this kind of adversarial relationship between the city/general public and the bureau. Addressing that point directly, is key to changing the vicious cycle. Joint boards, committees, etc., made to work by determined, visionary people could be the key.

Cops can be corrupt, but they're not always as corrupt, everywhere, as they are as depicted in the book. They can be good citizens, some are good citizens. We hire them, we pay them, they work for us, but the efforts we idealy expect them to provide us in exchange for that are sustaining the society they live within too. When they work for us, they're working for themselves as well.

That's the rationale supporting a joint effort between people on review and p&p boards comprised of people who aren't cops and those who are. There's hazards in such a setup, sure, but do it that way and you ensure a better chance of confidence from the bureau members that they'll stick to the decisions those boards make.

For it to work, naturally the members of the public can't be as passive as they tend to want to be. They have to actively seek to be involved, and make and realize demands about the kind of involvement that should be accessible to them. They have to unequivocally articulate exactly what they expect from their electeds, appointeds and hires.

It's a mistake to just make a big noise and tell all the officials what you want them to do, leaving it them to decide what specific terms they do it in, because they think they're already doing the best they can. Learn their language. Using their own materials, show them where they are derelict in there duty. It's not that invisible.

Last notes. I met someone who volunteers for the PPB Chief's forum. Checked out their website. Anyone wants to volunteer comments about that outfit, I'd welcome them. I'm wondering about the prospects of that approach for revising p&p.

In CatWoman's article, she mentions Queral urging the public to demand "transparency" from the police. That got me to check out the CCSO website for info available about its working structure. Especially comparing it to the PPB website, you could say it's opaque. No policy and procedure manual. No listing of any citizen advisory committees. Something about a citizen academy...just a once a year pr blitz is what I could tell in a quick look. There's something to bring up to the county commisioners.

Hard to believe 02.Apr.2006 09:32

rev. leo beato

This is hard to believe that a tragedy like this could have happened in America. Not even during the Martin Luther's days involving police brutality cases. Is there an investigation being done? God help us! Oregon was a State we Americans believed to be one o the safest places in the Union.