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

police / legal

"We don't need to have an eye for an eye. We have the courts."

A Springfield father has been arrested for allegedly hiring a hit man to kill a police officer who shot and killed his unarmed son.
In an article from today's (February 18, 2006) Oregonian, Joseph Rose writes about Charles Porter,a man in Springfield who, frustrated by the clearing of a police officer who killed his son, allegedly hired a hit man to kill that officer. I want to say up front that I do not condone killings of any kind, and murder is murder no matter what the motivation, but this is what can come of a system that straight-arms citizens. I have witnessed the frustration and pain caused by the results of a grand jury investigation and an "internal investigation" subsequent to the killing of Fouad Kaady on September 8, 2005. There is no connection between the Kaady case and Charles Porter, except the wrongful death of a son and the unconditional clearing of the killers.

What happens when a closed system investigates itself? Victims are left in the cold, hurt and angry and unable to find answers to their anguished questions. Doors are closed to them and they are expected to accept the results of those investigations without further "bother". This is just not working. Those of us who have read the reports and seen the pictures regarding the Kaady case are still very angry, still full of questions and some of us can even understand the reasons why Charles Porter was driven to his desperate act. This is tragic. This is not necessary. There has to be a better way of investigating questionable shootings, such as those committed against unarmed citizens.

Porter's lawyers stated, "We don't need to have an eye for an eye. We have the courts." Would that were true. Most of us have lost faith in "the system". We have seen first hand what has happened and is still happening to the Kaady family. How many other families are suffering in the aftermath of bad decisions made by those we hoped were hired to protect and serve? Kendra James comes to mind. There is a long list.

Some concerned citizens attended the Clackamas County Commissioners' meeting on Thursday and asked that a citizens review board be formed. That seems like a place to begin. It would at the very least, allow for formal conversations between law enforcement and citizens. Perhaps discussions about policies and training would benefit both groups. The suggestion seems to have fallen on deaf ears at this time, but we will keep asking.
Eh? Murder is Murder? 18.Feb.2006 16:11

Non-females suck so bad sometimes

So when I killed the man who attacked me with intent to rape I became a murderer? If murder is murder, then I should go to jail for it, right? For how long do you think I should serve time there? Life? Or what?

No such thing as self-defense in your world, I guess. Glad I don't live in your world.

Eh? yes 18.Feb.2006 17:13


Yes, murder IS murder. Not all killing is murder, and I do not believe that RT was referring to self defensive killing as murder, nor would anyone else with a whit of sense. Go right ahead and kill your rapist, and let the courts decide whether or not you should pay (for my money, you should not). What RT was saying, and saying well, was that to kill a defenseless human being, whether or not he or she is a naughty person, is wrong. To kill a cop in cold blood would be wrong. To kill that cop because he was trying to kill you or someone else, or rape you would not be wrong, but given the current state of "justice" in this state, you would probably go to jail, anyway.
BTW, RT is not, by any stretch of your imagination, a "non female."

self defense 19.Feb.2006 05:44

karl roenfanz ( rosey ) k_rosey48@hotmail.com

in this the ruling class pretty much does what it wants. if there is any uproar it then self-investagates. then claims justification. has passed laws bypassing the constitution. what happened jury nulification? the judges won't allow it. they know who signs their paycheck!

Definition of self-defense 19.Feb.2006 08:15

no killer

Self-defense is understood to be when a person acts to protect themself from immediate harm. Going out after the fact and killing them is revenge, and, yes, that is murder, even if you feel justified.

If I'm On the Jury 19.Feb.2006 08:33


I I were chosen to be on that jury, the verdict would be not guilty, hands down. And if I were on the jury that SHOULD be trying the pig who shot the kid, the verdict would be GUILTY AS SIN. Take note, pig. If that guy ever does manage to get someone to take care of you, you'd best be choosing the jury carefully, because very few people of conscience would find him guilty of anything but serving justice.

Good article RT 20.Feb.2006 17:08

Madam Hatter

Good article RT, and I agree with your sentiments. This is exactly what happens when police and others in authority are allowed to investigate themselves. Whether or not Mr. Porter is justified in his actions is not the point. (And, for the record, while I sympathize and can't say I wouldn't feel the same - I still believe two wrongs do not make a right.)

What is troubling about this case, to me anyway, is that it sounds as if Porter was likely to win a civil suit. As is usual, the MSM gives us sketchy info on this but goes into great detail re: Porter's alleged drug use, past criminal history, etc. (The Reg-Guard says court records show he has one felony conviction for car theft in 2001. The O says he has past drug and car theft convictions.)

And, all the current allegations originated from snitch testimony from an admitted meth addict who the DA said "just couldn't walk away from the offer". But he obviously did, right? I also read somewhere, (but can't find the link right now - sorry!) that the snitch was more interested in drugs than in the money. Then, the same DA said of the snitch: "It got the better of him. He said he realized that if he didn't do it, this guy would eventually convince someone else to do it."

KVAL says that OR State Police and Lane Cnty DA's office "worked with an informant to build the case."

The Register-Guard said that court docs indicate that the threats were made between Nov. 1 and Feb. 16. The Oregonian says the informant came forward in early January. The same article quotes Mr. Porter's attorney as saying Porter was just preparing to file his civil law suit. The cops claim Porter told the informant he was expecting to get a large amount of cash from the city in the lawsuit, and promised the man he would pay for the killing with the money.

Several things are a bit out of whack here I think. At least I'd like more details to clarify.

Funny how an "evil, no-conscience, coniving tweaker" (which is how the MSM and cops usually portray pathetic meth addicts) suddenly grew morals, ethics, a conscience? and willingly went to the cops, and agreed to wear a wire... for what reason? Just cuz? Right.

We all know snitches don't just come forward out of the goodness of their hearts. There is ALWAYS some other (usually law enforcement based) motivation. Did he get busted any time recently? Did he know Porter only lately or is he an old friend?Has he ever been used as a CI before?

Porter was also charged with seven counts of using his 17-yr-old son to deliver meth. To make these accusations stick, these must have been done w/ the CI. If the investigation has only been going on for a little over a month, that means he must have been there at least once a week. Why did they need seven "proofs" of this before closing in? Did it take them seven times to get him to say what they wanted? (That may seem a stretch to some, but w/o more info, I think it's a valid question.)

The timing is puzzling as well. Porter's attorney appeared to be quite shocked about his arrest as the title to RT's article attests: "It appeared the civil remedy was going to release some of the tension and anxiety he was feeling. We don't need to have an eye for an eye. We have the courts," he said.

For those of you unfamiliar with the original case: Porter's 15-yr-old son Jason was fatally shot by Springfield police officer Ethan Spencer on June 26, 2005. Spencer, who had less than two years on the force, spotted a truck matching the description of one reported stolen earlier that day. He followed it and tried to pull it over, but it didn't stop, turning instead into a parking lot and then onto some nearby train tracks where it stopped. Spencer approached the vehicle with his weapon drawn. As he approached the driver's side door, he "thought he saw a hand come up with a firearm in it and he fired one round. He thought he was going to be shot in the face."

Instead Spencer shot an unarmed 15-year-old in the face, through his jaw, killing him.

Less than 48 hours later, the Lane County DA (who also happens to now be prosecuting Jason's father, Charles - and, presumably would be liable in a civil suit), declared the shooting justified - though he did say his decision was based on preliminary information and that the investigation was being conducted by the OR State Police. This time around, Springfield Police gave the father's investigation over to the OSP to avoid a conflict of interest.

Very little was made of this when it happened last year. Apparently the same justification that was used to shoot Perez was used here: the old action-reaction theory. You know, by the time you see the gun, it's too late.

But the kid stole the truck, came from a troubled home, had a juvenile record, and had ADHD that may not have been treated, so he wasn't deemed worthy of more than a cursory investigation or a couple small blurbs in the MSM.

The whole thing is so sad and unnecessary. Look at the fallout from just one senseless tragedy like this. And even still, the MSM focuses on the poor cops. We don't hear about the every day horror these poor family's face. Not only have they had one of their beloved suddenly and brutally taken away, they are denied even the semblance of justice. Can money replace your blood? They are shown over and over and over that they don't count. That their pain is secondary.

Think what you might about Porter. He may have done everything they say he did. If so, what kind of a society do we live in that allows people to sink this level of hopelessness and despair?

i would 20.Feb.2006 18:55

really like to know

how many 'for-hire' killers
would actually kill on the promise
of monies from a lawsuit that
hadn't even been in the courts

what percentage of apprehended car thiefs... 21.Feb.2006 01:55


are summarily executed by the cops? The reason I ask is, it seems like, more often than not, the end of the story with any car thief apprehended by the cops is a bullet in the head of the car thief. Seems like cops universally view the situation as "a free pass," and relish the opportunity.

there is only one way, to forgive 22.Feb.2006 20:07


Forgivness. That is the only way to save yourself. I had a 20 year old kid attack me in front of my home for calling 911 on him for assaulting my neighbors kids. I was 33 years old, he smashed my right cheek which I had titanium uh, I guess I would say installed in my face, I know, I know, but what I want to say is that I have no hate for this guy, I want no revenge, I pray he is doing well. The DA who was persecuting him did not understand or like this, he wanted me to lie under oath to gaurantee a conviction of a Measure 11 crime, and that he be put in jail until he was 27. Now many still don't get this with me, but he was only 20, it was brutal and bad, almost killed me, but still, I would rather him make it happy with a family and children then be in jail until age 27 with a ruined life of drugs and probation. I forgave him, people don't understand why I do not sue him since he pleaded guilty already to an asault of a lesser degree, but I refuse. This was the only way I was able to heal. I truely hope that he did his 30 days in jail (lucky bastard) , and has not had probation problems and is happy and being successful. The legal system is broke 30 days is a joke, but I would not destroy this mans life. Strange? He saw my brother a while ago and asked, "Why did your brother refuse to work with the DA?" to which my brother answered, "Because he did no want to ruin your life." Did that kid learn something or what from that?

That was not murder, for Fouad I pray that I will forgive Willard and Bergin someday, but when there is no accountablity or remorse it ruins everything. Causes one to really get screwed up.



County commissioner mtg is every week at 10 : am.