Portland Copwatch is raising concerns about the grand jury slated to review an incident earlier this month where Keaton Otis, a black mentally-ill Portlander, was shot by police following a confrontation during a traffic stop.
“We’ve outlined to you several times in the past that we have concerns about officers never being charged with crimes for on-duty use of force, not even indictments for criminal negligence or manslaughter,” read the letter from Copwatch to District Attorney Mike Schrunk who will have a large hand in the jury proceedings.
The letter brings up two recent court cases that could prove to be relevant to this case. According to the police account of the shooting, Otis became verbally aggressive with officers after being pulled over in northeast Portland.
Officers Tased Otis twice, and here’s where Copwatch says things might get tricky. The letter references a fairly recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that limits the use of Tasers by police officers to incidents where a subject presents an immediate threat.
“From what little information we’ve heard in the media about this incident, it sounds as though Mr. Otis was not accused of having a weapon at the time officers tasered him, he was reportedly in one form or another not complying with their commands. Are you instructing the jury to consider this court ruling when considering criminal charges?” read the letter.
According to police the account, Otis then pulled a gun on officers and shot one in the leg. He was shot dead shortly afterward by police.
The letter references an Oregon Supreme Court decision that gives citizens the right to self-defense against police officers.
“Again, we do not advocate for violence against police–and we’re not even sure from witness testimony that we believe Mr. Otis used a gun against the officers. But if he did, isn’t it possible that, based on the other ruling, the overwhelming number of officers, and the fact that he was a young African American man suffering from mental health issues in a city where people in either one of those groups might reasonably fear for their lives at a police encounter, he had a right to self-defense?” read the letter.
We’ll have Schrunk’s response as soon as we get it.
Here’s the full text of the letter:
Portland Copwatch
(a project of Peace and Justice Works)
PO Box 42456
Portland, OR 97242
(503) 236-3065 (office)
(503) 321-5120 (incident report line)
copwatch@portlandcopwatch.orghttp://www.portlandcopwatch.org
District Attorney Mike Schrunk
Multnomah County Courthouse
1021 S.W. Fourth Avenue, Room 600
Portland, OR 97204May 25, 2010
District Attorney Schrunk
We are writing to you once again regarding the grand jury proceedings for an officer involved shooting in Portland, this time the shooting of Keaton Otis.
We’ve outlined to you several times in the past that we have concerns about officers never being charged with crimes for on-duty use of force, not even indictments for criminal negligence or manslaughter.
We raise the following concerns reminding you that we are part of a peace group, and we do not want to see anyone get shot, be they civilians or police officers, and that everyone’s goal in interactions with police should be for everyone to go home safe at night.
There are two recent court cases (both of which we wrote about in the May issue of our newsletter, the People’s Police Report) relevant to this case.
The first is the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in Bryan v. McPherson which, in essence, limited officers’ use of the Taser to instances in which a person poses an immediate threat. From what little information we’ve heard in the media about this incident, it sounds as though Mr. Otis was not accused of having a weapon at the time officers tasered him, he was reportedly in one form or another not complying with their commands. Are you instructing the jury to consider this court ruling when considering criminal charges?
The second is the Oregon Supreme Court ruling in State v. Oliphant, which boils down to a person’s right to self defense if they reasonably believe an officer is, or is about to, use excessive force against them. Again, we
do not advocate for violence against police–and we’re not even sure from witness testimony that we believe Mr. Otis used a gun against the officers. But if he did, isn’t it possible that, based on the other ruling, the overwhelming number of officers, and the fact that he was a young African American man suffering from mental health issues in a city where people in either one of those groups might reasonably fear for their lives at a police encounter, he had a right to self-defense?We hope you present all of the facts, and all of this context to the grand jury. As we noted in the Aaron Campbell case, while you follow the questions that the grand jury asks, you also pick and choose what information to present to them.
We look forward to the outcome of the hearings and the publication of the transcripts, thanking you for working to release the transcripts in the Campbell and Jack Collins cases.
Sincerely,
Dan Handelman
Portland Copwatch
Whack-jobs, ALL OF YOU!