Behind the closed and unwelcoming door of a Grand Jury lives are changed forever. Victims begin their journey to justice in this body of everyday citizens. Suspects await their fate. The Grand Jury represents the beginning of the end of their criminal act.
And, yes, it is that clear. Victims are defended by the justice system with all its protective energy. You’re a suspect if you come before this body. That’s right, if you are front and center at a Grand Jury proceeding, you are a suspect and nothing less. You are presumed innocent in this supposedly neutral proceeding but the job of the Grand Jury is to determine probable cause to charge you with a crime.
Funny though, the word suspect can make you feel guilty even if you are not.
The referee in the room is the District Attorney who decides what information and which punches are delivered and by whom. That matters a lot when the score cards come in from the grand jurors as indictments or not true bills. But when a cop and their on duty use of deadly force is the suspect action in question, the stakes are much higher. Higher because in theory they are the ‘good guy’ suspects, and if the good guys get indicted, then what?
So when the Grand Jury door closed in the Aaron Campbell death and the Officer Ron Frashour proceeding began, the stakes were extraordinarily high. Aaron Campbell, who was acknowledged as having a mental health history, was shot and killed by Officer Ron Frashour as he fled. To be determined was the question: is it true beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of Officer Frashour were criminal?
Frashour must have told the Grand Jury he was acting within the Deadly Force policy of Portland Police Bureau and within the training protocols that back up those policies. More importantly, so did every other representative of the City of Portland, starting with the Police Bureau that was subpoenaed to appear. There is no other logical conclusion.
So Command personnel that were responsible for assuring the policy and training met, not only Use of Deadly Force standards of the Portland Police Bureau, but accepted police practice to the police trainers that embedded the policy into the actions of Frashour on that day.
Then the District Attorney(s) had to get all to agree that the direct action of Officer Frashour in Aaron Cambell’s death, although extremely tragic, did not meet the test for returning a criminal indictment for any felony or otherwise related charge to the death of Aaron Campbell.
And sure enough so did the Grand Jury …well kind of.
Imagine if the sworn testimony heard by the Grand Jury had been just the opposite. That Portland Police command staff testified that Officer Frashour was completely outside of the Bureau’s policy. Imagine if that testimony were followed by a trail of Portland Police training staff who said that, not only did he not follow the policy, his action were not in line with bureau training protocols. Then a District Attorney would admonish a Grand Jury that police using their police powers are only protected from criminal charges when they act within the scope of their duties and training, including the duty to as guided by policy and law. Even if there had some significant disagreement in front of the Grand Jury the result may have been different.
And sure enough, the Grand Jury might have agreed on a different outcome. In fact, they returned an indictment of their own which was came in the form of a flaming open letter that addressed the facts of the case and their more than mild displeasure with the facts surrounding Aaron Campbell’s death. Sounds to me like a body not satisfied with their decision, but dealing with the real FACTS or at least those they were left with to decide.
Now follow the bouncing ball in the form of the city’s intent to appeal the employment reinstatement to the Court of Appeals;
- Frashour was then fired by Mayor Adams and Police Chief Reese for acting outside of that same policy and not following those same bureau’s training protocols regarding the use of deadly physical force;
- and then reinstated to his position after an arbitrator—following Oregon law–found that the officer had not acted in a manner that ignored his policy or training;
- and then the arbitration hearing found Frashour’s actions were supported by police trainers who testified they believe he acted with the bureau’s policy and his training;
- and then Lieutenant Robert King agreed in an official police command review that not only were Frashour’s actions within the policy and training….the policy left much to be desired;
- and then surprisingly he changed or was forced to change his position just before arbitration;
- and then on appeal regarding the arbitrator’s decision, the State of Oregon Employment Relations Board affirmed the arbitrator and told the city to put the officer back to work with all back pay;
- and then the city decided to appeal to the Court of Appeals based on the “Public Interest Exception”;
- and then the Portland Police Command directly and publicly questioned the veracity (sounds like being called a liar to a cop), of the officers who testified in the arbitration process;
- and then Lt. King’s conflicting statements gets hung out to dry again on the front page without a safety net again;
- and then begging this question…………………HUH?
No question, the standards for returning a criminal indictment and terminating employment are different by definition, so forget that distraction.
The Court of Appeals will only decide if the Employment Relations Board followed the law of the State of Oregon regarding the facts regarding reinstatement of a public employee. They may comment and/or consider; but their findings will not center on the criminal law considered by the Grand Jury or its process; not the policies or the training protocols of the Portland Police Bureau; and not the community outrage that may be very justified on the streets or at the front door of city hall.
The written arguments the court will consider may center on the “Public Interest Exception” on which the City is basing its appeal. The City’s pleadings will outline the progression of facts and events as they see them. But so will counsel for the Portland Police Officer Association. Sure, the public is entitled to be considered first—and should be– when it comes to hiring a public employee, however in the end it comes down to the City displaying a competent understanding and implementation of the policies and management practices that extend to public employers.
In the Court of Appeals, only the law will be considered. The City’s chances aren’t good. It’s 0-2 armed with its facts so far.
And when the court receives those arguments salted with the Laurel and Hardy routine from above…
I can’t imagine the city losing...again.….can you?
0-3.
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com
