Sam Adams is following the example set by President Obama, who refuses to enforce laws he does not like. At the same time Obama was saying the Supreme Court should not declare a law unconstitutional if it was passed by a "strong majority" in congress, he was fighting to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act which really was passed by a strong majority in congress.
This is too bad. I might not like what Officer Frashour did, but I have enough respect for the law to realize that legal decisions don't always come out the way I would like. In a civil society we need to accept that the law does not always go our way, and we need to live with that. I think Chief Reese has it right.
Duck-Please identify the law Mayor Adams is choosing to not enforce.
City attorney James H. Van Dyke cited ORS. 243.706 (1) that says arbitration awards ordering a public employee to be reinstated, relieving the employee of responsibility for misconduct, "shall comply with public policy requirements," including policies regarding "unjustified and egregious use of physical or deadly force."
This is not a case of "unjustified and egregious use of physical or deadly force." An independent third party found that "..a reasonable officer could have concluded that Campbell was armed, and that when he ran, "there was sufficient evidence for a finding that Mr. Campbell made motions that appeared to look like he was reaching for a gun." This is how police officers are trained by the City of Portland and all around the country, and similar cases have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Why is there such a hatred of the men and women who lay their lives on the line to protect law abiding citizens from anarchy and chaos?
This is NOT how all police are trained around the country. I was a cop in the 1970's and we were trained NOT to shoot anybody in the back, unless he had been shooting at us or someone, or was in the act of extreme bodily harm on someone... none of which was happening when Aaron Campbell was shot..... he was just shot in the back.... that is MURDER and considered stepping over the line of prudence or justifiable.
Just because Frashour "thought" he had a gun is not justifiable unless he actually saw a gun, and how could he with Campbells back to him?
You are totally wrong about use of force in the 1970s. At that time many states had laws that allowed the shooting of any suspect fleeing a felony, armed or not. Posing a threat or not. The Tennessee decision involved the shooting of an unarmed teenager fleeing a burglary which was found to be justified under state law at that time. Actions taken under these laws led to court decisions such as Tennessee vs Garner, Graham vs Connor ,etc. Agencies in Oregon have had to revise their policies to reflect these court court decisions since the Oregon State Legislature never changed Oregon Revised Statutes to be consistent with these important court decisions.
The city will lose, plain and simple. Wait and see.
As for the "my view is informed by almost two decades of experience losing arbitration after arbitration after arbitration" comment, the city keeps losing because it DOESN'T DO THINGS PROPERLY!!! The city's record in arbitration in terrible (good for me!) because they continually and consistently disregard their own policies, procedures and violate the collective bargaining agreements entered into with labor. Think I'm wrong? Think I'm a blowhard municipal employee? Look up the city's arbitration record.
Supervisors and managers are the biggest offenders and that is probably a product of poor training or lack of skill for the position they hold. But HR and the city attorney's office review and sign-off on ALL discipline cases; the latter is a joke of an office. All dolts and big-firm rejects.
So, go for it Sam. Refuse to follow the contract. Refuse to follow the order of the arbitrator. See what happens and waste more city money, you idiot. Reinstate him and give him a desk-job until the appeal is finished, or for the rest of his career if you want, but you're not above the law to ignore a lawful judgment! The Chief knows--that's why he doesn't agree with you.
Calm down.... Breath..... Look at the letter of the law and accept that the right of the Mayor to proceed as he is, is valid. That is all. As far as a waste of our tax dollars. Why would anyone want to just hand this cop (who lost control of his ability to properly judge the situation and then committed an inexcusable shooting in the back) a desk job for the rest of his career? His career ended when he shot the man in the back. Clear violation of protocol and also, as any good western movie will prove, it is chicken**** !!
I personally do not want to see my hard earned dollars support a cop who has committed an illegal shooting ending in death.
Sadly, no one wins in this scenario. Adams gets vilified by the police and some of the public, the police get vilified by some of the public and Adams, and the city pays millions in lawyers fees. I don't know enough of the facts of the case to make an opinion, but usually an arbitrator is a neutral 3rd party who makes a decision on the facts without bias, so it is unusual to ignore their decision.