Grand jury indicts officer who accidentally shot man w/live ammo

[Nightvisionary]

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Grand-jury-indicts-officer-who-accidentally-shot-man-with-live-rounds-134164678.html

PORTLAND, Ore. - A Multnomah County grand jury indicted a Portland police officer Friday night of assault in the third and fourth degrees after he accidentally shot a man with live shotgun rounds instead non-lethal ones.

On June 30 Officer Dane Reister shot 20-year-old William Kyle Monroe in his thigh and buttocks with a shotgun loaded with live ammunition instead of less-lethal beanbags. Police said Monroe was fleeing from them.

Wow! It sounds like the Portland Police Bureau had some real specific mechanisms and measures in place to prevent this very thing from happening but the officer still loaded a less than lethal bean bag gun with buckshot rounds.

I would guess this type of incident has occurred before at least nationally.With the potential of multi-million dollar judgements from each occurance I am suprised that less than lethal rounds have not been standardized into a bore size other than 12 guage.

Making all less than lethal a smaller bore size such as 16 guage would preclude the possibility of introducing department issued lethal ammunition by accident if that department still issues shotguns.

My local sheriffs office issues pistol and rifle caliber carbines to patrol deputies and uses shotguns exclusively for less than lethal scenarios. Since buckshot and slug rounds are not in inventory this prevents similar accidents.

[C45P312]

What were they issued?

http://www.keltecweapons.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/images/KSG_3357web.jpg

[ChicagoTex]

While the lawsuit liability for complete negligence like this is indeed great, the extra cost and complication of having two guns serve seperate roles that one already does probably isn't ultimately worth it (barring any "if it saves just one life..." style rhetoric).

Remember, one of the best attributes of a (pump) shotgun is the ability to transition to a wide variety of ammo types quickly - so if an officer should find a less lethal scenario escalating to a full lethal or breaching scenario, a quick round change is all that's required.

I of course realize that the Officer always has his handgun as an option for full lethal scenarios, but shotguns (and now carbines) are issued to officers primarily for situations where a handgun is likely to be inadequate.

With all that said... given the rise of tasers, I frankly view less lethal bean bag rounds to be of questionable value in this day and age (less effective with higher risk of death, IMO), and would personally suggest a shotgun only be employed for lethal and/or breaching scenarios.

Hopefully some of the LEOs on this board will chime in with their take. I'll be very interested to see their perspective.

[RyanB]

You can buy a shotgun with an orange stock for less lethal, for $400. Easy choice. Lethal and less lethal should never go in the same weapon.

I think less lethal should be 14ga.

[variablebinary]

More on the story


Reister was one of three officers responding to a 9-1-1 call on Thursday about a man who had been "possibly harassing" children at Lair Hill Park, according to police. A second caller said the man had left the park, had a pocket knife concealed in his sleeve and was acting in a "peculiar manner."

Portland police spotted Monroe, who has struggled with mental illness, at the corner of Southwest Pennoyer Street and Naito Parkway. Witnesses said Monroe ran from the officers. Police would only say that Monroe did not follow police commands, but did not say what those commands were, or what Monroe was doing when he was shot. Monroe was found with a knife, but police did not say if he had threatened anyone.

I'd personally give the officer the benefit of the doubt, and give him a desk job for 6 months at most. Maybe a couple of weeks without pay and community service.

[Nightvisionary]

You can buy a shotgun with an orange stock for less lethal, for $400. Easy choice. Lethal and less lethal should never go in the same weapon.

I think less lethal should be 14ga.

The bureau in question already had different colored stocks and ammunition for less than lethal shot guns. They still got mixed up.

[RyanB]

The bureau in question already had different colored stocks and ammunition for less than lethal shot guns. They still got mixed up.

I know, I was pointing out the issue to the poster above me.

[PdxMotoxer]

This is a pretty big STORY here as there has been a few local police "issues" and it was a "mistake" but on the heels of other "mistakes".

I can go on.... BUT being the rules here about law enforcement threads
this will be deleted or locked soon so i'll just remind EVERYONE to visually check what ammo you are shooting BEFORE you shoot.

[Honu]

I think the first mistake should be taken into account and that is running from the police !

case closed dont run from the cops :)

[ChicagoTex]

Lethal and less lethal should never go in the same weapon.

Besides the fantasy that that will somehow prevent what happened from happening... why?

I personally think that if an officer needs a seperate gun with an orange stock in order to deal with a situation correctly, that person really shouldn't be an officer in the first place.

[RyanB]

Because shit happens. Especially at the end of 12 hours shifts and in the dark. So you create systems that moderate risk rather than have people make decisions for the same purpose.

[Todd.K]

Remember, one of the best attributes of a (pump) shotgun is the ability to transition to a wide variety of ammo types quickly - so if an officer should find a less lethal scenario escalating to a full lethal or breaching scenario, a quick round change is all that's required.

It sounds good in theory and that's why we have situations like this, because the theory sold a lot of less lethal 12ga for use in existing shotguns. The current trend towards dedicated less lethal shotguns with colored stock is proof that the theory doesn't always work in the real world and is prone to mistakes.

[Irish]

Apparently the officer was a use of force instructor for some time and has inadvertently shot other people in the past. (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/11/multnomah_county_grand_jury_in.html)

Reister had five years earlier mistakenly fired a loaded riot-suppression launcher during training, striking an officer posing as a protestor with a smoke round. Reister was a "grenadier" training as part of the Police Bureau's Rapid Response Team in October 2006 when he fired a less-lethal TL-1 launcher loaded with a smoke round at an officer posing as a rioter who threw a projectile at Reister's unit. Reister pulled the trigger of his gun to simulate firing, but his firearm was loaded with a smoke round that struck Officer Zach Kenney in the leg, causing a minor bruise. Reister had forgotten he had loaded a live smoke round in the chamber and admitted he had made a mistake, court papers show. The bureau gave Reister a letter of reprimand for the 2006 error.
It doesn't help that the Portland PD is currently having their use of force policy reviewed by the Feds either.

[SteyrAUG]

I think the first mistake should be taken into account and that is running from the police !

case closed dont run from the cops :)


Part of me understands and agrees with you, but I have also been in situations where other people near me were ****ing up and I knew I had no solid proof I was not a party to their actions.

And I also know that "I don't know those guys, I was just walking by" is about as believable as "I've only had two beers." So given that I thought my chances for being arrested and having a record were high (even if the charges later got dismissed and there is no guarantee of that) I have hauled ass on a few occasions. I'd hate to think I should be shot for such decisions.

I used to love 2am walks around town. Everything is peaceful and quiet and it's kinda like having the whole world to yourself. The only problem is that is also when most shit goes down and being one of the few guys out and about you become a prime candidate for any goings on.

When I used to live in Ft. Lauderdale I pretty much had to stop because there was always some shit going on and "I'm just out for a walk" was looked upon with great skepticism by most LEOs.

[CarlosDJackal]

Besides the fantasy that that will somehow prevent what happened from happening... why?

I personally think that if an officer needs a seperate gun with an orange stock in order to deal with a situation correctly, that person really shouldn't be an officer in the first place.

I call BS!! It has been the policy in a lot of LE Agencies that Less Than Lethal (LTL) be clearly marked and separate from Lethal weapons. Under the stress of an encounter it is very easy to reach for the wrong tool.

I can guarantee you that if it were up to the Officers there would not be such a policy. But the big "L" has dictated this requirement. This has been borne out by the many cases in which the LEO reached for their handgun when they were actually trying to retrieve their Taser.

You have to separate the two because their utility and the time to use them are usually very different. Even Tactical Teams have designated LTL users during certain raids.

These policies are put in place (a) To prevent the accidental killing of an individual who was not putting anyone's life or limb in immediate danger and (b) To cut down on the lawsuits that result because such incidents are inevitable when dealing with human beings in a fluid situation. Just sayin'!!

My question is who loaded the shotgun and how can they mix up the rounds used? Back when I wore a badge the "lethal" shotgun stayed locked in a rack in Condition 3 (Cruiser Ready). Maybe if they had implemented a policy that required at least two Officers (the user and an observer) to be involved in loading an LTL weapon in order to verify that teh rounds being loaded was LTL; this could be avoided.

[Irish]

UPDATE: $2.3 MILLION Settlement proposed (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/04/record_settlement_in_portland.html)

The city of Portland will pay $2.3 million to settle a federal lawsuit filed after Police Officer Dane Reister wounded William Kyle Monroe in 2011 when he mistakenly fired lethal rounds at him from a beanbag shotgun.

You've got to be kidding me...

Nearly two years after the shooting, Reister has faced no discipline and remains on paid administrative leave.

[Alaskapopo]

I would fire him. But don't think criminal charges are warranted. He made a mistake a bad one but no intent was present.
Pat

[montanadave]

Now THAT'S a union!

[Alpha Sierra]

More on the story



I'd personally give the officer the benefit of the doubt, and give him a desk job for 6 months at most. Maybe a couple of weeks without pay and community service.

I'd rather not give him the benefit of the doubt.


Reister was one of three officers responding to a 9-1-1 call on Thursday about a man who had been "possibly harassing" children at Lair Hill Park, according to police. A second caller said the man had left the park, had a pocket knife concealed in his sleeve and was acting in a "peculiar manner."

Portland police spotted Monroe, who has struggled with mental illness, at the corner of Southwest Pennoyer Street and Naito Parkway. Witnesses said Monroe ran from the officers. Police would only say that Monroe did not follow police commands, but did not say what those commands were, or what Monroe was doing when he was shot. Monroe was found with a knife, but police did not say if he had threatened anyone.

Loyal socialists of the PRoOR "saying something" when they "see something" and the police refusing to give clear answers.

If anyone needs the benefit of the doubt is the guy who was shot.

[Alaskapopo]

Now THAT'S a union!

Now that is on administration. Unions just make sure the due process rules in the contract are followed they don't direct the administration to take action or not to take action. Nice scape goat attempt however.
Pat

[brushy bill]

nevermind...

[Irish]

I would fire him. But don't think criminal charges are warranted. He made a mistake a bad one but no intent was present.
Pat

Could you use the same argument for a DUI case?

[Mjolnir]

Now THAT'S a union!

That's a screwed up union. People deride the UAW and other unions as a matter of general principle. I don't think unions are ALWAYS a bad thing; it depends on the people running it.

The city should pay a hefty fine as he was "their guy", no?

This should end his LE career; not at all sure if prison is the proper answer, though. I guess it depends on the extent of the wounds and disability.


"One man with courage makes a majority."

[Mjolnir]

Could you use the same argument for a DUI case?

You really waiting for an articulate response?


"One man with courage makes a majority."

[fourXfour]

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Grand-jury-indicts-officer-who-accidentally-shot-man-with-live-rounds-134164678.html


My local sheriffs office issues pistol and rifle caliber carbines to patrol deputies and uses shotguns exclusively for less than lethal scenarios. Since buckshot and slug rounds are not in inventory this prevents similar accidents.


You would hope. We stopped using slugs 20 years ago. We don't buy them or authorize for duty. Guess what shows up in the shotguns? Slugs.....

We only allow supervisors and firearms instructors to use the 12 gauge less lethal. I am not a big fan of using any less lethal launcher that is capable of using lethal ammo. When asked (which is rare) I always recommend the 37mm launchers with a distant second choice of pepper ball. Pepperball is neat, it just needs daily maintenance with the air system.

[RalphK.]

I Love the anti cop sentiment here...

No wonder so many develop the us vs them mentality.

As far as the rest I'll leave it be...no clue as to what happened and non of you have one either.

[Irish]

I Love the anti cop sentiment here...

No wonder so many develop the us vs them mentality.

He should be fired???...no!!! You're the expert on all things disciplinary within a pd structure???...no, you just read the BS reported in the newspapers.

The shitbird who ran is at fault...**** him and his injuries. Next time don't run or whatever he did.

Go for couple ride alongs at night in the hood and maybe, just maybe you'll sing a diff tune but I doubt it.

First, how are you posting in GD with 55 posts? The standard at M4C is a 200 post minimum before being able to post in GD or are those standards not enforced for LE anymore?

Secondly, there is no "anti-cop" sentiment. People are tired of cops being above the law due to their unions, arbitration and the garbage that is supposed to be "justice" within the justice system.

The "shitbird" is an American citizen and deserves the protection of the law like anyone else. You're assumption that he ran, or did whatever he did, also runs contrary to your statement about believing news articles and their factual information.

Your "**** him and his injuries" statement is what gives people an anti-cop attitude. You made this out to be anti-cop with your statement and it definitely fires that response in me towards you! Cops are not judge, jury and executioner. I know it would be simpler in your simpleton mind but it doesn't work that way.

I've done several ride alongs with very good friends of mine who are police officers, one of them is a member of this forum. Been there, seen it and respect those who do the job professionally.

[RalphK.]

"Simpleton mind"??...and you are who to be throwing personal attacks my way???

Fire away your feelings...I'm a big boy. Maybe you'll feel better.

So he's a us citizen than everything is ok???...yeah until your loved one gets her purse snatched.

[RalphK.]

Oh and I'm sure you've seen it all...

[Irish]

"Simpleton mind"??...and you are who to be throwing personal attacks my way???

Fire away your feelings...I'm a big boy. Maybe you'll feel better.

So he's a us citizen than everything is ok???...yeah until your loved one gets her purse snatched.

A simpleton is defined as some who is foolish, a person who is felt to be deficient in judgment, good sense, or intelligence. Your statement could be perceived as being indicative of someone who is a simpleton, that's all.

I wasn't looking to personally attack you and was simply looking for an appropriate adjective, going off of your statement. I apologize if I've somehow offended you.

I am simply me. A person who tries to respect the rights of others. The man in question has a serious mental disorder that contributed to this interaction. I don't think it's appropriate for police to have a "**** him" attitude when they don't get they want, it strikes me as petulant.

[jonconsiglio]

Hey Ralph, I've met a cop once, even saw one pull a guy over. Don't think I don't know what they have to deal with.

;)

Trying to add humor to the mix.

Personally, I dot like that this happened, but.... Maybe next time, don't go harassing children? Take your meds? The whole thing sucks. It sucks more that it happened where it did.

Having said that, most of the time this shit comes down to subpar training.

[RalphK.]

ok Irish...shake hands ;)


But please keep in mind b4 judging us and our split second reactive decisions that the Sandy Hook school murderer had a mental disorder as well.

I'll bow out of this conversation now...carry on Men.

[Littlelebowski]

Now that is on administration. Unions just make sure the due process rules in the contract are followed they don't direct the administration to take action or not to take action. Nice scape goat attempt however.
Pat

Wait, unions don't have anything to do with negotiating contacts in your part of the world? That's most assuredly NOT the case in big cities and I can comment on this from first hand observation.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Mjolnir]

I Love the anti cop sentiment here...

No wonder so many develop the us vs them mentality.

As far as the rest I'll leave it be...no clue as to what happened and non of you have one either.

Please.

I'm so damned sorry you prefer to be beyond question... ONLY in your own mind.


"One man with courage makes a majority."

[Littlelebowski]

I Love the anti cop sentiment here...

No wonder so many develop the us vs them mentality.

As far as the rest I'll leave it be...no clue as to what happened and non of you have one either.

Skin the thickness of parchment paper.....

[RalphK.]

Thicker than you'll ever know...just not gonna sit here and have no one from my side say anything.
I'm allowed to...no???

This is not the only thread I'm referring to but whatever...not looking for a fight here.
I actually like it here...

Irish...all good Sir...handshake

But remember the Sandy Hook School murderer had mental illness as well...

[Irish]

Thicker than you'll ever know...
That's what she said! :)

just not gonna sit here and have no one from my side say anything.
I'm allowed to...no???
It's not about sides. We're all on the same side, seriously. Some of us just view things from a different perspective. Please feel free to offer advice, suggestions or comments from a police perspective, everyone encourages it. However, your initial comment was really nothing but inflammatory. In hindsight, mine might've been as well.


Irish...all good Sir...handshake
Absolutely and I extend the offer as well. The minor differences that come out on a written text forum would be inconsequential over a beer and a smoke.

[Alaskapopo]

Wait, unions don't have anything to do with negotiating contacts in your part of the world? That's most assuredly NOT the case in big cities and I can comment on this from first hand observation.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I know you want cops paid minimum wage and unable to bargain for better pay and unions stop that from happening. But IT guys should get top dollar. Yep unions are responsible for all evil in your reality.

The real reality is that union contacts don't protect workers who break rules. Also the union does not make the contract by themselves its agreed upon with management. So if it is slanted its because management did a poor job at negotiation.
Pat

[Magic_Salad0892]

I know you want cops paid minimum wage and unable to bargain for better pay and unions stop that from happening. But IT guys should get top dollar. Yep unions are responsible for all evil in your reality.

The real reality is that union contacts don't protect workers who break rules. Also the union does not make the contract by themselves its agreed upon with management. So if it is slanted its because management did a poor job at negotiation.
Pat

I find this entire paragraph false. My mom broke FMLA rules when she worked at a phone company (Pac Bell, which became SBC, now AT&T.) and Unions are what actually prevented her from losing her job, and they even restored her seniority after her company tried to get her seniority reduced on grounds of attendance. (She was on disability for the better part of a year... 3 years in a row. No shit.)

I also worked at a union job at one point, and I did see unions intervening in contract agreements with my coworkers.

[Alaskapopo]

I find this entire paragraph false. My mom broke FMLA rules when she worked at a phone company (Pac Bell, which became SBC, now AT&T.) and Unions are what actually prevented her from losing her job, and they even restored her seniority after her company tried to get her seniority reduced on grounds of attendance. (She was on disability for the better part of a year... 3 years in a row. No shit.)

I also worked at a union job at one point, and I did see unions intervening in contract agreements with my coworkers.

The union just negotiates a contract that must be followed and disciplinary rules and due process for the employee are part of those negotiations. If the administration follows the rules bad employees will hit the road. Lazy and poor administrators complain about unions simply because they have not documented and done there job so there is no evidence to justify the termination. I have been involved in terminations of bad employees in union and non union shops. A union will not be able to stop a bad employee from getting fired if admin does their job.

Some on here blame unions for everything when they need to look at the HR departments incompetance.
Pat

[RyanB]

Seems like a simple case to me. Plead it down to felony reckless endangerment, fine, unsupervised probation for five years or so and everyone moves on.

[Nightvisionary]

The union just negotiates a contract that must be followed and disciplinary rules and due process for the employee are part of those negotiations. If the administration follows the rules bad employees will hit the road. Lazy and poor administrators complain about unions simply because they have not documented and done there job so there is no evidence to justify the termination. I have been involved in terminations of bad employees in union and non union shops. A union will not be able to stop a bad employee from getting fired if admin does their job.

Some on here blame unions for everything when they need to look at the HR departments incompetance.
Pat

You can finger point all day long but regardless of who's fault it is at the agency level, once again it is the private citizen taxpayer left holding the bag.

[Littlelebowski]

I know you want cops paid minimum wage and unable to bargain for better pay and unions stop that from happening. But IT guys should get top dollar. Yep unions are responsible for all evil in your reality.


OK, prove it or admit to lying. Prove that I want all cops paid minimum wage. Ante the **** up or admit that you just lied.

[High Tower]

The real reality is that union contacts don't protect workers who break rules.
Pat

It may be that way by you, but it is not the same way everywhere which would include the department I worked for.

[Littlelebowski]

It may be that way by you, but it is not the same way everywhere which would include the department I worked for.

Yup. Just look at big city depts.

[T2C]

I would like to read the Portland PD policy on use of force and the use of less than lethal rounds on a suspect.

[Alaskapopo]

OK, prove it or admit to lying. Prove that I want all cops paid minimum wage. Ante the **** up or admit that you just lied.

You hate unions for cops and all government workers and think we get paid too much and should not have the retirement benefits we do. Its all through your posting history.
Pat

[Littlelebowski]

You hate unions for cops and all government workers and think we get paid too much and should not have the retirement benefits we do. Its all through your posting history.
Pat

Hmm, so you were lying and are now obfuscating and backtracking. Gotcha. Integrity; think upon the meaning of the word. I think certain police unions/departments have abused the pension system (see CA, IL, and NJ for starters). Care to discuss that or does merely bringing that up make this an "anti LE" argument?

Also, I'm a federal employee. Not a contractor, a federal employee.

Seriously, if you don't have the capacity to argue coherently and in a logical, fact based manner, then don't argue. You're spouting off, comparing BFE Alaska to lower 48 big city depts, you've been corrected many many times, and quite frankly, you **** up nearly every non gun based conversation you participate in. Don't speak if all you're going to do is regurgitate Huffington Post and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being "anti LE" which is a ****ing pathetic argument.

[RalphK.]

**Correction**

The pension system in NJ was finger ****ed by the politicians not by the members who contribute per check w/out disruption...

Carry on

[Littlelebowski]

**Correction**

The pension system in NJ was finger ****ed by the politicians not by the members who contribute per check w/out disruption...

Carry on

I was thinking of this incident (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/Disabled_NJ_cop_stars_in_reality_TV_show_collects_70k_pension.html) and this (http://watchdogwire.com/new-jersey/2013/05/03/accused-of-administrative-misconduct-here-is-your-122k-pension/) but just read a bit more on some of NJ's governors' conduct on pensions.

[Alaskapopo]

Hmm, so you were lying and are now obfuscating and backtracking. Gotcha. Integrity; think upon the meaning of the word. I think certain police unions/departments have abused the pension system (see CA, IL, and NJ for starters). Care to discuss that or does merely bringing that up make this an "anti LE" argument?

Also, I'm a federal employee. Not a contractor, a federal employee.

Seriously, if you don't have the capacity to argue coherently and in a logical, fact based manner, then don't argue. You're spouting off, comparing BFE Alaska to lower 48 big city depts, you've been corrected many many times, and quite frankly, you **** up nearly every non gun based conversation you participate in. Don't speak if all you're going to do is regurgitate Huffington Post and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being "anti LE" which is a ****ing pathetic argument.

Bullcrap you're the one back tracking. You can't say how much you hate unions and how cops are paid too much and given too good of a retirement package and now claim you support LE. IF that is support you can keep it. Alaska has some of the same unions in it just like the lower 48 and we have cops as well. Trying to separate my experience because I am not in the lower 48 is intellectually dishonest. Its much like people who say they support the second amendment but want an assault rifle ban. Its not showing support when you want to cut our pay and benefits.
Pat

[Moltke]

Perp was not a threat and running away + LEO shot him in the ass with non-lethal munition = Okay.

Perp was not a threat and running away + LEO shot him in the ass with buck/slug = Not okay.

-------

If it is determined to be an accident, suspend his ass and put him in a desk job for a year.

If it is determined to be on purpose, put him in jail.


(PS. There's plenty of reasons to run from the police.)

[Irish]

Perp was not a threat and running away + LEO shot him in the ass with non-lethal munition = Okay.

Perp was not a threat and running away + LEO shot him in the ass with buck/slug = Not okay.

-------

If it is determined to be an accident, suspend his ass and put him in a desk job for a year.

If it is determined to be on purpose, put him in jail.

(PS. There's plenty of reasons to run from the police.)

He discharged 4 rounds at a fleeing "suspect". I do not know their SOP but I would think assessing the situation after expending rounds, lethal or non, would be prudent rather than masturbating a pump action to failure. When is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects?

Shooting him with live rounds is not an "accident". Shooting him with live rounds is negligence and should be treated as such. This is not the first time this officer has been involved in a negligent discharge.

[Moltke]

He discharged 4 rounds at a fleeing "suspect". I do not know their SOP but I would think assessing the situation after expending rounds, lethal or non, would be prudent rather than masturbating a pump action to failure. When is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
"Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

The officer was not using lethal force, or at least he thought he wasn't. Once this is investigated, and all the details come out we'll have to see if this was an accident/negligence or intentional. Whether it was accidental/negligent he (probably) won't be going to jail but he should be put on leave/suspended/reassigned/fired as necessary. If it was intentional, he should go to prison.

[Alaskapopo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
"Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

The officer was not using lethal force, or at least he thought he wasn't. Once this is investigated, and all the details come out we'll have to see if this was an accident/negligence or intentional. Whether it was accidental/negligent he (probably) won't be going to jail but he should be put on leave/suspended/reassigned/fired as necessary. If it was intentional, he should go to prison.

That is the most reasonable response. Let the investigation figure out what happened and what should happen to the officer.
Pat

[Iraqgunz]

So here's my question. If the city has already paid out, does that not mean that the investigation was already conducted? If not, why?

Yes, I know that such cases are routinely settled because litigation will cost more than the settlement, but I fail to understand how an investigation like this can last so long.

It would seem that the officer in question in fact has some issues especially since it would seem that he has done something similarly in the past.

[T2C]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
"Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

The officer was not using lethal force, or at least he thought he wasn't. Once this is investigated, and all the details come out we'll have to see if this was an accident/negligence or intentional. Whether it was accidental/negligent he (probably) won't be going to jail but he should be put on leave/suspended/reassigned/fired as necessary. If it was intentional, he should go to prison.

He shot the suspect in June 2011 and the investigation was presented to the Grand Jury in November 2011. The standard for a lot of agencies is to have the administrative investigation completed within 180 days. I would think that the criminal and adminstrative investigations have been completed. Some information in the administrative investigation won't be released to the public. You would think that all the available information that could be released would be released during civil litigation. Is the officer working, on suspension or has his employment been terminated?

[Irish]

Is the officer working, on suspension or has his employment been terminated?

The article stated he's still on paid vacation. Whether that's true or not I don't know.

Nearly two years after the shooting, Reister has faced no discipline and remains on paid administrative leave.

[DragonDoc]

What were they issued?

http://www.keltecweapons.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/images/KSG_3357web.jpg

The officer wouldn't be in a bind right now if that shotgun was issued. He would be performing a malfunction drill.

[Moltke]

Wait, he was using a KelTec shotgun? String him up just on principle.

[T2C]

The article stated he's still on paid vacation. Whether that's true or not I don't know.

After reading the updated news article, I have more questions about the incident than I did before. The article indicated the suspect emptied his pockets, including a swiss army knife, before he ran away. Did the officer not see the suspect throw down the knife? We will only know that from the trial transcript.

I have dealt with mental subjects in the past and it is no easy task. I have also dealt with quite a few suspects who tossed their weapon on the ground and run from me. The officer's perception will be the most significant factor when facts come to light during the criminal proceedings. Until the civil case is adjudicated, a lot of details we want to know won't be made public. I am going to take a wait and see approach to this one.

[Mjolnir]

The union just negotiates a contract that must be followed and disciplinary rules and due process for the employee are part of those negotiations. If the administration follows the rules bad employees will hit the road. Lazy and poor administrators complain about unions simply because they have not documented and done there job so there is no evidence to justify the termination. I have been involved in terminations of bad employees in union and non union shops. A union will not be able to stop a bad employee from getting fired if admin does their job.

Some on here blame unions for everything when they need to look at the HR departments incompetance.
Pat

I r worked in the Auto Industry for about twenty years now and I KNOW that w/o representation the workers would get screwed. So I'm not anti-union.

That said, I've witnessed employee behavior that should have them "hot oil boarded" and the unions stick up for them. Same with the US Post Office. Same with police unions (friends in Detroit Metro, Atlanta Metro, Baton Rouge and New Orleans). They are corrupt - like any large organization that is not policed very carefully, pun intended.

I love the Constitution and Bill of Rights more than I value any one's feelings/friendship though we can discuss and debate any and all aspects of the IDEALS expressed by the founders as well as how things are interpreted today.

You cannot be serious thinking that things would not be different than in the major metropoli and where you are.

I also take issue with many of your stated positions which are biased towards your profession being "beyond questioning".

Sorry, bro. I respect your job and the dangers that are inherent with it - but not over my liberty. You have a challenging profession in that you can be seriously injured or killed but you are not alone in that. Equal Protection Under the Law. And all that good shit. It's there for a reason.


"One man with courage makes a majority."

[Alaskapopo]

I r worked in the Auto Industry for about twenty years now and I KNOW that w/o representation the workers would get screwed. So I'm not anti-union.

That said, I've witnessed employee behavior that should have them "hot oil boarded" and the unions stick up for them. Same with the US Post Office. Same with police unions (friends in Detroit Metro, Atlanta Metro, Baton Rouge and New Orleans). They are corrupt - like any large organization that is not policed very carefully, pun intended.

I love the Constitution and Bill of Rights more than I value any one's feelings/friendship though we can discuss and debate any and all aspects of the IDEALS expressed by the founders as well as how things are interpreted today.

You cannot be serious thinking that things would not be different than in the major metropoli and where you are.

I also take issue with many of your stated positions which are biased towards your profession being "beyond questioning".

Sorry, bro. I respect your job and the dangers that are inherent with it - but not over my liberty. You have a challenging profession in that you can be seriously injured or killed but you are not alone in that. Equal Protection Under the Law. And all that good shit. It's there for a reason.


"One man with courage makes a majority."
That is good to know. However people blame unions for bad employees all the time and in reality you can fire bad employees under a union contract or without one. As a supervisor you just need to know the contract and follow the disciplinary procedure and document document document. I have seen it take longer to get rid of bad employees in a non union shop because the supervisors were not doing their job and the chief was worried about a law suit so it took over a year for the decision to be made to fire the employee in that case. Getting rid of bad employees is managements responsibilities. The unions job is to simply make sure the employees are being treated fairly and due process rules are followed.
Pat

[Iraqgunz]

I may be wrong, but there was a case recently where Ford fired some workers who have been observed smoking marijuana and drinking during a lunch break and were in fact fired. After it went to arbitration a judge or some other bureaucrat ruled that they couldn't be terminated per their contract.

So if that sits well with you or anyone else then there is something wrong. I know for a fact that the unions in CA have protected L.A county workers who ****ed up big time on the job and they couldn't be terminated.


That is good to know. However people blame unions for bad employees all the time and in reality you can fire bad employees under a union contract or without one. As a supervisor you just need to know the contract and follow the disciplinary procedure and document document document. I have seen it take longer to get rid of bad employees in a non union shop because the supervisors were not doing their job and the chief was worried about a law suit so it took over a year for the decision to be made to fire the employee in that case. Getting rid of bad employees is managements responsibilities. The unions job is to simply make sure the employees are being treated fairly and due process rules are followed.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

I may be wrong, but there was a case recently where Ford fired some workers who have been observed smoking marijuana and drinking during a lunch break and were in fact fired. After it went to arbitration a judge or some other bureaucrat ruled that they couldn't be terminated per their contract.

So if that sits well with you or anyone else then there is something wrong. I know for a fact that the unions in CA have protected L.A county workers who ****ed up big time on the job and they couldn't be terminated.

In fairness either they got a messed up arbitrator or the company agreed to a contract they should not have. That is not the unions fault that they were able to negotiate a contract that was good for the employees. That is like being mad that you paid 2000 for a Colt that is worth 1200. No one made you purchase it. Union simply give the employees a united voice and the ability to negotiate on equal footing with the employer. I have seen it before when employers did not really fully understand what they were agreeing to and then got mad later. They should have realized it when they were at the table hashing out the contract with the reps from their labor force. Same goes for employees who don't like something after the contract is signed. They should have read what they were agreeing to. I have seen it go against employees in a bad way at abritration as well. Recently state employees in many parts of the state lost their cost of living pay increases because the arbitrator said it did not cost more to live there. Which is 100% false and I know because I know the areas involved. So mistakes happen on both sides.
Pat

[T2C]

I may be wrong, but there was a case recently where Ford fired some workers who have been observed smoking marijuana and drinking during a lunch break and were in fact fired. After it went to arbitration a judge or some other bureaucrat ruled that they couldn't be terminated per their contract.

So if that sits well with you or anyone else then there is something wrong. I know for a fact that the unions in CA have protected L.A county workers who ****ed up big time on the job and they couldn't be terminated.

I thought they were employed by Chrysler Corporation. That might explain the squeak in my Jeep that the dealer cannot remedy.

Our union has a review board that decides whether or not the union will pay for legal representation. If you are totally in the wrong, you can expect to pay legal fees out of your own pocket.

[Sensei]

I may be wrong, but there was a case recently where Ford fired some workers who have been observed smoking marijuana and drinking during a lunch break and were in fact fired. After it went to arbitration a judge or some other bureaucrat ruled that they couldn't be terminated per their contract.

So if that sits well with you or anyone else then there is something wrong. I know for a fact that the unions in CA have protected L.A county workers who ****ed up big time on the job and they couldn't be terminated.

Oh, it gets worse...much, much worse...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577547313612049308.html





Under current New York law, an accusation [of sexual misconduct] is first vetted by an independent investigator. (In New York City, that's the special commissioner of investigation; elsewhere in the state, it can be an independent law firm or the local school superintendent.) Then the case goes before an employment arbitrator. The local teachers union and school district together choose the arbitrators, who in turn are paid up to $1,400 per day. And therein lies the problem.

For many arbitrators, their livelihood depends on pleasing the unions (whether the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, or other local unions). And the unions—believing that they are helping the cause of teachers by being weak on sexual predators—prefer suspensions and fines, and not dismissal, for teachers charged with inappropriate sexual conduct. The effects of this policy are mounting.

[RyanB]

In fairness either they got a messed up arbitrator or the company agreed to a contract they should not have. That is not the unions fault that they were able to negotiate a contract that was good for the employees. That is like being mad that you paid 2000 for a Colt that is worth 1200. No one made you purchase it. Union simply give the employees a united voice and the ability to negotiate on equal footing with the employer. I have seen it before when employers did not really fully understand what they were agreeing to and then got mad later. They should have realized it when they were at the table hashing out the contract with the reps from their labor force. Same goes for employees who don't like something after the contract is signed. They should have read what they were agreeing to. I have seen it go against employees in a bad way at abritration as well. Recently state employees in many parts of the state lost their cost of living pay increases because the arbitrator said it did not cost more to live there. Which is 100% false and I know because I know the areas involved. So mistakes happen on both sides.
Pat

So it's OK for the more powerful party to rape the smaller party because it's not their fault they are too strong to be stopped?

[Alaskapopo]

So it's OK for the more powerful party to rape the smaller party because it's not their fault they are too strong to be stopped?

What are you talking about. The employers hold the purse strings and are the more powerful party especially if there is no union. The reason for unions is so employees don't get raped.
Pat

[RyanB]

With 14 years experience on the management side in a union company, I can tell you with certainty that the protections for the union are exorbitant. Translated over to the public sector, the unions are even more powerful because they elect the people the people who negotiate for the other side. That would be like if union members got to vote on who the management of the company would be.

It's a crime for me to tell my employees that they seventh best paid employee in their national union is the pilot for the private aircraft.

[Alaskapopo]

With 14 years experience on the management side in a union company, I can tell you with certainty that the protections for the union are exorbitant. Translated over to the public sector, the unions are even more powerful because they elect the people the people who negotiate for the other side. That would be like if union members got to vote on who the management of the company would be.

It's a crime for me to tell my employees that they seventh best paid employee in their national union is the pilot for the private aircraft.

I have worked as a officer and as a supervisor in both systems and in my opinion the union side is better.
You have a clear contract both sides have to follow. With a union
its harder for the management to screw you over on pay etc because there is generally a section in the contract covering most things. If you get a bad chief its harder for them to screw with you because of rules in place. I remember at my first department I found out I was not getting on call pay despite having to be on call. I went to my supervisor and spoke to him about it and he said he knew that I should be getting on call pay but the department could not afford it and if I did not play along he would get someone that would. All I had to do was say go ahead and I will file a grievance and that stopped him in his tracks.
Fast forward to a non union department. They are trying to not pay officers for travel to and front training despite me pointing out what FLSA exemptions are and that they are required to pay officers when they require them to drive their patrol car. I had to threaten to call wage and hour to get them to follow the law. If we had a union it would not have even gotten that far. Under the union department we had a contract for 3 years and every three years we sat at the table and negotiate pay and benefits. We always got raises at least enough to keep up with inflation. Fast forward to the non union department. We have not got a cost of living increase in over 4 years and the last one we got was 1.5% not even enough to cover inflation. There is no negotiation and nothing we can do about it.
From an employee standpoint working in a union shop is better.

I find it amusing that many on here that don't trust the government not to drone attack them expects us (government employees) to trust the same government to pay us a fair wage without negotiation.

I am not one for confrontation with my employer but I will stand up for my rights and I will not work for free.
Pat

[Moltke]

So anyone got more info on the case? The officer is on trial, not your unions.

[T2C]

So anyone got more info on the case? The officer is on trial, not your unions.

Thank you. I would like to hear more about the case and less about everything else myself.

[Irish]

The Officer has been fired. (http://www.kptv.com/story/23711739/portland-officer-fired-for-2011-ammo-mix-up-shooting)

A Portland police officer on paid administrative leave since mistakenly using live ammunition instead of bean bag rounds on a suspect in June 2011 has been fired.

The Portland Police Bureau notified Officer Dane Reister that his employment had been terminated on Tuesday, citing violations of bureau directives related to unsatisfactory performance and less lethal weapons and munitions...

[Hootiewho]

I was reading the dialogue in this thread and it reminded me of a great piece John Stossel did a while back. The last part of this video is very much inline with many problems we face today as well as this incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Eurodriver]

The Officer has been fired. (http://www.kptv.com/story/23711739/portland-officer-fired-for-2011-ammo-mix-up-shooting)

http://www.kptv.com/video?clipId=9059251&autostart=true

The only thing I saw on that page was a link to that story.

Too skimpy? No. But she has some huge...assets.... :D

[Javelin]

The Officer has been fired. (http://www.kptv.com/story/23711739/portland-officer-fired-for-2011-ammo-mix-up-shooting)

No jail time?

People need to stop ****ing pointing guns at things they don't intend to kill. Guns are not designed for less than anything lethal. Pisses me off as there are no accidents just careless and wreckless behavior.

[Hootiewho]

And this one is also a good piece by Stossel....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mPEdkN5UoU&feature=youtube_gdata_player