The City of Portland, late to the game, has settled with the family of the late James Chasse, a mentally ill citizen of Portland who three years ago died of injuries caused by police officers who kicked him and stomped on him while he lay on the ground in the Pearl District. After they broke his ribs, the police officers refused to allow an ambulance company to transport him to a hospital, and he died in police custody.
I don't intend to revisit the circumstances of Mr. Chasse's death, though I'm surprised at the number of people who apparently believe (read the comments on OregonLive) that being killed is a proper police response to someone suspected of urinating in public, but rather to analyze how the City erred after its employees killed Mr. Chasse.
Let's not mince words. City employees killed Mr. Chasse. Mr. Chasse was not armed. Mr. Chasse was not committing a felony. Mr. Chasse was not fleeing a crime scene. Mr. Chasse was not fleeing from arrest. Mr. Chasse was not driving a car toward a police officer. He was simply a mentally ill person who had the misfortune to live in Portland.
When the Multnomah County district attorney determined not to file charges against the police officers involved in Mr. Chasse's death, the city made its first mistake in not pressing to release the entire investigation to that date, and in not engaging an independent agency to investigate Mr. Chasse's death. The usual excuse that a government makes in this situation is to say, "Because this matter might go to litigation, we can't comment on it."
In some legal circumstances, I can agree with this principle, but in this one, no. A government that kills its citizens has a duty to explain its reasons. Tom Potter (who was mayor when Mr. Chasse was killed in 2006) and Sam Adams (mayor since January 2009) both failed this test. For two reasons, the city should not have hid behind the excuse of litigation from Mr. Chasse's survivors to refuse to disclose everything it knew about the circumstances of Mr. Chasse's death. The first and lesser reason is that the Chasse family's lawyers would be able to obtain the same information, or most of it, through a lawsuit anyway. The second and far more important reason is that a government is not a private litigant; it has, or should have, no private interests of its own but should at all times be led by people who are willing to explain what the government's agents have done and either justify to the public how they have used the power with which their citizens have entrusted them, or acknowledge that their agents have misused that power and then fairly compensate the victims.
Some of the comments to other reports and blog postings about the Chasse case and settlement state, in essence, "In this sad case there are no winners, only losers." That's true, up to a point. The police officers who beat Mr. Chasse lost their credibility. Mayor Adams, Commissioner Saltzman, and Chief (now ex-chief) Sizer lost their respect. Mr. Chasse lost his life. He was the only one whose choice was made for him.
In a later post I'll give my views on how the City should have responded three years ago, and further explain my contention that Mayor Potter, Mayor Adams, Commissioner Saltzman, and Chief Sizer gravely botched the aftermath of Mr. Chasse's death.