I was at the Maranatha Church in NE Portland last night to see Jesse Jackson and hear what he had to say about the recent killing of Aaron Campbell. I walked in wearing a business suit, snagged the last name tag, and headed to the front area that was reserved for “community leaders.”

As a representative of DRO, I watched the press conference in a side room and then had a front pew seat for the speeches. Sitting next to me was the family of Mr. Campbell. Behind me was a standing room only audience.

Security was light.  The mood was a combination of reverence, excitement and solidarity.  The music was great.  The church leaders provided gentle and amused direction for those who parked their cars in the wrong place or might be tempted to bring in some food.  It felt like a welcoming community.

Meanwhile, I didn’t forget about the politics and I know that Jesse didn’t either.  There were no elected officials in the audience.  Today’s papers made it clear why: Jesse’s most controversial-sounding words were captured in the headlines.  This was no mistake.  The press and Jackson know the rules of the game.  Attention needs to be gotten and this is how you get it. 

In the church though, the topic was not controversy.  It was community. Reverend Jackson was surrounded on the stage by his fellow senior ministers.  They clearly enjoyed and appreciated each other.  Jackson seemed remarkably cool and serene during most of the proceedings.  That is until an elderly preacher followed Jackson’s speech with an explosion of passionate rhetoric that electrified the crowd and put an animated smile on Jesse’s face.

When Jackson spoke to the press and to the crowd, his first words were to offer comfort and support to the Campbell family. He then spoke about the killing and also about the general condition of black Oregonians. He held a recently issued report, The State of Black Oregon, which documents, in Jackson’s words, that African American Oregonians are “free but not equal.”  The statistics in the report bear him out.

Jesse spoke about the killing mainly in the context of respect and dignity.  He didn’t speak about whether the shooting was justified but dwelled on reports that the body was left on the ground, in handcuffs for a half hour while dogs sniffed it.  He spoke to the desire of every person in the audience to be treated like a human being.

I heard Jackson extol the virtues of compassion, peace, strength in adversity and perseverance.  He did not agitate.  He supported a grieving community and to suggested positive action for change.  He asked individuals to demand justice and an “even playing field,” and also urged people to take responsibility for themselves and their community.

Jackson suggested a path for action: the community, he said, should demand at the officer who killed Mr. Campbell be kept off the job until the police internal investigation was complete. This is hardly the stuff of a firebrand zealot.

But check out the response from Portland Police Sgt. Scott Westerman, president of the Portland Police Association.  He said: "… for the Rev. Jesse Jackson to come in last night and to divide the community again and to vilify the officer is a disgrace. I think Rev. Jackson is either ill-informed or has an alternate agenda."

Westerman’s response sums up the problem in this city. What I saw last night was a community coming together with the guidance of respected leaders to grieve and formulate a peaceful and constructive plan of action. What our official police spokesman saw was an outside agitator.

Westerman says that the community should leave the shooter alone and, instead, ask for change in police policies. Westerman’s belated call for policy changes may have merit, but it is buried under yet another insult to the black community. The people I was with last night know who they are and know what their experience is.  They also know who is on their side.

In April, 2001, a Portland police officer shot and killed José Santos Victor MejÍa Poot.  Mr. Mejia Poot was a patient on a psychiatric ward at the time of the shooting.  Disability Rights Oregon investigated and found that the private psychiatric facility where Mr. Mejia Poot was held did not have adequate structural or staffing safeguards and that Multnomah County had continued to use the facility even though it was aware of these deficiencies.  Interestingly enough, it turned out that the patient did not have a mental illness.  He was experiencing seizures.

I bring this up because the Mejia Poot family hired a lawyer to sue various parties to this tragedy.  One suit involved the police.  That case was settled and, as part of the settlement, the Portland police agreed to buy a new device for its officers: taser guns.  The police said that they would limit use of the tasers to situations in which deadly force was the only alternative.

So it is ironic that the taser, which was introduced to Portland as a way to avoid the gunning down of mentally ill people, has now become the option of choice for police who merely want to take a mentally ill person into custody.  For Portland police, the taser is no longer a substitute for deadly force, but a preemptive maneuver to disable a person whom they see as irrational.

Let's check the stats: In the July 2009 follow up report on the use of force by Portland police, issued by the Force Task Force to Chief Rosie Sizer, data show that when officers use non-lethal force, tasers are the favored intervention for people with mental illness.  When choosing among physical control, blunt impact, pepper spray or taser, police used the taser 52% of the time for citizens with mental illness.  For all groups (those with weapons, who are assaultive, intoxicated or mentally ill), tasers were used in 225 situations in which no resistance was indicated or the person failed to comply with an order.  When people were physically resistant or aggressive, tasers were used 1,116 times. 

As the quotation goes, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.  So the question remains, do police use tasers unnecessarily when dealing with people with mental disabilities?  Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a police officer in California used excessive force when tasering a man who was nonthreatening and not trying to flee.  Among other things, the officer argued that the taser was justified because the man "may have been mentally ill and thus subject to detention."

Here is how the court responded:

To the contrary: if Officer McPherson believed Bryan was mentally disturbed he should have made greater effort to take control of the situation through less intrusive means. As we have held, “[t]he problems posed by, and thus the tactics to be employed against, an unarmed, emotionally distraught individual who is creating a disturbance or resisting arrest are ordinarily different from those involved in law enforcement efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal who has recently committed a serious offense.”  [W]e have found that even “when an emotionally disturbed individual is
‘acting out’ and inviting officers to use deadly force to subdue him, the governmental interest in using such force is diminished by the fact that the officers are confronted . . . with a mentally ill individual.”  The same reasoning applies to intermediate levels of force. A mentally ill individual is in need of a doctor, not a jail cell, and in the usual case —where such an individual is neither a threat to himself nor to anyone else—the government’s interest in deploying force to detain him is not as substantial as its interest in deploying that force to apprehend a dangerous criminal. Moreover, the purpose of detaining a mentally ill individual is not to punish him, but to help him. The government has an important interest in providing assistance to a person in need of psychiatric care; thus, the use of force that may be justified by that interest necessarily differs both in degree and in kind from the use of force that would be justified against a person who has committed a crime or who poses a threat to the community. Thus, whether Officer McPherson believed that Bryan had committed a variety of nonviolent misdemeanors or that Bryan was mentally ill, this ... does not support the deployment of an intermediate level of force. (Click here to read the entire opinion.)

The bottom line for police in Portland and elsewhere? It's time to rethink how you're using tasers.  Shock treatment is so yesterday.