Site Navigation

Shooter Cop Reinstated;
What's wrong with this picture?

Officer Doug Erickson was reinstated to the Portland Police Bureau in May. Erickson is the man who fired 22 rounds-- emptying the clip on his Glock and then reloading-- at a fleeing man in a North Portland residential neighborhood. Gerald Gratton, who was lucky to live through the ordeal, has scars from 3 bullets, and has moved out of Portland. The incident took place in July, 1993.

After a grand jury refused to bring charges against Erickson but seriously questioned the number of shots fired, Chief Moose fired him. After a long struggle and a 13 day arbitration process, the Portland Police Association (the police union) regained Erickson his job.

The June 1995 issue of the police union newspaper the Rap Sheet devotes no less than 9 pages (1/4 of the paper) to the case. "Taking Erickson's arbitration was easy decision" boasts the main headline, while details reveal elements of difficulty. For instance, Erickson himself did not remember seeing Gratton with a gun (Gratton's alleged use of his gun is the sole factor justifying the use of deadly force in this case). But the "easy decision" by the union was made only after they spent "countless hours studying all the reports by our attorney... we wanted to be sure we were correct in our assumptions of Doug's innocence."

According to Barker, the union spent over $100,000 on the arbitration, including having a computer animation re-enactment made. Whose point of view was used to create this re-enactment? This piece of high-tech cinema was allowed in arbitration, but would it stand a chance in court? How would a re-enactment from a bus passenger's or Gratton's point of view be different?

Another great expense was flying in experts from southern California, including a former member of the LAPD. Barker concludes that "Erickson was right in what he did back in July 1993" and PPA attorney Will Aitchison states at arbitration that "[Erickson] did exactly what the Police Bureau trained him to do, nothing more, nothing less." It is clear from these statements why they chose experts from the area that produced the Rodney King incident.

Perhaps most disturbing is the final editor's note from Loren Christensen, regarding the witnesses on the bus who claimed Gratton was going for his gun. (Again, it is on this point, about whether Gratton went for his gun, that the PPA got Chief Moose to agree it would be reasonable for Erickson to have used deadly force.) The note says that "Two witnesses, officers Erickson and Swenson, testified that Gratton went for his gun while on the bus. Police reports [emphasis ours] indicated that two civilian witnesses on the bus also saw Gratton go for his gun." The fact that this testimony is not in the article leads us to believe that these witnesses did not appear at arbitration. While the City Attorney's office claims that it is only what happened after Gratton got off the bus that matters, in that case, the only person who claims to have actually seen a gun in Gratton's hand is Erickson's partner, Dave Thoman, who also shot at Gratton. The bus driver claims Gratton stood sideways and faced backward at the police, but did not see a gun. In other words, the only civilians to allegedly see Gratton go for his gun were apparently not interviewed by the arbitrator.

After Erickson's reinstatement was announced, POPSG member Dan Handelman was interviewed in the Oregonian and on KATU channel 2. Handelman said, "I live on the same bus line that Gerald Gratton did, and I hear gunshots quite a bit in my neighborhood. But to think that some of those shots are coming from someone whose salary my tax money goes to pay, who is not thinking about where the bullets are going to end up, is very disturbing."

The Oregonian, in its editorial "Setback for police, public" (May 5, 1995), asked the question, "If you can't dismiss a police officer for firing 22 times at a fleeing man who isn't shooting back, what can you fire him for?" The editorial goes on to explain that the arbitrator's conclusion was based on the fact that Erickson used faulty judgment, not unjustified use of deadly force, and referred to the decision as "legalistic tunnel vision."

One key question to ask, though, is what message does this send to other cops?

I'm OK, you're OK

The fact that Erickson was able to get his job back with the support of the union after shooting so many times at a suspect in a residential area-- in particular, at a black man in North Portland-- sends a message to other cops: Shoot all you want, we will cover for you. It is perhaps this sense of being above the law, particularly around shooting incidents, that leads to other police corruption.

Berkeley's Copwatch Report cites the New York Mollen Report, from a commission investigating corruption of the NYPD: "Brutality, regardless of the motive, sometimes serves as a rite of passage to other forms of corruption and misconduct. Some officers told us that brutality was how they first crossed the line toward abandoning their integrity. Once the line was crossed without consequences, it was easier to abuse their authority in other ways, including corruption."

Portland Police Officer Brad Benge, now facing charges for selling marijuana seized by police, is also a shooter cop. In 1992, he shot a man at point blank range when the man came at him with an ax handle. No charges were brought against him, and no discipline was imposed. Perhaps this may be why, if Benge is guilty, he felt he could get away with the drug scam.

Officer George Fort, according to the May 31st Willamette Week, has been involved in numerous incidents of roughing people up during routine traffic stops, including two people whose arms were broken. According to the article, Fort defended himself in court by saying, "I was embarrassed by the fact that her arm was broken. It's not something that's ever happened to me before in 22 years as a police officer." Embarrassed???? The jury sided with Fort and he remains on the force today.

Add to the list Officer Daniel Parks, who shot and killed young Duane Anthony Shaw in September 1993. Parks shot and killed another person in 1988 who, like Shaw, was boxed in by police cars, but who police claim was still trying to get away. The fact that Parks was involved not only in a second shooting, but one in which circumstances were almost identical, shows how dangerous it is to let slide circumstances surrounding police shootings.

We at POPSG support the idea of unions, but the police union is an example of one which has corrupted the idea of protecting one's brothers and sisters from tyranny to protecting one's brothers and sisters, right or wrong.

And a word of advice from a caller to POPSG: If people are informed when violent criminals are released from prison into their neighborhoods, shouldn't we also be informed when shooter cops are moving in?

Second Trimester, 1995
Also in PPR #6

Portland Copwatch
PO Box 42456
Portland, OR 97242
(503) 236-3065/ Incident Report Line (503) 321-5120
e-mail: copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org

Portland Copwatch is a grassroots, volunteer organization promoting police accountability through citizen action.

People's Police Report #6 Table of Contents
Back to Portland Copwatch home page
Peace and Justice Works home page
Back to top