Multnomah County District Attorney Nathan Vasquez announced on Friday that the recent police shooting of an armed suspect in Gresham was justified under Oregon law.
This decision, made two weeks after the incident, marked a notable departure from the practice of his predecessors, who typically presented such cases to a grand jury for review.
The shooting involved Gresham Police Deputy Adam Suboh, who used deadly force during a confrontation with 21-year-old Ladarius Collins.
Vasquez described the situation as a tragedy but maintained that Suboh’s actions were lawful and warranted under the circumstances.
“We want to give the community the fastest and most detailed legal analysis possible in this incident,” Vasquez explained in an email following the announcement.
Despite this shift in approach, the official written policy of the office regarding fatal police shootings remains unchanged since Vasquez took over in January.
In light of his decision to bypass the grand jury process, concerns have surfaced among civil rights attorneys regarding the implications for police accountability in the future.
The detailed analysis of the June 13 shooting was encapsulated in a lengthy legal memo released alongside the statement.
The memo outlines the events leading up to the confrontation, where witnesses reported Collins threatening his brother with a handgun.
Following this, police encountered Collins, who fled into a nearby neighborhood, causing a foot chase.
The memo details that officers arrived to find Collins racking the slide of a handgun and refusing commands to drop the weapon,
leading Deputy Suboh to pull his firearm and demand Collins get on the ground.
According to the report, when Collins pointed his firearm directly at Suboh, the deputy felt immediate danger and fired six shots at him.
Collins later succumbed to his injuries after being transported to a hospital.
Investigators recovered a loaded handgun from the scene, indicating that the weapon had jammed during the incident.
The ensuing investigation involved both the Gresham Police Department and the East County Major Crimes team.
Typically, in cases of deadly force, a grand jury is convened to review the findings of any ongoing investigations and provide community oversight.
Grand jury proceedings allow citizens to hear witness and detective testimonies and assess whether the actions taken by police were justified.
Vasquez’s office, however, confirmed they were unsure when a decision to bypass a grand jury was last made in a deadly police shooting case.
Oregon law permits district attorneys the discretion to determine if grand jury involvement is necessary for police shootings.
Vasquez’s office maintains policies from previous administrations, stating that while grand jury reviews are the norm, they may be waived at the district attorney’s discretion if deemed unnecessary.
While some prior district attorneys have incorporated outside legal perspectives to add layers to the investigations, Vasquez’s approach steers toward expediting case resolutions.
Legal experts have expressed alarm over this procedural shift, citing that even in seemingly clear cases, questions may arise which warrant a more thorough investigation.
Juan Chavez, a civil rights attorney with experience in police-related lawsuits in the region, underscored the potential negative ramifications of bypassing grand jury reviews.
He contended that it sends a message suggesting a lack of accountability for police, asserting that the decision could ultimately undermine the public trust.
Critics of the decision have highlighted that it could hamper transparency in the judicial process surrounding police shootings.
Jesse Merrithew, another civil rights attorney, noted that grand jury transcripts often serve as a crucial source of information for the public regarding police conduct in fatal encounters.
The absence of this step may curtail the community’s ability to scrutinize law enforcement actions, particularly when deadly force is involved.
Merrithew raised concerns about how this decision could affect the investigation of future police encounters involving deadly force.
Noting that it could skew perceptions of accountability, he questioned whether a future shooting might undergo greater scrutiny that may not have been necessary historically.
Both attorneys underscored that the implications of Vasquez’s decision extend beyond this singular case, cautioning against adopting a precedent that may favor police over community oversight.
The backlash highlights the delicate balance required in ensuring police accountability while also recognizing the dangerous situations officers sometimes face.
In this incident, the legal findings assert that Collins actively posed a threat, which ultimately justified Deputy Suboh’s actions.
As the details continue to unfold, the conversations surrounding police use of force, community oversight, and the role of the district attorney’s office remain at the forefront of public dialogue in Multnomah County.
image source from：opb
