Interview with Bert Combs, 2010.

Retired PPB Officer Bert Combs reflects on his career...

Introduction:

As I'm not a journalist, but rather simply a writer and poet, I don’t feel obligated to appear completely unbiased. Many writers skillfully inject their own personal agenda in interviews or written work. I focus on nonfiction; the art of the personal narrative, where I can express an opinion or ask a question without fear of ridicule or contempt. I also enjoy talking with or interviewing family members, poets, writers, military personnel, and recently: retired Portland police Officer, Bert Combs. Officer Combs retired after more than 30 years in law enforcement. The questions I chose to ask this retired officer came from my own curiosity about dynamics I've found interesting or intriguing. Bert Combs, like many people who have worked in law enforcement, can only offer personal opinions and experiences and hope to be taken seriously. With rational and open-minded reflection, Mr. Combs recounts his experience. This conversation will provide many Alliance readers with unique perspectives to vital community issues.

TGK

Interview with Retired PPB Officer, Bert Combs,

September 3rd, 2010.

TK: Okay so today is Sep 3rd, 2010 and I’m Theresa Kennedy interviewing Bert Combs here at the Bon Jour Café.

BC: Correct. (Laughs)

TK: Why did you gravitate toward becoming involved in a career in law enforcement; what made you want to become a police officer?

BC: Well, I think--when my military experience first started, I was in the coast guard. The coast guard is a search and rescue organization and a law enforcement organization. And once I was stationed here in Portland, the law enforcement aspect of my job became more apparent--working for the Coast Guard. So interacting with the people in a law enforcement venue got me interested. Then a friend of mine became a deputy with the Washington County Sheriffs office and going out on ride along's with him, again, exposed me more to the interactions between police and citizens and the excitement that the job offered. You know in my mid twenties, Adrenalin was a very high commodity. So for me it was the excitement of the job was primary and the secondary was just the ability to help people.

TK: There has been a great deal of discussion recently in Portland about police being loose canyons and out of control. Explain what a typical officer has to think about and simultaneously gauge, when attempting to follow procedural correctness, while also interacting with a suspected criminal who appears to be potentially violent and/or dangerous.

BC: Well, I think the image of the loose canyon is certainly incorrect. That image is manifested by those who simply don’t understand the task that a police officer has in dealing with a violent or potentially violent person. And the main task is to protect the officer--is to make sure that they go home at the end of their shift. They also have the obligation, the task, of protecting the general public. We can’t--if this person is violent and dangerous? We can’t let this person--leave us. If we’re there, we’re trying to deal with it. We can’t just say “see you tomorrow” type of thing. Because if he’s dangerous now, he’s dangerous tomorrow. If he presents a risk to the general public we have to deal with it. And sometimes--well not sometimes all the time--an officer’s actions are predicated on what the suspect does. If the suspect cooperates, you know? Submits to the authority that the police officer is trying to exert? Everything goes smoothly. In fact, you’d probably be surprised--I think most people would be surprised to know that police officers on a daily basis, throughout the city, encounter violent dangerous people that are smart enough to listen to what the police officer--to what the nice police officer says-- (laughs) --when it comes time to deal with them. And they submit to the authority, the police officer doesn't exceed--you know, go over board or anything like that and everything goes smoothly. But it’s when that person who the police need to address decides..."I’m not going to submit to the authority of the police officer. I’m going to resist. I’m going to make it as difficult as I can" OR "I’m just going to try and leave and get out of this situation" that they cause the police officer to ramp up their efforts to take control of the situation. Does that make sense?

TK: Yes. Okay, describe the most challenging encounter you ever had with a violent criminal and how that experience affected you?

BC: You know, the potential for violence is there in every encounter. Whether it be a Jay walking situation or an armed robbery situation. I've arrested armed robbers, that as I've mentioned before, submitted to arrest. You know, very dangerous people that have done nasty, bad things to other people and when they encounter me…THE police? They submit, everything goes smoothly. Right by the book and there are no--there’s no issues! But then I've also encountered people that were jay walking. Little minor things, minor traffic infractions, where people go off the scale in their response and that turns out to be some of the most dangerous volatile situations I've been involved in. So, there’s no way to say one or the other. I've been involved in--like I've said--some very dangerous situations that have gone very well and I've been in some dangerous situations that didn't but we won’t discuss that. (laughs).

TK: Okay. (laughs). When you were an officer, how did you feel about having to carry a gun and possibly having to take someone’s life in the line of duty; was this a professional responsibility you were able to reconcile without difficulty?

BC: Yes. I've done school demos--elementary schools--third graders. They always ask about the gun. And I've gone to adult demonstrations, you know meetings? Citizen group meetings and they always ask about the gun. So, (long pause) it’s an interesting question that people wonder about. It’s--it’s a necessary evil okay? I realize that sometime during my shift--during my career--I might encounter that one person that’s going to hurt me to the point that--well, he’s going to try and take my life! And, in order to protect myself and as I mentioned earlier, in a situation where somebody is so dangerous that we can’t let them get away from us--back out into the public--than that level of force is necessary. There are legal hurdles that have to be met but there’s also moral and ethical hurdles that have to be met within the person. And those are--those can be very tough. Those can be very tough situations. I realize there are some out there, some officers maybe--because-we deal with people--because police officers are people--and there are so many variations of us people, that some of those hurdles might not be as high for others and they might be too high for others.

We’ve had people that have come on and they recognized that there’s no way they could ever--even in defense of themselves--you know--use that level of force! Thankfully, they were intelligent enough to realize that they’d stepped in it. They had gone too far and they left the police service. There are others that those hurdles are a little less and that’s where the background investigations and the psychological evaluations that we do prior to hiring are so important and I think for the most part, those people are weeded out. So we have a fairly level headed group of people out here. And it’s often said that that’s the last thing that any police officer wants to do--is use deadly force. And I believe that’s true and I believe that most other people feel the same way but they also realize that they’re going to be put in situations that might require that level of force--just by the nature of their job. This gal in Vancouver that got the acid thrown on her face? If there had been a police officer there that saw that coming, knew there was acid in that cup, um, I’m…

TK: When did this happen?

BC: Two days ago--three days ago. She was going into a Starbucks, this gal pops out of the bushes, says something to her about how pretty she is and tosses a cup of acid in her face--or some type of chemical. I don’t know if it was acid but in the news conference yesterday she said that she could hear her skin sizzling. So in that situation, if a police officer had been there and knew that’s what was going to happen? And uh...

TK: And it could have been poison?

BC: Who knows! Who knows! But the point is we get put into those situations and its necessary to protect ourselves. I want to go home at the end of the shift. I’ve got a wife and kids you know? And I’m going to do that--and I’m willing to put up with the--the flack if you will, that happens afterwards. Because I know if I have to do that, I’m going to be covered legally. I’m going to be covered morally and ethically. And I’m going to be comfortable with what I've done because it was necessary. And uh, again it’s just something that we might have to--we get thrown into. We have to deal with it. We can’t ignore it.

TK: How did you manage the stress of police work as a younger officer?

BC: Well, I didn't recognize it. I loved it. And this is really a bad response to it. Its Adrenalin is what it is and Adrenalin can be a wonderful drug! (laughs). It’s very addicting and as a younger officer the excitement of the job was uh? Well it was number one on my list of things to do!

TK: So you loved going to work every morning?

BC: Oh, I did! And the drawback to that was family life. That took a hit. And it happens to a lot of police officers. There’s a high divorce rate in police work and some lose track of a balanced life. Your professional life and your personal life--and the professional life takes over because it is exciting, it is fun, it is rewarding and your family ends up suffering. So, I don’t know that I did manage it well--at all!

TK: How did working in law enforcement affect your personal life, if at all adversely?

BC: Oh yeah, it did, very adversely. Just what I was alluding to. I wasn't as involved in my family as I should have been. You know, baseball games, basketball games, taking drives to the coast or something like that. Doing family things became secondary, as opposed to eagerly awaiting the time when I was allowed to go back to work type of thing. So those relationships have suffered and it’s only been--well probably the last ten years that I've recognized that and have had the maturity to try and change that and that’s what I’m doing now.

TK: What personal and professional qualities or traits are needed in a competent and responsible police officer?

BC: Wow! Boy that list could be endless! (Long Pause) Well, I think the obvious is you have to be interested in people. You have to care about what happens to the good people out there. Secondary, you have to be somewhat interested in what happens to the bad people. "What got you into this position? Is there anything I can do to help you get out of it?" Generally, there isn't because it’s a lifestyle decision. Which really surprised me about most crooks. It’s a life style decision that they've made. It’s kind of like the people out here on the street that I run into. "Why do you do this?"..."I like it! I want to!" There’s no responsibility on their part.

Bert Combs and "Brutus" his last and late K-9, 2001-2013

They don’t have to live up to the responsibilities of life in general and they’re happy with it. And I think a lot of our crooks and thieves are the same way. They recognize that it’s easy to go out and steal. It’s easy to go out and victimize people. More easy than going to school, going to work, getting a pay check every two weeks and things like that. So dealing with that mentality allows me to not be as interested in them as one might think. I’m not a social service officer. I’m a police officer. So I’m not here to serve them and correct their evil ways but I am here to serve the general public. The people that do go to school--go to work--get their paycheck--try to do things right--and then these people come along and make them victims. And that’s my whole goal is to provide service to those folks. So having the ability to recognize that, the integrity to do it--to realize you’re working for the people--having compassion for the people--somewhat for the crooks but more so for the people. All those things are important.

TK: Historically, all the way back to the turn of the century and most especially in early NY, there has been a long pattern of certain members of the public and city policy makers unfairly blaming police departments when crime spikes. This often takes place in the blatant cutting of police funding by city commissioners. Do you see the contempt for police as a historical pattern and phenomenon that has roots going all the way to the turn of the century? Do you think this explains some of the long standing contempt for police officers and do you see this pattern of contempt growing?

BC: Just the opposite--I think on an individual basis--surely when I meet the public--I mean I've been in this for 30 years. Years and years ago, when I first started, it was an us and them type of thing. Today its not. People are willing--and they do come up to me and say “Thank you, we appreciate what you’re doing.” Thirty years ago, that might not have happened. I think there is this community policing idea that started here in Portland--its a big draw and it’s a major factor in that type of interaction between the people and frankly I like it. I think it’s a great thing. I think the contempt that you speak of comes from what’s been referred to as the vocal minority. That term "vocal minority" doesn't relate to race at all. Because whites, blacks, Asians--they all represent--there are factions within those groups that represent the vocal minority. I think again, to a large extent, most people--90% of people are the silent majority and they support what the police do. They understand what the police do on a general basis. They’re very intuitive about what we do and why we do what we do. So this contempt, I think is a red herring that I think the news media perpetuates to keep--maybe not to keep controversy growing but the only people they hear from are those that have contempt for the police. For the most part everybody else is so busy, they’re not going to organize rallies to support the police. Unless you live down in Wilsonville. Smaller communities have a little more intimate relationship with their police officers--you know they might do that. Which they did last year when that Sgt was shot. So, yes, I can see from years gone by where the contempt for police was a very real thing, even amongst the population. But I think that’s changed dramatically, especially over the 30 years since I've been involved. I think the training that police officers get these days--in the past there was no training! They’d give you a badge and a gun and say "go to work!" You’d come in off the street--you wouldn't know who you had as a police officer out there--what their motivations were--what their skills were or were not. And they’d go out and represent the police! So we would have that rogue officer or two out there and all you need is the one to create a bad impression of all. So I think that’s changed considerably.

TK: Do you believe the expectations or understanding by particular policy makers or the general public to be unrealistic with regard to police work, training or procedure? Do you think that people presume that police work is simple and not a complex calling that requires special training or education?

BC: Oh I think people understand that it is a complex profession. The training--the experience is obviously very necessary. I think when it comes to policy makers, whether it be within the police bureau or the politicians, they seem to be guided by CYA.

TK: CYA?

BC: Cover your ass.

TK: Oh! (laughs).

BC: They seem to be guided by preventing liability issues in other words. They’re driven to protect from civil law suits and things like that. "You can’t do that because if you do, we’ll end up getting sued" when in fact whatever it is might be the only way to solve a particular problem. So that seems to be--not an over-riding factor but certainly a big one. I kind of understand that? Policy makers need to be aware of that because in essence they are also protecting the citizens by coming up with those policies that put restrictions on the officers on the street. Because it’s the citizens who pay when a civil suit goes against the police bureau. When the city has to pay, it comes from the insurance company and the city pays higher rates so in that respect I understand that they’re protecting the citizens and they need to--they seem to have a hard time balancing the need of protecting the city--there seems to be a lot of conflict there. They seem to forget from where they came.

TK: From what?

BC: From where they came. Because everybody that’s up on the 15th floor used to be out here driving a blue and white police car and it just seems that at times, they forget the struggles on the street that the police officer has.

TK: You mean administration?

BC: Yes. Right, right.

TK: Can you explain any significant historical shifts in the manner that police are trained that has had an effect on civilian deaths. What are police doing now in 2010 that they were not doing 30 years ago and how is the training different? The reason I’m asking is because I spoke to another officer who said that 30 years ago, police officers were...how did he put it? “Large, athletic, working class men” and were trained in hand to hand combat and so there were less deaths because they were more physically able to control a suspect instead of pulling their guns.

BC: Well, yeah and 30 years ago, I think that’s probably true. Because 30 years ago the mindset of the crooks--if they were going to resist--the police officer was going to--it was a physical confrontation! And police officers way back then were generally military--ex-military types and you know they were--they were happy to go in there and mix it up. You know, physically mix it up with the bad guys. These days it’s a little different. These days there are more guns. There are more knives. I think to a large extent TV and Video games have desensitized us to injury and death. The use of weapons against other people--police officers--to the point that it’s now a status symbol to shoot somebody--to shoot at a police officer. To resist the authority that the police represent at that level? It’s a badge of honor for folks. So in that respect it’s much more dangerous: the availability of weapons--the desensitization surrounding injury and death. So it’s a status symbol that it represents to other people. The most honored, respected person in prison is the one that has killed a police officer. So it’s changed in that respect.

TK: I was reading about these things called Sap Gloves. I don’t know what those are. Is it like a glove that’s like a Billy club, like a leather glove with…

BC: It’s a leather glove with lead dust across the knuckles. So it’s like holding a roll of nickels in your hand as they say…(smiles).

TK: And they’re not used anymore?

BC: Oh no, no. Saps!

TK: Because they’ll open up a persons face?

BC: Yeah well and one there’s no need for it. That physical type of toe to toe combat that men are famous and eager to participate in just isn't necessary because through our training we've come up with control methods; with pain compliance. You know, grab somebody by their hand and put their little finger up here (demonstrates) and stuff like that. You know a lot of times that will work. So you don’t need to do the old macho--like I said--toe to toe--punch em out and whoever wins--you know if the bad guy wins he goes away. If the officer wins he (the bad guy) goes to jail. It’s not like that anymore.

TK: When today you commonly see male police officers who stand five foot three inches, something that would have been unheard of in the early 1970’s, do you feel the changes in height requirements with the PPB have had a detrimental effect on officers being able to contend with criminals who may be larger and stronger?

BC: No. No. Those people--of that stature, male or female? They’re--it depends on their mental attitude and 90% of this is mental attitude. It’s how you carry yourself; its how you present yourself. And in that sense--I mean when I look at somebody on the street? I mean I can tell by their body language, you know? If we are going to have a good relationship or if we’re going to have a bad relationship. And the same thing applies to police officers and how they carry themselves and if they carry themselves--and if they are in fact confident as to their abilities and where they are and why they are doing what they’re doing...um…size truly doesn't matter. And thankfully, here in Portland--if it comes down to it--where the bad guy is going to take advantage of the smaller person (officers) we have plenty of--you've got five or six of your best friends are there in a heartbeat. (Other officers).

TK: Okay. Do you think police departments should go back to the old way of recruiting officers with height requirements and more training in physical combat and more stress on actual physical strength and effectiveness?

BC: No, no, no. Years ago, when it was an us and them mentality? Uh, Probably. But now given the advent of--again of community policing--the interaction that police officers have with the community--being able to talk to them and having them come up on the street and talk to us, you know, in coffee shops and things like that? Years ago you wouldn't do that. And these days the mentality on the part of the public I think, is very important. That we are approachable, that we can come up and be talked to about the weather or about whatever! I think that’s too important--and we don’t want to get away from that. We want to encourage that. Because we are in this together. There’s 1,000 Portland Police officers and 500,000 people in Portland. I’m no math wizard and I don’t know what that ratio is but we can’t do it all. It is a partnership; we have to work together and having that type of communication is important.

TK: What are your views of the manner that Rosie Sizer was fired by Mayor Sam Adams and do you think Mike Reese is a good replacement?

BC: Because I wasn't there during her tenure as a police officer? You know I really don’t know. I know there was a lot of…angst on the part of the officers when she was there based on some of her decisions.

TK: Because she wasn't very supportive of the officers? When they were injured, she would never visit them, and uh...

BC: That was part of it I think. I know Rosie from when she was working (street patrol) and I know she--that’s really not her. She is interested in her people; the people around her. She’d be the first there if somebody was calling for help. But having not been a chief, not knowing what their responsibilities are--truly what their responsibilities are--what their job is? You know I really can't--I can’t throw too many darts because I just don’t know. I know it would be nice and I've seen it done from other administrative people here in Portland and other departments, where the chief does take that extra step and it’s very much appreciated on the part of the officers. It’s just a PR courtesy type thing. Read that again!

TK: What are your views on the manner that Rosie Sizer was fired by Mayor Adams and do you think that Mike Reese is a good replacement?

BC: They say that when you’re promoted to police chief, you’re next in line to be fired. Because it is such a political job. That’s why I never tried to advance through the ranks because the politics would drive-me-nuts! It really would! And I couldn't put up with it! And number one I couldn't play the game. I just don’t have that skill or desire. And uh, I mean it was just like--who was the LA cop?

TK: Kroeker?

BC: Kroeker! Yes! Chief Kroeker was a good man that was good for this department and would have instilled some very--a lot of needed changes I think--in so far as the supervision portion of whatever he had in mind. But he fell by the political wayside. A political hatchet job and I think Rosie did as well.

She opted to stand up and voice her opinions about the budget and things of that nature and unfortunately--well just like Chief Davis when he spoke up against Bud..."Well okay, you’re not part of the teeeem--so you’re out of here!" But that’s the reality of the chief of police. You live and die at the political whims of whoever-is-in-charge!

TK: Uh huh?

BC: Mike Reese? I respect the hell out of him! He’s a very hard working, honorable, intelligent person. He has enough stuff going on outside of police work, I think--that’s going to give that balance that I was talking about earlier, that I didn't have. And so I think he’s going to be a good fit. And I think he has the political moxy and the ability to deal with the politics up there (the 15th floor) and I have high hopes for him, I really do.

TK: What are your thoughts on Journalist Anna Griffin calling police a "bunch of thugs” for deciding to show their support to Christopher Humphrey's during that march? Do you think Anna Griffin personifies the typical socially ingrained contempt people often demonstrate toward police officers without really questioning the origins of that contempt?

BC: I think she--she apparently does. I don’t know her and I've never read anything about her. Just based on what you've told me, she obviously possesses that contempt.

TK: She wrote a commentary about a day after that march, the rally for Humphrey's and she was very critical and called police a “bunch of thugs” and made derogatory comments about Scott Westerman’s clothing and how he resembled an extra on “The Sopranos"and...

BC: Oh? Oh! Right! Right! Right!

TK: A really, really unprofessional, petty attack.

BC: Is she a journalist?

TK: Yes.

BC: Okay, so she represents--its unfortunate but that’s the one person out of the many journalists and when she says things like that--it reflects badly on--I think--on other journalists.

TK: Uh huh.

BC: So, yes, we have some police officers that for one reason for another, generally based on the situation they’re in, you know? They get involved in a bad situation and they don’t handle it well and it comes off looking bad. So it just seems like it’s a natural evolution that--well its kind of like gun control. There are people that want to take away AR-15’s and other automatic weapons from private ownership. You know? Gun control! And it seems to be a natural progression of people--well if they outlaw certain weapons then the next thing you know the police will be knocking on your door at 3:00 in the morning and taking your little 38 revolver away from you. So they always--people always tend to over react--over embellish--whatever the situation. There’s never any middle road that people take or compromise on I guess. It’s always one or the other. It’s always an extreme. And I think her comment might be her opinion of us--of police in general and that’s fine. It’s unfortunate that as a journalist she represents--when she writes stuff like that--all journalists. You know I’m rambling a bit here because I’m trying to gather this thought but I know from experience and talking to other journalists that that’s not the case. (Journalists commonly being biased) That that’s not how they feel either professionally or personally. But when she writes stuff like that--it’s hard not to assume that all journalists feel that way or at least some do--which creates skepticism on my part and others as to their integrity and whether they can be objective--or whether their mind is already made up. So its--its difficult to deal with.

TK: In early June of this year a Portland police officer was asked to leave the Red and Black Café on Division Street in SE Portland. One of the managers, a man named John Langley approached Officer Jim Crooker and told him “I don’t feel safe with you here; would you please leave?” Many people in Portland seem to share the same suspicion and distrust of police. Can you account for the recent distrust, fear and even hatred that has been directed at police during the past several years?

BC: Well, I would disagree with that. I don’t think there is hatred and distrust amongst the general population. Is there that hate and distrust of the customers that go to The Red and Black? Well apparently. But again, I think it’s a small segment of the population of Portland.

TK: The vocal minority?

BC: The vocal minority. Exactly right. Its unfortunate and obviously I think they’re wrong but they’re certainly entitled to that. And I thought Officer Jim-- Kroeker...was it? That was Kroeker too? (laughs).

TK: Officer Jim Crooker. (smiles).

BC: Crooker? He came after I left…

TK: He’s really young.

BC: Yeah, in fact I met him down here during Rose Festival and yeah he is really young. I thought he handled that (being asked to leave the Red and Black Cafe) just right! And by reading different Blogs and posts--Face Book and things like that, I think it’s apparent, that again--that the feeling of hate and distrust is amongst--the population is very small. Because for the most part, all the vast majority of the Blog entries that I read were very supportive of the officer and very non-supportive of The Red and Black. So I just disagree with that statement.

TK: Okay. What are your thoughts of the anarchists who've displayed rigid and hate filled vitriol toward Portland police officers. What do you think of the ideologies of these young people and do you think they have a realistic and rational understanding of police procedure--why it exists from an historical perspective or what police contend with on a daily basis? Do you think anarchy is consistent with overall peace, societal calm or any manner of prosperity?

BC: They represent such a small portion of the population--again the vocal minority. No, it’s not realistic! But you know we all--we all have an aversion to authority--especially adults. Even teenagers of course--even more so--they demonstrate it over and above. But most of us have the maturity to understand why there are laws. Why there are regulations and why we need people out there to enforce them. Because we see--probably on a daily basis when there is no enforcement--when there is no authority figure around? Even the good people take advantage of the laws. People running red lights--driving too fast on the freeway--jay walking--whatever. We see that and that’s just part of human nature too so we realize--people I think realize that we have to have an authority figure out there to enforce the laws. These people, the anarchists don’t recognize any authority. I mean that’s part of their creed and it’s unrealistic. (smiles). If we were to try and live that particular lifestyle that they espouse for themselves and us? I think they’d realize quickly that that wouldn't work. So they’re just a small interesting segment within society that--that are misguided. (Laughs).

TK: When members of the public and the Portland community accuse officers of being “thugs” and "trigger happy" monsters who enjoy hurting others and/or killing others, does it strike you as odd that its actually the general public who is responsible for the vast majority of killings and not police? For example, recently, in 2005, in the city of Portland, there were approximately 20 murders by the civilian population and 325 rapes. In 2006, there were approximately 13 murders and 138 rapes and in 2008 there were approximately 26 murders and 250 rapes. When the general public is responsible for the vast majority of rape and murder being committed, do you think its misguided for certain members of the public to be so condemning of officers when an officer involved shooting results in a civilian death?

BC: Well, I think that’s a double-edged sword type of thing because the officer is put into that situation and has to deal with it. But the public's expectation of the police officer is so--is so high--they can--hopefully consider them such--so professional that they expect situations to be resolved calmly and peacefully without the use of violence and so in that sense their expectation is unrealistic.

TK: Because they’re kind of expecting officers to be more like social workers than officers?"

BC: Well, not necessarily, not just social workers--but that their expertise--well you see it on TV every night--well that’s a bad comparison too because they shoot and kill more people on TV than--I mean that’s another story! On TV they shoot them and go to coffee and its like whoa!

TK: It doesn’t work like that.

BC: Yeah. But I think people look at police officers and they have such a high expectation of their abilities and their professionalism that resorting to that level of violence--they can’t comprehend--they can’t make it work in their own minds. So I think in that sense they think so much of the police that again they think that level of violence isn’t something that we should have to resort to, when in fact that level of violence is mitigated--not mitigated but is directed by the suspect--what the bad guy does. There was something else in there? Read just the last sentence or two there.

TK: Do you think it’s misguided for certain members of the public to be so condemning of officers when an officer involved shooting results in a civilian death?

BC: Yes, I do. And again along that professional--hopefully--it’s along that professional line. I think some do it just because they’re anti-police. They’d complain if they were hung with a new rope is an old saying.

TK: What is that?

BC: Somebody would complain--you know "he complains about everything, he’d complain if he was hung with a new rope." There would be something wrong..."no matter what I do; I’m going to do it wrong." There are those out there that look at the police that way. I find it interesting that there was an article in--I believe it was in the Oregonian--in the past year in local hospitals or maybe it was just hospitals in the state--there were thirty two!--thirty two deaths attributed to mistakes on the part of doctors and nurses! Thirty two deaths! Based on mistakes! And there’s no human out-cry about that. So, when a police officer is involved in a shooting--for the most part, it’s out in the middle of the street or wherever. It’s very visible to what’s going on. I recall an incident over at Lloyd Center, in which an officer was involved in a shooting; shot and killed a man with a knife. A witness right across the street--a normal person--just a person waiting for a bus--and she was dumbfounded by the response of the police. This guy had robbed a bank and as he was trying to make his getaway. The police got on his trail, chased him around Lloyd Center--west side of Lloyd center--confronted him. Bad guy turns around with a knife in hand coming at the officer and he (the officer) shoots and kills him. All she saw was (bad guy comes around the corner--police officer comes around the corner)—BOOM, he shoots him. She had no inkling as to what happened before--you know ten to fifteen minutes before! And she was interviewed by the news and again she was aghast at what the police officer did! This poor citizen you know? The police officer just walked up and shot him type of thing! He didn't have a knife...and you know there was no weapon in this guys hand or anything like that--and she just didn't SEE it! The fact is, it was there! Other people saw it as well and they interviewed her a day or two later and she felt terrible after she learned the facts. And after she learned in fact, the guy did have a knife and that he was threatening the officer. So I think a lot of times people react without all the information and they have an emotional response too.

TK: Uh huh?

BC: It--it’s a very intense and important thing when a police officer takes somebody else’s life. And to react without the facts like a lot of people do? It doesn't help anybody. It certainly doesn't help the people. And thankfully, the police bureau is changing their policy now. Instead of waiting weeks--two--three--four weeks--grand jury information--they’re coming up and presenting the facts sooner. I think they finally recognized that that needs to be done, in order to temper the response on the part of the public. They want to know--they need to know--they deserve to know. (The public).

TK: Recently, in an article in the Portland Tribune, dated July 23rd of this year, it’s stated that “The US department of justice has taken the first step toward reviewing whether the Portland Police bureau has engaged in a pattern of discriminatory policing against minorities” What are your thoughts on this new development?

BC: Well, it’s just a political--I heard that--but it’s just CYA again on the part of the federal government. "We’re doing our job. We’re policing the police" and uh--the facts once they--I encourage that type of investigation because the facts then will show that whatever that claim was--it simply isn't true--because its not. Its not.

TK: I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Aaron Campbell was killed and Jesse Jackson came to Portland…

BC: What a rube! I mean, his only motivation is Jesse Jackson. He could care less about the people of Portland; he could care less about Aaron Campbell. He’s here for himself.

TK: Okay. Statistics indicate that large numbers of police officers are unable to reconcile the daily stress of police work, due to the brutality of the job and what they must do and often witness; which often involves extreme violence and regular injuries. Many resort to drugs and alcohol to self-medicate as a result of that stress and the resulting feelings of social isolation. Though numerous police departments nation wide offer at risk officers help, most officers do not approach their superiors for help because in the police world...its commonly known that if they ask for help for any kind of issue, be it alcohol dependency, drug addiction, gambling or domestic violence, officers often run the risk of losing their job or their reputation. How do you think the thin blue line affects this pattern among police officers and do you see this pattern changing any time soon?

BC: I think that assessment is accurate. I think slowly but surely that is changing. I mean it changed for me. I was in that group seven years ago. And I learned through my experiences within the police bureau--I became a member of the TIC team. Traumatic Incident Committee--officers involved in traumatic incidents. It’s a peer support group and prior to my involvement in that group, I was firmly entrenched in that. And it’s not just a male thing. Females are even more stubborn than men. You might find that hard to believe (Laughs) but when it comes to this type of stuff, dealing with the stress of the job and uh--yeah--it does exist and I think it is changing. And like I said, I learned from my own experiences within the TIC team, that having the ability to talk about the stress, to listen to other officers that have been involved--other officers that I respected--and hear their response to whatever it is we were talking about...and I mean other than just sitting in choir practice over a beer--you know type of thing? Because we--we do that too. And that can be very therapeutic. But in these settings--like I said the TIC team type of settings? More productive. It opened my eyes to the fact that the stress is a very real problem and simply talking about it--expressing yourself was important. It was something that relieved stress for me--and I was the team leader and I’d run debriefings--critical incidence stress debriefings and I’d have a room with 20 or 30 officers and family members. And I’d address that very issue--that stress is--but remember we’re all police officers! We would die for each other--if somebody is calling for code 3 help--code 3 cover. We will wreck police cars trying to get to wherever you're at because we want to help--we want to make sure you are okay. So this is an opportunity you know, to talk and help maybe the next guy sitting next to you or the next officer sitting next to you and show that officer that what you’re experiencing, he’ll recognize as something he’s experiencing. So you’re helping that other officer by talking about it. So again, that’s a two-edged sword. It’s a good sword. In that being able to express themselves--to help themselves and being able to express their feelings and emotions helps the next guy--the next wife and so on and so forth. So I think that that isolationism--the uh..."you’re not a MAN if you don’t" you know in order to be considered a man you internalize all this? You don’t need to express your feelings and emotions? I think that is slowly but surely changing and so I think that’s a good thing.

TK: Because its so well known that officers do internalize--especially men?

BC: Well, like I said, I wouldn't put women any place else other than equal in that sense. Because they do the same thing and in fact they probably internalize more because they want to belong as well. They want to be part of the club.

TK: And it’s a boys club primarily? (Laughs)

BC: In the beginning.

TK: Historically?

BC: Historically and there are still more men than women within the group so you do have to put up with that but I think the acceptance of women within police work? I don’t think there’s that issue anymore. The only time it ever raises its head is when a female officer doesn't perform well. Something goes wrong and somebody will say "Well, we shouldn't have women in police work" because of that and the counter to that is: I've seen guys do the same thing! (Not perform well). So it’s a human--it’s an individual thing as opposed to a gender thing these days. I've had my ass rescued more than once by a female police officer. I can think of two different occasions where that officer made the difference! The fact that she was--that she was a she? These days I think isn't as important. The fact that the blue uniform showed up and helped me? That’s what was important or should be important.

TK: Okay. Recently, Willamette Week ran a story about the Clackamas county Sheriffs office and problems with that department stemming from domestic violence among its police officers and Sergeants. Do you think domestic violence is an issue among police officers that is still hidden from the media, when officers are given so many mixed messages regarding advocating for themselves in the event that they need help and the reality of officers losing their jobs when they do advocate for themselves and ask for help. What if anything do you think can be done to change this pattern?

BC: Well, I don’t think that...domestic violence affects all professions. My impression there on that question was that domestic violence among police officers should be public knowledge--should be available to the public?

TK: Oh no, no it’s just highlighting the situation with the Clackamas county sheriffs’ office and that Willamette Week story. Do you think that domestic violence remains kind of a hidden issue?

BC: I think it is in all professions. My dentist in Battle Ground--several years ago went up and hacked his wife 43 or 47 times in her--they were separated. A dentist, a really nice guy! Quiet, reserved type of guy and he breaks into her home in the middle of the night and hacks her with a pair of scissors.

TK: Did she die?

BC: Oh yeah! Oh yeah! He’s in prison for the rest of his life now. But yeah, I think domestic violence obviously--it’s because we are human beings--we are nothing special in that sense. We’re exposed to it--you would think that because we’re exposed to it and we see the results of domestic violence and we get the training that says "these are the things that you might want to offer to people involved in domestic violence" you would think that as police officers we’d have a better handle on it. But the reality is we’re just human beings and we also have the same emotions that everybody else does. And we don’t always handle our personal issues as well as we do our professional ones. And I found that--I found that in my life? When it came to work I was almost a different person! Because I tried to become the persona of a police officer and then when I was at home I was--I was--I was myself! And not quite as empathetic and compassionate as I was out on the street. And it obviously caused--decisions--but we’re still together after all these years! 38 years!

TK: That’s great!

BC: Uh, only on the part of--only because of her efforts--her Herculean or whatever--so yeah, again domestic violence is a problem in all professions and we should do better at it. But you know it’s really nobody else’s business but theirs. The officers and the people that are involved. The Willamette Week shouldn't have access to that type of information because it is personal. When you’re at work, I mean that’s one thing but if you’re not working its nobody else’s business but ours. Does that make sense or am I getting too far off here?

TK: No. In the article in WW it was several public cases of one Sgt who murdered his wife and her friend and then committed suicide and then it was several other rogue cops that were, you know, taking advantage of prostitutes and street women and things like that...and so it was...a couple of men were fired and I think they (WW) kind of wrote this article from an attempt to paint the Clackamas county sheriffs office as a 'good ole boy system' a bunch of bad cops and that kind of thing...

BC: Well, I think its incumbent upon the system--that if the administration--if you’re--we went through this in our TIC debriefings too--If you recognize officer A as having a problem with whatever, along the lines of being there to help each other--just like helping the citizens--you need to speak up. You need to say something. Don’t let it get to the point where the officer goes out and shoots and kills his spouse. And to a certain extent that good ole boy system is probably still--um--is probably still there. "I’m going to protect that other officer--he’s my--he or she is my pal--my friend and he’s going to do the same for me as I’m going to do for him." And we just need to educate our officer’s about this. It goes beyond the stuff we do on the street because what happens at home affects how we handle ourselves on the street and you might be doing somebody a disservice by not helping them.

TK: When considering the "huge disconnect" between the public's understanding of police work and police procedure and what police officers actually have to do on a daily basis, what do you think can be done to help facilitate this lack of understanding?

BC: Well, just the information--we have to get information out. When an incident occurs--administration--not the mayors office but somebody from the police bureau has to stand up and say "this is what happened. This is why it happened. These were our options." Information! We just have to get information. We can’t allow people to come up with their own conclusions by not giving them--or we can allow them to come up with their own conclusions if we give them the facts. And if we don’t give them the facts then we deserve what we get.

TK: A lot of police officers are frustrated because the public really doesn't understand police procedure for the most part.

BC: Right.

TK: And there’s this idea that it’s simple and there are a lot of presumptions that certain members of the public come up with and um--and so police are frustrated when they’re trying to explain a situation that’s happened to members of the public who don’t have a background in police work or who don’t have a background in criminology or criminal justice. They just don’t understand…what was my question? (laughs) How do you feel about that? I mean because it is frustrating because the vast majority of the public--they really...they really don’t understand. You know?

BC: They don’t understand but they can understand that we do have a job to do and it is a complicated job. Those people--again the vocal minority are the ones that get the attention and things like that and frankly they've been there since I started and it hasn't changed. And I don’t expect it will change.

TK: One good example is the media and the public wanting all the details of a homicide.

BC: Right.

TK: And detectives can’t give that and its like they’re always explaining over and over "we can’t provide all those details. This is why." Because they have to make sure that the public--the general public only has certain types of information, because the real killer is going to have all those specific details.

BC: Right.

TK: And so they’re constantly having to explain that over and over and that’s another example of how the public doesn't understand.

BC: Yeah and really how the media doesn't understand because they’re the ones that present the questions and uh…

TK: And then they act as if the police are holding out or being dishonest or wrong because they’re not coughing up every minor--every single detail. (laughs).

BC: Right and again, I think for the most part people understand that. That’s just the way things have to go--it’s the way things have to be--It’s kind of like this Kyron Horman case. There is stuff out there--there is stuff that the sheriff’s office knows that they have not released to the public.

TK: Yes, there’s been a lot of rumors like that, yeah.

BC: Yeah, exactly. But you know their goal in that case is to find Kyron. But they've also got the goal of--if they can’t find him or Kyron is--well let’s just say at best he’s been kidnapped and at worst he’s been killed. So somewhere along the line, the state is going to have to prosecute somebody and they simply--they have to be working towards that goal as well and just as you mentioned, they can’t give out all the information. And some of this information that they already know they’re going to glean from a suspect and the light is going to come on and they’ll have their man or woman that’s responsible. So they have more than one task and prosecution is one of those tasks. So, they have to 'have a mind' when it comes to talking to the public but they also have a responsibility to the public to say "hey, you don’t have anything to worry about" because reducing the fear of crime is just one of our responsibilities as well. And if we thought there was somebody out there snatching up little kids--what was his name?--like there was several yeas ago? They had like seven little kids...

TK: There was Wesley Allen Dodd?

BC: Wesley Allen Dodd, that’s the one!

TK: He was responsible for three or four.

BC: When we have somebody like that on the loose we need to get as much information as we can out there, you know to protect the public. But this Kyron Horman case? That’s a little different.

TK: What do you think about the citizen review boards? It’s like you have a group of citizens and the vast majority don’t have a background in police work or criminology. You know they could be a baker or a dry cleaner and they’re on this review and they don’t have the background to understand 95 percent of what’s going on. What do you think about those review boards? Do you think they’re effective?

BC: I think the idea of them is good. Getting again, average every day citizens involved in police work. It’s a venue to explain why we do what we do and things of that nature. Unfortunately, most citizen review boards have their own agenda. They are out to--well they’re not objective. They have their own views on the way police work should be done.

TK: As opposed to the reality?

BC: As opposed to the reality. So in that respect--I mean if the review board--if the people involved are committed to being objective? I have no problem with that but if they have the political agenda to go out and crucify which I think most of them do or at least some of them do--then I think they’re pointless.

TK: Alright, well, those are all the questions.

BC: I ramble, I’m sorry.

TK: No, no, no, you didn't actually. Thank you Bert.

FINI

Interview transcribed by Theresa Griffin-Kennedy

*****************************************************

PUBLISHED COMMENTS

From: Mr. Milton Takei

City: Eugene, Oregon

Comment: Dear Portland Alliance, I am one of your subscribers here in Eugene. I would like to submit a letter to the editor for your newspaper.

UNCONSCIOUS BIAS

Dear Editor,

In response to the interview with a retired police officer that appeared in the December 2010-January 2011 issue of the Portland Alliance, I would like to comment that police officers may not believe themselves to be racist, but the fact is that psychologists have shown that all of us (including people of color) have unconscious racial bias that society implants in our minds, beginning in early childhood. Police officers should take care in how they do their jobs, since they have more power than most people. As with any bad habit, people need to make a conscious effort to try to change how they behave. Over twenty years ago, when I was the acting chair for a highly contentious political meeting, I tried to give preference to women and people of color when calling on people to speak. For material on unconscious bias, see Shankar Vedantam's book, "The Hidden Brain" published in 2010.

Milton Takei

Response Letter...

Dear Editor,

A couple of thoughts regarding the letter from Milton Takei.

Milton, I couldn't agree with you more. As human beings we all bring our own life experiences and "baggage" with us. Its incumbent upon police officers to realize that fact and not allow personal bias to influence their work. Obviously, that can be a daunting task but for the professional officer on the streets, its certainly a necessity. I no longer say all, but I do believe that most officers recognize this issue and work very hard at accomplishing that goal.

Also, Propaganda. In the original article, I wasn't speaking for PPB. I was speaking for myself. I believe in what I said and how I feel about the role of law enforcement.

Thanks, Bert Combs

Online since 2007