The headline in this morning’s Coeur d’Alene Press was Officer cleared in shooting. The article implied, probably accurately, that the Bonner County Prosecuting Attorney found insufficient evidence to charge Coeur d’Alene Police Officer Spencer Mortensen with criminal homicide in the shooting death of Eric Johnston.
Beyond that, the skewspaper article was mere stenography, not independent reporting.
It was clear from the article that the Press reporter, Keith Cousins, had relied heavily on information provided by the Bonner County Prosecutor in a letter to the Kootenai County Prosecutor.
After reading Cousins’ article, the newspaper’s readers don’t know many of the facts of what happened. What the Press reporter should have done is use the Idaho Public Records Law to obtain a copy of the Idaho State Police’s reports and the images reviewed by the Bonner County Prosecutor. The reporter should have then studied the report to get a more complete understanding of the events before writing his story. Of course, that would have taken him several days and maybe weeks of hard work, because the investigative reports do not read like true crime books by Ann Rule or John Douglas.
Effectively, Cousins’ news story was little more than the conclusion arrived at by prosecutors. Missing from his story are the answers to significant questions: Was there a reasonable course of action the Coeur d’Alene police officer could and should have taken to avoid this shooting while still preserving the public safety? If so, why didn’t he?
As the people of the City of Spokane learned from Otto Zehm’s death at the hands of Spokane Police Officer Karl Thompson, for reasons often more political than legal, prosecutors and police sometimes prefer the public not ask or receive the answer to those questions. It’s far more politically expedient to not have the public asking questions about the quality of the police officer’s training and supervision. But they are the very questions the police and the jurisdiction’s elected officials must ask and have answered truthfully and completely if the public is to have trust and confidence in the police.
Nothing to see here folks, trust us, move along now and get on back to your TV sets. The ball game is on!
There is absolutely nothing for good citizens, like I am sure you are, to be concerned about. We fully investigated this matter. Remember, no police officer in north Idaho has had charges filed against them for their actions during this entire century. Yes, there were charges a while back against a police officer in Spokane, but hey, that was because of some nosey do-gooder busy-body in Spokane. We don’t have any of those kind in north Idaho. If you don’t believe us, read the Press story, it says exactly what we wanted it to say. It thoroughly investigates and reports about what we like to call “incidents.” Just trust us,and the Press, all is well.
Oh…someone just scored a touchdown…If you hurry you can see the reply!
Comment by up river — January 4, 2014 @ 4:43 pm
Up river, I find your distaste for Law Enforcement a little disconcerting, and I believe I’m the token Liberal here, you know soft on crime. I have had the opportunity to work along side several different law enforcement agencies. One thing I found in common was that none of the officers want a bad or trigger happy cop on their department, in fact many bragged how they had never had to draw their weapon. Now if you are talking about the newspaper’s non-existing investigative reporting I would include every newspaper.
I do have trouble with the blood lust of those wanting to see the video of a man being shot.
Comment by Mike Teague — January 5, 2014 @ 9:39 am
Mike Teague,
It was the Los Angeles Times that first reported this series of stories.
Video images from cop car and body cams are public records. Reviewing them is not pleasurable, but it unfortunately becomes necessary for the public (meaning the news media, if there be any) to review them and then compare what they saw with their own eyes to the written accounts offered by the agencies. Some of our local criminal justice officials might ask (as an indignant Groucho Marx did in one of his films when confronted), “Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?”
Comment by Bill — January 5, 2014 @ 12:54 pm
Mike,
I don’t see the “blood lust” as described, rather a need for verification of how that video was interpreted. I can’t even watch reality tv that includes medical operations so I’m sure I, like many, would avoid the last few seconds.
Or from another perspective, what is the purpose of having body cameras if the only people who get to watch and interpret are those most liable and/or damaged by an objective viewing? Take the Otto Zehm case, if the cops and city were the only ones who got to watch the store’s video, my guess is it would have been swept away with the belief in the story told by many cops who later admitted lying.
Bottom line, sad that a man was killed over something so trivial as a telephone pole.
Comment by Old Dog — January 5, 2014 @ 1:51 pm
Mike Teague–I did not intend to convey a “distaste for Law Enforcement.” My issue is with the review process and the ‘reviewers’. It is my perception that the process is designed to make public cut-and-paste findings of “nothing to see here.”
Comment by up river — January 6, 2014 @ 5:07 pm