Wait a second -- he's being sentenced for a bunch of crimes today, which means he either pleaded guilty to them or was found guilty by a jury or judge. Don't you think that's pertinent information to the story, Matt? What happened at trial?

He pled guilty before a judge.

And I don't think it is pertinent to whether or not he should have been shot in the back of the head, no.

I'll be at the sentencing hearing.

Who is Scott and who is Stewart? The same person, or are we talking two separate people? Color me confused.

anyone that's paying attention knows full well
that Portland Police spokesman Brian Schmautz
is nothing more than the PoPiggy's hired liar
and cover-up artist...he is hardly a real PR
man or "spokesman" in the real sense. So...

You're right Jon, it's confusing. Scott was an alias Stewart used. Fixed!

I rarely attempt to add to articles from your paper but would like to clarify a couple of pieces of information so that you could attempt to be factually correct.

Officers originally went to the apartment because of a 911 call from a woman who stated that Stewart had assaulted her and that he had access to a handgun. At the time of the first call to police, the woman stated that she thought the gun was in a car. During a subsequent call, the phone was dropped and the call taker heard a scream followed by what the call taker thought was the sound of a gunshot. Information that shots had been heard by the call taker was broadcast to responding officers. The audio of this call was released shortly after the shooting and was played in the media. After the shooting, it was determined that the sound the call taker heard was not a gunshot.

After officers arrived, they secured the area and had additional phone contact with the woman. During the contact, the woman told officers Stewart was armed with a hand gun and would not let her or her son leave the apartment. Officers also learned that Stewart was on parole for attempt murder and had gang history. This additional information was broadcast to officers at the scene.

The apartment was on the second floor of an complex and officers were in positions below the apartment looking up toward the windows. As officers were attempting to convince Stewart to surrender, he or another occupant of the apartment, removed an air conditioner and looked down at the officers. Officers gave Stewart commands, but he refused the commands. At times during the negotiations, Stewart went to the front door and, in view of officers, placed his hands in his waistband area where officers frequently find firearms. A short time later when the officer discharged her weapon, Stewart had repeatedly been told that officers believed he was armed with a handgun and Stewart had repeatedly disobeyed officer commands to keep his hands in plain view. At the time the officer shot Stewart, the officer stated she believed Stewart was reaching for a gun.

The bullet traveled up through the metal railing of the window and disintegrated into small pieces. Paramedics observed a cut on Stewart's scalp that was originally thought to have been from the window. When he arrived at the hospital it was determined that it was a fragment from the bullet and removed from his scalp. He was observed for awhile and then released from the hospital and booked into jail.

During the subsequent interview, Stewart stated that he considered making the officers believe he had a gun so they would shoot him.

The information that Stewart had a superficial wound came from information learned at the scene. At the hospital, he was found to have a small fragment of metal in his scalp.

This case was adjudicated through the court system. Stewart was given every opportunity to explain his actions, testified and was found guilty. A gun was located in a car in the parking lot that Stewart admitted was his. After sentencing, the reports will be a public record and your readers will be able to judge the officers' actions based on the facts developed during the investigation.

When releasing information to the public I am tasked with releasing all information that does not impede the investigation. There are times that information is released that was thought to be accurate at the time of its release that is later found to be inaccurate. In this case, I stated that Stewart had a superficial wound caused by glass. At the time, I was told it was true. It was later determined that the wound was caused by a small piece of the bullet jacket. I also stated that the wound was superficial. Objectively, the bullet passed through a metal railing, fragmented and a small fragment cut Stewart's scalp. The fragment was removed, he was observed to make sure he was otherwise uninjured and he was released. I still believe the word superficial is an accurate word to describe the injury.

That strikes me as fairly straightforward, given that all aspects of a case are never immediately known.

And at first I was tempted to compare it to that thing in the late '90's where a guy was growing weed, and found himself one morning surrounded by cops, out in flat Southeast Portland hell.
Perhaps noting that the rule of law has been so severely disrupted by the War On Drugs, he chose to fire back rather than take his chances in court. He killed an officer who happened to be a woman, in doing so.

In what seemed to be a fit of sentiment, the officers on the scene paralyzed the man with a shot to the spine (if he were black, he'd simply be dead, you'll note), and loaded his naked ass onto the loading platform on the back of a paddy wagon, for all the local news media to see.
And -funny story here- he managed, despite restraints, to hang himself using the mechanics of his own hospital bed, later that evening. Sure sure, I know; it seems impossible, but he managed to do it...One less bad apple, eh?

I bring all this up because upon reading this article, I was reminded how ridiculously overprotective of its female officers this particular p.d. tends to be (and by that I mean: taking the job implies risk of death, and just because it's a lady who dies does not mean you may murder a suspect in custody).
Point is, I don't trust the bastards: they've fucked up too many times and haven't been punished nearly enough.

But I also have to say that I can completely envision the scenario above as described by Schmautz. It doesn't seem to involve any trigger happy cops -unless they lied to him, which still isn't his fault.

Props to Brian Schmautz for such a clear response. I hope he'll continue to engage readers here.

On the other hand, it's refreshing that Matt Davis doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good story. I need a good yarn every once in a while.

Matt, I believe the word youre looking for is pwned.

And really, this guy wasn't shot in the back of the head any more than the guy who sat in front of Paul Rubens in that porno house.

is this Officer Stephanie Rabey one of Rosie's
bulldyke dummies that are just like the other
Testosterone Tommies that lie and cover-up all
their unjust misdeeds? Sure sounds like she's
one of the Boys, if you catch my drift (wink! wink!)

Shit, you're right, Winky; that wasn't funny at all.

I would like to say that what ever the justification of this particular case may be that the news media should report for public review every time a cop shoots someone.

Even if the police and or the court systems/grand jury decide that lethal force was justified that it is still important for the transparency to exists and with out the bloated hype of the standard television news outlet.

I want to know and I want to be able to form my own opinion about the police's use of lethal force. It really shouldn't happen that often so is it too much to ask to know every time the cops shoots someone?

I get to read about every time a politician is caught cheating on their spouse shouldn't I get to know when a tax funded public organization kills/harms someone with lethal force?

Although if put information from a web log up to the same standards you would expect from a published editor reviewed journalistic article then you're millage may very.

Now I'm going to rant on CuteOverload about how their kittens are not "Canz eatingz my cookiez"

He just got 10 years in jail.

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/06/cop_shoots_unarmed_man_in_head.php

“The District Attorney would rather see me go convicted than go free,” said Stewart, at this afternoon’s sentencing hearing. “But I feel like the District Attorney is biased. You’ll convict me whether I’m guilty or not, but won’t let an officer who did a wrongful shooting go before a grand jury. That’s biased.”