CHIEF MOOSE SAYS PORTLAND REMAINS SAFE CITY

In an interview, the city's top policeman speaks at length about how
Colleen Waibel's death has affected him and his bureau

These are tumultuous times for Portland Police Chief Charles Moose. On
Jan. 27, Officer Colleen Waibel, 44, became the second Portland police
officer killed in the line of duty in six months.

In the hours and days after Waibel's shooting, Moose exhibited a wide range
of emotions, from lashing out at the media to mournful reflection at
Waibel's funeral.

In an hourlong interview last week with The Oregonian's Michele Parente, a
relaxed and sometimes somber Moose spoke openly about the effects of the
shooting on him and the Portland Police Bureau.

Q: How is morale on the force right now, after the shooting? How do you
think they're coping?

A: I think everybody's coping really well. People have drawn together, but
at the same hand there is the debriefing that will help people through it
but will also help us identify those people that may still be having
trouble.

Q: What's the debriefing?

A: Well, we're just getting together with people and kind of talking
through the whole incident and their level of involvement, and continuing
to offer coping mechanisms and strategies.

Q: Do you think coming so soon after Officer (Thomas L.) Jeffries that it
was harder this time around?

A:I was surprised how much harder it was. I think there was perhaps a
thought that we'd had 18 years (without a shooting death before Jeffries)
and so in some way maybe we let our guard down and assumed it'd be another
18 years. Mentally, I'm sure, it's difficult to prepare for anything like
this, but I would say that we probably were unprepared, and so in that
sense it hurt, I think, a lot more.

Q:Do you think now the officers will try to be prepared, and do you think
it'll affect how they behave on the job, will it make them more timid or
more aggressive?

A:The preparation for death, I don't know if you can ever mentally
prepare. I feel very confident that their character, their training, will
carry them through. It's not a matter that anyone involved in this
situation used bad tactics or bad procedures, and so it's not that we've
got to make some big correction curve, and then everyone's going to be
better.

Q: How does the force recover from this? What is the next step beyond the
debriefing, is there going to be anything that you can do for moral
guidance, or anything that the employee assistance program can do to help?

A: As an organization, in some ways the best thing is that we continue to
work and continue to stay busy. But certainly, individually, certain people
are having more trouble than others, and so the employee assistance, their
sergeants, their commanding officers, their family members, will continue
to work with those individuals.

And the thing we want to ernphasize is that there's really no time frame;
we're very leery of people that are having a tough time, of rushing them
back or rushing them into situations. ... There is no formula for people,
and for some people it may not hit them until six months from now. ...

We also know that when people are involved in things in the future, we do
have a cumulative effect going on now.

Q: Are the streets of Portland more dangerous now than they were when you
were on the streets as an officer?

A: I'm afraid they are. Certainly the type of weapons that are out there
have changed dramatically. There are more people and for whatever reason,
seems like again maybe it's the deinstitutionalization of our mental health
system, or perhaps it's just the fast-paced world that we live in today,
there seem to be more people that are feeling isolated and feeling like
somehow violence is a resort to either getting them attention or solving
whatever personal problems they may be having.

It just seems like that all has escalated, not only in Portland but I think
throughout the nation. But the thing I want to emphasize is that, we've
noticed this increase in violence in the domestic violence stuff that we've
seen, in the gruesomeness of, I think, some of the homicides that we've
seen, the fact that so many more people are willing to just shoot another
community member, be it over a gang issue, or be it in the commission of a
robbery.

Q: Isn't it very disconcerting when the level and the rate of violent crime
is going down? If you're putting it in the context of Portland as a whole
being safer, and yet there are these people who seem more wanton in their
crimes. That's a contradiction.

A: Yes, but at the same hand we have a lot more information today about
certain violent incidents, so maybe the overall number of violent incidents
are down, but the description, the information about them occuring, there's
a lot more reporting, there's a lot more access.

Q: It's magnified?

A: That's just because we're in the information age. I don't think there is
sensationalism, I just think that there is a lot more different ways to get
information today than ever before. And so we tend to, I think, look at
those situations from many different angles, and it's tough to get away
from them. ... So I think, yes, the overall numbers are down, but when
something does happen, you're really inundated. And so maybe it kind of
makes you feel like it must really be worse than ever.

Q: Can you reassure the community that the city is still safe?

A: Well certainly the raw numbers are down. I think that people should feel
safe, but it has to be more of a personal thing. Are you moving about the
city, do you feel good about that? And the reports we get are that, yes,
people do. But again I'd like to see a further drop in the violence, in the
aggravated assaults especially. So I think that it's not a panic cry, it's
not a, 'We're under siege,' but I think we have a lot more work to do in
terms of getting along with each other, in terms of working through some of
our conflict on a lower level, without moving immediately to violence to
resolve the conflict. ... Certainly this shooting was very sensational,
it's very close to home, and it really hurt. But I'm leery that we
overreact as a community. And I don't think we will.

Q: Speaking of ouerreacting, much has been made about the local TV news
coverage. Let's talk about that. The bureau seems incensed over not just TV
coverage but the media in general. Why? Are we making your job harder?

A: I guess I want to make sure that it's looked at in the right way. I
don't think that the organization is incensed. I do want to stress that for
several months now I've heard concern coming from the command center.
Usually I don't participate at the command center during an incident. On
this occasion I was out there, and I was able to witness and observe
several things firsthand. It brought to light that there was trouble doing
their job. But it's highly important for us not to shut down
communication. We'll always need the media. We need to get information to
the public about crimes and to show people how to protect themselves, to
help us gather information to help us solve a crime. So there's more room
for cooperation rather than disengagement.

Q: If you could rewrite the gun laws, what would you allow, what would you
ban?

A: I think I would go beyond that and say that if I could rewrite history,
then America's history would not have the love affair that we have with
guns. All guns are dangerous. But certainly, the approach of banning
certain assault weapons is good, but at the same hand there are quite a few
already out there, so...if we never made another one, the police would
still have to confront all the ones that are out there. So we really can't
put everything in laws. ... There's nothing you can put on the books that
protects Portland police officers on the streets.

Q: You sound defeated.

A: I wouldn't say defeated, maybe realistic. Yes, laws are needed, but I'm
more interested in technology, for protection.

Q: Technology? Can you explain that or give me an example?

A: Well, for example, the Department of Defense has created a technology
that allows you to detect if members of a group have a metal alloy on their
person. An officer could see who, how many, had a weapon. Or say during a
traffic stop you could detect if there was a gun in a vehicle. Some ask,
'Don't we always presume there is a weapon in a vehicle?' and yes, we do.
But this would allow protection since the officer would know for sure.

Q: That sounds straight out of "Star Wars."

A: No, that's reality. But we don't even know if the Department of Defense
would release that technology. Or even if it could be used. There's a right
to privacy, and would we be constitutionally allowed to use it? But that's
where I would want to put the focus. Protection. The laws are good, but
it's not just banning guns but laws that make control reasonable and
rational. There's no reason we can't do thumb checks for long guns, not
just handguns. That kind of thinking is antiquated. It goes back to the
notion of common defense, the right to protect ourselves. What does common
defense mean today? At some point we would have tanks and airplanes issued
to us by the government so we could protect ourselves from the Russians.

Q: Can you talk about your philosophy in enforcing marijuana laws? Should
marijuana be treated just like any other drug?

A: Possession of marijuana is against the law. As police officers, our job
is to enforce the laws as they exist. If society changes those laws, then
we will follow what we're directed to do. But we're not going to overlook
any drug or any substance that is at this point illegal.

Q: There's a perception that the police bureau, in the past, treated
marijuana dealers more casually because they might have been considered
less violent than, say, heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine dealers. Is that
true, and if so, is that going to change now, in light of Steven Dons?

A: I think the only thing I can say is that I was involved in the drug raid
when Officer (David Crowther) was killed (in 1979), and we changed and we
improved our attack and our approach to doing warrants as a result of that
very traumatic incident. So there's no doubt that we will look at this
situation and make some adjustments and make some changes. I don't know if
I can really articulate anything much greater than that because it's not
exactly clear how we will change or what adjustments we wil1 make, but I
know that they will occur. ... But I just want to emphasize it won't cause
us to stop. The approaches, the knock-and-talk is a very useful tool.
People in our community call every day about drug houses and concerns, and
we still need to have a way to try to address those.

Q: Let's talk more about the knock-and-talk. Some people say
constitutinally you're doing the work first and worrying about the
protections of people's rights later. What about that issue? What about the
civil liberties of people who -- you don't have a warrant but you go in
their home?

A: Well, we have consent when we do that, and so we've done hundreds and
hundreds, and people have had attorneys, and people have had their day in
court, and it's been found constitutionally legal. So I think those people
that are jumping on that wagon certainly see this as an opportunity where
people are calling them and asking their opinion, whereas they didn't ask
their opinion three years ago when we were doing knock-and-talks, four
years ago when we were doing them, five years ago.

Q: The talk about arming officers with some high-powered rifles, the budget
proposal for $250,000 that went to Mayor Katz, in fact, on the day of the
shooting. Is more firepower really the answer?

A: I just want to emphasize that a big part of the rationale is that the
weapon that we're proposing is a different weapon than the shotgun that is
available today. And that the weapon that we're proposing is actually for
an urban environment a safer weapon because you don't get the spray that
you get when you use a shotgun. So the real goal is to recognize that it's
1998 now, we need to be rethinking what we're doing. And we need to
recognize that probably in the past four or five years, there's been very
little use of the shotgun. So we don't anticipate much change all of a
sudden with a long rifle, that it will increase usage.

Q: For those unfamiliar with guns, what do you mean by less spray? What's
the difference in the weapon?

A: At this point, from a tactical standpoint, we're not prepared to talk
about that. First we have to have this approved by the mayor and the City
Council. So at some point all of that information will come out. It's not a
secret. But with the timing of the shooting, that's really kind of a
separate, just like with the less lethal bean bag, we brought it to the
community and showed it, so people would understand. We got the mayor to
sign off, same with the City Council. There will be demonstrations. There's
been a tendency for everybody to want to wrap this into the shooting. I
guess we're just trying to say that this topic needs to slow down.

Q: Going back to you. On a personal level, how does the shooting affect
you? The other day the mayor said it's easier for her to show her emotions
but that you need to keep it together more.

A: Well, I'm certainly trying to deal with it. (PAUSE) But it makes me wish
in some ways that I was out there on the street because then it'd be easier
because you've got something to do. I think to me, doing something, staying
busy, helps me get through problems, and part of the problem with being
police chief is that I really don't always have that immediate something to
do, and I've got to continue my work on the budget, work on the issues that
are several years out. And it's kind of like, well, what's that got to do
with taking the next bad guy off the street. So in that sense I just feel
like, I go to the roll calls, and I talk to the officers, and I feel kind
of useless. You just feel kind of empty. They know that I can say all of
these things, and I'm encouraging them to stay strong and go out there. But
then when they go and they get in their car, I'm not going to be there next
to them so they've got to go out there by themselves. ... But I know that
the stuff I'm working on and my responsibility, what my job tasks are,
still need to be done and still eventually they'll make a difference.

Q: So how do you deal with it then, if you don't have the chance to be on
the street but have to go through another budget cycle?

A: Well that's the challenge, psychologically, not bite somebody's head off
because I really want to be somewhere else or that I really get frustrated
that no other bureau has members dying for the tity. But yet we have to ask
for resources on an equal footing with all the other bureaus. And I don't
want to dismiss that there are other things that need to be done to make a
city work that are critical, but it is frustrating to go to a funeral and
know that the other bureau managers aren't having people shot in the chest
in the name of the city. But yet, we're subject to the same 'Prove that you
need these resources. Prove that you need these weapons. Show me that
they're going to be making you more efficient,' and we'll do all that. ...
So you just need to marshal your resources and adjust, do the job, somehow
just psychologically not get wrapped up in it.

A: Well, I'm certainly trying to deal with it. (PAUSE) But it makes me wish
in some ways that I was out there on the street because then it'd be easier
because you've got something to do. I think to me, doing something, staying
busy, helps me get through problems, and part of the problem with being
police chief is that I really don't always have that immediate something to
do, and I've got to continue my work on the budget, work on the issues that
are several years out. And it's kind of like, well, what's that got to do
with taking the next bad guy off the street. So in that sense I just feel
like, I go to the roll calls, and I talk to the officers, and I feel kind
of useless. You just feel kind of empty. They know that I can say all of
these things, and I'm encouraging them to stay strong and go out there. But
then when they go and they get in their car, I'm not going to be there next
to them so they've got to go out there by themselves. ... But I know that
the stuff I'm working on and my responsibility, what my job tasks are,
still need to be done and still eventually they'll make a difference.

Q: So how do you deal with it then, if you don't have the chance to be on
the street but have to go through another budget cycle?

A: Well that's the challenge, psychologically, not bite somebody's head off
because I really want to be somewhere else or that I really get frustrated
that no other bureau has members dying for the city. But yet we have to ask
for resources on an equal footing with all the other bureaus. And I don't
want to dismiss that there are other things that need to be done to make a
city work that are critical, but it is frustrating to go to a funeral and
know that the other bureau managers aren't having people shot in the chest
in the name of the city. But yet, we're subject to the same 'Prove that you
need these resources. Prove that you need these weapons. Show me that
they're going to be making you more efficient,' and we'll do all that. ...
So you just need to marshal your resources and adjust, do the job, somehow
just psychologically not get wrapped up in it.

Q: Is some of the frustration toward the mayor that she's not able to get
all these resources? She has to fight the City Council.

A: Right. I have a lot of respect for that, so it's really not directed at
the mayor. Plus the mayor has been an excellent advocate for the police
bureau. I've had the good fortune of being up here as a depury chief of
being chief throughout her time in office, and sht's always been very
concerned and an advocate. But it is a team that makes the decisions for
the city. I'm in the process of reading a book called "A Prayer for the
City" (about Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell), and my wife went last
night to look for another copy because I wanted to give one to the mayor.
She may already have it but ... it's just a reminder of how difficult her
job is. I see her and we talk about police stuff, and police stuff and
police stuff. I always need to remember that there's a zillion other people
standing there, asking about a zillion other things. And so somehow, I have
to remember, when she doesn't quite know exactly what I'm talking about in
terms of the police bureau, there's only so much capacity there for any one
individual, so I really should respect that, and just thank her for the
times that she does know exactly what I'm talking about or what the police
needs may be. ... She's a damned good politician, and we would be
hard-pressed as a bureau if she wasn't the mayor.

Q: Has any of this made you reevaluate whether you want to stay as chief?
Everybody wants to know if you're going to Houston (to work for former
Multnomah County Sheriff Lee Brown).

A: Right.

Q: Or Washington, D.C.

A: Well, you know, I'm just trying to stay employed. I certainly have had a
lot of emotion, and I've had a rough time. And I think about the very rough
time that Chief (Leonard G.) Cook has had down in Eugene ... but also know
that goes with turf, I guess. I've got a loner badge and so the focus has
to be on doing the best job with the job I've got.

Q: So no plans to go to Houston.

A: No. But if he calls (LAUGHS).

Q: Is there anything more on the shooting that you want to say?

A: I don't know if I did a clear enough job, but I really think Portland
remains a safe community. And I think that police officers are safe in the
sense that their training is excellent, and I want to emphasize that in
none of these situations has anyone done anything wrong, it's just that,
it's been a very unfortunate -- there was nothing wrong with that
knock-and-talk.... And then secondly I think the same goes for the
community. ... I know the people out there feel severely shaken that live
in that neighborhood, but he (Dons) wasn't attacking the neighborhood, and
so I think they need to keep that perspective about it. ... And in terms of
community support, again it has been overwhelming and is much appreciated.