Tuesday January 22, 2019
SNc Channels:

About Salem-News.com


Jul-25-2008 10:02printcomments

Marion County DA Statement on Police Officer Involved Shooting

Prosecutors explain the details in a recent shooting that has been the subject of much speculation.


(SALEM, Ore.) - A Marion County Grand Jury Thursday unanimously found that the police officer shooting of Andrew James Hanlon, which occurred on June 30th 2008, was a lawful use of deadly physical force.

A total of thirteen witnesses testified before the Grand Jury, nine civilians and four police officers. Tony Gonzalez did not testify in person, however, a videotape of Gonzalez's interview with detectives was shown.

The Grand Jury was provided with photographs of the scene of the shooting, both day and night, three diagrams, as well as photographs of the residences of Shannon Kelley and of Andrew Hanlon's sister, Melanie Heise. Additionally, the Grand Jury heard the original 911 call of a burglary in progress and a copy of the police dispatch recordings before and after the shooting. The Grand Jury also reviewed the autopsy report of Andrew Hanlon, prepared by the Oregon State Medical Examiner's Office, the toxicology reports of both Andrew Hanlon and Tony Gonzalez, and the medical/mental health history documents of Andrew Hanlon.

Of the four police officers that testified, two were called to testify about the scene of the incident and Tony Gonzalez's condition after the shooting. The third officer, the lead detective, was called only to lay the foundation for the previously mentioned photos, the dispatch recordings and the videotaped interview of Tony Gonzalez. The fourth and final officer was from an independent law enforcement agency outside Marion County. This officer trains other police officers on use of force and was called to testify about proper police procedure.

Three of the nine civilian witnesses who testified were called primarily to tell the Grand Jury about Andrew Hanlon as a person.

These witnesses were his sister, his roommate, and his best friend. While none of these witnesses had first hand knowledge of what occurred on the night of the shooting, the state believed the Grand Jury needed to hear information about Andrew Hanlon to achieve a fair and accurate portrayal of this incident.

The remaining six civilian witnesses were called to testify as to what they personally observed on June 30, 2008. They included the woman who called 911 to report a burglary in progress as Andrew Hanlon was attempting to break into her home as well as the man who was an eyewitness to the confrontation between Andrew Hanlon and Tony Gonzalez. The other witnesses helped complete the picture of what happened that night.

The events of the night of June 30th 2008 in Silverton, Oregon occurred as follows, according to the Marion County DA: "At approximately 11:20 PM, Shannon Kelley heard the sound of someone knocking at the front door of her Silverton residence as she was reading a book in her upstairs bedroom. Mrs. Kelley was home with her three young children and her parents, who were visiting from Montana. Mrs. Kelley's husband, Josiah Kelley, was working at a friend's house nearby. Upon hearing the knock, Mrs. Kelley assumed that her husband had returned home and simply forgotten his key, so she got up to let him in.

By the time Mrs. Kelley reached the front door, the knocking had turned into very aggressive pounding. Mrs. Kelley turned on the porch light and saw a man on her front porch that she did not know and had never seen before. That man was later identified as Andrew Hanlon.

Andrew Hanlon appeared to be acting very strangely. He was unable to stand still and was alternating between peering into the windows of the Kelley residence and beating on the front door."

Note: The Marion DA says there has been speculation in the media that perhaps Andrew Hanlon mistook the Kelleys' home for that of his sister's, "however the two residences are not at all similar." Andrew Hanlon's sister's house is a small, salmon colored one story house located in a neighborhood in Silverton. It has a small picket fence with a gate in the front yard and eight steps up to a small porch. Once on the porch, you must then turn to your right to have access to the front door, as it does not face the steps.

By contrast, the Kelley residence is a large blue two story house at the top of a hill located on a private driveway named Digerness Blvd. There are only two other houses on Digerness. The residence does not have a fence in front of it and it has only three steps that lead to a very large porch. The front door directly faces the porch steps.

The statement continued: "Mrs. Kelley became frightened and told Andrew Hanlon to leave, but he refused. Instead, he repeatedly demanded to be let in. Andrew Hanlon was speaking in Old English, yelling phrases that included, 'Thou shalt let me in!' He also yelled that he had a sword and made gestures as if he was swinging a sword although he did not appear to be armed. At one point, he peered inside the window next to the front door and shook his fist at Mrs. Kelley's father. He continued to yell and scream and at one point he claimed to be the 'angel of death.' As Mrs. Kelley watched, Andrew Hanlon literally howled at the moon. Eventually Andrew Hanlon's screams ceased to be comprehensible and became 'guttural' and 'animalistic.' Mrs. Kelley had already called 911 to report that someone was attempting to break into her house. Her fear was obvious on the 911 call, and in the background of that call, Andrew Hanlon can be heard screaming and beating on the door.

Andrew Hanlon continued to punch and kick the door to the point that Mrs. Kelley and her parents all had to put their bodies against the door to keep him from kicking it down."

Note: Prosecutors say that after Andrew Hanlon fled from the scene of the attempted burglary, inspection of the Kelleys' front door revealed blood, blood spatter and even skin tissue.

"Once Andrew Hanlon realized that he was unable to punch or kick down the door, he ran from the porch to the driveway, got a running start and began to hurl himself against the Kelleys' front door. He did this a number of times. After his final run at the door, Andrew Hanlon screamed something incomprehensible and abruptly ran off down the hill going through the trees and blackberries, without shoes, toward Oak Street."

The DA says that as soon as Mrs. Kelley's 911 call came in, police were dispatched to her residence. Dispatch continued to relay information to responding officers throughout the course of the 911 call. Tony Gonzalez and Silverton Police Officer Josh Barnett responded. Dispatch recordings show that officers were:

1. Told of a possible Burglary in progress at the Kelley residence;

2. Told a description of the suspect (Andrew Hanlon);

3. Told that the suspect did not have weapons but was possibly intoxicated;

4. Told that the suspect had fled down hill and were given the direction.

The statement continued: "The officers responded to the area and began looking for Andrew Hanlon. During the search, Officer Barnett drove up Digerness Blvd. to the Kelley residence, while Tony Gonzalez was down below on Oak Street.

Upon hearing that Andrew Hanlon was coming down the hill, Tony Gonzalez parked his patrol car near the residence at 606 Oak Street and got out to attempt to locate Andrew Hanlon."

Note: According to the Marion County DA, this address had five vehicles parked in a row in the driveway in front of and to the east of the residence.

"As Tony Gonzalez approached the wooded portion of the hill east of the residence on Oak Street, he heard branches breaking. Tony Gonzalez shined his flashlight into the trees and saw Andrew Hanlon. Tony Gonzalez did not know Andrew Hanlon either personally or by reputation. He had had no prior contact with Andrew Hanlon, nor was he aware of anything other than what dispatch had advised.

Upon seeing Andrew Hanlon, Tony Gonzalez did not draw his service weapon, rather he ordered him to come down and to show him his hands. Andrew Hanlon did come down from the trees but instead of following Tony Gonzalez's orders, he cut behind the first of the five parked vehicles and began moving west, parallel to Oak Street.

On the other end of the parked vehicles, Tony Gonzalez began to follow Andrew Hanlon, also moving west, parallel to Oak Street. When Andrew Hanlon went behind the second parked vehicle, he ducked down out of sight. Tony Gonzalez, believing that Andrew Hanlon may run, began to go in between the second and third vehicles to cut off a possible escape route. As Tony Gonzalez moved towards Andrew Hanlon at the rear of the vehicles, Tony Gonzalez heard a sound that he thought was glass breaking."

Note: It is the opinion of investigators that the sound was Andrew Hanlon kicking or bumping into a recycling bin that had glass bottles in it causing them to clink together. There is no evidence of broken glass.

"Upon hearing this noise, Tony Gonzalez believed that Andrew Hanlon could be armed with a broken bottle and he drew his service weapon. Andrew Hanlon then stepped out from behind the second vehicle. At this point, Tony Gonzalez and Andrew Hanlon were within five to eight feet of each other. The area was only partially illuminated and Andrew Hanlon was turned sideways and would not face Tony Gonzalez. Therefore, Tony Gonzalez was only able to see Andrew Hanlon's right hand. Tony Gonzalez then ordered Andrew Hanlon to show him both of his hands and to get down on the ground. Andrew Hanlon did not comply with those orders, so Tony Gonzalez yelled them again. For a moment it appeared that Andrew Hanlon was going to comply; he said, 'Okay,' and started to reach toward the ground. However, he then stood back up straight and quickly bent down again, as if to touch the ground, and let out a scream and leapt towards Tony Gonzalez. Tony Gonzalez began to retreat as Andrew Hanlon chased after him swinging his arms, kicking and screaming. As Tony Gonzalez backed up, he cleared the two vehicles he had been between and continued back all the way across the driveway and into Oak Street. Andrew Hanlon continued advancing on Tony Gonzalez this entire distance, approximately twenty-five feet and Tony Gonzalez was never able to get more than five feet from Andrew Hanlon. At some point as Tony Gonzalez was retreating, he began to shoot at Andrew Hanlon in an attempt to defend his life under the circumstances. Tony Gonzalez fired his weapon seven times. Andrew Hanlon continued to chase Tony Gonzalez even as he fired his weapon. Andrew Hanlon finally stopped and fell to the ground just as he was entering the street. Autopsy results show that Andrew Hanlon was shot five times and that he died as a result of the gunshot wounds he sustained.

As this incident was occurring, Silverton resident, Jeff DeSantis, was driving along Oak Street. Mr. DeSantis did not know either Tony Gonzalez or Andrew Hanlon. Upon seeing Tony Gonzalez's patrol car parked in the street, Mr. DeSantis stopped his vehicle. Mr. DeSantis then looked to his left and saw the beginning of the confrontation between Tony Gonzalez and Andrew Hanlon. Mr. DeSantis had an unobstructed view and was approximately thirty-five feet from Tony Gonzalez and Andrew Hanlon when it began. When Mr. DeSantis first observed them Tony Gonzalez and Andrew Hanlon were at the rear of the two vehicles and Tony Gonzalez had his weapon drawn. He heard Tony Gonzalez repeatedly say, 'Get down!' 'Freeze!' 'Don't move!' 'Get down!' Mr. DeSantis said these commands were made several times and were very clear. Mr. DeSantis then heard Andrew Hanlon make what he described as a "primordial war scream" and start toward the officer, trying to strike and kick him with what appeared to be martial arts moves. Mr. DeSantis describes Tony Gonzalez's retreat from Andrew Hanlon as similar to that of a football player back-peddling and he called it 'very professional.' Mr. DeSantis heard Officer Gonzalez continue to order Andrew Hanlon to 'Get down!' and 'Stop!' even while retreating. Mr. DeSantis also saw that despite his retreat, Tony Gonzalez was never able to get more than five feet from Andrew Hanlon. Mr. DeSantis watched as Tony Gonzalez began to fire his service weapon and he saw that Andrew Hanlon continued to pursue Tony Gonzalez even as Tony Gonzalez fired. It was not until several shots had been fired that Andrew Hanlon began to slow down. Mr. DeSantis saw that Tony Gonzalez stopped firing as soon as Andrew Hanlon stopped coming after him. Mr. DeSantis saw Andrew Hanlon fall to the ground. Mr. DeSantis also saw that Tony Gonzalez never shot Andrew Hanlon when he was not chasing him and never shot him when he was on the ground. Mr. DeSantis then heard Tony Gonzalez immediately grab his radio and report, 'Shots fired!' Mr. DeSantis attempted to tend to Andrew Hanlon, however, he was too severely injured and he died at the scene. Andrew Hanlon was not armed when he was shot.

The state says they chose to give this lengthy press release in an effort to combat the accusations of a conspiracy or a cover-up that have arisen in the last three and a half weeks.

"It is vital in a case like this that the investigation and Grand Jury process be allowed to run its course fairly and independently. Releasing bits and pieces of the evidence prior to the conclusion of the case could inaccurately sway public opinion and therefore harm the integrity of the investigation and the Grand Jury proceeding.

The Grand Jury made its decision in applying the facts of this case to legal principals regarding when deadly physical force can be used. The legal principals that apply are as follows:

Tony Gonzalez had to reasonably believe that Andrew Hanlon was either:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against himself or another person.

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling.

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against Tony Gonzalez or another person. The decision of whether deadly physical force is justified does not boil down solely to the question of whether someone is armed with a weapon or not. The decision requires the application of all of the facts and evidence available to the legal rules. That is what the Grand Jury has done today.

What should be of paramount importance to the public is that the process was allowed to work. All of the primary witnesses were civilians, members of the public and this case was decided not by one person, one agency or by public opinion but rather by a Grand Jury made up of members of the public who heard all of the evidence and rendered its decision.


Source: Marion County District Attorney's Office

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Vic July 30, 2008 3:19 pm (Pacific time)

Appreciate the input, Henry ..Id have to say that it wasnt so much the part of society I frequented, I guess it is perspective that shapes our lives. As my dad used to tell me, "What you believe, you will achieve, what you expect, you will get" I need to remember that. Thanks, Friend !

Henry Ruark July 29, 2008 1:55 pm (Pacific time)

To all: There's no doubt re rising incidence of somewhat similar situations. Given changing societal and other driving forces, that appears inevitable. Point here is what needs to be done about it;NOT attack on democratic remedies already in place, demanding testimony sworn under oath and the penalties of perjury, from observers and others on "see with own eyes" experience. Dissidents might do better to compose sensible actions to change conditions and persons involved in current political surround, rather than attack tested-and-proven process well forged over 200 years of experience. Re "50 years", in my time have had contact with at least several hundred polic and other officials in the system, and have encountered only half dozen of perhaps questionable attitude --two of whom was happy to help have removed for overly-brutal arrest-actions. IF you had so many in your experience, perhaps you were in wrong parts of society ?? That might offer partial solution for types you found.

Vic July 28, 2008 9:47 pm (Pacific time)

I agree with cdh...does ANY cop ever get charged with anything when there is a situation like this? Remember Fouad Kaady?...the NAKED bleeding and severely burnt kid that was gunned down by Sandy police officer Bill Bergin and Clackamas County gunslinger Dave Willard? NO CRIME !! There never is !! I bet a cop could walk in a day care center and gun down a kid and somehow, he would be absolved and found innocent. Justice does not exist in this country. If you wear a uniform, you can do whatever you want. Cynical?? You bet. I have seen the same s**t go on for 50 years now.

Henry Ruark July 27, 2008 6:27 pm (Pacific time)

S/Brthng et al: Re yours on Obama, cannot study those in McCain campaign, even top/ones, since they are forced to depart so rapidly, one after the other. Re experience, being shot down as pilot hardly gives one the expertise to declare "I know how to win wars ! --does it ? Further re experience, might turn record back to huge losses taxpayers paid for the original McCain scandal, now somehow lost in most accounts. Usually refrain from "spin", but you set the tone and also provided the pattern, entirely uncalled-for via content of thread until then..this does not constitute in any way an endorsement for Obama, simply keeping record straight for readership who deserve no less in this channel.

Henry Ruark July 27, 2008 3:50 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Few realize the origins of real involvment in issues this thread has shown recently. Here's words from famous Frenchman, re the American concept of citizen interest: "If an American were condemned to confine his activity to his own affairs, he would be robbed of one half of his existence; he would feel an immense void on the life he is accustomed to lead." --Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835 ----------- Interest and report on the realities of the Grand Jury and its work should surely fit into that overall picture, don't you agree ? Might even serve in some measure for reason to make sure the interest is reflected from known involvement with the process --as with my 4-mo. G/D assignment, NOT by mine own choice !! So not exactly eligible for "tootin' own horn" smearcase, but simply understandable as citizen interest.

Henry Ruark July 27, 2008 3:03 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Since we still live in a democracy, there is standard pattern for any dissenting feeling about a Grand Jury proceeding. IF D.A. integrity (by his choice of case-approach AND facts-supplied, or omission, or error, or any other reason) is in any way in question, legal steps can institute inquiry; or the state law association can be asked to look into the case. IF any other wrongful action is even suspected, one open channel is to apprise your legislator of the facts you have in hand and can prove to the extent of sworn testimony. IF you have NO SUCH FACT, and the matter is simply at the level of personal feeling, then those who continue to raise the issues, without any proof of any wrong-doing or error, are open and liable to countervailing actions from those whose integrity is under the shadow of such unconfirmed statement. That's the basic reason for continued comment in this channel, by me or anyone else. This case has been well and truly investigated, with the actions supported by sworn testimony by an array of citizens well aware of the penalties open to any duplicity. IF anyone has anything further, I suggest contact at once with the D.A.; if not, this one should now be laid to rest on the basis of factual statement here, and without need for any further personal or professional attack by or on anyone. Dialog demands facts, and depends on their provability, checkability and the personal responsibility and ethical accountability of those propounding the discussion of them. I leave it to the readership to evaluate each and every comment in this thread on that basis. Must also invite anyone with anything further to state here to provide some solid basis for the truth and reliability of the information involved, before seeking further space, attention and time from Tim and the readership. Personal animosity is not a reliable motivator for comment here, open to public and very probing scrutiny by others, even though its statement may very well be most revealing in and of itself.

Henry Ruark July 27, 2008 2:23 pm (Pacific time)

Still Breathing et al: Absolutely right re D.A. choice,demands professional and political integrity, can be challenged anytime by civil suit and by elective choice. That's democratic process, surely more to be desired than simple personal feeling, which is what you express here. Yours casts shadow on the integrity of this D.A.; can you back it up via sworn testimony ? NO civil case yet filed; can you report one is coming "for sure" ? If not, you too smearing public servant publicly, with no proof and only personal b/b feeling evident as motivation. Is THAT the truly 'American Way", for open, honest democratic dialog ? Hit-and-run, with no follow up possible ? SO what's your credibility quotient, other than single cognomen here ? If you ID self to Tim, per usual pattern here, can share with you from past files a number of further-revealing incidents. Do you have any such further resource other than the usual self-massaging b/b action? Re D.A. Letter, here intended simply to document choice of experience, rather than leave it open-ended per yours. Also slight difference in being one of jurors, or one chosen as foreman, and for cases with exceptional consensus achieved, which was why-mentioned here; see mine re further/kudos at age 90 ! No special further rights are either implied or claimed, only sharing of life experience for what it may be worth to others, one of basic fundamentals of open, honest, democratic dialog long appreciated by those who know democracy and believe in its purposes and potency. Others attacking it have their own reasons, of course; one is known as fascism. Incidentally, also have about a dozen originals from Oregon artist Bennett, in new office --stolen at auction and now worth many dollars --but not outweighing my Letter from that D.A., knowing full circumstances involved, which are factual and shared here to support story-excerpt shown. Will await your further report of forthcoming civil suit you imply, if in brute fact there is any-such. Do you have interest in it ? One might so infer from your Comment, you must agree...

Still Breathing July 27, 2008 12:32 pm (Pacific time)

I had been assigned to a Grand Jury on two occasions before I went into the military after college. I am from a sparsely populated county so many of us would find ourselves frequently being called to serve, but usually on normal jury duty. It had been different each time, but what really decides what the Grand Jury will do is based on what evidence you receive to evaluate. A DA or one of their assistants can really skew the process, and do so legally, which is a serious concern of mine. From what I have heard of the above case, a civil suit may help get more relevant info out into the open. Since no verdict has been rendered on this officer, this case can always be re-opened. I will tell you readers this, just because you have been on a Grand Jury, it does not give you some special insight over anyone else, it is a public process, no special skills are needed. I guess I could put "Letters of Appreciation" on my walls that I have gotten over the years, even from some former DA's, but I prefer seascape oil paintings, not to be tootin' my horn about this matter. Now how about some other news :http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/more-witness-em.html According to this first hand account, Obama was in Iraq for a matter of hours and in Afghanistan for 24 hours. Add this combat experience to his national legislative experience of 143 days in the US Senate before annoucing for President. I hope you people take the time to really study Obama, what he says and what he does, and the people he surrounds himself with.

Henry Ruark July 27, 2008 9:43 am (Pacific time)

To all: Since my motivation in responding here has been called into public attention, please note this excerpt from the story involved here: "The state says they chose to give this lengthy press release in an effort to combat the accusations of a conspiracy or a cover-up that have arisen in the last three and a half weeks. "It is vital in a case like this that the investigation and Grand Jury process be allowed to run its course fairly and independently. Releasing bits and pieces of the evidence prior to the conclusion of the case could inaccurately sway public opinion and therefore harm the integrity of the investigation and the Grand Jury proceeding." ----------------- Perhaps fact-demonstrated by that excerpt, surely emphasizing the dangers of erroneous public perception, should clarify my good reasons for rather extended statement, based on personal/professional experience. Anyone else having similar life-pattern from which to draw and share is welcome to add to --or subtract from !!--mine experience, shared here as part of this assignment, which I did NOT seek...

Henry Ruark July 27, 2008 9:28 am (Pacific time)

John et al: Your key-words are: "...a brief off handed remark." This is open public channel; it is NOT a "gossip column". It IS open, honest, democratic dialog, with responsibility and accountabilly unavoidably built-in since it is also in the PUBLIC eye...demanding some thought from anyone offering comment. Why would any of us want the other kind, easily obtainable elsewhere ? Here we deal with experience and fact, supportable when needed, meant to share and enrich each other's ongoing life experience. Anyone reading for more than a day will know that, and the "WHY" we do it that way, too, as with "seeing eye" links for your own evaluation. Do you find that anywhere else ? This is no place for any "offhand remark" casting doubt on democratic system, without real-hard-fact experience to be cited on call when sought, which we do constantly. In climate of too many police confrontations with citizens today, the fact our system works very well for most, in most situations, is surely worth report of experience confirming that for many. Might ask John for his sharing of experience with G/J, either as member or otherwise. Mine was by decision of the DA, not sought; in fact, I tried to escape the responsibility but was persuaded by response from "the other eight." No kudos involved, that was citizen responsibility. Can do much better for self now with time used otherwise, and have pressing assignments (no pun !) worth more than any slurs-cast here. Then, too, if anything ever seems so to anyone, all you gotta do is skip and read elsewhere..no insulting response demanded for any reason.

Henry Ruark July 27, 2008 8:26 am (Pacific time)

John et al: At 90, horn-tooin' lost-game for me...could not care less ! Re "opinion", wise man said everyone entitled, but not to own facts. Facts I shared came from unique experience with 9 hard headed jurors, taught me realities of system, amplified years of reporter experience with those devoting lives to such service. IF that helpful to some, good; that was aim. If appears otherwise to you, suggest you seek mirror and talk to it... Life's full of such tragedies, most brought on by similar circumstances, which sharing by dialog can sometimes prevent occurring again. As to whom owes what to others, offhand remark casting obloquy on those doing their sworn duty, as widely demanded here, is surely worth small defense for those more responsibly involved, don't yu think ? OR is public-response without accountability now the pattern you recommend ?

c.d.h July 26, 2008 9:43 pm (Pacific time)

John July 25, 2008 4:41 pm thank you

Henry Ruark July 26, 2008 8:19 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Sorry inadvertently sent last one as 'Anon" --never, ever do that... Now note also Duncan statement, which I can confirm as precisely what one learns in contact with those who must deal intermittently with just such danger, in performing their public duties. My Irish blood goes out to victim, but then reason tells me if anyone with mental problem(s) is out there on own, best to have someone firmly in charge very close by. Impossible to tell when such surveillance may be very badly needed, as appears to have been the case here.

Anonymous July 26, 2008 4:26 pm (Pacific time)

Noel et al: You speak blindly into the overwhelming testimony of citizen observers in an Oregon court of law. Were you there ? Have you ever met either of the two primarily concerned ? On what do you base your comment except obvious personal feeling ? What incident(s) in your own life experience give you any credibility here, vs the sworn testimony recorded in court ? Have you ever handled a person driven by emotional problems, as was definitely the case here, openly acknowledged by family and friends ? If NOT,from what hidden vantage do you speak ? It has been my unfortune to have had to handle such on several occasions, luckily in concert with others. Have you ever done so ? IF ANY such experiences relevant and pertinent here,to this particular deadly incident, your legal duty is to provide them rapidly to the D.A. If that is not the case, you risk legal problems via such statements here, publicly. Unless and until you do contact the D.A., you are simply mouthing off, with nothing more than wind from whatever source as propellant. Be sure to report here when you see D.A. to give him your new evidence, and appear as sworn witness yourself.

Duncan July 26, 2008 2:35 pm (Pacific time)

While I believe we should maintain healthy skepticism on any process, it couldn't get much less ambiguous than the one described here by civilian complainants and witnesses. If there's reason to believe that an aggressive person within 30' is going to attack with a deadly weapon, you'd better draw your gun, because if you wait for the charge, he can kill you before you can draw. The only unconfirmed relevent point is on the existance of the breaking glass sound that caused the impression of having a deadly weapon, but even that point was both credible and unrefuted. That Hanlon continued to attack after being shot shows a deadly level of commitment that tends to confirm he was exactly as dangerous as he appeared. Even a bully isn't always wrong.

noel July 25, 2008 7:54 pm (Pacific time)

are you kidding me this kid was 150lbs where as this murdering cop is a highky trained 250 bully who could easily have subdued this kid without the use of his gun, but reading about this gonzales you get the impression that he wanted to be a cop spent years jumping all around taking reasts in various stathe plus the martial arts and the cage fighting,to me he looks like a big bully it could easily be a steriod rage incident it seems like excessive force to be,what we end up with is a mentally troubled kid dead and of course his dept blindly backing him so as not to seem like they messed up in the first place by hiring him

Henry Ruark July 25, 2008 4:55 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Had half-forgotten that jury assignment, until re-read file for this response. FYI, for that phenomenal G/J agreement, with unanimity on so many complex cases over a most difficult "season", we worked to well-known "group process" and various "clear communication" principles --same ones demanded for any consultancy assignment. Adding to comment here only to make sure many who doubt the efficacy and practical application of those wellknown principles,within our legal system often, now, open to some question,may be encouraged by that experience, as I was, and as were the jurors. Ten years later, in Portland I encountered two of the jurors, and we adjourned to a liquid-dispensing station for reminiscences...esp. of two very difficult (other) jurors, who made most of the work very necessary --and from whom we learned much, too, since they were both well endowed with background on the law. The process can and does work, as I do believe this report makes quite clear with its illuminating depth of full detail for sworn statement from all concerned. At S-N, we try to use those same principles for open, honest, democratic dialog --basically what was demanded in that very tough 4-mo. G/J session.

John July 25, 2008 4:41 pm (Pacific time)

Quit sounding so self righteous Henry, that was quite a long-winded response to such a brief off handed remark. He has his right to an opinion--and doesn't owe you shit. Ultimately, it seems as though Mr. Gonzalez is going to get whats coming to him anyways. What c.d.h. said is refreshing to me, because anyone who believes everything that comes out of a courtroom belongs in one. Faith in our judicial system should not be a given. I personally don't think anyone cares what you have on your wall. While c.d.h. is merely expressing himself, it appears as though you are wasting your time tooting your own horn on an internet news comments page.

Henry Ruark July 25, 2008 1:58 pm (Pacific time)

cdh: No joke, for anyone who has ever been in a similar situation, OR for anyone who ever worked a grand jury assignment. The statement reads in depth and detail, recounting the sworn testimony of those who were there or directly involved. On what basis do you make your ignorant, uninformed, prejudicial and damaging charge of perjury and denial of factual response, covering each and every one who appeared at this trial and had to face the emotional and physical trauma of testifying? This written from experience of four months as GJ Foreman for Marion Co. session, in whiich we handled over 400 cases --and reported all but two via unanimous decision of all 9 (as I recall) jurors...number may have varied. Proof remains on my wall in Letter, framed, from D/A for whom we did this onerous assignment. IF you have experience and expertise, tell us what they are, and justify your statements, made publicly and thus your responsibility to document for any credibility here, now or in the future.

c.d.h July 25, 2008 11:01 am (Pacific time)

what a joke

[Return to Top]
©2019 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.

Articles for July 24, 2008 | Articles for July 25, 2008 | Articles for July 26, 2008
Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin


The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Call 503-362-6858 to Order Ahead  or for Party Reservations!

Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar