Van Ornum Found Guilty in Taser Case
(Ian Van Ornum photo by KVAL)
The jury in the trial of taser victim Ian Van Ornum found him guilty of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
Van Ornum said that he was disappointed and surprised in the verdict, but declined further comment at this time.
The judge scheduled sentencing for 11 am next Friday, April 24.
Van Ornum said he didn't know what possible sentence he faced. His attorneys declined comment to reporters.
Prosecutor Bob Lane left the courtroom quickly without comment.
The Eugene police accused Van Ornum of slowing traffic (disorderly conduct) and resisting arrest at an anti-pesticide protest last May. Many witnesses have accused the police of brutality in the arrest.
Police video in the case shows that Van Ornum was tasered twice while he lay face down on the ground with his arms pinned under his side or held behind his back. Van Ornum's doctor testified that he suffered a concussion.
Prosecutor Lane told the jury in his closing argument earlier today that whether or not the tasering was justified was “irrelevant†to the criminal charges. “There might be an argument to be made that not everything the defendant did justified being tased,†he said.
But Lane said the brutality complaint was a matter not for the criminal trial but for the city of Eugene’s police auditor and or a civil lawsuit. “I don’t live in the city of Eugene, so it’s not my money. I don’t care,†the county prosecutor said.
EPD Officer Solesbee committed assault when he slammed Van Ornum's skull into the sidewalk deliberately, causing the kid's 5th (!!!) concussion.
Officer Solesbee committed perjury when he lied about not doing this to Van Ornum, while on the stand.
Officer Solesbee held Van Ornum down on the ground with his arms behind his back while Officer Warden sent 50,000 volts through the kid. Twice.
Wake up Eugene! You've been sleeping far too long...
- reply
Submitted by eye witness on May 30 (not verified) on Fri, 04/17/2009 - 11:55.poor ting.
- reply
Submitted by paul ages show (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 14:22.Okay guys, let's all sing kum-ba-yah together now, when you grow up and join the real world you'll notice that most people don't want downtown taken over by violent, threatening protestors.
Hooray EPD!!
- reply
Submitted by thisBITES (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 13:47.Actually as an adult it's your responsibility to be aware of your rights. Furthermore the Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to speak our mind, which you are exercising right now.
To say that downtown is being taken over by violent, threatening protesters is a bit of a stretch I think. Violence would beget a charge of assault, which you will note was not included in the list of charges against him. The defendant does not fit your description of a violent or threatening protester as he was engaged in peaceful demonstration until the police assaulted him.
Like it or not, if it weren't for protesters women wouldn't be allowed to vote, our society would still be segregated, the Freedom of Information act wouldn't exist and things would be even more unjust than they are today.
Let's see the police treat you the way those officers treated the defendant and then see if you are so quick to congratulate the EPD for such a gross abuse of power.
- reply
Submitted by Ms. Perspective (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 19:13.The jury was clearly not a jury of peers and failed to recognize that anyone whom does not resist assault is not normal.
Tired of hearing the police have no money when they have time to go after folks like Van Ornum and give out hundreds of seatbelt tix at the Country Fair.
- reply
Submitted by JK (not verified) on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 13:46.Post new comment