"Charged With a Hate Crime" Damien Rodriguez, Pt.1
TL;DR — A Portland Police Bureau spokesperson told The Oregonian that Oregon law treats Sergeant Major Damien Rodriguez's restaurant outburst as a "hate crime." No such law has ever existed in Oregon. The one federal hate crimes statute that does apply to this case was written to protect service members like Rodriguez — not to convict them.
On the evening of Friday, April 21, 2017, Sergeant Major Damien Thomas Rodriguez walked into DarSalam, an Iraqi restaurant in Portland, with a retired fellow Marine whose identity has never been publicly confirmed. News reports vary on how long the two men were there, but they agree on what they did with the time: berating wait staff rather than ordering.
Rodriguez doesn't remember most of it — blackout drunk, caught in a trauma-fueled fugue state, or some combination of both.
Whether it happened minutes in or close to an hour, at some point Damien said loudly that he had to get out. Witnesses told police he tried a side door, found it locked, and stood there, hands wringing. To anyone familiar with combat trauma, that's the picture of an anxious veteran whose exit has just been cut off. It does not excuse what happened next.
Intoxicated and seeing no way out, Rodriguez picked up a chair and threw it at the nearest employee, Badran Hamood.
Officer Jordan Winkel of the Portland Police Bureau arrived and arrested Rodriguez at 8:56 PM. With no prior conviction history, he was released on his own recognizance the next morning after posting bail. He faced three misdemeanors: second-degree Disorderly Conduct, Harassment, and second-degree Intimidation. He was ordered to appear in court on May 16 — but the press had already reached its own verdict.
A Headline With No Law Behind It
Lizzy Acker of The Oregonian ran the first story, the day after the arrest. The headline announced that a Marine had been charged with a hate crime in the attack; the URL also referenced PTSD, which Rodriguez had disclosed to Officer Winkel.
The headline's premise is false. "Hate crime" appears nowhere on the charge sheet, and no law in the Oregon Revised Statutes has ever carried that name. The federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) of 2009 does exist, but no federal charges were ever filed against Rodriguez. ORS 166.155 — the Intimidation charge he actually faced — wasn't renamed "Bias Crime" until 2019, and it remains a misdemeanor today. The only federal hate crimes provision that touches this case at all is the one written explicitly to "put the military on equal footing with other protected classes" — to protect service members, not prosecute them.
The Oregonian's source for the claim wasn't a lawyer, and it wasn't the restaurant. It was Portland Police Bureau Public Information Officer SGT Pete Simpson, who told Acker that ORS 166.155 was "a bias/hate crime law in Oregon." I confirmed with the Multnomah County District Attorney's office that no such law exists.
As a professional law enforcement officer, Simpson had an obligation to know the difference. Either he mischaracterized state law himself — which exposes PPB to real liability — or he was repeating a claim that was already circulating before he ever spoke to Acker.
What Tiffany Sahib Said, Twice
That claim may have started with DarSalam co-owner Tiffany Sahib. The next report on the incident, from Bob Heye of KUTV, was more careful than Acker's — it used words like "allegedly" and avoided "hate" altogether. But it included Sahib telling cameras, "Clearly these people had a problem with Middle Easterners or Iraq," and, she said, that the two men had come in looking for trouble.
Sahib appears again, in the same outfit, in a separate clip from KGW8, apparently recorded at the same press conference. Asked by reporter Pat Dorris about the incident, she responds: "No, haha, no. It's obvious it's a hate crime."
Her comments were recorded at some kind of press conference, because Tiffany appears in a second tv segment wearing the same attire. In a story run by KGW8 on April 26th, field reporter Pat Dorris has apparently asked her a question to which she responds (at 00:01:03) “No, haha. No, I mean it’s obvious it’s a hate crime.”
Those comments must have been made prior to 6:18pm on April 25th because that’s when KUTV aired footage from the same presser. They’re significant because Tiffany makes no claim to be a legal expert or law enforcement officer; she shouldn’t be expected to know the difference between federal and state laws. There’s no law (currently) prohibiting anyone from making hateful, biased claims about the military minority. As far as the law is concerned, Tiffany Sahib can refuse service to soldiers and veterans because she thinks they’re all baby-killing monsters. That’s what is known as lawful discrimination: it might be fµ¢ked up, but it’s not illegal.
What is illegal, however, is legal experts, law enforcement officers, and the so-called Free Press publishing false statements. Contrary to the PPB spokesperson’s claim, there are no hate crimes under Oregon state law, a fact I confirmed with the District Attorney’s office. That’s why I am interested in the timing of Tiffany’s biased and harmful anti-military rhetoric - was she reacting emotionally to the situation, or did she goad reporters and police toward heavy handed punishment?
The Oregonian cited PPB Public Information Officer SGT Pete Simpson’s mischaracterization of ORS 166.155 as “a bias/hate crime law in Oregon.” As a professional law enforcement officer, SGT Simpson had an obligation to know WTF he’s talking about. Either he mischaracterized Oregon state law, which exposes PPB to significant legal liability, or he was amplifying Tiffany’s false assertion that federal law had been violated.
According to SGT Pete Simpson’s LinkedIn, he’s now the Chief District Attorney Investigator at the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office, the same office the New York Times said had pushed for “the Marine [to] do time behind bars.” That makes me wonder if he picked up on Tiffany’s language, or if it was already there inside his own head. After all,
Why put someone with no criminal history behind bars for a misdemeanor?
Let’s pretend Lizzy Acker was just reporting what the PPB spokesperson said. What stopped her from fact checking the police before publishing false information; was it even more bias, or simple incompetence? The answer to that question doesn’t change the effect their lack of integrity had on a career service member who was dragged in the press for a crime with which he was never charged. The cold hard truth is several people screwed up, but left a soldier to bear the consequences for their dumbfµ¢kery.
The story ain’t over yet. I’m still digging and pulling string, since journalists won’t. Stay tuned for a Part Two on Damien Rodriguez, and maybe even more. Until then, I hope you will help bring civil rights to soldiers and veterans;
Help #GIJustice by taking action
Contact the Portland Police Bureau Public Information office and demand they take responsibility for mischaracterizing ORS 166.155.
📞 503-823-0000
📧 PPBPIO@police.portlandoregon.gov
Email The Oregonian editor and Vice President for Content Therese Bottomly and demand a retraction and an apology to Damien Rodriguez.
tbottomly@oregonian.com
