UPDATE: Sheriff Glenn Palmer never raised any concerns about his safety, district attorney says.

JOHN DAY - Grant County District Attorney Jim Carpenter disputes the local sheriff's claim that dispatchers put the two officials in danger by withholding information from them as they drove toward a fatal shooting tied to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover.

Carpenter volunteered to join Sheriff Glenn Palmer as he headed for a state police roadblock set up after the shooting of armed militant Robert "LaVoy" Finicum. The roadblock was in Grant County at the town of Seneca, about 27 miles north of the shooting scene, which was in Harney County. Finicum was one of the leaders of the Jan. 2 takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns.

Palmer has said he intends to sue John Day city officials because dispatchers didn't tell him all they knew about the situation as he headed toward the roadblock. The sheriff had said he was going there with one rider, but didn't identify the person. Dispatchers thought the rider was a militia member, the dispatch manager has said.

"The actions of the city of John Day's dispatchers knowingly and recklessly put Palmer and District Attorney Carpenter's lives in danger," said the tort claim, issued March 31 by the sheriff's personal attorneys. The claim doesn't provide any details of what risk the men faced.

Carpenter reacted to the claim in a statement late Tuesday.

"At no time did I perceive that I was in danger at the roadblock on Jan. 26," Carpenter said.

Palmer and his attorneys didn't respond Wednesday to emailed requests for comment.

He said state troopers were "alert and cautious" as he approached.

"Once I was identified, I was able to walk among them, ask questions, share information and talk freely with them. A few of them were from my local outpost and are my friends and associates. Others I had met through various cases we had worked together. I was never uncomfortable or threatened," Carpenter said.

He said the only tense moment was when journalists from The Oregonian/OregonLive arrived soon after at the roadblock, with one carrying a camera tripod. Palmer unracked his shotgun as the pair approached but returned the weapon once they were identified. The resulting photos of Palmer have been published repeatedly.

"When Oregonian reporters approached, everyone, including the sheriff (hence the photos of him with his gun), went on high alert and remained that way until the reporters were identified (at that point I may have been concerned as I seemed to be the only one in a bright white shirt and was without a gun or body armor; I stepped behind a snow plow and an OSP Trooper joined me while identification of the visitors was taking place; whether true or not I believed that Trooper to be actively protecting me should there be any real threat)," Carpenter wrote.

The district attorney said Wednesday in response to questions that there was no discussion with Palmer that evening "or display of concern that our lives were in danger."

He said someone can be in danger and not know it until later. "I can only say that after learning all of the events of the evening, I do not perceive that I was ever in danger," Carpenter said.

He said the sheriff voiced no concern that night about his dealings with dispatchers and subsequently never said anything about feeling in danger.

He said Palmer didn't consult him about the tort claim "nor will I be a part of it with regard to questions about my personal safety. I do not have requisite information to comment on the remainder of the Sheriff's claims."

Carpenter addressed the claim that dispatchers feared Palmer had an armed militant with him. Palmer had been at a community meeting in John Day, preparing to join refuge occupation leaders in speaking to local residents, just before he left for the roadblock.

"To be fair, at no time while I was with the sheriff did I think we were headed to meet with any militia, nor did he make any statements in my presence in support of them," Carpenter said. "When he radioed that we were going to the roadblock he indicated he was in route 'with one.' I agree he could have been more specific by identifying me by my name or my position, but I did not sense that he was trying to be evasive."

-- Les Zaitz

@leszaitz