Jury clears Everett police officer Troy Meade of murder, manslaughter charges

[paulsby]

Source: Heraldnet



EVERETT -- A Snohomish County jury this afternoon acquitted Everett police officer Troy Meade of all criminal charges in the June 10 shooting of Niles Meservey. The verdict, announced at about 2:30 p.m., was greeted by brief applause and tears in a Snohomish County courtroom. Meade, 41, later said his heart goes out to Meservey's family and he bears no ill will to anyone involved in the case.

"I want to put it behind me and go back to work," he said. Meade's attorney, David Allen of Seattle, said he was pleased with the swift verdict, which he said was a vindication for his client. "He acted lawfully," Allen said of Meade. Meservey's family has filed a $15 million civil lawsuit against Meade and the city of Everett. “I am sorry the jury was unable to convict Officer Meade of a crime, but I understand how difficult it is to obtain a conviction where there is a presumption of innocence and a burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Tanda Louden, daughter of Niles Meservey. “Nevertheless, I am confident that a jury in a civil case will find Officer Meade responsible and hold him fully accountable in the damage case.”

...

Meade's testimony often contradicted that of Everett police officer Steven Klocker, an eyewitness to the shooting. Klocker told jurors he didn't believe that anyone was in danger that night. He testified that just before gunfire erupted Meade turned to him and said something like, “enough is enough; time to end this.”

Meade denied saying anything before he shot into the Corvette. He testified that he believed he was going to be crushed by the car and there was no time to get out of the way. Meade said he fired until he saw Meservey slump over. Meade told jurors he and other officers are trained to keep firing until there is no longer a threat.


Read more: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100426/NEWS01/100429882

---

Note that in WA state for defendants claiming self defense, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense. this is something i have commented on before. in essence, compared to many jurisdictions, the burden is greater on the state, and it is not the burden of the defendant to establish self defense, but the burden of the state to disprove it, and by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

also note that the jury went back in and has to decide a second question (that is true in all self defense cases) - whether meade acted in self defense. IF they rule he did, then the STATE bears the costs of his defense, to include his private attorney.

this element of WA law, creates a disincentive for the state to try self defense cases they won't win, because the state has to bear the cost of both prosecution AND defense. it is an aspect of WA law that again is a pretty significant protection of citizens' right to self defense.

.....

also note that an officer at the scene essentially testified against the defendant's perception of the incident. whatever one may think of the "thin blue line" this officer stood up and from the beginning offered testimony that contradicted the defendant's.

[Tempest]

1. He's going to end up killing someone else

He shot Meservey eight times in the back.

His partner testified that they were in no immediate danger and that Meade had said he was tired of this shit (dealing with Meservey) and shot into the car.

They did nothing to try to get Meservey out of the car. I don't know about you, but I've been able to stop my determined friends from driving drunk and I'm not all that big a guy.

Here's the State Patrol's Criminal Investigation report:
http://blog.operation-nation.com/files/111943-104535/Criminal_Investigation_Meservey.pdf

[SkyDaddy7]

2. Cops are above the law!

Most in America look at cops as being honest clean and never wrong.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Of course, most cops ARE honest, clean and not deliberately wrong.

But most does not mean all, by any means.

[SkyDaddy7]

16. Although i want to agree...

Those good cops rare;y ever tell on the bad cops...Which does end up spoiling the idea that there are good cops. I know, I happen to be friends with what i would consider to be good cops and they know the penalty of telling on other cops. Plus, I use to work for a criminal defense attorney and the bad things cops do is not limited to unwarranted tazzing or beatings but lying in court, on police reports and talking with each other about testimony during an on going trial...And many other things the public would rarely ever hear about.

There is literally no one policing the police!

[paulsby]

9. this WAS the law

the cop was charged, and a jury found him not guilty

that's called rule of law

thus, at least in this case, your "above the law" claim is not supported by evidence

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

12. hilarious

Great circular logic: this was "the law" so it must be justice!

:eyes: There's just no fooling you!

[paulsby]

15. you never mentioned justice, genius

you mentioned "above the law"

anybody familiar with the court system (defense attorney or prosecutor) wouldn't pretend that juries always make the just decision

but they ARE the rule of law and the finder of fact

when you can get your argument straight, get back to me

and of course, you are not privy to the facts presented to the jury, just a MEDIA account, and yet you in all your arrogance know they were wrong

it's the DU omniscience when evul cops (tm) are involved syndrome

[SkyDaddy7]

17. You are 110% correct...

in this case...Even though we both know truth. I am just willing to say it.

[sendero]

3. This jury..

... is another batch of typical American morons.

When a COP will testify against a fellow cop you can be pretty sure there was a crime committed.

Well, the civil suit can at least ruin this maggot's financial life.

[Duchess]

4. Maybe not

In TN a defendant can't be sued in a civil case for self defense if the defendant is not charged with a crime or found not guilty in a criminal case. I don't know if the WA state laws are the same but they might be similar.

[paulsby]

10. ah, another dumb merkuns post combined with contempt for the jury system

also,since the cop has limited immunity, most likely the civil suit will not get any money from him personally

[sendero]

18. No, contempt..

... for any system that lets a clear murder go unpunished.

[paulsby]

19. what do you propose then?

abolish juries?

they ARE the finders of fact in our legal system (except when a defendant requests a bench trial but i digress).

do you propose that WA state change its laws such that the prosecution is NOT required to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt?

this is setting aside your begging of the question "clear murder" for the sake of discussion

[sendero]

67. You know and I know...

.. that the ONLY reason this maggot got acquitted is that people cannot bring themselves to believe there is such a thing as a bad cop.

If you are not an idiot, and that is very much in question BTW, you know that too.

[paulsby]

68. i know that what you say is rubbish

cops ARE found guilty of crimes. so clearly people CAN believe it.

what i do know is that cops are amongst the most respected of professions, and thus juries, which are made of people, tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

i also know that the jury was privy to FAR more info than you got from a few media articles, and thus you have little idea of all the evidence they had to consider.

i also know that in WA state under RCW 9a.16.040 and several other statutes, that self defense is well protected for EVERYBODY (not just cops) and that the state has a strong burden to overcome

[SuperiorGenetics]

5. Meade caught lying

I Was acquitted in a trial last year when "Officer meade" falsly accused me of a "hit & run".. He filled out an accident report & indicated damage to my car without ever seeing the vehicle . He also made false statements in the trial that eventually led to a "UNANIMOUS decision" in my favor. I have the entire audio of the trial in my possesion. Bottom line is - This man is a lliar and has no buisness being an officer of the law ! To protect & serve ! HOGWASH!!! Fire this idiot before he ruins someone elses life....

[greiner3]

7. I'd like to know what the docket number;

Of that trial was. It would make for some interesting reading.

[Flaneur]

8. Another cop gets away with murder.

And people wonder why some people have issues with law enforcement.

Killer cops are rarely indicted, even more rarely tried, and even more rarely convicted. Jurors seem to want to believe in the cops.

[paulsby]

11. it's called rule of law

you aren't privy to all the testimony and evidence the jury saw and heard.

they saw and heard it, and determined UNANIMOUSLY that he was not guilty

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

13. just keep saying it over and over

I'm sure some will believe it if repeated often enough.

[paulsby]

14. are juries wrong sometimes? sure

but it's called rule of law.

juries are the "finders of fact" in our system, not government, and not internet gurus.

he was tried and found not guilty

and as i explained, WA has very high protections for self defense claims. see my post. high burden on the prosecution

since i am not privy to what the jury saw and heard, i am not going to say they were wrong. contrast with the OJ trial, where I WAS privy to what they saw and heard

[sabrina 1]

20. Sorry, but the victim in this case didn't have much protection

from an out-of-control cop. He's dead.

I wonder how much a defense of self-defense would work for an ordinary citizen against an out-of-control cop. Although it looks like we have the answer. Cop gets off claiming self-defense, even though it was apparently the victim who needed defending.

A friend who is a top defense attorney in NY told me that juries in certain areas of the country will never convict a cop. Considering the testimony of the other cop, sounds like this was one of those areas. No justice for the victim, yet. And this cop is a threat to the safety of the public regardless of the jury's decision.

[paulsby]

21. you are of course begging the question

"out of control cop" etc.

you have your mind made up about the fact pattern w/o even having read anything but media reports, nu?

the jury was privy to the whole ball o' wax

[sabrina 1]

22. This is what I know.

The other cop who was a witness to what happened, stated that there was not a threat to them. That sort of negates the 'self-defense' claim. Eight shots were fired and the victim is dead. He was probably incapacitated long before the eighth shot was fired.

I'm not on a jury, just the jury of public opinion. I know many people who have removed the keys to a car from some very drunk individuals without firing a shot. What I know is that one cop testified he did not feel they were threatened, someone was shot eight times and is now dead. I'm inclined to believe the cop who was an eye-witness considering the number of shots that were fired. It doesn't take eight shots to incapacitate someone. So, imho, this was a cop who was out of control and the public will not be safe as long as he allowed to carry a gun and go back on the street.

[paulsby]

23. this is where you are mistaken

and yet again, why it gets tiresome when people who don't understand the nuances of self-defense law comment

what the first cop said did not "negate" the self defense claim.

what it means is that by HIS perception, the defendant shouldn't have fired.

not everybody, yes, not even cops, are going to perceive the threat the same way. iow, there is an element of subjectivity, to put it mild.

your comment about incapacitated bvefore the 8th shot was fired is just another example of people whose knowledge of firearms comes from teevee.

"it doesn't take 8 shots to incapacitate someone". this is why, THANK GOD, juries get commentary from experts and not internet know nothings.

i am a firearms./use of force instructor. i have seen and studied shootings where over 15 rds were shot into a person and they were still not incapacitated. iow... wait for it... it varies

8 rds can be fired in a few seconds btw.

really stunning lack of knowledge on this subject.

based JUST on what you said about the 8 shots thang, you have outed yourself as NOT understanding even basic physiology, force law, etc

[sabrina 1]

24. And you have outed yourself as someone who bases a lot of your opinions

on assumptions. Eg, you assume I know nothing about firearms. Why? Suffice it to say you are wrong. This is about the loss of a human life, not about the science of firearms. The firearm should never have been used, that is the point. As for 'experts' in trials, as someone who has studied this subject, 'experts' are hired by each side, NOT because they will give testimony that might contradict the relevant side's pov. They are usually a wash.

You are pre-disposed to believe the cop who 'perceived a threat'. So, naturally you dismiss the testimony of the one who obviously was more clear-headed, not easily scared and/or easily intimidated. Simple logic and common sense shows that once the car was boxed in by the other police cars, the drunken driver was no longer a threat to anyone's life or his own. This jerk decided to escalate the situation and then got impatient, 'time to end this, enough is enough'. Judge, jury and executioner. That is not the role of a cop. We do not pay them to make such life and death decisions.

It is your kind of rationalizing, even murder, that is a threat to this society and has resulted in so many unnecessary shootings of citizens by some cops. This was a simple matter. There was no need for gun-play no matter how the jury was persuaded that there was.

As the cop himself said he felt threatened. Well, if he's that easily scared by an unarmed drunk driver, he doesn't belong on the police force. I and many others have managed to calm down drunk and belligerent people without resorting to killing them. Lesson #1 ~ drunk people get belligerent. Most people don't pull out guns and shoot them when they do. They find more rational ways of dealing with them.

This cop has a temper, he didn't like being 'dis-obeyed' and decided 'enough was enough'. He got away with it, but he has to live with it. I hope I am never anywhere near wherever he is working because I consider people like him, cop or not, to be a threat to this society. At the very least, he should be removed from the police force.

[paulsby]

66. the fact that an issue was made of the 8 shots

says everything i need to know about lack of knowledge

when you decide to educate yourself,get back to me

[sabrina 1]

71. I didn't think you could respond to my points.

Focus on the 'eight shots' and how they may or may not have 'subdued' the victim, rather than on the tragic and unnecessary loss of a human life if you want. I hope your conscience is okay with rationalizing murder or at the very least manslaughter. That victim has a family, I doubt they are interested in your clinical finer points of what a bullet does or does not do, (which of course YOU have no way of knowing either do you?) since it pertains to their father, brother, son, friend.

I'm not as into demonstrating my expertise on gunshots, as you seem to be, over and above the fact that a human being was killed. As I said, you don't know what you are talking about, you don't me, but you make assumptions and when someone makes assumptions about one thing, they will make them about others. There should have been NO gun drawn in that situation, the honest cop who deserves much credit for his testimony, was correct. The killer is a bad-tempered coward and if he had not had a gun that night, he would still be alive as the 'scary drunk driver' was not a threat to him at all, and so would the victim. Let's see if you can argue that that is not the case. I doubt you will, because there really is no argument.

[paulsby]

72. i am 'focusing' on it, because it is one example of how

you are simply arguing from a position of ignorance.

you don't understand BASIC use of force dynamics, deadly force law, etc.

how can i discuss details and nuances with you, when you don't even grok the basics?

seriously.

i'll address the other kind of stuff you do

"as the 'scary drunk driver' was not a threat to him at all"

how do you know this? did you look at scene diagrams, forensics, hear witness testimony, defendant statements, etc?

no. you read media articles and are basing it on the statements of one witness who happened to disagree about the relative threat level. do you know his vantage point? again, no.

i readily admit (because unlike you , i don't come to unsubstantiated conclusions) that i do not KNOW whether he should have been found guilty of murder. i know that a jury of 12 thought he shouldn't. i also know that even if the shooting was unjustified either under everett PD use of force policy or the RCW, it does not therefore follow that he was guilty of the crime of manslaughter (or murder). there are different metrics for those determinations.

but then i have studied WA use of force law IN DETAIL as a long time firearms instructor and use of force instructor, as well as case law surrounding deadly force , cases where defendants claimed self defense in WA state, and case law surrounding murder and manslaughter in WA state

you are just a pawn of a terse account in the media that you use to draw a conclusion from.

here's the difference. i, with all that experience in SPECIFIC areas of case law relating to this case (as mentioned above) AND having read some investigative reports made during the investigation (but not printed in the media) can't say whether or not he committed manslaughter or murder, and YOU with clearly no knowledge of any of these things (8 shots et al) have come to a conclusion

who is the kneejerker?

[sabrina 1]

73. What you are refusing to understand is that I, as a member of the

public, with experiences YOU know nothing about, have every right to 'come to a conclusion'. I base my conclusion on my own experiences and in this case, on the testimony of the officer, who I'm sure you'll agree, was an eye-witness and therefore has far more knowledge of what actually happened than you or anyone else who wasn't there.

The public is not required to look at these incidents when they occur through the lens of a firearms expert, nor should they. They are required only to decide if they are being served well by the people they employ to protect them. I presume the man who died was a citizen of this country with all the rights that that implies. My concern is that those rights were not honored by a cop who felt that 'enough was enough' when a person who was drunk refused to follow his directions, which ought to be expected by anyone with any knowledge of how people behave when they are drunk, and that he deserved to be shot.

This indicates someone, particularly in light of the fact the other officer did not feel threatened, who is lacking in judgement at the very least, and who allowed his own ego to influence his actions. Such a person should not be in a position of authority.

As for the eight shots, you have no idea which shot incapacitated the victim any more than I do. Clearly the cop who killed him didn't know either nor did he seem to care.

[paulsby]

74. and again

that's exactly why you AS PER TRAINING keep firing until the THREAT IS STOPPED. NO officer in ANY firefight is expected to "check" and see which one of his shots worked. frankly, in this kind of shooting, 8 shots is at the LOWER end of the expected scale of shots fired.

and as i said, you can come to any uninformed conclusion you want. but it's just that, an uninformed conclusion

to come to the conclusion that he MURDERED this man (which is a term of law and MEANS something beyond merely killed)- OR committed manslaughter (those were the two charges he was found not guilty of), based on near zero understanding of either the law, or the facts and circumstances of the instant case is ... simply... prejudice.

you are PREjudging w./o the facts.

and it is very well possible that the public was NOT well served by the officer in this incident, and that the shooting was NOT justified.

it does not therefore folloow that the shooting met the CRIMINAL standards for either manslaughter or murder. that was the conclusion the jury came to , and due to the fact that they ALSO came to the conclusion that it was NOT self defense, they likely were not too stoked on the shooting EITHER

it does not therefore folloow that it was MURDER , that he got away with MURDER, etc.

those are two ENTIRELY different things. but then, that has to do with that pesky rule of law, defendant rights, innocent until proven guilty, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.

many people fail to realize this. whether the shooting was

1) violative of dept. policy
2) violative of RCW

are two different questions than whether the shooting was
1) murder
2) manslaughter

not to mention the standard of evidence/burden of proof for the latter is quite high.

[sabrina 1]

75. There was no firefight. The victim was unarmed.

So right there you are wrong. It was just a 'feeling' that motivated this killing. A feeling of anger, of 'how dare a citizen of the U.S. disobey ME, regardless of the fact that he is drunk and probably unable to understand what I am asking him to do'. It looks like I am not the one who is uninformed.

I am hardly 'pre-judging'. I know how drunk people behave. I know that the last thing any sentient being expects of a drunk person is that they will react in the same way as a sober individual. And anyone who thinks that they can talk to a person who is drunk and expect the same reaction they would get from a person who is sober, does not belong in the job of a police officer. They are, to put as kindly as I can, stupid if they expect a drunk to even understand directions that a sober person would.

I am, as I have repeated numerous times, judging this situation based on the testimony of the obviously rational police officer who was present at the scene and on my own experience of dealing with individuals who are drunk. This was one of the worst displays of ignorance on how to handle such a person I have ever heard of. And that is being kind.

I will not be surprised to hear in the future, that this cop is involved in some other fatal incident if he is allowed to go back on the street carrying a weapon. He is drunk on power, and that is a danger to the people he is sworn to protect, as the family of his victim know well.

[paulsby]

25. Jurors Say Everett Police Officer Did Not Kill Man In Self-Defense

Source: kirotv

EVERETT, Wash. -- Jurors concluded that Everett Police Officer Troy Meade was not acting in self-defense when he killed Niles Meservey in an Everett parking lot in June. On Monday, the same jury cleared Meade of all charges.

The jury’s decision means the state will not pay Meade’s attorney, court expenses and compensate him for time lost during his trial.

The 12-member jury found Meade not guilty Monday of second-degree murder and manslaughter for the death of Meservey in June.

Read more: http://www.kirotv.com/news/23280416/detail.html

---

sounds reasonable based on what i know of the fact pattern. as i stated in my other post (on the verdict itself), in WA the state is required to prove a defendant did NOT act in self defense, in cases where that is the defense, and to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

it does not therefore follow that the jury concluded he DID act in self-defense, only that the state did not meet the burden of DISPROVING self defense

[safeinOhio]

26. I'll bet the civil case

will be lots of fun.

[paulsby]

27. it will definitely help the civil case

if the jury found that he acted in self defense, it wouldn't prevent a civil suit, but it would really help the dept. defend against it.

this finding can of course be used in the civil trial, and is a damning piece of evidence in that trial.

in summary, the jury did not find that it was DISPROVED beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self defense, but it also wasn't established that he did.

fwiw, this compensation law is a great check on rogue govt. it disincentives prosecuting people who clearly acted in self-defense

[Webster Green]

28. Has any fucking pig ever been found guilty of anything?

Seems like they always walk, no matter what. :mad:

[safeinOhio]

30. When I live in Michigan

a deputy was busted for taking drunks drivers license, which they can do, only he took them home and made fake checks and id theft stuff to write fake checks. When he was being sentenced by the judge his snake of a lawyer kept saying how he risk his life for 20 years on the job. The judge said no, he was trusted to do a job and scammed it to make a buck and thru the book at him. Police should be held to a higher standard than anyone else. You wouldn't believe how many of them take the fifth when on the stand and then roll their eyes when anyone else brings up their constitutional rights.

[Grand Taurean]

32. What you say is true.

The police and their unions are the first ones to piss over and mock the ACLU.

[Webster Green]

33. Great!

There's one anyway.

Thanks for talking me down. I'm beginning to seriously lose it.

[paulsby]

48. beginning to seriously lose it? that's quite an understatement

as your replies to me make clear.

[Webster Green]

51. Whatever.

It really pisses me off.

[paulsby]

53. how knowledgeable are you of the case facts?

i've read a few of the case reports (which are public record btw) of the investigators and it was a tough case to prove

the prosecutors gave it a good effort, and didn't meet the burden

that may suck in your view, but remember that beyond a reasonable doubt was intended to be a high standard

and in WA state, that has EXTRA strong protections for those claiming self -defense, it is not easy to get such a conviction and that holds for non-cops in self defense cases as well

i've seen prosecutors nolle pros cases i have investigated and forwarded to them for just that reason

that's our rule of law.

it is biased TOWARDS self-defense claims

i am speaking of WA state

[cyndensco]

31. It was determined the cop was not acting in self defense,

yet was found not guilty of killing the guy. :crazy:

I agree with you - it is maddening they hardly ever serve time.

[paulsby]

35. it's called rule of law

darn those pesky civil rights, if a cop's on trial

i'll break it down for you.

the jury did not believe that it was proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBt that he didn't act in self defense

it does not therefore follow that they were convinced he did

reasonable doubt. a fundamental element of law, and rights of defendants... yes, even cops

[Webster Green]

38. No, it's called rule of law does not apply to pigs.

They are hardly ever made to pay any penalty for the endless brutality they perpetrate.

[paulsby]

42. it's called rule of law was applied, as in trial by jury

and under our rule of law, they are the finders of fact.

under WA law, the state has the burden to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and the finder of fact found that they didn't, while also not finding that the cop did act in self-defense

rule of law, and rights of defendants. ALL defendants to include those you are bigoted towards.

[paulsby]

34. bigotry and historical ignorance noted nt

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

37. wow. just... well. wow.

you got issues...

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

41. you only diminish your own worth with your behavior

i'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing

noted of course again your historical ignorance. i have certainly CRITICIZED many cases of excessive force by cops, the case where the cop beat the girl in the holding cell outside seattle being a perfect example

but bigotry tends to obstruct rational thought, as you clearly demonstrate

[Webster Green]

43. Sorry pal, I choose to believe my own eyes.

It is a shame that the 99% of cops who are sadistic power freaks make all the rest look bad.

[paulsby]

44. again, i'm not sure what is worse. the bigotry

or the historical myopia

[Webster Green]

50. I guess you're right. I have hatred for a group of people.

That group being cops. I am a bigot.

Interesting. I never actually thought about it like that.

I guess I'll remain a bigot, since I can't see my hatred of police diminishing anytime soon.


historical myopia? :wtf:

[paulsby]

52. fair enuf

the historical myopia is based on the claims that cops never get convicted of crimes

do i really need to publish stats to show you how often they do?

heck, mark fuhrman took a PERJURY plea fwiw.

[Webster Green]

54. No, forget the stats, I'm sure there are several other instances you could cite.

I'm want to apologize to you for being a dick.

I'm having a bit of a bad time right now, and anger is getting the best of me.

Sorry! :blush:

My views on the subject haven't changed though. I don't like 'em.

[safeinOhio]

55. You have a right to your views

Many cases against people of color have been decided wrong and pass over the "shadow of doubt". Hurricane Carter comes to mind. Justice, often in this country, can depend on your color or how much you can afford for a lawyer. That is just the way it is. I was married to a cop and saw many of them get away with all kind of shit. Professional courtesy is what they call it among themselves. I've seen it many times. Speeding, drunk driving or just smacking around a suspect, goes unreported all of the time. I'm sure our police friend has seen it himself. It also goes on in court when it comes to who to believe, a cop or a citizen. On the other side, it doesn't always happen, just all to often for me. When I was told by my ex-spouse that I would be fucked with by her friends as a professional courtesy, I freaked and went to her boss the Sheriff. He asked me what my driving record was like. I told him perfect. He pulled out his card and wrote his home number on it and told me if I got pulled over in his county to call him and both the cop that pulled me over and the wife would be fired. I trust Chiefs and Sheriffs more than any road patrol and would not hesitate to go to them in a minute. There are plenty of bad cops, just as there are some good ones. If a cop is lying, ask for a lie detector test. By union contract a cop does not have to take one unless the complaintant also agrees to take one. If you say you'll take one and cop refuses, the boss will be pissed and more than likely an investigation will take place. Always stand up for your rights. If you feel some bullshit is going on, do not talk to the cops, ask for a lawyer. Your 5th amendment rights are just as important as your 2nd.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

29. I live in Everett

and know exactly where this occurred. What I can't figure out is why only one witness was used,this happened in the middle of the parking lot of a bar that is always crowded............. :shrug:
Anyhow, most everyone I know who lives here in Everett is quite surprised he got off.

[regnaD kciN]

40. Welcome to the world of Cop Justice...

The only reason "most everyone" is surprised is that Everett has so few killings by cops. In L.A., it doesn't matter if a cop kills an unarmed bystander trying to give medical aid to a mugging victim (true story) -- it's always ruled "justified use of lethal force." Always.

[paulsby]

46. welcome to world of trial by jury

where yes, EVEN COPS get a trial by jury and EVEN COPS get the protections afforded in WA state where the burden is on the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt

but i realize that civil rights don't matter when a cop's on trial. cause, well... they are cops.

this was a jury. EVERY citizen charged with a crime (where jeapardy attaches) has the right to trial by jury.

why do you hate rule of law?

[Lagomorph]

45. I live in Everett, as well...

The Left, the Right and even a bunch of police officers are disturbed by the verdict. I've only talked to one person who supported it and he was mistaken in his belief that the driver tried to run down the police officers.

I seriously doubt the prosecutors gave the case the effort that the people of Washington state deserve from their public servants.

[hayu_lol]

47. It is really a shame when a poster or two always...

runs cops into the ground with their hate.

Without the police, living in our cities would be impossible.

The majority of police are what they are supposed to be.

[paulsby]

49. and your doubt is based on what?

because you don't like the verdict?

have you looked at case transcripts, did you spend any time in court, etc.

heck, a member of the victim's family THANKED the prosecutor for doing what they thought was a thorough job. i saw that interview on the newz for pete's sake.

we have this pesky thing called "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"

our system of justice is based upon the concept that "better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict one innocent man" (and god knows innocents are convicted)

the burden of proof was not met according to the jury, the finder of fact.

i don't see where there is any reason to believe the prosecutors office did any less than a good job

[safeinOhio]

56. Yep we have the 6th Amendment that

requires "quilt beyond a reasonable doubt". Then we have the 7th Amendment that protects the accuser in a civil case and no proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required, see the OJ case, and my guess is that this cop will be broke and looking for a security guard job after the civil trial. The department may even have to cough up on this one. I agree with letting 100 go free so one innocent man isn't convicted. Problem is more than one innocent man is in jail or has been executed.

[paulsby]

57. actually, cops have "qualified immunity"

and it is MUCH easier to get money from the dept, than from the cop himself.

the latter requires a much higher burden (under federal and state law).

i would predict the civil suit will be a winner.

i am not at all sure the cop will have to pay anything, though

from wikipedia
Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights. This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate "clearly established law." The defense of qualified immunity was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing a court's inquiry into a defendant's subjective state of mind with an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the contested action. A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his actions violated clearly established law.

As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),<1> qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

In 2001, the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz established a rigid order in which courts must decide the merits of a defendant's qualified immunity defense. First, the court determines whether the complaint states a constitutional violation. If so, the next sequential step is to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the official's conduct. The Court subsequently overruled Saucier in Pearson v. Callahan, holding that the two-step procedure was no longer mandatory.

[safeinOhio]

58. The department has to pay

No wonder I have always got good results from the brass when reporting bad cops. They seem to be the only ones that give a shit. Must be because they are responsible for their actions. Back in the 60s I reported abuse by a cop in Lansing MI. The Chief had the cop come and personally apologize to me. He also said that was the 3rd or 4th complaint about this officer and he was no longer eligible for a promotion due to citizen compliants. I'm sure you'll agree that it is important to always report bad cops to the chief or sheriff. Rather than stew and be pissed like our above friend, take action and be pro-active in cleaning up police departments. We pay their salary with our tax money. They work for us and don't let them forget it.

[paulsby]

59. of course and also

it's where a smoke there is fire thang

if a cop gets a lot of complaints you know he is screwing up.

whereas if there aren't that many, any individual complaint could be totally fabricated or bogus

but if there is a pattern etc. it strongly speaks to validity

[safeinOhio]

62. I know you have never let

a person off on a speeding ticket when they flashed their badge or bothered with a DUI test on an off duty cop. You have never reported an abuse by a fellow cop. You and your fellow cops, when alone never mention "professional courtesy" as you are aware that that is a sign of corruption. The law is the law, no exceptions right?

[paulsby]

63. actually, that's wrong

first of all, we have no policy that prohibits letting a cop off on a speeding ticket

i most definitely would not let an off duty cop get away with a DUI though.

and of course you are (yet again) wrong. i have reported an abuse by a fellow cop

you are also turning the conversation from discussion of legal concepts into personal accusations. that says a lot about you

[safeinOhio]

64. Yet some cops will never let another one off.

I respect that. You use your personal experience to defend LEOs, that makes you fair game to make a point. I'm not saying you are crooked or a bad cop, I'm just saying fair is fair. Some hear have a valid distrust of LEOs. I'm open to the fairness of any cop as well as their faults. A local cop was just fired for DUI after another local one drove him home, he had a relative drive him back to pick up his car and then had an accident. Most people of the community were calling for the firing of the cop that drove him home. Thank God he didn't kill anyone. It is a tuff job, the only way to do it is to treat every one the same no matter their profession. The courts are just as guilty of preference.

[paulsby]

65. except i DON'T defend them when they are wrong

a la the cell beating case.

and others

that's your fallacy

i defend them when i believe they did the right thing.

fwiw, i didn't defend this guy. i defended the PROCESS. the jury trial.

i don't know enuf case facts to state whether i agree with the jury

would you stop with the assumptions?

excuse me, the FALSE assumptions...

[Lagomorph]

60. There were a lot of witnesses.

However, only LEO's were called.

I have to admit bias, however. Our LEO's have earned their reputation for knocking down the wrong door and shooting the first person they see. It's always an "accident".



NOT

[paulsby]

61. here's a hint. prosecution and defense have a right to call witnesses

so, what's your point?

if NEITHER the defense NOR the prosecution calls witness X, what does that suggest to you?

[Lagomorph]

70. In the case of the defense...

...calling the witness would damage their defense.

In the case of the prosecution, it was just sloppy work.

The feeling among many, as broadcast by Ken Schram on KIRO radio, is that the cop got away with murder.

While I had an initial reaction that it was not justifiable, several police officers I know through my shooting sports had initially supported the officer, but backed away from their support as the facts became public.

The officer was not in immediate danger. The shooting was ruled as NOT a case of self defense.

The car was blocked in both front and rear.

The officer grew impatient with a asinine, belligerent drunk, announced it was time to end it, drew his pistol and shot the unarmed man eight times in the back.

Is a new police car bumper worth a man's life?

[ManiacJoe]

69. Seems to be lots of facts at trial that never made it into the press.

From what little I have read, the facts as presented in the press would not support the jury's finding of not guilty.