While it's a pretty common claim here that cops "always protect their own", here's a story (reported today) showing otherwise. I first read it on a police forum, where (surprisingly?) the overwhelming majority of posts supported the reporting officers' conduct. Whether or not the shooting is found to be justified (criminally or civilly) remains to be seen, but what the officer's co-workers believed wasn't hidden for his benefit. It's tough to accuse someone of malfeasance when you work closely with them in any occupation. When you're a LEO, it's even tougher. Good on them.

By TIM KLASS Associated Press
Watch the story
SEATTLE (AP) - A police officer was charged Monday with manslaughter in the shooting of a man after his car was boxed in by police responding to reports of a drunken driver in a restaurant parking lot.

Everett police officer Troy Meade, 41, was charged in Snohomish County Superior Court with unjustified use of deadly force and recklessness in the death of Niles Leo Meservey, 51, of Stanwood.

It's the first time a police officer in the county has faced prosecution for a shooting in the line of duty.

Meade, an 11½-year veteran, was placed on paid leave after the shooting, returned to desk work for a time but is now back on paid leave, according to the newspaper.

His lawyer, David Allen, said he had not read a 900-page investigative report that preceded the charges but added, "I strongly believe that he acted legally" based on the court filing.

"Officer Meade is a dedicated police officer. He was faced with a very difficult and dangerous situation in which the lives of police and the lives of bystanders were in danger," Allen said.

Everett city spokeswoman Kate Reardon said police and other municipal officials would not comment because of a civil damage claim for $5 million to $15 million that was filed last month by Meservey's daughter, Tanda Louden of Holdingford, Minn.

"While my family takes some measure of comfort in knowing this man will be held accountable for his actions, nothing the city can do will bring my father back to me and my family," Louden said in a prepared statement.

"Obviously we're pleased that the prosecuting attorney has done what we think is the right thing," her lawyer, Paul N. Luvera, said in a telephone interview. "We still are disappointed that the investigation took four months before even the name of the police officer was released."

Meservey was shot seven times in the back June 10 as he sat at the wheel of his idling white Chevrolet Corvette, boxed in by three police cruisers in the parking lot of Chuckwagon Inn after officers responded to reports of a drunken driver.

According to the court filing, another officer at the scene told investigators Meade used a Taser stun gun to try to stop Meservey from moving the car, then opened fire with his service handgun, saying, "Time to end this. Enough is enough."

According to an affidavit filed in court, another officer at the scene, Steven Klocker, "told investigators that he perceived no immediate or imminent threat to the defendant (Meade), any civilians or himself when the defendant opened fire."

Witnesses said the car lurched forward over a parking curb and away from Meade, possibly from an involuntary reflex after Meservey was jolted with the Taser, and lodged against a fence and a parking curb before the officer began shooting.

A witness told investigators Meservey was reciting the Lord's Prayer when he was pulled from the car and died shortly afterward as he lay on the pavement.

An autopsy determined that his blood alcohol level was .26 percent, more than three times the .08 legal threshold for intoxication. No other drugs or medications were found.

A probe by state police and local police, as well as witness accounts and other evidence, showed that the shooting "does not appear to have been justified under the law," Deputy Prosecutor Mark K. Roe wrote to detectives in a letter cited by The Herald.

Following Roe's letter, the case was assigned to two other deputy prosecutors who filed the charge against Meade.

The damage claim filed on Sept. 22 accused Everett police of recklessness and gross negligence. If the claim is not be resolved within 90 days from the date of filing, it can be refiled as a lawsuit.

Luvera said there had been no settlement talks.

"We're primarily after the facts," he said.

Execution.

Sounds like Mr. Meade made a big mistake.

How come nobody planted one of the "cold piece's" they all carry, on the dead guy

You gotta wonder what he was thinking....



tk

Not enough information to conclude that, in the absence of civilian witnesses, the outcome would have been the same.

quote:

According to an affidavit filed in court, another officer at the scene, Steven Klocker, "told investigators that he perceived no immediate or imminent threat to the defendant (Meade), any civilians or himself when the defendant opened fire."

So if officer Klicker thought the officer Mead was using a deadly weapon against a non threat, shouldn't he have shot him?

Maybe this one proves that sometimes they get it right. As just a regular civilian joe out here in the day to day world who considers myself a supporter (but not a blind supporter) of law enforcement, I get fed up with these situations where every time a cop has to shoot someone, the idiots come out of the wood work and blame the cops.

On the other side of the coin, I have over the years seen enough cases where an officer clearly did not have the temperament needed for deadly force situations. There are for sure trigger happy cops, but I bet if you ran the statistics on officer involved shootings, I am guessing the number of "bad" shootings would be well under 1%.

So maybe in this one, it is a bad shooting, and justice will be done. But I hate that crap like this happens and is then used to broad brush the guys who are out there with their butts on the line for the rest of us every single day.

quote:

Meservey was shot seven times in the back June 10 as he sat at the wheel of his idling white Chevrolet Corvette, boxed in by three police cruisers in the parking lot of Chuckwagon Inn after officers responded to reports of a drunken driver.

He didn't hit the car did he?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

According to an affidavit filed in court, another officer at the scene, Steven Klocker, "told investigators that he perceived no immediate or imminent threat to the defendant (Meade), any civilians or himself when the defendant opened fire."

So if officer Klicker thought the officer Mead was using a deadly weapon against a non threat, shouldn't he have shot him?

The shooting probably took no more than a second or two. If he came to believe the shooting was unjustified after it occurred, are you advocating he shoot the other officer in retaliation? If Klocker couldn't prevent the shooting, what other reason would he have to fire on the citizen, since he didn't believe anyone else was threatened.

Also, although he didn't perceive the threat posed by the victim, that doesn't preclude others (including Meade) from seeing something Klocker couldn't.

While I believe the totality of the circumstances strongly indicates the shooting was unjustified, that's based upon the thorough interviews and investigation conducted after the fact. Second guessing a fellow officer in the time it takes to fire those rounds and reacting in time to do something about it, is a fantasy only the most ignorant cop hater can entertain.

quote:

Originally posted by countrygun:
How come nobody planted one of the "cold piece's" they all carry, on the dead guy

I'm not sure what you trying to imply, but all of the officers I personally know and those I work with carry no "cold piece" (what ever that is) and I resent the implication. FYI every weapon we do carry has to be logged in our file by weapon type, caliber and serial number.

quote:

The shooting probably took no more than a second or two. If he came to believe the shooting was unjustified after it occurred, are you advocating he shoot the other officer in retaliation? If Klocker couldn't prevent the shooting, what other reason would he have to fire on the citizen, since he didn't believe anyone else was threatened.

He didn't say when he was aware that there was no threat. If he knew there was no threat before or during the shooting, then yes, I'm advocating shooting the criminal (the other officer). I would expect the officer to do the same thing if it was a "civilian" with a gun.

If he only realized there was no threat after the shooting, then I would expect him take the criminal (the other officer) down at gun point
and arrest him. I would expect the officer to do the same thing if it was a "civilian" with a gun.

quote:

Meade, an 11½-year veteran, was placed on paid leave after the shooting, returned to desk work for a time but is now back on paid leave, according to the newspaper.

So he wasn't arrested. He was placed on desk duty. Anybody else would be sitting in a cell or have to post bail, while this idiot is doing paperwork.

quote:

Second guessing a fellow officer in the time it takes to fire those rounds and reacting in time to do something about it, is a fantasy only the most ignorant cop hater can entertain.

Right. We can only assume that all officers are great guys who would never break a law. Only us cop haters would second guess a cop opening fire on an unarmed man, and shooting him in the back 10 times.

quote:

Originally posted by depusm12:

quote:

Originally posted by countrygun:
How come nobody planted one of the "cold piece's" they all carry, on the dead guy

I'm not sure what you trying to imply, but all of the officers I personally know and those I work with carry no "cold piece" (what ever that is) and I resent the implication. FYI every weapon we do carry has to be logged in our file by weapon type, caliber and serial number.

Sorry if I got your dander up. I thought most who know me around here would recognize it as sarcasm aimed at the "bashers" who tend to show up. Much as the OP did with his choice of wording in the thread title.

Weird. Does anyone know what motivated the guy to shoot the drunk? I understand a car is potentially a deadly weapon, but what happened here?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Meade, an 11½-year veteran, was placed on paid leave after the shooting, returned to desk work for a time but is now back on paid leave, according to the newspaper.

So he wasn't arrested. He was placed on desk duty. Anybody else would be sitting in a cell or have to post bail, while this idiot is doing paperwork.

Only a cop hater (with a grudge) couldn't see that:
1) The shooting occurred in the line of duty and may have involved factors the other officers weren't aware of. (That in this officer's situation and level of experience may have provided justification for a claim of self-defense).
2) A premature arrest and prosecution in such a case could very easily led to a "Not Guilty" verdict. Once that occurs, you don't get a "do over." It's in the best interest of the department, the prosecutor and the public to investigate the case thoroughly prior to making an arrest in such situations.
3) Once the investigation shows sufficient evidence exists that a criminal case could be proved beyond a standard of reasonable doubt, the officer would be arrested. (That's what happened now.) Until then, since he's not a flight risk or an immediate risk to others (considering his eleven years of service prior to this incident), why not put him to work in a situation where he's not in the field?
4) I don't know if this guy is an "idiot" or not, but only someone totally unfamiliar with real criminal investigations (vs TV) or who just has an overwhelming hate of cops would think "anyone else" accused of a possible unjustified shooting is immediately "locked up" (pending trial).

Whether or not anyone is arrested depends on the totality of the individual situation. Even if an officer forms the probable cause to believe a crime was committed, such arrests do not mean someone stays in custody until a jury decides the case. Sufficient evidence must exist to justify filing the case and prosecutors will not make such a filing unless they believe there's enough proof to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the officer was arrested that night, in all probability the prosecutor would have required his release pending further investigation. That required investigation has just been completed, the officer will be prosecuted and sufficient proof exists that he can terminated.

quote:

Only a cop hater (with a grudge) couldn't see that:

I don't hate cops. I only hate dirty cops. Unfortunately, there's too many of them out there. I could write a book on my encounters (and I have no criminal convictions).

quote:

The shooting occurred in the line of duty and may have involved factors the other officers weren't aware of.

Or it may not have involved those factors, and the other officer there may have been aware that there were no other factors. Only one way to find out for sure.

quote:

A premature arrest and prosecution in such a case could very easily led to a "Not Guilty" verdict. Once that occurs, you don't get a "do over." It's in the best interest of the department, the prosecutor and the public to investigate the case thoroughly prior to making an arrest in such situations.

I agree. However, there seems to be two standards involved with one criminal is a just a criminal, and the other is a criminal with a badge.

quote:

Once the investigation shows sufficient evidence exists that a criminal case could be proved beyond a standard of reasonable doubt, the officer would be arrested. (That's what happened now.)

Assuming that the criminal is actually investigated in the first place.

quote:

Until then, since he's not a flight risk or an immediate risk to others (considering his eleven years of service prior to this incident),

Oh. He's not a flight risk or an immdiate risk to others because he's been a cop for 11 years. I mean why would he be a flight risk? He may have just murdered a guy.

quote:

why not put him to work in a situation where he's not in the field?

Because the police work for the public, and he was just accused of violating the trust of the public.

quote:

I don't know if this guy is an "idiot" or not,

I'm pretty sure he would classify.

quote:

but only someone totally unfamiliar with real criminal investigations (vs TV) or who just has an overwhelming hate of cops would think "anyone else" accused of a possible unjustified shooting is immediately "locked up" (pending trial).

Uh huh.

quote:

Whether or not anyone is arrested depends on the totality of the individual situation. Even if an officer forms the probable cause to believe a crime was committed, such arrests do not mean someone stays in custody until a jury decides the case. Sufficient evidence must exist to justify filing the case and prosecutors will not make such a filing unless they believe there's enough proof to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the officer was arrested that night, in all probability the prosecutor would have required his release pending further investigation. That required investigation has just been completed, the officer will be prosecuted and sufficient proof exists that he can terminated.

I'm pretty familiar. I watch COPS.

I'm not pissed at this story. I'm glad the bastard got caught. I wonder what else he's done that has never been discovered?

What I am pissed at, is that he's not being treated the same as other non LEOs in the same situation. In fact, I'd still be pissed even if he was treated the same. Those entrusted by the public to serve the public should pay twice the price for their transgressions against the public's trust.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

However, there seems to be two standards involved with one criminal is a just a criminal, and the other is a criminal with a badge.

What I am pissed at, is that he's not being treated the same as other non LEOs in the same situation. In fact, I'd still be pissed even if he was treated the same. Those entrusted by the public to serve the public should pay twice the price for their transgressions against the public's trust.

A "criminal" isn't a "criminal" until he's been convicted of a crime. In this situation, the officer is accused of a serious crime but hasn't been convicted of anything yet. Until then, that eleven years of service means something, just like a prior felony conviction or being a parolee would mean something. His presumption of innocence means that until he was charged with a crime (as has just occurred) his case must be based on what is known and not assumed (as in your assumption that he's committed prior violations of the public trust).

If John Q. Citizen (with no prior convictions or arrests) was involved in a use of deadly force under circumstances that could be considered reasonable, he wouldn't be jailed indefinitely while the incident was still being investigated. He might very well be released without having to even post bail.

You may have watched COPS, but there's a lot of current and former cops here who have conducted real investigations and been involved in real uses of deadly force. Jumping to conclusions based on reading a single newspaper account or watching a sound bite on TV might be your "right" but it doesn't negate the very real constitutional rights that officer has. Those involved in investigating this case took their time to do it right. We'll see what happens in court to determine whether or not the officer was justified.

quote:

If John Q. Citizen (with no prior convictions or arrests) was involved in a use of deadly force under circumstances that could be considered reasonable, he wouldn't be jailed indefinitely while the incident was still being investigated. He might very well be released without having to even post bail.

You say it yourself right here. Double standard. John Q may not be jailed indefinitely, but he would be jailed. Behind bars, not behind a desk.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

According to an affidavit filed in court, another officer at the scene, Steven Klocker, "told investigators that he perceived no immediate or imminent threat to the defendant (Meade), any civilians or himself when the defendant opened fire."

So if officer Klicker thought the officer Mead was using a deadly weapon against a non threat, shouldn't he have shot him?

No. Officers observing a scene from differing angles and perspectives will not see the same things, and each officer has the responsibility to make an individual decision to fire based on his or her perception of a threat.

A cop standing on one side of a vehicle during a stop may see a suspect point a weapon and display intent, thus being justified in shooting. A cop standing on the other side may not be able to see whats going on, and should not just start firing because someone else does.

But I'm sure you knew that from your vast experience watching "COPS."

And for the number of cops who are caught, how many more do you think don't get caught? Police misconduct is and will always be a problem. Its the prisoners running the asylum.

When its borderline, a civilian goes to jail while a cop walks. I guess that's societies recognition that police work is difficult.

I worked in a federal court and saw some actions against officers for constitutional violations that made me cringe.

For example, this officer puller over a car on the probable cause that it had "darkly tinted windows." Now that is legal because there is a window tinting statute. But come on, is that why he pulled him over? Hell no, what this really was was a suspicionless stop to investigate for narcotics activity; a violation of the 4th Amendment. But, that's just not a winnable argument even though everyone involved knows its true. For example, if it was a window tint stop why did he get a consent search out of the question "I'm gonna search the car, that's okay right?" Just write the ticket and go!? But no, of course the crook doesn't know he can refuse, consents, and gets popped for drugs. Now screw the criminal, he was guilty and probably wouldn't hesitate to rob my ass blind, fair enough, I have no sympathy for him. What I see though, is if that was me in the car, minding my own business in my car with legal tint, this is gonna get me harassed by this officer. He sees a car that looks thug and pulls it over. I mean, even if your tint is legal, the cops probable cause will stand, "it looked too dark to me." Who's to say that's unreasonable. You can't win that as a citizen. So the police get a fertile grounds for suspiscionless stops. What a country we live in.

I saw the same thing with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace. We had a case where this guy walks by a traffic stop where police are searching some other guys vehicle. He starts singing mockingly (like an idiot) "I hate the police" (what a genius). What happens? Bam, arrest, disturbing the peace. What this really was was the non crime of "disturbing the POLICE." Now, obviously this guy is a Dbag singing like that. But the police shouldn't be able to arrest you for dbaggery. Kid got off and made 2000 dollars of my tax money on the S1983 civil suit. Thanks officer, now the guy is going to be a super dbag because he fought the law and won.

I know I sound like I hate the police. I really don't. I do appreciate the hard work the police do, and it is BS that every time a cop screws up its a lawsuit. It just bothers me sometimes that some elements of law enforcement (a small part of the whole) are so gung ho about every law except the ones that restrain their conduct.