Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 107

Thread: Will Everett verdict change how we look at lethal self-defense?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Will Everett verdict change how we look at lethal self-defense?

    Meade convinced the jury that he was in fear for his life when he put seven of eight fired rounds into a drunken, but unarmed,Niles Meservey last year in a parking lot outside of a restaurant. (It might be argued that Meservey was armed with a 2,000-pound blunt-force weapon: His Chevrolet Corvette.) Meservey’s blood alcohol content was reportedly more than three times the legal limit for intoxication. He had not responded to being hit with a taser. He was allegedly belligerent and would not get out of his car in the moments leading up to the fatal shooting.


    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Will-Everett-jurys-verdict-in-Meade-case-change-how-we-look-at-lethal-selfdefense

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/26jd2qs

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Will Everett verdict change how we look at lethal self-defense?

    Meade convinced the jury that he was in fear for his life when he put seven of eight fired rounds into a drunken, but unarmed,Niles Meservey last year in a parking lot outside of a restaurant. (It might be argued that Meservey was armed with a 2,000-pound blunt-force weapon: His Chevrolet Corvette.) Meservey’s blood alcohol content was reportedly more than three times the legal limit for intoxication. He had not responded to being hit with a taser. He was allegedly belligerent and would not get out of his car in the moments leading up to the fatal shooting.


    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Will-Everett-jurys-verdict-in-Meade-case-change-how-we-look-at-lethal-selfdefense

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/26jd2qs
    Would it be presumptious to me to assume it was the "Everett Office Acquitted" thread had a lot to do with this particular GRE column?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
    Posts
    272

    Post imported post


    As you said ... ...

    Many people weighing in on reader feedback forums at the Seattle Times (more than 350 responses), Everett Herald and Seattle Post-Intelligencer argue that the verdict simply legalized murder by cops.


    My response would be: "YES !"

  4. #4
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    I think the only thing this changes, it the fact everyone better be a little more carefull in the way they handle themselves in the presense of a LEO. If your dead, and not on a dash cam, the jury will only hear one side of the story, and it wont be yours...
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Dave Workman wrote:
    Will Everett verdict change how we look at lethal self-defense?

    Meade convinced the jury that he was in fear for his life when he put seven of eight fired rounds into a drunken, but unarmed,Niles Meservey last year in a parking lot outside of a restaurant. (It might be argued that Meservey was armed with a 2,000-pound blunt-force weapon: His Chevrolet Corvette.) Meservey’s blood alcohol content was reportedly more than three times the legal limit for intoxication. He had not responded to being hit with a taser. He was allegedly belligerent and would not get out of his car in the moments leading up to the fatal shooting.


    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Will-Everett-jurys-verdict-in-Meade-case-change-how-we-look-at-lethal-selfdefense

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/26jd2qs
    Would it be presumptious to me to assume it was the "Everett Office Acquitted" thread had a lot to do with this particular GRE column?
    Yes, it would. I haven't read that thread.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Just an FYI, but if he didn't "respond" to the taser, it's because the taser's prongs didn't make proper contact, or only one of them made contact.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Just an FYI, but if he didn't "respond" to the taser, it's because the taser's prongs didn't make proper contact, or only one of them made contact.
    That is certainly one explanation. But who knows? The guy was so blitzed according to his BA level that he simply may not have been cognizant he had been zapped.

    I dunno.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Just an FYI, but if he didn't "respond" to the taser, it's because the taser's prongs didn't make proper contact, or only one of them made contact.
    That is certainly one explanation. But who knows? The guy was so blitzed according to his BA level that he simply may not have been cognizant he had been zapped.

    I dunno.

    Oh Dave..... The taser response is a physical response. There are persons who are less affected by it but one does not need to be cognizant of the taser to be incapacitated.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Dave Workman wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Just an FYI, but if he didn't "respond" to the taser, it's because the taser's prongs didn't make proper contact, or only one of them made contact.
    That is certainly one explanation. But who knows? The guy was so blitzed according to his BA level that he simply may not have been cognizant he had been zapped.

    I dunno.

    Oh Dave..... The taser response is a physical response. There are persons who are less affected by it but one does not need to be cognizant of the taser to be incapacitated.
    Agreed. When 50K volts stiffens your muscles, it has nothing to do with whether you are drunk.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
    Posts
    272

    Post imported post

    After watching the video Mr. Workman has on his article you'll notice Officer Troy Meade says: "If he would of just complied this would of never happened"

    So, umm, if we don't comply to whatever they (police officers) say we might get shot to death ?

    Granted this is a "What if" statement. There just happened to be statements in this case that were viewed way different then officer Meade .....


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    If you are a danger to yourself and/or others, and you don't comply, yeah, you might die.

    Oh, and tasers can lose their effectiveness depending on the scenario, sometimes clothing can hinder that.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Dave Workman wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Just an FYI, but if he didn't "respond" to the taser, it's because the taser's prongs didn't make proper contact, or only one of them made contact.
    That is certainly one explanation. But who knows? The guy was so blitzed according to his BA level that he simply may not have been cognizant he had been zapped.

    I dunno.

    Oh Dave..... The taser response is a physical response. There are persons who are less affected by it but one does not need to be cognizant of the taser to be incapacitated.
    Agreed. When 50K volts stiffens your muscles, it has nothing to do with whether you are drunk.
    Yep. That's why TASER International created their products. They were aware that many common self defense products, such as stun guns, rely simply on pain deliverance, which could be fought through by someone who was high, drunk, crazy, or just tough. The TASER was designed to completely disrupt their nervous system and disrupt communication between brain and muscles. It relies on the spread of the darts which make contact to the body, and it won't have full effect if only one dart connects.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Norman wrote:
    If you are a danger to yourself and/or others, and you don't comply, yeah, you might die.

    Oh, and tasers can lose their effectiveness depending on the scenario, sometimes clothing can hinder that.
    And from the article:
    Here is what the statute says: “…the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others.” Question to readers: What do you think that means?
    Basically, the way I read that is that we, as open carriers, are screwed. If we are asked to comply with an unconstitutional and/or illegal request by a police officer, we have no choice but to submit... because if we don't submit, then apparantly, they have excuse to shoot us.
    I would disagree. If the firearm of an open carrier remains holstered then LEO does not have an excuse to shoot us. Thus the inappropriate analogy with the Everett man because his car was running and he was attmepting to drive the vehicle.

    If he was just sitting in his car and it was not running and then he was shot would be akin to an open carrier's interaction with LEO.
    Live Free or Die!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    I'm with GoGo on this one. If the cop has a gun drawn on me, and I put my hand on my holster and tell him to go to hell, cause I think I'm faster. THAT would be an appropriate comparison, and I would expect to be shot pretty fast.

    This guy wasn't just calmly sitting in his vehicle making no trouble, and keeping to himself.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    I would disagree. If the firearm of an open carrier remains holstered then LEO does not have an excuse to shoot us. Thus the inappropriate analogy with the Everett man because his car was running and he was attmepting to drive the vehicle.

    If he was just sitting in his car and it was not running and then he was shot would be akin to an open carrier's interaction with LEO.
    I hope you are right!
    Ask ourselves this...by letting regular citizens own and carry firearms in public is there a rash of shootings over every disagreement in public?

    Clearly and rhetorically we know the answer to be no. It is a common tactic from the anti crowd when concealed and open carry is brought up for discussion.

    Ask ourselves this...with this court case will there be a rash of shootings by police of citizens driving cars while intoxicated?

    I tend to think the answer is similar to the former question. Departments still have policies, the law is still the law. And, furtheremore, this will more than likely be a very expensive lesson for this particular officer.


    Live Free or Die!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    You guys keep talking.



    This is EXACTLY the kind of dialogue I hoped to generate with this column.

    :celebrate

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    I think the only thing this changes, it the fact everyone better be a little more carefull in the way they handle themselves in the presense of a LEO. If your dead, and not on a dash cam, the jury will only hear one side of the story, and it wont be yours...
    Yes, you will have to worry more if you are blowing a .26, crap-faced drunk and trying to drive away in your Corvette while ignoring police demands to stop. Wait, we had to worry about that prior to this case. You break the law and are a danger to yourself and society you might just be shot for it.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
    Posts
    272

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Norman wrote:
    If you are a danger to yourself and/or others, and you don't comply, yeah, you might die.

    Oh, and tasers can lose their effectiveness depending on the scenario, sometimes clothing can hinder that.
    And from the article:
    Here is what the statute says: “…the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others.” Question to readers: What do you think that means?
    Basically, the way I read that is that we, as open carriers, are screwed. If we are asked to comply with an unconstitutional and/or illegal request by a police officer, we have no choice but to submit... because if we don't submit, then apparantly, they have excuse to shoot us.
    Mr. NavyLT has a point here ........ h m m m ?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    Gogo and I already addressed them a bit. I understand what he means, but I don't see us being in danger because of this.

    Plus, deciding constitutionality or legality while being faced with a police force, is really not the right time to decide to fight it. This is why we have courtrooms. If a cop wants to disarm me, even though I am breaking no law, I'm not gonna beat the snot out of him and drag him to the police station for blocking my rights. No, I am going to let him disarm me, and then call my lawyer.

    This really has nothing to do with drinking and driving and resisting arrest though.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    I think the for the most part you are ok. If you argue by grabbing the butt of your pistol and saying, "I don't have to show you my ID" while snarling and twitching your other hand...it might not end well.

    Again, this guy wasn't exactly a polite, well-meaning drunk. Nobody can argue "well he had a gun on his hip, I was in fear of my life, so I shot him." If that worked, there would probably be a lot of dead cops (they OC a lot I've noticed).

    Personally if a cop asks me if I have ID (whether necessary or not) I am probably just going to give it to him. CPL as well. Asking about detainment seems simple, although from reading stories it seems to makes cops stutter when they are searching for a reason to hold you. If I've done nothing wrong I don't mind complying with an officer unless it is going to put me in danger, or seriously hinder my time. ie I will never consent to a "vehicle search".

  21. #21
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    With him being found not guilty of all charges and later to be found he did not act in self defense says a lot.

    As I see it the Jury of 12 seen that he acted with in the Law as an Officer performing his duties but it was not in Self Defense, in their eyes.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    This is just another good reason to not interact with LEOs, there is less and less upside to it everyday.

    If the guy had actually been fleeing after the Tazer causedcrashI would be 100% behind the officer. I think it was murder unless the car was actually moving backwards, it would be interesting to know if the car was in reverse.

    The problem here is we did not hear what the jury heard so we really cant judge.

    On June 2nd I will be sitting inFederal Court in Spokane to hear in person the Otto Zehm civil rightstrial of the Spokane police Officer that lied and killed Otto.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    Orphan wrote:
    .On June 2nd I will be sitting inFederal Court in Spokane to hear in person the Otto Zehm civil rightstrial of the Spokane police Officer that lied and killed Otto.
    Thank you for offerring an apple to the orange in this thread. Those officers killed an innocent man.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    Those who violate their public trust by stepping beyond the boundaries of their lawful authority are privileged to become the usurping masters of the public they were originally entrusted to serve.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    Sylvia my point to that is by sitting through the Otto Zehm trial I will be able to judge the verdict. I dont believe anyone on this thread sat through this trial so none of us can pass judgment. I was not trying to compare the two different events.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •