• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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
 
Gray Peterson

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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
Click to expand...
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? :)
 
B

Bersa.380

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
270
Location
South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
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 !"
 
amzbrady

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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...
 
D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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
Click to expand...
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? :)
Click to expand...

Yes, it would. I haven't read that thread.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 
D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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.
Click to expand...

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. :question:
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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. :question:
Click to expand...
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. ;)
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
Click to expand...

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. :question:
Click to expand...
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. ;)
Click to expand...
Agreed. When 50K volts stiffens your muscles, it has nothing to do with whether you are drunk.
 
B

Bersa.380

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
270
Location
South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
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 .....
 
N

Norman

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
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.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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. :question:
Click to expand...
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. ;)
Click to expand...
Agreed. When 50K volts stiffens your muscles, it has nothing to do with whether you are drunk.
Click to expand...
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.
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
N

Norman

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
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.
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right!
Click to expand...

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.
 
D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

You guys keep talking.



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

:celebrate
 
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
B

Bersa.380

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
270
Location
South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Mr. NavyLT has a point here ........ h m m m ?
 
N

Norman

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
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.
 
N

Norman

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
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".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top