• 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?

BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you for offerring an apple to the orange in this thread. Those officers killed an innocent man.
 
X

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
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.
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Orphan wrote:
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.
Click to expand...

+1

And since none of us were on this jury or at the scene of this officer in this threadnone of us know whether this officer/department has lied or not.

My concern and I might be missing the point of Daves article but as I stated in another thread is how this affects us, will judges, juries, prosecutor's or the public be so forgiving of anyone else who uses deadly force. Can regular folk point to this case as a precedent?

If there were no officers there and these were citizens trying to prevent him from driving blasted and a citizen pulled the trigger, what would the out come have been?

Things that make me go hmmmmmm.
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

If there were no officers there and these were citizens trying to prevent him from driving blasted and a citizen pulled the trigger, what would the out come have been?

Things that make me go hmmmmmm.


I suspect the results would havebeen very different. There in lies the problem citizensper the law have a lower standard to meet for self defence, in the real worlda citizen has a higher standard to meet than any LEO. I think this is what really upsets everyone, I know it sure pushes my buttons.
 
D

Dave Workman

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

Well, Orphan and SVG, I think you are both missing a couple of salient points,.



First, SVG: Private citizens have no authority to intervene directly in drunk driving situations, especially when that scenario is elevated to involve the use of lethal force. We need to be absolutely clear on that. Legally-armed private citizens are NOT LEOs (posers may thinkotherwise, but that's their problem:quirky).

As to whether private citizens can point to this case as a precedent is an iffy proposition because this case involved direct intervention with a presumed drunk driver. That's not something us private citizens do. It may be an apples and oranges situation.

I think your concerns about how judges and juries look at self-defense cases may have some merit, and that will have to be sorted out by a future case involving a private citizen's use of lethal force.



Orphan, I believe you are mistaken about the differing standards, and the outcome of the jury's deliberation on Meade's claim of self-defense tends to affirm that. The jury rejected his claim outright. While the jury believed Meade fired in the line of duty, they did NOT believe he fired "in self-defense."

Private citizens retain a wider latitude in the use of justifiable lethal force in self-defense under RCW 9A.16.050 than do police acting under 9A.16.040. I don't believe the Meade case alters that one bit.
 
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
imported post

It does seem we have more latitude legally but it does not play out that way I am sure in the court. It is because citizens who use a firearm for self-defense are viewed as potential thugs.

That is one criticism I have of some LEO's is that they are not supportive enough of law-abiding citizens carrying. Police chiefs come out and refer to us as vigilanties if the subject of self-defense ever comes up.."don't take the law into your own hands."
 
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
imported post

It does seem we have more latitude legally but it does not play out that way I am sure in the court. It is because citizens who use a firearm for self-defense are viewed as potential thugs.

That is one criticism I have of some LEO's is that they are not supportive enough of law-abiding citizens carrying. Police chiefs come out and refer to us as vigilanties if the subject of self-defense ever comes up.."don't take the law into your own hands."
 
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
imported post

It does seem we have more latitude legally but it does not play out that way I am sure in the court. It is because citizens who use a firearm for self-defense are viewed as potential thugs.

That is one criticism I have of some LEO's is that they are not supportive enough of law-abiding citizens carrying. Police chiefs come out and refer to us as vigilanties if the subject of self-defense ever comes up.."don't take the law into your own hands."
 
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
imported post

It does seem we have more latitude legally but it does not play out that way I am sure in the court. It is because citizens who use a firearm for self-defense are viewed as potential thugs.

That is one criticism I have of some LEO's is that they are not supportive enough of law-abiding citizens carrying. Police chiefs come out and refer to us as vigilanties if the subject of self-defense ever comes up.."don't take the law into your own hands."
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
imported post

Dave

I agree with you on the part about citizens not acting as LE in this situation, nor should they.

As far asthere being a different standard forcitizens than LE just look at Jay Olsen vs Shonto Pete or the Otto Zehm case. I couldgo on and on with examples of LE gettingjudged/treated at a lower standard.

I believe that Officer Meade usedway too muchforce waytoo quickly. He may well have ended up in the same place in a very short time with a few more steps in between.

Onethought that comes to me out of this is the more training you get the better off you will be if you end up in court on a self defence charge.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
Well, Orphan and SVG, I think you are both missing a couple of salient points,.



First, SVG: Private citizens have no authority to intervene directly in drunk driving situations, especially when that scenario is elevated to involve the use of lethal force. We need to be absolutely clear on that. Legally-armed private citizens are NOT LEOs (posers may thinkotherwise, but that's their problem:quirky).

As to whether private citizens can point to this case as a precedent is an iffy proposition because this case involved direct intervention with a presumed drunk driver. That's not something us private citizens do. It may be an apples and oranges situation.

I think your concerns about how judges and juries look at self-defense cases may have some merit, and that will have to be sorted out by a future case involving a private citizen's use of lethal force.



Orphan, I believe you are mistaken about the differing standards, and the outcome of the jury's deliberation on Meade's claim of self-defense tends to affirm that. The jury rejected his claim outright. While the jury believed Meade fired in the line of duty, they did NOT believe he fired "in self-defense."

Private citizens retain a wider latitude in the use of justifiable lethal force in self-defense under RCW 9A.16.050 than do police acting under 9A.16.040. I don't believe the Meade case alters that one bit.
Click to expand...

Cite? Where does the law state we have no authority to stopothers from driving drunk?

I am not going to let someone blasted out of his mind get into a car and potentially kill someone. This does not make me an LEO poser, but a concerned citizen.

Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

Even in the line of duty, officers have stricter limitations as it should be in taking a life. So there is a double standard.Rationalizing that he happened to have a badge on and was on duty makes zero sense to me.

Again I was not there or in the court so I can't like most us here judge this man or the jury's decision.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Interesting read ERP's, thank you.

We are allowed to make citizen's arrest in this case is what I conclude from these decisions.

Although I am more inclined to stop them from driving and finding them another way home without the involvement of any other "authorities".
 
N

Norman

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
imported post

I can't say I would shoot someone. If they make it to their vehicle I think my best bet would be to try and block them in. I have no problem tossing some guy on the ground, or helping a bartender keep a guy from leaving in order to keep him off the road.
 
Jim675

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post

This officer did not shoot to punish the victim; he shot in defense of himself or others. He either (presumably) believed the man was going to back over him or run down a little old lady at the next crosswalk.

The other officer present said no one was in immediate danger. That leaves the theoretical danger the victim posed by DUI.

As far as I can see, DUI now makes one subject to legal summary execution.

And the jury found he was not acting in self defense, what other other legal reason does an officer have to fire? Shooting during an arrest may be legal, if the arrestee attacks or runs while posing a danger to others. Officers may never fire just because somewhat dimwit deserves it.

What if this officer thinks OC is inherently dangerous? Why couldn't he shoot if an OCer ignores an illegal stop?

Don't fight the officer during the stop!
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
imported post

Norman wrote:
I can't say I would shoot someone. If they make it to their vehicle I think my best bet would be to try and block them in. I have no problem tossing some guy on the ground, or helping a bartender keep a guy from leaving in order to keep him off the road.
Click to expand...
+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top