The price citizens pay when a Police Officer shoots and kills someone

The Troy Meade case in Everett is still going on. At least that part that regards his employment status with the City of Everett Police Department. For those new to this Forum and perhaps the area, this officer shot and killed a drunk that he claimed was trying to run over him. A Court found that "he didn't break the law" but also found that the killing was NOT done in Self Defense.

It appears that he City has paid his attorney fees and continues to incur legal expenses while this officer continues to draw a paycheck. No internal investigation has been conducted to determine if he broke any department regulations/rules and it appears that none will be conducted until the Civil Case is disposed of in Court. Evidently they don't want to admit, if the officer is found to have violated dept policy, that anything was done wrong and give the plaintiff more ammunition. This will be sometime next spring. So far the Legal Fees have been around a Quarter of a Million dollars and the officer has drawn over $90,000 in wages. The costs will continue to rise and a civil judgement will add to them 10 fold (if not more). This appears to be the case that will never end and the taxpayers of Everett just keep getting the bills.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20101108/BLOG41/101109812/1122

Maybe we do have the police we deserve.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-cops-we-deserve/66235/

Everett Cop Who Shot Drunk Man Seven Times in the Back, Found Not Guilty
Caleb Hannan, Mon., Apr. 26 2010 @ 3:16PM Seattle Weekly Blogs
Categories: Crime & Punishment

​The trial of Troy Meade, the Everett cop who shot a drunk man sitting in his car seven times in the back, hinged on two different interpretations of one moment. And today, a Snohomish County jury, by acquitting him of a second-degree murder charge, gave weight to Meade's version of events.

Meade claimed 51-year-old Niles Meservey presented him with no choice. Meservey had apparently shrugged off a tasing and was ready to back out of a parking spot in his white Corvette, said Meade. The 12-year-old veteran claimed he was just trying to protect himself and prevent being run over, a scenario he'd seen play out with another Everett police officer months earlier.

Steven Klocker, the other officer on the scene, disagreed. In testimony, Klocker claimed that he and Meade had many other, non-lethal alternatives at their disposal. He also said that he overheard Meade say, "Time to end this; enough is enough."

Meade, a 12-year-veteran, was also acquitted of the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter. He remains on paid administrative leave and the jury will now decide if he deserves restitution.
******

How do we treat this one when he asks for ID?

My responses are and will be ...

A. "Am I being detained?"

B. "Officer, I have every intent on cooperating with you, but I have nothing further to say and will answer no questions without my lawyer present."

C. "You do not have consent to take my firearm."

D. "I do not consent to a search."

The above would be my only responses, and will be in the future to ANY LEO. After Tom Brewster's incident and LEO behavior as a whole in this country ... I will quote here ...

"Time to end this, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."

Fuller Malarkey said:

How do we treat this one when he asks for ID?

Click to expand...

Probably a moot point. I'd wager that he'll never be back on the street, much less carrying a badge once the civil trial is resolved.

The only questions he may be asking in the future might be "would you like fries with that"?

Officer Troy Meade seems to be a trigger-happy kinda guy . . .

We need to get rid of unions for public servants a lot of this will go away. Without a union this man would have simply been fired.

We also need to start enforcing and educating potential jurors that cops have less leeway when it comes to lethal force not more.

Jeez even his fellow cops thought he was over the line.

Goose said:

A. "Am I being detained?"

B. "Officer, I have every intent on cooperating with you, but I have nothing further to say and will answer no questions without my lawyer present."

C. "You do not have consent to take my firearm."

D. "I do not consent to a search."

The above would be my only responses, and will be in the future to ANY LEO. After Tom Brewster's incident and LEO behavior as a whole in this country ... I will quote here ...

"Time to end this, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."

Click to expand...

I have said this before (not LEO-bashing, just stating a fact), you feel your life is in danger by an overzealous LEO and end up defending yourself, successfully, you are going to prison for life as a cop-killer.

The reality is, an LEO can take your life at a whim if they wanted, and you have two choices, defend yourself (for sure prison time) or meet your maker. There will be no recourse for their actions, but there will be recourse for yours. Welcome to Police States Of America. I think that most LEO's are good public servants that deserve our respect; it is those few that are dangerous and can end your life without any recourse...at least, if there is recourse, it is small compared to you losing your life and your family losing you.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I have said this before (not LEO-bashing, just stating a fact), you feel your life is in danger by an overzealous LEO and end up defending yourself, successfully, you are going to prison for life as a cop-killer.

The reality is, an LEO can take your life at a whim if they wanted, and you have two choices, defend yourself (for sure prison time) or meet your maker. There will be no recourse for their actions, but there will be recourse for yours. Welcome to Police States Of America. I think that most LEO's are good public servants that deserve our respect; it is those few that are dangerous and can end your life without any recourse...at least, if there is recourse, it is small compared to you losing your life and your family losing you.

Click to expand...

"These are the cops that we deserve. In that sense, I am not so disturbed that Oscar Grant's killer will do little, if any, jail time. I am disturbed that this will happen again. I am disturbed that we are so fragile a people, that we know this, and that all we can do is look away."
Ta-Nehisi Coates, senior editor for The Atlantic

Niles Meservey was a drunk behind the wheel. My sympathy is limited.

3/325 said:

Niles Meservey was a drunk behind the wheel. My sympathy is limited.

Click to expand...

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers. Was the officer's response excessive, maybe not. Was the officer's round count excessive, possibly. The argument was that the perp (drunk driver) was cornered and could go nowhere...he was behind the wheel of a high performance machine that had the horsepower and torque to push squad cars out of the way and go about his drunken rampage.

In my response I was referencing a sober law-abiding citizen being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

when did we decide that being a drunk idiot was deserving of being shot to death?

Goose said:

A. "Am I being detained?"

B. "Officer, I have every intent on cooperating with you, but I have nothing further to say and will answer no questions without my lawyer present."

C. "You do not have consent to take my firearm."

D. "I do not consent to a search."

The above would be my only responses, and will be in the future to ANY LEO. After Tom Brewster's incident and LEO behavior as a whole in this country ... I will quote here ...

"Time to end this, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."

Click to expand...

"Time to end this, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" is what Meade said ..... get this Jackwagon off the payroll !!!

HankT said:

Officer Troy Meade seems to be a trigger-happy kinda guy . . .

Click to expand...

Really .... Ya think !!

DKSuddeth said:

when did we decide that being a drunk idiot was deserving of being shot to death?

Click to expand...

It wasn't the part where he got drunk, it was the follow-up where he got into his car and attempted to drive away, at least that is what was alleged...I didn't read the court findings with regard to the validity of that. No drunk should be shot for being drunk.

Bersa.380 said:

"Time to end this, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" is what Meade said ..... get this Jackwagon off the payroll !!!

Click to expand...

I see, he should have instead asked, "excuse me kind sir, if you could please shut your car off and step out, pretty please?"

Meade should be fired, but it wasn't because of the statement he made or his decision to shoot the drunk. This is just my opinion, but I think that shooting someone that many times, in the back, is a bit much; but then again, I wasn't there, maybe it did take eight shots to stop him, and maybe Meade just found himself behind the guy.

We wouldn't even be talking about this if Meade let the guy continue doing what he was doing, the guy somehow got out of a tight spot with his car and ran over pedestrians or hit a car with a family in it...then we would want to know why Meade didn't use more force to stop him.

I would like to know what type of excessive force his partners there though he engaged in...was it the shooting part, the round count, what?!

Beretta92FSLady said:

We wouldn't even be talking about this if Meade let the guy continue doing what he was doing, the guy somehow got out of a tight spot with his car and ran over pedestrians or hit a car with a family in it...then we would want to know why Meade didn't use more force to stop him.

Click to expand...

Too bad you aren't familiar with the scene where this all took place. Niles Meservy (victims have names) couldnt have left the parking area of the restaurant if he wanted to. He was blocked by a chain link fence to the front, high-centered in a curb, and blocked by a police car at the rear. This shooting DID NOT HAVE TO OCCUR no matter what excuse one wants to put forth. The jury only found that the officer did not break the law. Again, remember that after they saw all the facts that they found he was not acting in self defense. This is not a case of "What If", but a case of "What Happened".

And the fact his fellow police didn't agree with what happened.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I see, he should have instead asked, "excuse me kind sir, if you could please shut your car off and step out, pretty please?"

Meade should be fired, but it wasn't because of the statement he made or his decision to shoot the drunk. This is just my opinion, but I think that shooting someone that many times, in the back, is a bit much; but then again, I wasn't there, maybe it did take eight shots to stop him, and maybe Meade just found himself behind the guy.

We wouldn't even be talking about this if Meade let the guy continue doing what he was doing, the guy somehow got out of a tight spot with his car and ran over pedestrians or hit a car with a family in it...then we would want to know why Meade didn't use more force to stop him.

I would like to know what type of excessive force his partners there though he engaged in...was it the shooting part, the round count, what?!

Click to expand...

Oh Boy .... this was a hot topic for a while when it all happened .... I kept up with the whole story.

Bottom line if you would have read all the stories and what witnesses had to say this guy should be serving time for murder.

Bersa.380 said:

Bottom line if you would have read all the stories and what witnesses had to say this guy should be serving time for murder.

Click to expand...

And yet the Jury probably heard more about this, in detail, and found he broke no law(s).

amlevin said:

And yet the Jury probably heard more about this, in detail, and found he broke no law(s).

Click to expand...

I read the juries verdict in the news papers .. .. .. NOT GUILTY to murder and they found it was NOT an act of self-defence.

Got me fooled !