Saturday, March 27, 2010

Policeman Charged with Murder

The Seattle Times reports on the murder charge which is being brought against a policeman who shot and killed an unarmed man. Instead of the usual cover up, it sounds like they're doing the right thing in this case in spite of the cop's explanation. He thought the car was a lethal threat. Now, where have we heard that one before?

Snohomish County prosecutors added a charge of second-degree murder Thursday against Everett police Officer Troy Meade, who previously was charged with first-degree manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a man seated in a car outside a restaurant last year.

Meservey [the dead guy] allegedly wouldn't get out of his car. Meade first shot Meservey with a Taser, then Meservey's car, parked between two other cars, lurched forward into a fence, according to charging papers.

According to another Everett officer's account, Meade said something like: "Time to end this; enough is enough," and opened fire, the charging papers say.

The other officer also told investigators Meservey posed no immediate threat to anyone in the area.

I'm glad to see this officer of the law being investigated and now being charged. I've heard this car-as-lethal-threat justification a few times and it never worked for me. Why the pro gun types defend it so is the weird part. Even folks who generally distrust the police will go to great lengths to defend the alibi that the car really was going to run down the cop and there was no choice but to shoot at it with a handgun. As I've said many times, this is what Bruce Willis does in the movies. In real life it's not like that.

What likely happens in cases like this and this one in particular is, you've got a cop on a power trip who cannot accept not being obeyed. He probably has the lowest opinion of those who resist his authority and too often, like any gun owner, uses firepower to make his point.

What's your opinion? Isn't it ironic that pro gun folks who often make fun of gun control people for having been influenced by the Hollywood movies, are the ones who do that very thing in these cases? Even in the extremely rare case in which the driver of a vehicle is trying to run down the cop, does it make sense for the cop to take a stance and shoot little bullets at the vehicle? That's a bizarre fantasy and an even more bizarre justification for having killed someone driving the car.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. "The other officer also told investigators Meservey posed no immediate threat to anyone in the area."

    There is your key right there. Witnesses. I’d bet the cops who were charge by the man with the baseball bat would not make the same statement.


  2. I don't see what's so hard to understand. Unlike in other cases, the car was obviously not a threat to the officer.

    There is a difference between a car coming towards you and one coming towards a fence.

  3. The car was going into a fence. That's not a danger to the cop. I've seen other instances on TV where the bad guy has deliberately tried to run the cop down. In those cases, I think the cop is wise to shoot.