HeraldNet: Costs mount over Everett police officer on leave since fatal shooting

COMMENTS

To read other terms and conditions, click here

Wrong headline
It should say "It pays to be a Murderer".
Laura Ollis | Jul 23, 2010 8:09 am | 1 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: Wrong headline
G Davis I do not know why someone has not had the FBI check it out. But if I lived in Everett I surely would, although it eventually trickles down statewide.
Nathan K | Jul 30, 2010 5:01 pm | Request removal

Where are the feds.
Most other things like this, the feds come in and investigate it. And if a cop can order a drunk out of a parked car, why aren't they parked outside of bars to prevent drunks from getting on the road in the first place? Because state law says they have to be pulled over for a traffic violation first. But not in Everett Wa.
Nathan K | Jul 23, 2010 10:14 am | 22 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: Where are the feds.
Mr. Meservey had been driving drunk. That's how the police got the call in the first place. And no, they do not have to be driving to be arrested for being drunk behind the wheel of a running car. Those laws are the same everywhere in Washington. But for those of you that dislike Everett so much, I have a grand solution. Pack your bags and move out of town. It's a win-win situation!
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 10:35 am | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Oh Nathan, you continue to humor us with your nonsensical interpretations of the law. If we're willing to pay sufficient taxes to have enough officers sit outside of bars to prevent drunks from getting on the roads in the first place, I strongly suspect that every police department in the state will gladly hire them and place them in such locations, for such sole purpose.

And an officer can stop a drunk before they're actually on the road (see RCW 46.61.504 "� Physical control of a vehicle under the influence).
Tom P | Jul 23, 2010 10:36 am | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
MS D,
I have a better plan, Why don't we meet for happy hour? You name the place, I will be there...
Lawrence | Jul 23, 2010 11:27 am | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Hahaha, keeping it light eh Lawrence? No thanks. I'm very happily taken. Let's keep this conversation on subject shall we?
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 11:37 am | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Tom I know there are limited resources and it should be obvious that I am talking about problem bars and not every bar in the state. And I would love to see where even one has been arrrested for getting in their car drunk, if that is the law?

And MSD I have never been in Everett and I never will, because they have killer cops there. Oh and plenty of people have wrote in the paper that they will not be there either, because of the killer cops who will get away with it.
Nathan K | Jul 23, 2010 12:21 pm | Request removal

Drama, drama, drama
You're being a little dramatic don't you think? You're speaking about one specific instance and suddenly all Everett police are "corrupt" and killers? Hahahahahaha! I can't believe my luck today with how totally funny these comments are!

As far as someone being arrested for being behind the wheel of their car drunk, look at the jails on any given day. They're loaded. Watch "Cops" on any given night. They only have to have reasonable doubt to pull you over. They don't have to KNOW you're drunk to pull you over.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 12:32 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Officer Troy Meade can never work the streets of Everett Again! For his own sake.
Kyle F. | Jul 23, 2010 12:40 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
kyle F. that's a pretty brazen comment to make in a public forum!
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 12:55 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Tom and MSD I request you read rcw 46.61.504 and go down to #2. It says further on in #2. No person may be convicted under this section, if prior to being pursued by a law enforcement officer, the person has moved the vehicle safely off the roadway. Meaning he was not pursued and the officer should not have approached him and ordered him out of his car. And that is why they do not arrest drunks when they get in their cars, but they have to wait until they commit a infraction and then they pursue them.

Now wait the paper has said they are trained to block their car in at times, so under another law probably, they can block the car in. What they are allowed to do to keep them from leaving, I do not know what the law says?

The cop is a murderer and that law you provided proves it. But then why don't the defense attorneys bring that up when you hear that someone who is sitting in their car drunk on the side of the road is arrested and charged with dui ,because they say they had to drive to get there?
Do not get me wrong, I wish they could arrest them, but I am going by what the law says. That is probably why they are not waiting outside problem bars.
Maybe the law needs to be changed if different experts can come to a consensus about it.
Nathan K | Jul 23, 2010 1:19 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Nathan, Nathan, Nathan, you only continue display your remarkable lack of understanding of our statutes in WA. Believe me, I'm well aware of what sub #2 is addressing. It does NOT mean that an officer can't approach the vehicle and order him out of his car. Sub #2, and when an officer can approach a vehicle, are two entirely different legal issues.

The first (sub #2 of 46.61.504) essentially bars a conviction if a person has been driving intoxicated, realizes they're intoxicated, and ". . . moved the vehicle safely off the roadway."� The second issue you raise and somehow have commingled with 46.61.504 (2) by saying "Meaning he was not pursued and the officer should not have approached him and ordered him out of his car."�, has nothing whatsoever to do with 46.61.504.

When a vehicle is stopped and off of the roadway, nothing bars an officer from approaching the vehicle and contacting the driver, even if no probable cause exists for a traffic stop. Or in your analogy, probable cause for resulting from an infraction. In the present case, the police were called due to Meservey's disorderly conduct prior to him leaving, so probable cause already existed. I can only speculate, but must assume that it was for this reason that Meade blocked Meservey's vehicle in. Bottom line, probable cause is not the issue.

As for your statement that "[the] law you provided proves it [Meade is a murderer]"� is as ridiculous as interpretations come of 46.61.504. You ask why defense attorneys don't bring up Sub #2 as a defense. They do it all the time. Just because you haven't seen it occur, doesn't mean it hasn't / doesn't / and won't happen.

Lastly, when you say "Do not get me wrong, I wish they could arrest them, but I am going by what the law says."�, just what law are you referring to? If you're referring to 46.61.504, I recommend you contact your state representative to ask how many people are charged and convicted annually of 46.61.504. That information may well be available from the WSP as well. I strongly suspect you'll find that there are a good number of people charged, and maybe a fair number convicted.
Tom P | Jul 23, 2010 2:32 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Nathan, you're taking that one sentence out of context. Section 2 (in it's entirety) say: "The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state does not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this section. No person may be convicted under this section if, prior to being pursued by a law enforcement officer, the person has moved the vehicle safely off the roadway."

Interestingly enough # 1 of that section states: "A person is guilty of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person has actual physical control of a vehicle within this state: (a) And the person has, within two hours after being in actual physical control of the vehicle, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug."

Seems to me that since Mr. Meservey was refused more alcohol from the bar becasue he was already too intoxicated (thus making one wonder if he was over the 0.08 limit described above) AND he was driving his car in the area within 2 hours of the officers finding him (they were searching for him) that he had to be in control of his vehicle while he was intoxicated, correct? Also, just for clarification, he was not on a roadway he was in a parking lot of a public bar. I don't mean to try to tarnish Mr. Meservey's reputation post life however as I understand it this was not his first brush with drinking and driving. He was well aware of the dangers and took that chance anyway.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 2:43 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Hey Nathan,
How about read the story or learn a little about what happened before spouting off. The police were called to the location for a distubance in progress involving Mr Meservey being verbal with customers and staff at the Chuckwagon. The police just didnt randomly pull over Mr Meservey because they were bored. Also, what makes you think the federal government should be investigating this shooting?
Jimmy Dean | Jul 23, 2010 3:14 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
No MSD it says you have to be in actual physical control and only if your alcohol level is above .08 after 2 hours , only then can you be charged.Having your hands on the wheel or just starting your car is not actual physical control.

And Tom show me where it says in rcw.46.61.504 that an officer can contact them about a dui or order them out of their car? They can contact them, but they can not charge them yet or order them out of their car. PLus I see how well you are paying attention, because he did not block his vehicle in, like he should have.
Nathan K | Jul 23, 2010 3:23 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
First of all Nathan it does not say "after 2 hours". It says "within 2 hours" and you're taking parts of different sentences and mixing them up as you please. So let me ask you this, are you saying that Mr. Meservey did not have physical control of his vehicle? And if he didn't, why was he behind the wheel of a vehicle he didn't have physical control over? And why was he driving that same vehicle he did not have physical control over just minutes prior to the police finding him? Because if he didn't have physical control over his vehicle then he was absolutely a danger on the road given that he had his own keys in his own car's ignition while his own body sat behind the wheel of his own vehicle that he had just driven (on his own) around the area after being refused more alcohol. Also, are you stating that his blood alcohol level was not .08 or higher? I would be most interested in reading that report if you have it.

And since you're so humoring Nathan, do tell what you would consider having physical control of your vehicle?

As for your comments to Tom P, I would have to do some serious research myself to completely answer you however it IS the law that you have to obey officers of the law. Mr. Meservey was ordered to turn off his car. He refused. He was ordered to step out of his vehicle. He refused. He was refused more alcohol from the bar because they could have been sued had Mr. Meservey received another drink and then killed someone while he was not in physical control of his vehicle.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 3:37 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
JD all the previous papers have said his friends called the police to protect him, by hoping he could be prevented from driving drunk, not that he was disruptive. And why don't you read before spouting off? He was in a parking lot in a parking space at the time. But the killer everett cop, killed him instead like his friends have said before.
You see the feds get involved when there is a miscarriage of justice. Does the Rodney King case ring a bell?
Nathan K | Jul 23, 2010 3:45 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Nathan:

Starting your car with a BA of .08 or more is most certainly physical control, and will almost certainly result in your arrest. If you feel so strongly that I'm wrong, feel free to give it a try this weekend in the presence of a trooper.

As for your request that I show you where in RCW 46.61.504 an officer can contact someone and order them out of their car, it doesn't. Not in that RCW, but there are others and a slew of case law, much of it decided by the U.S. Supreme Ct, that makes it abundantly clear an officer can order you out of your vehicle to arrest you for DUI, physical control, and a host of other laws. For you to even question this borders on the ridiculous.

Officers don't "charge" people. That portion of your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, so not really sure how else to help you there.

Lastly, I have no idea what you mean when you say I'm not paying attention, as he (presumably Meade) didn't block his (presumably Meservey's) vehicle in "like he should have." If your comment is to suggest that Meade didn't block it in Meservey's vehicle the way he should have, you clearly have no law enforcement experience. There's no book of "should have blocked it in". They teach various methods of dealing with situations. That's just one such method. I hate to disappoint you, but life isn't a "one size fits all", let alone black and white.

Now, if you're asking me if I think Meade's response to the situation was appropriate, then nope, I sure don't. But to belabor this nonsense by stating that he's a murderer, etc, when that issue has already been litigated and decided by a jury, is pointless.
Tom P | Jul 23, 2010 3:55 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Nathan I can see you're passionate about this so I'll try to go easy on you from here on out. But you can't have it both ways. You said his friends said they were hoping to get him stopped before he got in his car and drove and that's why the called the police? But then you also said it's not legal for the police to stop someone just for being drunk in their car. That leads me to another question. Why were his friends so worried about him driving that night? BECAUSE HE WAS DRUNK. But I think we've all agreed on that point so let's move on. His friends were so worried BECAUSE he made a habit of drinking and driving. Thus the priors on his record. Regardless, I do remember having this conversation with someone that was at the bar that same night and she claimed he was being beligerent and was mad because the bartender refused him drinks. Now I'm the one that's confused. But I guess none of us will ever know the real truth about that fateful night since none of us were there.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 3:59 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Nathan:

I had missed your comment earlier about how other people have said they won't come to Everett because they have killer cops. Do you have a point? Keep in mind that there was once a time that everyone thought the Earth was flat. Turns out they were wrong. Guess it really doesn't matter how many people might think something, it doesn't necessarily make them right. Besides, were you hoping everyone was going to just pack up and move out of Everett because of this one incident, whether it was right or wrong. Come on, even you're not that naïve.
Tom P | Jul 23, 2010 4:30 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Tom then I would have to read the other stuff, but right now I was told to read that rcw something and we go by that until I can read the other stuff.

And MSD the communist police have come and told me I was going to do what they say. According to you I would have to do it, but like I told them the law says different than what you say, and the state patrol has had to contact them. Otherwise on one occasion he could have just had my car towed, plus other things that are too long to go into. And I know he was in a parking lot, which is my main point. And I said they can not order you out of your car, then then I said his friends called hoping he could be blocked in. As explained the papers have said the police are taught when they come across a case like that, they put their car bumper to bumper with the other car. What they do after that the papers did not explain.

AND you do not get when I say "killer cops in everett", that, that is just a joke?
Nathan K | Jul 23, 2010 5:10 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Sorry Nathan, I really am trying to understand you. But I can't.
MS D | Jul 26, 2010 9:57 am | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
Tom you said to give it a try while a trooper was around. The problem with that is, in one of those links he has to have reason to believe I was drunk.
Nathan K | Jul 26, 2010 2:45 pm | Request removal

Re: Where are the feds.
He doesn't have to have reason to believe you were drunk, he just has to have reasonable doubt which could come from several things.
MS D | Jul 26, 2010 4:20 pm | Request removal

How can you have sympathy for a drunk driver
Fortunately, he was killed before he could kill anyone. This is street justice, and justice was good.
Joe Smith | Jul 24, 2010 2:57 am | 2 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: How can you have sympathy for a drunk driver
You are one SICK person to say someone should killed for being drunk. Seek help!
Homer Remoh | Jul 24, 2010 2:48 pm | Request removal

Re: How can you have sympathy for a drunk driver
Too bad no one told Mr. Meservey to "Seek help!" before all of this happened.
MS D | Jul 26, 2010 9:53 am | Request removal

(No heading)
Sometimes the scorpion stings it's self.

This is a prime example.

Pay up suckers....and the the wanna be hero cop that sniched his buddie out...remember that when you are ratted out and you will be.
Jack Johnson | Jul 23, 2010 9:01 am | 2 replies | Request removal

Post reply

SNITCH????
Let me get this straight. You are calling a cop who told the truth about the MURDER committed by Trigger Troy a SNITCH??? Hmmmm, that would mean that Trigger Troy did in fact MURDER Niles Meservey and you're ****** because another cop who is sworn to tell the truth.....told the truth?? Get the eff outta Everett!!! We dont need lowlifes like you living in this city. You are as sad and sick as that COWARD Trigger Troy Meade.....................Michelle, Everett
Michelle Hall | Jul 23, 2010 9:13 am | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
Nah Michelle, Jack only used the word "snitch" because he's a trashy ex-con. Only scum that has served time (lemme guess... assault? Theft?) ever uses that word. ;)
Your Mom | Jul 25, 2010 10:33 pm | Request removal

cost mount over police officer
I don't think the tax payers should have to pay for an officer to kill a citizen. Thats totally messed up. If a citizen were to do what officer Meade did, they would be in prison for the rest of their lives! It just goes to show how the system works. I think the whole situation was wrong. How could he have been feared for his life or unaware of surroundings? Aren't they trained to beaware of everything around them?? His partner even said there was no reason to think his life was in danger. If the city wants to pay for what he did, send the money to the citizens that really could use it. Stop paying him while he's on leave. Almost $75,000.00, thats more than I make in 8 years.

teresa boser | Jul 24, 2010 1:21 am | 2 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: cost mount over police officer
teresa, really? That would mean that you only make $9375.00 a year or rather $4.51 an hour if based on a 40 hour work week which isn't even minimum wage.

Meredith Sellman | Jul 24, 2010 10:29 pm | Request removal

Re: cost mount over police officer
That's some mighty fine math work there! Maybe, just MAYBE... Ms. Boser works part time? And does make minimum wage? Maybe a student? Or God forbid, lives off State income (which is a whole other can o' worms)? Hmmmm!

Your Mom | Jul 25, 2010 10:24 pm | Request removal

It's up to the Police Chief...
I am not going to second guess the Departments decision. I'm sure there is a lot of legal issues involved & other concerns which have to be kept confidential.

When the final decision is made, whatever/whenever that may be, only then does the chief owe it to the public to explain why he made that decision.
cme everett | Jul 23, 2010 2:03 am | 2 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: It's up to the Police Chief...
Yeah I wouldn't second guess the decision to throw away my tax money on a murderer either.
R N | Jul 23, 2010 7:04 am | Request removal

Re: It's up to the Police Chief...
RN... he was never convicted of murder. A jury of OUR peers found him NOT GUILTY! End of story. It is now up to the Police Chief what to do with him ---but he's not speaking.
cme everett | Jul 24, 2010 1:49 pm | Request removal

So much verbal diarrhea...
so many of you are spouting off about things that you have no clue of...people "thinking" they know the law.."thinking" they know what happened(when they weren't there...."thinking" they know Exactly what they would do in this situation....

I bet all of you yelling about the police gladly welcome them when you are in trouble..and are quick to condemn them when you have done wrong...

View/read the whole story ,,,,get your facts and the will of the law straight...then speak...
H S | Jul 24, 2010 10:11 am | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Solution to issue
Ok, here is the solution the city apparently cannot see themselves.

Problem: City of everett schools cannot afford buses and are therefore ending some transportation to kids to save about 400k.

Solution: End this stupid legal battle and give the money you would have spent on legal fees to the schools.

Oh yeah, and just realize the cop was trying to do his job and the drunk idiot was basically a suicide by cop. Maybe the citizen should not have been a drunk!!!!!!!
J S | Jul 24, 2010 9:39 am | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

(No heading)
Public defenders are billed out at a statutory rate of $87.50 an hour.

The City of Everett should adjust David Allen's bill downward to reflect an hourly rate of $87.50 an hour, instead of his exorbitant $400 dollar an hour fee.

Mr. Allen can obtain the difference from Mr. Meservey, as it was Mr. Meservey who chose to hire Mr. Allen. The taxpayers had no say in who was hired to represent Mr. Meservey, and he went ahead and hired one of the most expensive criminal defense attorneys in Seattle.

Don't make the taxpayers pay David Allen's exorbitant bill.
Rational Thought | Jul 23, 2010 10:56 am | 10 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: (No heading)
Mr. Meservey is the deceased. I believe you're referring to Officer Meade hiring David Allen. They rate of $ 87.50 is based on need and ability to pay. It's designed for lower income folks who would not otherwise be able to afford adequate representation. That said, our attorneys don't even bill out at $ 400 per hour.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 11:04 am | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
My apologies for confusing the names.

Yes, Mr. Meade should be saddled with the costs for Mr. Allen's services exceeding those of what a public defender would have cost the taxpayers.

Forcing the taxpayers to pay one of the most expensive attorneys in Seattle his full "Seattle rate" is ridiculous.

I'm not saying Mr. Meade is indigent and deserving of a public defender. This story proves quite the opposite. I'm saying Mr. Meade should pay the costs of his own legal representation that exceeds what the citizens would pay for representation of an indigent defendant.
Rational Thought | Jul 23, 2010 11:23 am | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
No worries on the mistake. I was just clearing that up. I agree with you to a large extent. It would seem like a better situation if Officer Meade paid the difference but lets look at it another way..... If Officer Meade is truly and completely innocent why should he have to face losing his home for defending himself?
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 11:36 am | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
You know, this is the most intelligent thing I've seen posted on here yet! I am 100% with you on this. Let the defendant cover the exorbitant fees himself. Rational Thought, you are brilliant!
matt mybuisness | Jul 23, 2010 12:45 pm | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
"If Officer Meade is truly and completely innocent why should he have to face losing his home for defending himself?"

Because that's what anyone else who gets a public defender risks?

At 72K a year, the man is not indigent. He should pay for his own attorney, like anyone else.
Chris Bingham | Jul 23, 2010 1:39 pm | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
Easy there Chris. I think he should at the very least pay the difference between the regular public defender rate and the rate his lawyer is charging. I'm just trying to be the devil's advocate and see both sides. You're right to some extent but not everyone who has a public defender has to pay. Some get represented for free. And I agree with you 100% making $ 75K a year is NOT indicative of someone who is indigent.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 2:18 pm | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
Msd we kind of agree here. But we would lose our home if we were in that situation.

So why is Meade special?. He can not hire a big time attorney, he should go through the process and be told who he can hire. If he does not go through the process and let his boss know, whoever he hires is his responsibility. Only if he as mentioned goes through the legal process and is told who he can hire, then he goes from there.
Nathan K | Jul 23, 2010 4:07 pm | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
We may or may not lose our homes if we were in a similar situation. It would depend on whether or not we were on the job at the time doing our usual course of business. If we were then our employer (in this case the City) would be responsible to pay for our attorney.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 4:14 pm | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
Nathan:

Who do you propose tells him who he has to hire? Secondly, the city felt obligated to pay his attorney because he was acting in the scope of his employment. Just as UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc, etc, is obligated to pay if one of their drivers causes an accident. I don't know what you do for a living, but imagine yourself in a situation if you caused the death of someone else, even if only by accident, and your employer (or their insurer) said they wouldn't pay for your defense. Hardly seems appropriate, and it certainly wouldn't be consistent with the well established respondeat superior maxim of our land.
Tom P | Jul 23, 2010 4:15 pm | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
While I do somewhat feel Officer Meade should contribute to the cost of his defense, I don't believe anyone can or should tell him who to hire to represent him.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 4:44 pm | Request removal

(No heading)
I wish I was half as smart as some of the people posting here. I envy those with the super human power of omniscience.

I wasn't there and I don't have any of the facts like the others here obviously must, so I won't try to Monday morning quarterback the tragedy. And yes, no matter what happened, it is a tragedy for both men and their families. Clearly in very different ways, but a tragedy none the less.

The fact is that he was acquitted of criminal wrong doing.

My only rub, as a citizen taxpayer, is the cost of what appears to be an overly long admin leave. I would hope that some sort of reasonably meaningful work is assigned to him soon. Presuming of course that he has been cleared for duty of any kind.

Sincerely, I feel for both men. As I said, it was a tragedy. I can only imagine what Officer Meade must be going through. I don't take the taking a life lightly; justly or unjustly. And nothing I have read or heard anywhere indicates that Officer Meade does either.
Mitch Ruth | Jul 23, 2010 12:28 pm | 2 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: (No heading)
Well said Mitch! It is clear that many people either know the facts or were present at the time of this tragedy!

Regardless it is still a tragedy for all involved and for their families.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 12:53 pm | Request removal

Re: (No heading)
Amen...I think these boards are a farm team of quarterbacks...until it's their [game] story.

The "judgmentals" never even consider trying on another pair of shoes even though the souls on theirs are now worn to nonexistence.
Seri Ously | Jul 23, 2010 4:15 pm | Request removal

75k isn't that much money
I can't believe you guys think that is a lot of money, especially for a dangerous job like being a police officer.

If the city lost the 15 million dollar case because the let him work, or they lost the case because the lawyers said he had access to important evidence while at the station, it would pay 200 years of a 75k salary. It is just a good business decision to have him not work.
Joe Smith | Jul 23, 2010 8:01 am | 11 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: 75k isn't that much money
Hey Joe...why don't you just belly up and pay ol Trigger Troy yourself if you love these cops so much?
He must have some negatives of one of the upper cops or politicians to get all the perks he has.
Jon Cannelo | Jul 23, 2010 8:11 am | Request removal

Re: 75k isn't that much money
Dangerous job for a police officer in Everett washington ????
More dangerous for its citizens I would say. Like I have said before if any of our police cant handel a guy who is totaly drunk and cant even stand up something is wrong with them. Just saying Looks like Trigger Troy was kissed buy the dark angel if ya know what I mean.
Being a good cop and able to tell the difference between a harmless drunk and a dangerous killer who needs to be shot in the back over and over and over tells it all. To sit and do nothing for full pay is a joke.
R R | Jul 23, 2010 8:45 am | Request removal

Re: 75k isn't that much money
Thank you for stating the obvious. Mr. Meservey was behind the wheel of a 3,000 pound weapon WHILE HE WAS "TOTALLY DRUNK AND CAN'T EVEN STAND UP"! Innocent? Last time I checked it was against the law to drink and drive too. Or to be drunk in public. Or to be a public nuisance.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 9:24 am | Request removal

Re: 75k isn't that much money
R R,

Any Drunk behind the wheel of a car is a dangerous Killer. Parking lot or not. Period.
Nicholas Gullickson | Jul 23, 2010 9:31 am | Request removal

Re: 75k isn't that much money
Nicholas:

No, a drunk behind the wheel of a vehicle has the potential to be dangerous, but it isn't as certain and black and white as you paint it to be.
Tom P | Jul 23, 2010 10:54 am | Request removal

Re: 75k isn't that much money
I agree Tom P. I didn't catch that one. And this is what the police, government, etc. strive to prevent. If they can get a drunk off the road before he or she kills or seriously injures someone, they will.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 10:58 am | Request removal

Re: 75k isn't that much money
It's more than what I make WORKING, thus it's TOO MUCH!
BuildingAirplanes | Jul 23, 2010 12:38 pm | Request removal

Re: 75k isn't that much money
Not argueing the fact he was in his car and drunk. Just saying any cop worth his salt could have delt with a drunk with killing him.
As the witness said in court Meade was behind and off to the side not in danger.DUH!! Remember the corvatte had gone forward and over a large curb and the other cop standing there said the shooting was uncalled for. I tend to belive him not Meade.
He got off because you cant fight city hall thats all and in the line of duty thing for sure. This was not Meades first shooting, does any one see pattern here? Most good cops who arent afraid of their own shadow and know how to deal with real problems without shooting first never have to shoot any one in their intire career. Much less a drunk that wasnt going anywhere. Meade was out of the way and let his anger get the best of him. Oh well MSD,NICK, seem happy about the killing?? thats werid no matter how you look at it. Have a great weekend nuff said. :-)
R R | Jul 23, 2010 1:13 pm | Request removal

Re: 75k isn't that much money
Thank you for putting words into my mouth R R. I never once said I was happy about the killing. Neither did anyone else on here. As previously stated however, you need to know ALL of the facts. Many of which I still don't kow myself. What I DO know is that Mr. Meservey had already been out on the road driving while drunk. That's how the police came to be involved to begin with. So there was sufficient reason to believe that he could and would do it again. Also, if you haven't ever been to Patty's Eggnest, I urge you to do just that. The curb you think Niles went over is not a "large" curb. He could have easily gunned it and backed his car up if he so inclined.

Ok you believe the witness. I believe Officer Meade. That's ok. We're allowed to have differing opinions but that most certainly does NOT mean I am happy about the outcome. I have said numerous times that this is a sad and horrible tragedy for all involved.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 2:25 pm | Request removal

Re: 75k isn't that much money
It's not just 75K. Look at the legal bill... it's close to 500k.
Stavro Stavros | Jul 23, 2010 2:45 pm | Request removal

Re: 75k isn't that much money
Good point Stavros. And unfortunately the legal bill will likely continue to grow for a bit still. Then there's the bill to defend on the civil suit.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 3:04 pm | Request removal

Time to clean house
The Everett Police department has some very good Police Officers. The department also has more than it's fair share of whipper snapper weasels A few are incompetent like Mr. Meade. He should be ashamed of himself for costing the city so much money because of his poor decision to shoot a drunkard in the back. The total bill is around $500,00.00 so far. Just wait until the drunkard's family get done with their civil suit. Mr. Meade won't pay that... the city will. We taxpayers are going to have to pay for Mr. Meade's terrible decision.
Stavro Stavros | Jul 23, 2010 2:43 pm | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Weapon's
When a drunk gets behind the wheel of a car, then that becomes his weapon.

How many more have to die at the hands of drunk drivers?

South of here to young men lost their lives to a drunk driver. Just before their graduation from high school.

Maybe some of you should be taken down to the morg to view the bodies of the victims of drunk drivers.

I think you would change your minds.

This man had a drinking and drug problem well before this incident. Where was his family then?

But now they want a big settlement.

Were they willing to pay for the cost if the man had been turned out on the roads that night?

As far as the city of Everett, it has always been a wonderful city to live in. The police were always very respectful. Always willing to lend a hand in the time of need.

So stop your stupid ranting.
melody goad | Jul 23, 2010 2:26 pm | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Crime PAYS!!!!!
Apparently....In Everett Washington, you can walk up behind someone, shoot them 7 times IN THE BACK and get paid by the city $75,000!!!!! This is totally disgusting. Troy Meade should be sitting in Walla Walla for the next 50 years for 1st degree MURDER. Nope, here in Everett, we like murdering cops. We refuse to convict them and then we pay them $75,000 to sit at home cleaning guns..washing the car...watching TV... never sweating a house payment while the rest of us are facing foreclosure. I hope the Meservey family wins in court and sends Troy Meade down the road to the poor house butt naked after having to surrender EVERYTHING he owns to the family of the man he MURDERED.................Michelle, Everett
Michelle Hall | Jul 23, 2010 7:50 am | 13 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
Maybe you could at least do some homework before you spew crap again. Officer Meade didn't just walk up behind Mr. Meservey and shoot him 7 times. And I hardly call Mr. Meservey an innocent man. Mr. Meservey was very intoxicated, disobedient, beligerent at times, uncooperative. No I am not saying he needed to pay with his life but let's call it what it is. Shall we?
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 8:28 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
Troy Meade put himself behind Niles Meservey while he sat TRAPPED in his Corvette after being tasered and still twitching and pumped 7 bullets in his back like the little coward Trigger Troy is. Just in case you forgot, in this country you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Get it?? Niles Meservey was an INNOCENT man who was MURDERED by a coward cop who shot him in the back 7 times. So, in closing, im calling it exactly what it is...1st degree premeditated MURDER at the hands of a coward with a badge and a gun. Stop enabling and making excuses for criminal cops...................Michelle, Everett
Michelle Hall | Jul 23, 2010 8:56 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
If that's how you want to see it... in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. And, um, if I recall correctly Officer Meade was found NOT GUILTY of murder by a jury OUR peers! Get it? And Mr. Meservey was ordered out of his car several times before he was tasered. Trapped? Hardly. But if you can prove that I'm sure there are some attorneys and law enforcement officials would like to speak with you directly.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 9:22 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
Michelle,
I love you !!!
Let's run to Vegas and make it legal!
Lawrence | Jul 23, 2010 9:27 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
And again Michelle, please educate yourself better before you embarass yourself. "premeditated" would mean that Officer Meade PLANNED to kill Mr. Meservey that day. Since he hadn't known Mr. Meservey until he came upon him, drunk behind the wheel of his car, I seriously doubt he had the forethought to plan his murder.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 9:27 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
That's right!!! PREMEDITATED 1ST DEGREE MURDER. You see, when Trigger Troy Meade told his fellow cop that "It's time to end this" that constitutes PREMEDITATION. He INTENDED to MURDER Niles Meservey. Get it?? I kinda doubt it........................Michelle, Everett
Michelle Hall | Jul 23, 2010 9:44 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
You're actually kind of amusing Michelle. Thanks for entertaining me this morning. Yes I get it. I get that you think the laws work the way YOU want them to when YOU want them to. He was acquitted. Get over it. And premeditated goes far beyond him saying that just minutes prior to shooting an uncooperative drunk. Learn the law before you acuse people of breaking it. Please? And maybe have some coffee before your head exploads with all this angry typing you're doing.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 9:49 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
MS D, as you recall, O.J. Simpson was also found to be innocent by a jury of his peers. Point is: even jury's can make mistakes. Also, like the O.J. MURDER: "In a separate civil decision, under different court rules, jurors determined that the shooting was not self-defense." Enough said.
matt mybuisness | Jul 23, 2010 10:12 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
Yes Matt, jury's can make mistakes. So can police officers. That hardly qualifies either as murderers. What I am saying is that Mr. Meservey was not blameless for the events that night and Officer Meade didn't "plan" to kill him. That's a requirement for premeditation. And yes, under different court rules, Officer Meade may have to pay Mr. Meservey's family. But that still doesn't make him a murderer. I believe, but am not positive on this, that it would be called "wrongful death".
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 10:33 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
Michelle:

Since the issue of Meade's criminal culpability has pretty well been resolved, why are you belaboring that issue. Seems that you want to kick a dead dog. Not trying to be facetious or condescending. Just trying to understand the point you're attempting to make.
Tom P | Jul 23, 2010 10:45 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
I agree 100% with Michelle. I wish I could agree more. As a taxpayer in the city of Everett I am completely disgusted - still - at the outcome of this case. I very strongly beleive that this coward got away with murder just because he was a cop.

Ms. D:

GET A LIFE. Seriously. You've posted several times to this story today, plus I saw you posting on another story. Don't you have a job? Oh yeah, and quit being so judgemental of other peoples opinions of this case... yes the jury found him not-guilty. That doesn't change the fact that there is a very large section of the population in Everett that thinks otherwise. Maybe no-guilty in court, but very guilty in the eyes of the public. Nothing you can post on this message board is going to change that.
J B | Jul 23, 2010 11:43 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
JB:

LOL! You're just as amusing as your buddy Michelle is. Anyway, I have thicker skin than that. First you tell me to "quit being so judgemental of other peoples opinions of this case" and then you proceed to judge me and my opinion. And then you expect me to change my mind? Not a chance. Nothing you can post on this message board is going to change that.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 11:47 am | Request removal

Re: Crime PAYS!!!!!
Ms. D:

I don't want to change your mind, that wasn't my goal at all. You obviously feel very strongly about your possition and I realise that stubborn people aren't worth the effort on something like this. I'm sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way. It seems to me that you are refusing to accept that there is another side to this controversial story. I give up, I am not the one to show you the light. Darn.

I think you are wasting away a beautiful day doing nothing but sitting in front of your computer fighting a cyber-battle of opinions that can't be won by either side... opinions are opinions and therefore they are not right or wrong. Argueing over opinions is pointless. Get outside, it's a wonderfully sunny day and we all deserve to relax a bit, don't you think?

OK, that's my last break and I won't be coming back to this site again today. You obviously have much more free time that those of us who work.
J B | Jul 23, 2010 1:12 pm | Request removal

(No heading)
Must be nice
Denise None | Jul 23, 2010 12:55 pm | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Why we are keeping a murderer on the payroll
Meanwhile Everett officials won't say when, or if, Meade will return to the force or why a decision hasn't been made.

Meade has been on leave and collecting a paycheck since June 2009 when he fatally shot Niles Meservey.

Meade is still collecting a paycheck because his buddies in blue, the Everett Police Officers' Association, continue to back this COLD BLODDED MURDERER and the City of Everett hasn't got the balls to stand up to them.

So the taxpayers continue to pay. And pay. And pay.
W B | Jul 23, 2010 12:50 pm | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

a coward
leech some more tax dollars you cowardly pig
GOLD BAR MTN.FOLK | Jul 23, 2010 12:36 pm | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Desk Job
Seems to me there is always positions behind a desk or a city worker job that can be filled until they come to a conclusion with his case. At least taht way they would get work for the money they are giving him.
Gary Beane | Jul 23, 2010 9:35 am | 7 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Agree!
I absolutely agree! I also think 1 thing people aren't realizing is that it's not $ 75K in wages alone. I would imagine that covers the taxes, health insurance, L & I, union dues, etc. that are paid out by an employer with a regular paycheck. For example, if your employer pays you $ 45,000 per year you need to realize they're likely paying another $ 10,000 to $ 20,000 per year just to employ you.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 9:40 am | Request removal

Re: Desk Job
Gary:

Understand what you mean, but the department's command staff felt compelled to put him on admin leave, so he's not able to work at all within the PD.

Can't just put him in any city position, as there are civil service laws that prevent it, and forcing him to work in a position outside of being an officer would be tantamount to slavery.
Tom P | Jul 23, 2010 10:52 am | Request removal

Re: Desk Job
I see what you're saying about not having him work outside his realm of expertise however it would seems as though there are desk positions within the police force they could put him in while the investigation gets underway.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 11:00 am | Request removal

Re: Desk Job
MS D:

Sure, there are several options, to include returning him to full duty. For reasons that they feel they can support, the command staff felt it was in the city's best interest to put him on admin leave. Now that they've done so, he's entitled to sit and wait out the result of their internal investigation and defend against it.
Tom P | Jul 23, 2010 11:06 am | Request removal

Re: Desk Job
Tom P. I do understand the risk involved in returning him to full (normal) duty. And while I don't intend to second guess the departments decision, I am simply trying to understand why he is not being used in some fashion or other while he can't work "in the field".
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 11:09 am | Request removal

Re: Desk Job
MS D:

Frankly, the answer to that question is likely one that nobody outside of EPD command staff, Meade, city officials, and the city attorneys will ever know.

What we can assume is that the relevant city officials and attorneys weighed all options, and felt it was best for the city to put him on admin leave.

Anyone guessing why is doing nothing more than offering an unsupported best guess.
Tom P | Jul 23, 2010 11:18 am | Request removal

Re: Desk Job
Point taken Tom P. Thanks for helping me digest it.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 11:22 am | Request removal

Money
Although I relunctantly may agree the city should pay his legal fees. He should only get the court appointed defense lawyer. Anything above and beyond that is up to him to pay. Once again the ole saying "cant fight city hall" is true. They have all our money and will spend it all defending themselves.
This is gross misuse of our tax's and should be outlawed. Meade is a killer in my opinion and should be treated as one.
G DM | Jul 23, 2010 11:06 am | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

You've got to be kidding!
$75K/year for Trigger Troy? I didn't think cops made that kind of money, unless they are way high up in the ranks. And, he's not even working!

Your Everett tax dollars at work! Sheeeesh!

BuildingAirplanes | Jul 23, 2010 1:44 am | 4 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: You've got to be kidding!
Put him back to work and give him a medal for doing a good job and having to put up with this witchhunt.
Pete McGwire | Jul 23, 2010 9:31 am | Request removal

Re: You've got to be kidding!
Doing a good job??? Are you kidding me?? He MURDERED an INNOCENT man. Trigger Troy Meade should be sitting behind bars in Walla Walla!!!...............Michelle, Everett
Michelle Hall | Jul 23, 2010 9:40 am | Request removal

Re: You've got to be kidding!
Seems like Michelle only reads what she wants to read. Officer Meade was acquitted of murder in April. He was found NOT guilty of murder by a jury of OUR peers! It wasn't a jury of police officers. It was a jury of her (and my) neighbors and acquaintances.
MS D | Jul 23, 2010 9:45 am | Request removal

Re: You've got to be kidding!
Actually, that is the salary starting year 3 of employment for Everett.

http://www.everettwa.org/ViewJob.aspx?ID=68&JobID=534
Jolly Holly | Jul 23, 2010 10:46 am | Request removal

wayyyy over paid
now you know why they wanna fine you 500 bucks a day for parking in your driveway. please don't think for a minute that this guy isn't guilty , the city very cleverly charged him with a crime the jury couldn't convict him of instead of one they could. now they have tried him they can't try him again he's now safe. as for the 400 buck an hour lawyer , wow if he had a public defender from this town he woulda been convicted of the 911 attacks as part of a plea deal. PT Barnum said there was a sucker born every minute , and in Everett apparently there's 5 born every minute. when you start standing up to the system you don't like and start making real efforts to change it , then just maybe things will change. next time the police come up to vote on thier budget levy just vote no for starters. they will try and trick you like they allway's do and tie it in with the fire fighters but don't fall for it. vote no to police budgets. attend city meetings. and most of all... RE ELECT NO ONE EVER! the politicians we have had so far didn't do anything for you , so don't do them any favors.... fire them! a suggestion here would be to have a trial over whether he violated that poor stanwood mans civil rights like they do in california , let's see them win that.
bret colvin | Jul 23, 2010 10:43 am | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

(No heading)
$75,000 and a year's vacation? Jeeze"�. they could have at least had him filing paper work around the office or whatever.
walter Lasher | Jul 23, 2010 7:05 am | 1 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Re: (No heading)
Pushing a broom and scrubbing toilets would be better.
Puttfor Dough | Jul 23, 2010 9:10 am | Request removal

B.S. in the 1st. degree!
I, as a tax paying citizen of Everett, do not feel responsible for paying $475,000+ for this back-shooting joker. Why is this fool STILL being paid? I don't care that he was found to be "innocent", fact remains that I cannot feel safe with someone like Murdering Meade patrolling my city. And for those of you who will undoubtedly slam my post, feel free, as I have only posted my opinion, and really don't care about yours.
matt mybuisness | Jul 23, 2010 8:48 am | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

(No heading)
For everyone whining about the money, where were you when the county gave former PDS director Craig Ladiser a 2 month, $24,000 paid vacation (paid administrative leave) when he did something definitely illegal, and admitted to it?
watchk9 | Jul 23, 2010 8:18 am | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Smells very fishy
Why is an internal investigation even needed? An impartial and objective jury heard days of testimony and concluded that while the shooting wasn't criminal, it also wasn't self defense. And if it wasn't self defense, then there shouldn't be any question that this guy shouldn't be an officer any longer.

Clear to me that the city is simply going to keep paying off the officer so that he gives favorable testimony during the civil trial. Then they will either reward him by giving him his job back, or wash their hands of him if he hasn't done such a good job for them in court.

What doesn't seem to matter in all of this is what is right and what is wrong. All about the $$, not the people that the city is supposed to serve. So our tax dollars will continue to pay for the officer's hush money (oh, sorry, wages) to buy his cooperation. Unbelievable to see this kind of manipulation in our little town.

Can't we call the FBI in and have them investigate? Isn't that the resource for citizens when their local police fail them?
G Davis | Jul 23, 2010 7:21 am | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

Wow.
...that hard to believe, that's more then $6000 and month. guess i should of been a cop..
WeeWah Walkker | Jul 23, 2010 7:01 am | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

(No heading)
my god. first he gets away with killing a innocent drunk man now he gets paid for it.. man, what is this world coming to???
george jungle | Jul 23, 2010 4:49 am | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply