Seems a very
one sided account, with an agenda to me. I'd need to read more before having a real opinion.
But a couple of things stand out; the writer thinks the policeman should have simply reached in the car and removed the keys. What and got a knife in throat? A bullet through the head? The guy had been boxed in, talked to for 5 mins and Tasered twice. Then STILL tried to drive away.
The police are not and should never be judge jury and executioners, but there is more to this story, I'd reckon.
( sundae_girl_2004 was a merchant of death, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 21:24, Reply)

i thought so too
but still...was there really any reason to shoot the guy so many times? Or even shoot him at all? What would British coppers do as they don't carry guns?
(Cpl. Nobby Nobbs, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 21:39, Reply)

I have no agenda myself on this
but I did notice a few things that were odd. The article says the officer fired 8 shots from six feet. But the victim was shot 6 times, in the back. So he missed twice, from six feet. i WAS under the impression they used 6 shot revolvers as standard, but I'm happy to be corrected.
And in the back? while the guy was sitting in a car? From 6 feet? I've played enough computer games to know that isn't the best action. head shot through open window, shirley?

As for the amount of times, that does make sense. after you decide to shoot someone, you don't do it once with low velocity bullets and then ask 'did i get you?'
( sundae_girl_2004 was a merchant of death, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 21:50, Reply)

i dont know why you think they use a 6 shooter...
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080519170356AAv2loZ
( Avast is the bastard lovechild of griffin and moir, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 22:49, Reply)

I thought they did for the very same reason
'real' criminals here in the UK do. You get to keep the cartridges. Often essensial in a court hearing. You don't want them being lost/found.
( sundae_girl_2004 was a merchant of death, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 22:55, Reply)

What would British coppers do as they don't carry guns?
Well not carrying guns means they have to have more dedication, so they'd have to kick him to death.
(PhosphorBurnedEyes old borstal tie, Wed 4 Nov 2009, 2:02, Reply)

fucking ridiculous assessment
If the guy had a remote detonator for a bomb, fair enough - kill him. But a drunk guy in a car who isn't going anywhere (has just crashed into a mesh fence) and still has tazer bits in him is not enough of a threat to shoot at.

I'm sorry, but murdering someone as a pre-emptive strike is not something I'm willing to endorse in police, whether in this or any other case
( thiswasmyclone, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 21:55, Reply)

Fair enough
but you would know about the bomb how? You would know about the shotgun on the passenger seat how? You'd know he was just drunk and not on crystal meth how?

I'm not defending the policeman; i just think this report is one sided.

Edit: also note not the cry for changing the system, the training, justice; but the 15 million dollar lawsuit.
( sundae_girl_2004 was a merchant of death, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 22:01, Reply)

From 6 feet behind the seat and a gun pointed at his back
I think it's fair to say you have to have some reasonable suspicion that your life is in danger before taking another's.
( thiswasmyclone, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 22:21, Reply)

I'm not disagreeing with you on that
i'm just pointing out that to be 6 feet behind someone in a corvette, you'd be in the boot. So i'd suggest that was incorrect reporting.
To fire 8 shots from a 6 shot gun would be incorrect reporting.
To suggest a fully trained officer would twice miss a static target from 6 feet is possible i suppose; but odd.
If the officer was to the side, to hit the victim in the back means he shot him through the door or the 'C' panel. This would be silly on a static target with his head and shoulders displayed through the window as the report suggests.
That's all. Just doesn't add up, logically.
( sundae_girl_2004 was a merchant of death, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 22:33, Reply)

they guy was drunk and prolly
fell to one side after being hit several times, hence the last shots would miss
( Avast is the bastard lovechild of griffin and moir, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 22:53, Reply)

You might well be right
although you can unload an automaic in what; 4 seconds? from 6 feet away? Even I wouldn't miss. Actually i probably would. I sometimes trip over and miss the ground.
( sundae_girl_2004 was a merchant of death, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 23:03, Reply)

it doesnt say a time
to read more:

www.kirotv.com/news/21438209/detail.html
heraldnet.com/article/20091029/NEWS01/710299907#Everett.police.witness.Officer.seemed.frustrated.before.shooting
heraldnet.com/article/20091027/NEWS01/710279887

"Officer Steven Klocker said Niles Meservey was drunk and “ornery” June 10, but didn't pose an immediate, lethal threat to officer Troy Meade or anyone else."

edit: this one has a pic of the seat at the side

heraldnet.com/article/20091027/NEWS01/710279887#Snohomish.County.police.officer.charged.in.killing.
( Avast is the bastard lovechild of griffin and moir, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 23:11, Reply)

I'm happy to shut up
But i will point out that one of the links says he was shot 7 times. All i want is accurate reporting. Or The Truth as it is known. Then we can all decide.
( sundae_girl_2004 was a merchant of death, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 23:30, Reply)

the JFK assassination is the most researched shooting in history
so how many shots were fired and how many shooters?

perfect accuracy in reporting is impossible
( Avast is the bastard lovechild of griffin and moir, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 23:39, Reply)

Don't get me started!
i must be the only person on the planet who thinks a troubled boy with a hunting rifle shot JFK with one bullet from a window as he drove by. I'm only backed by all the 'real' evidence there is! I'm so wacky.
( sundae_girl_2004 was a merchant of death, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 23:45, Reply)

lol
you, me, vince bugliosi and many many others. but the reports at the time had all manner of stuff in them, which is part of the reason for some of the conspiracy theories that abound. this is (i think) what i am getting at: there wil always be discrepancies in witness testimony and other reports on any event.
( Avast is the bastard lovechild of griffin and moir, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 23:52, Reply)

Are you suggesting
that reporting might sometimes be wrong? That events might be seen differently?
You are so wrong my friend. let's talk about Jeebus and the word of God.
( sundae_girl_2004 was a merchant of death, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 23:59, Reply)

tell ,me more of this jeebus of which you speak
i am too busy reading volume XXV! if the Warren Commission to keep up...
( Avast is the bastard lovechild of griffin and moir, Wed 4 Nov 2009, 0:01, Reply)

Jeebus
is right clever. OK he spoke a different language, and no one wrote it down at the time. But trust me. After you translate the anecdotes, make a few adjustments (Reed Sea was a swamp; anyone not in a chariot could cross that. Make it Red ED) it all makes sense.

Edit: this says it all.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPsY_nhTtxg
( sundae_girl_2004 was a merchant of death, Wed 4 Nov 2009, 0:08, Reply)

Like you both have pointed out, we're missing the other side of the story.
Short of the officer completely loosing it and shooting the guy for the hell of it, the article is completely missing why the officer decided to shoot.
Seems to me a likely scenario is that the driver had lurched forward in the car, into the fence, and would have been likely to be trying to reverse out (over the officer); which would explain why the article was at labor to point out the car "was boxed in".

Have news reports always had an agenda? The older i get, the less i seem to read of 'both' sides of a story. LeeRockwell.com obviously has a political stance, but we see it in almost every paper and TV news show. Are the facts so boring that they need to be presented with an opinion?

In the US policemen are 'allowed' lethal force if they believe their or anyone else's lives are threatened. In Australia, it's only when the officers life itself is threatened.
So handy tip for when you are in Oz, if your life is being threatened: hide behind a policeman.
( KittyWaste lives at Sleepingplanet.com, Tue 3 Nov 2009, 23:47, Reply)

nobody was threatened or in danger
"Officer Steven Klocker said Niles Meservey was drunk and “ornery” June 10, but didn't pose an immediate, lethal threat to officer Troy Meade or anyone else."

Klocker was there. he saw it all happen.
( Avast is the bastard lovechild of griffin and moir, Wed 4 Nov 2009, 0:03, Reply)

Perhaps he had a beef
:0)
The truth is out there, but filtered through many levels before it reaches us as news (I'm not suggesting that the officer was correct in his action or otherwise)

Since we put cameras in our highway patrol cars, arrests have not increased, but successful prosecutions have exponentially.

I would like to see all officers with little cameras on.
it's probably massively impractical but i think it's a good way of really seeing what happened. albeit in a grainy camera-phone style way.
( KittyWaste lives at Sleepingplanet.com, Wed 4 Nov 2009, 0:09, Reply)

True,
But he had already displayed a total disregard for the law. They gave him a verbal warning, tasered him and he still tried to drive off. Not say that it was right to do but if the guy did have a gun it was probably going to be used a few minutes after he realised there was no way out. You never know what a drunk is going to do.
( bobzarkoff bobobobobobobobob, Wed 4 Nov 2009, 0:43, Reply)

I completely agree
When the drunk started the car and drove forward the car became a potential lethal weapon. No matter how boxed in it was it would have been possible to spin the steering wheel and reverse at an angle. A Corvette slamming backwards with the accelerator pedal to the floor will take your legs off if you happen to be between it and another heavy object.
You're drunk in a Corvette, the cops are there telling you to get out, then tasering you. It's time to give it up.
In an alternate reality, if the drunk had driven off & knocked down and killed a B3tan, we'd all be wishing him a long painful death.
(Grindstaff, Wed 4 Nov 2009, 0:37, Reply)