Local News

<< Previous   of   Next >> Courtesy of the Luvera Law Firm  (click to enlarge) Seven bullet holes mark the back of Niles Meservey's driver's seat. The holes have been circled to make them more visible. Elizabeth Armstrong / The Herald  (click to enlarge) Standing beside the victim’s car, members of the Snohomish County Multi-Agency Response Team investigate the shooting of Niles Meservey.   ADVERTISEMENT   ADDITIONAL ITEMS • Shooting ruling ( PDF) • Manslaughter charge ( PDF) • Lead detective case summary for Meservey investigation (Explicit language) ( PDF)   Related Stories • Officers rarely face criminal charges 10/27/09 • Snohomish County Multi-Agency Response Team investigations 10/27/09   CONTACT THE HERALD Robert Frank, City Editor frank@heraldnet.com   Published: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 Snohomish County police officer charged in killing By Jackson Holtz and Diana Hefley Herald Writers EVERETT — The officer had enough arguing with the drunken man behind the wheel of a white Corvette. “Time to end this; enough is enough,” Everett police officer Troy Meade allegedly said before firing eight shots through the car's rear window. Meade, 41, was charged Monday in Snohomish County Superior Court with first-degree manslaughter in the death of Niles L. Meservey. It marks the first time that a Snohomish County police officer has faced criminal prosecution in connection with a shooting in the line of duty. Snohomish County prosecutors allege that Meade acted recklessly when he fired his weapon at Meservey, 51, of Stanwood. Another officer, who was an eyewitness to the encounter, told investigators he never would have shot. Meade first used an electric stun gun to try to stop Meservey from driving away from a police stop, the officer said. When the Taser didn't convince Meservey to cooperate, Meade allegedly drew a handgun and shot Meservey repeatedly. Investigators believe that Meade was not directly in danger of being run down by Meservey's vehicle. They determined he was standing about a car-length behind and to the left of the Corvette when he fired, according to court papers. The officer who witnessed the events told investigators that he didn't believe that there was any “immediate or imminent threat” to Meade, himself or any civilians, prosecutors wrote. After the shooting, Meade said he believed officers' lives were threatened, according to a 900-page investigative report, which also was released Monday. Detectives tried repeatedly to interview Meade, an 11-year veteran. Despite negotiations, he provided no statement to investigators. Meade is represented by a seasoned defense attorney, David Allen of Seattle. Allen said he expects Meade will contest the manslaughter allegations and win acquittal at trial. “Officer Meade is a dedicated professional and we believe the facts as presented in court will be much different than alleged,” Allen said. Prosecutors said in court papers they have no objection to Meade remaining free on his personal recognizance. They don't consider him a flight risk. Meade does not have access to firearms and is on administrative leave from his police job. After reviewing an investigation by a special task force, Snohomish County deputy prosecutor Mark Roe found that the officer's use of deadly force was not permitted under the law. Roe described his findings in a letter sent Monday to the lead detectives in the case. The investigation was handled by Washington State Patrol detective Jeff Rhue and Snohomish County sheriff's detective Scott Wells. “I have visited the scene with Detective Rhue, spoken with witnesses, and discussed the case with each of you, as well as with experienced prosecutors, and with other members of the SMART team. The conclusion reached by each of us, individually and collectively, is that the fatal shooting of Mr. Meservey on June 10, 2009 does not appear to have been justified under the law,” Roe wrote. Detectives interviewed patrons at the restaurant as well as the other officer who witnessed the shooting. Witness accounts of the events vary. Meservey reportedly was drunk that night. An autopsy would later reveal that he had a blood-alcohol level of .26, or more than three times the legal limit to drive. Someone at the restaurant first called police about 10:45 p.m. to report that another patron was intoxicated and was about ready to drive away. Everett officers arrived at the restaurant and found Meservey's Corvette but couldn't find him. The officers left about 15 minutes later. Police were called again, just after 11:30 p.m. The man had returned to the restaurant and was about to leave. Meade arrived at the restaurant about 11:39 p.m. and found Meservey sitting in his car, in the driver's seat, according to charging papers. The Corvette was parked between two other vehicles behind the restaurant. Meade blocked Meservey in, parking his patrol car perpendicular to the Corvette about 15 feet away, prosecutors wrote. Another officer arrived about four minutes later. He saw Meade standing next to the driver's door of the Corvette, talking with Meservey. Meade signaled to the officer that everything was OK, and the other officer began to drive away. Meade then radioed for the officer to return to help. The officer parked his patrol car and walked back. He saw Meade standing next to the driver's door and talking to Meservey through an open window. The car's engine was not running, the officer reported. He heard Meade attempting to convince Meservey not to drive away. Meade then ordered the driver to get out of the car, prosecutors wrote. The officer told investigators he couldn't hear what Meservey was saying but it sounded like Meservey was speaking in a belligerent tone and refusing to comply with Meade's commands. The officer sensed the situation was escalating. The officer drew his electric stun gun and baton. He noticed that Meade had drawn his stun gun, too. Witnesses said Meade fired his Taser through the open driver's window. The probes struck Meservey in the left shoulder, court documents said. The other officer could see Meservey stiffen from the shock. Investigators later determined that Meade's Taser had been used for six seconds, followed almost immediately by a five-second application. Meservey appeared to quickly recover and asked Meade why he had given him an electric shock. Meservey then started the Corvette's engine, according to prosecutors. The officer yelled to Meade that he was going to move Meade's patrol car to better block in the Corvette. He told investigators he planned to park the patrol car bumper-to-bumper with the Corvette to minimize collision damage. The officer said as he ran around the front of Meade's patrol car he saw the Corvette lurch forward over a concrete curb. It struck a low chain-link fence. After it hit the fence, the car appeared to be slightly moving, as if Meservey was trying to continue to drive or was revving the engine. A woman told investigators she had been knocked to the ground by the fence but she was not injured, according to the police reports. The officer said he saw Meade draw his pistol and fire several shots through the Corvette's rear window, advancing one or two steps as he did, prosecutors wrote. The officer said he heard Meade say, “Time to end this,” before he began shooting. Meade broadcast over the police radio that shots had been fired and the suspect was down and called for aid. The first police sergeant to arrive told investigators Meade was standing in the parking lot, his hands behind his head. He reportedly said, “I'm out of it. I want my Garrity.” That is an apparent reference to the right of law enforcement officers to cooperate with a police investigation under orders while still protecting their Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. Meservey was still in the car, slumped over toward the passenger seat. The other officer and the police sergeant removed Meservey from the car and attempted to revive him, assisted by the woman who said she'd been knocked over by the fence. She told detectives she is a registered nurse. The Taser probes still were embedded in Meservey's shoulder, according to court papers. Paramedics determined that Meservey was dead. Detectives found eight spent bullet casings on the ground near the Corvette. The rear window of the Corvette was shattered. The front tires were just over the curb at the head of the parking stall, and the front bumper was up against a chain-link fence. The car wasn't in gear, but the engine was still running. Meservey died of gunshot wounds to his torso. He'd been struck by seven rounds — four to the upper back, one to his right shoulder, one to his mid-back and one to his right wrist. Seattle-based trial attorney Paul Luvera in September filed a $15 million claim against the city of Everett on behalf of Meservey's family. He alleges the killing was reckless and unjustified and that police were grossly negligent. “We are pleased the prosecuting attorney reached a conclusion that we believed was abundantly obvious: that it is excessive use of force to shoot a man seven times in the back when he's sitting in an idling car,” Luvera said. Luvera also said the decision was too long in coming, and that too little information was released in the intervening months. A special task force of homicide detectives, the Snohomish Multi-Agency Response Team, or SMART, led the investigation into the shooting. It sent the results to Roe on Aug. 31. This is the second time SMART detectives have examined gunfire involving Meade. In August 2006, Meade opened fire after watching another officer get knocked through the air by a suspect who was trying to drive away from a police stop. Meade and another officer approached the suspect as he sat in his car outside apartments in north Everett. They repeatedly asked him to turn off his engine. Instead, he hit the gas, striking the officer who was with Meade. Another officer arrived just then, and the suspect appeared readying to ram her patrol car. She and Meade shot at the suspect, who was later arrested for first-degree assault. Roe found the 2006 gunfire justified. Meade has no history of disciplinary actions, Everett city spokeswoman Kate Reardon said. Meservey's daughter, Tanda Louden, welcomed word of the manslaughter charge. “While my family takes some measure of comfort in knowing this man will be held accountable for his actions, nothing the city can do will bring my father back to me and my family,” she said Monday. Jackson Holtz: 425-339-3437, jholtz@heraldnet.com. READER COMMENTS Log in or register to post new comment | Log out Put yourself there Lots of armchair quarterbacking and rock throwing but what would you have done? Let's say your wife or kid just got knocked down by a drunk trying to drop through that fence. If you do nothing you may be identifying your loved one at the morgue tomorrow. Your non-fatal "taser" failed to stop the drunk twice. You have an instant to decide to shoot the driver or allow him to possibly drive over the fence possibly killing one and possibly more when the high performance car finally comes to a rest somewhere. Shooting the tires isn't going to cut it. You have one chance. Too late, your loved one is dead. You idiot. We give you one job and all that training and you stand there and let an innocent be killed right in front of you. I know which guilt I can live with. I wasn't there and I want no part of a police force without strict rules of engagement but seriously, would you rather let the innocent be killed or kill the lethally dangerous law breaker? Dave Oster | Oct 28, 2009 2:39 pm | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Use your brains, not emotions Has anyone posting these replies actually given any honest, intellectual thought to this issue? First off, police officers do have the authority to take a person's life when necessary to prevent an immediate threat of serious physical harm to themselves or others. In this case, the officer apparently thought the woman who was knocked over by the collision of the driver's vehicle and the fence was in danger of being run over. An individual who is intoxicated to a point 3 times the legal limit, showing no regard for the safety of others by attempting to drive while intoxicated, disobeying reasonable requests from police officers, and attempting to flee from police officers is obviously unpredictable and dangerous. The officer was forced by the driver's actions to make an instantaneous decision as to how to prevent the driver from destroying additional property, further injuring the woman, possibly killing the woman with his vehicle, or fleeing the scene and injuring or killing some other innocent person. We can all second guess the officer's decision to use deadly force to stop this threat, but we also must be fair and honest in doing so. Has anyone complaining about the officer's decision considered how they would have felt if the officer had allowed to driver to continue and he abruptly accelerated his vehicle right over the body of the woman struck by the fence? What if the driver simply accelerated around the woman and struck an unaware family walking through the parking lot? There would surely be a lawsuit filed against the officer for allowing that to happen. Some posts mentioned that it was not right for the officer to shoot the driver in the back. Would it have been acceptable if the officer shot from the front? Either way, the officer is attempting to stop the driver from using deadly force (a moving vehicle) against the woman and any others who may have been present in the area. Please attempt to avoid being so simple minded that you can only see the situation as an officer shooting an unarmed man who happened to be intoxicated. The reality is that a man made a conscious decision to consume irresponsible amounts of alcohol, ignored the safety of the public by attempting to drive while intoxicated (an action that kills tens of thousands every year), failed to comply with police officers who made several verbal and physical attempts to control him, and then demonstrated he had no concern for property or life when he attempted to flee the area and used his vehicle to push a fence over onto an innocent, uninvolved person. The officer, at the request of a concerned citizen who first called to have the man stopped from driving while intoxicated, responded to the location to help protect the public. Then, after the officer attempted to end the situation peacefully by blocking the driver in, asking him to stop and using non-lethal force to detain him, the driver made reckless and violent criminal actions that forced the officer to make a split-second decision to prevent him from continuing to harm others. There can certainly be arguments that the officer could have solved the situation by other means (although none other than the nonsense idea of shooting the tires have been offered in this forum), but it is not fair or honest to say the officer was a trigger-happy cop who simply wanted to kill someone who wouldn't listen to him. Maybe all the critics can gain some perspective by looking at the totality of the circumstances. The driver, not the officer, initiated every action that took place. Furthermore, one instance of questionable judgment in a profession that requires instant life-and-death decisions on a daily basis is not enough to bad mouth police officers in general. If they are such bad guys, then why are they the first ones you call and expect to come to your rescue whenever you are in trouble? larry roberts | Oct 27, 2009 5:00 pm | 3 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Meade should be charged with MURDER! The other cop MANSLAUGHTER! They are going as easy as possible on this officer and it just shows to no end! And not charging the second officer (ACCOMPLICE) is a slap in the face to laws and intelligent thinking people everywhere, he is just as guilty as if he pulled the trigger himself! You watch what happens, Meade will be collecting his pay while he sits on VACATION and will just get a slap on the wrist if found guilty at all then he will get an early retirement or some B.S. like that, you just watch... Because of PUBLIC OUTCRY is the ONLY reason charges have been made! That is why they stretch these investigations out for months and months to gauge public involvement, you can BET if there was none this cop would already be back at work... All those so many shots IN THE MANS BACK and its ONLY MANSLAUGHTER??? And not charging his ACCOMPLICE!!!! Come on, thats an insult to intelligence and the prosecutor should be impeached!!! DiGGer Don | Oct 28, 2009 7:04 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal and the other cop Any officer at the scene of crime is guilty by association. PERIOD. He was there screaming at this man too, he was involved as other officer. Now he allowed this man to kill someone. He should be charged as well. He stated he did not believe there was a threat. He willfully and knowingly allowed this man to be shot and killed and he believed this was not neccesary. There you have it, admission of guilt. Do your jobs.. Craig French | Oct 28, 2009 1:33 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal (No heading) I'm thinking he shouldn't have put himself in this position to begin with. FIFTEEN MILLION are you serious? Is that how much money he would have provided his family the rest of his life? That's a little excessive, really. Jack E | Oct 27, 2009 1:13 am | 9 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Luvera Law Firm When Luvera gets done, Snohomish County will be bankrupt....this guy is the best there is and has a history of very very large settlements ! Aside from that, this cop murdered Mr Meservey Thats a no brainer... Luke Crawford | Oct 27, 2009 5:48 pm | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal RE: Point Blank Did you even read the article before you started running your mouth? If he was point blank, as you call it, the group would likely be much tighter than what is seen in the photo. I will agree with you that the group does indicate he was likely standing close to the vehicle, but that only indicates an immediate threat to the officer and more justification for firing. Furthermore, he fired after the driver accelerated the vehicle into the fence, causing the fence to strike an innocent woman. It is reasonable to assume there was immediate threat to the woman as well. The vehicle's engine was running and it is unrealistic to say the officer should have known the trasmission was in park and the driver would not suddenly place it in drive and then accelerate yet again into the officer, the woman, or someone else present in the area. The officer did attempt to block the driver's vehicle with the police vehicle, but the driver was able to drive accelerate around the police vehicle, so there was a possible threat posed by the moving vehicle of the drunk driver. Also, there was only one other officer present and he was attempting to move the police vehicle into a better position to block the driver's vehicle at the time of the shooting. You call the officer's actions "Dirty Harry Antics" but you offer no actual example of what you mean by that. Sounds more like you are just talking before thinking, which offers nothing of value to the discussion and actaully serves as a distraction. Good job. larry roberts | Oct 27, 2009 5:23 pm | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Point blank Looking at the tightness of the cluster in the back of the driver seat, I'm going to guess that this was near point blank AND the car was not moving. Seven strikes all in about 18" X 18" results from being at close range. I thought the story reads that the officer parked his cruiser to block the drunk guy's car. What was the immediate threat? If there were other police on scene at the time of the shooting, why the Dirty Harry antics? Bad one... D. M. | Oct 27, 2009 4:31 pm | 3 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal SHOT IN THE BACK [b]The Everett police shot this man in the BACK WHAT HAPPENED TO SHOOTIN OUT THE TIRES???? Shoot him in the Back instead of the Tires. OH BRAVE AND NOBLE OFFICER!!! ROT IN JAIL BOY Johhnny Rotten | Oct 27, 2009 2:09 pm | 1 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Brook Harrison What 90% are you from, Meade Clan? You support this? moron Craig French | Oct 27, 2009 4:44 pm | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal What are they hiding behind that hatred? When I looked at most of the comments after this article, I had to wonder? Are they coming from the new internet stations at the prison or from comment cards handed out at an AA meeting? 90% of the law abiding citizens in this city are supportive of law enforcement and are sadened even when a DUI loses his life. We all feel bad for his family. What does it say about our society when this fringe group shouts loudly with their hatered for the law and law enforcement. I guess I don't understand when this minority group throws salt in the wounds of all involved. They either have their own issues or have something to hide. I think the silent majority understands that this was a tragedy and knows that at the end of the day, our system will expose all the facts doing justice to all involved. Remember A - Students always have a favorite teacher but the D - Students will sue the Teachers because they must of "Teached" them wrong!! Brook Harrison | Oct 27, 2009 3:34 pm | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal control freaks have no patience... isn't that what this is really all about? ---the cop who couldn't control the control freak drunk? ---the prosecutor who is trying to control the control freak cop? There is only one hero here... & that is the prosecutor. cme everett | Oct 27, 2009 2:52 am | 1 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal (No heading) Cops are proteced, they are above the law just like the Nazi SS they try to emulate. Want to bet they will get a change of venue for this murderers trial (west podunk somewhere)they will get him off on some technicality, he will hide somewhere and emerge as a killer cop somewhere on the other side of the country. His picture should be put on the front page of every neswcast so people can see what a p.o.s. looks like. I feel sorry for his children if he was man enough to have them...being the spawn of something as despicable as this murdering coward would be a hard thing to live with. Rich Kruml | Oct 27, 2009 1:44 pm | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Manslaughter? Hmm, ok 3 men go into a grocery store to rob the place. One man shoots and kills store owner. I am wonder in this senerio if the the Everett Police and City of Everett are hereby saying that the 2 people who were with the man who shot and killed the store owner can only be charged with robbing the store?... And not murder or manslaughter? Because this looks like that is what is going on with only one police officer being charged in criminal debauchery scene. Correct me if I am wrong, but there was more than one officer at the scene, so wouldn't be more than one officer involved in this killing? I mean, none of them stood up and said what happened or how appauled they were at what happened. Were they just protecting their own? Based on this example here, does this mean criminals who were charged as a group when only one guy shot the store owner should now be released because they were "only at the scene of a killing" and not the one who actually shot the gun? I was raised thinking that if three people went in, one guy shot the store owner, they were all charged for the crime. The only one who gets a lighter sentence is the one who speaks up and turns the others in. No one spoke up here, at this shooting, for this crime, this killing. Shouldn't this case, this criminal senerio of a man being shot by a group of men, no matter who the culprits were, or who actually perpetuated this crime all be charged? Are police being given special treatment by offering up a "fall guy" for the rest of the department? Doesn't seem to me that it's either serving or protecting the citizens as they have sworn to do. Well, you get the just of what I am saying. So by charging this one police officer are you setting a precident for criminals in the future to get out of murder and manslaughter if there just "with the killer"..is this what Everett is telling America? What ever happened to the Everett that not so many years ago rated as a great city in our nation to raise a family? I for one have to seriously question the Police Department and City of Everett. Just exactly what do they stand for? Is this City a place I want to continue to raise my family in? lol Do you care what the people of Everett think? Do you care what other Americas think? You should! Way to go Everett! you morons... Craig French | Oct 27, 2009 12:15 pm | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal this cop is a sociopath Manslaughter is an easy way out for this guy...it's outright murder - let's see 7 bullet holes in a guy sitting in a car obstructed by a fence on one end and a cop car on the other, I think he'd have trouble getting onto the road don't you? No, this was a blatant abuse of power in a short-fused cop, not his first time I'm sure. Of course the officer is sitting home on paid admin leave, waiting for his lifetime benefits package to kick in. Unbelievable. He should be hung out to dry. Marilyn Hofmann-Jones | Oct 27, 2009 11:27 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Not the best pattern Hmmm, he went a little to the left and low and to the right. It's the tight pattern that counts though. Bobby G | Oct 27, 2009 11:24 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal (No heading) Ok, here is the other side. This police officer steps back and lets the guy drive off. And the city gets sued for allowing a drunk man to kill someone on the road. It seems everybody wants to be a Monday morning QB and have it both ways. Randy Moser | Oct 27, 2009 10:24 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Shwartzanagger Schwartz why don't you convince the City of Everett to hire some police officers that don't like to kill unarmed people. Since you are so worried about the City of Everett's finances why don't you donate your money to the City? If you have to consideer the fact that Police shootings of unarmed people raise taxes why don't you volunteer to police the streets? Or how bout shutting the the hell up.I like that better... you live with your own advice... Johhnny Rotten | Oct 27, 2009 9:45 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal (No heading) D-Up, you have made some strong accusations: "the required police protocol to lie and cover for all badge wearers..... He will be shunned and ridiculed for doing what's right by most other members of the law." I am assuming you have proof of these statements. If so, please provide it. There is a saying, "empty vessels make the most noise". John Schwartz | Oct 27, 2009 8:08 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal (No heading) D-Up, you have made some strong accusations: "the required police protocol to lie and cover for all badge wearers..... He will be shunned and ridiculed for doing what's right by most other members of the law." I am assuming you have proof of these statements. If so, please provide it. There is a saying, "empty vessels make the most noise". John Schwartz | Oct 27, 2009 8:06 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Law Suit From what the Herald is reporting, a tragedy occurred and an Everett officer is being charged with manslaugter. Also, there also appears to be a law suit in the making and there was a comment that the City should be sued for a whole lot more. We have to consider, the "City" or "Government" isn't some kind of machine with a limitless source of money. These entities are made up with imperfect human beings and the revenue comes from all of us. So, when we talk about a suit for millions of millions of dollars, we should be aware we will be paying that bill. If the city goes bankrupt because of a law suit, remember in order keep the services the city provides, taxes will have to be increased. So, we should keep our mouths shut if this occurs. There is a delicate balance between holding paid, government employees accountable and keeping us from being excessively taxed. Oh yes, the suit might be covered under a liability insurance policy -- if the city isn't self insured (which it might be). So, if the plaintiffs win, the insurance company pays the damage. Then, the insurance company either cancels the city's policy or raises the premiums. Either way, we the people of Everett lose. John Schwartz | Oct 27, 2009 7:48 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal its about time!! I'm completely shocked that a trigger happy police officer is being tried for manslaughter for shooting someone in the back. Amazing! I hope this isn't a late april fools joke! Justice for the po-lice? This is rare. When you get to investigate yourself after altercations the rarity is a given. Major kudos to the viewing officer, clearly an honest man, who went against the required police protocol to lie and cover for all badge wearers..... under every circumstance! I feel for the officer who saw this murder and reported it honestly. He will be shunned and ridiculed for doing what's right by most other members of the law. I too feel for the family and friends of the man murdered by this lunatic cop. Of course drinking and driving is insane but it's even more insane that this nut job walks around with a government issued gun. No More! D-Up | Oct 27, 2009 3:11 am | 1 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Shooting Trigger happy police in the area are the reason I moved out of the city of everett. I know this happened farther south, but it's about time someone started letting the police know that they are not gods with the power of life and death over the citizens. Marvin Miller | Oct 27, 2009 5:30 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal sue for more!! I think they should sue for 500 million, then maybe we'd start to see some changes in the trigger happy sno-co police department! When did sitting around listening to a police scanner make someone an expert? You should leave your house sometime. I drive by a police station every day so i guess i'm an expert too. D-Up | Oct 27, 2009 3:17 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal Police have a thankless job Easy to sit there and say what should have been done or what could have been done. This isn't football where you can plan your moves in the locker room before the game. This is a situation where you have to make a decision in a few seconds notice, if that. No ones knows what or how they would handle it unless they were actually in that position. I'm not related to a police officer but I do listen to the police scanner, and I listened that night too. It was sad it ended the way it did....for all, but the guy did bring it on himself....ALL he had to do was comply. If he had he could have gone home to his family and the cop could go home to his too. Most people have NO idea what kind of CRAP these police officers put up with. Not just crap but people that are not only a danger to themselves but to others also. People on drugs, alcohol, etc. that could care less if they harm anyone in their way. Listen to the scanner sometime, say on a Friday or Sat. and see what kind of scum they have to deal with over and over, they do the best they can given the situation. Actually, I'm surprised that there aren't more people shot! I feel sorry for the family's of both sides.... and the officer that had to make the decision. h i | Oct 27, 2009 2:58 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal

1. Tulalip man, 20, charged with baby boy's murder 2. Donated safe gives Marysville museum a mystery 3. Fears over commercial air service at Paine Field dismissed 4. Everett officer charged with manslaughter reveals plan for defense 5. Merchants reject security for downtown Snohomish 6. Holmgren interested in returning to Seahawks 7. Friends open account for orphaned daughters of Highway 9 crash victims 8. Crack That Safe 9. Country singing contestant Chance McKinney amazed by his fans 10. Have M’s, Figgins reached a deal? 2 - Top 10 Stories Most Talked about 3 - Top 10 Stories Most Emailed

• Wildcats fall to familar foe in semis • ‘Nutcracker' times three • Road warrior • Mavericks reloading • Holiday Lightings & Santa Sightings • Cities prepare for winter blast repeat • Wolfpack duo takes last shot at state tourney • This Weekend in Your Town • Tips for the stormy season • Boeing will build, flight test and deliver 787s in South Carolina to spe ... • Snohomish County EDC promoting job growth in key industry clusters • $4 million grant to advance brain tumor research has Everett links • Providence medical center construction tops off its 12-story steel frame ... • Tulalip affordable housing project to be financed by KeyBank, Raymond Ja ... • Arlington's Lak of Ink has a growing following for Luke Kooyman's creati ... • Bank of the Northwest formed • Cascade Bank earns $1.6 million