After 20 months, a criminal investigation, a trial that yielded two verdicts and a settlement in a civil lawsuit, troubling questions still surround the fatal shooting by an Everett police officer of a drunken man as he sat behind the wheel of a parked car.
The more that’s learned about this
case, it seems, the less that’s fully known.
Questions now focus on why Everett Police Chief Jim Scharf decided to wait until the civil case ended to launch an internal investigation into the matter. Answers Scharf provided in a Feb. 10 deposition related to a civil suit filed by the dead man’s family yielded frustratingly little clarity.
Meanwhile, Officer Troy Meade, who was acquitted of second-degree murder charges by a jury that also found he wasn’t acting in self-defense when he shot Niles Meservey seven times from behind, remains on paid administrative leave, his status with the department still in limbo.
Scharf said he decided to go against usual practice and delay an internal investigation until after the criminal and civil processes had run their course because of the case’s “uniqueness.” He said waiting until all the fact finding was complete was only fair to Meade, the city and citizens. He refused to be more specific.
He was less vague on another point, but it only seemed to make things fuzzier: He said the possibility that an internal investigation’s findings could weaken the city’s position in the $15 million lawsuit filed by Meservey’s family was not behind his decision to delay the probe. (The city announced a $500,000 settlement with Meservey’s daughter on Feb. 16.)
While that clearly would be inadequate justification for a 20-month delay, at least it would contain a shred of logic. As it is, citizens are left grasping for answers about why Meade remains on leave, having been paid about $116,000 since having his badge and gun revoked. So are the dedicated, honorable men and women of the Everett Police Department.
Internal investigations are done in use-of-force cases to determine whether department policies were followed, and can provide grounds for termination. But they also can provide opportunities to learn and to improve policies — particularly if done in a timely way, when recollections are fresh.
Failing to conduct one as soon as reasonably possible not only could result in missed opportunities, it inevitably raises questions of transparency and accountability that undermine public trust.
Now that an internal investigation is finally under way, more closure is on the horizon for all involved in this sad and controversial case. But until forthright answers are given as to why it took so long, it won’t truly be closed.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
