This is one reason this column takes some issue with a position reported to have been taken by Deputy Prosecutor Matt Baldock. According to the Seattle Times, Baldock argued that Meade did not act in self-defense, “a finding that is to be based on objective evidence – not Meade’s perception of danger at the time of the shooting.”
Baldock encouraged jurors to find that Meade did not act in self-defense, a finding that is to be based on objective evidence — not Meade's perception of danger at the time of the shooting.—Seattle Times
Here is what the statute says: “…the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others.” Question to readers: What do you think that means? (Use the space below for an answer.) Again, this column is neither defending nor condemning Meade, merely putting readers in the position of jurors.
Likewise, a statement made by Meservey’s daughter, Tanda Louden, is something of an eyebrow-raiser, as it seems to question the foundation of our criminal justice system, that all suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. She understands how difficult it is for a jury to convict under these conditions. It is supposed to be difficult. Even if Meade is as big a rat as some people evidently think, that does not preclude his right to a fair trial, and an outcome that may leave some people furious.
I am sorry the jury was unable to convict Officer Meade of a crime, but I understand how difficult it is to obtain a conviction where there is a presumption of innocence and a burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt," Tanda Louden
While it is not likely a private citizen – as opposed to a civilian peace officer – would ever be involved in a case similar to Meade’s, it is within the realm of possibility that one day an armed citizen may find himself facing an unarmed attack, perhaps by someone physically larger and more powerful, or by multiple attackers who clearly intend to do him great harm. Based on the Meade verdict, and the state’s superb self-defense statute, if that citizen takes a life, there should either be no charges, or if charged, a jury should probably vote to acquit.
If this was self-defense – the jury will now decide that – then another unique statute in Washington will kick in. State law (RCW 9A.16.110) provides that in successful self-defense cases, “…the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense.”
No two cases are identical. Each case has its own set of facts and dynamics. Pray to all the gods in the heavens that you are never thrust into a situation where you have to find this out firsthand.
