By Sharyn L. Decker
Lewis County Sirens news reporter
CHEHALIS – Lewis County Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer has concluded a Centralia police officer’s fatal shooting of a 48-year-old man last month in the side yard of a house on Elm Street was justified.
Officer Phil Weismiller, 34, was placed on administrative leave after the Feb. 13 encounter in which Joseph R. Wharton died.
Elm Street side yard
In a letter released Friday by Meyer describing his legal analysis to the lead investigator in the case, Meyer outlines a scenario that began when another officer wanted to talk with Wharton who he saw walking toward the back of a closed coffee shop in the middle of the night and ended a few blocks away a few moments later with Weismiller firing eight shots.
Wharton had a knife in his hand, had just unsuccessfully attempted to scale a fence, they were 13 feet apart and Wharton turned on Weismiller in an aggressive manner, according to Meyer.
“Officer Weismiller was left with no choice, but to employ the use of deadly force,” Meyer wrote.
Thurston County Sheriff’s Office detective Cameron Simper was the lead investigator.
Prosecutor Meyer notes he is authorizing the return of Weismiller’s service weapon to him.
Weismiller has been returned to restricted duty, according to Centralia Police Department Chief Bob Berg.
An internal use of force review board will convene on Monday to ascertain if the officer’s actions were within departmental policy, according to Berg.
In a formal statement issued today, Berg said he appreciates the swift review from the prosecutor and that his department sends its condolences to Wharton’s family for their loss.
“It is unfortunate and sad for all involved that a life was lost,” Berg wrote. “All of us have family and friends and the taking of a life shatters all of that. Having said that, I am thankful for the service of my officers, knowing the potential danger they face each and every day.”
More to come.
•••
Meanwhile, read Lewis County Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer’s analysis here
For background, read “Police shooting: Former Oakville man died from multiple gunshots” from Friday February 14, 2014, here
Tags: By Sharyn L. Decker, news reporter
Statistics Hound
Did you know that the average IQ of an Addict is higher than the average IQ of the General Population. It just makes so much sense to senselessly spend BILLIONS on a prison system to lock em up, rather than spend millions trying to figure out how to fix them.
We face some pretty tough global issues now and in the future. It has to be the greatest idea in the history of all mankind, to lock up and demoralize it’s brightest citizens. Their offspring will probably be demoralized for a few generations to come.
We really know how to dumb it down don’t we.
GET RID OF THE EPHEDRA, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Statistics Hound
Did you know that more than 70% of people age 12 and older take prescription medications? Let me just grab this one out of thin air and say that 80% of adults aged 21 and over feel ill enough to take a prescribed medication. Do the majority of folks think it OK to kill sick people? If that is correct, wouldn’t that be the pinnacle of hypocracy?
Statistics Hound says:
The medical condition of Addiction is covered under the ADA. There is specific criteria as there is for all medical conditions covered.
The ADA (legislature) has acknowledged that addiction is a compensable disease as defined by the AMA (the doctors). Is there a difference between a medical condition and a disease? Which one is it? The insanity of addiction is a complex. issue. In my opinion, the inability of unaffected people to reasonably understand addiction is equally complex.
Tweekers have nearly robbed me blind. Methamphetime nearly took EVERYTHING from me. You need to understand that I know of no-one except Mr Wharton, who lost so much to the drug. It may not sound like it, but I really dislike Tweekers. I dislike what they do to other people.
I don’t care if they want to get high because that is their business. I care about the theft and all other issues that tweekers commit which infringes on others rights.
Does a person with Terrets syndrome get sent to jail for saying fuck in any place that it is illegal? Most folks would understand the profanity is a result of the disease. People understandably get pissed off when they get robbed. Addicts have to feed their habit, so they steal because they can’t maintain employment, much like they can’t maintain any form of a regular type life. There is a substantial difference in societies attitude towards these two people.
A co-worker told me a few years back that he felt addiction wasn’t a disease. He may also believe that mankind has not contributed to global warming.. Would any sane person throw away their normal life, to adopt a tweekers existence? It makes little difference if it is defined as a disease, mental illness, deficiency in moral character or anything else for that matter. Addiction is problematic to our society as a whole!
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. We have been using the criminal justice system as a treatment for addiction for a very, very long time. Does anyone think it has been a success? My opinion is that it has been a very expensive and dismal failure.
Treating a disease, by punishing the diseased, speaks VOLUMES to the humanity of American society.
GET RID OF THE EPHREDRA OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
RCW time
Have you ever read this?
Mr. Whartons individual rights to take a walk after dark, cannot be superceded by the communities group rights to identify a suspicious person. Any thoughts on the issue? Do you believe our Proseuting Attorney followed his REQUIRED DUTIES? My opinion is NO.
WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS:
SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
SECTION 12 SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROHIBITED. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.
ARTICLE IV THE JUDICIARY:
SECTION 9 REMOVAL OF JUDGES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC. Any judge of any court of record, the attorney general, or any prosecuting attorney may be removed from office by joint resolution of the legislature, in which three-fourths of the members elected to each house shall concur, for incompetency, corruption, malfeasance, or delinquency in office, or other sufficient cause stated in such resolution. But no removal shall be made unless the officer complained of shall have been served with a copy of the charges against him as the ground of removal, and shall have an opportunity of being heard in his defense. Such resolution shall be entered at length on the journal of both houses and on the question of removal the ayes and nays shall also be entered on the journal.
The medical condition of Addiction is covered under the ADA. There is specific criteria as there is for all medical conditions covered.
You could always file a complaint with the Bar if you think Jonathan has acted improperly. However, prosecutors have wide discretion on whether to file or not file charges. That is part of why they are elected.
I Left Says:
And what do you think Judge Brosey can do? He has no investigative power, nor is it appropriate for him to get involved.
I don’t agree with you on this issue. He may be required to launch an investigation. At the very minimum, he should report prosecutorial misconduct. Isn’t our Prosecutor required to seek justice? Where is the justice for Mr. Wharton? Judicial rules are on Washington Courts website.
Did you read in the news today, the story regarding DSHS $3 million settlement? There is an upcoming similar suit in which the petitioners are asking for $154 million (not certain, but its a staggering amount). Government passed legislation for the general welfare of the public, as required by our constitution, to protect children. This type of failing to protect lawsuit is likely the tip of a fairly large iceberg.
The person with the cancer gene (earlier post) has legal protections. The person with the addiction gene (earlier post) goes to prison. The American Medical Association defined addiction as a disease more than 50 years ago. Congress passed legislation for general public welfare, protecting people with diseases.
An addict can always quit using. If that were an easy thing to do, we wouldn’t have so many addicts. The addict has responsibility in his/her behavior, but the disease prevents that from occurring. For brevity’s sake, lets say the addict is 50% responsible for their actions and the disease is 50% responsible. Past actions by government, have created an as yet to be addressed paradox, regarding the above two genetic examples.
At some point in time, addicts will most likely, address the paradox in much the same way the children have. Government failed to protect citizens having a recognized disease.
An Example: The addict is incarcerated for a drug related crime. The addict has tried to quit so many times, but cant do it. The disease wins every time. They are physically, financially and emotionally BANKRUPT. The addict has rights and the addict has recourse in this instance. The addicts government failed to protect them by making the documented choice to leave ephedra on the market, even though the DEA wanted it removed. Remember quaaludes? Does this seem very different than the children/DSHS suit? It appears very similar to me.
Joe addict has been in prison for 10 years. He has been assaulted too many times in too many different ways and he has had it! His life is really fucked up and he TRIED AND TRIED to not let it get to that point. Joe reads the news about the DSHS suit, feels let down and gets angry. Joe doesn’t think his government adequately protected him. He thinks all diseases have some legal protections except for his disease. Joe files a lawsuit.
The court finds that Joe had 50% responsibility for his life actions and his disease did indeed account for the other 50%. The court also agrees with Joe in his assertion that he has a recognized disease for the purpose of legal protections. Furthermore, Joe asserts that the government has made it their responsibility to protect people with disease from discrimination, however they created a paradox in regards to the disease of addiction and the court again agrees.
Joes ask for and receives the following remedy. Joes accepts his 50% responsibility for his actions. Joe could reasonably be expected to make $50,000 per year while he is incarcerated. Joe wants $25,000 per year for each year he is incarcerated, and when he is released his record will be expunged.
And what happens if Joe asks for and receives punitive damages?
I think it is time to stop senseless killing and take an approach that may actually succeed. GET RID OF THE EPHEDRA!!! The world may even unite in an effort to accomplish this.
Sounds like the Good Ol’ Boyz “investigating” the Good Ol’ Boyz. No witnesses. Eight shots fired. Only weapon on the disceased was a pocket knife. Only “suspicious behavior” was walking at night.
I don’t give a flying rat’s behind what the situations the police are facing “every day”. I care about this situation. If paranoia is the only thing keeping our boys in blue alive and well, perhaps they need to travel in pairs and wear cameras for their own protection.
I’ve heard about at least one cop in Centralia using the locals as his own little anger management therapy – without remorse or reaction from his superiors. Given that, and the circumstances of this case — something stinks, and the only way to get the stink out it to be a LOT more transparent in their actions.
Wearable cameras – take up a donation at the local Safeway and I bet the citizens will have those paid for in a heart beat. Too late for Wharton, but maybe not for the next citizen who is out at night provoking the ire of the local police.
Keep in mind this entire incident occurred because the centralia police were once again confronting somebody for the mistake of walking past dark in centralia. Enough is enough.
RCW time.
Have you read this one yet? I don’t see anything in here which allows law enforcement to initiate any further contact with Mr. Wharton after he said fuck you.
RCW 10.31.100
Arrest without warrant.
A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony shall have the authority to arrest the person without a warrant. A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor only when the offense is committed in the presence of the officer, except as provided in subsections (1) through (11) of this section.
(1) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, involving physical harm or threats of harm to any person or property or the unlawful taking of property or involving the use or possession of cannabis, or involving the acquisition, possession, or consumption of alcohol by a person under the age of twenty-one years under RCW 66.44.270, or involving criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.070 or 9A.52.080, shall have the authority to arrest the person.
(2) A police officer shall arrest and take into custody, pending release on bail, personal recognizance, or court order, a person without a warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe that:
(a) An order has been issued of which the person has knowledge under RCW 26.44.063, or chapter 7.92, 7.90, 9A.46, 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, 26.50, or 74.34 RCW restraining the person and the person has violated the terms of the order restraining the person from acts or threats of violence, or restraining the person from going onto the grounds of or entering a residence, workplace, school, or day care, or prohibiting the person from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance of a location or, in the case of an order issued under RCW 26.44.063, imposing any other restrictions or conditions upon the person; or
(b) A foreign protection order, as defined in RCW 26.52.010, has been issued of which the person under restraint has knowledge and the person under restraint has violated a provision of the foreign protection order prohibiting the person under restraint from contacting or communicating with another person, or excluding the person under restraint from a residence, workplace, school, or day care, or prohibiting the person from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance of a location, or a violation of any provision for which the foreign protection order specifically indicates that a violation will be a crime; or
(c) The person is sixteen years or older and within the preceding four hours has assaulted a family or household member as defined in RCW 10.99.020 and the officer believes: (i) A felonious assault has occurred; (ii) an assault has occurred which has resulted in bodily injury to the victim, whether the injury is observable by the responding officer or not; or (iii) that any physical action has occurred which was intended to cause another person reasonably to fear imminent serious bodily injury or death. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition. When the officer has probable cause to believe that family or household members have assaulted each other, the officer is not required to arrest both persons. The officer shall arrest the person whom the officer believes to be the primary physical aggressor. In making this determination, the officer shall make every reasonable effort to consider: (i) The intent to protect victims of domestic violence under RCW 10.99.010; (ii) the comparative extent of injuries inflicted or serious threats creating fear of physical injury; and (iii) the history of domestic violence of each person involved, including whether the conduct was part of an ongoing pattern of abuse; or
(d) The person has violated RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 or an equivalent local ordinance and the police officer has knowledge that the person has a prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055 within ten years.
(3) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a violation of any of the following traffic laws shall have the authority to arrest the person:
(a) RCW 46.52.010, relating to duty on striking an unattended car or other property;
(b) RCW 46.52.020, relating to duty in case of injury to or death of a person or damage to an attended vehicle;
(c) RCW 46.61.500 or 46.61.530, relating to reckless driving or racing of vehicles;
(d) RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504, relating to persons under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs;
(e) RCW 46.61.503 or 46.25.110, relating to persons having alcohol or THC in their system;
(f) RCW 46.20.342, relating to driving a motor vehicle while operator’s license is suspended or revoked;
(g) RCW 46.61.5249, relating to operating a motor vehicle in a negligent manner.
(4) A law enforcement officer investigating at the scene of a motor vehicle accident may arrest the driver of a motor vehicle involved in the accident if the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has committed in connection with the accident a violation of any traffic law or regulation.
(5)(a) A law enforcement officer investigating at the scene of a motor vessel accident may arrest the operator of a motor vessel involved in the accident if the officer has probable cause to believe that the operator has committed, in connection with the accident, a criminal violation of chapter 79A.60 RCW.
(b) A law enforcement officer investigating at the scene of a motor vessel accident may issue a citation for an infraction to the operator of a motor vessel involved in the accident if the officer has probable cause to believe that the operator has committed, in connection with the accident, a violation of any boating safety law of chapter 79A.60 RCW.
(6) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a violation of RCW 79A.60.040 shall have the authority to arrest the person.
(7) An officer may act upon the request of a law enforcement officer in whose presence a traffic infraction was committed, to stop, detain, arrest, or issue a notice of traffic infraction to the driver who is believed to have committed the infraction. The request by the witnessing officer shall give an officer the authority to take appropriate action under the laws of the state of Washington.
(8) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing any act of indecent exposure, as defined in RCW 9A.88.010, may arrest the person.
(9) A police officer may arrest and take into custody, pending release on bail, personal recognizance, or court order, a person without a warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe that an order has been issued of which the person has knowledge under chapter 10.14 RCW and the person has violated the terms of that order.
(10) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has, within twenty-four hours of the alleged violation, committed a violation of RCW 9A.50.020 may arrest such person.
(11) A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person illegally possesses or illegally has possessed a firearm or other dangerous weapon on private or public elementary or secondary school premises shall have the authority to arrest the person.
For purposes of this subsection, the term “firearm” has the meaning defined in RCW 9.41.010 and the term “dangerous weapon” has the meaning defined in RCW 9.41.250 and 9.41.280(1) (c) through (e).
(12) Except as specifically provided in subsections (2), (3), (4), and (7) of this section, nothing in this section extends or otherwise affects the powers of arrest prescribed in Title 46 RCW.
(13) No police officer may be held criminally or civilly liable for making an arrest pursuant to subsection (2) or (9) of this section if the police officer acts in good faith and without malice.
I used to be a member of the ACLU Guilty Bystander. I’m no longer a member because of their selectivity. They may still pick this one up though if someone were to call them. We are supposed to be America, this great country which prides itself in freedom for all of it’s citizens. A country whose destiny is chosen by a majority vote in free elections. A country which has “justice for all” as a large part of its foundation. If those ideals are really true, there will be an independent investigation.
And what do you think Judge Brosey can do? He has no investigative power, nor is it appropriate for him to get involved. Even if the victim was gunned down, how will you prove it? The best you will get is a long, expensive trial in which the jury clears the officers due to a lack on any clear, cogent and convincing evidence.
Seeking an investigation through local channels probably won’t get you anywhere, Lurker. I’m not a fan of what they’ve become because they’re pretty selective in who they help now, but once upon a time this might’ve been something to contact the ACLU about. It’s fairly safe to say Mr. Wharton’s rights were (at the very least) abridged.
Does our system work? I guess we will see.
Dear Judge Brosey
A recent incident involving local law enforcement has come to cause me a great deal of concern. Officers of the Centralia Police Department recently initiated contact with a resident that ultimately ended in the residents death. Post fatality investigation by the Regional Sherriff’s Critical Incident Investigation Team, found the shooting by law enforcement officers justified. The Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office reviewed the case and compiled a written report regarding their review.
After reading Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney Jonathon Meyer’s report, I have become deeply concerned regarding law enforcement and governmental actions concerning law enforcements authority. I find nothing in the report which I believe is evidence enough to rise to a standard relating to any form of arrest or detention for the deceased. Whether the shooting was justified or not, pales in the comparison to the reason for attempting to detain or arrest Mr. Wharton in the first place. In my opinion, law enforcement broke several laws in the beginning of this incident, which resulted in Mr. Whartons death. Equally troubling are the results of the Sherriff’s Investigation Team and the Lewis County Prosecutotr’s Review. The gist of the review is that it is OK to kill people who have a past criminal history, mental illness or substance abuse issues. Not only is it OK to kill them, it is OK to kill them even if you didn;t have the legal authority to detain them in the first place.
I ask that you initiate an independant investigation into the matter. In my opinion, Mr. Whartons death should be ruled a homicide. The role of the Regional Sherriff’s Critical Incident Investigation Team and the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office should be looked into as well.
I’m not an expert at this but there are some Trayvon Martin like issues involving this whole event. I don’t know how to initiate the process, but this needs to be looked at by a grand jury at the Federal level.
I am trying to figure out why, if Tracy Murphy thought the man was dangerous and had a knife/gun, why he would allow Ofc. Weismiller to confront said “dangerous felon” alone.
If Ofc. Murphy cleared Mr. Wharton to walk away, why Ofc. Weismiller dispatched to contact him again?
Something just doesn’t add up.
Call me crazy.
I think your missing my point free air. I’ll try to clarify what I meant, particularly my earlier comment regarding misinformed people (not you, its obvious you’re checking it out). I’m certainly not an expert on this, so if I’m in error, feel free to correct me.
Most folks do not know law enforcements limitations regarding their power and authority. You don’t have to carry any ID in this state and law enforcement doesn’t have the right to come up and ask you for it. Law enforcement does not have the right to detain you unless they believe that you are committing or have committed a crime. Law enforcement has the same right that you and I have to freedom of speech, and nothing prohibits them coming up and chatting with you. If you voluntarily reply to them, anything you say can be used for law enforcement purposes. You can tell them you don’t want to talk to them and then they must leave you alone. you never have to answer any of their questions.
Wex Legal Dictionary defines reasonable suspicion as:
A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.
It is not illegal to be a suspicious person and quickly putting something in a sweatshirt is meaningless in this instance. Officer Miller wanted to talk to Mr. Wharton. If I used my right to freedom of speech and struck up a conservation with someone on the street and they told me to fuck off, Initially I may be angry for a bit, but I would have the understanding that this person didn’t want to talk to me in the largest sense available using the English language. On top of that he is leaving the vicinity because he does not want to talk to me. which is completely within his rights.
There are two sides to every story. Neither one is usually accurate. The truth normally lies somewhere in between. Only one side is told here because dead men tell no tales. This incident and its outcome to date is disturbing.
CPD contacted Mr Wharton at their initiation. Mr Wharton said fuck you and left. Game Over for law enforcement and they should have left him alone at this time because he doesn’t want to talk to them and he has just told them so. If a reasonable person would believe that a specific nameable crime had been or was being committed at this time, then they would probably also believe that it is morally correct to lock up a 16 year old boy for 93 years. I would hate to think he was killed for saying fuck you.
Law enforcement is on their own after this. They have no reason to detain him period. So they end up stalking (illegal) him until he runs (not illegal), they harrass him and brutalize him until THEY instigate the incident that unltimately ends in his death. On top of that after an investigation, the police protection organization and the prosecuting attorney cleared them of any wrongdoing. I’ll say it again. He wasn’t killed for committing a crime as none was committed by him. He was killed for taking a walk at an odd hour of the day.
This is extremely disturbing to me and it makes me angry. Every issue regarding the use of deadly force was instigated by law enforcement, and then they killed him. THEY SHOULD HAVE LEFT HIM ALONE WHEN THEY WERE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO!!!
Frankly, there are all kinds of wrong with this on a very large scale when it comes to official misconduct.
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, 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. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a “threat of serious physical harm” are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
RCW 9A.16.030 cover some of the same ground too.
Thanks rcw time
Perhaps the justification for using deadly force isn’t the most important aspect of this situation.
My understanding is that law enforcement must have a reasonable suspicion you are committing or have committed a crime before they can legally detain you. I searched the RCW’s and couldn’t find suspicious behavior as being a criminal act. Sticking something inside the hoody could easily have meant he was putting his cigarettes in his pocket.
What was law enforcements justification for initial contact? Was there anything that led them to believe he was committing or had committed a crime? When Mr. Wharton said Fuck You, I think a reasonable person would understand he was saying I don’t want to talk to you. So where is the crime that would justify any form of detention after this point in time?
Mr. Franklle it is obvious who the uneducated commenters on this blog. Please if you’re going to remark please do not misquote or paraphrase others to fit your opinion. Thanks im a literal person ( word for word verbatim), that way the wrong idea does not get across.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040 you all need to read the rcw then define when it can be used
I really think the uneducated people on here need to take a citizens course to learn what the officers deal with. And if they still think the cops are “out to kill everybody” are criminals in the first place.
A Lurker says:
“…It surprises me on how misinformed citizens are regarding law enforcements powers and their authority.”
That’s the understatement of the YEAR!
RT
Please contact the Washington State Attorneys General and U.S. Attorneys general and tell your story. everything posted (on this site) regarding this incident, has been based on only one side (responding officers) of the story. There are two sides to every story and we WONT be able to hear the other side.
I remember a little bit about the Michael Worthey story. He terribly embarrassed law enforcement twice if I remember correctly. How many bullet holes were in his mothers garage when they killed him?
This incident smells fishy to me and makes little sense. IT MUST HAVE BEEN SUICIDE BY COP! His girlfriend stated that their lives were going well when this happened. Suicide by cop is a law enforcement term that is overused by law enforcement. This man was not killed while committing a crime. This man was killed for walking down the street at an odd hour of the day.
The reason I want you to press an investigation at the State and Federal level is to demonstrate that THEY WILL DO NOTHING. I don’t believe corrupt law enforcement resides only at the local level. You may be able to publicly force them to look into the matter by posting on this blog, but I doubt it.
Tweeker Profiling is what law enforcement is probably doing. Is it legal? Read our constitution and decide for yourself. Take ANY meth addict and turn back the hands of time until they were five years old. Ask that future addict what they want to be when they grow up. I’m thinking you probably wont get one who tells you they want to be a drug addict. So just how did tweekers become tweekers? Sadly they couldn’t pick their parents and they were genetically predispositioned to addiction at birth. It is exactly the same as someone born with a gene that will cause cancer in their lifetime.
Do any of you remember Quaaludes? A highly addictive drug that the US DEA successfully removed from the market because safer drugs were available to remedy patient symptoms. REMEMBER THIS SPECIFICALLY: There is no cure for the common cold, only medications to alleviate the symptoms. When the DEA attempted to have ephedra and similar products removed from the market using the Quaalude scenario, Ronald Reagan summoned them to a meeting. The attendees at the meeting were the DEA, Ronald Reagan and members of his staff and the heads of pharmaceutical companies. The cold medication business was a six billion dollar industry which was a TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY in the day. Ronald Reagan directed the DEA to not use a Quaalude type scenario and leave ephedra like products on the market. A president who allowed the almighty dollar and a profit motive to bring the worst plague in our nations history upon us. Ronald Reagan should NEVER be forgotten for this.
Cold season only lasts for a portion of the year. Meth season is year round. I am curious to know the percentage of ephedra produced that makes it to the meth market. It could easily be more than half.
Our government is mandated to pass legislation promoting the general welfare of the United States. Lets revisit the person with the cancer gene. Laws have been passed which protect that person from many forms of discrimination over a disease. Now lets revisit the person with the addiction gene. Laws have been passed which send that person to prison. Our Government chose to allow the profit motive of Corporations to over rule the general welfare of OUR society. Remember, there is no cure for the common cold.
I believe an answer to the meth problem still exists. As a nation we should ban the production, distribution and sale of ANY ephedra like precursor chemical inside our borders. We should impose a 25% tariff on any goods imported from any country which produces precursor chemicals legitimately or illegitimately. We should place a 10% tariff on goods exported to those countries as well.
Law Enforcement thrives on the meth problem. They know who uses. They know who the thieves are. They aren’t going to adequately address the problem because keeping average people pissed off at the tweekers, results in average people willingly giving away their constitutional rights. Just read the posts on this blog. It surprises me on how misinformed citizens are regarding law enforcements powers and their authority.
And a note to “free air” , do you really think you are not biased ? I believe you are either involved in this incident or just plain ignorant. I dont hate police officers they are a valuable, necessary civil servant. But also human and susceptible to error and biases and loss of composure under pressure. There are a few very good peace officers on C.P.D. that are dedicated to ” PROTECT AND SERVE” this community’s citizens. The rest are violent corruption in every sense of the term.
Center computer mainframe.) Should have been read but apparently it wasn’t or was changed by officer request. I have heard them change the record obtained and dispositions many times over the years. Makes me distrust any log or record they keep on anything, disheartening to say the least.
No, there was no mention of a knife at all as a matter of fact not over the radio anyways. If there’s to be any question the dispatch recording that should have been entered into SPELLMAN( The N.C.I.C. National Criminal Information
RT:
While listening to the scanner that evening, did anyone mention the man challenging the officer to a ‘knife fight’ or is that just something they came up with to make it look like the murder was justified?
I’m being told that the deceased specifically challenged the officer to a ‘knife-fight’ but I can’t find any corroborating information on that.
This is all business as usual for Centralia Police . The officer wrongfully used deadly force on that that man , at first he supposedly told officer he had a gun, then when he ran he was chased down and allegations say he turned on the officer with a 3 inch lockblade pocket knife. I find this odd since I was listening to the scanner that night and nothing was said about a man claiming to be armed before I heard gunshots (a full clip) being emptied. I live two blocks away from the incident location well within earshot. The only thing said was” we have one running”and direction of travel. Shortly afterwards gunfire, next was officer weismiller, obviously shaken, saying” one down with gunshot wounds D.O.A.” . Then dispatch said something about notifying the coroner. Immediately officer weismiller replied “negative, do not notify the coroner , I repeat do not notify the coroner at this time”. Then other officers began setting up containment at which one asked the other where they should set up and the officer in charge replied “pull right up on the lawn to block view from onlookers”. Then nothing was said for a couple of hours then the coroner was notified after what I could conclude is they could put together a viable story as to why this was dead. In my opinion they failed miserably in that goal and am disappointed in the prosecuters office and the dept. as the whole thing is obviously another mistake to be swept under the rug just like they did with Mike Worthy , Rob Terry years ago. Many have forgotten, but some have not, and I am probably foolish for speaking out but im letting other agencies know what im posting today just in case something happens to me .and yes this is real and yes it quite alarming that this happens here in our community and not just in the movies.
Read the last paragraph of page five and the first two paragraphs of page six of the prosecutors report. That document has all the information from the investigators and the reasoning for the lack of charges being filed. The link is at the bottom of the article. I know that seems like a lot of reading for some of the people that comment on here, but thought I would give them the benefit of the doubt and assumed they had just over looked the link. When I read it it sounds like threading someone to a knife fight to me!!
I re-read the information provided by the beautiful Sharyn of Sirens and still can’t find the part where the guy challenged an officer to a ‘knife fight’.
Could you please point out the exact line(s)?
Make more sense. Did you read the report at all? It reports BOTH officers telling the same story even though they weren’t together? What, they got together and made sure they were on the same page?
The suspect said “I”m not going back to fucking jail. Go ahead and shoot me!” The report then states he amped himself up and took a step towards the officer.
It what mental world do you live in that the officer should of offered him cookies? If some guy with a knife says “I’m not going back to jail, FUCK YOU, GO AHEAD AND SHOOT ME” are you really that serious to think the officer acted in the wrong?
Again, read the report. It sure read to me as if the suspect wanted to die. He was standing there with a knife in his pocket. He was THREATENING an officer.
Where does it say the dead man challenged an officer to a knife fight?
All it ever said was that the man had a knife, which is perfectly legal to possess.
I know the answer to that one.
Who would bring a spark plug to a knife fight?
Say your squared off with a suspect with a knife. You draw your taser and he charges.
You will be stabbed/slashed if:
Both taser probes fail to make body contact.
The taser malfunctions.
You just plane miss the attacking suspect.
One or two of the taser wires break.
The suspect is close enough he falls on you.
Remember that the taser is a one shot deterrent, not a semi automatic with several rounds in a clip. All you have is one shot with a computerized device that is known to fail; it’s no silver bullet.
If the taser fails to stop the attacker, they will be on you before you can then draw out your pistol, aim and fire enough rounds to stop them. One almost never stops an attack.
The best possible setup is to have one cop with a gun, and one or two more with tasers. That way, you have some more options, but hand to hand combat with a knife wielding attacker is never one of them.
The next time one of the Cities has a Citizen’s Academy take it. Most of these “why didn’t they?” sort of questions are answered there in detail. Well worth a few evenings away from the tube.
what ever happend to tazering the guy? Was it really necessary to kill him? He might have had a long record with the law, etc but i dont think there was any reason to kill him…
BleeBloo says:
Sunday, March 2, 2014 at 8:02 am
The most troubling thing about this is that there were no witnesses, it’s all one cop’s testimony, which of course is totally believable.
Not really.
The most troubling thing is how many people see some sort of nation wild vastly complex law enforcement conspiracy of stalking and killing innocent people, rather than chemically or mentally damaged criminals making the choice to disobey a lawful order and drop their weapon, or otherwise comply.
Police make the contact. What happens then is up to the person being contacted. Do what you’re told and everyone wins. Charge a cop or disobey an order to drop the weapon and you’re digging your own grave.
He made his choice and paid for it; Period.
And then there are those who would malign every Law Enforcement Officer in Lewis County who wasn’t involved in this shooting. Wharton was 13 feet away. That distance can be crossed in less than a second. Wharton was threatening with a knife. I believe all of us have watched enough cops shows to know that you do not confront officers with a weapon. You drop that weapon while lifting your hands at the Officers orders. It is tragic that this man thought he could take on officers with a weapon drawn. But that is exactly what he did when he ran. He got cornered and in his haste to get away, confronted the Officer with deadly force. The problem was, you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. Bad choices were made that day. But it wasn’t the officer that made them.
Don’t matter:
An autopsy was performed and as has been posted here many times toxicology results take 8-10 weeks to come back so we may learn more later about the perpetrator in this case.
The most troubling thing about this is that there were no witnesses, it’s all one cop’s testimony, which of course is totally believable.
EIGHT shots is “justified?” Wow. Anything to save the cost of a trial, I guess.
It will never be ‘justice as usual’. It’s been this way since a sad precedent was set back in ol’ 1919.
WOW what a suprise? CORRUPT. When are they going to man up to their actions?? Maybe say “well there was another way could have dealt with it.” There is no apology. The framework is place to allow senseless police killings. Now that you see it. Its time to do something about it. This was wrong. The excuse that a taser might not work in all situations is not valid. How do you know unless you actually used it on the perp?? You have two hands why not have a gun in one and the taser in the other? Empty a full clip? Please. How could you be cleared by any organization. That was in of it self wasnt corrupt. An autopsy should be performed to see if the perp was intoxicated. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. To say a taser wouldnt work is ignorance. To say he was intoxiated is also ignorance. just a hunch. To think he was a suspicious person was also a terrible judgement call. I call this killing suspicious. To empty a full clip. Not stopping after the first shot was also ignorance of human life and the law. He knew there would be no repercussions. The officer must also know how currupt his agency is to act in such arrogance. There are cold callus murders hiding behind the badge in lewis county. If you wanna kill somebody join the boys in blue. Or better yet join the armed forces. Our country has innocent blood on its hands. From abortions to, police brutality to our wars abroad. Godless police state lewis county is here. Hitler is a policeman.